Welcome to December, the beginning of summer and the accursed festive season that comes with it. Unfortunately, it's impossible to truly enjoy the oppressive heat and Christmas jingles. Why? Because we're at war! A war against Christmas!
Well, not really. Anyone with half a brain doesn't give a shit either way, but there's been some complaints about it, mostly from fundamentalist Christian nutjobs. Long story short, the increased secularisation of Christmas and greetings like "Happy Holidays" are all part of an evil librul [sic] plot to kill baby Jesus.
This is typical of American fundamentalist Christianity, in that the whole premise is built upon some imaginary persecution against them. In this case, the thinking is that the gub'mit [sic] is trying to phase out everything Christian from everything by avoiding overt references to Christmas (you know, the major holiday of one specific organised religion) from all its communications, while major department stores are doing the same, replacing "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays" because of "The Political Correctness Police" (can you hear the helicopters!?).
The problem is that it ignores some other truths about modern society; namely that there are a lot of different belief systems around, Most first world nations are (or claim to be) secular states, Christmas has changed meaning that many times it's almost unrecognisable and at any rate, it's about as sinful as you can get, what with the pork and the Christmas trees and such... long story short, the "War on Christmas" is built on lies and fought over nothing.
Thing is, it's largely an American problem, so why worry about it over here? Well, because we have our own angry fundamentalists; patriotic fundamentalists. Despite whispers that fundamentalist Christianity is on the rise in Australia, Australia's angry defenders of all things xenophobic and plain wrong are largely secular. They're not "defending" their faith, they're "defending" their nation. The overriding sentiment seems to be something along the lines of "they're trying to ban us from saying 'Merry Christmas' because it offends the Muslims! If you don't like our way of life, you should leave! Christmas is an Australian tradition!" I kid you not, this is the overriding sentiment.
First of all, who's trying to stop you from saying "Merry Christmas"? Say it all you fucking like. Just don't get your knickers in a twist when someone says "happy holidays" back, or says something that isn't overtly Christmas related. No-one is trying to steal your rich Australian cultural heritage (which is, as far as I can tell, shitty sausages, shittier beer, shittier still cigarettes and conversations about footy and sexism. Correct me if I'm wrong), and given that Australia was colonised a very short time ago by the British, where the turkey and carols and such have been "traditional" for a much longer time, I don't think you can claim it. Talking about Australian traditions is like a whiny pre-teen telling his parents that they aren't the boss of him. I'm sure you feel all grown up but you certainly don't look or sound it.
The "Love It Or Leave It" sentiment doesn't need to be picked apart any more, because frankly, if you believe it, you're a racist piece of shit who is barely deserving of oxygen. Harsh? Well, I don't have time for bigots. Buy into it all you like, just own your racism, at the very least. It's very easy for the majority to feel justified by saying "this is a democracy, majority rules!" but it's not a democracy. Australia has a democratic system for electing officials, but when it comes to the well-being of the individuals, the majority doesn't get to stamp their authority down and demand all conform to them. Co-existence doesn't have to equate to assimilation, and if that concept is difficult for you, it's probably because of your rampant xenophobia. Look at yourself, not them.
Tradition isn't necessarily good just because it's older or more established. Circumcision is a tradition for the Jewish people. Doesn't make it good or right. The war on Christmas, defending one's traditions in the face of some undefined foe, is just more xenophobic posturing from a group who has it too good to realise how good they have it.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
Parenting Win
A conversation I had with my dear father:
Me: I love Christmas in the same way I love any public holiday. It's an excuse to see friends and family, make a pig of myself and get very drunk. There's nothing religious and spiritual about it to me.
Dad: How can you say that? Where's your Christmas spirit?
Me: What? All the memories I have from Christmas are related to presents, sunshine, food, family and basically being a big greedy slob. The whole religious thing has never even come into it.
Dad: So there's nothing even remotely special or spiritual about Christmas to you?
Me: Not any more than any other public holiday or big get-together.
Dad: I feel like I failed as a parent...
Me: No way, dude, that means you succeeded as a parent.
My parents are funny people. Both were raised religious (my father especially) but their involvement in faith in general has been pretty minimal, mostly limited to Dad's Catholic guilt that flares up around Christmas and Easter. It also makes him feel guilty for relaxing, which is bizarre. As a result, church, Jesus and basically all things involving an active participation in religion were more a mild inconvenience or mad folly of Dad's that peetered out pretty much as soon as my sister and I were old enough to utter the phrase "nuts to this." I was pretty ambivalent to religion in general until the middle of high school, where I did a bit of reading, a bit of thinking basically turned into a full on, "faith is dumb" positive atheist. The kind who angrily blogs about how stupid everyone who isn't an atheist is. A charming person, really, he says deluded and sarcastic.
We find another Christmas upon us, and I hear chatter of a "war of worldviews" in the US, with god-botherers up in arms about the greeting "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas," but I'm so detached from it I just can't conceptualise it as serious. To someone so separate from the whole issue, it just seems like a big, semantic joke. I mean, it's the same sentiment, really, one just references a specific name for the holiday that not everyone is celebrating. Of course, try telling that to a Christian... I've heard the argument that only Christians should get a holiday on Christmas, which is fine if every religious group gets their holidays off and we stop identifying as a "Christian nation," but that ain't gonna happen either. Why? Because every religious person is a hypocrite. Every. Last. One.
