Andrew Bolt, Muslims and Australia

I don't read too much of The Advertiser when I'm not at Uni. At Uni I can get the paper for free, so I get it. The Internet has allowed me to get my news from sources like the BBC and the ABC (the Australian one obviously). If I go shopping I'll usually pick up a copy if there are any available, since sometimes it's good to get some idea of what is going on in the state.

Anyway, I seem to have missed something very interesting. It seems that there has been some debate about multiculturalism since David Cameron made his speech saying that it had failed and some people read an article by Andrew Bolt. I'm assuming that the Bolt article is this one.

Of course Andrew Bolt being Andrew Bolt has of course managed to tie this to Muslims because, well I don't really know, they... do... different things? It really is more a rant against Sheik al-Hilali and Muslims in general then actually discussing "multiculturalism".

The only real comment I want to make about the article is that "they teach funny sounds that aren't English" is not a reason to be angry at a group. Seriously, it isn't. Maybe Bolt is happy to live in a monolingual world but other people aren't. It doesn't mean that they're going to not speak English.

I honestly find this really ironic that The Advertiser decided to publish this. Islam has a pretty long history in South Australia. The camel drivers that were brought to Australia in the 1860's were Muslims. They transported goods through the outback to the various towns there and were vital to the development of the region. Of course they needed places of worship and built mosques. The first mosque was built in Maree around that time and the oldest mosque in a major city was built in Adelaide in 1888.

There have been Muslims in this state for about 150 years and clearly they've utterly ruined it. Oh wait, they haven't. They've been here living their lives peacefully and helping to build the country and there wasn't a problem.

Then we see everything change and all of a sudden they're a bunch of people who refuse to integrate at all, won't learn our language and want to destroy our way of life. That's not the case at all. History has shown us that it's quite the opposite.

I missed Monday's letters in the paper. I'm glad, however, that I got to read yesterday's. At least enough people who had their letters published showed that we aren't all morons.

Meryl Dorey on 2UE

2UE's Tracy Spicer "interviewed" Meryl Dorey, president of the Australian Vaccination Network over the British Medical Journal calling Andrew Wakefield's "research" as fraudulent. If you can't listen to the 2ue version, the audio can be found here on Youtube.

I say "interviewed" because it's probably better to describe it as a slaughter. Spicer slaughtered Dorey and that was that.

Refreshingly instead of allowing Dorey to pimp her website Spicer decided to just hang up.

If the Australian Vaccination Network sounds familiar that's because they were accused of harassment by the NSW HCCC. One of the results of this accusation was that the AVN was supposed to put up a nice big disclaimer saying, basically, everything that they write is biased as fuck and you shouldn't trust it.

Incidentally the disclaimer that they're required to have isn't on their website as of writing this post, you can check it here and if you happen to find it leave a comment.

So back to the interview.

Dorey seems to be living in some sort of parallel universe where what she thinks is correct. That, in my opinion, is the only possible way that when Spicer mentions that Wakefield's research has been discredited she responds:

No it hasn't

I can't think of any other reasons. Oh wait, I've though of a more plausible one. Meryl Dorey is some kind of moron.

Now there is a post up on Dorey's website that says some crap about something (seriously I don't really know), entitled "Andrew Wakefield - the Kangaroo Court has spoken. It mentions the interview and has a nice transcript. As a side note on the transcript the missing words that Spicer said between "...saying there is no link..." and "...misinformation" was "...and here you are on metropolitan radio spreading your...".

But when Spicer says:

Under the heading measles, mumps, rubella, she states that these are all non-threatening illnesses in early childhood.

Dorey has said:

(note from Meryl – I’m not sure what she is referring to. On the MMR page, I have a quote from Dr Peter Baratosy that says:

Measles was a common childhood disease prior to the introduction of widespread vaccination, and up until about 30 years ago was generally described as a benign illness. The difference today is that children seem to have become weaker due to drugs, pollution, vaccinations and poor nutrition” (Dr. Peter Baratosy)

Funnily enough when I went to the MMR page and clicked on the read more under "MMR" I found (albeit in magenta):

Unlike vaccination (which offers only temporary immunity), the natural occurrence of each of these diseases (all non-threatening illnesses in early childhood) generally results in lifelong immunity.

Now I added the bolding to the text there. Sure sounds like Dorey is claiming that measles, mumps and rubella are non-threatening. I guess Dorey is too disingenuous to mention that, or perhaps she's too lazy to quickly check what she wrote on her own website.

Looking over the comments on the 2UE website I'm pleased to see many comments that say that Dorey is an idiot. Hopefully the view that anti-vaxxers are unscientific fools can spread.

Mr. Squiggle Dies

Norman Hetherington, the man behind Mr. Squiggle died yesterday aged 89. Mr. Squiggle was Australia's longest running children's show.

