Q&A was on Monday night and as is my wont, I was able to divine most of the show from the Twitter stream stored up waiting for me when I got to my hotel room. And was it a doozy.
Cast your minds back to when the spill happened. I read countless tweets that read something like this:
'Wow! A childless, unmarried, atheist, redhead, woman PM! Brilliant!'
I was pretty bummed by that - so many tweets focussed on the fact that she was those things rather than what's really important - super-intelligent, quick on her feet and possessed of a modicum of compassion. I think she's great. The fact she is a childless, unmarried, atheist, redhead woman was totally irrelevant and to make a big deal of the other things was, I thought, insulting because they didn't mean much. I said so. And got yelled at on Twitter by the usual suspects in my Twitter feed (whom I still love dearly - I'm an adult and am very much able to disagree politely).
So, some idiot in the audience obviously asked stupid questions. Suddenly, where before all of these things were apposite, they are now irrelevant. Why? Because the geese who made such a big deal about these things have been put off by some policy decisions (they went screaming to Penny Wong on one of these and got the same response) and now just want to see Julia see off Tony. As do I. The man's a pillock.
I find this utterly infuriating. Julia doesn't fulfill the ideals that these same people thought she would suddenly sort out for them, that every little bone they had to pick with government would be fixed by somebody 'just like them.' It turns out Julia is a politician and more like Kevin than they are like them.
I had an entertaining debate on Twitter the other evening with someone who was all het up about Gillard's extension of the chaplaincy program. I don't mind one way or another, but of course not wanting to be troubled by reality, these people immediately leapt upon the 'what happens when a suicidal gay teen goes to a chaplain?'
Well, I can tell you that the vast majority of the chaplains will be completely non-judgemental and stick to the rules of that chaplaincy program, which is not to proselytise and merely to listen and offer advice if asked. I asked for figures regarding complaints of the chaplaincy program and they were few and far between and supplied in the form of a link to an article in The Australian. I imagine that this means there hasn't been a lot of complaints.
The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of these people will do the right thing by that person. As would a secular counsellor. The key difference between chaplains and social workers are that there aren't enough of the latter for financial reasons. Even if there were enough, $20,000 per school wouldn't cover it. Chaplains are happy to work for that money because they believe they are called to do it as part of their faith. And yes, I understand a vocational calling is very much required for social workers.
Social workers may not have the luxury many chaplains have of supplied housing and income assistance provided by a local church. I would say the average total cost of a social worker would be somewhere in the region of $96,000, about 1.6 times their actual salary. That's five schools, one day a week. Not enough, I think you'd agree.
And, I might add, there would be the same number of complaints against the social workers as there would be against chaplains, because they're all human and all have their own foibles. This is the way the world works.
My favourite tweet was Charlie Pickering's unicorns and rainbows and fairlyland tweet. It's in two parts, and I'll do the second bit first because he couldn't be more right:
'How rights can be apportioned to some not all remains outrageous.'
The first bit was this doozy:
'How an atheist can be anti-gay marriage is beyond me.'
This is staggering insight, I think you'll agree. 'What?' he is asking. 'Someone who thinks like me on one issue isn't the same on another? What what what?'
I'm sorry to inform the very talented and very funny Charlie that no, atheists can be as bigoted as anybody else on this planet. They can say things like that idiot Wendy from Family First, they can be ecological vandals, they can be homophobic, racist nut-jobs. There is nothing special about an atheist that just because they don't believe in God he or she suddenly has a moral compass that points in the same direction as his and it does not give them the monopoly on being right. Atheists often (rightly) complain when someone says that they can't possibly have morals if they are an atheist, why is it acceptable for Pickering to say something so blatantly stupid?
The fact that Gillard is an atheist is irrelevant and I do not really see how it would make her a better or worse PM than the next person. The relevant fact is that she is a politician and leader of the Federal Labor Party. If these other qualities were so important a month ago, why are they not anymore?
Monday, August 9, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Of Burqas, Blogs and Bans
The British press and body politic have been rumbling and hand-wringing over the French banning of burqas over the weekend and this has naturally infiltrated the columns of their national newspapers and their celebrity Twitter feeds.
Most of the stuff written is a bit ho-hum, but I did read David Mitchell's Observer column. I like Mitchell, he's an incredibly funny but also very thoughtful person. The link, should you be interested, is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/25/david-mitchell-burqa-ban-tattoos
Mitchell titled his piece 'If Britiain decides to ban the burqa I might just start wearing one.'
If you don't read it, it certainly wasn't an apologist piece on religious freedom. Mitchell took a step back and said that if we ban people from wearing what they like (within reason) then personal liberty is threatened. The funniest part of the article was this:
'None of this means I think there's anything good about wearing a burqa. I think it's daft. I think any belief system that concludes that half the population should go around constantly covered from head to toe in black cloth, whether out of modesty, humility, tradition or stealth, has a massive flaw in it.
'And, while I'm at it, I think that it's ridiculous to believe in transubstantiation, that considering the Bible to be the literal word of God reduces that supposedly omnipotent being to a muddle-headed maniac and that the Hindu caste system and Roman Catholic rules against contraception could have been invented by Satan. There! Now no one will be able to guess who's killed me.'
So, just to confirm, he's not much one for religion.
Anyway, Graham Linehan, the brilliant writer of such things as Father Ted, Black Books (co-writer, anyway) and The IT Crowd weighed in on Twitter with this:
'@RealDMitchell nice piece, but disagree that a ban is a a sign of intolerance. It's saying we take equal rights for women seriously'
This made me think - Linehan went on to make the point that liberals (I'll assume he's including himself and Mitchell in that group) should be opposed to the burqa. I don't think Mitchell isn't, but he understands that banning it would be wrong from a personal liberty perspective.
The problem with banning the burqa, as I pointed out to Linehan, is that it probably won't help. Conceptually, we should be opposed to the burqa as we might be opposed to female circumcision, domestic violence and other heinous crimes against women and children. Women are left unable to challenge these things due to Islamic countries often having little in the way of formal education for women, leaving them with no intellectual stimulation. Oh, and they're liable to be beaten in some cases.
