smogblot

I've moved...

2007-12-03T13:47:00.001+01:00

...you can find me at memeplex.

So close but yet so far

2007-06-07T14:02:00.000+02:00

I only just caught this bit of news regarding Ken Ham's Creation Museum:

Mr Ham said he had the idea for the museum about 25 years ago and it could almost have been built in Queensland.

"We even knelt down on a piece of property on the way to the Gold Coast and prayed for property for a Creation Museum," he said.

Spewing. If only Ken's sky daddy had created just a bit more earth 6000 years ago!

Howard: "Pell's alright"

2007-06-07T13:34:00.000+02:00

Stem cell research legislation has passed the lower house in NSW as the discussion over the remarks of George Pell (and Barry Hickey) continues. Arthur Vandelay and Bruce have already said what needs to be said about this, but I've found John Howard's take on the whole issue most unsurprising:

Prime Minister John Howard says he does not believe the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, has interfered improperly with a vote in the New South Wales Parliament to expand stem cell research.

Mr Howard says Cardinal Pell is just articulating the position of the Church and he is entitled to speak his mind.

"I think it's exaggerating the situation to say that he purported to direct people," he said.

"Now the question of whether he should or should not have done that is entirely a matter for him and a matter for the Catholic Church.

"In the end church leaders, if they believe something, they are entitled to put their view."

Pure Howard. A quick side-step followed by an answer to a question he wasn't asked. "Church leaders are entitled to put their views" John? Wow! We've all been wondering where you stand on that issue.

George wasn't trying to direct people? Please John, tell us you don't really believe that. If "Vote like this or go to Hell" isn't an attempt to direct someone then what is?

Cyanide and Happiness

2007-06-04T13:51:00.000+02:00

This is a great web-comic. Check out previous comics here.

Falwell, Muehlenberg and The Religious Right

2007-05-16T23:16:00.000+02:00

Jerry Falwell died the other day, and Bill Muehlenberg has a post about him and The Reason for the Religious Right at his blog:

Of course one’s take on Falwell will depend on where one stands on the political and religious spectrum. To the secular left he was a thundering theocrat who was about to usher in a police state in the US, with all dissent squashed and all unbelief punished. Such gross caricatures tend to be representative of the left, unfortunately. But to those of a more Christian and conservative bent, he was simply someone trying to stand up for biblical values in an increasingly hostile culture.

By making statements such as this one just after 911?:

I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.

His thoughts on homosexuals?

AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals.

Standing up for biblical values indeed. Muehlenberg then explains that Falwell and the Religious Right were simply a “response to a growing secularism, leftism, and anti-Christian bias”.

For years the rise of the secular left, as represented by such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union, had resulted in an open season being declared on biblical Christianity. Whether it was banning prayer in schools, legalising abortion, deconstructing the family, or pushing radical secularist agendas, the growing anti-Christian sentiment demanded a response.

Nonsense. Prayer isn’t banned in schools. The reality of the situation is that public schools cannot force their students to partake in prayers inside the classroom, for reasons which should be obvious to anyone – even Bill Muehlenberg. Students are of course free to pray outside of class times.

As for legalised abortion, polls indicate that about 37% of Americans want stricter abortion laws, meaning that a majority are in favour of keeping things as they are or perhaps making abortion laws less strict. Now, the Religious Right loves to bang on about how the “overwhelming majority of American citizens are Christians”, so how can they explain the fact that about 59% of Americans take the “secular left” position on abortion? The reason is simple, the Religious Right does not (thankfully) speak for all Christians, even though it likes to think it does.

And what’s this about “deconstructing the family”? Presumably members of the secular left aren’t members of families themselves, so their family deconstruction activities won’t have any impact on them. Only right-wing Christians form families.

“Pushing radical secularist agendas”? Ooh – sounds scary doesn’t it? Muehlenberg won’t spell out this agenda in too much detail however. It’s like the “Homosexual Agenda”. The target audience of the Religious Right aren’t as scared of things like “equal rights before the law”, or “relationship recognition”. That’s where terms like “Homosexual Agenda” come in, it leaves the reader to imagine the worst.

And that is what happened. Alarmed at the threats to religious freedom, the moral free-fall of American culture, and the attempts to relegate religion to the purely private realm, Christians realised that they must organise and stand up for their rights.

What threats to religious freedom? This is pure rhetoric. Muehlenberg & Co. know damn well that people can practice their faith freely in the United States. They can go to Church when they want, they can pray in their homes, they can stand on street corners handing out religious literature, they can pray on their lunch breaks etc. This is not to say that a Christian’s religious rights have never been infringed upon, but to suggest there is some systematic clamp down on the religious freedom of Christians is nothing more than an exercise in Magical Thinking. Bill continues:

For too long, anytime a religious person sought to defend faith and family values, the secular left has gone into hysterics, shouting about fundamentalist theocracies being established, and so on.

Nonsense. The secular left does not go into hysterics or cry “theocracy” when a religious person defends their faith. Opponents of the religious right speak of theocracy when they see attempts to replace the Constitution with Biblical Law. There’s a big difference between espousing one’s faith and wishing to see religious laws forced upon an entire nation, and Bill, the secular left does see the difference.

As for family values, why is it that the religious right believes it has a monopoly on values? Again, they believe that their ideology is consonant with the opinions of most Americans. And what are these family values anyway? The fact is, the Religious Right has a tactic whereby it launches a tirade of abuse against homosexuals, atheists, secularists, Muslims and it’s other targets and then proceeds to hide behind the word “families”.

Hey! We’re a pro-family organisation, so if you criticise us you’re attacking families.

It’s the same way “patriots” criticise their opponents and then proceed to hide behind the flag.

Hey! I’m pro-American so if you criticise me your attacking America.

The truth is, what we really should worry about is the establishment of fundamentalist secular theocracies.

Quite possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. “Secular theocracies”? I’m lost for words.

For as American philosophy professor Brendan Sweetman argues in his valuable 2006 book, Why Politics Needs Religion, that is exactly what secular humanism is: an ideology, a worldview, and a religion.

Humanism could be described as an ideology or perhaps worldview. However, it is not a religion:

To most North Americans, "religion" probably means the belief that a God or Gods exist who created the world, who is/are to be worshipped, and who is/are responsible for creating ethical and behavioral codes. In that context, Humanism is definitely not a religion, and would not be perceived as one by its followers. Humanists do not generally believe in a supreme deity or deities, demons, ghosts, angels, or in a supernatural world, or in heaven and hell, or in a divinely ordained ethical code for humans to follow. Most would regard the Gods and Goddesses as a creation of mankind rather than the reverse.

Religious Humanism has been loosely defined as religion without deity worship and traditional theological beliefs. Replacing these factors is a belief in humanity as the highest known form of intelligent life, and a belief in the scientific method as the best way to determine truth.

Many Secular Humanists feel that the role of religion throughout history has been so profoundly negative, that the word "religion" should not be connected to their philosophy.

Muehlenberg complains that "gross caricatures tend to be representative of the left" yet it seems he can't write a single paragraph void of blatant straw-men, brazen rhetoric or complete twaddle along the likes of "secular theocracies".

Ed Brayton on Dover

2007-05-09T14:25:00.000+02:00

Ed Brayton of Dispatches recently delivered a speech to the West Michigan Freethought Association about the Dover trial and the anti-evolution movement.

You can watch a video of his presentation here.

Darwinist brownshirts in Toronto

2007-05-09T12:02:00.000+02:00

Denyse O'Leary at Uncommon Descent points to some egregious acts of public vandalism in Toronto and asks:

...am I whistling down the wind here? Is the point that Darwin’s brownshirts can do whatever they please?

And what is it exactly that those evil Darwinist brownshirts have been up to?

I was out doing errands today, and what do you know? The Toronto city parking pay kiosks in my neighbourhood were plastered with signs advertising, “Intelligent Design: War on Science”, and a whole bunch of other stuff we should supposedly all rush down to see at the Brunswick Theatre.

Bastards!

Back again...

2007-05-08T18:56:00.000+02:00

My excuse for not posting in a while this time is that I've been on holidays again, this time to Krakow and Prague.

Anyway, if you're low on reading material at the moment I suggest you check out Red State Rabble. There's some good posts there on the ID movements 'Plan B' in light of its dismal failure in Kansas and its continuing struggle to convince the media of its 'scientific merit'. I've touched on this 'Plan B' (the Darwin = Hitler/Eugenics theory) just recently.

A step in the right direction for gay rights

2007-04-26T11:19:00.000+02:00

From The Age:

GAY and lesbian couples in Victoria will get access to a relationship register that formally recognises their partnership, after the State Opposition and minor parties indicated they would not oppose legislation supporting it.

Premier Steve Bracks yesterday said the register would allow same-sex couples access to existing entitlements without having to prove repeatedly in court that they were in a committed partnership.

Of course the Liberals made it clear that they would never accept full equality:

Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu said the Liberal Party would consider supporting the register, as long as it did not undermine traditional marriage. (My emphasis)

"I think it's interesting that Steve Bracks wouldn't say anything about this before the election and has now come to a conclusion," Mr Baillieu said.

That last remark is interesting. Is he suggesting that if Bracks had endorsed a relationship register before the election voters would have thought twice about voting for Labor? With public attitudes constantly drifting towards the progressive side of politics when it comes to homosexuals we can only hope for the sake of people like Ted Baillieu that they can't play the argument ad populum card for ever.

Best. Show. Ever.

2007-04-22T15:59:00.000+02:00

I'm a huge Simpsons fan. You know that person who has a Simpsons quote for any conceivable situation? That's me. Anyway, here's one my favourite intros to the greatest television program of all time:

...and one to piss off the ID creationists:

Worth a read

2007-04-22T15:37:00.000+02:00

If you have some spare time on your hands I suggest you check out this online debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan...

'God is not a moderate'

Harris really delivers some damaging blows to Sullivan's case for faith, particularly the Christian variety, and all Sullivan seems to say is 'I know it seems ridiculous, but I really believe this'. Unfortunately he spends far too much time appealing to emotion and reiterating how real his particular deity feels to him - Harris doesn't let him get away with it.

Will the arguments of the wingnuts ever evolve?

2007-04-16T22:30:00.000+02:00

Creationists (old school and ID) will stop at nothing in their frenzied attempts to discredit the theory of evolution. As I've noted before, the scientific realm is not their preferred area of engagement, probably due the fact that 1) they don't really understand how evolution works, making it difficult to critique and 2) they don't have a scientific theory to offer as a better explanation of biological diversity. Another reason creationists don't waste too much time discussing the science is that their primary audience, the public, won't be all that interested in the scientific banter, so why waste time on that when you can appeal to their emotions instead. This is where the Teach the Controversy angle comes in, and of course the We can thank Darwin for Adolf Hitler angle.

