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
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
a useful self-deception?
By PJK
Sloth: one of the seven deadly sins. Also a large tree-dwelling mammal (see above). We may not be living in trees just yet, but perhaps it's possible that through the former we might in fact be evolving (or is it devolving?) into the latter...
Who knows, maybe it's the absurd over-abundance of modern conveniences in our consumer-driven lifestyles, or maybe it's the legacy of 20th Century counter-culture movements. Or something. In any case, in this day and age laziness is not uncommon and is certainly no longer something to be frowned upon. I would go as far as to say that laziness is now almost seen as a virtue. Thanks to the Simpsons, lazy people are chic; the energetic are to be pitied. Calling someone a 'try-hard' is a term of derision amongst the youth of today; if something takes effort it is not considered cool, no matter how cool it might be.
I for one have adopted laziness as a way of life, taking the great hedonists of Ancient Greece as my mentors. I won't even look at an assignment until at least a week before the due date, and many of my peers are even more adept at putting things off than I am. This should hardly come as a surprise; students are born procrastinators. In fact, we go to such great lengths to avoid studying that paradoxically, we end up performing a lot more activity on impulse than we would ever manage otherwise. It's why this blog exists, it's why all these posts were written, it's probably the very reason you're reading this right now.
This is precisely the phenomenon that Marc Abraham discusses in this week's Guardian:
Sloth: one of the seven deadly sins. Also a large tree-dwelling mammal (see above). We may not be living in trees just yet, but perhaps it's possible that through the former we might in fact be evolving (or is it devolving?) into the latter...Who knows, maybe it's the absurd over-abundance of modern conveniences in our consumer-driven lifestyles, or maybe it's the legacy of 20th Century counter-culture movements. Or something. In any case, in this day and age laziness is not uncommon and is certainly no longer something to be frowned upon. I would go as far as to say that laziness is now almost seen as a virtue. Thanks to the Simpsons, lazy people are chic; the energetic are to be pitied. Calling someone a 'try-hard' is a term of derision amongst the youth of today; if something takes effort it is not considered cool, no matter how cool it might be.
I for one have adopted laziness as a way of life, taking the great hedonists of Ancient Greece as my mentors. I won't even look at an assignment until at least a week before the due date, and many of my peers are even more adept at putting things off than I am. This should hardly come as a surprise; students are born procrastinators. In fact, we go to such great lengths to avoid studying that paradoxically, we end up performing a lot more activity on impulse than we would ever manage otherwise. It's why this blog exists, it's why all these posts were written, it's probably the very reason you're reading this right now.
This is precisely the phenomenon that Marc Abraham discusses in this week's Guardian:
Critics say modern philosophy is a useless waste of time. They are wrong. At its best, modern philosophy tells us how to waste time usefully. Philosophy's great recent achievement, in this respect and perhaps overall, is the theory of structured procrastination.I couldn't agree more. Perhaps there is a better means of coping with the rigorous, boredom-inducing workload of academic life, rather than resorting to the masochism of procrastination. But if there is, I'll look into it some other time. Right now I'm going to go sort my entire wardrobe by colour. Maybe when I'm done I'll arrange my DVD collection alphabetically...
In a 1995 paper, Structured Procrastination, John Perry, a professor of philosophy at Stanford University, explains: "I have been intending to write this essay for months. Why am I finally doing it? Because I finally found some uncommitted time? Wrong. I have papers to grade, textbook orders to fill out, a National Science Foundation proposal to referee, dissertation drafts to read. I am working on this essay as a way of not doing all of those things. This is the essence of what I call structured procrastination, an amazing strategy I have discovered that converts procrastinators into effective human beings, respected and admired for all that they can accomplish, and the good use they make of time."
Perry's notion is to channel an ostensibly bad habit ... "Structured procrastination means shaping the structure of the tasks one has to do in a way that exploits this fact. The list of tasks one has in mind will be ordered by importance. Tasks that seem most urgent and important are on top. But there are also worthwhile tasks to perform lower down on the list. Doing these tasks becomes a way of not doing the things higher up on the list."
...
Perry points out that "structured procrastination requires a certain amount of self-deception, since one is, in effect, constantly perpetrating a pyramid scheme on oneself ... This is not a problem, because virtually all procrastinators have excellent self-deceptive skills . And what could be more noble than using one character flaw to offset the bad effects of another?"
Friday, May 11, 2007
imagine no religion...
By PJK
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?
"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."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.
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason.
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?Thursday, May 03, 2007
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
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 overbiteWhat 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
Thursday, April 26, 2007
the nostril sneer.
By PJK
I haven't blogged about my experiences of being a law student yet, so here's one recent anecdote from my chat logs that should provide a revealing glimpse of what goes on:
So basically it's no different from anything else.
