Hey Hey Let’s Not Overreact

I wasn’t going to weigh into this debate, but here goes.

Let’s get one thing very clear: a white person putting on make-up and pretending to be a black person is not inherently offensive.

This may seem obvious, but I have a feeling that this ridiculous Jackson Jive skit is going to cause some to disagree with that.

Let’s take a recent example: a few weeks ago the US series Mad Men had one of their white characters perform a minstrel show to an amused garden party.

Far from being offended, The New York Times (that bastion of liberal politics) hailed it as one of the best episodes of the series. So what’s the difference?

Simple. The Mad Men episode was relevant, poignant, funny and meant something.

The Jackson Jive skit? It wasn’t funny and it meant nothing.

It may have been a sad indictment on the state of Australian television but it said nothing about racism in Australia. If you want to find evidence of that just google “stolen generations” or “Cronulla riots”.

The point is that any reference to old American blackface shows in the Jackson Jive skit is a projection on the part of Americans. The performers weren’t aware of it.

Should they have been aware of it? Maybe. But maybe they’re just not as steeped in American culture as some of their detractors. That’s hardly a crime.

The people who should have known better were the producers of the show.

What the hell were they thinking getting Harry Connick Jr, not just an American but a white southern gentleman, to judge this thing? Did it not occur to them that he might be offended?

What next? Getting Cat Stevens to judge a pork-pie-eating contest?

No wonder it went viral. US cultural sensitivity around this stuff is running hot right now. The timing couldn’t have been worse.

What I’m worried about is this falling over into knee-jerk censorship, whereby any white actor in black make-up is automatically deemed censurable.

That would be a bad reaction.

Worse, it would mean we were giving trash like Hey Hey it’s Saturday an influence that it just doesn’t deserve.

In Which Bill O’Reilly is a Douchebag

Apparently Bill O’Reilly thinks teaching science is science classes is fascism. Wait. What?

Dawkins makes some great points in this interview, but people not already on team Dawkins probably wouldn’t come away with any changed opinions.

The problem is a mismatch of styles. O’Reilly fights dirty. In pub-brawl terms O’Reilly’s the guy wielding a smashed bottle and ready to kick his opponent in the nuts.

Dawkins’ refined and rational debating style just doesn’t fit. There’s no reasoning with someone like that.

We need to get street fighting debaters like Christopher Hitchens or PZ Myers in there to smack O’Reilly down.

Opinions still wouldn’t be changed, but they’d do him over a treat.

Shock: Kirk Cameron Promotes Darwin

Has ex-teen-idol-turned-evangelist Kirk Cameron gone mad?

He and his fellow Christians are going to hand out free copies of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species!

The stupid burns brightly in this one. I’ve picked out a few choice sections just in case you can’t be bothered watching the whole thing.

Kirk starts with a lament about the loss of religious freedom.

Our kids can no longer pray in public. They can no longer freely open a bible in school. The ten commandments are no longer allowed to be displayed in public places, and the Gideons are not even allowed to give away bibles in schools.

You’ve gotta love the way he comes bursting out of the gate with four out-and-out lies in the first 22 seconds

Kirk, take it from me. Your kids can pray in public all they like. They can read their bibles in school if they want to. You are free to display the ten commandments on public property (just not government property), and the Gideons have only been stopped from distributing bibles in public schools during class time … because that’s, you know, unconstitutional. Remember your precious Constitution?

Kirk continues:

Did you know that a recent study revealed that in the top 50 universities in our country in the fields of psychology and biology, 61% of the professors described themselves as atheists or agnostics.

Obviously including academics from other fields would have reduced the number to something less shocking. But still … only 61%? That’s not that much.

You have to love his next piece of logic, though.

No wonder atheism has doubled in the last 20 years among 19 to 25 year-olds.

That’s right, because 50% of the 19 to 25-year-olds now professing atheism attended the 61% of psychology and biology classes taught by atheists and agnostics. And that’s what turned them.

Then we get to the point. Kirk lays out his plan to distribute 50,000 copies of On the Origin of Species at these universities … featuring an all-new introduction by his friend Ray Comfort The Banana Guy!