If you'll permit a personal anecdote, I'd like to recall a trip we had to KL last year. Malaysia is a very pleasant place indeed and despite its largely Islamic population, there aren't hordes of burqa/niqab/hijab-wearing women. In KL a minority choose to wear the headdress. There are plenty of them around, more so than I remember on my first visit in 2000 and two subsequent visits, but it's no Saudi Arabia.
Anyhoo, we were there around the Islamic Hari Raya festival, which is what the Malays call Eid-el-Fitr, the conclusion of Ramadan, I am led to believe that this is cause for great celebration and sees an influx of Gulf State Arabs set on a huge shopping spree. I have never, ever seen so many full-length burqa/niqab arrangements in my life.
I don't mind telling you, it's confronting for people who live in a country like Australia to see this, especially given the weather. What makes it worse is that you go somewhere like the Sunway, a waterslidey fun park and you see husbands wandering around in budgie-smugglers chomping away on an ice cream, often with multiple sons in tow doing the same. His poor wife is trailing along, head to toe in black and absolutely not allowed to have any fun whatsoever, but sit in the heat and watch. It was appalling.
I don't feel the need to see what's under the burqa, but why is are Muslim women subjected to it? As Linehan pointed out, this is a rotten thing to do to someone and anyone with liberal leanings should see the ban as a blow struck for the rights of women. In a perfect world, it would be. And it doesn't have to be restricted to liberals either, if you ask me.
They're both right, and this is the problem. This particular brand of Islam paints women into a frightening corner, a corner that no liberal, secular or even Christian-style government can extract them from. It's a helpless feeling that overcomes me when I see women obviously confined to this clothing - the 'I choose to wear this' line does not wash with me. Most often it's a choice between a wretched life trapped inside or a beating of some description; or wearing these unwieldy garments at all times in the hope of finding another human to interact with.
My wife sat near one of these women in the Sunway and had an awkward moment when the woman's daughter started playing a little game with her. My wife looked up for some sign from the woman of whether everything was okay and all she could see was a black screen of cloth. How do you communicate? The only thing that saved the moment was the fact that the woman spoke English and said, 'It's hard for women, isn't it?'
My wife desperately wanted to say, 'No, it isn't that hard.'
So I suppose the only answer is to say that the burqa ban is a good concept but its execution is poor. Right wing Islamic fundies aren't going to let their women remove the burqa in public, they'll just never let them out. For many French Muslim women, that means being banished to their two room tenement in a grim arrondissement.
It's probably also worth noting that, I think, in the end, the ulterior motive for the ban is to attempt to halt further Islamic immigration.
Most of the stuff written is a bit ho-hum, but I did read David Mitchell's Observer column. I like Mitchell, he's an incredibly funny but also very thoughtful person. The link, should you be interested, is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/25/david-mitchell-burqa-ban-tattoos
Mitchell titled his piece 'If Britiain decides to ban the burqa I might just start wearing one.'
If you don't read it, it certainly wasn't an apologist piece on religious freedom. Mitchell took a step back and said that if we ban people from wearing what they like (within reason) then personal liberty is threatened. The funniest part of the article was this:
'None of this means I think there's anything good about wearing a burqa. I think it's daft. I think any belief system that concludes that half the population should go around constantly covered from head to toe in black cloth, whether out of modesty, humility, tradition or stealth, has a massive flaw in it.
'And, while I'm at it, I think that it's ridiculous to believe in transubstantiation, that considering the Bible to be the literal word of God reduces that supposedly omnipotent being to a muddle-headed maniac and that the Hindu caste system and Roman Catholic rules against contraception could have been invented by Satan. There! Now no one will be able to guess who's killed me.'
So, just to confirm, he's not much one for religion.
Anyway, Graham Linehan, the brilliant writer of such things as Father Ted, Black Books (co-writer, anyway) and The IT Crowd weighed in on Twitter with this:
'@RealDMitchell nice piece, but disagree that a ban is a a sign of intolerance. It's saying we take equal rights for women seriously'
This made me think - Linehan went on to make the point that liberals (I'll assume he's including himself and Mitchell in that group) should be opposed to the burqa. I don't think Mitchell isn't, but he understands that banning it would be wrong from a personal liberty perspective.
The problem with banning the burqa, as I pointed out to Linehan, is that it probably won't help. Conceptually, we should be opposed to the burqa as we might be opposed to female circumcision, domestic violence and other heinous crimes against women and children. Women are left unable to challenge these things due to Islamic countries often having little in the way of formal education for women, leaving them with no intellectual stimulation. Oh, and they're liable to be beaten in some cases.
If you'll permit a personal anecdote, I'd like to recall a trip we had to KL last year. Malaysia is a very pleasant place indeed and despite its largely Islamic population, there aren't hordes of burqa/niqab/hijab-wearing women. In KL a minority choose to wear the headdress. There are plenty of them around, more so than I remember on my first visit in 2000 and two subsequent visits, but it's no Saudi Arabia.
Anyhoo, we were there around the Islamic Hari Raya festival, which is what the Malays call Eid-el-Fitr, the conclusion of Ramadan, I am led to believe that this is cause for great celebration and sees an influx of Gulf State Arabs set on a huge shopping spree. I have never, ever seen so many full-length burqa/niqab arrangements in my life.
I don't mind telling you, it's confronting for people who live in a country like Australia to see this, especially given the weather. What makes it worse is that you go somewhere like the Sunway, a waterslidey fun park and you see husbands wandering around in budgie-smugglers chomping away on an ice cream, often with multiple sons in tow doing the same. His poor wife is trailing along, head to toe in black and absolutely not allowed to have any fun whatsoever, but sit in the heat and watch. It was appalling.
I don't feel the need to see what's under the burqa, but why is are Muslim women subjected to it? As Linehan pointed out, this is a rotten thing to do to someone and anyone with liberal leanings should see the ban as a blow struck for the rights of women. In a perfect world, it would be. And it doesn't have to be restricted to liberals either, if you ask me.
