stupor troopers?

By Challi

Like any lily-livered pinko in Australia, I want the Australian troops out of Iraq. My original reason for this was that they're participating in an unjust war in a god-forsaken hellhole and they might get hurt blah blah blah I want my mummy, but then I reattached my testicles and now actually have a practical reason as to why they shouldn't be in Iraq that even your average heartless bastard will understand:

They're not doing anything there!

Yes, according to a recent report from Iraq which I'll be sure to cite as soon as it comes up on a news site and obviously will have this sentence removed, Australian soldiers are being taunted by American troops for not participating as much as they should be. I tend to agree, mostly because the body count for American troops stands at around the 3500 mark, whereas the body count for Australian troops stands at a measly 2, and they were both accidental. If the Australian soldiers were really doing their jobs, we'd see a lot more dead Australian soldiers, and that's what we'd want to see! If it takes someone to be cleaning their gun and it accidentally going off for a death to happen, they may as well leave right now because they clearly aren't pulling their weight!

Ok, I don't actually wish death on the Australian troops and I understand they probably ran out of things to do, but they're also basically going in there and getting paid extra for nothing, except to stay in a war zone for a few months. So what? I went to the Philippines and Melbourne, I didn't get paid at all for that. Some of my brother's navy buddies, excluding himself, went to Iraq's coast and stayed there for a month or so and did absolutely nothing except stay there and await an attack that obviously isn't gonna happen (because the rebels have no submarines, duh) and they got paid extra for it. My brother went to Aceh and helped to rebuild an entire town after the Boxing Day Tsunami and he just got his regular pay. Injustice!

and to top it all off, it's American troops that are telling our troops that they're not doing enough in the war. That's got to be the last straw. Australians, either do your job and get a nice tally of deaths that somehow indicate a job well done, or get the hell out of there and stop getting paid for no reason whatsoever, slackers!

-C

a smite at the museum.

By Challi

Does anyone else just find this adorable? A museum has been opened in America that tries to scientifically explain Creation and other completely understandable things like how Noah had dinosaurs on board the Ark with him! Oh yes, wood was really strong back then.



Now look, I understand how frustrating it is for Catholics to be believed by pretty much anyone that aren't them, but this stupid museum isn't exactly helping. I mean c'mon, dinosaurs on the Ark? Not even most hardcore Catholics are that fucking stupid. Besides, why do Catholics even feel that they have to explain themselves to the scientific world? Isn't God supposed to be some super all-powerful magic being that defies such restrictive boundaries like logic? If there was no evidence available to support otherwise, then wouldn't that prove that point more, and thus restore the majesty of God for the followers who would want to believe it like that? It's much better than trying to find a systematically sound reason as to how eating fruit from one particular tree made us ashamed of our nudity or how an old guy parted the sea with a magic stick, isn't it?

So likewise, I'm also annoyed that there were party-pooper protesters outside the museum with signs like "DEFCON SAYS THOU SHALT NOT LIE".



Yes, sure the museum is stupid and pointless, but that doesn't give them the right to ruin the creation idea for believers anyway. Do Catholic priests go around telling the little kids they lured into their confessional booths that the Easter Bunny and tooth fairy doesn't exist? Hell no, and they shouldn't do the same.

-C

imagine no religion...

By PJK

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most destructive to the peace of man since man began to exist."

Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason.

Atheist opposition to religion should be unnecessary in principle. It makes no difference to me whether you believe in an omniscient creator, or whether you believe in the tooth fairy. As readers may have noticed, I am firmly against the idea that anyone's beliefs (political, religious, cultural, etc.) should be grounds for discrimination in a democratic, secular, and pluralist society. But this is not the same as saying that belief should be immune from criticism, and when it comes to religion there is certainly a lot to critique, even oppose.

For one thing, my tolerance is certainly strained after having personally encountered (on no less that two occasions in the past six months) representatives of organised religion who have either directly stated or implied that I am going to Hell.