Recently at Uncommon Dissent, Bill Dembski and his gang thought a good way to discredit evolution would be to go over the writings of Charles Darwin with a fine-tooth comb, searching for unsavoury comments. How this was supposed to disprove the theory of evolution no one can really know. We can only assume that the creationist crowd believed that if they could show Darwin to be a flawed individual that people would believe his theory to be flawed too. In all, a clear example of trying to win people over to your side by pushing their emotional buttons rather than coming up with the goods in the scientific realm.

More recently, Bill Muehlenberg joined in with Darwin and Eugenics at his CultureWatch website....

While more sober minds see a clear line between Darwin’s ideas and many of the horrible social experiments of the twentieth century, including Nazism, defenders of Darwin argue that at best there is no connection, or at worst any such episodes are aberrations or perversions of what Darwin believed.

The Darwin-Hitler connection is getting so boring. It's truly facinating how someone making a natural explanation for observations of natural phenomena (in the field of biology in this instance) can lead to them being placed in the same basket as Hitler. All this demonstrates is the amazingly low depths religious right figures like Muehlenberg will go to discredit evolutionary theory and, so they believe, gain their deity of choice a little more street cred. Will they ever have the guts to play only the ball and not the man?

But is that the case? Most people are not even aware of the full title of his 1859 masterwork: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. That last half of the title, often overlooked, sounds like it could come straight out of a Ku Klux Klan manual.

A quick Google will fill anyone one in on what Darwin was actually talking about when he used the term "races" in that title. In Darwin's time naturalists used the term "race" to refer to distinct populations within a species, not necessarily human races. Muehlenberg hopes his readers will read this title out of its scientific (and historical) context and conclude that The Origin of Species is some kind of race-hate manual. More on this common misrepresentation here.

The article continues with heavy quotation from an article by Peter Quinn, which is really a quote mining operation similar to that carried out by Dembski & Co. All Muehlenberg and Quinn can prove is that my contemporary standards Charles Darwin had some racist comments and ideas. Mark Isaak responds to this common creationist charge at TalkOrigins:

Virtually all Englishmen in Darwin's time viewed blacks as culturally and intellectually inferior to Europeans. Some men of that time (such as Louis Agassiz, a staunch creationist) went so far as to say they were a different species. Charles Darwin was a product of his times and no doubt viewed non-Europeans as inferior in ways, but he was far more liberal than most: He vehemently opposed slavery (Darwin 1913, especially chap. 21), and he contributed to missionary work to better the condition of the native Tierra del Fuegans. He treated people of all races with compassion.

All creationists like Bill Muehlenberg can do is point out flaws in Darwin himself and hope that their readers will believe that his theory is also flawed. It's pathetic. If we learned tomorrow that Einstein deep down held a bitter hatred towards Chinese people would we throw the theory of relativity out the window?

Update: According to the latest wingnuttery, Darwin is not only to blame for the Holocaust but also for the Virginia Tech shootings in the U.S.

Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Invade Rage

2007-04-10T17:41:00.000+02:00

It's my turn (courtesy of Arthur Vandelay) to come up with a list of 20 songs I'd play if I were to enter Rage's be-a-guest-programmer-for-a-night competition. Here's my choices...

Rage Against the Machine - People of the Sun
Pantera - Mouth for War
Metallica - One
Peter Bjorn & John - Young Folks
Placebo - Special K
John Butler Trio - Home is Where the Heart is
The Chemical Brothers - Galvanize
Pearl Jam - Even Flow
Down - Stone the Crow
Snoop Doggy Dogg - Gin and Juice
The Whitlams - Charlie #2 (Buy Now Pay Later)
Regurgitator - Black Bugs
The Beastie Boys - Shake Your Rump
Bernard Fanning - Wish You Well
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Soul to Squeeze
The Streets - Fit But You Know It
Korn - Freak on a Leash
REM - Bad Day
INXS - To Look at You
Radiohead - Paranoid Android

...and here's my justifications for five of those choices:

John Butler Trio - Home is Where the Heart is
Awesome band. Awesome song. "And they are lookin for a freedom that most of us don't appreciate, But you know man we can't let them in 'cos the government's full of racial hate." Sums up the refugee situation perfectly.

The Beastie Boys - Shake Your Rump

White guys rapping right. You just gotta love the use of the fish eye lens in this clip too. Paul's Boutique was their best effort in my opinion and they definately should have stopped on the reasonably high note that was Hello Nasty.

Bernard Fanning - Wish You Well
Catchy song with a clever video clip to boot. I'm quite a fan of Powderfinger, yet I've never gotten around to picking up Bernard Fannings' solo album. I've heard good things so I really should pull my finger out.

Pantera - Mouth for War

Pantera always helped my get through a weight lifting session. I'd be thinking "Maybe I should call it a day" and then the lyrics "Pulling and punching the rest of duration, no one can piss on this determination!" would have me doing another set on the bench press. RIP Dimebag Darrell.

The Chemical Brothers - Galvanize

The Chemical Brothers create a sound like nothing else. I saw them at the Big Day Out several years back and you simply couldn't wipe the smirk off my face after I walked out of the Boiler Room. This clip is awesome - how cool is the "dance off" at the end!

Excuses, excuses...

2007-04-09T20:16:00.000+02:00

It really is difficult to keep a blog fresh and up to date when you don't have the Internet at home. This is extremely irritating, especially when there's so much blog fodder out there.

For those of you who may not know all the details, I'm currently living and working in Europe. The company I work for has provided me with accommodation, but unfortunately there is no Internet connection meaning my only access to the Internet (and therefore my blog) is before and after hours at work. The problem is, in those small windows of opportunity I spend most of my time reading the blogs of others, so if those of you who find yourselves on my sidebar would just stop writing amusing, interesting and informative posts I might get my act together and start writing a few more posts of my own. Just kidding.

Woah...

2007-03-07T13:42:00.000+01:00

Someone actually wrote this:

It’s time to stomp out atheists in America. The majority of Americans would love to see atheists kicked out of America. If you don’t believe in God, then get out of this country.

The United States is based on having freedom of religion, speech, etc., which means you can believe in God any way you want (Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, etc.), but you must believe.

I don’t recall freedom of religion meaning no religion. Our currency even says, “In God We Trust.” So, to all the atheists in America: Get off of our country.

Atheists have caused the ruin of this great nation by taking prayer out of our schools and being able to practice what can only be called evil. I don’t care if they have never committed a crime, atheists are the reason crime is rampant.

Via Pharyngula.

On Holidays...

2007-02-09T12:04:00.000+01:00

I'll be in Morocco, Spain and Portugal for the next two weeks. See you when I get back.

More stupid laws about saying stupid things

2007-02-05T12:44:00.000+01:00

Some time ago briefly mentioned the ridiculous jailing of David Irving for holocaust denial. At the time I wrote:

Isn't the Austrian nation just a little embarrassed by this. "Hey everyone! This guy suggested something preposterous in '89 - let's throw him in the slammer!" I wonder if denying the 1994 genocide in Rwanda draws a similar sentence.

Well, it looks like denying the 1994 Rwandan genocide will draw a similar sentence (in Germany):

Berlin's draft EU directive extends the idea of Holocaust denial to the "gross minimisation of genocide out of racist and xenophobic motives", to include crimes dealt with by the International Criminal Court...
The draft text states: "Each member state shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable: 'publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in'... the Statute of the ICC."

Again, I completely agree with Ed Brayton:

...this is not the sort of thing a court ought to decide. The government has no business deciding what is the official belief that can be expressed, that should be left to scholars, historians and others to debate. And ironically, one of the world's strongest opponents of the validity of holocaust denial, Deborah Lipstadt of Emory University, says that such laws actually undermine the position of scholars and historians combatting such myths.

Latest Joke From World Nut Daily

2007-01-31T21:05:00.000+01:00

This is almost beyond parody...

...there's some absurd nonsense, not especially funny, being taught our school kids every day, in almost every school in America.

Darwin's theory of evolution.

LOL!

"But it's science," you say. No, not really. Certainly, not yet, if it ever will be. It's a theory, an extremely farfetched, unproven theory and – at its base, its fundamental core – terribly unscientific!

Where to begin!

If all life on this planet were actually in a process of "evolution," would every species evolve in lock step, regardless of different environments? Or wouldn't there be all the intermediate steps still in evidence, at various places around the globe? Wouldn't there be plenty of evolving apes, tending toward homo sapiens, in the jungles and rain forests, possibly developing verbal skills and capable of elementary math and reasoning?

None such. Ever. Nada. Apes have always been apes, and humans always human (though some of us less so than others).

(My emphasis)

Please tell me this is a joke, and the WND will post a "Ha! Gotcha!" article in the coming days.

I'm grateful to Joseph Farah and the editors here at WND for letting me take this space each week. This topic, I feel, is so important – and I've got so much to say about it – that I'll pick up here, in this space, next week. I hope you'll stop by.

I can hardly wait.

Intelligent Design Downunder

2007-01-13T15:34:00.000+01:00

I spend a fair bit of time keeping an eye on ID movements in the US and the UK, and I thought I should check out what a search for "intelligent design" at Google's Australian website would yield.

This was one of the results.

Complete with banners straight out of the 1960's, this website could best be desrcibed as Uncommon Descent on acid. It tells us:

You don't have to believe in god to support scientific design

In its pure scientific form, Intelligent Design is NOT a religious explanation of how we came into existence BUT a new and recognised scientific theory with an explanation that even atheist scientists can accept, a leading consultant medical specialist and research scientist.

Intelligent Design IS a religious explanation of how we came into existence. ID asserts that natural processes (in the form of evolution) cannot account for humans as they are today. When leading ID advocates are pressed to reveal their thoughts on who the intelligent designer is, the answer is fairly unanimous - the Christian God. ID is creation science which replaces "creation" with "design" and "God/The Creator" with "intelligent designer". The underlying (and flawed) logiv behind it is the same.

Furthermore, it is most certainly NOT a "recognised scientific theory". The overwhelming response to ID from the scientific community (especially biologists) has been a resounding What the F....?!

So, I suppose we should ask, if we're not a result of evolution, and we're not a result of a supernatural God, where did we come from? IntelligentDesign.org.au asks its readers the very same question. Your choices are...

A. Darwinian Evolution
B. Advanced ET Scientists
C. Intrinsic Cosmic Intelligence
D. A Supernatural God

IntelligentDesign.org.au tells us it can't be A and they assure us they don't think it's B. That leaves us with Advanced Extra-Terrestrial Scientists and Intrinsic Cosmic Intelligence. But what do these ET Scientists look like? And what's cosmic intelligence? Luckily, IntelligentDesign.org.au offers us some ideas...