I haven't blogged about my experiences of being a law student yet, so here's one recent anecdote from my chat logs that should provide a revealing glimpse of what goes on:
Pat: so get thisJust to clarify, the bitch in question was some random from another year, I didn't know her. Stuff like this (ie. something or someone doing something trivial to piss me off) happens pretty much daily.
Pat: GET THIS
Pat: I'm up at the assignment office
Tyson: that is?
Pat: ugg
Pat: its the office where you hand in assignments and get them back
Pat: so anyway I'm at the assignment office
Pat: I ask the lady if she has an assignment for me (I knew there was one I was supposed to get back just couldn't remember which). but she just HAS to be a bitch about it and demands to know for what subject specifically
Pat: so I'm like, torts (I guess)
Pat: she goes, nope nothing for torts
Pat: and then shes like, oh wait, have you got back the last assignment?
Pat: and I have one of those moments where I can't really remember because there are so many freaking assignments its impossible to remember which ones Ive collected
Pat: so I pause and go.. "I'm not sure.."
Pat: anyway some bitch in line behind me does that laugh where, its not really a full laugh because it wouldn't be polite, but she just kind of sneers through her nostrils
Pat: only I totally heard it
Tyson: so just as impolite really
Tyson: i know the one
Pat: I'm thinking, fuck you bitch, not everyone is thinking about their assignments 24/7
Pat: I overheard a conversation she was having with her friends before hand
Pat: she's one of those freaks who organises every little detail of her life down to the Nth degree
Pat: she was there picking up some assignment that had only just been given back
Pat: obviously she found it amusing that someone could pay less attention to their assignments than she does
Pat: anyway suffice to say that was a very boring story but the point is LAW STUDENTS ARE ASSHATS
Pat: yes even me. probably especially me but that's not the point
So basically it's no different from anything else.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
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™.
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.
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.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
the brush off.
By Challi
No matter how many fun songs are sung about it on Sesame Street and Play school, nothing can make the concept of brushing your teeth fun. It's just a stupid meaningful task which we all feel we have to do because we want our teeth to still be attached at 30 and hate the idea of gingivitis and bloated gums. Trouble is, we - and by that I mean me - tend to avoid it because it takes off 2 minutes of my life that I could be using for playing video games, which is so much more important to me. Hedonism comes before personal hygiene all the time. Also, if I miss the bus, I'd hate it to be for the reason I was taking care of myself. Another thing I hate about brushing my teeth is that I like to put extra toothpaste on the brush just to be sure of clean teeth and a lot of that ends up on my shirt, and that always looks a little suss.
but even though I can't be bothered to find time to do it and I hate the mess, it's a task that must be done. So after about a year of neglecting my teeth, I've been combining the frivolous brushing of my teeth with a task that I love doing and feel more obligated to do that doesn't get toothpaste on my shirt and also make it seem like I give a crap about saving water for those farmers whining about the drought.
I've been brushing my teeth in the shower.
Now, I'm sure I'm not the first person to come up with this idea but I'm sure as hell taking credit for it because it's brilliant. I just brush my teeth during my shower and use the water pelting down to rinse my mouth and clean off the brush when I'm done. It's also a great excuse to stay in the shower a little longer and I'm obviously not wearing my clothe in the shower so the stains won't still be there after I clean the toothpaste off my chest.
Now if you want to rip off this idea which I'm sure I unintentionally ripped off someone else, if that makes sense at all, be my guest. Just make sure you don't get the toothpaste tube mixed up with the shampoo bottle, which may induce tragic results.
Just saying
-C
No matter how many fun songs are sung about it on Sesame Street and Play school, nothing can make the concept of brushing your teeth fun. It's just a stupid meaningful task which we all feel we have to do because we want our teeth to still be attached at 30 and hate the idea of gingivitis and bloated gums. Trouble is, we - and by that I mean me - tend to avoid it because it takes off 2 minutes of my life that I could be using for playing video games, which is so much more important to me. Hedonism comes before personal hygiene all the time. Also, if I miss the bus, I'd hate it to be for the reason I was taking care of myself. Another thing I hate about brushing my teeth is that I like to put extra toothpaste on the brush just to be sure of clean teeth and a lot of that ends up on my shirt, and that always looks a little suss.
but even though I can't be bothered to find time to do it and I hate the mess, it's a task that must be done. So after about a year of neglecting my teeth, I've been combining the frivolous brushing of my teeth with a task that I love doing and feel more obligated to do that doesn't get toothpaste on my shirt and also make it seem like I give a crap about saving water for those farmers whining about the drought.