I loved watching that show as a kid. For those who don't know Mr. Squiggle was the man from the moon, who came and visited us in his pet rocket named Rocket and would draw these pictures from canvasses with squiggles and lines and dots. When he finished it was up to Rebecca, who was basically the token human, to orientate the picture correctly so we knew what it was.

As to the title, Norman Hetherington was Mr. Squiggle. As well as creating the show he drew the pictures and gave Mr. Squiggle his voice. To pretty much every Australian who watched the show as kids he was Mr. Squiggle.

Attorney-General's Department sure likes black highlighters

The Sydney Morning Herald managed to get their hands on a report that says the government pretty much wants ISPs to record all our browsing history.

Unfortunately it seems that Claudia Hernandez, the department's legal officer and person who handles FoI requests, tried to be helpful and highlighted all the important bits for the SMH. Too bad the highlighter was black, and the important parts is apparently 90% of the document.

Now unlike the CIA who've only just realised that they were using them accidentally, the government did this deliberately.

The Document

The document can be found here.

The proposal page is very enlightening:

Mandatory Data Retention Proposal

Telecommunications data is information about a communication, but does not include the content of the communication. Examples include subscriber information and call charge records.

[10 censored paragraphs follow]

That's the entire proposal that we're allowed to know. The contents of the document has a background a section A that discusses... something, and a section B that discusses something else, but Hernandez was kind enough to tell us that B.2 is "defintions" and B.3. is "Illustrative data". And C. is "Industry Feedback".

Of the background section, the "What is telecommunications data?" section is mostly unscathed, but it has the sentence:

This includes information about the identity of the sending and receiving parties ('A and B parties'), when a communication started and stopped, and the type of communication [censored]

The next section is "How important is telecommunications data?". The answer, apparently, is very. Of 5 paragraphs, one is uncensored, and is basically "The UK found that such a policy was helpful when it comes to solving crime".

Then we get four pages of what looks like a contents of some sort, but it's completely censored. Then four pages of a table, at least we know that the numbers are some sort of "Requirement", but what they are means nothing.

Most of the definitions get off unscathed, however the definition for Broadband Remote Access Server (BRAS) has the last line censored, so I know that it is aggregating information into a core network of some sort.

All the illustrative data (it's another table) is censored.

The "feedback" is not actually any feedback, it's a request for feedback. They are asking ISPs to consider 8 questions, of which we're only allowed to know 5.

So basically you can learn nothing from this document.

The Reasons

But the SMH didn't stop there. They've also given us the reasons from the AG department.

Under "Decision" Hernandez wrote:

3. You will see, however, that I have made some deletions to the documents. ...

Which is, quite clearly, an understatement. It wasn't "some deletions", most of the document is censored. There are two pages that don't have black highlighter. The "Information Sheet" page, and the title page.

Then there is, in paragraph 11 under "Reasons for Decision":

Further, subsection 36(1)(b) [of the Freedom of Information Act] requires that it also be shown that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. I have considered the particular circumstances of the request and those factors which are specific to the facts at hand. Although I acknowledge the public's right to participate in and influence the processes of government decision making and policy formulation, given the early stage of this consultation, the premature release of the proposal could, more then likely, create a confusing and misleading impression. In addition, as the matters are not settled and proposed recommendations may not necessarily be adopted, release of such documents would not make a valuable contribution to public debate. Rather, I consider that release of such documents may lead to premature unnecessary debate and could potentially prejudice and impede government decision making

Yep. The premature release of the proposal could create a confusing and misleading impression. Clearly the answer to that problem is not any form of transparency at all but instead it's to get out the black highlighter.

And why? Because it might lead to "unnecessary debate". This is not an unnecessary debate. The government is potentially suggesting, and Electronic Frontiers Australia put it best, that "if it's logged (or could be logged), the A-G wants it saved."

Frankly I find it more insulting that they even bothered to give the SMH something. If you're going to censor most of the document you might as well not release it at all.

The Greens are annoyed and will probably look into this during their Senate inquiry. Maybe they'll get a more transparent version if the document. They might know what the other two questions in the "feedback" section are and also the four completely censored definitions.

Perhaps they'll be kind enough to tell us what they are.

Woman wins "right to die".

The SA Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has the "right to die" and the nursing home that she lives in will not face charges for assisting suicide.

The latter was the reason for the case, the home did not know if they would be allowed to fulfil her wishes without being charged. So now they will fulfil her wishes, and not feed her or give her insulin.

This follows a similar ruling in WA, where a quadriplegic man was permitted to do the same thing.

Now I may not be the most up to date person when it comes to the whole "right to die" issue, but I think I'm pretty sure that this is not what is meant by groups that support voluntary euthanasia.

In fact I think this is pretty much the complete opposite of what they want. I have trouble seeing this as a woman winning the right to die, but more as the woman winning the right to kill herself slowly. The man from WA, Christian Rossiter died from a chest infection in September 2009.

