The Man of Mode

Oct 6, 2007 | Australian Values, Democracy, Humour, OzPol Values, Values

The Man of Mode

 

or Sir Fopling Flutter – “God Almighty’s Fool”

 

 Most modern wits such monstrous fools have shown,

They seem’d not of heaven’s making, but their own.

Those nauseous harlequins in farce may pass,

But there goes more to a substantial ass;

Something of man must be exposed to view,

That, gallants, they may more resemble you:

Sir Fopling is a fool so nicely writ,

The ladies would mistake him for a wit

And when he sings, talks loud, and cocks, would cry:

“I vow, methinks he’s pretty company”

So brisk, so gay, so travell’d, so refined,

As he took pains to graft upon his kind.

True fops help nature’s work, and go to school

To file and finish God Almighty’s fool.

from the Epilogue to The Man Of Mode by George Etherege (1676)

 

Sir Fopling Downer

“Pwithee, when I am engaged upon my intwigues, bwayingly bewating a burmese genewal, par examplé, e’en the lewdest of them all, I would fain cawwy upon my person a big stick, adorn’d forsooth with wibbons upon’t, the which to wave most menacingly at the vile perpetwators. (A pox upon the vile debauchewers!) A faux joust upon the unjust foe! (Forgive me til’ I wipe the chortle from me lips!) Naturelementé it has not the slightest effect upon ’em and yet it maketh me, I own, t’ appear most fierce in Canbewwa…yet of a courteous-mannered qualité. Un noblé politesse. Ung Gena Saze Kwoy. Marry, it maketh one appear so much more…fashionably ineffectual.
“One ought not to offend the powerful, I trow.
To be fore’er obsequious is my vow.”

Hell, Pell

Oct 3, 2007 | Australian Values, Global Warming, OzPol Values, PedoPriests, Religious Values, Values

Hell, Pell

Cardinal Pell after Bacon

 

To Hell, Pell-Mell

 

C ardinal Pell has claimed on PM today that Global Warming is not happening.
He has “studied the science”, he says, and come to the rational conclusion that there is no evidence for global warming. In fact, he said, he was speaking to a “scientist” only the other day, and he said that the rise in CO2 follows warming rather than preceding it. Case closed.

He’s talking about the Milankovitch cycles which in fact do not debunk human causes for global warming. Skepticalscience covers this and pretty much all the other arguments against anthropogenic causes for global warming.

But hey, don’t put George down. It’s good that he’s a sceptic. That’s scientific, right?

He’s always totally rational and that’s why he should be trusted. He uses a special textbook called The Bible, which was written by his imaginary friend in the sky, so it must be true, right?

That’s why he believes:

  • that a virgin gave birth to a son after being visited by a winged humanoid from another dimension and then being impregnated by an immaterial spirit;
  • that a man actually walked on water;
  • that a man actually rose from the dead;
  • that a man actually floated bodily up into the sky and went to heaven.
  • that there really is a place called heaven where physical bodies go and are re-animated after they die;
  • that a woman was created from a man’s rib;
  • that a man actually divided two loaves of bread and five fishes such that there was sufficient to feed thousands of people with some left over;
  • that wine and bread become the real and actual blood and flesh of a man who lived—if he did live—two thousand years ago,
  • and who left the earthly realm altogether in the most dramatic and unequivocal way imaginable,
  • and that despite being actual blood and flesh the ex-wine and ex-bread still taste like wine and bread.

George Pell’s rationalist credentials are obviously unquestionable.

So let’s put the future of the planet in his hands. Okay?

Freedom of Speech and APEC

Sep 29, 2007 | Australian Values, Freedom of Speech, OzPol Values, Values

Freedom of Speech and APEC

Do Australians have freedom of speech?

Do Australians have freedom of speech? And, if so, was that freedom of speech illegally curtailed by the Howard government and the NSW government during APEC?

IANAL but it seems so.

Freedom of speech is not a stated right in the Constitution but laws restricting freedom to discuss, debate and publish communications concerning politics, political parties and individual politicians are disallowed in the Constitution, by implication, as inimical to the nature of the representative political system which was intended to be created by the Constitution.

In political matters there is “an area of immunity from legal control, particularly from legislative control.”

You might think that the APEC demonstration on Saturday 8 September was a political statement. You might think that the size and intended path of that demonstration was part of the statement itself. You might think that any legal action which attempted to curtail and restrict the size and place of that statement was improper and contrary to the Constitution (e.g. ss 7 and 24 and the related sections).

You might think that a state and federal police presence which by its size was intended to and/or in fact did intimidate people so that they might have feared fully to express [publish] their views, or which actually prevented people from communicating their views — either before or during the expression of those views — was in contravention of the Commonwealth Constitution.