I've been brushing my teeth in the shower.
Now, I'm sure I'm not the first person to come up with this idea but I'm sure as hell taking credit for it because it's brilliant. I just brush my teeth during my shower and use the water pelting down to rinse my mouth and clean off the brush when I'm done. It's also a great excuse to stay in the shower a little longer and I'm obviously not wearing my clothe in the shower so the stains won't still be there after I clean the toothpaste off my chest.
Now if you want to rip off this idea which I'm sure I unintentionally ripped off someone else, if that makes sense at all, be my guest. Just make sure you don't get the toothpaste tube mixed up with the shampoo bottle, which may induce tragic results.
Just saying
-C
Friday, February 16, 2007
officially un-Australian.
By PJK
Yes, that's right. I am now officially un-Australian. Explanation follows.
When you log into MSN Messenger, you have the option of displaying "MSN Today", which summarises the daily news as decided by our good friends over at Murdoch's Nine Network. You know this already, but read on! Each day it has a user poll pertaining to a particular news item, which is the main reason I look at it rather than turning it off — the polls are always so absurdly biased, set-up or worded in such a way that they almost always coincide with the government's latest talking-points, or whatever blatant rightwingery Rupert Murdoch has decided we ought to be buying-into at the moment.
Today's poll is possibly the most outrageous I've seen thus far: "should the government cap immigration for particular religions?" If you didn't manage to take that in properly at first glance, what it's asking is this: should the government limit the number of people belonging to a certain religion from living in Australia or not.
Here's what MSN users have to say thus far:
And gee, I wonder what the "particular religion" is they had in mind?
Democracy, people. Ever hear of it? It entitles people to certain freedoms. One of those freedoms is the one that allowed you (and I'm now addressing the average Joe nationalists who voted yes in the above poll) to wake up this morning without being beaten to within an inch of your life by men with large sticks, for example. There are others.
One freedom that we've associated with democracy since, well, let's say the American Revolution OVER 200 YEARS AGO, is called Freedom of Religion. The deal is, you get to worship whatever make-believe deity you want, and get this: as a bonus, you don't get a hot iron rod inserted into your anus (ala a certain Spanish Inquisition). Until recently it has generally been thought of as a good idea.
But I guess now you want to shit upon that idea huh? Those Muslims, they don't respect OUR way of life, do they? And terrorism and things. Therefore we don't want THEM coming HERE anymore. Yeah, I can totally understand where you're coming from. I get your line of thinking. Oh wait, hang on a mo', THAT'S RETARDED.
Religion and culture are two different things. The former is just an idea. The latter is how you put it into practice. Now I'm not saying there aren't aspects of people's culture that are definately NOT compatible with the Australian way of life. There most certainly are. Treating women like sub-human scum for example is going to get me very mad at you indeed. Blowing yourself and others to smithereens in order to promote medieval bullshit like Sharia law is another. That kind of shit severely riles me.
But belief in a particular God or a particular Holy Book is no basis for discrimination in any civilised society, and until recently I was sort of hoping Australia was still one of those. If the majority of you fucktards though want to make this country into one giant Cronulla riot then I guess that makes me what you're not.
And judging by the Stormfront posters I've been seeing all over town, including at the bus stop by my house, I guess such thinking is becoming the norm.
Guess that makes me un-Australian. Meh.
Enjoy your Crusade, bitches.
Yes, that's right. I am now officially un-Australian. Explanation follows.
When you log into MSN Messenger, you have the option of displaying "MSN Today", which summarises the daily news as decided by our good friends over at Murdoch's Nine Network. You know this already, but read on! Each day it has a user poll pertaining to a particular news item, which is the main reason I look at it rather than turning it off — the polls are always so absurdly biased, set-up or worded in such a way that they almost always coincide with the government's latest talking-points, or whatever blatant rightwingery Rupert Murdoch has decided we ought to be buying-into at the moment.
Today's poll is possibly the most outrageous I've seen thus far: "should the government cap immigration for particular religions?" If you didn't manage to take that in properly at first glance, what it's asking is this: should the government limit the number of people belonging to a certain religion from living in Australia or not.
Here's what MSN users have to say thus far:
WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK???
And gee, I wonder what the "particular religion" is they had in mind?
Democracy, people. Ever hear of it? It entitles people to certain freedoms. One of those freedoms is the one that allowed you (and I'm now addressing the average Joe nationalists who voted yes in the above poll) to wake up this morning without being beaten to within an inch of your life by men with large sticks, for example. There are others.
One freedom that we've associated with democracy since, well, let's say the American Revolution OVER 200 YEARS AGO, is called Freedom of Religion. The deal is, you get to worship whatever make-believe deity you want, and get this: as a bonus, you don't get a hot iron rod inserted into your anus (ala a certain Spanish Inquisition). Until recently it has generally been thought of as a good idea.