Apparently this introduction will give the reader …

… the history of evolution, a timeline of Darwin's life, Adolf Hitler's undeniable connection with the theory, Darwin's racism, his disdain for women, and Darwin's thoughts on the existence of God.

Wow. I really hope I can get a copy. It should be hilarious.

Presumably the Hitler thing has been put in for shock value, but the bits about racism and disdain for women particularly tickled me. Is Kirk unaware of his church’s stellar record in these areas?

It also lists the theory's many hoaxes. It exposes the unscientific belief that nothing created everything. It points to the incredible structure of DNA, and the absence of any species-to-species transitional forms actually found in the fossil record.

I can guess what the hoaxes will be. Comfort will trot out Piltdown man and Archaeoraptor, all the while ignoring the fact that these have no bearing on modern evolutionary theory and besides, were exposed as hoaxes by scientists, not creationists.

The remark that “nothing created everything” means Kirk ignorantly conflates “Big Bang” Theory with evolutionary biology (while misunderstanding both) and his claim of no transitional forms betrays the fact that he’s never read past his mate Ray’s 50-page introduction.

Before signing off Kirk gives a rallying cry to the faithful.

Go there as a team and get the gospel into the hands of this generation, the hands of future doctors, lawyers and politicians.

Hang on. Doctors, lawyers and politicians? I thought Kirk was worried about the biologists and psychologists. So why them? It must be important. He lists them twice.

Surely this isn’t just a thinly-veiled promotion of evangelical Christian politics? An attempt to get converts who can influence the issues of abortion, liberal court appointments and church/state separation?

Say it ain’t so!

Why is Socialized Health Care Evil?

The health care debate in the US seems to be never-ending.

On one side we have Republicans loudly remonstrating against the evils of socialized medicine (US spelling deliberate), even though that's not what's being proposed. And on the other side we have the Democrats struggling just to articulate just what it is they're proposing.

While everyone seems to agree that the system is broken, no-one can agree on how to fix it.

The model proposed by Obama, which includes a “public option” of government-run health care to compete with the private insurance companies, seems sensible, so what is the Republicans' problem with it?

According to conservative journalist and Republican poster-boy Matthew Continetti it's because the public option is a slippery slope to socialized health care. This statement (made on last week's Real Time with Bill Maher) was left unquestioned, as if it's perfectly obvious that 'socialized health care' is a Bad Thing.

My question for US Republicans is this: why is this so? Apart from Cold War-derived cultural distaste for the word “socialized”, what's your justification for this view?

In the US you already have so many socialized institutions: defence force, police force … even your beloved fire-fighters.

These services are socialized because the benefits they provide are a group insurance against future events. It's not practical to price these services on an individual basis. No individual can assign a meaningful probability to whether, or to what extent, they will need to call on these services.

Education is also largely socialized because, like these other services, the advantage is not just realised by those who directly utilise it. Everyone benefits from an educated populace, just as everyone benefits from a defended country and safe streets.

So tell me please, all you US Republicans … why is health care any different?

Coming Soon: Agora

This should spark some interesting debates when it’s released later this year.

Depending on who you ask, the story of Hypatia (here played by the lovely Rachel Weisz) and the destruction of the ancient library in Alexandria in the 4th century AD is either one of the most egregious examples of how religious hegemony can wreak destruction on civilisation, or … no. That’s about it.

Any other views are more or less apologetics for Christianity and the vague hand-waving that goes along with proclamations that they’re not really that bad anymore.

I’d take that view slightly more seriously if we hadn’t seen Dubya’s Christian troops stand passively by while the National Library in Baghdad was destroyed in 2003.

It’ll be interesting to see how the movies portray Cyril (a.k.a Saint Cyril of Alexandria) given he’ll undoubtedly be the villain of the piece. After all, he’s still considered one of the Fathers of the Catholic Church.

With a bit of luck we’ll get a Papal condemnation and picketing from idiots who haven’t bothered to see the film, but are blindly following the edicts from the pulpit. No great stretch that, of course.

Let the games begin.

Mathematical Proof of Republican Ignorance

This time they’ve gone too far.

On Thursday, 10 Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted against an official (but non-binding) resolution declaring today, March 14, 2009 (3/14/09) as Pi day.