They don't say how long he was starving himself, this article suggests that it would have taken him about 2 weeks.

Is this really the option that people in horrible pain can choose if they want to end their life? About 2 weeks of not eating, possibly causing more pain? Frankly we treat animals better then that, and they don't get to choose.

If we are going to be a society that allows people the right to die, perhaps there should be a better option then this.

Gary Ablett Sr. on things he doesn't understand

Gary Ablett is a well known former AFL player, as is his eldest son, Gary Ablett. However the young Gary Ablett seems to have the intelligence not to "write" an article on the Herald Sun website.

His father clearly doesn't. "What kind of world do we want to live in?" he asks, and proceeds to use 2,777 words to argue that it's essentially "one with God in it".

This is an article already embroiled in scandal, he plagiarised a few sections from American evangelical websites and then some.

But I'm getting ahead of myself here.

Misquotes and morality

The article opens with two quotes:

THERE is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." (Herbert Spencer)

The famous King Solomon, considered the wisest man of his day, also said, "He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him". (Proverbs 18:13)

Only one of these quotes is actually correctly attributed. Herbert Spencer never said that quote. According to Wikiquote it's misattributed to him. It is, in fact, a quote by William Paley. Yep, that's right, the watch guy.

I think that says a lot for this article, or at least whoever fact checks for the Herald.

However don't think this article is just about misquoting, it's also about morality, and looking back to another unspecified time in the past (probably somewhere from 1973 to 2009). He says things like:

...[T]hat we should each begin to grow and learn; aspiring to live better, more meaningful, more productive and more effective lives. Surely we should each be focused on discovering how we as individuals and communities can learn to live and work together in order to produce a far more peaceful, stable, secure and loving environment?

Sadly, in this once great nation of Australia, this does not seem to be the case, which is why I feel burdened and compelled to speak out.

And,

Today, our newspapers, televisions and computer screens are full of shocking and horrible crimes, detailing a very serious decline in morals and values in our community. We read stories that describe a rapid deterioration in standards of behaviour wherever we look. Our culture struggles under the massive weight of increasing problems associated with hatred, anger, violence, alcohol and drug abuse, depression and suicide, family breakdown, the devaluing of human life and dignity, and a growing disrespect for law and order, to name just a few - all of which work together to create and subsequently feed an enormous and expanding hole in the moral fabric that once upon a time held our society firmly together.

And also,

However, over recent years we have shifted further and further away from the inclusion of anything godly in our planning, decision-making and policy-setting; so while we watch our standards crumble and our moral foundations erode away, we somehow simultaneously manage to sit back and wonder why society has no sure and stable footing left on which to build a strong and solid culture?

All of which suggest a desire to go back to earlier times, since we know that looking nostalgically back at the past is the best way to determine if our society is crumbling instead of looking back at it in a critical light.

Now when I gave a range I started at 1973, why that specific year you ask? Well by 1973 the White Australia Policy was practically finished. Perhaps I should have said 1975, when the Racial Discimination Act 1975 (Cth) was passed, outlawing the previous immigration policy.

Honestly I would have started at 1984, which is the year that the Sexual Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), but considering Ablett is a footballer, and the brouhaha with Lara Bingle and the proliferation of nude photos among AFL players, I figure that it's probably not the best starting date.

However, it is somewhat laughable to hear Ablett opine about the decline of morality when he has, in his words:

People also know and remember me because of some of my off-field moments, which were not so successful.

Not so successful off field moments? People know about him? It must have been in the media, the very people he states shows a decline in morality.

Jason Ball, in this post from the Young Australian Skeptics also has noticed this rather hypocritical stance.

On February 17 2000, 20 year old Alisha Horan was found dead in room 1265 of the Park Hyatt Hotel in Melbourne. The man with her in the room? Gary Ablett Sr. The man who provided the drugs? Gary Ablett Sr.

We are reading an article opining the decline in morals, from a man who was directly involved in the death of a young woman. A man who, according to this article from The Age, declined to answer most of the questions he was asked at the coroner's inquest because he might incriminate himself.

Or as he claims, because the Horan family wanted him to protect their daughter's reputation.

This is one of the "off-field moments, which [was] not so successful". Seriously, Ablett opining about the decline in morals is about as hypocritical as David Richardson (of "Barcelona Tonight" fame) telling us we need stronger journalistic ethics.

His answer is God.

I believe without a doubt that our nation is in crisis and is in its current predicament because we have deliberately disconnected ourselves from our Christian heritage and history. We are a nation that was originally founded upon the word of God and established on the authority of biblical truth. Our political system, our judicial system and most of our schools and hospitals were begun by godly men and women who based their lives and work on godly principles.

Americans may recognise this argument from Evangelical Christians in the US.

And yet, these godly men decided to preserve our Christian heritage in our country by putting section 116 in the Constitution Act. Yep, the Commonwealth isn't allowed to establish any religion, force people to worship or use religious tests for office. Funny how they decided to do that.