"Options 2 or 3 are compatible with Scientific Design"

Um...Ok...

Further down the page you can find a series of pesentations. In The Intelligent Design of Crop Circles we can learn that...

Crop circles...(are) a language without words...A unique learning tool...To change our view...To change our life.

"Mankind desperately needs a miracle but could we recognise one if it stared us in the face?"

A message of FEELING & CARING

Well I've certainly seen the light...have YOU?!

When I've got some more time I might offer some reviews of the other presentations, just for a laugh. Looks like I'll be needing to add an "I Hope They're Joking" section to my sidebar.

Coolness

2006-12-13T14:23:00.000+01:00

Did anyone notice the cool Google banner the other day?

In a word...Coolness.

On Intelligent Design : Part II

2006-12-11T14:05:00.000+01:00

Now that I've made a brief mention of ID proponents and their attempts to bolster their theory through 'sciency' language, I'll now focus on their arguments against evolution from within the realms of philosophy and sociology. As I mentioned in my last post, ID creationists prefer these areas of debate. They know they're out of their league when it comes to discussing the science, so they feel as though it's more of a level playing field for them when the debate moves outside of the scientific realm.

A favourite approach to attacking evolution is to blame the theory on today's social ills. Evolution, you see, doesn't prescribe morals and tell us how to act ethically, and ID creationists see this as a fundamental flaw in Darwin's theory. How this descredits the science itself is never explained. ID creationists don't make similar charges against Atomic Theory ("Teach people they are composed of atoms and they will behave like atoms") or Plate Tectonics. What anti-evolutionists repeatedly fail to realise is that evolution, like Planck's constant and General Relativity, have nothing to say about morals and ethics because they are scientific explanations about the natural world.

Another favourite is to tie the theory of evolution to the holocaust. The reason for utilising such an argument is pretty clear. If ID creationists can convince just a few people that evolution is responsible for (or at least contibuted to) Hitler's genocidal campaign in World War II then it's a victory for their side. The promotion of ID is a public relations battle, and muddying the waters with these ridiculous assertions works to their advantage.

Appealing to a sense of fair play is another common tactic and takes the form of "Teach the Controversy". ID creationists hope that even if people are skeptical of the scientific merit of ID they'll at least be prepared to tolerate it in school classrooms in the interest of fairness. "Let's just drop it into the science classroom and let the kids decide for themselves" they say. This approach specifically concerns the teaching of ID in schools, which is really one of the ID movements most important objectives. However, that they can expect an idea which is rejected by scientists and doesn't appear in any (serious) scientific publications to be taught alongside a theory of the caliber of evolution defies belief. It's like finding a place for geocentrism in astronomy classes or holocaust denial in history class. I can only think of one way in which ID could receive a (passing) mention in science classes : As an illustration to students of how science is NOT done.

Since ID is all about a public relations campaign, these are the more common arguments against evolutionheard in the public sphere, often supplemented with a "Oh, and by the way, scientists have proven that evolution is not possible anyway" tacked on at the end. Unfortunately, no amount of reasoning will change their minds. There's just too much on the line. As long as evolution remains the basis for biology they feel their God loses a little cred, a situation they will never accept.

This has been a quick overview of ID creationist tactics. Feel free to expand upon these and mention your own favorite ID talking points in the comments section.

On Intelligent Design : Part I

2006-12-04T12:51:00.000+01:00

I've been spending a lot of time recently reading about evolution and its latest "challenger", Intelligent Design. On my travels throughout Europe, I've frequently buried my nose in a book called Intelligent Thought : Science Versus The Intelligent Design Movement on those long bus trips around the continent. It's been a good read, and when coupled with loads of excellent material on the internet (particulaly those sites listed under Science on my sidebar), the intellectual and scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design becomes more and more obvious.

In perusing over the writings of ID advocates (see the links under Anti-Science for examples) it is without question that their opposition to evolution stems from nothing other than a discomfort with its contradiction of their religious beliefs (see The Wedge Document). It doesn't match with the Bible, therefore it cannot be true and should be dismissed. They insist it's pure science with no religious motivation. So how do you explain this Mr Dembski? :

[A]ny view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient...[T]he conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ.

William A. Dembski,
Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology (1999)

ID advocates try to win supporters not through scientific research, but through a series of flawed criticisms of evolution which are nothing more than creationist talking points dressed up in scientific sounding language like irreducible complexity. Indeed, when forced to debate their ideas purely in scientific terms ID advocates suffer an embarrassing defeat, and their misunderstanding of (or even contempt for) science and the way in which it is conducted is put on display for all to see.

For example Michael Behe, while testifying at the Dover trial, conceded that for Intelligent Design to be considered science that the very ground rules for what is constituted as science would have to be changed. After citing the immune system as an "irreducibly complex" biological system and arguing that no literature explaining its evolution had been published (or ever could be published), he was presented with 58 peer-reviewed publications, nine books and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system. He simply explained that this was "not good enough", and that no publication or research would ever convince him that the immune system had evolved via natural processes - a text book example of the Argument from Ignorance.

More often opponents of evolution resort to emotion and attempt to shift the debate away from science and into areas of philosophy and sociology where they feel more comfortable. I'll be speaking about these aspects in my next post on ID.

Why don't you tell us what you really think Bill?

2006-11-23T14:50:00.000+01:00

Looks like Bill Muehlenberg's Culturewatch website is going to well and truly deserve its place under Blog Fodder on my sidebar. His latest entry is titled thusly:

Atheism Kills

You read that title and you just know what's coming:

"Sure, some religious people (mostly Muslims) have done bad things but the atheists Hitler, Stalin and Mao killed way more people."

Yawn.

Bill's source of inspiration for this post is an article from Dinesh D'Souza in the Christian Science Monitor. Yes, that's the same Dinesh D'Souza who argues in his latest book that we should be more like the Taliban so that terrorists will stop attacking us: "They hate our freedoms, so if we take away those freedoms we won't be tempted to exercise them and make the terrorists mad."

Anyway, here's Bill's first paragraph:

In these secular times, religion regularly gets a bad rap. And anti-Christian bigotry especially accelerates, with most of the world’s ills, from burnt toast to global warming, somehow pinned on the Christian faith.

We know the "burnt toast" quip is sarcasm (or is it?), but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he really believes that people are blaming Christianity for global warming. Bill always portrays himself and his fellow Christians as being persecuted. Someone found The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a Microsoft Word document, plugged "Jew" and "Christian" into Find and Replace..., and started selling the revised publication worldwide. For more on Bill's delusions of victimhood, see Brian's Blog at unBelief.

The secularists are especially happy to lay the blame for the wars of the world on the shoulders of religion. They argue that if we just get rid of religion, most conflict would cease, and we could all live together in peace and harmony.

Complete and utter strawman. Atheists may see religion as a source of conflict in the world, but they most certainly do not believe that if all religion suddenly vanished that everything in this world would be fine and dandy.

It's also worth noting that Bill uses the terms "atheism" and "secularism" interchangeably, as if they were the same thing. Bill, the main feature of atheism is a disbelief in a deity, while secularism is the notion that religion should be separated from the state (and vice versa), meaning that governments cannot make laws based solely on appeals to religion. It's possible to be a secularist and a theist at the same time.

Yet the secularists not only blame religion, they seek to whitewash the crimes of secularism. Indeed, a common trick is to claim that Hitler, et. al., were somehow actually religious! The atheists speak of ‘political religion’ and the like, attempting to defuse the secularism of last century’s great mass murderers.

The crimes of secularism? Bill, we live in a secular society right now. Why aren't people dying by the thousands? As for Hitler being religious, refer to Lenny Flank's comments about ridiculous attempts to link evolution with the Nazis and what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

White Aryans, Hitler writes, are the special creations of God, the "highest image of the Lord", put here specifically to rule over the "subhuman" races: "Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."

So, does this mean religion is to blame for the Holocaust Bill? No, and atheists (to my knowledge) aren't making such a claim.

In my opinion, blaming the crimes of Hitler and Stalin on atheism is not only absurd, it's immature. People like Bill are much more interested in throwing mud and spouting fallacy after fallacy. Muehlenberg claims his website "offers reflective and incisive commentary ", yet the most cursory glance at his article titles alone indicates it will offer nothing but more of the same childish rhetoric we've come to expect of the religious far-right.

Update: Andrew Bolt is excited about Dinesh D'Souza's article too.

Dauth, AWB and Iraq

2006-11-22T22:36:00.000+01:00

Colour me amazed.

Diversion

2006-11-16T15:57:00.000+01:00

This is one of those posts where the blogger feels guilty about not posting in a while and, in an effort to lessen that guilt, posts a bunch of links to other blogs hoping that readers won't notice that the blogger himself hasn't really said anything of substance...

At Five Public Opinions AV slams a collection of strawman arguments used against athiests by Pastor Steve at Millersville Bible Church.

James Wheeldon gave Andrew Bolt a smack on the wrist for yet another ridiculous attempt to put Nazis and the Left in the same basket. Tim Dunlop picked up on it at his new blog Blogocracy, and Andrew didn't like it, calling Tim a "goose with a conspirational mindset". For Andrew, throwing insults is much easier than addressing the criticism made against him, and James Wheeldon gives him a smack on the other wrist for his childish behaviour.

PZ Meyers was one of many who've commented on a New Jersey high school teacher who used his classroom to inform his students that if they didn't accept Jesus they "belong in hell", lied about it, and then looked like a complete spoon when confronted with recordings of his classroom sermons. As it turns out some of his students are sticking up for him, with calm and well considered reasoning of course.

Democrats in tha House y'all

2006-11-08T14:20:00.000+01:00

I know I'm late getting to this:

THE Democratic Party today took control of the US House of Representatives for the first time in 12 years as it rode a wave of anger against President George W. Bush.

The White House conceded that Democrats had won after US media predicted major gains by the opposition party.

...but I thought I'd put in my two cents worth anyway.

I look forward to hearing the spin the right-wing pundits put on this result. No doubt we'll be informed that the result is courtesy of Democrat dirty tactics, with them mentioning the state of affairs in Iraq and all. Perhaps we'll learn that the U.S. and The West have been weakened, with a "soft-on-terrorism" party gaining more power than is warranted. We'll hear that the Republicans have suffered a truly undeserving defeat, thanks to a hostile anti-Bush media.

In fact, it's already started:

Andrew Bolt: But the Democrats will wonder if they should have done better with so much going for them - not least Iraq and the media.

That almost sounded like a concession that things aren't as well in Iraq as Bolt has previously suggested. Anyway, I imagine alot of the commentary will follow a similar line...