You can read the whole sad story here.

Screwing up the world economy is one thing, but really. This is just a travesty.

It’s nothing more than a Luddite knee-capping of a noble attempt to bring an awareness of Math to the Masses.

What do we expect though, from the crowd that gave us eight years of anti-science medievalism and Sarah Palin?

Never mind. It’ll always be Pi day in our hearts.

In Defence of Phelps

Your honours.

I’d like to draw your attention to the recent accusations and penalties meted out to one Mr. Michael Phelps, elite swimmer.

To wit: the recently-circulated picture apparently showing Mr. Phelps, if you’ll pardon the expression m’luds, sucking down a bong.

Item 1: A three-month ban from competitive swimming.

This will be nothing but counter-productive.

What Mr. Phelps needs is a greater training regimen. More hours in the pool. Less free time in which to toke on the chronic green.

Item 2: Cancellation of Mr. Phelps’ Kellogg sponsorship.

This is a foolish action on behalf of Kellogg.

The company is at risk of alienating an important part of its core market, namely: people with killer munchies and so wasted they’re unable to do anything more than pour milk into a bowl of cereal.

Estimates place this demographic at up to 16% of Kellogg’s fixed customer base.

We propose this alternative marketing strategy:

Item 3: The public reaction.

Now m’luds no-one is suggesting marijuana is a performance-enhancing drug.

In fact, despite its undeniable medicinal and anaesthetic properties weed has a certain reputation for being performance-reducing.

Being a cone monkey makes one shiftless and boring, prone to disjointed rambling and watching old episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation because they offer wondrous existential insight.

Yet Mr. Phelps’ clear natural ability has allowed him to overcome his devotion to Mary Jane to win 14 Olympic gold medals and to hold no less than 32 world records.

Surely these achievements in the face of a proclivity for busting down some blunt is worthy of nothing but our utmost respect.

Your honours, I rest my case.

Inauguration

Dubya is already a fading memory, although the fallout from his disastrous reign will hang over the world like a toxic cloud for years to come.

In just over four hours Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th President of the USA.

The moment has been anticipated for so long (remember the bumper stickers?), it’s hard to believe it’s almost here.

Everyone’s talking about the crowds (record-breaking), the speech (historic) and Michelle Obama’s wardrobe.

But beyond the streamers and frocks and statistics, over and above the simple change of government, this event represents a genuine change of mood.

The sense of optimism may turn out to be brief, but right now it’s no less real for that.

The task of rebuilding America’s reputation, which has been almost destroyed over the last eight years, is a huge one.

We genuinely hope he’s up to it.

Life on Mars

Ever since the Martian canals were spotted and mapped and mis-interpreted as artificial structures in the late 19th century, we’ve been fascinated with the idea that our closest neighbour might harbour life.

The latest piece of the puzzle is the discovery of plumes of methane in the Martian atmosphere.

They could indicate volcanic activity, but the absence of sulphides make that unlikely. The more likely explanation is some sort of biological origin.

Sadly it’s unlikely to be herds of farting Martian cows. Probably just clusters of Martian bacteria. Still. Life.

It’s all very exciting, but in the main it’s just announcements of ongoing work on some old observations.

The plumes were first seen (and announced to much fanfare) back in 2003.

The cynical part of me thinks that the timing is particularly convenient, given the new US administration, the whole financial crisis and the fact that NASA’s budgets are being very closely examined.

But hey, what do I know?

The non-cynical part of me is just damn excited about the whole thing.

And that part’s winning at the moment.

Chuck Weighs In

Oooh, now it gets interesting.

Entering the latest War on Christmas debate, sparked recently by that sign erected in Olympia, Washington, is none other than Chuck Norris.

Yes, the rough, tough, roundhouse kicking Walker Texas Ranger has decided it’s personal, and he’s taking it to the man.

His argument is pretty straightforward, as you’d expect from the man who destroyed the periodic table, because he only recognizes the element of surprise.

It basically boils down to “Yes, yes, First Amendment and freedom of speech is fine, but NOT IF IT OFFENDS ME”.

Which seems to be typical of your modern US Christian.