But I guess now you want to shit upon that idea huh? Those Muslims, they don't respect OUR way of life, do they? And terrorism and things. Therefore we don't want THEM coming HERE anymore. Yeah, I can totally understand where you're coming from. I get your line of thinking. Oh wait, hang on a mo', THAT'S RETARDED.
Religion and culture are two different things. The former is just an idea. The latter is how you put it into practice. Now I'm not saying there aren't aspects of people's culture that are definately NOT compatible with the Australian way of life. There most certainly are. Treating women like sub-human scum for example is going to get me very mad at you indeed. Blowing yourself and others to smithereens in order to promote medieval bullshit like Sharia law is another. That kind of shit severely riles me.
But belief in a particular God or a particular Holy Book is no basis for discrimination in any civilised society, and until recently I was sort of hoping Australia was still one of those. If the majority of you fucktards though want to make this country into one giant Cronulla riot then I guess that makes me what you're not.
And judging by the Stormfront posters I've been seeing all over town, including at the bus stop by my house, I guess such thinking is becoming the norm.
Guess that makes me un-Australian. Meh.
Enjoy your Crusade, bitches.Monday, January 22, 2007
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:
A licky boom boom down
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
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
Sunday, January 07, 2007
welcome to 2007!
By PJK
Happy New Year!!! Wooo!
With 2006 now little more than a drunken haze somewhere at the back of our collective memories, it's time to embrace 2007.
Why? Because as Julian Baggini notes:
No doubt the Grinch of Time has already pawned our favourite years down at his local Cash Converters. I bet they gave him a good price for the year 2000. That was a damn good year. A premium time to be alive. 2006 on the other hand probably would have only bagged him about 20 bucks. Oh well. Keep on trucking oh Grinch of Time. Someday you'll have enough money to buy that place you were after.
Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go eat some macadamia nuts before the Grinch of Time steals them too.
Happy New Year!!! Wooo!
With 2006 now little more than a drunken haze somewhere at the back of our collective memories, it's time to embrace 2007.
Why? Because as Julian Baggini notes:
Even if you have had a happy Christmas and flourished in 2006, the changing of the calendars is a rude reminder that the Grinch of Time has just walked off with another year. And he is an unrelenting thief who's going to carry on taking every hour, minute and second from us until we have none left.That goddamn Grinch of Time! I for one am sick of his thieving ways. Stealing all our precious moments and bagging them up in his big hessian sack. How dare he?!
No doubt the Grinch of Time has already pawned our favourite years down at his local Cash Converters. I bet they gave him a good price for the year 2000. That was a damn good year. A premium time to be alive. 2006 on the other hand probably would have only bagged him about 20 bucks. Oh well. Keep on trucking oh Grinch of Time. Someday you'll have enough money to buy that place you were after.
Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go eat some macadamia nuts before the Grinch of Time steals them too.
Friday, December 22, 2006
season's greetings.
By PJK
Merry Christmas etc. from all of us here at the unenthusiast(s).
More unenthusiasm coming in 2007! Stay tuned!
Merry Christmas etc. from all of us here at the unenthusiast(s).
More unenthusiasm coming in 2007! Stay tuned!
Monday, December 04, 2006
the cash-in of the christ.
By Challi
I'm curious. Why the hell is there a movie out about the birth of Jesus? We Christians and all those other serious denominations of the Catholic church have already suffered as much as Jesus did because of hearing about the freaking birth of Jesus every single Christmas when we get forced by our parents or religious significant other to go to church and sit through that whole story about Mary and Joseph looking for a place to give birth to their magical ninja child and they found a barn because there was no room at the hotel. Sure, they could of tried the hospital but they didn't want to pay the bill.
We've heard this story over and over again every year at school. What was even worse was that we had to watch it played out by a whole lot of year 1 kids that are clearly poorly schooled in drama, but that's ok I guess, all of that is free. Now we are given an option to pay to watch a poor reenactment of the birth of Jesus, which we have heard and seen so many times before? I don't think so, Tim. I'll just stick to having to hear about it for free at church.
Oh yeah and lol @ the idiot protestors who tried to fill up the MCG on November 15 with people protesting about the Industrial Relations laws. They only managed about 120,000 when they were aiming for half a million. You know why they fell so short of the amount of people they were expecting? It must have something to do with everyone else having jobs! Despite the hype, these new laws have somehow improved Australia's employment figures dramatically, or so Kevin Andrews states: "We have seen 1.7 million extra jobs created in Australia, more than a 14% increase in real wages. Part of the reason for that is because of the reforms that we made in 1996.". So stop complaining!