Sure, the Republicans lost the House. But given that the America-hating communist socialist elitist marxist leftist latte-sipping media was cheering so hard for the Democrats, it could have been much worse. So in fact, this is sort of a victory.

The End gets a little more Nigh

2006-10-29T15:48:00.000+01:00

Focus on the Family founder and serial spanner James Dobson pronounced in 2004 that:

Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage... It (gay marriage) will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth.

Well the bad news for James is that a New Jersey Court ruling has brought the end of the world just a little bit closer. The ruling requires that the benefits and protections of marriage also be granted to same-sex couples. Mr Dobson is not pleased:

Nothing less than the future of the American family hangs in the balance if we allow one-man, one-woman marriage to be redefined out of existence. And make no mistake -- that is precisely the outcome the New Jersey Supreme Court is aiming for with this decision.

Yes James, because as Ed Brayton points out, it's not as if the members of the court have families of their own, so this great purge of the American family won't affect them in any way. How exactly gays acquiring what the lunar right refers to as "special rights" (i.e. the same rights as everyone else) results in the destruction of families is yet to be explained. You just get vague rhetoric. I've mentioned John Howard's pathetic evasion of giving the specific details on how A leads to B in the past.

There's a good round-up of the "sky is falling" reactions from the religious right at Dispatches here, here, here and here.

Tagged: Metablogging

2006-10-25T14:32:00.000+02:00

I received this from Arthur Vandelay...

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

I'm not too thrilled about the appearance - I think it's time I updated the template. As for the contents, I'm content. I'd like to expand upon the range of links and other bits and pieces in the sidebar.

2-Does your family know about your blog?

I told them about it when I first started blogging, but I don't think they ever visit it.

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

I don't see why not. As for privacy I agree with Arthur Vandelay: How can it be private if it's in the public sphere?

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

I don't get many comments on my blog, mainly because I haven't really "advertised" myself too much. That is, I haven't commented on other peoples blogs and left a link back to my own. I read the blogs listed in the sidebar everytime I go on the 'net, and I'm always on the lookout for new ones.

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

Definately. It's helped me to develop more critical thinking skills and to practise the art of argument.

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

As I said before, I don't get many visitors. Now that I'm back into blogging more frequently I hope to change that. I don't use a traffic counter.

7-Did you imagine how other bloggers look like?

Not really.

8-Do you think blogging has any real benefit?

I agree with Arthur Vandelay again here. I think blogging will, in the future, play an important role in political discourse - picking up the ball when the traditional media drops it (which is a more and more frequent occurrence).

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

Sort of, but as people turn more to the internet as a source of news and information I think the blogosphere will gain notoriety.

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

Bewilder is perhaps a better word. But it's not so much the blogs themselves - it's usually things reported on blogs which wouldn't find their way into the traditional press.

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

Yes of course - it makes you defend your arguments and offers a chance for self reflection.

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

Nope. I'm not sure what Blogger does with blogs that don't get edited for a long time - maybe it eventually gets deleted?

13-Which blogger had the greatest impression on you?

Ed Brayton for sure. Tim Dunlop too.

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

Arthur Vandelay and Anonymous Lefty.

15-Name a song you want to listen to?

Playground for a Wedgeless Firm - The Chemical Brothers

[pathetic]William Dembski[/pathetic]

2006-10-19T16:37:00.000+02:00

At Uncommon Descent Mr Dembski has a post in which he attacks a new book called Darwin Loves You by George Levine. Here's what he has to say...

George Levine has a new book, Darwin Loves You. The book is silly and superficial, and would not be worth notice except that it serves as Exhibit A for the fact that Darwinism has become a religion, or at least, a “comprehensive doctrine” in the sense of Rawls (John, not Lou), and hence NOT something that a liberal democracry ought to impose on its citizens by force, as is happening now.

Sammy Jankis: So Mr Dembski, why is this book "silly and superficial"?

Dembski: Like I said, it serves as Exhibit A for the fact that Darwinism has become a religion, or at least a "comprehensive doctrine".

Sammy Jankis Yeah but how does it do that? What are the central themes or ideas in the book, and why are they "silly and superficial"?

Dembski:

Cricket: Chirp, Chirp.

Sammy Jankis: Well?

Dembski:

Cricket: Chirp, Chirp. You're pathetic Bill.

For more on this see The Pandas Thumb.

Dembski has made a habit of this sort of nonsense. Not too long ago he offered a post about Chris Mooney, in which he discredits all of Mooney's work simply by pointing out that he is a member of a group of humanists and athiests. Ed Brayton at Dispatches took him to task.

"De-Radicalising" Public schools

2006-10-09T22:19:00.000+02:00

The attack on public schools has been increasing in intensity over the past few years. Public schools, you see, don’t teach values, are hotbeds of radical leftism, and if you ask Julie Bishop about the curriculum, well, “straight from Chirman Mao”. Her solution? A standardised national curriculum set by a government board. See Five Public Opinions for dicussion on this proposal.

Other proposals for managing our public schools, however, are far more worrying. For example, let us hope that Bill Muehlenberg never has any say in how public schools are run. I’ll get to his suggestions in a moment, but first let us take a look at what he thinks about public schools and education to begin with.

In one of his recent posts at Culture Watch entitled Time to De-Radicalise Our Schools, Bill laments the influence of “education unions, officials and bureaucrats” and...

...their long-standing advocacy of every radical theory and cause. It is the constant pushing of political correctness and leftist social agendas that has many parents concerned about the state of education today.

Examples of political correctness and leftist social agendas are usually not required, usually because the “silent majority knows it exists”, but Bill really goes above the call of duty and attempts to provide us with some examples.

Back in 1987 the Australian Teacher’s Federation called on teachers to educate students on male and female homosexuality as part of basic sex education.

Mentioning homosexuality = a politically correct leftist social agenda. Okay. Bill is obviously one of those people who believes that it is possible to “catch gay”. Hear about it enough and you’ll be turned to the Dark Side. He just can’t bear the thought of homosexuals being portrayed as normal members of society – it’s called homophobia.

In 1995 the Australia Education Union (AEU) called for mandatory AIDS and sex education for all students, beginning in primary school.

Oh no! Just like the “gay disease” eh Bill? Hear about AIDS and you’ll probably catch it. Which of these situations is more desireable – people being aware of AIDS, its transmission, its effects and how to avoid it, or people not knowing about it at all? I choose the former. Hey Bill, maybe we should stop teaching children about skin cancer – we don’t want them catching that too.

Bill spends most of his post copying verbatim from the right-wing rhetoric playbook:

...radical social experiments aimed at our young children...educational bureaucrats...radical social engineering...nothing to do with education and everything to do with indoctrination...feminism, Marxism, and radical social experimentation...

...and so on. Instead of writing a lengthy post why can’t he just write “Public education is bad, mmkay?” and be done with it?

“So what’s Bill’s solution to all this?” I hear you ask? Well, we need much more than a Howard government approved board stating what is (or more importantly isn’t, in the case of the Muehlenbergs of the world) to be taught in schools. No, that’s simply not enough. Bill asks us to look to the US for a possible solution:

...(an) activity undertaken in the US which could be implemented here is an independent assessment of the radical trends and teachers at our schools. For example, a number of conservative American groups monitor the universities, alerting parents to the various radical causes and courses offered there.

You see, conservative groups like, say, the AFA, can be trusted to give an independent assessment of the “radical trends and teachers at our schools”. Obviously, non-conservative groups can’t offer an independent assessment because they have an agenda, whereas conservative groups don’t.

But it gets better...

One author, David Horowitz, himself a former radical, has even penned a book, documenting the most left-leaning profs in America. His book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (Regnery, 2006), has caused controversy, of course, but is nonetheless a much-needed expose of the way the US academy has been hijacked by radicals and revolutionaries.

I suspect a similar audit of our school system would be in order. (My emphasis)

There’s a reason the book’s caused controversy Bill – it’s a pile of shit.

It’s funny how conservatives think the best way to deal with the reds under the bed is to get Stalinist on their ass. “Purge the universities!” they cry. Teachers, and other professionals in the education system simply cannot be trusted to devise curriculums and appropriate teaching methods. They don’t have the necessary qualifications – conservative government boards advised by (or perhaps featuring) Kevin Donnelly and Bill Muehlenberg do.

Bolt vs Science

2006-10-08T18:05:00.000+02:00

We all know Andrew Bolt is no fan of science - especially global warming science. For some time now he's been using his column in the Herald Sun to try and convince the public that all of those climatologists don't really know what they're talking about. If you ask him, it's all junk science and paranoia from a bunch of green evangelicals.

Tim Lambert recently graded Bolt's knowledge of global warming science and the results were not impressive. Despite a strong consensus among climatologists that global warming/climate change is being accelerated by human activity. Bolt (and others like him) continues to misrepresent the work of climate scientists and seize on disagreements in the scientific community over the specifics of climate change as evidence against it. An unusually chilly day in summer is all Bolt needs to shoot down decades of research conducted by climate experts.

So what I want to know is this:

When will Andrew Bolt come out guns blazing against the science of evolution?

Think about it - the circumstances are much the same: There's a strong consensus among scientists that evolution is real, and there's a small group of people who claim to have strong evidence against it (the Intelligent Design movement).

Can we expect a Muehlenberg-esque column from Bolt any time soon?

What is that country coming to? #6587

2006-05-10T11:33:00.000+02:00

To shield their children from "the homosexual agenda" some people would be happy enough to audit school textbooks and lesson plans for signs of "promoting the gay lifestyle" and have them stricken from the curriculum. For others, that's not nearly enough. At a school in North Carolina, the school board has voted to ban Gay/Straight alliances from forming within the school.

Board members voted 7-0 in favor of Jim Shuping's motion to ban all sexually-oriented clubs — gay, straight or otherwise — and to address any student's emotional issues concerning sexuality with guidance counselors.

Shuping later added to the motion — at the recommendation of attorney Don Sayers — that the existence of such a club would "materially and substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities in school," a clause that makes banning it legal under the federal Equal Access Act.

Essay question for Mr Shuping:

How does the presence of a Gay/Straight alliance materially and substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities in school?

Brian Johnson, whose children will attend South Rowan, said a public high school was no place for a Gay/Straight Alliance.

"Take a stand for what you believe is right," he told the board. "If it comes down to a lawsuit, there will be help for that."

And I'm in complete agreement with Ed Brayton over at Dispatches, where I first heard about this sorry state of affairs...

A lawsuit is being prepared to challenge the school board's decision. And I'm going to make this prediction: the school board is going to lose and it's going to lose badly. In fact, I predict that the case will result in summary judgement for the plaintiffs and that will be upheld on appeal. This one isn't even close, nor should it be.