Only be sure always to call it please 'research'.

Now we'll look at the part of the article that made Ablett the genius he his today. Since he is the guy that many of us quote.

Clearly Ablett didn't let work evade his eyes, and I guess he must have called it "research".

Perhaps he was listening to Tom Lehrer's "Lobachevsky" when he did it (but I don't think he did), but he stole some of his arguments from other websites and people.

As stated in the second link in this post, the paragraph on humanism was nicked from here, and PZ Meyers points out here that the peanut butter argument came from Chuck Missler.

The former is just laziness, the latter is the same old regurgitation of debunked arguments. But don't think Ablett needs to plagiarise to attack science, he's perfectly able to do that himself.

In which a career footballer tries to argue against evolution

It started with a convention:

One of the things that triggered my response was that I became aware that there was an atheist convention in Melbourne last week. Richard Dawkins, a renowned atheist, gave a message entitled, "From goo to you through the zoo".

Now it is bad enough misleading us by telling us we descended from convicts but to tell us we descended from "apes" - come on!

And ends with this passage.

Too bad reality doesn't change when you are confronted with ideas that you don't believe in. But his hatred of evolution continues.

Man might look like an ape, act like a goat, eat like a pig, think like a jackass, be as stubborn as a mule and as cunning as a fox, but a man is still a man and has been that way right down through recorded history. I openly confess to being no scientist, nor will I try to pretend to be one. However, it is not hard for the average person to understand some of the basic laws and principles within the scientific world. There is so much misinformation out there called "science", masquerading as "truth", and because we've been taught to believe these falsehoods it takes an abundance of information to get these misconceptions unseated. So please bear with me as I may need to get quite technical to get my message across.

I've bolded the most important sentence in this passage. Remember folks, get your science from actual scientists, not former-AFL players who think they actually understand what it is they are arguing against. However he has decided to pretend to be someone who actually understands what it is he is arguing against.

For example, molecular biologist Michael Dentin pointed out in his book, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, that even Charles Darwin had to admit he had absolutely no hardcore empirical date, no concrete evidence, no substantial scientific facts, nothing to prove any of the major evolutionary transformation he asserted. The fact is that fossil records do not support Darwin's theory. Experts have come to realise that the gaps in the fossil records and the absence of precursor and intermediate forms are such that they can no longer be ignored or his theory be taken seriously. It was Darwin, the author of the theory of evolution himself, that confessed in a letter to Ossy Gray on September 5, 1857 that "one's imagination must fill up the very blanks".

I don't really know whether Ablett is quoting from Denton, or writing his own drivel here, and as far as I'm aware the quoted bit doesn't appear anywhere except in this article. Hell I can't even find the existence of an Ossy Gray. I think I've found the letter in question here (and also here, select page 120) to an Asa Gray, and it appears that Ablett is not beyond using a quote mine. Well I guess it's not lying when you're lying for Jesus.

The part of the letter that includes this bit is actually as follows:

VI. One other principle, which may be called the principle of divergence plays, I believe, an important part in the origin of species. The same spot will support more life if occupied by very diverse forms: we see this in the many generic forms in a square yard of turf (I have counted 20 species belonging to 18 genera),—or in the plants and insects, on any little uniform islet, belonging almost to as many genera and families as species.— We can understand this with the higher, animals whose habits we understand. We know that it has been experimentally shown that a plot of land will yield a greater weight, if cropped with several species of grasses than with 2 or 3 species. Now every single organic being, by propagating so rapidly, may be said to be striving its utmost to increase in numbers. So it will be with the offspring of any species after it has broken into varieties, or sub-species or true species. And it follows, I think, from the foregoing facts, that the varying offspring of each species will try (only few will succeed) to seize on as many and as diverse places in the economy of nature, as possible. Each new variety or species, when formed will generally take the place of and so exterminate its less well-fitted parent. This, I believe, to be the origin of the classification or arrangement of all organic beings at all times. These always seem to branch and sub-branch like a tree from a common trunk; the flourishing twigs destroying the less vigorous,—the dead and lost branches rudely representing extinct genera and families.

This sketch is most imperfect; but in so short a space I cannot make it better. Your imagination must fill up many wide blanks.— Without some reflexion it will appear all rubbish; perhaps it will appear so after reflexion.— | C. D.

I added the previous paragraph for context, but it's rather clear that the quote in question is about Darwin's crappy diagram rather then him stating that evolution doesn't have enough evidence and that you need to use your imagination.

I'm wondering if the Herald Sun actually employ spell and fact checkers, since this article seems to require both.

Beyond that, this paragraph is just wrong, and the article is just getting wronger as you continue through it.

With testimonies like this from the author of evolution himself, I submit to you that the theory of evolution is not only lacking in facts, but has absolutely no foundation whatsoever. If it was only ever a theory, how did it find its way into our classrooms and society as fact?