They're both right, and this is the problem. This particular brand of Islam paints women into a frightening corner, a corner that no liberal, secular or even Christian-style government can extract them from. It's a helpless feeling that overcomes me when I see women obviously confined to this clothing - the 'I choose to wear this' line does not wash with me. Most often it's a choice between a wretched life trapped inside or a beating of some description; or wearing these unwieldy garments at all times in the hope of finding another human to interact with.
My wife sat near one of these women in the Sunway and had an awkward moment when the woman's daughter started playing a little game with her. My wife looked up for some sign from the woman of whether everything was okay and all she could see was a black screen of cloth. How do you communicate? The only thing that saved the moment was the fact that the woman spoke English and said, 'It's hard for women, isn't it?'
My wife desperately wanted to say, 'No, it isn't that hard.'
So I suppose the only answer is to say that the burqa ban is a good concept but its execution is poor. Right wing Islamic fundies aren't going to let their women remove the burqa in public, they'll just never let them out. For many French Muslim women, that means being banished to their two room tenement in a grim arrondissement.
It's probably also worth noting that, I think, in the end, the ulterior motive for the ban is to attempt to halt further Islamic immigration.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
The Random Demands Begin
One has to love an election to stir up the rabble-rousers. Catherine Deveney kicked off the random demand train this morning with this little gem:
'RT this if you would vote for a party who promises to remove tax-exempt status for religions. #ausvotes'
This followed some pointed tweets against the lunatic Danny Nalliah who was complaining that Gillard will destroy our Judeo-Christian heritage. Deveny pointed out that Australia has had 50,000 years of indigenous spirituality (conveniently forgetting, of course, she hates such science-free mumbo-jumbo) and that Nalliah was barking up the wrong tree, making her at least half right. The man is certainly barking.
Anyway, the point is, many demands are going to be made of us, particularly via Twitter, during this campaign. Many of them are going to be random demands we must make of our politicians, and if they don't fit in with our own personal obsessions we are not to vote for them.
I find this perplexing - if I take Abbott at his word (and ignore many of his actions), one would imagine that his Christian faith would be the top of my list and I'd vote for my Liberal member on that strength. One would be wrong.
If I were to look at Gillard's so-called red-headed, childless, unmarried atheism, one would expect I would put her at the bottom of the list. After all, Tony would never sleep around outside of/before marriage...oh, I see. Yes, yes he would.
(Steven Fielding is close last, just so you know)
I have a few pet issues. One is a free and open internet but with the ability for parents (and those who want to prevent themselves) to filter that. One filter for all is ludicrous, stupid and threatens our relatively free way of life. I think this country is absurdly wealthy and equally absurdly, we do little to help those in need in this country.
We pay our teachers and nurses bugger-all and expect the world from them. We are pushing our children into schooling that ignores individual strengths and interest and aims for a lowest-common denominator 'best-practice' so that a government can beat its chest and say how wonderful they are at education. Meanwhile our kids become disillusioned with education and drift without a purpose as they fill in dots on exams, the results of which they will never see but may affect their school in a profound way.
Which of these two parties will do something about these two things? Neither. Who will I vote for? The least worst. I will not boil it down to their belief systems because I believe Gillard's approach to compassion is rather more advanced than Abbott's. The Rudd and Gillard governments will no doubt do things I detest, and have done, but above all, they appear to have more compassion than the Coalition. Abbott's approach to compassion appears to me to be the much misappropriated (and untrue) 'Jesus helps those who help themselves.'
My Facebook page this morning hosted a mini-rant about the 'stop the boats' hypocrisy thus:
'Yes, to those fellow Christians who think it's sensible to vote for Tony Abbott 'because he's a Christian' I think you might just be missing the point. The old cliche, 'What would Jesus do?' about the 'boat people' (itself a racist, emotive term) makes me wonder how a Christian can honestly say Abbott is doing the right thing. Jesus was an asylum seeker once.'
There was a wonderful thing Jesus said (among many) and that was recorded in John 13:34-35:
'A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another'
Jesus loved us like no other. Whether you see the New Testament as a story or the truth, as a character, Jesus laid down his life and suffered the punishment of all of humanity, something he did not deserve. He didn't have to be dragged to the cross, he carried it himself. Many of those 'boat people' are in genuine fear for their lives and will contribute productively to Australian society.
'Terrorists' tend to arrive by air, bankrolled by fellow nutters. The September 11 terrorists arrived by air, studied, were reasonably privileged, did rotten things. Note that last bit, it's important and renders much of the stop the boats rhetoric null and void.
Abbott, and to a certain extent Gillard, are lying to us about the size of the problem. That's not love, tough or otherwise.
'Stopping the boats' is not loving one another, it's being a jerk and not stopping to think or worse, not stopping to care, about the realities. Lying to the Australian people about the size of the problem is not loving one another. Insisting the boats are stopped by the Navy endangers thousands of people because people smugglers, like fundamentalist leaders who send minions to their death, do it all remotely and rarely have skin in the game. And I'm sure most Navy bods would rather help than hinder.
Abbott does not distinguish himself as a disciple of Jesus as his love for his fellow man appears to be restricted to white people born here in Australia who are obsessed with their mortgages and the cylinder count of their four-wheel drive and how much it costs to run this unnecessary beast. He appears untroubled by the realities of climate change - I don't give a damn why it's happening, if it might be in our power to stop it, we should try. And we should lead the way. Because if we can reduce or halt climate change, less people will feel the need to get on a boat and hope we'll take them or jump on a plane and fly into a building because our greed is destroying their part of the world.
Rambling now. You get the point. As a Christian, I will be 'voting for everyone,' not just for me and my own requirements, petty prejudices or bank balance. If our leaders are Christian, I think that's good for everyone (of course), but it's not the only reason to vote for someone. As a Christian, I believe we must be intellectually engaged and not just stop at 'Oh, he's a Christian, he's ticked the big box.' The first question for me is who comes closest to fulfilling the ideals of Christ, not who goes to church on Sunday. Either way, it's a compromise but I'd rather 7000 people in 18 months arriving by boat than 7000 possibly drowning alone in the sea after having a hugely rich 'Judeo Christian' country fire live shots across their bow to scare them away.