But as some commentators to Ed's post noted, it's a win-win situation for the bigots, as a crushing defeat in court provides the perfect opportunity to cry "Help! Help! Us God fearin' Christians is bein' persecuted by them godless liberal judges again!"

Janet's Test of Aussiness

2006-05-05T14:22:00.000+02:00

Guess what! Janet Albretchsen thinks a test of “Australian values” is a good idea…

MAYBE, just maybe, the long, slow surrender is over. Instead of raising hewhite flag through silence, more political leaders are realising that not enough is being done to defend Western values. Last week, it was Andrew Robb's turn.

At the Sydney Institute, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs suggested that immigrants to Australia should pass a new citizenship test. From the reaction in some quarters, you'd think he wanted immigrants to recite verbatim, in a plum Tory accent, Robert Menzies' speech on Freedom in a Modern Society. Or recount word-perfect the first three chapters of Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.

No, Robb had something less exacting on his mind. He flagged the need for immigrants to have a more functional level of English and an understanding of Australian values.

OK , tell me this. What form should this “citizenship test” take? An essay question? Multiple choice? What score does an applicant need in order to prove they’ve got what it takes? Can an applicant appeal their results? Can an applicant re-sit the exam? What’s to stop some naughty immigrant from sitting the test and then telling his naughty immigrant-to-be mates overseas what was on the test so that they can read up on those topics? These are important questions, and you can guarantee all those cheering on the comments of Andrew Robb probably don’t have the answers.

Immediately, Robb's proposal was subjected to the standard leftist values guessing game. Speaking for the Sikh community, Bawa Singh Jagdev told the ABC's AM program: "I don't understand very much what do they mean by Australian values." Federation of Islamic Councils president and long-time Australian citizen Ameer Ali said he had no problem with universal values, "but when you say Australian values, no one knows what those values are".

It was a predictable response and neatly proved Robb's point: that Australian values are not proclaimed enough to new immigrants.

Interesting theory. Bawa Singh Jagdev and Ameer Ali don’t know what Australian values are because Australian values haven’t been “proclaimed enough” to them. Janet knows that Bawah Singh Jadev and Ameer Ali are indicating that there is not some sort of official “approved values list” lying around somewhere carved into a stone tablet ten commandments style, but of course that doesn't fit her thesis.

Robb defined Australian values as including core Western values such as "our respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, our commitment to the rule of law, our commitment to the equality of men and women", then added some particularly Australian attributes such as "the spirit of the fair go, of tolerance and compassion to those in need".

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

Immigration Official: “OK sir, before we grant you citizenship, can you tell me what a few Australian values are?”

Hateful Chauvinistic Racist Xenophobe: “Oh you know – spirit of the fair go, tolerance, commitment to the rule of law. All that sort of stuff really”.

Immigration Official: “Correct! You’re in! Here’s your certificate."

Hateful Chauvinistic Racist Xenophobe: “Thanks!” (Chuckles evily).

I also find it amusing that Janet “Hooray for locking up asylum seekers for years on end” Albretchsen seems to agree with the “tolerance and compassion to those in need” value mentioned by Andrew Robb. Clearly, naming a value and acting in accordance with it are two entirely different things.

The rest of the article pretty much goes onto the standard whinging about Marxism in schools and Universities – pretty much an exercise in Donnellyist rhetoric.

In a nutshell, those making calls for an “Australian Values Test” are just singing from the right-wing nationalist hymn sheet. It’s the same people who think it should be compulsory for Australian flags to be flying above every Australian school and that flag burning should be a criminal offence. Who knows, perhaps they’ll take a leaf out of the books of Peter King and Jim Ryun, two Republican (gasp!) congressmen seeking to ensure that the recitation and singing of the Pledge of Allegiance, National Anthem and new citizens' oaths is in English only.

Akerman's Cult of Death

2006-05-01T13:20:00.000+02:00

When the comedy act that is Andrew Bolt's column gets a little stale I occasionally turn to the Daily Tele and have a gander at Piers Akerman's rantings. His latest offering is perhaps sadder than it is funny however. It's called Standing Against the Cult of Death. Who's a member of this cult of death I hear you ask? Osama bin Laden gets an honourable mention, and I don't think too many people would argue with that. But get this: the ideological component of this death cult includes, or is at least tacitly supported by...you guessed it...Fairfax and the ABC...

The well-meaning idiots who embrace the bizarre notions of moral and cultural equivalence and proselytise in ugly, angular sentences of a world in which all values are relative, a world in which there are no truths, play directly into the hands of those who would deny life in their worship of death.

Incredible as it may seem, the left-leaning churches which have forged a toxic pact with the secular environmentally linked organisations are among the first to retreat in the war against this cult of death.

Politically correct media organisations like the ABC and the Fairfax newspapers also engage in ludicrous contortions in their efforts to avoid branding the enemy as such, preferring to play semantic games as if there were doubts about whether those who target civilians should be called terrorists or activists. Be assured there are no doubts in the minds of the victims.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Cup of Tea? Lie Down? This article is straight out of the RWDB playbook, basically placing bin Laden and any critic of the way in which this "War on Terror" is being implemented in the same basket. In one breath he complains about "bizarre notions of moral and cultural equivalence" and in the next he equates the crazed ramblings of al-Qaida terrorists with the reporting and opinion found in on the national broadcaster and the pages of the Sydney Morning Herald.

He achieves this by putting words in the mouths of others and strawman arguments. Playing "semantic games games as if there were doubts about whether those who target civilians should be called terrorists or activists"? Who, on the pages of The Age, or the Sydney Morning Herald, or the ABC, has argued that thoise who murder civilians would more aptly be referred to as activists? Or which "secular environmentally linked organisation" (WTF!?) do they belong to?

Throw in a few conservative catch phrases like "politically correct", close with a "support the troops" and you've got the perfect Murdoch right-wing pundit column.

It's so boring.

She can't be serious...

2006-04-30T14:23:00.000+02:00

Ann Coulter has a new book. I'd like to echo a few comments made by PZ Meyers over at Pharyngula. In her exposé of what she calls the "Church of Liberalism" we are to learn of:

* Its sacraments (abortion)
* Its holy writ (Roe v. Wade)
* Its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal)
* Its clergy (public school teachers)
* Its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free)
* Its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)
* And its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)

If you're not rolling on the floor with laughter by now here's something that will tip you over the edge...

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

What is it with people like Ann Coulter? In the same way Andrew Bolt dismisses global warming ("What would they know, they're just stupid scientists"), Coulter and her allied pundits see the overwhelming scientific consensus over evolution as some sort of conspiracy amongst scientists. Apparently, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the creationist view of origins, and for over a century scientists have worked relentlessly to stop the truth from getting out. There's evidence of the big guy upstairs left right and centre and they just keep sweeping it under the rug.

However, I'd have to agree entirely with Arthur Vandelay when he says that in this case the Right has well and truly jumped the shark.

Confronting Howard

2006-02-27T13:24:00.000+01:00

Maybe this is just another exercise in "Howard hating" but aren't the PM's comments regarding Muslim dress a perfect example of his "I have nothing against Muslims but it's important that my base thinks I do" politics.

"I don't believe that you should ban wearing headscarfs but I do think the full garb is confronting and that is how most people feel," Mr Howard told Southern Cross Broadcasting.

Got that Muslims? We won't ban your traditional dress because it would harm our liberal democratic credentials, but just know that we don't approve, and if you want us to get off your back then ditching the full garb would be the best place to start.

Seriously, how does he know "most people" find the full garb confronting? Has he done a survey? Luckily there aren't any good journalists around to ask the obvious question - "How do you know that John?"

Howard simply can't afford to come out and openly criticise proposals to ban Islamic clothing (it might hurt him in the polls) so instead he sidesteps the issue by saying "we don't have plans to ban Islamic dress". This way, Islamaphobes still have hope that one day they may get their wish, and he can also say to his critics "What? When did I say we should ban traditional Islamic clothing?"

Then there's this:

"These are things that it's very hard to lay down legislation for."

Got that? It's not so much that Howard thinks banning Islamic dress is in itself wrong, it's the difficulty you have in writing legislation to do it. He's learnt from the French example that you can't write legislation explicitly banning Islamic dress - you need to make it unspecific as far as religion is concerned, and that means Christians and Jews may be effected. It's a real conundrum.

Let the avalanche of "He's just saying what everyone's thinking" opinion pieces and letters-to-the-editor begin.

Irving in Jail

2006-02-21T06:16:00.000+01:00

How ridiculous.

An Austrian court has found the right-wing British historian David Irving guilty of denying the Holocaust and sentenced him to three years in prison.

Isn't the Austrian nation just a little embarrassed by this. "Hey everyone! This guy suggested something preposterous in '89 - let's throw him in the slammer!" I wonder if denying the 1994 genocide in Rwanda draws a similar sentence.

Expect the "suppressed genius" card to be played ad-nauseum from now on by other holocaust deniers the world over. The reasons why this law is a bad idea are so straightforward that it seems a waste of time to even spell it out here. Instead, I'll direct you to Ed Brayton's post on this matter.

Piers "Logical Gymnast" Ackerman

2005-06-26T12:43:00.000+02:00

Piers Ackerman is a fantastic logical gymnast. In his column of June 21st, he makes a serious effort to spin the Petro Georgiou & Co. affair in a way that makes Howard out to be a hero and the dissenting MP’s blundering idiots. Let’s have a look…

PETRO Georgiou, the Liberal Party's outspoken immigration activist may have won the (bleeding) hearts of a handful of doctors' wives in his electorate with his refugee campaign – but that's about all.

Ackerman wastes no time in getting straight to what he does best – ad hominem attacks against those he disagrees with. “Bleeding hearts”, “doctors’ wives” and of course Georgiou is an “activist”. Remember, when right wing columnists like Ackerman use the word “activist”, they don’t mean “a person actively engaged in trying to make political social change”. When they use “activist”, they mean “an agitator disrupting social harmony” – it carries a negative connotation. Also notice ad populum gets a run in the first sentence, in that he suggests it is a mere “handful” of “doctors’ wives” who approve of the actions of Georgiou & Co. Piers thinks that the changes to migration policy are strongly opposed by a majority of Australian citizens, and that’s good enough for him. All those “bleeding hearts” should just shut up and get with the program.

Ackerman further displays his appreciation for the ad hominem method of argument with this:

Feisty Sophie Panopoulos, the very successful Victorian MP, quite accurately described the Georgiou push as akin to political terrorism, whatever some of the wets in the community may think. Any attempt to hold a government hostage to the wishes of four or five backbenchers is a kind of political terrorism, and it would be difficult to find a more apt description of the stunt…

Hypothetical: Labor is in power. Backbenchers demand change to current Labor policy on, let’s say, industrial relations. Labor MP brands said backbenchers as “political terrorists”. Would Piers Ackerman agree that the Labor MP’s comments were “accurate”? Would he agree that “it would be difficult to find a more apt description” of the backbenchers’ actions? Would he call those in the community who disagreed with such language “wets”? You bet your nelly he wouldn’t.

