Three Hundred and Fifty Two Thousand Million Dollars spent on Machine for Killing People

In news which has delighted Defence Ministers, arms dealers and model plane nerds, the new F35 Particularly Good at Killing (PGK) aeroplane was recently taken for a test drive in America.

It is expected that the new aeroplane will be even better at killing people than current killing aeroplanes, making it worth every penny of the $352,000,000,000 spent on it.

To demonstrate the goodness of his heart and his pure Christian principles, US President George W Bush announced that the United States will accept money earned from the sale of worthless commodities such as grain, minerals, meat and medical technologies in exchange for the F35 PGK aeroplane.

Australia is considering purchasing a number of the F35 PGK, expecting to spend around $1600,000,000, or approximately 20 years worth of the total Australian production of the worthless commodity, wheat.

Hot. Very Hot.

It was very hot (37 degrees) in Melbourne today. It was also quite eerie, because a thick blanket of smoke completely covered the city. That isn't cloud in the photo, its smoke, and it didn't change all day. I didn't see the sun once, not that I really minded because things were quite hot enough. The photo doesn't really capture the gloominess and oppresiveness of it all.

Obviously one hot day doesn't mean anything about climate change, and there have been shocking droughts/bushfires before, but after a day like today anyone who thinks that a few degrees hotter is nothing to worry about needs urgent psychiatric help. Or perhaps to be forced to fight bushfires in 37 degree heat for a couple of days.

Andrew Bolt, are you serious?

I tend to try not to write much about Andrew Bolt, because;

a) His arguments are almost always nonsense.
b) To write about his stuff, you have to read it, and that can be painful.

Nevertheless, I have been lacking blogging inspiration lately, and if there is anything you can rely on Bolt for, its to write something annoying, stupid and/or plain dishonest enough to be worth criticising. For example;

"Greens leader Bob Brown sure won’t like graphic 7.5 of the Switkowski report into nucear energy.

Has Brown ever admitted to you that nuclear power actually tends to emit less carbon dioxide over the lifetime of a plant than does solar power?

Solar power: greenhouse menace"

Here, Bolt uses his amazing Bob Brown mind reader device to discover that Bob Brown won't like a graph showing that nuclear power emits slightly less carbon dioxide than solar power. I'm not sure exactly why this will upset Bob Brown so much, given that the graph also shows that solar power is much, much better in terms of carbon dioxide emissions than Bolt's preferred form of power provision, which is burning coal.

Bolt then makes the amazing logical leap from "solar power slightly worse than nuclear power in terms of carbon dioxide emissions" to "Solar power: greenhouse menace". I look forward to Bolt's article pointing out that bananas are a menace to health because they aren't as good for you as apples.

Mirko Bagaric's Aussie Sharia

Islamic Sharia law is not very popular in Australia. Which is a good thing for anyone who thinks that the government should keep its nose out of peoples personal relationships as much as possible.

Someone who disagrees is Deakin Law School's resident embarrasment and now opinion writer Mirko Bagaric, most famous for saying that maybe torturing people isn't so bad really. Mirko has said lots of other stupid things as well. Most recently, offended by the decision of the High Court in Magill v Magill, where the Court found that a husband could not sue his wife for damages because she had been unfaithful to him, Mirko proposed that "fundamental betrayals", such as infidelity should be actionable at law. I imagine he means by payment of damages rather than stoning, but hey, he's on the right track.

Of course, I'm not too worried about Mirko's mad plan. It would be enormously good for lawyers (and therefore pretty unpopular with everyone else). It would also have the side effect of ensuring that an awful lot of people just wouldn't get married at all. In fact, Mirko's bright idea of ensuring loyalty in marriage by the force of the law would do more to finish off that particular institution than an entire mardi gras of poofs getting hitched. So, nice one Mirko, you goose. Keep the bright ideas coming.

Tagged!

I have been tagged by Bruce of Bruces Rave and Rant, thus obliging me to post answers to the following blog-related questions. Which I should have done weeks ago, but have been busy busy busy.