Sure, we could ignore them. We could just walk away. But should we? Shouldn't we be opposed to this kind of hateful bile as a matter of principle? The idea that 'sinners' and 'unbelievers' will be subjected to a divine punishment (especially the Christian and Islamic conceptions of Hell) is an archaic and poisonous one, particularly when what is considered 'sinful' is based on ancient and erroneous notions of morality. But sadly this view continues to have an emotional stranglehold on millions around the world. Even simply implying that the godless will have no place in an eternal afterlife is in my opinion emotional blackmail of the most sickening kind. While there exist people and organizations that continue to espouse these views, they MUST BE OPPOSED by all rational and tolerant people.

So too must religious interference in politics. The faith of a political figure is one thing; it's as personal as my preference for coffee over tea. But when the leader of a secular democracy openly promotes the religious views of one sect over all others, then our liberty (in the Enlightenment sense) is compromised. This means no references to 'God' in official documents and ceremonies. No 'Day of Prayer'. No public money for pushing 'abstinence' or 'intelligent design' into schools. These are all aberrations. Thomas Paine would've been appalled.

Enforcing secularism and promoting tolerance is a noble cause, but I would suggest that it alone is not enough. Rational people have a duty to oppose intolerant faiths. When Churches and Sunday Schools evoke the concept of Hell and divine punishment, they are blackmailing and threatening people. Worst of all, they are blackmailing and threatening children. If I threatened or blackmailed a child, shouldn't I be prosecuted? And if there is any justice in the world, shouldn't I be punished for it? People are easily led astray by hateful rhetoric. So why let religions get away with propagating the worst threat of all? (ie. an eternity of the worst suffering imaginable!)

Finally, I have this to add. People object to the way 'militant' atheists such as Richard Dawkins attack religion. You might be inclined to think he is just as bad. I would disagree. Dawkins is not threatening anybody. Unlike many religious believers, Dawkins is not suggesting that if you don't adopt his beliefs, you will be eternally punished. And though I haven't read The God Delusion, from what I've heard it mainly targets the fundamentalist God (ie. a bearded man in the clouds), and this I have no qualms with. If anything, Fundamentalists should be attacked more often and more harshly by noteworthy intellectuals, and their ludicrously primitive and dangerous beliefs like 'creationism' should be exposed for what they're truly worth (ie. nothing).

And if this argument sounds one-sided, understand too that my tolerance for 'Islamic sensibilities', particularly the hypocrisy involved in responding to cultural offences with senseless violence, is wearing thinner by the day.

Islamic sensibilities or Islamic double standards?

yes, Virginia, there is a bodycount.

By Challi

I was actually going to talk about this while it was still relevant but, hey, that's procrastination for you. Besides, I think we who weren't affected at all personally by the Virginia Tech Massacre has gotten over the shock of it by now so we can just look back on the event and laugh.

...

Ok, that was kind of tasteless, but at least it's been long enough to at least get away with the title and the rest of this post without a lynch mob waiting within the comments section.

Anyway, I think that the perpetrator of this most heinous act, Cho Seung-Hui, was clearly a bit of an attention-seeking drama queen who wanted to go out with a bang (sorry) which is why he sent those videos of him talking about why he was about to kill all those innocent hedonists to NBC, so that he could be seen as some sort of awesome martyr on national TV rather than just some angsty acne-ridden nutjob, not that it worked. In fact, all he really did was seem like a jealous kid who hated everyone who had a better life than him. He is like a lot of Uni students in that respect, except not in regards to the "killing 33 people" part, most of us only get to about 12 and then we get back to finishing that damn 2500-word essay. I'm not sure where I'm going with this.

Fear my wonky eyes and overbite

What I really want to mention, though, is how this weirdo decided to compare himself to Jesus Christ in one of his videos, here's a transcript:

"You thought it was one pathetic void life you were extinguishing, but thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ to inspire generations of the weak and defenseless people."

Umm...huh? You died like Jesus, did you? I don't recall that bit in the Bible where Jesus walked into a university and shot 31 people on top of the 2 he shot a few days before and then put the gun in his mouth and shot himself. I'm pretty sure he died while nailed to a cross and died for our sins without killing other people in the process. Sure, the New Testament was written to make Jesus look good, but I doubt the writers stretched the truth that much.

Ah, and you did what you did to inspire the weak and defenseless did you? Is that a small price to pay for killing 33 defenseless people, or are you just unfamiliar with your own hypocrisy? or both? I know these questions I ask will not be answered because the person I'm asking them to is too much of a coward to answer them...and he's also dead.