Ackerman laments that “the Georgiou stunt did have an immediate and unpleasant fallout.” He cites the incident involving numerous Chinese asylum seekers at Villawood and…

…wannabe political refugee Chen Yonglin was moved yet again to call yet another press conference and cash in on his growing notoriety

This is a fantastic example of the hypocrisy which flows from conservatives like Ackerman – “We feel for those who suffer under authoritarian communist regimes. Except of course those who seek asylum in Australia after defecting and openly criticising authoritarian communist regimes.”

As the amendments to be introduced will usher in a greater degree of flexibility for illegal entrants with children, it may now be only a matter of time before renewed attempts are made by people smugglers to find new cargoes to bring down from Indonesia.

Hang on Piers, I thought the primary goal of the government’s immigration policy was to “stop the boats”. Your article suggests that the changes were a dismal failure for Georgiou because mandatory detention (the “deterrent” which even John Howard has conceded is “regrettable”) still exists, and now your prophesising that the changes will lead to the return of boatloads of asylum seekers flooding Australia’s shores? Make up your mind.

The Government may have accommodated Mr Georgiou but there is no prospect of accommodating the more feral advocates for illegal entrants.
They are still determined to fight on for wannabe refugees to be released into the community without any restrictions.

“Feral advocates”, “wannabe refugees” -- more ad-hominem. Tell me Piers, do you enjoy writing columns appealing to the lowest common denominator? And why do you insist on putting words into the mouths of these “feral advocates”? Those who oppose the current policy wish to see asylum seekers who arrive by boat treated in the same fashion as those who arrive by air. They are also aware of and accept the need for a brief period of detention such that health and security risks can be carried out.

Mr Howard has even managed to turn what some saw as a serious threat to his Government into a public relations triumph by calling for other dissenters within the party to present their views for examination.
In opening up the debate in this manner, he gives the lie to those who claim he has strayed from the liberal guidelines of the longest-serving Liberal prime minister, Sir Robert Menzies.
Sticking it to his critics, Mr Howard has now publicly embraced the notion of the Liberal Party as the broad church its founders planned…

OK, so Howard’s a legend for paying lip service to the “broad church” philosophy of the Liberal party, but those who DO present their views for examination should be prepared to wear the label of “political terrorist”?

Conclusion: Article contains zero argumentative value, but is great for a laugh.

Colebatch has it bad for Flint

2005-06-05T11:32:00.000+02:00

In Saturday’s West Australian, Hal Colebatch provided a glowing review of Malice in Media Land, David Flint’s attempt to unmask what he terms “the left-wing media elite”. Mr Flint’s arguments on this issue have been canvassed before, so I won’t spend much time looking at them, but I did find some parts of the article interesting.

For example:

Flint also looks at the succession of media “feeding frenzies” in the Hollingworth, Kirby and Wayne Carey and Cardinal Pell affairs. Flint says he found an impression created among some people that Hollingworth (who at worst had been naive and inept in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse by Anglican priests, and in handling the media subsequently), was himself guilty of some sort of sexual crimes.

(My emphasis)

Now remember, Flint’s beef is with “the media elite” which he pretty much defines as the Fairfax broadsheets and the ABC. Does he seriously suggest it was these media outlets alone which initiated and took part in this “feeding frenzy”? What were the Daily Telegraph, The Herald Sun, The Advertiser and The Courier Mail covering during all this -- the human rights situation in China? The Hollingworth saga was a classic “scandal” – and “the people’s media” loved every moment of it.

It continues…

Wayne Carey’s escapades were private business.

Yes David, I’m sure that the News Ltd tabloids didn’t want to hear about that – no money to be made with headlines about “Shock affairs” and the like.

Here Flint touches on a matter which could be taken further. He writes: “The allegations against Justice Kirby soon collapsed because the Comcar records (Senator Hefferman (sic) tendered as proof turned out, on the most cursory investigation, to be a fabrication.” But why was this matter of “fabrication” apparently never taken further? There seems to have been a nasty plot against Kirby, Hefferman (sic), or both by persons who remain unknown and un-investigated.

How exactly, could this have been a nasty plot against Bill Heffernan? The fact of the matter is, Heffernan, under parliamentary privilege, accused a high court judge of hiring underage prostitutes (“…regularly trawled for rough trade at the Darlinghurst Wall…” and “…played out his fantasies on a fee-for-service arrangement.”) while using forgeries to back it up. Heffernan’s speech was revealed for what it was – a homophobic diatribe – followed with the standard Howard response in the light of embarrassing revelations – “The Senator in question enjoys both my affection and friendship”. Sorry David, but that’s big news.

Then this:

Flint himself was persecuted because he was a monarchist, with roles in other socially conservative groups, such as being president of the Australian National Federation of the English-Speaking Union.

No examples of this persecution are provided. I suspect someone may have countered Flint’s arguments against the republic – which of course amounts to persecution “because he was a monarchist”.

Back to the “elite media”:

A group of commentators do suffer from group-think and a shared set of prejudices and assumptions. But they are subject now to robust confrontation by Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Piers Akerman, Tim Blair and others.

Yes of course. Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Piers Akerman, Tim Blair, Greg Sheridan, Janet Albretchsen, Fran Devine, Miranda Devine, Gerard Henderson and the rest NEVER sing from the same hymn sheet. They most certainly don’t have a shared set of prejudices and assumptions - put these people together and you have a most fascinating and diverse range of opinions on any conceivable subject. I also like the way that it is “now” that the media elite are confronted – as if all of these commentators are new on the scene – and by golly those Howard hating group thinkers had better watch out coz there’s some new kidz on the block!

Further, two Australian Federal elections and, even more obviously, the republican referendum, have shown the commentariat’s power to actually decide outcomes is far less than its members may like to think.

Translation: We won the last election! Hooray! You were wrong – we’re the best! The war was right! The republic was wrong! Howard didn’t lie! People want to privatise Telstra! Hooray!

Colebatch brings his article to a close:

…it is a real pleasure to read the thoughts and observations of learned,
civilised and ethical man, set out in a beautiful prose style.

Need some tissues Hal?

Guess what Janet's crying about this week...

2005-05-18T14:13:00.000+02:00

For her contribution to today’s Australian Janet Albretchsen chose a topic she and her fellow conservative commentators rarely canvas in their newspapers columns – ‘the left wing bias of the media’. What next? – Andrew Bolt having a shot at environmentalists? A close look at Janet’s column reveals that she indeed has an odd conception of the role the media ought to play here in Australia and in the United States.

Apparently, parts of the mainstream media (that is, well known newspapers and news channels), are no longer mainstream. This is interesting, as I thought the media was supposed to report important news and information, rather than tell its audience what it wants to hear. Janet thinks that when a (mainstream) reader opens the newspaper, he/she should have his/her world view confirmed. She cites a recent discussion within the New York Times as evidence of the newspapers awakening to this idea…

Last week an internal panel set up at the NYT to "improve our journalism" reported that, among other things, the NYT needed to lift its game on reporting religion in America. It found, as just one example, that its coverage of gay marriage "approaches cheerleading". In fact, the panel even admitted that the NYT needed to "cover the country in a fuller way". Translation: let's try to be more mainstream.

But Janet, perhaps the Times is considering a shift in its reporting towards ‘the mainstream’ out of a concern over a possible loss of revenue – not a concern over poor journalism. Sure, maybe the staff feel they could have presented the gay marriage issue in a more balanced fashion, but does this mean that by extension they must be ‘getting it wrong’ on other issues like the Iraq war etc?

Janet also decides to throw in a bit of argument ad populum…

In 2003 the Pew Research Centre found 51 per cent of Americans believed the press had a left-wing bias…

The blogosphere is also mentioned…

If you don't know what a blogger is, don't feel bad. Even in the media many haven't caught up.

Except of course Janet’s hated “Chateau Fairfax”, which has been running a web-dairy for some time. Oh – but I forgot – Margo Kingston doesn’t like John Howard, so it doesn’t count.

While the quality of blogging varies wildly, the best bloggers, such as Australia's Tim Blair (timblair.net)…

That is, bloggers who agree with Janet.

…are checking facts, reporting news, breaking stories and giving alternative commentary to that found in large sections of the old media.

And if Janet ventured beyond timblair.net, she’d discover a whole raft of bloggers busily checking facts, reporting news, breaking stories and giving alternative commentary to that found in large sections of the old media. But of course, from the wrong perspective as far as Janet is concerned.

She continues…

With much of the blogo-sphere tilting right, and looking - dare one say it - decidedly mainstream…

Got that? If you’re tilting right, you’re looking mainstream. It’s as simple as that – Right = Mainstream. Disagree with that and you must be in that ‘noisy minority’ crowd.

Old media detests the Fox phenomenon and those dastardly "shock jocks" -- you know, those radio broadcasters who often attract more listeners than newspapers have readers.

Yes Janet, we need a lot more of the Fox phenomenon, with people believing that Saddam Hussein was behind September 11, that WMD’s have been located in Iraq, and people like Bill O’Reilly suggesting that illegal immigrants should be classified as biological weapons when analysing their impact on American society. That’s the sort of balance we sorely need.
Notice Janet provides no examples of the media “detesting” talk back radio shock jocks.

That way they might stop missing the big social trends - another tell-tale sign of a media disconnected from its readership. They might notice the rise of evangelical religion, or the swing back to family values, even at the expense of feminist dogma.

Janet should read the newspaper more often instead of hunting the blogosphere for opinions similar to her own – evangelical religion and ‘family values’ are two issues examined at length in the media.

Of course, the biggest test for the mainstream media comes around each election.
Like last October. While most of the media was conducting a love affair with Mark Latham, mainstream Australia spurned him, re-elected John Howard, and handed the Government a Senate majority.

Media take note – if John Howard is re-elected, you need to ignore the other half of the country who didn’t vote for him and become part of the orgy of self-congratulation which took place after the polls closed.

Again, I have to ask. Had the election fallen a few months earlier, when Latham & Co were riding high in the polls, and Australia had a change of government, would Janet be happy to go along with the suggestion that the media is ‘in-tune’ with ‘mainstream’ Australia? I think not. We’d be hearing about the media’s successful trickery and deception of enough voters to swing the outcome, and its contempt for democracy etc.

