Lolcats With a Vengeance

Nov 17, 2009 | Australian Values, Cultural Values, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Global Warming, Immigration, Lifestyle & Life, Media Values, OzPol Values, Racism, Religious Values, Science Values, Terrorism, USPol, Values, War

Lolcats With a Vengeance

Sir Roger is despondent

 

After all the hard work of so many people Australian politics is looking like Howard Lite, iSuck 2.0 déjà vu all over again. Boat people – “Aaaaarrrggghh! Foreigners! Tough on Queue-jumpers [but not on the causes of queue-jumpers]”.

“Let’s pretend to be doing something about climate change. We have to do something. We have to do something. I know! Let’s play tiddlywinks! That’s “something”. Hey, youse guys, the world is going to burn to a cinder unless we do something about it! So what we’re doing is, we’re playing tiddlywinks. If you don’t play tiddlywinks too, the world is going to burn to a cinder.”

“Okay, well, um … wait on … we don’t believe in tiddlywinks but we’ll play if Johnno and Wayne don’t have to play but you promise they will win.”

“But if Johnno and Wayne don’t play the world will burn to a crisp! No-one will win!”

“Okay, well…well…well get fuckin’ stuffed then! Let the world burn for all we fuckin’ care! … Fuckin’ lower class upstarts! Fuckin’ fairy eggheads!”

Palestine.
Israel.
Obama (what a fucking disappointment).
Russia.
Burma.
Sri Lanka.
China,
Tibet.

Fucking arrogant, corrupt and criminally-incompetent Indonesian politicians, bureaucrats, police and judges.

Walls everywhere.
Hatred.
Religious madmen in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia.

And the United States, which is terminally fucked in the collective head.

Democracy movements being crushed everywhere.

Freedoms, rights and privacy being shredded even – especially – by the good old Brits, eh, what?

Stupid global refusal to listen, based on creaking, long-ago-discredited, Industrial-Revolution-era social-political-religious theories that date back – even in their most recent versions – more than 200 years in the West, and on 4000-year-old, crazy, murderous, hate-filled, tribalist, racist, desert-engendered cruel religious fantasies in the rest of the world.

The hopes of “peace and love” from the last five decades crumbling like the naïve hallucinations they so pitiably were.

Young people who will “look after” things in a few years unable to think or care about anything but how some fake and shallow, talentless celebrity flashed her cunt, and what eyeshadow to wear …

And the people who actually care. the people with answers, who could possibly do something about it all, are sneered at and ridiculed.

It’s enough to make you want to just give up and forget it all and look at some funny cat video.

 

Richard Glover Lacks Sense of Humour About Atheists

Oct 2, 2009 | Australian Values, Cultural Values, Democracy, Humour, Media Values, OzPol Values, Religious Values, Values

Richard Glover Lacks Sense of Humour About Atheists

Brilliant French comedy: St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of French Protestants by Catholics,  1572  /  François Dubois

Hahahahahaha!

 

Yesterday on Richard Glover’s Drive (ABC local radio, Sydney), according to sources, Glover — who has built his considerable celebrity on unfunny puns and predictable punchlines — testily exhorted atheists to “get a sense of humour”.

How true!

Your Common or Lesser Spotted Godbotherer is such a hoot, after all.

Who can forget the hilarity of the Spanish Inquisition? Or the Taliban’s side-splitting public executions of women in the Kabul soccer stadium? Or al Qaeda’s laugh-a-minute comedy, 9/11 , with its follow-ups, World’s Craziest Suicide Bombings Parts I, II, III … (N) … directed by Allahu Akbar?

George W. Bush’s Iraq War II, of course, was a comedic tour de force in the grand tradition of The Great Crusades: Episodes I to IX.

And that girl being stoned to death for “adultery” should have been caught on Somalia’s Funniest Home Videos! (After all, the girl being merely whipped for leaving home without a male escort made it onto Paki-Standup-TV, didn’t she?)

Yes, the religious are so much more relaxed and chilled out and ready to laugh.

 

 

The Mohammedans, for example, were significantly more giggle-ready when they saw those atheistic Danish cartoons than any of your straight-laced, po-faced atheists would ever be if confronted with a satirical image of their own atheist god, Charles Darwin.

Chuckling behind his bushy pantomime beard, Groucho Marx eyebrows and silly dress-up turban, Ayatollah Khomeini was virtually doubled-over with mirth as he delivered his sidesplitting fatwa on Salman Rushdie.

Thanks, Richard, for the depth of your wisdom, for your fair and balanced advice, and for not letting your personal opinion get in the way of your deadpan public pontifications.

And for being a real chucklehead we can look up to. 

