polydaidaloi.com

Tony Abbot on Insiders yesterday (29/8/10):

Look the three rural independents – they’re all adults, they’re all patriots…

Patriot – A person who submits to the will of the Liberal party.

Every person and their companion animal of choice is wading into the post election debate so why not join in the fun.

No political analysis just a personal observations on why I voted for The Greens and not Labor. The simple reason is real moral leadership. Not “moral” in the limited, bigoted, intolerant sense as usually employed by family first types, but real leadership that doesn’t demonise a disadvantaged group for the sake of votes.

What Labor did, by matching the Liberals in rhetoric regarding the boat people, advocated any moral leadership and made it beholden to a bunch of irrational xenophobes in a land locked electorate who feared the arrival of a few thousand people by boat many of thousand of kilometers to the north. The stupidity of all this wonderfully captured by The Chaser.

I suspect if Labor had ignored the ignorant it would not have made much difference to the campaign. The Liberals were brilliant in forcing Labor to fight parts of the campaign on their own terms.

Labor does have some good policies such as the NBN and the Mining Tax but failed to even sell those properly to the electorate. And the ridiculous intransigence on gay marriage shows Labor lack any electoral guts whatsoever.

I’m not stuck to The Greens. I’d be happy to rejoin the Labor fold. But for that to happen Labor will need to become a braver, more confident party. One that is not afraid to bring real leadership (ala Hawke and early Keviun Rudd) and not be captive to News Ltd, marginal voters nor the careerist party executives who lack any vision beyond the next poll. The destruction of NSW Labor next March may help rid Federal Labor of the cancerous influence of the NSW right once and for all. But I somehow doubt it given the propensity of those most responsible for Labor’s stumbling, bumbling, fumbling campaign to acknowledge reality.

I do know some good people in the grass roots of Labor. I hope their voices can find a way to be heard as the party would do well to listen to them and not the hollow voices that guided Labor to electoral disaster this time around.

Michael Mullins has a post on Eureka Street on the idea that Gillard’s atheism belongs in the closet.

And while Mullins does take Perth’s Catholic Archbishop Barry Hickey to task for his intolerance, Mullins fails to note his own in declaring that atheists should remain in the closet. Amusing his tagging of Gillard’s mild statement on her lack of beliefs as being “out and proud.” Obviously religious politicians can say whatever they want but heaven forbid an atheist politician making a reasonable statement concerning their views.

Mullins then uses Hickey as a proxy to be concerned at the rise of an European style secularism hindering the rights of churches. I doubt this would happen in Australia given the difference in cultural contexts.

Anyway, Gillard is not the first Australian atheist prime minister. The idea of Prime Minsters needing to profess a faith is very new and mainly the fault of Rudd’s god bothering on his way to Prime Minister. You only need to look at the US to see what happens when religion and politics mix. Mammon always wins with God relegated to just a few catch phrases to win over the gullible.

Gosford council have approved an Exclusive Brethren hall for Kariong. This was against the council’s own officers. The ridiculous bit:

But councillor Jeff Strickson urged approval, saying traffic impact would be small.

“We’re talking about a maximum attendance of 90 people,” Cr Strickson said.

“A lot of people will walk so we’re talking about maybe 15 cars once every six weeks.

There is an Exclusive Brethren hall just down the road from my place. At lot more than 90 people attend their and even with the car park, the street outside and the pub car park fills up pretty quickly a couple of times a week. And looking at the religious affiliation for Kariong, there are only 23 people that list their affiliation as Brethren. Strickson is being very flexible with the facts.

I’m sure the same consideration would have been given if an Islamic group had proposed a similar venue for Kariong.

Brut, who make cologne for blokes, sponsors Channel Nine’s coverage of the NRL and as such, you will see an ad similar to below. This the original version from last year.

As a post from Sociological Image says:

The woman is, quite literally, an object, to be “modified,” and then posed with his other belongings. And as we see, being “brutally male” is associated with drinking a lot, driving powerful vehicles, having hot women, and probably engaging in the type of risky behaviors that partially explain why men in many industrialized nations live shorter lives than women.

And too rightly complaints were lodged such as one by Miss T. The outcome of the complaints were also noted by Mumbarella in 2009:

Two ads judged to be demeaning to women have been censured by the Advertising Standards Board.

The ASB has found that a commercial for Brut Max anti-perspirant and a late night ad for the Girls Gone Wild adult mobile service were both in breach of advertising rules.

The Brut ad – made by ad agency Loud for advertiser Pharmacare – featured a robot collecting macho-friendly objects such as a surfboard and a football . It then picks up a doll, which it indicated is “rejected” before turning her into a woman in a bikini, which it collects.

A voiceover for the ad – aired during NRL and AFL broadcasts – concludes: “Brut – still brutally male”.

Defending the ad, the advertiser said: “”When making the commercial we made sure that: Tara, our model was portrayed as comfortable and happy, and a real person. -The Robot acted gently, engaging and not threatening or menacing.”

Referrring to coverage of sex scandals involving footballers, the board described the media placement as “unfortunate”, and added:

“The Board considered that the advertisement objectifies the woman and represents her as a desired possession of men. The transformation from a doll to this particular buxom, very attractive woman dressed in a bikini also objectifies a particular type of women and perpetuates a stereotype of ‘desirable’ women.