-C
I'm curious. Why the hell is there a movie out about the birth of Jesus? We Christians and all those other serious denominations of the Catholic church have already suffered as much as Jesus did because of hearing about the freaking birth of Jesus every single Christmas when we get forced by our parents or religious significant other to go to church and sit through that whole story about Mary and Joseph looking for a place to give birth to their magical ninja child and they found a barn because there was no room at the hotel. Sure, they could of tried the hospital but they didn't want to pay the bill.
We've heard this story over and over again every year at school. What was even worse was that we had to watch it played out by a whole lot of year 1 kids that are clearly poorly schooled in drama, but that's ok I guess, all of that is free. Now we are given an option to pay to watch a poor reenactment of the birth of Jesus, which we have heard and seen so many times before? I don't think so, Tim. I'll just stick to having to hear about it for free at church.
Oh yeah and lol @ the idiot protestors who tried to fill up the MCG on November 15 with people protesting about the Industrial Relations laws. They only managed about 120,000 when they were aiming for half a million. You know why they fell so short of the amount of people they were expecting? It must have something to do with everyone else having jobs! Despite the hype, these new laws have somehow improved Australia's employment figures dramatically, or so Kevin Andrews states: "We have seen 1.7 million extra jobs created in Australia, more than a 14% increase in real wages. Part of the reason for that is because of the reforms that we made in 1996.". So stop complaining!
-C
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
living next door to Challis.
By Challi
Challis? Who the fuck is Challis?
Well since you asked, let me just get a little history of the Challis family out of the way first. 9 or so years ago, me and my family lived next door to where we live now. Then we moved to where we are now upon the realisation that nobody actually lives next to us on this side. We then just rented out our old house to several different people and we get a little bit richer because of it. Who knows? Maybe we'll end up buying all the houses on our street and then maybe the whole of Littlehampton and have monopoly over it and paint all the houses green and add in some hotels which are red and have chimneys for some reason. Kind of like this:
Yessir, we'll have complete monopoly over our suburb, just like that board game where you try to gain a monopoly over everything, y'know, chess.
The people currently renting our house appear to be a family of 3 who ironically look homeless and obviously have minimal possessions that don't include a razor or soap. They used to live in one of those Housing Trust houses where the house is practically free. Apparently they left because the house was a little bit too small. Sounds like a dumb excuse to me, there's only 3 people in the family and the house is free anyway! It's fucking free! Who gives a shit if it's a little small? I'd live in a 2 room house with no toilets if it was free. Oh well, I guess beggars can be choosers and these people look an awful lot like beggars.
One time when I was walking home I saw the sasquatch father and the son of this family playing cricket with none of the actual equipment you need to play cricket but I'm sure they were still kind of playing cricket. They had a tennis ball for a ball, a wheelie bin for wickets and, here's the quencher, a tennis racquet for a bat. OK, the tennis ball I can understand because it bounces better, the wheelie bin I can understand because, let's face it, nobody actually owns a set of wickets but a freaking tennis racquet? No! Uh uh. That's just not cricket. That's a travesty my dear sir. I would of leant them my brother's Gray Nicholls cricket bat if he didn't take it with him. Hell, even a plastic cricket bat would of been good. But no, they play cricket with a tennis racquet. There's only one thing I have to say about that:
Shame Shame Shame
What annoys me the most is that these losers think they have a right to complain that the bathroom is a bit dirty. Wa wa wa, call a wambulance. We're the poor people who have to watch these ugly neanderthals play cricket with a tennis racquet in our backyard while their ute rusts outside. They have no right to complain at all. I hate how the bottom rungs of society feel they can bitch about anything their superiors do when they're not exactly setting the best example either. Now I know how the Prime Minister feels.
and if those people don't clean up themselves and their act, I guess they've got to get used to not living next door to Challis.
-C
Challis? Who the fuck is Challis?
Well since you asked, let me just get a little history of the Challis family out of the way first. 9 or so years ago, me and my family lived next door to where we live now. Then we moved to where we are now upon the realisation that nobody actually lives next to us on this side. We then just rented out our old house to several different people and we get a little bit richer because of it. Who knows? Maybe we'll end up buying all the houses on our street and then maybe the whole of Littlehampton and have monopoly over it and paint all the houses green and add in some hotels which are red and have chimneys for some reason. Kind of like this:
Yessir, we'll have complete monopoly over our suburb, just like that board game where you try to gain a monopoly over everything, y'know, chess.