So I won't be insisting you RT anything random and won't be telling you how you should vote (does anyone even know what Deveny is on about? Does it mean the same thing here as in the US? I don't think it does...the church I make donations to does not provide me with a receipt with which to claim a tax deduction...). I am trying to smash the idea that 'Christians' will vote for Abbott for that reason and those who are thinking about it will hopefully consider the words of Jesus and what he stands for before they vote.
Rant over. Back to work.
'RT this if you would vote for a party who promises to remove tax-exempt status for religions. #ausvotes'
This followed some pointed tweets against the lunatic Danny Nalliah who was complaining that Gillard will destroy our Judeo-Christian heritage. Deveny pointed out that Australia has had 50,000 years of indigenous spirituality (conveniently forgetting, of course, she hates such science-free mumbo-jumbo) and that Nalliah was barking up the wrong tree, making her at least half right. The man is certainly barking.
Anyway, the point is, many demands are going to be made of us, particularly via Twitter, during this campaign. Many of them are going to be random demands we must make of our politicians, and if they don't fit in with our own personal obsessions we are not to vote for them.
I find this perplexing - if I take Abbott at his word (and ignore many of his actions), one would imagine that his Christian faith would be the top of my list and I'd vote for my Liberal member on that strength. One would be wrong.
If I were to look at Gillard's so-called red-headed, childless, unmarried atheism, one would expect I would put her at the bottom of the list. After all, Tony would never sleep around outside of/before marriage...oh, I see. Yes, yes he would.
(Steven Fielding is close last, just so you know)
I have a few pet issues. One is a free and open internet but with the ability for parents (and those who want to prevent themselves) to filter that. One filter for all is ludicrous, stupid and threatens our relatively free way of life. I think this country is absurdly wealthy and equally absurdly, we do little to help those in need in this country.
We pay our teachers and nurses bugger-all and expect the world from them. We are pushing our children into schooling that ignores individual strengths and interest and aims for a lowest-common denominator 'best-practice' so that a government can beat its chest and say how wonderful they are at education. Meanwhile our kids become disillusioned with education and drift without a purpose as they fill in dots on exams, the results of which they will never see but may affect their school in a profound way.
Which of these two parties will do something about these two things? Neither. Who will I vote for? The least worst. I will not boil it down to their belief systems because I believe Gillard's approach to compassion is rather more advanced than Abbott's. The Rudd and Gillard governments will no doubt do things I detest, and have done, but above all, they appear to have more compassion than the Coalition. Abbott's approach to compassion appears to me to be the much misappropriated (and untrue) 'Jesus helps those who help themselves.'
My Facebook page this morning hosted a mini-rant about the 'stop the boats' hypocrisy thus:
'Yes, to those fellow Christians who think it's sensible to vote for Tony Abbott 'because he's a Christian' I think you might just be missing the point. The old cliche, 'What would Jesus do?' about the 'boat people' (itself a racist, emotive term) makes me wonder how a Christian can honestly say Abbott is doing the right thing. Jesus was an asylum seeker once.'
There was a wonderful thing Jesus said (among many) and that was recorded in John 13:34-35:
'A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another'
Jesus loved us like no other. Whether you see the New Testament as a story or the truth, as a character, Jesus laid down his life and suffered the punishment of all of humanity, something he did not deserve. He didn't have to be dragged to the cross, he carried it himself. Many of those 'boat people' are in genuine fear for their lives and will contribute productively to Australian society.
'Terrorists' tend to arrive by air, bankrolled by fellow nutters. The September 11 terrorists arrived by air, studied, were reasonably privileged, did rotten things. Note that last bit, it's important and renders much of the stop the boats rhetoric null and void.
Abbott, and to a certain extent Gillard, are lying to us about the size of the problem. That's not love, tough or otherwise.
'Stopping the boats' is not loving one another, it's being a jerk and not stopping to think or worse, not stopping to care, about the realities. Lying to the Australian people about the size of the problem is not loving one another. Insisting the boats are stopped by the Navy endangers thousands of people because people smugglers, like fundamentalist leaders who send minions to their death, do it all remotely and rarely have skin in the game. And I'm sure most Navy bods would rather help than hinder.
Abbott does not distinguish himself as a disciple of Jesus as his love for his fellow man appears to be restricted to white people born here in Australia who are obsessed with their mortgages and the cylinder count of their four-wheel drive and how much it costs to run this unnecessary beast. He appears untroubled by the realities of climate change - I don't give a damn why it's happening, if it might be in our power to stop it, we should try. And we should lead the way. Because if we can reduce or halt climate change, less people will feel the need to get on a boat and hope we'll take them or jump on a plane and fly into a building because our greed is destroying their part of the world.
Rambling now. You get the point. As a Christian, I will be 'voting for everyone,' not just for me and my own requirements, petty prejudices or bank balance. If our leaders are Christian, I think that's good for everyone (of course), but it's not the only reason to vote for someone. As a Christian, I believe we must be intellectually engaged and not just stop at 'Oh, he's a Christian, he's ticked the big box.' The first question for me is who comes closest to fulfilling the ideals of Christ, not who goes to church on Sunday. Either way, it's a compromise but I'd rather 7000 people in 18 months arriving by boat than 7000 possibly drowning alone in the sea after having a hugely rich 'Judeo Christian' country fire live shots across their bow to scare them away.
So I won't be insisting you RT anything random and won't be telling you how you should vote (does anyone even know what Deveny is on about? Does it mean the same thing here as in the US? I don't think it does...the church I make donations to does not provide me with a receipt with which to claim a tax deduction...). I am trying to smash the idea that 'Christians' will vote for Abbott for that reason and those who are thinking about it will hopefully consider the words of Jesus and what he stands for before they vote.
Rant over. Back to work.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
D-Grade Celebrity Deveny Boned
Those who follow me on Twitter constantly tire of my anti-Catherine Deveny comments, so I thought I'd write something here to hopefully serve as The Last Word.
Deveny is a serial pest as several other commentators have pointed out. Her columns in The Age are either genius social engineering (nobody would really believe that...right?) or crass, bullbar-to-the head polemics. She thinks she's terribly clever and surrounds herself with people who think the same thing.