So we have a "testimony" from Darwin that is a quote mine the misuse of the word "theory".

The next three paragraphs are the peanut butter jar argument. I'm not really going to discuss this, but I would like to say that he has mistaken abiogenesis for spontaneous generation. He also uses the creationist definition of "information" which is I believe "whatever the hell you want it to mean".

To inform us about information

This begs the question that since information is not inherent within matter itself, nor can it be derived from natural law, "where did it come from?"

Take today's newspaper, for example, with the codes and printing on it. To try and derive the information in the newspaper from the natural laws that govern the paper alone is impossible because the information needs to be printed on to the laws that govern the paper.

To attempt to derive the morning's news from the chemistry of the paper alone without the input of information is absurd. Even in a simple newspaper we can appreciate "Intelligent Design". It is the same as a genetic code imprinted according to the laws of information and language on to matter.

Hey look, it's another standard creationist argument. Well, I guess the Herald Sun has newspapers that reproduce, so clearly that proves evolution wrong.

Let's just ignore the fact that we write newspapers to be different every day and that there is massive change between editions.

And we see that pesky "information". I wonder what it could mean? He still hasn't made that clear to us. At least we know it's about genetics. If DNA is like a newspaper then I'd say that Gary Ablett Sr.'s would read something like this:

5' Gary Ablett Sr. Born again Christian, therefore no understanding of science, AFL player, intelligence limitations to be implemented, prone to using drugs and making stupid arguments. 3'

If he hadn't already mentioned that we need God, we would be wondering how long until we get to "needs designer" (next paragraph in his article) and then "who is the designer (hint: G-d)".

Never play probability games with Ablett

More standard creationist canards are presented, this time the old "DNA is too improbable to form" coupled with the "hurricane through a junkyard" and that biological evolution is used to make aeroplanes.

Some of the renowned and respected scientists and mathematicians through the world have concluded that something as complex as the "DNA" molecule of every living thing occurring by chance is 10 to the power 130. In other words, one chance in 10 with a hundred and thirty zeros after it ... that is a huge number.

So remember folks, don't play a game of cards with him for money. He'll try and use crappy statistics to get out of paying you.

Too bad things like non-random selection and the simple fact that the probability of an even occurring that has already occurred is 1, does not factor into this man's head. Perhaps he'd forget his 6 times tables or something.

Where the Bible is quoted to attack science

It's the classic Romans quote. You know, Romans 1:23-25 where Paul says that everyone knows that God exists and you're an idiot for not accepting it?

Well it's in there, and he's calling everyone who doesn't believe what he does and idiot. It's a great way to convert people, until you get to the person who would rather be an idiot then blindly believe the things you do.

He concludes with this:

Advances in microbiology, DNA et al have dealt the final death blow to Darwinism.

DNA is a digital code.

Darwinism cannot explain the origin of life because it cannot explain the origin of information.

I think these three sentences summarise how ignorant he is of the actual science.

I guess he's been reading Ken Ham or something, because someone who has actually looked at what science actually says would not draw such stupid conclusions.

Ending the article with a poem

I'm not going to bother with the last couple of paragraphs. It's just more of the same. Evolution is a lie, no God leads to the self destruction of our way of life. And this:

God's word tells us we are a very special and unique and precious creation, made in God's image for an eternal relationship with God and a purpose and a destiny that is mind-blowing. And God loves and values us so much that He was willing to leave His glory, take on human nature and enter into His own creation to undo the damage done by a dark intruder, and provide a mechanism by which you and I can qualify and be eligible for that relationship, purpose and destiny which is there for the asking. But that is all I will say, as I am aware this is a sensitive area for some. I do not wish to come across as a Bible basher or a religious fanatic, for this is not a church.

A remarkable piece of dissonance here. The thing is Mr. Ablett, you do come across as a Bible basher and/or a religious fanatic. It's that simple. All the stuff above the bold? Bible bashing and religious fanaticism.

It closes with a poem that basically blames godlessness for Colombine. It's as if he wants people who think for themselves to not be swayed by his argument.

Much of his article was a rant against evolution. Since he opened his article with a fake quote from Herbert Spencer, I think I'll let him have the last word.

The quote comes from The Development Hypothesis:

Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution as not being adequately supported by facts, seem to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all. Like the majority of men who are born to a given belief, they demand the most rigorous proof of any adverse belief, but assume that their own needs none.

"Is that the only experience you've had?"

That tactless phrase is what Kyle Sandilands said when a 14 year old girl announced on the Kyle and Jackie O radio programme on 2Day FM that she was raped.

The reason? She was attached to a lie detector and asked this question by her mother.

What the girl said was:

"I've already told you the story about this ... and don't look at me and smile because it's not funny.
...
Oh, okay, I got raped when I was 12 years old."