In conclusion, Albretchsen, like so many other conservative commentators, has an issue with the media because sometimes she reads/hears commentary and news she doesn’t want to read/hear. Because she is of the right, and the right is mainstream, anything she dislikes also offends the majority (silent of course) of Australians. Will Janet ever extend her arguments beyond “John Howard was re-elected” or “According to this poll…”?

Henderson gets Ad Populum

2005-05-10T16:03:00.000+02:00

Gerard Henderson made no attempt to conceal his glee at the re-election of Tony Blair in Britain. Like many conservative pundits, Henderson views the election as a referendum on the Iraq war, with Blair’s (and Bush’s and Howard’s) victory signalling a strong ‘YES’ vote for the war from the electorate(s).

That none of them has suffered [Jose Maria] Aznar's fate says a lot about the personal conviction and political courage of Bush, Blair and Howard. But it also tells us plenty about voters in America, Britain and Australia.

Weak and incompetent oppositions do not enter the equation - nor the fact that the war hardly even received a mention in the recent election in Australia.

Henderson suggests that Raimond Gaita, a professor of philosophy at King's College at the University of London and at the Australian Catholic University, is out of touch with reality, and describes his article published in Quarterly Essay as “ritual, and (boringly) predictable, criticism of the Howard Government.” Would it be fair to suggest that Henderson’s articles defending the Howard Government are becoming “ritual, and boringly predictable”?

Henderson closes with:

The recent successes of Bush, Blair and Howard suggest that a majority of the electorate has a better understanding of the complexity and demands of modern democratic governments than the liberal left.

But at the moment, George Bush is suffering some of the lowest approval ratings in history – can I therefore suggest that the majority of the American electorate has a better understanding of the complexity and demands of modern democratic governments than the conservative right? In a nutshell, Henderson (and his fellow Howard loving colleagues), continue to engage in a variation of ad populum argument…

People voted for Bush/Blair/Howard > Bush/Blair/Howard launched an invasion on Iraq in 2003 > People supported (and continue to support) that military venture.

O'Reilly loses the plot...again.

2005-04-21T11:21:00.000+02:00

From Media Matters:

From the April 15 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

CALLER: Hi, Bill. The point of my call today is I'd like to take a different look at illegal immigration. I believe that it has the same impact as a major terrorist attack. And here's what I mean. If you take the sum total of the economic consequences of illegal immigration, and also consider that the illegals crossing the border, that are coming across with, say, tuberculosis, syphilis, leprosy -- each one of those people is a biological weapon.

And, I believe that illegal immigration is -- equals and surpasses the impact of 9-11. And it is incumbent upon the president to close the borders.

O'REILLY: You might be right, [caller]. And, if you look at it that way, you've got 11 million at least here, unsupervised. Nobody knows the condition they're in. And you have 3,000 dead from 9-11.

So, you got 11 million running around unsupervised now. You got 3,000 dead on 9-11, so you do the math and you say, "Well, how many of these 11 million people have impacted negatively on American citizens?" I think you could probably make an absolutely airtight case that more than 3,000 Americans have been either killed or injured, based upon the 11 million illegals who are here.

You could make that case. And, you would be absolutely right. But the reason that President Bush and President Clinton and President Bush the elder, and President Reagan and President Carter all got away with doing nothing to secure the borders of the United States is that this is a shadow world. Most of us don't see it. We don't see pictures like we saw on 9-11, of planes crashing into buildings. We don't see dead people in the street. We don't see weeping widows -- we don't see it.

Howard must be thinking - "Shucks!! The best I could come up with was children overboard!?"

Why I don't by Nike products...

2005-04-15T14:18:00.000+02:00

From The Age:

Nike, the target of sweatshop allegations, has admitted abuses at some of its factories in a comprehensive report on the 700 plants that make its footwear and clothing.
The 108-page report is the first since the company paid $US1.5 million ($A1.9 million) to settle allegations that it had made false claims about how well its workers were treated.
The report, compiled over the past two years, admits to widespread problems, particularly in Nike's Asian factories. It found cases of "abusive treatment", physical and verbal, in more than a quarter of its south Asian plants.
Up to half the factories in the region restricted access to toilets and drinking water during working hours. The report said employees worked more than 60 hours a week in more than half of Nike's factories. Workers refusing to do overtime were punished in up to 25 per cent of factories. Wages were below the legal minimum at up to a quarter of factories.

You can learn more about Nike's corporate conduct at Oxfam.

The thing is, the vast majority of clothing on the rack of the many clothes stores at your local shopping centre are probably assembled by a 10 year old girl in China who quit school so she could work 12 hours a day at 10 cents per hour so that she could help pay for just a little bit of extra rice to feed her starving family. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy doesn't it?

It might seem pretty hopeless, but some people are really seeking to make a difference. And what better opportunity to bring the issue to the fore than the upcoming Olympics in Beijing?

A Current Tonight & Today Affair

2005-04-12T07:32:00.000+02:00

MediaWatch dissed the “Current Affairs” programs of Channels 7 and 9 last night. You wouldn’t believe it, but Today Tonight and A Current Affair copy each others programming and run similar stories at exactly the same time. But who could blame them? With earth shattering stories about breast enlargements, miracle cancer cures and weight loss, a serious current affairs program simply cannot risk allowing a competitor to break a story first (even if the story was actually “broken” three years ago). Today Tonight must have been spewing when A Current Affair broadcast their story on OneCard (a new loyalty shopping card) – the team at 7 really got caught napping on that one.

And of course, the ABC’s 7:30 Report wastes tax payer dollars examining trivial stuff like the Iraq War or Australian politics…

Reserve Bank vs The Liberals

2005-04-09T07:50:00.000+02:00

From today's Sydney Morning Herald:

The Reserve Bank yesterday confirmed it had asked the Australian Electoral Commission to investigate claims the Government made during last year's election campaign over interest rates.

The advertisement, which had the headline "Under Labor, you may need to find an extra $962.34 every month just to keep your home", was circulated in several Sydney electorates.

It said it was authorised by the person W Meehan and included the term "Source: Reserve Bank of Australia".

The Howard government acting dishonestly during and election campaign? Never!

PM : “I’m not homophobic but…”

2005-04-04T13:52:00.000+02:00

John Howard, when quizzed about same-sex marriage, gay adoption rights and access to IVF, likes to assure those doing the questioning that he is “completely tolerant and fair minded about people’s sexual preference”. I’ve reviewed some of the PM’s past comments on these issues, and I’m not so sure that his claim to tolerance and understanding stands up to even the mildest scrutiny.

For example, in August 2001, Howard found himself fending off questions from students on a Triple J “Talkback Classroom” Interview.

STUDENT: So if we had a scale with total acceptance of homosexuality on one end and total rejection and abuse of homosexuality on the other, where would you place yourself?

PRIME MINISTER: Oh I’d place myself somewhere in the middle.

This doesn’t sit well with Howard’s claim that his is a view of “complete tolerance” when it comes to homosexuality. I think sometimes he feels the need to remind social conservative voters that he’s still one of them. In the same interview he was asked:

STUDENT: Do you recall an interview in 1996 with Ray Martin in which you said you would be disappointed if you had a son that was gay. Would you like to clarify what you mean by disappointed?

…to which he responded…

PRIME MINISTER: …I said I wouldn’t love him any less but I did go on to say that I’d be disappointed and I would. There’s nothing to clarify, I haven’t met a parent yet who wants their children to grow up gay.

I see. “I have nothing against gay people but if my son was gay I’d be disappointed”. His assertion about parents not wanting their children to grow up gay is also interesting. Do parents frequently convey this message upon meeting the PM? Or perhaps because no one has told him “I want my child to grow up gay” he’s arrived at the conclusion that all parents must be thinking the opposite?

Howard frequently refers to marriage as a “benchmark/bedrock institution of our society”. For example, here, here, here, here and here. Here’s a few extracts:

…marriage is commonly understood by everybody, including gay people, is a bedrock institution of society…

…there are certain benchmark institutions in our society that ought to be defended and promoted…

What I’m in favour of is defending the benchmark institutions of our society…

…marriage, as we understand it, is one of the bedrock institutions of our society…

…[marriage] is seen as the bedrock institution…

…many people, and I’m one of them, see marriage as one of the bedrock institutions of society…

You get the picture. And if we “muck around” with this “bedrock institution”, the PM believes there will be serious ramifications for the “continuity of our kind of society” because the “continuity of our society depends on there being a margin for marriage” and “if you don’t preserve it for what it is commonly understood to be, its value over time … will be reduced”. That is to say, “if you allow unions between men and men or women and women to be given the same status it will over time erode the value and therefore, erode the special character and therefore the contribution to society of marriage”. Howard believes that marriage is “very much about the raising of children, the having of children, and the continuation of our species” so we should only have marriages between men and women because they “contribute to the continuity and the stability of society”. Okay?

So you see, Howard has nothing against gay people. He merely believes that allowing them to enter into a civil marriage contract “in different ways reduces the status of marriage”, which in turn sets us on a journey down that long slippery slope into oblivion.

What a complete spanner.

China, Australia and Human Rights

2005-04-01T08:53:00.001+02:00

With the Chinese government’s latest reinforcement of its intention to maintain an iron grip on Taiwan there’s been some talk in the press over the role Australia should play in the event that China and US relations turn sour over Taiwanese independence. John Howard believes that Australia can remain neutral in the coming years and act as some form as mediator, “continually identifying, and advocating to each, the shared strategic interests these great powers have in regional peace and prosperity”.

Howard’s slavish commitment to the Bush administration is well understood and there is little doubt that he and his cabinet will offer apologetics for any course of action the US may undertake, dismissing local and international concerns (no matter how overwhelming) as mere “anti-Americanism”. The government’s desire to present Australia as a nation entirely united behind the US was on display when the PM’s boss visited Australia in October 2003. George Bush essentially spent his entire visit in a dissent free bubble, with the only voices of discontent emanating from Greens senators Brown and Nettle during his address to parliament. In the meantime, protestors outside parliament were kept well away (and kept quiet with sound devices being banned), and journalists were not permitted to access the president. The Bush administration would probably be confronted with more dissent in Crawford, Texas.

President Hu Jintao toured Australia at the same time as Bush, and he received similar treatment. It was somewhat ironic that while conservative voices on the letters pages of Australian newspapers dared those protesting against the Bush administration to protest against China’s human rights abuses, the Howard government was busily assisting Chinese officials in excluding members of Australia’s Tibetan community and Chin Jin (of Federation for a Democratic China) from Hu Jintao’s parliamentary address. The US government had been protected from scrutiny and voices they did not want to hear, and the visiting Chinese officials were shielded from dissenting voices in precisely the same way.