Daniel Burt (@trubnad) who I follow on Twitter is witty and clever. He defended her Anzac Day meltdown with the phrase 'The venom directed at @catherinedeveny only reinforces her importance.' Not only did he write that, Deveny re-tweeted it. This is exactly the sort of egotistical self-promotion she rails against. And that's where I have my greatest beef with her - she's a total hypocrite. It must be worth mentioning that Deveny says Burt is 'A genius...a cross between Woody Allen and Ricky Gervais.' He isn't that, but it's clear they have a strong relationship and he feels bound to defend her. Playing with fire, I reckon. He bleats about A Current Affair calling her an 'alleged' comedian and points out she sold out at the Comedy Festival. Big deal - her act was more an extension of the World Atheist Conference (that still makes me laugh) and if that's any measure of funny, then he must think Tim Allen is hilarious.
Her Anzac Day tweets struck a chord and a nerve with a series of people I follow so I moseyed over to have a look - it was classic Deveney, ill-though-through and completely lacking in compassion. When she sensed she had gone too far, she started playing the guilt card, dragging in survivors of sexual abuse and abusive relationships. She thinks that doing that is a defence. It's not - she still said the other things which were, plainly incorrect. I find Anzac Day a bit dull too - it has been commercialised into a day of beer and two-up rather than a quiet day of reflection on the horrors of war and the thanking of those who felt duty-bound to act in the defence of their country, like my grandfather and great uncle.
The Age chose not to act. And nor should they. Although they pay for this sort of tosh, it wasn't the rubbish they'd paid for.
The Logies tweets were further examples of her unedifying humour, but when she obviously felt she was being outdone by Wil Anderson or not enough people were looking at her, she brought out what she clearly considered was her A game and suggested that she hoped Bindi Irwin got laid (defending this as satire) and that Tasma Walton should not die, referring of course to Australia's Sweetheart (TM) Belinda Emmett.
The Bindi comment probably was attempted satire and all the Professionally Outraged (Neil Mitchell et al) were barking up the wrong tree. The problem was it was utterly tasteless and aimed at a defenceless girl. She has no right of reply and thankfully her mother has stayed out of it. I don't care how irritating you find Bindi (and let's be honest, many of us do) it was deeply unfair. I know some think she was advocating statutory rape of an eleven year old (and it certainly looked that way) but I'm not completely sure she meant it. Her defence was woeful and, I think, completely untrue.
The Tasma Walton comment is rather harder to judge. It wasn't funny, Deveny says she meant every word of it (the comforting bosom of the ABC gave her two goes at defending herself) and claimed privilege because she'd worked with Rove for five years. How can you not see how this would be hurtful?
She says she's full of compassion for people (despite her manipulative involvement of innocent parties in the Anzac Day series) and contributes to Broken Rites from the takings of her dull regurgitation/interpretation of Dawkins' The God Delusion, her pithily-titled God Is Bullshit and That's the Good News. But she completely missed that her 'friend' Rove McManus (someone else who annoys me greatly) would be hurt by this. Deeply, deeply hurt.
You see, the difference between hers and Anderson's tweets, is that he attacked grown-ups who could happily step off the stage and whack him with a mike stand and he'd probably have copped it sweet, because he himself is a grown-up (despite his undergraduate style of humour).
As a vocal critic of Deveny, I was most offended by her hypocrisy and her lack of actual ability - if offends me someone so pedestrian is paid to write for a broadsheet (I hold the same opinion of Devine). Combine all this with phoned-in columns full of made up facts and statistics as well as amateur cage rattling, I would complain loudly on Twitter about her utterly intellectually bereft ranting.
She says she's with Richard Dawkins on the idea that labelling a child with religion is tantamount to child abuse, yet she actively pimps her children on Twitter and in her articles as 'atheists.' The '11 year old atheist.' She sent her 11 year old atheist to a friend's first communion with a Voodoo toy, presumably as a joke. So the child, who was probably too young to understand the hilarity, may have had the toy taken away from him but it would have given Cath a laugh - point of order: giving things to A CHILD is not for your benefit.
She's a rabid class warrior, although not the way she thinks she is - she wrote several columns last year ripping into the working and middle classes' loves of shopping, pornography (a form of entertainment she has a strange philosophical relationship with) and sport. She's all for people doing/believing/thinking what they want as long as they fit in with her monocultural view, the World of Deveny. What she fails to realise is that her red-wine-fuelled rage is inner-Melbourne-North smugness that few people can identify with, even Age readers.
Her contribution to public discourse is deeply dreary - her Q&A performances were cringingly bad, blaming global warming on religion (her reasoning was fundamentally broken), she called Tony Abbott 'flappy eared' (also rolling out the cliched 'keep your rosaries off my ovaries) and claimed to have assaulted John Elliott in the green room at some point. Way to go, Cath - you're setting the bar high.
She said that those who didn't find her funny probably though Hey Hey and the Footy Show are funny. Wrong, Catherine, so very, very wrong and so very, very self-important. You self-importance, in fact, rates up there the people you hate most.
So why did The Age sack her? I don't really know and I am slightly disappointed it wasn't for the reasons she should have been sacked. I think she's mean and heartless (at best, if she does have a heart, it's black) and hasn't progressed her atheist-feminist thinking past the idea that there's no God so she can shag who she wants. It's childish, scrawled out stuff.
It would be deeply worrying if The Age really sacked her for this, but the way she was eulogised by the Editor of The Age was hardly glowing so one wonders if they weren't just waiting for an excuse. If it was for tweeting crap on her own time, I'd almost consider donating to a fund to sue for wrongful dismissal.
At the same time, one has to wonder why her fans are moaning about her freedom of expression was being infringed. No, it wasn't - she said it, she has to wear it. See, again, she thinks she's too 'important' to have to wear the consequences of her actions, much like the people she hates in politics and celebrity.