That seems harsh, but back up a second and consider; every faith (bar modern, new-agey stuff like Ba'hai. Maybe that should read "every major faith") has something in there about being the one true faith, all the others are pretenders, believe them and you'll be punished, yadda yadda yadda. So every adherent, by default, is decrying the merits of all the other faiths while touting the brilliance of their own, despite the fact they all have equal amounts of evidence for their accuracy (no, shut up. They're all as unlikely as each other. I've heard every argument, try me. They're all as unlikely as each other) and demand blind faith to follow anyway. It's basically a "who's the loudest and most obnoxious" argument for dominance.
So, Christians are in the majority here, so it must be a "Christian nation." Yeah? Is it a "female nation?" Is it a "white nation?" Go on, I defy anyone to call Australia a "white nation" without sounding like a racist dick. Calling any nation an "insert religion here nation" is a bigot, demanding special treatment for themselves while demanding others get marginalised for doing the exact same thing as them.
What does that have to do with my secular Christmas? Well, like I said to my dear father, he didn't fail as a parent, he succeeded. He succeeded in drawing me away from the gaping hole of hypocrisy and bigotry that is religion. He succeeded in making my memories of a special time of year about family, food, gifts and fun, not about dogma and piety. He succeeded in making me care about what happens here, in the real world, not in some fictional afterlife. He succeeded in making December 25th special without divine providence, but by making the world better for me by himself and with my family and friends.
December 25th may have been a religious thing for such a long time, but I'm claiming it for humanism. A big middle finger salute to any bigots that find that offensive, this is a season for love and celebration, not for your grovelling subservience and "baby's first philosophy" moral code. The heathens are happier, douchebags. Get on board.
Me: I love Christmas in the same way I love any public holiday. It's an excuse to see friends and family, make a pig of myself and get very drunk. There's nothing religious and spiritual about it to me.
Dad: How can you say that? Where's your Christmas spirit?
Me: What? All the memories I have from Christmas are related to presents, sunshine, food, family and basically being a big greedy slob. The whole religious thing has never even come into it.
Dad: So there's nothing even remotely special or spiritual about Christmas to you?
Me: Not any more than any other public holiday or big get-together.
Dad: I feel like I failed as a parent...
Me: No way, dude, that means you succeeded as a parent.
My parents are funny people. Both were raised religious (my father especially) but their involvement in faith in general has been pretty minimal, mostly limited to Dad's Catholic guilt that flares up around Christmas and Easter. It also makes him feel guilty for relaxing, which is bizarre. As a result, church, Jesus and basically all things involving an active participation in religion were more a mild inconvenience or mad folly of Dad's that peetered out pretty much as soon as my sister and I were old enough to utter the phrase "nuts to this." I was pretty ambivalent to religion in general until the middle of high school, where I did a bit of reading, a bit of thinking basically turned into a full on, "faith is dumb" positive atheist. The kind who angrily blogs about how stupid everyone who isn't an atheist is. A charming person, really, he says deluded and sarcastic.
We find another Christmas upon us, and I hear chatter of a "war of worldviews" in the US, with god-botherers up in arms about the greeting "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas," but I'm so detached from it I just can't conceptualise it as serious. To someone so separate from the whole issue, it just seems like a big, semantic joke. I mean, it's the same sentiment, really, one just references a specific name for the holiday that not everyone is celebrating. Of course, try telling that to a Christian... I've heard the argument that only Christians should get a holiday on Christmas, which is fine if every religious group gets their holidays off and we stop identifying as a "Christian nation," but that ain't gonna happen either. Why? Because every religious person is a hypocrite. Every. Last. One.
That seems harsh, but back up a second and consider; every faith (bar modern, new-agey stuff like Ba'hai. Maybe that should read "every major faith") has something in there about being the one true faith, all the others are pretenders, believe them and you'll be punished, yadda yadda yadda. So every adherent, by default, is decrying the merits of all the other faiths while touting the brilliance of their own, despite the fact they all have equal amounts of evidence for their accuracy (no, shut up. They're all as unlikely as each other. I've heard every argument, try me. They're all as unlikely as each other) and demand blind faith to follow anyway. It's basically a "who's the loudest and most obnoxious" argument for dominance.
So, Christians are in the majority here, so it must be a "Christian nation." Yeah? Is it a "female nation?" Is it a "white nation?" Go on, I defy anyone to call Australia a "white nation" without sounding like a racist dick. Calling any nation an "insert religion here nation" is a bigot, demanding special treatment for themselves while demanding others get marginalised for doing the exact same thing as them.
What does that have to do with my secular Christmas? Well, like I said to my dear father, he didn't fail as a parent, he succeeded. He succeeded in drawing me away from the gaping hole of hypocrisy and bigotry that is religion. He succeeded in making my memories of a special time of year about family, food, gifts and fun, not about dogma and piety. He succeeded in making me care about what happens here, in the real world, not in some fictional afterlife. He succeeded in making December 25th special without divine providence, but by making the world better for me by himself and with my family and friends.
December 25th may have been a religious thing for such a long time, but I'm claiming it for humanism. A big middle finger salute to any bigots that find that offensive, this is a season for love and celebration, not for your grovelling subservience and "baby's first philosophy" moral code. The heathens are happier, douchebags. Get on board.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Yeah, The Law Is Shit, But Follow It.
So, I'm assuming we're all up to speed on the case of the 14-year-old kid from New South Wales who got pinged buying weed in Bali and is now facing a serious jail term? If not, Google is your friend, but long story short, what I just said. The Indonesian laws on drugs are pretty intense, and so he's looking at some hard time in an adult prison should he get convicted. Needless to say, Australians everywhere have fired up their racism engines and started demanding he be released, or tried over here, or any other ridiculous load of crap. This includes our Prime Minister, who dropped the delightful clanger of saying that Australia supports his plight. Guess what, Julia? We don't all support his plight. Try him in Indonesia, following Indonesian laws.