In the rest of that video, he also mentions the future victims being a bunch of hedonistic brats who couldn't live without all those material goods. The irony of that is that he couldn't kill that many people without his own material posession, his guns and he wouldn't bother with killing the other 31 people without taping himself on another material possession, a video camera, because otherwise he wouldn't be as infamous. So he's as bad as everyone else, except that he killed people so he's a little worse.

I'll end this post with one final irony: Does anyone else find it strange in this picture below that he looks like he's trying to shoot someone when he's clearly being sniped himself?

Ok, I'll shut up now
-C

yet more NineMSN idiocy *sigh*.

By PJK

Remember two posts ago, that inane NineMSN poll about a Mulsim, err... 'religious' immigration cap? Here's yet another shocker for ya:

Oh FFS.

Okay, this isn't the same thing as asking if migrants should merely be screened for HIV before entering the country. Perhaps a mandatory screening process would arguably serve the greater good. After all, we have the resources for such a programme that many countries perhaps lack, so at least someone carrying HIV into the country could become aware of it and get proper treatment here... though even that seems like an invasion of privacy to me. In any case, that's another debate entirely. What this poll is asking is whether or not any migrants that arrive HIV positive should be kicked out of the country. Australia's answer: a resounding yes.

Hussah! Once again our stalwart citizen-soldiers rally to erect yet more barricades in defence of Fortress Australia™.

THIS IS SPARTAA!!!

Shut up. Think for a minute about how you would feel if you were HIV positive. It's the most horrible thing. Condemned to an early grave, you become a walking taboo. People are literally afraid of you, as this poll shows. Think how you would feel if you were denied access to a great country like ours simply because you arrive and discover you're HIV positive, and subsequently have to return home to a country where treatment may not be available.

Human rights apply to all humans, 'diseased' or no. This is no different from the bigotry of the previous poll I mentioned.

Clearly people have been watching too much 300. This is NOT Sparta.

Morons.

EDIT: Well it looks as if I'm the real moron, having failed to realise this poll was based on comments made by, of all people, our Prime Minister. Glorious Leader is apparenly being blasted over the comments, and rightly so. Also, according to that article, migrants over the age of 15 are indeed tested for HIV and it is apparently very difficult for them to be accepted into the country under current government policy. Shows what I know.

Turns out this is indeed Sparta. My bad.

blue dodo down.

By Challi

I'm bringing blogging back (yeah), them other n00bs don't know how to act.

Yes, I had a nice half of a summer holiday that involved me getting drunk off my ass at my brother's wedding and watching the worst of daytime TV and overall just avoiding this blog, thanks for asking. However, now I'm back from outer space and you just walked in to find me here with that sad look upon my face. Should you have changed that stupid lock or even made me leave my key if you had known for just one second I'd be back to follow you?

*water splashes on face*

Ok, back to business. Let's start this blogging year with a pointless rant about an annoying ad.

Not only is this ad annoying, it is also immoral and just downright evil. It's bad enough that Dodo Australia has played God by resurrecting an extinct bird and painting it blue in order to sell their services but they also are playing on people's addictions to sell their services too.

In this ad, there are people in a group counselling session ala Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous where they go around the circle and everyone states their name and tells everyone that they have an addiction or dependency. In this case, they are apparently all mobile phone addicts. The first guy stands up and states his name and says he is a mobile phone junkie. The next person is an overtly happy woman who just says "I don't have a problem because my mobile charges are half price!"

Wrong! It's wrong!

If it's an addiction then the idea of getting it cheaper won't stop the addiction, it would only make it worse! That's like going into a Narcotics Anonymous meeting and saying "I don't have a problem with my addiction to crack anymore because I know a place where I can get 10kg of crack for 50 bucks!" How much it costs shouldn't be the problem, it should have something to do with, oh I don't know, how much it can kill you? How much you get addicted to it and ruin your life? Even if the addiction is mobile phones, the radiation poisoning can kill you and you're always paying for it anyway and yeah, it damn well ruins your life! So for ruining everybody's life, Dodo, Derryn Hinch just has this to say to you:

Shame, Shame, Shame

Oh wait, while I still have Derryn Hinch, he also has this to say to you:

Paw-paw because you pour pour the milk, Mango because it makes a man go.