The people currently renting our house appear to be a family of 3 who ironically look homeless and obviously have minimal possessions that don't include a razor or soap. They used to live in one of those Housing Trust houses where the house is practically free. Apparently they left because the house was a little bit too small. Sounds like a dumb excuse to me, there's only 3 people in the family and the house is free anyway! It's fucking free! Who gives a shit if it's a little small? I'd live in a 2 room house with no toilets if it was free. Oh well, I guess beggars can be choosers and these people look an awful lot like beggars.
One time when I was walking home I saw the sasquatch father and the son of this family playing cricket with none of the actual equipment you need to play cricket but I'm sure they were still kind of playing cricket. They had a tennis ball for a ball, a wheelie bin for wickets and, here's the quencher, a tennis racquet for a bat. OK, the tennis ball I can understand because it bounces better, the wheelie bin I can understand because, let's face it, nobody actually owns a set of wickets but a freaking tennis racquet? No! Uh uh. That's just not cricket. That's a travesty my dear sir. I would of leant them my brother's Gray Nicholls cricket bat if he didn't take it with him. Hell, even a plastic cricket bat would of been good. But no, they play cricket with a tennis racquet. There's only one thing I have to say about that:
Shame Shame Shameand if those people don't clean up themselves and their act, I guess they've got to get used to not living next door to Challis.
-C
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
reactions to the mufti's comments.
By Challi
Just some quick thoughts RE: Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly's comments. Now, obviously the comments were bound to spur controversy, and if the the Sheik didn't think people would overreact, or was hoping for that effect, he's an idiot, plain and simple (yes, I am allowed to call the mufti of Australia an idiot if I want, and remember that what I just said was a conditional statement). HOWEVER, there is no reason why anyone should arrive at the conclusion, as several Muslims and also Bronwyn Bishop remarked, that "the Mufti doesn't like Australian women" on the Sunday program this week.
First of all, the Mufti was QUOTING. He happened to just be quoting a conversation he had with other Australian Sheiks and what he had said. If you look at the comment in context, it's a valid point. The Mufti was speaking on the subject of "protection and humility", specifically, suggesting that any woman who dresses up with any skin showing at all is bound to attract a whole lot of horny cats that see the uncovered woman and think she is expired raw meat. I agree. I mean, look at the skin of any woman, sure looks like rotting meat flesh to me. And it is a historical fact that cats have eaten scantily-clad women whole upon the realisation that they are in fact made of meat. Let's not sugar-coat history here people, we were born with meaty flesh, ok? and now we must protect ourself from hungry cats. Hell, if he wasn't a Muslim this wouldn't of been an issue AT ALL. I mean sure any religion should be open to criticism. Yet the hysteria mounts, and even in this enlightened age we see women straining their periods about it. I mean maybe he has a point, women's flesh should be preserved for the cats they end up marrying and isn't for anyone else to see. Allah forbid women's skin should be shown at all, I mean how is the way a woman looks supposed to land a husband? That's never happened before! and it's his opinion anyway. How can anyone who believes in free speech defend that? Political correctness, if taken seriously should not accept double-standards.
Yeah, I'll do a proper post tomorrow maybe. I just got a little bored.
-C
Just some quick thoughts RE: Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly's comments. Now, obviously the comments were bound to spur controversy, and if the the Sheik didn't think people would overreact, or was hoping for that effect, he's an idiot, plain and simple (yes, I am allowed to call the mufti of Australia an idiot if I want, and remember that what I just said was a conditional statement). HOWEVER, there is no reason why anyone should arrive at the conclusion, as several Muslims and also Bronwyn Bishop remarked, that "the Mufti doesn't like Australian women" on the Sunday program this week.
First of all, the Mufti was QUOTING. He happened to just be quoting a conversation he had with other Australian Sheiks and what he had said. If you look at the comment in context, it's a valid point. The Mufti was speaking on the subject of "protection and humility", specifically, suggesting that any woman who dresses up with any skin showing at all is bound to attract a whole lot of horny cats that see the uncovered woman and think she is expired raw meat. I agree. I mean, look at the skin of any woman, sure looks like rotting meat flesh to me. And it is a historical fact that cats have eaten scantily-clad women whole upon the realisation that they are in fact made of meat. Let's not sugar-coat history here people, we were born with meaty flesh, ok? and now we must protect ourself from hungry cats. Hell, if he wasn't a Muslim this wouldn't of been an issue AT ALL. I mean sure any religion should be open to criticism. Yet the hysteria mounts, and even in this enlightened age we see women straining their periods about it. I mean maybe he has a point, women's flesh should be preserved for the cats they end up marrying and isn't for anyone else to see. Allah forbid women's skin should be shown at all, I mean how is the way a woman looks supposed to land a husband? That's never happened before! and it's his opinion anyway. How can anyone who believes in free speech defend that? Political correctness, if taken seriously should not accept double-standards.