So the ad was modified.

Spot the difference? Why yes, the concession was not to place the woman in the back of the ute. That sure is progress.

Now this NRL season, I have seen a third version . The difference now is that the Barbie doll that is rejected and modified has been removed. But the woman still comes out of the chute with all the other objects to be collected by the robot.

Brut really don’t get it.

They obviously believe they have tapped into a demographic but that should not excuse Brut of using crass gender stereotypes and sexism to sell a product. I love my footy but I resent being told that, as a bloke, the ad is representative of my gender.

The tag line “Still – brutally male” is disgusting with the implication that violence is an essential part of being a man. And while I do think the NRL has made ground in regards to gender issues over the years (scandals not withstanding) the endorsement of this ad by the NRL’s broadcaster is a sign there are still ways to go.

I was not impressed to read that at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne the follow exchange happened:

Rationalist Society president Ian Robinson, asking whether there were any believers in the audience. “OK, I’ll speak really slowly.”

That quote is from The Age’s Barney Zwartz’s reasonably ok piece on the conference.

Ridicule is a very useful weapon in the atheist’s rhetorical armoury. But to be unleashed is such a petty, spiteful way does not serve anyone. As for ridicule being used against Pope Benny and Senator Dimwit, I have no issues with that at all.

An astounding comment that I saw on Twitter and in the MSM a number of times was along the lines of “why do atheists need a conference?” I suspect that some were making the mistake of assuming that atheism is a form of solipsism.
More »

According to sociologist Gary Bouma atheists are fuelling sectarian conflict. According to Bouma’s logic, if atheists just would shut up, religions would hold hands, sing ‘Kumbaya” and there would be no more sad histories like 911, the Irish troubles, the mess in Iraq etc.

What Bouma is actually trying to do is deny atheists the right of a voice. What atheists (well most of us anyway) want is a right to be heard and for the privilege religion has in society to be critically examined and questioned. This is confronting to some as they prefer atheists to be quiet and confine their discussions behind closed doors.

Too bad and too late. Religious freedom and freedom of speech are not just for the devout.

Elsewhere: Russell Blackford takes down Bouma.

Dick Gross, an atheist, has a column in where he defends the canonisation of Mary Mackillop. It is a meandering, wishy washy post.

The first point I contest is the idea that saints, like MacKillop offer, consolation to the sick. It is a false consolation. Miracles do happen as described in the uncritical reporting of testimony of Kathleen Evans. She prayed to MacKillop and was then found cancer free. Indeed, her case is amazing and a wonderful thing to have happened to her and her family. But as I’ve argued before, it could very easily, and more likely, be a case of spontaneous remission.

There is a danger that that false hopes of saints could lead patients to place less faith in doctors and treatment and more in miracles to their own detriment. The charge that I may be taking away something positive away from cancer suffers is I accept but Barbara Ehnreich’s experiences show that positive thinking can be dangerous in itself.
More »

Australia has caused another racism ruckus (the Hey Hey black face episode being the previous one) with a KFC add that depicts an Aussie bloke making friends with a crowd of West Indians by offering them some KFC.

The cries of racism were directed at the ad for use of an stereotype that African-Americans like fried chicken. And if the ad was in an American context, I could understand the concern.

But the ad has nothing to do with US racial stereotypes. The black people in the ad are West Indians who are not part of the United States. KFC are a major sponsor of cricket here in Australia and the West Indies are one of (and a popular) side touring Australia at the moment. The ad is a mildly humorous take on what happens when you are stuck in the middle of the opposition supporters.

There are number of West Indian stereotypes that, if used, would make accusations of racism accurate and deserved.

That is not to say racism does not exist in Australia. We have yet to still come to terms with a abysmal treatment of the Indigenous population. The White Australia policy was still on the books until the mid-70s. The aforementioned Hey Hey incident revealed a disturbing, lingering element of casual racism in Australia. And the continued attacks escalating into murder of Indian students are frightening.

But KFC should be let off the hook for this one. It is a case of the Americans being remarkably insular and ignorant about the rest of the world and not Australian racism. And of course, Americans are guilty of the greater crime of not having a clue about cricket.

My main problem with the ad is that Mick is a know-it-all smarmy little git.

An interesting element of the coverage in some of Australia’s media regarding the attempted terrorist attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is the highlighting of the fact that he studied at the Dubai Campus of the University of Wollongong.

Over at News, we get US terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was University of Wollongong student.

Not sure whether the hacks at News want us to be scared or take some perverse pride that Australia is tangentially involved.

Yep, it ain’t news till we get an Aussie connection. Which is really a sad indictment on Aussie journalism. That the best way to place in international event in context is find out if Aussies are involved. This is very evident when there is a natural disaster with a great loss of life. The media race each other to find out if Australians are involved. If so, then a great coverage ensues to portray the overseas disaster as almost an affront on the Australia way of life.

If not, there is a sense of disappointment. With no Aussie connection, there is no story. Anyway, the media has better things to do. Such as reports on various celebrities that really generate the all important web traffic.