People are calling this child abuse.

The police are going to investigate the crime.

But the news reports are varied, most are about 2Day FM, because it was on their show.

I'm wondering why exactly they asked a 14 year old girl about her sexual history.

A joint statement, which is mentioned in the first link says:

"A young girl's sexual experience is not relevant or appropriate for the entertainment of anyone.''

Which I believe is perfectly true. However, the show in question has done things that involve sex, which was mentioned on Media Watch. However in past cases it appears that their shows might not breach any standards, because they don't regulate bad taste.

I get the strange feeling that this might be the case as well.

The ABC has reported that Kyle Sandilands has said the privacy of the girl should be protected.

Yes. The privacy of the girl should be protected. However the report goes on to say:

But this morning, Sandilands criticised news organisations for making the 14-year-old's private situation "one of the biggest news stories of the day".

"If you want to have a go at me, go me. I'd rather you go for me than the girl or the mother," he said.

But the thing is that it wasn't the news organisations that made her private life "one of the biggest news stories of the day". It was their show.

If the question was not asked while the girl was attached to the lie detector and as far as I'm aware the concept actually involves things that people would usually keep private. It's rather hypocritical in a way to suggest that the rest of the media shouldn't report on stuff like that.

However Sandilands is somewhat right. I don't think anyone has had a go at the girl. From what was mentioned on the radio the girl told her mother that she was raped and, from what I can gather, wasn't believed (why else would the girl say that it wasn't funny?), and has had to live without seeing her rapist get justice.

The mother however, is still fair game. As the person who asked the questions she could have just not asked that question. Her reaction after the question was asked is also something that just sets off alarm bells.

According to a piece written by Sandilands on The Punch:

The mum hadn’t said anything about the rape. She was concerned that her daughter was on drugs or was sexually active. Like a lot of mothers worried about their kid, she just wanted to find out what was going on.

So, just in case you didn't get that. The mother was worried that her daughter was taking drugs or was sexually active. She didn't tell the producer of the show (Jackie O says something similar here.) that her daughter told her that she was raped.

If the mother was indeed worried about her daughter I would have thought that she would ask her in private, not drag her on to a radio show that is syndicated nationwide. If this was the last resort then that's probably because the girl felt that she couldn't trust her mother.

People are however starting to think about rape and the problems that victims face. On todays episode of Hack on Triple J, they were talking about the difficulties that rape victims have telling family and others about their experience. Hopefully this event will see a change in how Australians think of rape.

However, I think that Kyle and Jackie O will need to think of a new thing to do instead of a lie detector. Too bad I don't have any power.

I don't think we'll ever know why this girl told what has turned out to be all of Australia that she was raped. I don't think we'll ever know.

(End note: I'm mentioning 2Day FM, which is the name of the Sydney station, and not SAFM, the affiliate, because this segment was cut from the rebroadcast show that we get.)

Media Watch Calls Out Peter Popoff

For those that aren't in Australia, Media Watch is a show on the ABC (the government station) that basically spends its time pointing out breaches in broadcasting regulations and also silly things some times.

This week they did a segment on Peter Popoff and his "miracle water" scam. (side note, I know in the past that sometimes ABC websites aren't accessible to non-Australians, so just in case I'll put up a youtube or other video site link when I find it.)

Basically the problem is that he might be misleading, but since nobody actually knows whether he's actually breaking a regulation means that it's difficult to determine whether he's done anything wrong.

This is because Channel 9 haven't stated whether he's paid for the timeslots or not. So if it's actually a programme it falls under a different body then if it was actually an ad.

The plus side is that he's on at a time when nobody watches them. Like all the other religious programmes on the commercial stations.

I did learn something new though. Apparently the Sandgropers have done some good. They have a whole page on their website ScamNet dedicated to him. So good on you Sandgropers. I, a Croweater, salute you.

Idiots and the Bushfires

I feel certain that I can say that you would have to be living in a cave on Mars with no form of communication to have not heard about the bushfires.

Let's start with this. Two people have already been charged for stealing bushfire appeal money. One, a 36 year old man broke into a school and stole money. A school for FSMs sake. The other thief was a 16 year old boy.

Now that is despicable. People gave money to help people that actually need and deserve the money. You stole from people who were denied help from Centrelink because they didn't have any ID.

But that isn't the worst of it.

The Skeptic Zone had a segment on some idiots suggesting that homeopathy should be used to treat burns to burn victims. Because that sounds like a very good idea doesn't it. Let's use a form of "medicine" that doesn't work at all just because some idiots don't like proper medicine for reasons that make no sense whatsoever.

And how we have people charged for looting. Brilliant isn't it? People have lost everything and now there are bastards going around (allegedly) stealing what little these people have that survived the fires. Isn't humanity grand.