 

 

 

Khamenei Swore and I Congaed

Aug 3, 2009 | Australian Values, Cultural Values, Democracy, Religious Values, Values

Khamenei Swore and I Congaed

  

Ayatollah Khamenei declared the result of the Iranian election today:

“ The Iranian people have voted in favour of a fight against arrogance,” screamed the criminally-insane Ayatollah arrogantly, “and to confront destitution and spread justice,” the hate-filled theocrat sneered. “And that is why I am overturning the vote and declaring the election of the truly awful apostate, Ahmedinajad, void,” scowled the religious sociopath.

We can dream, can’t we?

 

 

Costello and Iran

Jun 17, 2009 | Australian Values, Capital Punishment, Cultural Values, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, OzPol Values, Religious Values, Values, War

Costello and Iran

Peter Costello reaching out to his future subjects

Our loyal visitors,

 

Wanting to know how to react to Peter Costello’s decision to disappear up his own arse at long last, may have been waiting with bated breath to hear Sir Roger’s wisdom on the issue.

 Sir Roger’s view?

Who gives a fuck?



I’m at dinner,  Jan!

On the building Iran crisis Values Australia modifies what it said two weeks ago about China and 6/4:

“ [/dropcapif you have to force the people … to obey the dictates of your Glorious Religion, if you have to kill people to force them to agree with you, then you are doing something very wrong, your basic religious premises are seriously fucked and your religion is after all not nearly so glorious as you might want to believe, however desperately.

The same goes for any religion.

Here is what is probably as close as anyone has come to our view of politics, democracy and religion, and from a Christian, no less: C. S. Lewis 

I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to the rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments.

 

If we must have a tyrant a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be sated; and since he dimly knows he is going wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.

 

And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic, held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated.

– Of Other Worlds, 

  

Dawkins For Tony Blair

Apr 21, 2009 | Arts, Australian Values, Cultural Values, Humour, Lifestyle & Life, Media Values, OzPol Values, Religious Values, Values

Dawkins For Tony Blair

Richard Loves Tony

  Richard Dawkins, in the New Statesman finds himself supporting war criminal Tony Blair who had recently written of his hopes and plans for the eponymous foundation based on his evidence-free beliefs.
“ Dear Person of Faith   Admittedly, there are one or two problems remaining to be ironed out there, but all the more reason for people of different faiths — Christian and Muslim, Sunni and Shia — to join together in meaningful dialogue to seek common ground, just as Catholics and Protestants have done, so heart-warmingly, throughout European history. It is these great benefits of faith that the Tony Blair Foundation seeks to promote. “We are focusing on five main projects initially, working with partners in the six main faiths” Yes I know, I know, it’s a pity we had to limit ourselves to six. But we do have boundless respect for other faiths, all of which, in their colourful variety, enrich human lives. In a very real sense, we have much to learn from Zoroastrianism and Jainism. And from Mormonism, though Cherie says we need to go easy on the polygamy and the sacred underpants!! Then again, we mustn’t forget the ancient and rich Olympian and Norse traditions — although our modern blue-skies thinking out of the box has pushed the envelope on shock-and-awe tactics, and put Zeus’s thunderbolts and Thor’s hammer in the shade!!! We hope, in Phase 2 of our Five-Year Plan, to embrace Scientology and Druidic Mistletoe Worship, which, in a very real sense, have something to teach us all. In Phase 3, our firm commitment to Diversity will lead us to source new networking partnership opportunities with the many hundreds of African tribal religions. Sacrificing goats may present problems with the RSPCA, but we hope to persuade them to adjust their priorities to take proper account of religious sensibilities. [ … ] “We are working with the Coexist Foundation and Cambridge University to develop the concept of Abraham House” I always think it’s so important to coexist, don’t you agree, with our brothers and sisters of the other Abrahamic faiths. Of course we have our differences — I mean, who doesn’t, basically? But we must all learn mutual respect. For example, we need to understand and sympathise with the deep hurt and offence that a man can feel if we insult his traditional beliefs by trying to stop him beating his wife, or setting fire to his daughter or cutting off her clitoris (and please don’t let’s hear any racist or Islamophobic objections to these important expressions of faith). We shall support the introduction of sharia courts, but on a strictly voluntary basis — only for those whose husbands and fathers freely choose it. [ … ] With so many of the world’s problems caused by religion, what better solution could there possibly be than to promote yet more of it?  