Now, that view may surprise a lot of people. It's no secret I'm pretty pro drugs, I don't support jail sentences for minors or minor offences and I'm not exactly the biggest fan of governments telling people how to act. However, that isn't the issue here. Let's start from the beginning.
I won't go into great detail about why I think the kid is more a victim than a criminal, but it should be obvious. It has been revealed he's a troubled lad who smokes a lot of weed, so he's probably in need of at least a bit of therapy. I mean, recreational weed, go for your life. Heavy, regular use to cope with emotional stuff... well, it isn't the weed that's the problem there. So the act of purchasing the stuff with the intent to smoke it privately is definitely a minor offence, we're all agreed there.
There's a lot of information to support the idea that harsher penalties DON'T deter others, that they cost the state a lot of money and they turn otherwise minor offenders or just dumb kids into more hardened criminals who are more likely to commit bigger crimes later down the track, so again, probably isn't in this kid's best interest to be in prison. On a human level, I sympathise, if he does get convicted, it's gonna be a hard slog for him.
However, part of being a functioning member of society involves following the law. Now, in the relatively free country of Australia, there's a lot of room for common sense to prevail. I mean, if I get caught with a small amount of weed on me here, not a huge deal. No criminal record or anything. Sure, the laws could be way, way better, but everyone (and I mean everyone) gets away with at least a bit of illegal shit every now and then, partly due to the fact that as far as social liberalism goes, Australia does have a little bit of it. Indonesia, on the other hand... well, you've seen their drug laws. What this means is, you have to weigh up the risks. I wouldn't dare try and buy drugs over there, just because of the much stricter penalties. Doesn't mean the laws are right, just means their more tightly enforced. Pure statement of fact. I think the law is wrong in this case, and I think there are some serious human rights violations happening here, but he broke Indonesian law in Indonesia. There's no possible reason, whatsoever, for him to be released without trial, or to be tried over here, or anything like that.
A big part of this is the inherent first world racism that comes with relations with a nation like Indonesia. We are educated white folks, they are povvo brown people. Clearly we are smarter and more correct. Except we aren't, that's racist, we must respect their laws as much as we'd want them to accept ours. As an individual nation, we cannot just impose our will on another nation as if we're morally superior, especially when our own legal system is pretty immoral as it is. Maybe a UN body can have a look at it, but it's not our place to be telling them what to do, how to govern or what laws to enforce. If that bothers you, you're probably racist.
Now, that view may surprise a lot of people. It's no secret I'm pretty pro drugs, I don't support jail sentences for minors or minor offences and I'm not exactly the biggest fan of governments telling people how to act. However, that isn't the issue here. Let's start from the beginning.
I won't go into great detail about why I think the kid is more a victim than a criminal, but it should be obvious. It has been revealed he's a troubled lad who smokes a lot of weed, so he's probably in need of at least a bit of therapy. I mean, recreational weed, go for your life. Heavy, regular use to cope with emotional stuff... well, it isn't the weed that's the problem there. So the act of purchasing the stuff with the intent to smoke it privately is definitely a minor offence, we're all agreed there.
There's a lot of information to support the idea that harsher penalties DON'T deter others, that they cost the state a lot of money and they turn otherwise minor offenders or just dumb kids into more hardened criminals who are more likely to commit bigger crimes later down the track, so again, probably isn't in this kid's best interest to be in prison. On a human level, I sympathise, if he does get convicted, it's gonna be a hard slog for him.
However, part of being a functioning member of society involves following the law. Now, in the relatively free country of Australia, there's a lot of room for common sense to prevail. I mean, if I get caught with a small amount of weed on me here, not a huge deal. No criminal record or anything. Sure, the laws could be way, way better, but everyone (and I mean everyone) gets away with at least a bit of illegal shit every now and then, partly due to the fact that as far as social liberalism goes, Australia does have a little bit of it. Indonesia, on the other hand... well, you've seen their drug laws. What this means is, you have to weigh up the risks. I wouldn't dare try and buy drugs over there, just because of the much stricter penalties. Doesn't mean the laws are right, just means their more tightly enforced. Pure statement of fact. I think the law is wrong in this case, and I think there are some serious human rights violations happening here, but he broke Indonesian law in Indonesia. There's no possible reason, whatsoever, for him to be released without trial, or to be tried over here, or anything like that.
A big part of this is the inherent first world racism that comes with relations with a nation like Indonesia. We are educated white folks, they are povvo brown people. Clearly we are smarter and more correct. Except we aren't, that's racist, we must respect their laws as much as we'd want them to accept ours. As an individual nation, we cannot just impose our will on another nation as if we're morally superior, especially when our own legal system is pretty immoral as it is. Maybe a UN body can have a look at it, but it's not our place to be telling them what to do, how to govern or what laws to enforce. If that bothers you, you're probably racist.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Portishead Review
Surrounded by trees, seated on grass at the Belvoir Ampitheatre, the venue felt beautifully fitting for a band such as Portishead. The mellow vibe was probably helped by the six pack me and my companion shared on the way up, as well as the ever present plumes of white smoke emanating from all points in the crowd. Thank heavens for a contact high, because eight dollars for a can of Carlton Draught is fucking extortion.
Mercury Rev came on stage to a semi filled crowd, and was probably surprised at the sheer number of people who knew their songs and sung along to classics like "Holes" and "Endlessly." Jonathan Donahue's dreamy, wandering presence on stage was a joy to watch, while his wracked and emotional voice carried well over his band's waves of beautiful, melodic fuzz. The highlight of the set for me, however, was their faithful cover of Peter Gabriel's "Solsbury Hill," which was a perfect suit to Donahue's voice.