Oh, and this:

A licky boom boom down

*Water splashes on face*

Where's all this water coming from?

Before I stop wasting your time, another ad I hate is that god damn ad for Off! insect repellent. Sure we should be concerned that it's called "Off!" but there's more. In it, there is some family outside going all "I don't think I've got it on but you've got it on well I've got it on let's get it on and something about mosquitos".

Now look, I don't mind American ads on television, but they shouldn't need to dub everyone with Australian accents when we can plainly see that the ad was American to begin with. Australians don't look like that, and if we know they're not Australian then your pathetic attempt to make it seem like it's a product of Australia has failed miserably. This isn't the only ad where they do it either, and it's always painfully obvious when they do. Stop dubbing ads, thanks.

-C

unenthused debate: the human cost of the Iraq War.

By PJK

In contrast to what normally passes as a post here on the unenthusiast(s), I want to discuss one of the most important issues our time: the Iraq War. It's a pretty mammoth topic, so for the sake of brevity I'm going to leave out the debate over casus belli, war-aims and the broader situation in the Middle East and just focus on the recent controversy surrounding loss of human life. After all, is that not the most important thing at stake here?

The facts: The number of confirmed US military casualties in Iraq is currently 2776; the number of British losses is 119. Of the other coalition members, 118 military personnel have been killed, of whom 2 were Australian. 85 journalists have lost their lives covering the Iraq War. If we are to believe the new Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian losses (and there are certainly plausible reasons why we should), the current death toll stands at around 655,000 (31% of this directly attributed to Coalition forces), which would equate to around 2.5 percent of the population. Civilian casualty numbers are disputed however: the L.A. Times points to a figure around 500,000, and the White House claims any estimate above 300,000 is "not credible". In any case, these numbers are pretty hard to comprehend out of context. To put it in perspective (and no, I am not infering moral equivalency), Human Rights Watch estimates that deaths under Saddam range from 250,000 to 290,000. Perhaps we will never know how many were murdered by the Baathist regime, but with the current civil war showing no signs of abating, any plausible figure would likely be exceeded by the time Iraq is stabilised (and indeed it may have already been exceeded). I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

Baghdad on Google Earth. If you haven't looked it up yet you should.

The opinion: History will make up its own mind whether or not the invasion of Iraq was justified. In any case, we cannot simply undo all of these deaths. They are the price that has been paid for Saddam's removal, and we must now ask ourselves the question: are we responsible for Iraq's future? Supporters and opponents of the war alike mostly agree that we are. The challenge therefore is to debate responsibility in a rational and nonpartisan manner, and to fufill whatever responsibility we accept to the best of our ability — especially if Iraq was, as many believe, a mistake.

Comments welcome.

Sources for this post:
Japan Times Online: 'More Deadly Than Saddam'
PBS Online NewsHour: 'Study Finds Iraq Death Toll Higher Than Previous Estimates'
Editor and Publisher: 'Iraqi Death Rate May Top Our Civil War'
Iraq Coalition Casualties
Iraq: Journalists in Danger

popular culture and the rising sun.

By PJK

One rather striking image that seems to be appearing in graphic designs all over the place all of the sudden — on clothing and in brand logos and so forth — is the Japanese "rising sun" emblem.

A quick check on Wikipedia reveals the origins of the symbol: historically associated with the Japanese military, it was first adopted as the official naval ensign in 1889 (the flag is still in use for that purpose to this very day). Here's a t-shirt I found on a simple Google search featuring the symbol, similar to one I saw today:

Now I admit it does look cool. There's no denying that. But I am disturbed by the fact that it's being absorbed into popular culture in this way. I wonder: how is wearing this any different to wearing a Swastika? This is a flag against which a generation of Australians were called to fight. It's the flag waved by Japanese Imperialists as they conquered and subjugated the people of South East Asia. Horrific atrocities like the Rape of Nanking were carried out under this flag. It was a rallying symbol for Tojo's militarist thugs. In short, it is a flag of fascists.

As I mentioned earlier, this flag is still in official use. We could get into a whole sideline debate as to why that is and whether or not it should be disassociated completely from the modern Japanese military, but that's an entirely different discussion. The question is, where do we draw the line on political correctness in pop-culture iconography?