 

Also in the New Statesman, A C Grayling, professor of philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London, says the word “god” …
… brings to mind the man-made phenomenon of religions, whose net effect on humanity now as throughout history has been, by a considerable margin, negative. It would be so just because of the falsity of belief; and the consequent absurdity of behaviour premised on the idea that there exist supernatural agencies who made this very imperfect world, and who have an interest in us that extends to our sex lives and what we should and should not eat on certain days, or wear, and so on. But it is worse than false: it is far too often oppressive and distorting as regards human nature, and divisive as regards human communities. It is a frequent source of conflict and cruelty. Monstrous crimes have been committed in its name. And more often than not it has stood in the way of efforts at human liberation and progress. [ … ] I would wish people to live without superstition, to govern their lives with reason, and to conduct their relationships on reflective principles about what we owe one another as fellow voyagers through the human predicament ““ with kindness and generosity wherever possible, and justice always. None of this requires religion or the empty name of “god”. Indeed, once this detritus of our ignorant past has been cleared away, we might see more clearly the nature of good, and pursue it aright at last.
We, for one (or is that two? Now I’m we’re confused…) wholeheartedly endorse this last paragraph. (Except for the pompous “aright”…)   Both articles are worth reading in full at the links above.

Sacrifice?

Mar 17, 2009 | Australian Values, Citizenship, Cultural Values, Democracy, OzPol Values, Religious Values, Values, War

Sacrifice?

Can we just say to all the politicians who pompously intone the word “sacrifice” over the freshly dead bodies of Australian soldiers:

 

BULLSHIT!
WEASEL!
UNSPEAK!

 

Rudd

“ His sacrifice will not be forgotten.”

Turnbull:

“ All Australians are indebted for this, the greatest of sacrifices in our name.”

Let’s be really clear.

They didn’t “SACRIFICE”.

Sacrifice requires an intention. Death wasn’t their intention. Their intention was to stay alive.

To sacrifice is, roughly literally, to perform a sacred rite.

There was nothing ritual about the Australian soldier being killed in Afghanistan yesterday. Nor was there anything ‘sacred’.

Soldiers don’t “sacrifice”.

They get killed,

blasted,

blown to pieces,

in an obscenity we call war.

Blood splatters everywhere.

Pieces of shattered bone, skull, leg, liver, brain fly around.

Soldiers scream and groan in agony before they lose consciousness and leave their families without a husband or wife, father or mother, son or daughter, or friend.

To glorify and sanitise this as “sacrifice” is a willful, disingenuous and deliberate misrepresentation of the truth and an abomination in the language.

It is an attempt to make death in war acceptable or even good, somehow holy and blessed instead of admitting the horror, the awful, the dreadful, truth that people who have actually been there almost invariably describe — if they have words they can even bring themselves to speak.

Instead of being honest, the politicians go on to stitch the poor dead soldier onto the false myths of the faded, fraying, Anzac fabric.

“ He was a fine and courageous soldier in the great Anzac tradition,” Mr Rudd said.

And when they show images on television, they show PR footage of the Aussies dashing around with their rifles and hi-tech helmets being macho.

They never show pictures of their guts being sprayed everywhere.

Then there is the other nonsense.

At a time like this thoughts, prayers, condolences and sympathies are thick in the air like a flock of pigeons on crystal meth.

Rudd:

“ On behalf of the Australian government I extend my condolences to the family of this soldier, his friends and to his loved ones.” The thoughts and prayers of the entire nation were with the soldier’s family at this most difficult time, he said. “I would like to convey my deepest sympathy to his loved ones,” he said.

Mr Rudd and Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull have extended sympathies to the soldier’s family.

Turnbull:

“ The thoughts and prayers of all Australians are with the soldier’s family.”

Air Chief Marshal Houston:

“ On behalf of our nation and the Australian Defence Force, I convey our deepest sympathies to his loved one.”

Our question is:

when the PM sends, conveys, or “extends” his thoughts, prayers, sympathies and condolences to us, how exactly do they get here?

How can we tell they have arrived?

What do they look like?

Should we keep the wrapping paper?

How big are they – will they all fit in my sock drawer?

If they are “deepest” sympathies, do I need a bigger drawer?

When someone’s “heart goes out” to us, do we have to have a special jar to keep it in?

What actually are these things?

What do they mean?

What actual value are they to us?

How much did they cost?

The answer to the last four questions are:

nothing,

nothing,

fuckall

fucking nothing.

Talk is cheap and mealy-mouthed words and pompous forms of words are empty and meaningless.

So, for a politician, the price is right.

They serve the speaker, not the supposed recipient who gets precisely nothing in fact. But at least the PM looks and sounds good and solemn and, who knows, might be a slightly better chance for re-election one day.

And by the way, how can Houston speak on behalf of “Our Nation”? The answer is, he can’t. The nation is not defined by the military. Neither his authority nor his remit extend beyond the military. He is unelected and cannot speak for anyone except his constituency, much as he might feel moved to by the occasion.

 

 

SECOND THOUGHTS

This cynical, political treatment of real human sadness is, we think, an example of what we like to call “Flashcard Politics”. The masters of this technique are Obama’s media team (greek columns, Lincoln monument, cheap emotional triggers etc. covering up the same old same old).

Rudd and his writers do it without shame