Portishead came on stage to rapturous applause and a decent plume of white smoke, and wordlessly took command of the stage with a tight, groovy performance. The sound quality was impeccable, the perfect mix of dense beats and Adrian Utley's tasteful guitar, with Beth Gibbons' unmistakable vocals mixed to perfection hanging just above them. With barely any movement, she commanded total attention from behind the mic and never missed a single, tortured note.
Highlights included the industrial unease of "Machine Gun", the smooth jazzy groove of "Sour Times" and an amazing rendition of "Wandering Star," stripped down to its bare bones of Geoff Barrow's haunting bass chords, Gibbons' pained whisper and Utley's slinky, melodic guitar lines. The best moment of the set, however, was "The Rip," slowly growing from acoustic fingerpicking via more Gibbons-brand angst into a hypnotic, synth led conclusion.
Despite being such a "studio" band, the music of Portishead translated incredibly well live. There was no pyrotechnics or crowd surfing, but the music doesn't call for it. Instead, the show was 6 incredibly talented musicians playing some of the most unique and defining music of the 90s and 2000s.
Mercury Rev came on stage to a semi filled crowd, and was probably surprised at the sheer number of people who knew their songs and sung along to classics like "Holes" and "Endlessly." Jonathan Donahue's dreamy, wandering presence on stage was a joy to watch, while his wracked and emotional voice carried well over his band's waves of beautiful, melodic fuzz. The highlight of the set for me, however, was their faithful cover of Peter Gabriel's "Solsbury Hill," which was a perfect suit to Donahue's voice.
Portishead came on stage to rapturous applause and a decent plume of white smoke, and wordlessly took command of the stage with a tight, groovy performance. The sound quality was impeccable, the perfect mix of dense beats and Adrian Utley's tasteful guitar, with Beth Gibbons' unmistakable vocals mixed to perfection hanging just above them. With barely any movement, she commanded total attention from behind the mic and never missed a single, tortured note.
Highlights included the industrial unease of "Machine Gun", the smooth jazzy groove of "Sour Times" and an amazing rendition of "Wandering Star," stripped down to its bare bones of Geoff Barrow's haunting bass chords, Gibbons' pained whisper and Utley's slinky, melodic guitar lines. The best moment of the set, however, was "The Rip," slowly growing from acoustic fingerpicking via more Gibbons-brand angst into a hypnotic, synth led conclusion.
Despite being such a "studio" band, the music of Portishead translated incredibly well live. There was no pyrotechnics or crowd surfing, but the music doesn't call for it. Instead, the show was 6 incredibly talented musicians playing some of the most unique and defining music of the 90s and 2000s.
You Think We Have It Bad...
I know proximity plays a big part in the relevance of news, as does it being current and fresh, and I also know, ahead of time, that this post is none of those things. The whole Republican Party brouhaha happening in the USA right now is such old news, it's aaaaaaall the way over there and virtually every politics story is about as fresh as a week old trout to the largely unwashed and uneducated masses out there, but I was musing on the topic a little while ago, and I had to ask myself a difficult question; why is it that I'm incredibly up to date with what's happening in the US yet I just don't give a shit about what's happening at home, politically? Of course, with a bit of thought and a decent application of logic, it becomes screamingly obvious as to why the news of the US grabs my attention while local news doesn't.
Big reason number one: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I'm not being flippant here, that show is an excellent source of news. It's not particularly in depth, but it usually provides a nice leaping off point from which to further explore the issues and does so in such a way as to keep the viewer hooked. Probably info-tainment at its best, or at least what it should be. I'm unsure why this doesn't exist in Australia, considering the success of shows like The Gruen Transfer (which is a must watch for everyone, ever) but at a guess, I'd say it's a combination of having no particularly funny or entertaining politically minded comedians in Australia and the inherent lack of theatre in Australian politics, at least compared to the US. The Chaser guys don't really count here, because they're more pranksters than honest political commentators, but beggars can't really be choosers. It also leads me to my next point.
Big reason number two: American politics, particularly where the Republican Party is involved, are batshit insane. Barely a week passes without something hilarious, maddening or just plain interesting happening. I mean, let's think back, we most recently had the dog and pony show of yet another debate wherein all but Mitt Romney made arses of themselves, before that we had the Rick Perry "...and the third thing..." piece of majestic idiocy, before that the Herman Cain sexual harrassment thing, Perry's past being under the microscope and the unfortunate Bush comparisons, Michele Bachmann being the front runner was scary for a while, Sarah Palin's inexplicable presence, and the whole Rick Santorum is a by product of anal sex thing (google "Santorum". Go on, I dare ya). Plus the ever present ridiculousness of Newt Gingrich and the pure, visceral sleaze that emanated from Mitt Romney and you have the high political theatre at its finest, and that's just the Republicans! The Democrats, gawd bless 'em, generally a bit more mellow but watching Obama flail for approval and milk the last of his "great white/black hope" card is also good for a titter.
To make the point further, consider the lineup for the Republican party candidates:
Ron Paul: Delightful old codger who's views are remarkably progressive for a Republican, and yet he wants to return to the gold standard, which makes no sense. Also, he looks like he's about to die at any time.
Rick Perry: Bush on steroids, a god-fearing Texan idiot of the highest calibre.
Herman Cain: Flat tax promoting pizza mogul who sexually harassed a number of women.
Mitt Romney: A sleazy mormon who'd sooner sell out his holy book than do anything to offend his constituents.