I think that the worst of it has to be Pastor Danny Nalliah. He is the head of "Catch the Fire Ministries" and was a The Sydney Morning Herald stating that:

"The Bible is very clear, [i]f you walk out of God's protection and turn your back on Him, you are an open target for the devil to destroy."

And what he said even managed to turn what you could call his most powerful supporter Peter Costello against him.

So I'm going to say congratulations to Danny Nalliah. You've managed to politicise an issue that has no link at all to what you believe, and you've pissed off many many people in the process. But at least you show that you uphold the religious values that the Family First Party is known for.

For those that would like more information on the fires themselves, according to the ABC (as of 13/2/09 at 3:19 PM (GMT+9:30)) the death toll stands at 181 dead, and 7000 homeless, of which 3000 are living in tents. Police believe that a serial arsonist may have been responsible for some of the fires. I said here that I believe that if an arsonist set at least one fire that they have the blood of all those who died in the fires on their hands.

The people that I have mentioned above are in the minority. The greatest praise has to go to the Country Fire Authority for their valiant work in containing a large number of bushfires and trying to help all those people. The doctors of the burn wards around Victoria for their work in helping those who have suffered horrible burns from the bushfires and the police for keeping law and order in the affected areas. Lastly the Red Cross and other organisations like that who are on the scene doing everything they can to help people affected by the fires.

Australians in general are helping out by donating money to the various bushfire appeals.

I'm going to say something that many people have been saying. If you would like to help please donate to an appeal such as The Australian Red Cross, and those who can should really donate blood.

If you want you can also donate money to the CFA and if you are in Australia it is possible to donate to the equivalent in your state. I know the CFS had to contain fires that were not as deadly but had the possibility of being as dangerous as the Victorian ones, and the Rural Fire Service (NSW for those playing at home) have sent men to Victoria to help the CFA. If you fell like it these organisations have volunteer brigades (the CFS, CFA and RFS are I believe primarily volunteer) that you can join and help keep the country safe.

MPAA Classification System

I've just finished watching This Film Is Not Yet Rated and I've got to say, what the fuck?

I mean, as a foreigner what they do in the US is extremely confusing.

Here in Australia we have the Office of Film and Literature Classification. It's a government body that does pretty much what it's title suggest (and video games and other media too).

As a side note, I'd just like to shout out to Michael Atkinson (Attorney-General of SA) and say the following:

You are a bloody idiot for not allowing an R18+ rating for video games. Honestly, why the hell can't we have such a rating for video games? We seem to do just fine with one for movies.

Anyway, back to what I am supposed to be talking about.

It seems that, on top of nobody having any bloody clue about the rules for classification in the US, and that the "appeals" process sounds just like a way for the Motion Picture Association of America to say "we're keeping our rating". As far as I can tell the closest thing that there is to rules is reading the Wikipedia article on the subject.

Now compare that to the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFCA for ease now), where you can actually download a copy of their guidelines.

Funnily enough the same thing appears to exist with the MPAA review board and their appeals board. At most the public only gets the list from 2005 which the film found through the use of a private investigator. The MPAA go on about some crap about "protecting integrity".

My god that must mean that the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board are a bunch of corrupt bastards because we can easily find out who they are, what they can do, and where they are from. What utter bastards. Well that clearly means that I can't trust them because I know who they are and what qualifications they hold.

Right?

Oh wait, I know the answer to this question. No.

In fact it actually helps understand why they make the decisions that they do. You know, it gives the boards a bit more respectability then "faceless reviewers" and "faceless appeals board with a Catholic and an Episcopalian priest to give the board credibility but you can't know who exactly they are".

Meh.

I guess the US people care about their right to free speech only if it's the government that is restricting that right.

Well, good on them I guess. I'll stick with a classification body that has accountability.

Iraq

It started with an article on various Iraq blogs on Blogspot. But while writing this I have 8 tabs open (I use Firefox) of articles that I will be using.

I think I will work with data first before I head into the real life stuff.

This is the earlier of the two polls.

The main trends that you will clearly see is that people are thinking in 2007 about life overall has mainly been a decrease in all areas apart from 'somewhat worse' which has increased by about 10% from 2005 (this is the poll on the left). However there seems to be a slight increase in the 'about the same' section from 2005 (the poll on the left). However the poll on the right seems to show a few different trends. The 'somewhat worse' answer did increase, but the 'somewhat better section' shows a decrease. What the two polls do show is that there seems to be a pretty close split between people thinking that life is slightly better or slightly worse. That would probably depend on the location of these people.

A large number of the people believe that Iraq is controlled by the US. And surprisingly there seems to be an increasing number of people who think that attacks on the coalition forces is acceptable (51%).

Most people have experienced more violence from coalition forces (~45%) in their area compared to car bombs (~32%) or factional infighting (~25%). As well as this only about 26% of people feel safe in their neighbourhoods.

More people seem to believe that a democracy is the best answer for the state at the moment, but a strong leader is the second option.