Then he proceeds to list all his grievances (both real and imagined) against atheists, while pretending that he’s not really complaining because there would be no point doing that. Or something.

It’s all a bit muddled, to be honest. But in the end, it’s just a plug for his new book.

I recommend this one instead. It’s hilarious.

The Atheists Were Here First

Before the Winter Solstice was taken over by Christians and rebranded a celebration of Christ’s birth, it was a purely secular affair.

Actually, even more than that: it was an atheistic celebration of nature for nature’s sake. A joyful recognition of the abundance of our world and the importance of looking after it.

A lot of the symbols of the original festival have survived its Christianisation, most notably the Christmas tree, which for some reason few Christians even attempt to try to fit into their story.

Given the atheistic origins of the season, it’s endlessly amusing when Christians (particularly in the US) concoct arguments against a mythical “War on Christmas” supposedly being waged by those who would have religion turfed out of public life. Most probably don’t even know that they are the invaders here.

To illustrate the point, a plaque was erected in Olympia, Washington  reading:

“At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no heaven or hell.  There is only our natural world.  Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Of course it was torn down after an hour after it was erected.

Freedom of religious expression is a decidedly one-sided affair in the Land of the Free.

Obama/Biden/McCain/Palin = ?

There's a sensational new meme over at Fark, in which people can elegantly express, in simple visual terms, their thoughts on the US presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

This one's my favourite:


But of course I've also gone ahead and made my own:

Michael Palin for President

Well, I'm convinced.

Starbucks

It's just been announced that 61 of the 84 Starbucks outlets in Australia will be closing at the end of this week.

While it's tragic for the employees etc I just can't help feeling a little proud.

The quote from Starbucks boss Howard Schultz was that "no other international markets need to be addressed in this manner".

What I'm hearing is that Australians appreciate good coffee, have good coffee readily available, and really don't need some corporate behemoth doling out overpriced imitation coffee-like product.

But really, we could have told them that before they opened the first one here eight years ago.

All Heil the FCC

The US Federal Communications Commission (you know, the geniuses behind the media beat-up of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction) have had another brilliant idea.

I know, they've said . . . let's auction off part of the broadband spectrum to anyone that will provide free Internet without pornography! Or, in their words, a "network-based filtering mechanism...in order to protect children and families."

Recognising this as just one more step back into the Victorian era by a crowd of fascist Luddites, the reaction from the technological crowd has been one of bemusement and muted giggles. The reaction from potential bidders has been more or less non-existent.

Remember when the Howard Government, thinking along similar lines, offered free home-based content filters? Yeah. It took a sixteen-year-old less than 24 hours to crack it.

Hopes and dreams of moral crusaders notwithstanding, the technology required to achieve this just doesn't exist yet. What's more, it's many years of intensive development away.

So here's what will happen:

First, there will be a lot of discussion about freedom of speech from bloggers, and a lot of resistance from the dominant telcos (AT&T etc.). They won't be worried about about the filtering, of course, but about someone providing net access for free.

Then there will be a few parties interested in the auction, but not many. The ultimate price paid will be less than impressive.

Finally once the dust has settled, the costs associated with providing the required porn-free access will blow out massively. Kids will download porn from that spectrum just to show it can be done, and the FCC will be bombarded with complaints from their parents.

The strawman company set up to run the thing will be weighed down by lawsuits and declare bankruptcy, a lot of well-meaning but ignorant creditors will lose their money and the whole project will be summarily abandoned.

Or, there might be a sudden outbreak of common sense and the whole thing might be dropped before it begins. But I wouldn't count on it.

Manufacturing Controversy

Recently the Religion vs. Science debate has popped up again in the US.

After being roundly defeated in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005, Creationists have regrouped and are again trying to make it okay to teach Intelligent Design in science classes.

The passing of Louisiana senate bill SB 733 is going to make this possible, although not to teach ID directly. That's now clearly and legally understood to be unconstitutional.

The idea now is to "teach the controversy". That is, to promote ID as an alternative to evolutionary theory based on (acknowledged) weaknesses in evolutionary theory. This "controversy" has been manufactured by the proponents of ID.