John Huntsman: A mellow and pleasant chap who used to work for Obama, and as such has no hope of ever winning this, so watching him slowly die is amazing fun.
Newt Gingrich: Angry old man who hates the gays.
Michele Bachmann: Tea Party god-botherer who really hates the gays.
Rick Santorum: The gays got revenge on him.
That was all off the top of my head. Meanwhile, apart from our two party leaders and the occasional MP who goes off the rails, I couldn't give you that huge a description of anyone. I try to keep abreast of what's going on here politically, but it's just not the same.
Big reason number three: We have to vote for a number of parties, large and small. My participation in the political system is compulsory, enforced and offers me a large array of parties to choose from, some one which address some of my concerns, some of which don't. I can tailor my vote in such a way to express my incredibly specific views, or just make a simple one that kinda fits a glove of some of the bigger parties. This changes the way the politicians advertise to you here, they aim for the middle and keep everything moderate. American politics doesn't have that, you have non-compulsory, two party voting. You don't have to be a part of it and if you are, you have reps or dems. That's it. It completely changes the way the parties run themselves and how they advertise, the main point of which being that Australian political advertising and posturing is very middle of the road, centrist, flavour of the month crap. It's incredibly disengaging, and while I remain early twenties and studying, no party will ever advertise to me, I represent waaaay too small a demographic. The result is that anyone with even a marginal education is more turned off by political salesmanship than turned on by it.
Those three reasons pretty much summarise why I, and so many other Australians, are more on top of American politics than Australian, and until they get addressed in one way or another, I think it's gonna remain a theme for some time. Luckily, it's entertaining as all hell, so I'm not too worried.
Big reason number one: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I'm not being flippant here, that show is an excellent source of news. It's not particularly in depth, but it usually provides a nice leaping off point from which to further explore the issues and does so in such a way as to keep the viewer hooked. Probably info-tainment at its best, or at least what it should be. I'm unsure why this doesn't exist in Australia, considering the success of shows like The Gruen Transfer (which is a must watch for everyone, ever) but at a guess, I'd say it's a combination of having no particularly funny or entertaining politically minded comedians in Australia and the inherent lack of theatre in Australian politics, at least compared to the US. The Chaser guys don't really count here, because they're more pranksters than honest political commentators, but beggars can't really be choosers. It also leads me to my next point.
Big reason number two: American politics, particularly where the Republican Party is involved, are batshit insane. Barely a week passes without something hilarious, maddening or just plain interesting happening. I mean, let's think back, we most recently had the dog and pony show of yet another debate wherein all but Mitt Romney made arses of themselves, before that we had the Rick Perry "...and the third thing..." piece of majestic idiocy, before that the Herman Cain sexual harrassment thing, Perry's past being under the microscope and the unfortunate Bush comparisons, Michele Bachmann being the front runner was scary for a while, Sarah Palin's inexplicable presence, and the whole Rick Santorum is a by product of anal sex thing (google "Santorum". Go on, I dare ya). Plus the ever present ridiculousness of Newt Gingrich and the pure, visceral sleaze that emanated from Mitt Romney and you have the high political theatre at its finest, and that's just the Republicans! The Democrats, gawd bless 'em, generally a bit more mellow but watching Obama flail for approval and milk the last of his "great white/black hope" card is also good for a titter.
To make the point further, consider the lineup for the Republican party candidates:
Ron Paul: Delightful old codger who's views are remarkably progressive for a Republican, and yet he wants to return to the gold standard, which makes no sense. Also, he looks like he's about to die at any time.
Rick Perry: Bush on steroids, a god-fearing Texan idiot of the highest calibre.
Herman Cain: Flat tax promoting pizza mogul who sexually harassed a number of women.
Mitt Romney: A sleazy mormon who'd sooner sell out his holy book than do anything to offend his constituents.
John Huntsman: A mellow and pleasant chap who used to work for Obama, and as such has no hope of ever winning this, so watching him slowly die is amazing fun.
Newt Gingrich: Angry old man who hates the gays.
Michele Bachmann: Tea Party god-botherer who really hates the gays.
Rick Santorum: The gays got revenge on him.
That was all off the top of my head. Meanwhile, apart from our two party leaders and the occasional MP who goes off the rails, I couldn't give you that huge a description of anyone. I try to keep abreast of what's going on here politically, but it's just not the same.
Big reason number three: We have to vote for a number of parties, large and small. My participation in the political system is compulsory, enforced and offers me a large array of parties to choose from, some one which address some of my concerns, some of which don't. I can tailor my vote in such a way to express my incredibly specific views, or just make a simple one that kinda fits a glove of some of the bigger parties. This changes the way the politicians advertise to you here, they aim for the middle and keep everything moderate. American politics doesn't have that, you have non-compulsory, two party voting. You don't have to be a part of it and if you are, you have reps or dems. That's it. It completely changes the way the parties run themselves and how they advertise, the main point of which being that Australian political advertising and posturing is very middle of the road, centrist, flavour of the month crap. It's incredibly disengaging, and while I remain early twenties and studying, no party will ever advertise to me, I represent waaaay too small a demographic. The result is that anyone with even a marginal education is more turned off by political salesmanship than turned on by it.
Those three reasons pretty much summarise why I, and so many other Australians, are more on top of American politics than Australian, and until they get addressed in one way or another, I think it's gonna remain a theme for some time. Luckily, it's entertaining as all hell, so I'm not too worried.