I think Amy Gray summed her up beautifully here:
http://overstimulated.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-problem-with-catherine-deveny/
So, to sum up, this is why she should have been sacked: she's rubbish. She has no discernible abilities as a writer or a thinker. Her comedy work is a deep seam of hate for everyone who disagrees with her way of thinking and her complete lack of understanding of religion, a topic she spends a lot of her time on, is startling. I don't care whether she believes in God or not, she should at least understand why others do and understand their motivations before getting stuck in. She probably doesn't really understand the intricacies of theological thought and finds quick wins by just going after the usual stuff when there is plenty to really go after in a meaningful and challenging way.
I won't miss her. Sadly, given the ABC's undying devotion to her, I don't think I will have the chance...
Deveny is a serial pest as several other commentators have pointed out. Her columns in The Age are either genius social engineering (nobody would really believe that...right?) or crass, bullbar-to-the head polemics. She thinks she's terribly clever and surrounds herself with people who think the same thing.
Daniel Burt (@trubnad) who I follow on Twitter is witty and clever. He defended her Anzac Day meltdown with the phrase 'The venom directed at @catherinedeveny only reinforces her importance.' Not only did he write that, Deveny re-tweeted it. This is exactly the sort of egotistical self-promotion she rails against. And that's where I have my greatest beef with her - she's a total hypocrite. It must be worth mentioning that Deveny says Burt is 'A genius...a cross between Woody Allen and Ricky Gervais.' He isn't that, but it's clear they have a strong relationship and he feels bound to defend her. Playing with fire, I reckon. He bleats about A Current Affair calling her an 'alleged' comedian and points out she sold out at the Comedy Festival. Big deal - her act was more an extension of the World Atheist Conference (that still makes me laugh) and if that's any measure of funny, then he must think Tim Allen is hilarious.
Her Anzac Day tweets struck a chord and a nerve with a series of people I follow so I moseyed over to have a look - it was classic Deveney, ill-though-through and completely lacking in compassion. When she sensed she had gone too far, she started playing the guilt card, dragging in survivors of sexual abuse and abusive relationships. She thinks that doing that is a defence. It's not - she still said the other things which were, plainly incorrect. I find Anzac Day a bit dull too - it has been commercialised into a day of beer and two-up rather than a quiet day of reflection on the horrors of war and the thanking of those who felt duty-bound to act in the defence of their country, like my grandfather and great uncle.
The Age chose not to act. And nor should they. Although they pay for this sort of tosh, it wasn't the rubbish they'd paid for.
The Logies tweets were further examples of her unedifying humour, but when she obviously felt she was being outdone by Wil Anderson or not enough people were looking at her, she brought out what she clearly considered was her A game and suggested that she hoped Bindi Irwin got laid (defending this as satire) and that Tasma Walton should not die, referring of course to Australia's Sweetheart (TM) Belinda Emmett.
The Bindi comment probably was attempted satire and all the Professionally Outraged (Neil Mitchell et al) were barking up the wrong tree. The problem was it was utterly tasteless and aimed at a defenceless girl. She has no right of reply and thankfully her mother has stayed out of it. I don't care how irritating you find Bindi (and let's be honest, many of us do) it was deeply unfair. I know some think she was advocating statutory rape of an eleven year old (and it certainly looked that way) but I'm not completely sure she meant it. Her defence was woeful and, I think, completely untrue.
The Tasma Walton comment is rather harder to judge. It wasn't funny, Deveny says she meant every word of it (the comforting bosom of the ABC gave her two goes at defending herself) and claimed privilege because she'd worked with Rove for five years. How can you not see how this would be hurtful?
She says she's full of compassion for people (despite her manipulative involvement of innocent parties in the Anzac Day series) and contributes to Broken Rites from the takings of her dull regurgitation/interpretation of Dawkins' The God Delusion, her pithily-titled God Is Bullshit and That's the Good News. But she completely missed that her 'friend' Rove McManus (someone else who annoys me greatly) would be hurt by this. Deeply, deeply hurt.
You see, the difference between hers and Anderson's tweets, is that he attacked grown-ups who could happily step off the stage and whack him with a mike stand and he'd probably have copped it sweet, because he himself is a grown-up (despite his undergraduate style of humour).
As a vocal critic of Deveny, I was most offended by her hypocrisy and her lack of actual ability - if offends me someone so pedestrian is paid to write for a broadsheet (I hold the same opinion of Devine). Combine all this with phoned-in columns full of made up facts and statistics as well as amateur cage rattling, I would complain loudly on Twitter about her utterly intellectually bereft ranting.
She says she's with Richard Dawkins on the idea that labelling a child with religion is tantamount to child abuse, yet she actively pimps her children on Twitter and in her articles as 'atheists.' The '11 year old atheist.' She sent her 11 year old atheist to a friend's first communion with a Voodoo toy, presumably as a joke. So the child, who was probably too young to understand the hilarity, may have had the toy taken away from him but it would have given Cath a laugh - point of order: giving things to A CHILD is not for your benefit.
She's a rabid class warrior, although not the way she thinks she is - she wrote several columns last year ripping into the working and middle classes' loves of shopping, pornography (a form of entertainment she has a strange philosophical relationship with) and sport. She's all for people doing/believing/thinking what they want as long as they fit in with her monocultural view, the World of Deveny. What she fails to realise is that her red-wine-fuelled rage is inner-Melbourne-North smugness that few people can identify with, even Age readers.
Her contribution to public discourse is deeply dreary - her Q&A performances were cringingly bad, blaming global warming on religion (her reasoning was fundamentally broken), she called Tony Abbott 'flappy eared' (also rolling out the cliched 'keep your rosaries off my ovaries) and claimed to have assaulted John Elliott in the green room at some point. Way to go, Cath - you're setting the bar high.
She said that those who didn't find her funny probably though Hey Hey and the Footy Show are funny. Wrong, Catherine, so very, very wrong and so very, very self-important. You self-importance, in fact, rates up there the people you hate most.
So why did The Age sack her? I don't really know and I am slightly disappointed it wasn't for the reasons she should have been sacked. I think she's mean and heartless (at best, if she does have a heart, it's black) and hasn't progressed her atheist-feminist thinking past the idea that there's no God so she can shag who she wants. It's childish, scrawled out stuff.