The implication is that those evil scientists are trying to banish religion from our lives and claim, by teaching evolution, that there's no God.

But that's the thing. Science has precisely nothing to say about the existence of God, for or against.

To quote myself from a comment in an earlier post:

The point is that science is only concerned with examining and interpreting what can be observed and measured.

In that sense, the existence or non-existence of God is simply not a scientific question. It can't be, because there's no objective evidence to examine or measure or test.

From the scientific side there is no controversy, because Intelligent Design is not science. It's religious instruction posing as science. If the proponents of ID were a little more honest, they'd be upfront about that.

But the rejection of ID in science classes is not a rejection of religion, because science has nothing to say about religion.

The rejection of ID in science classes is just a rejection of bad science teaching.

When Creationists Attack

In an awesome blow to science education in the US, the Louisiana House of Representatives has approved senate bill SB 733.

Have a read. Looks innocuous enough? There's lots of talk about critical thinking and objective discussion and all that good stuff.

Don't believe a word of it.

This is nothing more than a cynical and underhanded stealth attack on science education.

The sole purpose of this document is to allow Creationism to be taught as scientific theory in public schools.

Of course there's no mention of Creationism, or even its modern equivalent Intelligent Design.

But note that the bill makes specific mention of

" . . . evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

That seems like a rather specific list.

And then, the kicker is in this paragraph:

"A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board"

What?

So if the school board is stacked with creationists, as is often the case in the US, then The Book of Genesis will be taught right alongside the standard science textbook.

And guess which one will be given more weight.

This is a science class. Surely we should be teaching science. And therefore listening to scientists. Only.

This stuff isn't a matter of opinion. It isn't a matter of theology.

It's open to debate, of course. But debate on rational, logical and scientific grounds. Not some manufactured debate of Religion vs Science designed solely to make the local ministers look like heroes to their parish.

I'm deeply disturbed by this.

ClearPlay

Here's an interesting idea from the Land of the Free . . . ClearPlay.

It's a modified DVD player that will play regular DVDs, but edit them on the fly based on downloaded templates. It'll remove violence, sex scenes or profanity, depending on what you choose to find offensive.

A quick glance at the list of movies available has some surprises: Fight Club and Saw are both there, and presumably run for about five minutes each.

I'm genuinely ambivalent about this.

While I find it offensive that someone's art can be arbitrarily cut up by some prudish hack, I appreciate the argument that a consumer should be able to choose what they see.

Mostly I feel sorry for people who would willingly rob themselves of the breadth of feeling you get from films like Pan's Labyrinth. If you take out the sickening violence, you miss the contrast with the childlike innocence at the heart of the story, and you might as well be watching The Little Mermaid.

Imagine if this catches on. Rather than a movie being rated PG, M or R, studios will release a different cut corresponding to each rating.

More cinemas be built to cater for the multiple versions of blockbusters. A new breed of auteur will arise that refuses to make multiple cuts.

And George Lucas will use it as an excuse for yet another special edition of Star Wars.

So what do we think, kids? Good idea or bad idea?

1/20/09

A little cottage industry in the US has sprung up recently, selling buttons and bumper stickers bearing the simple logo "1/20/09".

In Ameri-speak this is 20 January 2009, and the date of the next presidential inauguration. Specifically, this date represents the official end of George Dubya's reign. Apparently it's now a mainstream activity in the US to count down to the date when Bush Jr will officially no longer be president.

While I look forward to this as much as anyone, it's sad that there is such a sense of resignation to the idea that nothing can be achieved between now and then. People in the US seem to be marking time until that date, with the feeling is that only after this date the economy and the environment will be back on the agenda, and only then something can be done.

What's going on? The US country is supposedly a democracy, isn't it? Don't the people decide how it should be run? When the universal opinion is that the current administration is no good, why can't it be replaced?

Here in Australia we have something resembling some balance. The elected Government can be sacked by the royally-appointed Governor-General if things get out of hand. I suppose the Congress could impeach Bush, but they'd have to get some intern to give him a blowjob. And none of them seem keen.

Some democracy. And this is the peculiar brand of democracy that the US wishes to foist, by force if necessary, on the rest of the world.