Yeah, I'll do a proper post tomorrow maybe. I just got a little bored.
-C
Saturday, November 04, 2006
a letter to the UN, re: Australia's nuclear threat.
By PJK
Dear the United Nations,
Grave news: my countrymen are planning to harness nuclear energy — supposedly for electricity, but how can we be sure? For the sake of consistency and for the safety of the Free World™, I call for immediate sanctions against Australia. This is a real threat to the stability of the region and there can be no delay. I know how effective the UN has been in past emergencies and I’m sure you’ll come through for us again.
Yours in good faith,
Patrick Keeley — Citizen of the World
Dear the United Nations,
Grave news: my countrymen are planning to harness nuclear energy — supposedly for electricity, but how can we be sure? For the sake of consistency and for the safety of the Free World™, I call for immediate sanctions against Australia. This is a real threat to the stability of the region and there can be no delay. I know how effective the UN has been in past emergencies and I’m sure you’ll come through for us again.
Yours in good faith,
Patrick Keeley — Citizen of the World
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
unenthused dialogue.
29/10/2006, 3:37pm
PJK: what's with that show, Anatomy for Beginners?
Challi: TV has become some kind of gross out contest
Challi: On Channel 10, it's the half-naked fatsos on The Biggest Loser. On Channel 9, it's shock docs and on ABC it's Corinne Grant on The Glass House.
PJK: zing!
PJK: Corinne Grant looks like a lizard
PJK: or a bird
PJK: a lizard-bird
Challi: but she was still TROGDOR!!!!
Challi: Can you believe we're paying tax for The Glass House?
PJK: not if John Howard has his way
PJK: he'll eventually privatise everything
Challi: That's what SHE said!
PJK: zing!
Challi: She's a very political person, you see.
PJK: she being Kate Ellis, Member for Adelaide?
PJK: I'd hit it!
Challi: What's more attractive? Her looks or her political savvy?
PJK: don't really know what she stands for. thus I'm assuming her looks, comparitively speaking of course
PJK: not hard to make a comparison when she's sitting behind Kim Beazely, aka Big Kev
Challi: Did you know that the Big Kev who advertised cleaning products is dead?
PJK: nope, didn't know. did a stingray stab him in heart?
PJK: OOOOOH TOPICAL!
PJK: *head explods*
Challi: Some people may of said Steve Irwin died from a stingray tail through the chest, but I say he died of a broken heart
Challi: too soon?
PJK: no, I didn't even know Steve Irwin, so fire away the jokes
Challi: Steve Irwin's death certainly was a sting in the tail
PJK: I guess you could say he was just catching some rays
Challi: He got tailgated
PJK: no wonder he never liked Sting
PJK: ...
PJK: ok that one was a swing and a miss
Challi: as opposed to Steve Irwin's death, which was a sting and a hit
* * *
Challi: Sheikh Hilali, discuss
PJK: that guy is a douche. but, he pisses off bogans. so it balances out
Challi: He regarded scantily-clad women (any woman that isn'tdressed like a ninja) as discarded pieces of meat for the cats to feast on. What a strange metaphor. You don't exactly see the cats try to have sex with discarded pieces of meat.
PJK: maybe... he didn't mean sex...
PJK: *raises eyebrow*
Challi: Maybe he meant cannibalism? because that is the only way that metaphor could make any sense
PJK: yeah, thats what I was implying
PJK: muslims feast on our women! we should nuke Saudi Arabia
PJK: turn the middle east into glass
Challi: I feel sorry for the virgins in heaven, they're only there to be eaten!
PJK: in more ways than one
PJK: ayo!
PJK: what's with that show, Anatomy for Beginners?
Challi: TV has become some kind of gross out contest
Challi: On Channel 10, it's the half-naked fatsos on The Biggest Loser. On Channel 9, it's shock docs and on ABC it's Corinne Grant on The Glass House.
PJK: zing!
PJK: Corinne Grant looks like a lizard
PJK: or a bird
PJK: a lizard-bird
Challi: but she was still TROGDOR!!!!
Challi: Can you believe we're paying tax for The Glass House?
PJK: not if John Howard has his way
PJK: he'll eventually privatise everything
Challi: That's what SHE said!
PJK: zing!
Challi: She's a very political person, you see.
PJK: she being Kate Ellis, Member for Adelaide?
PJK: I'd hit it!
Challi: What's more attractive? Her looks or her political savvy?
PJK: don't really know what she stands for. thus I'm assuming her looks, comparitively speaking of course
PJK: not hard to make a comparison when she's sitting behind Kim Beazely, aka Big Kev
Challi: Did you know that the Big Kev who advertised cleaning products is dead?