It would be deeply worrying if The Age really sacked her for this, but the way she was eulogised by the Editor of The Age was hardly glowing so one wonders if they weren't just waiting for an excuse. If it was for tweeting crap on her own time, I'd almost consider donating to a fund to sue for wrongful dismissal.
At the same time, one has to wonder why her fans are moaning about her freedom of expression was being infringed. No, it wasn't - she said it, she has to wear it. See, again, she thinks she's too 'important' to have to wear the consequences of her actions, much like the people she hates in politics and celebrity.
I think Amy Gray summed her up beautifully here:
http://overstimulated.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-problem-with-catherine-deveny/
So, to sum up, this is why she should have been sacked: she's rubbish. She has no discernible abilities as a writer or a thinker. Her comedy work is a deep seam of hate for everyone who disagrees with her way of thinking and her complete lack of understanding of religion, a topic she spends a lot of her time on, is startling. I don't care whether she believes in God or not, she should at least understand why others do and understand their motivations before getting stuck in. She probably doesn't really understand the intricacies of theological thought and finds quick wins by just going after the usual stuff when there is plenty to really go after in a meaningful and challenging way.
I won't miss her. Sadly, given the ABC's undying devotion to her, I don't think I will have the chance...
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
John Howard's Plans For Cricket
Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard will take over the chairmanship of the International Cricket Council from 2012. His manifesto was apparently what got him over the line.
It's called CricketChoices, and I leaked them today on Twitter:
1. No appeals.
2. All dismissals final.
3. Umpires abolished
4. Bowlers are able to dismiss batsmen without bowling
5. Batsmen have a six over probationary period & can be dismissed
6. Bowlers may not dismiss batsmen for refusing to take crease. But can dismiss for any other reason
7. Batsmen can be dismissed but brought back to the crease if they give up their helmet, bat, gloves and 100 runs.
They seem awfully familiar, don't they?
It's called CricketChoices, and I leaked them today on Twitter:
1. No appeals.
2. All dismissals final.
3. Umpires abolished
4. Bowlers are able to dismiss batsmen without bowling
5. Batsmen have a six over probationary period & can be dismissed
6. Bowlers may not dismiss batsmen for refusing to take crease. But can dismiss for any other reason
7. Batsmen can be dismissed but brought back to the crease if they give up their helmet, bat, gloves and 100 runs.
They seem awfully familiar, don't they?
Monday, February 22, 2010
On the 'Anti-Science' Movement
I had an entertaining little game of Twitter tennis with a mutual follower this morning. I won't name them, because I didn't ask and don't want to embarrass them by doing so. Let me be clear in saying that I don't think they should be embarrassed by what they said - it's their view and I can see how they got there.
I responded to this:
'Yeah! Big cheer for science! Not confident that Australians haven't already been bought off by the anti-science movement'
with this:
'The anti-science movement? Seriously? I'll admit there's some dumbness around, but wow, there's no conspiracy. Really.'
It wasn't exactly a Wildean response, granted, but the initial challenge got me thinking. There seems to be a niche intelligentsia view that there is a properly organised 'anti-science' movement that is 'buying people off,' to use the words of my fellow tweeter.
They came back with the rather better:
'I don't really think that there's any other way to describe the climate change denial industry.'
(I said I had a better word, 'arsehats')
I think that is a very narrow, and might I say, misguided view. The climate change denial 'industry' (I don't think it's a industry as such - there are people who do and people who don't) is powered by a number of things -
1. Respected opinion
Not 'respectable' opinion, mind you. People like Bolt, Blair, Devine et al are, like some of their counterparts Farrelly and Deveney, not helpful. The deniers think we're okay and there's nothing to worry about and use 'science' to back their view. Their view is not the prevailing view within the scientific community but you will always find a scientist willing to disagree with their community for their fifteen minutes. Hence 'credible' evidence to support their claim.
2. Financial interests
a. Oil, gas and coal companies are not pleased with the recent turn of events. They've been made the scapegoats for it when we probably need to take a good hard look at ourselves and look at how we use energy. Yes, it's not always our fault dimwitted government after dimwitted government 'commits' to being green then commissions more coal-power. If anyone's being bought off, it's them. And we should be voting them out on their arses.
b. Newspapers. A long, drawn-out argument never fails to sell papers or generate page views. They'll keep printing it until we stop reading it. See point 1.
3. Climate change fanbois - here's the interesting bit. Those on the non-denial side (which includes me, by the way) are often lumped in with the loonies by parts 1 and 2a. That's pretty tedious. Climate change is happening, there is no doubt. How it's happening and to what extent is only partly proveable because we don't have as much concrete as some would like to think.
I think it has much to do with human activity and is probably a result of a natural shift in temperatures magnified by our presence and vandalism. The fanbois are nuts. They think we're all dead in fifty years, billions of people will die and it's all because of the deniers refusing to change.
Rubbish. The deniers are denying because it affects them directly and they don't want to change. The governments, chasing votes instead of truth, will happily feed that fear of change. Government says 'go green' but builds more coal-fired power, touts 'clean coal' (I need to wash my fingers after typing that) and continues to ignore renewable and sustainable energy sources. What does this say to the population? Bugger it, it's probably not true but we're paying lip service. Oh, and the 'science' behind clean coal is nicely polished by men in white coats who are paid to do so.
Science has scored a few impressive own goals over the last few years because they have allowed themselves to be led by the fanbois into the media spotlight. There is no moderate view in the media anymore, on any topic and the moderates are howled down without a second's grace. The deniers get to play it fast and loose because they're on a hiding to nothing - the science side can't do the same because there is solid evidence to back the theories.
So, anyway, this anti-science movement thing is rubbish and paranoid. The vast majority of climate change deniers wouldn't countenance using alternative medicine, not using stuff that science brings us, like, oh, modern life or deny that planes fly because of physics and aerodynamics rather than magic fairy dust.
It's this kind of patronising, academic view that pisses people off and once they've made up their mind, they won't change. Scientists told people in the 50s that smoking was good for them because the tobacco companies paid them to do so. Scientists are paid by a variety of interests to prove a point and so many are rightly regarded with the predictable suspicion. Conflicts of interest abound in the academic community because a lot of the money in it has a story to tell and they expect the results to support that story.