Monday, November 7, 2011
This Is My Penance For Ragging On Everyone So Much
It should never be said that I'm a great lover of people. The individual person, sure, I know a bunch of them and they seem alright and realistically, a pretty large portion of the female population do hold some sway over what I say and do, so it's not as if I hate every person on an individual and personal level. As a horde though? Dickheads the lot of them. While they remain that dehumanised gaggle that vote liberal, hate on gays and make it a social taboo for me to light a cigarette in a fucking beer garden (seriously, my local split the beer garden into smoking and non-smoking sections. Bunch of wankers...), I have nothing but hatred for them all. Seriously, would it be so difficult for you all to, en masse, tone down the whole "racist, sexist, ignorant swarm" thing? It's not a huge ask.
That said, there's a lot of people out who think misanthropy gives them a free pass to have no appreciation for the small number of awesome things the human race has done. I don't know whether it's because it's fashionable or people don't do enough reading, but all this "baby's first philosophy" nihilistic crap about how shitty the human race is and how much they've fucked up the planet and society needs to take a bit of a break. Yes society has some glaring flaws, yes the planet is pretty fucked and it looks like it's only getting worse and yes, when you die you cease to exist so there's no real self-interested reason in giving a shit about anyone else after they die, but seriously? Get a fucking clue.
First of all, there was a time when living beyond the age of 9 wasn't the norm. That's not prehistoric, that's 19th century Britain. The application of science, logic and reason made it possible for people to have a life expectancy more than half a century. Fuck, it made it possible for people to live for 100 years! Think about that; medical science is so amazing, it's allowed some people to witness the invention of film, television and computers all in one lifetime. Imagine if you were alive for another 100 years from this point; you'd be seeing Star Wars shit, in real life. That's fucking amazing.
I've long since come to accept the fact that I won't get to experience everything the universe has to offer. It blows, and I'm pissed off about it, but it's just that grand universal truth everyone has to face. Eventually you stop experiencing stuff. Luckily, the human race made a ridiculous number of leaps and bounds in learning and technology, to the point where I can experience so much more than any other human being who's lived before me. There's almost no limit to how much I can learn, how much music I can listen to or how many mind-bending chemicals I can introduce into my body. And that's all thanks to human ingenuity.
Let's lay off the disparaging of human history. It's full of pretty shitty stuff, but it's also full of some amazing feats of creativity and tenacity. Stuff like air conditioning and the internet. The stuff that makes life worth living. The stuff that makes it easier to get through another day contending with the fucking horde. God I hate those guys.
That said, there's a lot of people out who think misanthropy gives them a free pass to have no appreciation for the small number of awesome things the human race has done. I don't know whether it's because it's fashionable or people don't do enough reading, but all this "baby's first philosophy" nihilistic crap about how shitty the human race is and how much they've fucked up the planet and society needs to take a bit of a break. Yes society has some glaring flaws, yes the planet is pretty fucked and it looks like it's only getting worse and yes, when you die you cease to exist so there's no real self-interested reason in giving a shit about anyone else after they die, but seriously? Get a fucking clue.
First of all, there was a time when living beyond the age of 9 wasn't the norm. That's not prehistoric, that's 19th century Britain. The application of science, logic and reason made it possible for people to have a life expectancy more than half a century. Fuck, it made it possible for people to live for 100 years! Think about that; medical science is so amazing, it's allowed some people to witness the invention of film, television and computers all in one lifetime. Imagine if you were alive for another 100 years from this point; you'd be seeing Star Wars shit, in real life. That's fucking amazing.
I've long since come to accept the fact that I won't get to experience everything the universe has to offer. It blows, and I'm pissed off about it, but it's just that grand universal truth everyone has to face. Eventually you stop experiencing stuff. Luckily, the human race made a ridiculous number of leaps and bounds in learning and technology, to the point where I can experience so much more than any other human being who's lived before me. There's almost no limit to how much I can learn, how much music I can listen to or how many mind-bending chemicals I can introduce into my body. And that's all thanks to human ingenuity.
Let's lay off the disparaging of human history. It's full of pretty shitty stuff, but it's also full of some amazing feats of creativity and tenacity. Stuff like air conditioning and the internet. The stuff that makes life worth living. The stuff that makes it easier to get through another day contending with the fucking horde. God I hate those guys.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Hate Crimes and the Nonsense Therein.
Admittedly, this is American news so it's not as if it affects me, but on a philosophical level, I couldn't be any more disappointed with the new anti-bullying bill that passed in Michigan just recently. "Matt's Safe School Law," named for Matt Epling, who committed suicide due to ongoing bullying, was ostensibly designed to protect victims of bullying but was absolutely molested by the Republicans and Christian interest groups. You can read the article that discusses in depth just how molested it was here, but long story short, harassing people for moral or religious reasons isn't bullying under this law.
Stop and think about that for a moment... obvious rant about how preaching to people that they're gonna burn in hell unless they repent! is pretty obviously harassment, bullying and I'd argue at least slander notwithstanding, you can use "moral reasons" to fall back on anything. All jokes aside, I have moral reasons for disliking people of a right-wing bent... that doesn't give me the right to beat up Young Liberals. I mean, consider that scenario for a second; there's a young liberal kid in your high school (I didn't have any in my school but I dated an 18 year old member of the Liberal Party so I'm sure they exist...) and the kid with the Che Guevara shirt beats him up. Now, the leftie has ideological reasons for disagreeing with the rightie, and by the wording of the bill, a "moral conviction" justifies his harassment. That's messed up.