PJK: nope, didn't know. did a stingray stab him in heart?
PJK: OOOOOH TOPICAL!
PJK: *head explods*
Challi: Some people may of said Steve Irwin died from a stingray tail through the chest, but I say he died of a broken heart
Challi: too soon?
PJK: no, I didn't even know Steve Irwin, so fire away the jokes
Challi: Steve Irwin's death certainly was a sting in the tail
PJK: I guess you could say he was just catching some rays
Challi: He got tailgated
PJK: no wonder he never liked Sting
PJK: ...
PJK: ok that one was a swing and a miss
Challi: as opposed to Steve Irwin's death, which was a sting and a hit
* * *
Challi: Sheikh Hilali, discuss
PJK: that guy is a douche. but, he pisses off bogans. so it balances out
Challi: He regarded scantily-clad women (any woman that isn'tdressed like a ninja) as discarded pieces of meat for the cats to feast on. What a strange metaphor. You don't exactly see the cats try to have sex with discarded pieces of meat.
PJK: maybe... he didn't mean sex...
PJK: *raises eyebrow*
Challi: Maybe he meant cannibalism? because that is the only way that metaphor could make any sense
PJK: yeah, thats what I was implying
PJK: muslims feast on our women! we should nuke Saudi Arabia
PJK: turn the middle east into glass
Challi: I feel sorry for the virgins in heaven, they're only there to be eaten!
PJK: in more ways than one
PJK: ayo!
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Friday, October 27, 2006
koalafication.
By Challi
Yeah, I'm neglectful of this blog. You'd be too if you were taught in an institution that inspires apathy towards everything. Don't be fooled by a university's stalls and stands which promote whatever kooky BS they pretend to believe in, everyone just wants to attend classes and then piss off home to play video games and/or smoke their bongs safe in the knowledge that uni will tide them over until they get a solid job that pays well. After that, they'll forget about whatever their Uni taught them altogether. That's how it works.
Oh damn, now I need a segway into what I actually wanted to bitch about.
Well, universities like to do environmental shit like save koalas so they feel better about themselves, right? (Well there is my segway. Smooth.) but who will save us from the koalas? Yesterday, my dad almost ran over a koala that was trying to cross the road. Conveniently it was a 4-wheel drive with big wheels so the koala only received a donk on the head as we drove over it. We didn't swerve, of course, because that would of killed us and frankly we're better than some koala. Eventually the koala managed to make it to the other side with only a throbbing headache.
How terrible are koalas as pedestrians? They're so slow on the road and they never keep an eye out for traffic. Screw the koala cull, they're culling themselves with their reckless disregard of the road, and they could potentially be killing other drivers too if the drivers were dumb enough to swerve as a lot of them are.
We humans had to adapt to their environment when we came to their country several thousand years ago, now it's their turn. Yes we may of killed half their environment to make room for roads, but since we all have to go to universities and other shit that we quite clearly care a lot about, they have to at least have the common courtesy to look both ways before they cross the road and get off as quickly as possible so we can get where we need to go.
Is that too much to ask?
-C
Yeah, I'm neglectful of this blog. You'd be too if you were taught in an institution that inspires apathy towards everything. Don't be fooled by a university's stalls and stands which promote whatever kooky BS they pretend to believe in, everyone just wants to attend classes and then piss off home to play video games and/or smoke their bongs safe in the knowledge that uni will tide them over until they get a solid job that pays well. After that, they'll forget about whatever their Uni taught them altogether. That's how it works.
Oh damn, now I need a segway into what I actually wanted to bitch about.
Well, universities like to do environmental shit like save koalas so they feel better about themselves, right? (Well there is my segway. Smooth.) but who will save us from the koalas? Yesterday, my dad almost ran over a koala that was trying to cross the road. Conveniently it was a 4-wheel drive with big wheels so the koala only received a donk on the head as we drove over it. We didn't swerve, of course, because that would of killed us and frankly we're better than some koala. Eventually the koala managed to make it to the other side with only a throbbing headache.
How terrible are koalas as pedestrians? They're so slow on the road and they never keep an eye out for traffic. Screw the koala cull, they're culling themselves with their reckless disregard of the road, and they could potentially be killing other drivers too if the drivers were dumb enough to swerve as a lot of them are.
We humans had to adapt to their environment when we came to their country several thousand years ago, now it's their turn. Yes we may of killed half their environment to make room for roads, but since we all have to go to universities and other shit that we quite clearly care a lot about, they have to at least have the common courtesy to look both ways before they cross the road and get off as quickly as possible so we can get where we need to go.
Is that too much to ask?
-C
Friday, October 20, 2006
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