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

Yes, pretty happy with both of these, although it would be nice to be able to customise it more..or would that just be a pain in the backside? I probably already spend enough time stuffing around with it already.

2-Does your family know about your blog?

Yes.

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

Some of my friends already know about it, some don't. I'm not sure that all of them would be interested.

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

I will read anything and everything provided it is interesting.

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

Yes, I think it does hone my reasoning skills.

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

Yes. I don't really care that not a lot of people see it, but the whole exercise would seem a bit pointless if there were no visitors at all.

7-Did you imagine how other bloggers look like?

Not really. Although I think sometimes I have an unflattering mental image of some of the more unpleasant ones. I'm sure Tim Blair doesn't actually have sharp pointy teeth, for example.

8-Do you think blogging has any real benefit?

Yes. The more people are blogging, or reading blogs, the less they are watching Today Tonight or The Australian (At least I hope that's right, for all I know they could be cutting back on reading great works of literature). Also, many blogs are interesting, and give a perspective not always offered elsewhere.

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

No.

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

Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair, and the army of unreasoning idiots that post on them. Although they really depress me more than scare me.

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

Sure.

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

Not until now.

13-Which blogger had the greatest impression on you?

Andrew Bolt inspired me by annoying me with his bullshit. Boltwatch/Mr Lefty inspired me to start writing my own stuff.

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

Oh god, I don't know. I agree with most of what is posted by Mr Lefty, Punditocracy Watch, Bruce, Broken Left Leg etc, but everyone has their own styles.

15-Name a song you want to listen to?

"A song to say goodbye" by Placebo (that may not actually be the name of the song)

Sheik self-immolates

Disturbing news story of the week by about a hundred miles is the spectacular self-immolation of Muslim religious leader and vile fundamentalist fool Sheik Taj Din al-Halali, who compared immodestly dressed women to uncovered meat likely to attract unwanted attention from stray cats, and indicated that the uncovered meat rather than the cats was the problem.

Hilali then proceeded to pour further petrol on the burning corpse of his reputation by failing to understand what all the fuss was about, first indicating that his comments were acceptable because they were only intended to refer to prostitutes, then claiming he had been misrepresented and finally refusing to resign until the world is rid of the White House. Tragically, he was supported by some Muslims (although also rejected and condemned by many). The resulting media firestorm has done more to incite suspicion and division between Australian Muslims and other Australians than an army of Andrew Bolts.

Now, it pays to be suspicious of what you read in the papers, and Shiek Hilali's comments fit perfectly into the angle right wing elements of the press have been running for some time. Perhaps poor old Hilali has been verballed?

I wish it were so. The transcript of the speech in question, which has not been seriously challenged, reveals the following nauseating, misogynist nonsense.

"If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem! If it was covered the cat wouldn't have. It would have circled around it and circled around it, then given up and gone.

If she was in her room, in her house, wearing her hijab, being chaste, the disasters wouldn't have happened. The woman possesses the weapon of seduction and temptation. That's why Satan says about the woman, "You are half a soldier. You are my messenger to achieve my needs. You are the last weapon I would use to smash the head of the finest of men. There are a few men that I use a lot of things with, but they never heed me. But you? Oh, you are my best weapon."

The meaning is entirely clear (and entirely revolting), and it is that men are animals who cannot control their sexual urges, and that somehow this is the fault of women. Horrible, and disturbing that a religious leader in Australia in 2006 would spout such despicable nonsense. But what can we do about it? I suggest

• Hilali should be immediately sacked from his position as supposed leader of Australian Muslims. Every Muslim group and organisation should cease to have any dealings whatsoever with him, and he should never be heard from again. This is up to Australian Muslims. Do this, or risk losing what support for your religion/culture remains.

• We, as a society, need to work to strengthen rationality, responsibility and respect for other human beings (my very own three R's!). Rational, educated people who respect the rights of others are less susceptible to fundamentalist poison. They will understand that they are responsible for their actions, and that they are not cats, or meat. How to strengthen rationality, responsibility and respect? Well, thats a big question. Making sure we have a strong, secular and universal education system has to be a start. Having some rational argument instead of spin in political debate couldn't hurt. And keeping religion out of politics as much as possible seems like a good idea.
  