The obvious retort is that religion is different to any other moral or ideological conviction; you're talking about people's god, their whole worldview, it's waaaay bigger than puny political or ideological squabbles. Hey, guess what? No it fucking isn't. You don't get a "get out of jail free" if your "moral conviction" is based on some hallucination of a bearded surrogate space-father. You don't get a pass because you can cite an alleged higher authority. Imposing your will on someone against theirs is wrong. Wrong. It doesn't matter why you're imposing it, it's not about that. I'd like to think I don't have to explain why this is the case, but to cover my bases:
1) "Greater good" arguments are ultimately subjective and, especially when they're coming from a religious place, aren't grounded in reality, so there's no reason anyone should believe them.
2) If imposing your will on others against theirs is fine, it makes it OK for others to do the same to you, and then your tune would change pretty fucking quick.
Yes, this bill has been ruined to pander to religious zealots who feel it's their right to belittle anyone who doesn't come to their special club (who make up a surprisingly large amount of voters... different but slightly related issue) and yes, in a lot of ways this is a separation of church and state issue, but I don't want this to fall into a secular vs. religious argument. As the wording of the bill makes very clear, it doesn't have to be a religious reason, it can also be a "moral" one. This bill would be deplorable in an entirely atheist world, and entirely Catholic world or an entirely Klingon world. It's deplorable because it justifies the removal of people's rights based on how strongly some douchebag feels his opinion is correct. A reasonable society respects the right of the individual to hold their own personal opinion without fear of harassment. It does not make it OK for the majority to dictate to the minority what to think and feel, nor does it give tools to the sanctimonious to force others to believe as they do. This bill is a backwards, regressive, disgusting piece of legislature that gives bullies a new weapon against their victim. I eagerly await the news that this bill will get a rewrite, but I'm not holding my breath.
Stop and think about that for a moment... obvious rant about how preaching to people that they're gonna burn in hell unless they repent! is pretty obviously harassment, bullying and I'd argue at least slander notwithstanding, you can use "moral reasons" to fall back on anything. All jokes aside, I have moral reasons for disliking people of a right-wing bent... that doesn't give me the right to beat up Young Liberals. I mean, consider that scenario for a second; there's a young liberal kid in your high school (I didn't have any in my school but I dated an 18 year old member of the Liberal Party so I'm sure they exist...) and the kid with the Che Guevara shirt beats him up. Now, the leftie has ideological reasons for disagreeing with the rightie, and by the wording of the bill, a "moral conviction" justifies his harassment. That's messed up.
The obvious retort is that religion is different to any other moral or ideological conviction; you're talking about people's god, their whole worldview, it's waaaay bigger than puny political or ideological squabbles. Hey, guess what? No it fucking isn't. You don't get a "get out of jail free" if your "moral conviction" is based on some hallucination of a bearded surrogate space-father. You don't get a pass because you can cite an alleged higher authority. Imposing your will on someone against theirs is wrong. Wrong. It doesn't matter why you're imposing it, it's not about that. I'd like to think I don't have to explain why this is the case, but to cover my bases:
1) "Greater good" arguments are ultimately subjective and, especially when they're coming from a religious place, aren't grounded in reality, so there's no reason anyone should believe them.
2) If imposing your will on others against theirs is fine, it makes it OK for others to do the same to you, and then your tune would change pretty fucking quick.
Yes, this bill has been ruined to pander to religious zealots who feel it's their right to belittle anyone who doesn't come to their special club (who make up a surprisingly large amount of voters... different but slightly related issue) and yes, in a lot of ways this is a separation of church and state issue, but I don't want this to fall into a secular vs. religious argument. As the wording of the bill makes very clear, it doesn't have to be a religious reason, it can also be a "moral" one. This bill would be deplorable in an entirely atheist world, and entirely Catholic world or an entirely Klingon world. It's deplorable because it justifies the removal of people's rights based on how strongly some douchebag feels his opinion is correct. A reasonable society respects the right of the individual to hold their own personal opinion without fear of harassment. It does not make it OK for the majority to dictate to the minority what to think and feel, nor does it give tools to the sanctimonious to force others to believe as they do. This bill is a backwards, regressive, disgusting piece of legislature that gives bullies a new weapon against their victim. I eagerly await the news that this bill will get a rewrite, but I'm not holding my breath.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Abortions.
This is the first time I've been on the computer in about 4 days, so I apologise for the post being late. That said, the time away from the squawking mess of tubes has been nice... gotten in touch with some hobbies that I hadn't been doing in a while. May make a habit of staying net-free every so often.
So, because it has come up, will always come up and is just one of those topics that seems to rile people; abortions and why they're awesome. Yep, that's my stance. It's not even about choice here, no shit everyone should have the choice whether to have an abortion or not. Taking that choice away from people is totally retarded in the first place.
Abortions are 100%, irrevocably, a good thing. The less people having kids that they don't want, the better. If you wanted to keep the kid, I mean really wanted to, would you even be in the clinic? Of course you fucking wouldn't, but the fact it even passed through your mind is probably a pretty good indication that you aren't ready for kids yet. I'm not saying you never will be, but at this point in time, it's probably for the best to have the procedure. I understand there's some mitigating circumstances sometimes, maybe you wanted to take it to term but you were pressured not to by a partner or family or whatever, but it still ends up begging the same question. There are forces that really, really don't want that little clump of cells to become a life, and having parties wishing the kid didn't exist is not a good environment for a child to grow up in.
I hope you latched on to the phrasing in that previous paragraph. That "little clump of cells" is no more or less a new human being than a fucking scab at that point. I like how PZ Myers frames it, he uses "colonic cyst" rather than "scab." The point is; until about 3 months in, it's not alive, it doesn't have feelings, it's literally just chemistry at that point. Now, my biology understanding isn't too crash hot, but I believe around the 2nd trimester, there's enough by way of neurons to posit that the thing is probably aware of it's existence, but (and don't quote me on this) even then it's not quite aware that it's alive or anything like that. Seriously, you don't have a "baby" inside you until about 5-6 months in.