The reasons for this are obvious. Australia is looking to forge a trade deal with China in the near future, and we can’t let trivial things like human rights abuses get in the way. Indeed, the Australian government is extremely attentive to the sensitivities of Chinese officials. For example, Alexander Downer sees to it that Falun Gong demonstrators are banned from displaying banners and making too much noise outside the Chinese embassy in Canberra. Talks between Australia and China concerning human rights are held yearly behind closed doors.

With trade talks looming government ministers continue to stress that there is nothing to be gained from scrutinizing the human rights record of China or including provisions for human rights improvements in any FTA. But if now “isn’t a good time”, when is it appropriate for the Australian government to be frank about China’s use of the death penalty, its treatment of political dissidents/Falun Gong practitioners/Tibetans etc etc? My guess is that in the coming years Australia will approach China’s human rights record in the same way it approaches Indonesia’s. That is, we’ll hear lots about how China is “making promising steps towards reform” but virtually zero criticism in an effort to maintain beneficial economic ties.

Sheridan: "Howard won - so there!!" *Pokes tongue out

2005-03-31T08:25:00.000+02:00

Greg Sheridan is getting his knickers in a twist over the results of the Lowy poll concerning attitudes towards the US/UN etc. According to Sheridan…

The foreign policy class believes, almost unanimously, in a set of propositions that are not overwhelmingly shared by the public and are contested by the Howard Government.

Sheridan is deeply skeptical about the poll results which suggest that Australians favour multilateralism, support the UN, hold concerns over the current modus operandi of the Bush administration, and so on, and he points to loaded poll questions as an explanation. To be honest, I think the questions are a little loaded myself, but I think a poll on the same issues with ‘balanced’ questions would yield similar results. Indeed, many polls in the past have indicated wide public concern over the Bush administrations approach to the war on terror, and a desire to be more independent of the US when it comes to making decisions about how Australia should conduct itself internationally.

What irritates me, however, is comments such as this…

Yet isn't it remarkable that the same public re-elected the Howard Government with an increased majority, and that all through the election gave the Howard government a two-to-one majority over Labor on the question of who would better handle national security?

…as if to suggest the last election was a referendum on Howard’s approach to foreign affairs, with Howard’s victory a sign of public approval. People couldn’t have possibly voted for the Howard government after it launched an extensive scare campaign on interest rates, or perhaps because they saw Labor for what it is – a slightly watered down version of the Liberals.

What would Sheridan have to say if the election fell a few weeks prior to its actual date, at a point where the Labor party held a strong lead? Would he accept the assertion that “the Iraq war was wrong after all” on such an election result? The “Howard won the election so shut up” line has been employed a fair bit in response to continued criticism of the Iraq war – it’s just too bad for people like Sheridan this approach to discussion of these issues has zero argumentative value.

Marr/Asylum Seekers/Baxter

2005-03-31T04:49:00.000+02:00

David Marr has waded into the discussion over the recent ‘softening’ of Australia’s immigration detention system. In today’s Sydney Morning Herald, he writes:

The Government now believes that when deporting a failed asylum seeker proves impossible, "it is not reasonable that he or she continue to be in detention and the desire is that that person be let out into the community". We must spare a thought for the losers as we applaud this incremental humanitarian shift. Bennett (David Bennett QC, Solicitor General for the Commonwealth) will shrug it off and plunge into the next murky brawl for his client. But what a rebuff for the hard men of the High Court and in particular Justice Ken Hayne, who led a majority of the judges to the conclusion that people in Al-Kateb's position - stateless and unable to leave Australia - could be left in detention, if need be forever. That Howard has now backed away from the High Court's decision changes nothing that matters here. The result remains law and remains part of the Immigration Department's extensive armoury.

As I mentioned earlier, the change by the Howard government comes only in the light of shifting public attitudes which could be attributed to a variety of factors – the Cornelia Rau affair, the media attention given to the case of Peter Qasim (now in his 7th year of detention), reduced number of boat arrivals etc. The change does not come from a genuine change of heart after realizing that locking people behind razor wire for an indefinite amount of time is ethically questionable. That is, it’s not a case of Howard suddenly putting the “Judeo Christian values” he speaks of (when criticizing “valueless” government schools) into action – it’s merely an effort to shut up discontent backbenchers.

I eagerly await angry retorts to Marr’s article from conservative pundits, but given that Marr no longer works for the ABC, one wonders what they can use against him – the “Your drivel can only survive on the tax-payer funded ABC” approach is no longer available.

+++

In other news, I was filled with a deep sense of national pride over the weekend as valiant riot police intervened to stop dangerous radicals from flying kites and balloons outside the Baxter detention centre. Charging these traitorous subversives with horses is the only suitable response to such dangerous protesting tactics. Had those balloons found their way into the air…well…I don’t even want to think of the chaos that would have ensued…

How compassionate can you get!?!

2005-03-24T05:51:00.000+01:00

There’s a lot of conservatives patting themselves on the back in light of the Howard governments ‘softening-up’ of its immigration detention policies. “See? We’re compassionate after all” they say. Problem is, this latest move is not driven by compassion – it’s driven by political expediency (In fact, the new visa can hardly be considered compassionate at all). The Howard government has detected a change in public attitudes towards detention. The government’s victory in the High Court which entitled it to detain asylum-seekers indefinitely didn’t have the electorate popping open the champagne - people just aren’t comfortable with the prospect of locking someone in a detention centre indefinitely, even if they haven’t succeeded in attaining refugee status. With discontent brewing on the back bench, the new visa is aimed at preventing detention centres from becoming a major issue of conflict within the Liberal party. It’s a tricky juggling act – Howard & Co need to appease the backbenchers and simultaneously insist that they are tough on ‘illegal immigrants’. Amanda Vanstone’s comment reported by The Australian…

If the boats were still coming, we'd be looking at this in a different light

…makes it pretty clear that this stunt serves only to win a few brownie points with Bruce Baird, Judi Moylan and Petro Georgiou. If a boat or two of asylum-seekers had arrived in the past month or so you can bet your bottom dollar we wouldn’t be seeing any changes to the detention system whatsoever.

I had to have a chuckle at Miranda Devine’s article about all this in the Sydney Morning Herald. When examining the reconsideration of asylum-seeker cases where Muslims have converted to Christianity she states…

Baird, an Anglican, heads the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, a bipartisan group of about 60 religious-minded MPs. Politics in Australia being what it is, his advocacy and the Government's new policy towards Iranian Christian converts has been interpreted by some as a negative, an unreasonable bias towards Christianity. But Christian asylum seekers are given special consideration if they come from Muslim countries in which Christians are persecuted. In any case, why the surprise that a Christian country like Australia would look favourably on Christians? (My ephasis)

So what Miranda’s saying is that, putting aside the treatment of Christians in Iran, asylum-seekers who are Christians should get extra points because Australia is a “Christian country”, and this someohow makes them a priority for protection. Perhaps the surprise that Miranda is so baffled by stems from the fact that Australia is a secular nation, which suggests that the government should not favour people of one religion over people of another religion. Quite simple really.

She goes on to discuss “counterproductive detention politics”, and explains that…

For too long the debate has been distorted by a combination of competing interests. There were opportunists, such as socialist, atheist and green groups, who seized on a new way of whipping up Howard hatred. There were the sometimes overzealous efforts of well-meaning people. And there were the splenetic vendettas of John Valder and the New Matilda crowd whose hyperbole about concentration camps puts most of the Government and its citizens on the
defensive.

So we have socialist, atheist and green groups (refugee advocates), overzealous well-meaning people (refugee advocates) and John Valder & Co (refugee advocates), distorting the debate. Of course, no one on the right has distorted the debate - hands up anyone who believes that any of these comments have a familiar ring…

“If we let one in, we’ll be swamped”
“Only one of them needs to be a terrorist and then we’ll have 9-11 all over again”
“If they don’t steal our welfare they’ll steal our jobs”
“If they don’t steal our jobs they’ll steal our welfare”
“They don’t share our values”
“They don’t assimilate”
Etc. Etc.

I noticed that church groups, a central component of the refugee advocate movement, did not receive the same scrutiny as the socialists, atheists and greens. Perhaps they come under “overzealous well meaning people”?

Another East Timor?

2005-03-21T07:09:00.000+01:00

One of the most shameful aspects of Australian history is, without a doubt, the Australian governments acquiescence towards the Indonesian military’s human rights violations throughout East Timor, Aceh, West Papua and other regions where the Indonesian government holds concerns over its “territorial integrity”. SBS’s Dateline aired a report detailing the ongoing death and suffering experienced by the people of West Papua thanks to military operations conducted by the Indonesian military and the militia it supports. Reverend Sofyan Yoman, a West Papuan Baptist, has claimed that in Puncak Jaya over 6000 people are hiding in the jungle after fleeing their homes which were torched by the Indonesian military.

Soon after this latest spate of violence erupted, the United States announced its intention to resume military training programs suspended in 1992 following the Santa Cruz massacre. This move is expcted to “accelerate the full restoration of Australian-Indonesian military ties” which were severed in 1999 following the human right abuses perpetrated by Indonesian backed militia forces surrounding East Timor’s vote for independence.

The latest violence in West Papua was mentioned in parliament recently. Robert Hill, like so many government officials before him, offered weak apologetics for the Indonesian authorities, explaining that:

Indonesia has significant difficulties across its island states in relation to a number of provinces, including Papua. I think, on the basis of the most recent information that I have seen, it is seeking to meet its responsibilities of government to Papua in a responsible way and in a way that will be of benefit to the people of Papua (My emphasis) as well as to the country as a whole. It is not an easy challenge for the Indonesian government, but the signs that I have been seeing are positive signs and are therefore in the direction that Australia should support.

Alexander Downer has stressed that the Australian Government will not interfere in (i.e. comment on) Indonesian territorial matters. A report in The Australian stated:

Mr Downer said he expected the agreement would explicitly state that each side would respect each other's territorial integrity and take into account Indonesia's political sensitivities regarding its sovereign territory. (My emphasis)

"Indonesians will be reinforced in their confidence in Australia knowing that Australia supports Indonesia's territorial integrity," he said.

"By that I mean we do not support secessionist movements in Indonesia."

So Australia supports Indonesia’s territorial integrity – even if it must be maintained by killing, destruction of homes and forced expulsions (like in East Timor). After all, we must “take into account Indonesia's political sensitivities regarding its sovereign territory”.

Testing...Testing...1-2-3...

2005-03-17T07:34:00.000+01:00

This blogging stuff looks interesting so I thought I'd give it a try.

I'm pretty interested in politics, social issues, and the media (I also enjoy cooking up a storm in the kitchen), so expect a fair bit of rambling on those topics.

OK, I'm going to click on Publish Post and see what happens. Here goes nothing...