Australians will not allow their women to be subservient, anonymous or under cover!

The Australian today got stuck into veil wearing and multiculturalism, in the process discovering a surprising enthusiasm for an Australia that is "postmodern and secular". Which is interesting given that these two qualities in schools seem to drive them into a positive frenzy.

Now, the veil question is difficult, and I personally don't think much of what the veil represents. Neither do the Australian's editors.

"Just as an Australian wouldn't go to Saudi Arabia to wear a bikini on the beach and drink beer in the corner pub, those who see the proper role of women as subservient, anonymous and under cover should not expect a postmodern secular democracy such as Britain or Australia to accommodate these beliefs."

But in the course of this trenchant defence of the rights of women, we get this..

"Australians, who quite properly want their daughters, sisters, wives and mothers to be able to achieve anything, are right to feel uncomfortable about religiously mandated coverings and the limits they imply. We do not allow practices such as female genital mutilation simply because they are practiced by an immigrant "other"."

What about Australians who ARE daughters, sisters, wives and mothers? Do they have any input into what is and is not allowed? Why is the "We" we are talking about only Australian men? The women have been completely veiled out of the picture! I'm sure this was unconcious, but I reckon it shows that our beloved editors are not quite as liberated as they like to believe.

Oh happy happy future

I was reading the Australian the other day (it was in a sandwich shop, OK, I didn't buy it), and was just thinking "Oh well, maybe I have been a bit harsh on Uncle Rupert's trained Oompa Loompahs, this isn't too bad". Then I turned over the page into the middle bit they keep for opinion stuff to be confronted with this excited panting from one Nick Cater, deputy editor of the Weekend Australian and prize idiot. Nick is responsible for organising a series of articles on what life will be like in 20 years. And he's got good news for us. We shouldn't be fooled by silly dystopian fantasies like Metropolis, A Clockwork Orange and um, An Inconvenient Truth.

Oh no. Well, lets just ignore Nick's pathetic effort to lump a documentary in with a bunch of works of fiction, presumably in the hope that some of his stupider readers will consider that it IS a work of fiction and keep burrowing their heads deeper into the (increasingly hot and dry) sand, and see what kind of argument he can mount to support his happy clappy future visions.

"For these anti-Enlightenment movies to work the audience has to first suspend belief in a fundamental self-evident truth: that most aspects of life for most human beings get better over time, not worse."

Well, as far as fundamental self-evident truths go, thats a cracker. I don't think I'll bother going to work tommorrow I think I'll just coast along waiting for the general inevitable improvment of things to make my life even more amazing. To be fair to Nick, he does explain a little further.

"As a species we are blessed with the power to understand and improve our condition and, barring a cataclysmic event such as a meteor strike, we can reasonably expect life to be even better in 2026."

Yes, well, we are blessed with the power to understand and improve our condition. We are also cursed with the ability to totally mess it up too. You could try asking people who lived through either of the world wars how that was in terms of things getting inevitably better. You could try asking some of Australia's farming families just how good things are getting as Australia gets hotter and dryer. You might find a few Iraqis a bit sceptical the inevitable march of progress as well.

You might find, in fact, if you had a brain and were willing to use it (something much discouraged by the editorial staff of the Australian, despite their strident wailing about the poor quality of education), that human history goes back thousands of years, much of which time involved very little advancement in human understanding and some of which involved considerable reverse progress. Black plague anyone? Dark Ages?

In fact, there are plenty of people living pretty dystopian lives right now.. just perhaps not people suckling on Uncle Rupert's capacious if somewhat liver spotted corporate teat. Sure, we do have more electronic gadgets and gizmos than ever before. Things are pretty good for a lot of people, and thats great - but there are plenty of challenges ahead, and Nick's inevitable utopianism is a stupid fantasy. Makes me wonder - could this be the same person that thinks water is an infinite resource? Talk about the need for education...