This is some data taken after the 'surge'

Although the statistics look somewhat promising, looking carefully you see that only the US forces received any reduction, the civilians had an increase from the previous week and Iraqi police and military deaths and woundings has increased dramatically.

Power supplies seem to be rather non-existent while the price of fuel has jumped horribly while people wait in queues to get fuel to power generators.

This article has statistics regarding post-war Iraq. What they seem to show is that electricity is less then the pre-war level but it is nowhere near reaching demand. Also it seems that regardless of where they are in the country about 25% has daily problems with receiving fresh water.

Now the problem that this data is showing is that the reconstruction efforts isn't working well enough. The low level of security shows that the people might be turning to militias for the protection that they are not getting from the coalition forces.

On the 13^th the US forces launched a new offensive.

Called Operation Phantom Strike it was supposed to make the country safer by removing Al Qaeda forces in the country. This is at the same time that people are claiming that the national unity government has become useless and politicians are pressuring Maliki to hold an emergency meeting.

And while the US is trying to defeat Al Qaeda they have most likely struck back.

A truck bomb was used to attack some Yazidi villages.

The Yazidi are, simply, a group of Kurds who follow a religion that is an amalgamation of many religions. The Extremists consider them heretics and want them dead. The Yazidi say that they are not in any way heretical.

Recently there has been some trouble with the Sunnis and the Yazidi, with an attack by people believed to be Sunnis against the Yazidi in April where 23 people were killed after they were taken off a bus and executed.

What the news is reporting is that the minority groups, Christians, Yazidi and other small groups, are being targeted by the fanatics of the bigger groups, not like a big fish would eat a smaller fish so don't think that. What is happening is that the terrorists are trying to cause more discord by attacking smaller groups, they think they they are an easy, or easier, target, and, as noted by Iraqi bloggers, ruining the peaceful co-existence of these people before the country went to hell.

An article written on Thursday is discussing whether the attack was based on the surge that the US started. What this means is that the US is pushing the terrorists around, as they leave an area the terrorists just come back and get back to where they left off. At this point the number of dead was said to have been around 250 - 400 people.

Yesterday (Friday) the toll was at 344 dead, around 400 wounded and 600 people were made homeless.

Now this is really sad to hear. These people have gone through hell. And what I find more annoying is that the news here gave it less space then information on:

• A new surge in Afghanistan, and information about a German convoy being attacked (about half a page)
• News on Madeline McCann (about a quarter of a page)
• That woman who won the British Lotto (a half a page)
• Something about Elvis (same page as the 'article' about these bombings and most of it)
• Something about that golfer Greg Norman and his wife's divorce (same size as Elvis)

What annoys me even more is that it had less time to it then Mark Ricciuto's retirement which took up:

1. Front Page
2. Pages 4 and 5, part of the 'proper news'
3. Pages 106 - 107, sport section
4. Page 43, front page of the AFL supplement "main game"
5. Page 44 - 45 of the supplement "main game"

The "main game" supplement is part of the paper proper though.

And all we get from such a horrible event is a very vague description that the BBC has been writing articles on.

I guess there may be something in this mornings paper when I get it but I suspect that it will still be far less then the retirement which will probably take up half the entire paper. My God Australians are shallow people...

I honestly feel sorry for these people, to have had stability in their lives finally thrown upside down in a world that was on it's side to begin with. I am so pissed off at the newspaper though. People are suffering horribly but they don't seem to care. We don't seem to care, to us it is just "Another bunch of Iraqis died today". If it were Australians we would be going "Oh shit diggers were killed today" but because it is a bunch of Iraqi people it doesn't count as news.

These people have gone through hell and most of the world who should be caring will never know. The people who should really see what their governments actions has achieved will be able to shrug it off.

These people, with ties to the land they are in, who have a rather unique culture and religion my end up fleeing like many of their fellow citizens, and their culture will be damaged, their persecution used to fuel the fires of hatred, for those people to try and use them as an example of why people should believe what they, the fanatic, believes and all others are wrong.

I found the article that started this off.

It is a bit old, but the views are perfectly valid. These people know far better then I do about the problems facing the Iraqi people because, at least in the examples in the article, they have fled, in the process of leaving, or are still in Iraq, each one brings something new to the table, viewpoints, conditions, little known facts and write with a wide range of emotions.

If you want to know more about the Iraqi people, by all means read the newspapers, look at the online editions because they are not as bound as the printed media, look at other countries news sites, but most of all, read the blogs. You can go through life on a soundbite, but when you fail to take the opportunity to read what people are saying in the areas that are affected, or are now watching on the sidelines as their country that they had, and probably still do, love, fall to pieces around them, you really can empathise.

The problem is that our society is a self-centred one of bad news that really isn't so bad when you think about it, and pointless drivel. What we have created is a society that is losing one of the most important things that makes us human.

The ability to empathise with others.