And like the crowing of the rooster, the old Christian screed of "potential life" comes up. To that I say; get fucked. Potential life is a meaningless phrase. I don't see you weeping over a used sanitary pad or the pages of a nudey mag that won't come apart any more. If you want to talk about the sanctity of potential life, your demand is pretty much that every woman must get pregnant with every ovulation, not even counting the millions and millions of sperm that die due to the egg not being fertilised or just not making the cut. Even if you extend it to say that "potential life starts when the ovum and sperm come together," that's still not taking into account the number of natural, spontaneous abortions that happen as a result of the fertilised egg not attaching itself to the uterine wall. This is more common than you think. That and spontaneous natural miscarriages... potential life gets snuffed out on a very regular basis for no reason.
Then it becomes a case of "people will use abortions as a form of contraception, it cheapens the miracle of life." I'm not kidding, I've heard this one before. I'm not going to lie, a big "so what" to this argument. If you'd rather use a medical procedure than a condom or the pill or any other variation of birth control that doesn't involve a time consuming, expensive and invasive procedure, be my guest, but frankly, it's a bit silly. We have easier ways to prevent pregnancy (if anyone suggests abstinence as a contraception method they're getting my foot up their arse), so unless it's true, honest to goodness laziness that you don't want to use a condom or the pill etc, why even bother? I suppose my point is, there are easier ways not to conceive, but again, if people want to use abortions as their favoured mode of contraception, I'm not gonna stop you.
The last thing you should ever do is bring a child into a world that doesn't want it. You're fucking that kid up from second number one. If you should accidentally fall pregnant and you don't want to keep the clump of cells that will eventually become a human being, do the right thing; get an abortion. Fuck, even if you aren't sure, err on the side of caution and get one anyway; it's really, really easy to make another. It's literally what penises are made to do. Don't listen to those pro-life shitheads, they have no idea what they're talking about, no perspective on reality and no understanding of what the science is.
So, because it has come up, will always come up and is just one of those topics that seems to rile people; abortions and why they're awesome. Yep, that's my stance. It's not even about choice here, no shit everyone should have the choice whether to have an abortion or not. Taking that choice away from people is totally retarded in the first place.
Abortions are 100%, irrevocably, a good thing. The less people having kids that they don't want, the better. If you wanted to keep the kid, I mean really wanted to, would you even be in the clinic? Of course you fucking wouldn't, but the fact it even passed through your mind is probably a pretty good indication that you aren't ready for kids yet. I'm not saying you never will be, but at this point in time, it's probably for the best to have the procedure. I understand there's some mitigating circumstances sometimes, maybe you wanted to take it to term but you were pressured not to by a partner or family or whatever, but it still ends up begging the same question. There are forces that really, really don't want that little clump of cells to become a life, and having parties wishing the kid didn't exist is not a good environment for a child to grow up in.
I hope you latched on to the phrasing in that previous paragraph. That "little clump of cells" is no more or less a new human being than a fucking scab at that point. I like how PZ Myers frames it, he uses "colonic cyst" rather than "scab." The point is; until about 3 months in, it's not alive, it doesn't have feelings, it's literally just chemistry at that point. Now, my biology understanding isn't too crash hot, but I believe around the 2nd trimester, there's enough by way of neurons to posit that the thing is probably aware of it's existence, but (and don't quote me on this) even then it's not quite aware that it's alive or anything like that. Seriously, you don't have a "baby" inside you until about 5-6 months in.
And like the crowing of the rooster, the old Christian screed of "potential life" comes up. To that I say; get fucked. Potential life is a meaningless phrase. I don't see you weeping over a used sanitary pad or the pages of a nudey mag that won't come apart any more. If you want to talk about the sanctity of potential life, your demand is pretty much that every woman must get pregnant with every ovulation, not even counting the millions and millions of sperm that die due to the egg not being fertilised or just not making the cut. Even if you extend it to say that "potential life starts when the ovum and sperm come together," that's still not taking into account the number of natural, spontaneous abortions that happen as a result of the fertilised egg not attaching itself to the uterine wall. This is more common than you think. That and spontaneous natural miscarriages... potential life gets snuffed out on a very regular basis for no reason.
Then it becomes a case of "people will use abortions as a form of contraception, it cheapens the miracle of life." I'm not kidding, I've heard this one before. I'm not going to lie, a big "so what" to this argument. If you'd rather use a medical procedure than a condom or the pill or any other variation of birth control that doesn't involve a time consuming, expensive and invasive procedure, be my guest, but frankly, it's a bit silly. We have easier ways to prevent pregnancy (if anyone suggests abstinence as a contraception method they're getting my foot up their arse), so unless it's true, honest to goodness laziness that you don't want to use a condom or the pill etc, why even bother? I suppose my point is, there are easier ways not to conceive, but again, if people want to use abortions as their favoured mode of contraception, I'm not gonna stop you.
The last thing you should ever do is bring a child into a world that doesn't want it. You're fucking that kid up from second number one. If you should accidentally fall pregnant and you don't want to keep the clump of cells that will eventually become a human being, do the right thing; get an abortion. Fuck, even if you aren't sure, err on the side of caution and get one anyway; it's really, really easy to make another. It's literally what penises are made to do. Don't listen to those pro-life shitheads, they have no idea what they're talking about, no perspective on reality and no understanding of what the science is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)