I lay the blame partly at the feet of the psychotic elements of New Atheism that dumps anybody who disagrees with them in the same box - the one marked Mentally Ill. People aren't as dumb as some would like to think, they just disagree. You can't disagree anymore without being accused of being 'bought off' or an idiot. There are compelling prima facie, media-friendly arguments that climate change is not our fault or even not happening (though these are sound-bit bits of evidence). There are compelling own goals that makes people think that the green agenda is about commie greenies wanting to end capitalism, as though capitalism's bedrock is oil and coal.
Dawkins, bless his cotton socks, is the sort of person I'm talking about. He publicly derides religion for being stupid and superstitious because they disagree with his world view. I understand that he feels religion attacks his chosen field - biology - when, really, only bits of it do. Sadly for him, he takes that personally, which is the sign of a gigantic ego which gets in the way of his undoubted cleverness.
He's a purporter of this anti-science paranoia. There are people who will oppose science or some of it, it doesn't make them 'religious' or 'Christian.' Or mentally ill, or bribed. Or vice versa. As I said, the people in big oil no more believe in fairy dust than they do climate change and spent a great deal of their time and money on things that the patronisers say they oppose.
It's a black and white world view that is intolerant and motivated simply by the need to be 'right.'
I responded to this:
'Yeah! Big cheer for science! Not confident that Australians haven't already been bought off by the anti-science movement'
with this:
'The anti-science movement? Seriously? I'll admit there's some dumbness around, but wow, there's no conspiracy. Really.'
It wasn't exactly a Wildean response, granted, but the initial challenge got me thinking. There seems to be a niche intelligentsia view that there is a properly organised 'anti-science' movement that is 'buying people off,' to use the words of my fellow tweeter.
They came back with the rather better:
'I don't really think that there's any other way to describe the climate change denial industry.'
(I said I had a better word, 'arsehats')
I think that is a very narrow, and might I say, misguided view. The climate change denial 'industry' (I don't think it's a industry as such - there are people who do and people who don't) is powered by a number of things -
1. Respected opinion
Not 'respectable' opinion, mind you. People like Bolt, Blair, Devine et al are, like some of their counterparts Farrelly and Deveney, not helpful. The deniers think we're okay and there's nothing to worry about and use 'science' to back their view. Their view is not the prevailing view within the scientific community but you will always find a scientist willing to disagree with their community for their fifteen minutes. Hence 'credible' evidence to support their claim.
2. Financial interests
a. Oil, gas and coal companies are not pleased with the recent turn of events. They've been made the scapegoats for it when we probably need to take a good hard look at ourselves and look at how we use energy. Yes, it's not always our fault dimwitted government after dimwitted government 'commits' to being green then commissions more coal-power. If anyone's being bought off, it's them. And we should be voting them out on their arses.
b. Newspapers. A long, drawn-out argument never fails to sell papers or generate page views. They'll keep printing it until we stop reading it. See point 1.
3. Climate change fanbois - here's the interesting bit. Those on the non-denial side (which includes me, by the way) are often lumped in with the loonies by parts 1 and 2a. That's pretty tedious. Climate change is happening, there is no doubt. How it's happening and to what extent is only partly proveable because we don't have as much concrete as some would like to think.
I think it has much to do with human activity and is probably a result of a natural shift in temperatures magnified by our presence and vandalism. The fanbois are nuts. They think we're all dead in fifty years, billions of people will die and it's all because of the deniers refusing to change.
Rubbish. The deniers are denying because it affects them directly and they don't want to change. The governments, chasing votes instead of truth, will happily feed that fear of change. Government says 'go green' but builds more coal-fired power, touts 'clean coal' (I need to wash my fingers after typing that) and continues to ignore renewable and sustainable energy sources. What does this say to the population? Bugger it, it's probably not true but we're paying lip service. Oh, and the 'science' behind clean coal is nicely polished by men in white coats who are paid to do so.
Science has scored a few impressive own goals over the last few years because they have allowed themselves to be led by the fanbois into the media spotlight. There is no moderate view in the media anymore, on any topic and the moderates are howled down without a second's grace. The deniers get to play it fast and loose because they're on a hiding to nothing - the science side can't do the same because there is solid evidence to back the theories.
So, anyway, this anti-science movement thing is rubbish and paranoid. The vast majority of climate change deniers wouldn't countenance using alternative medicine, not using stuff that science brings us, like, oh, modern life or deny that planes fly because of physics and aerodynamics rather than magic fairy dust.
It's this kind of patronising, academic view that pisses people off and once they've made up their mind, they won't change. Scientists told people in the 50s that smoking was good for them because the tobacco companies paid them to do so. Scientists are paid by a variety of interests to prove a point and so many are rightly regarded with the predictable suspicion. Conflicts of interest abound in the academic community because a lot of the money in it has a story to tell and they expect the results to support that story.
I lay the blame partly at the feet of the psychotic elements of New Atheism that dumps anybody who disagrees with them in the same box - the one marked Mentally Ill. People aren't as dumb as some would like to think, they just disagree. You can't disagree anymore without being accused of being 'bought off' or an idiot. There are compelling prima facie, media-friendly arguments that climate change is not our fault or even not happening (though these are sound-bit bits of evidence). There are compelling own goals that makes people think that the green agenda is about commie greenies wanting to end capitalism, as though capitalism's bedrock is oil and coal.
Dawkins, bless his cotton socks, is the sort of person I'm talking about. He publicly derides religion for being stupid and superstitious because they disagree with his world view. I understand that he feels religion attacks his chosen field - biology - when, really, only bits of it do. Sadly for him, he takes that personally, which is the sign of a gigantic ego which gets in the way of his undoubted cleverness.
He's a purporter of this anti-science paranoia. There are people who will oppose science or some of it, it doesn't make them 'religious' or 'Christian.' Or mentally ill, or bribed. Or vice versa. As I said, the people in big oil no more believe in fairy dust than they do climate change and spent a great deal of their time and money on things that the patronisers say they oppose.
It's a black and white world view that is intolerant and motivated simply by the need to be 'right.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)