You might even believe it arguable that a wall, erected pursuant to a legal process, which protected certain political leaders from receiving communications from electors, was in contravention of the Constitution.

You might even think that the Howard government does not particularly care for the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and that they act despite it and in contravention of it and, where necessary to their agenda, work around it.

We might think, and you might agree, that the letter which Values Australia received in March from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship

  • which held a variety of laws and acts to our head, and
  • which attempted to intimidate Values Australia by calling Values Australia “misleading and offensive”, and
  • claimed that it “may seriously damage Australia’s reputation overseas”, and
  • claimed that it “may also create confusion regarding the important business managed by the Department”

was acting illegally in this attempt to use the law to intimidate, and to restrict the expression of political opinion.

You might think that it is time the Howard government was removed from office.

You might think that the Iemma government in NSW is a total joke and that you wished there were a credible alternative.

The full text of a High Court case — Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation — which discussed the issue of freedom of speech is here:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1997/25.html

And here are some of the relevant excerpts:

” There is implied in the Commonwealth Constitution a freedom to publish material:

(a) discussing government and political matters;

(b) of and concerning members of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia which relates to the performance by such members of their duties as members of the Parliament or parliamentary committees;

(c) in relation to the suitability of persons for office as members of the Parliament.”

[ … ]

Freedom of communication

Freedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an indispensable incident of that system of representative government which the Constitution creates

[ … ]

Communications concerning political or government matters between the electors and the elected representatives, between the electors and the candidates for election and between the electors themselves were central to the system of representative government, as it was understood at federation[43]. While the system of representative government for which the Constitution provides does not expressly mention freedom of communication, it can hardly be doubted, given the history of representative government and the holding of elections under that system in Australia prior to federation, that the elections for which the Constitution provides were intended to be free elections in the sense explained by Birch. Furthermore, because the choice given by ss 7 and 24 must be a true choice with “an opportunity to gain an appreciation of the available alternatives”, as Dawson J pointed out in Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth[44], legislative power cannot support an absolute denial of access by the people to relevant information about the functioning of government in Australia and about the policies of political parties and candidates for election.

That being so, ss 7 and 24 and the related sections of the Constitution necessarily protect that freedom of communication between the people concerning political or government matters which enables the people to exercise a free and informed choice as electors. Those sections do not confer personal rights on individuals. Rather they preclude the curtailment of the protected freedom by the exercise of legislative or executive power. As Deane J said in Theophanous[45], they are “a limitation or confinement of laws and powers [which] gives rise to a pro tanto immunity on the part of the citizen from being adversely affected by those laws or by the exercise of those powers rather than to a ‘right’ in the strict sense”. In Cunliffe v The Commonwealth[46], Brennan J pointed out that the freedom confers no rights on individuals and, to the extent that the freedom rests upon implication, that implication defines the nature and extent of the freedom. His Honour said[47]:

“The implication is negative in nature: it invalidates laws and consequently creates an area of immunity from legal control, particularly from legislative control.”

 

[our emphases]

hat-tip to Club Troppo

Roll up! Roll up! The Circus is in Town!

Sep 25, 2007 | Australian Values, Democracy, OzPol Values, Values

Roll up! Roll up! The Circus is in Town!

The clown car on the road to hell

 

Yes, folks! The circus is in town and the Clown Car is in the Big Top.

Watch HeeHaw Howard being punished for dragging out the election date and spraying the crowd with endless government advertising.

See KoKo Keelty-the-Stooge declare war on The Climate as the newest, most threatening Global Terrorist ever. Watch “journalists” take him seriously.

Be amazed as Ruffles Ruddock makes freedoms, safeguards, protections and privacy disappear into new ASIO guidelines! Like Magic!

And marvel at the back-slapping Labor drones thinking people will vote Labor because they think Labor is any good and not because they are the least worst alternative.

Roll up! Roll up! Roll up … into a ball and wait till it is all over.

‘Compassionate’ Costello Reach-around

Sep 19, 2007 | Australian Values, Democracy, OzPol Values, Religious Values, Values

‘Compassionate’ Costello Reach-around

 

Costello reaches out to the downtrodden …

[Drawing by Tony King, 1969]

 

… The electorate merely retches.

Mr Costello said that in the election campaign he would talk about what Australia needs for its future, in particular drawing the marginalised into mainstream society.

” Maybe they have been marginalised with health problems, maybe they have been marginalised by the welfare system, maybe they have been marginalised by an education system which has failed them,” he said.

“Now that we have a strong economy and we have paid off Labor debt and balanced our budgets, now we can use our economic strength to reach out to these people and bring them into the mainstream.

He added,

” Come unto me all ye that travail and are heavy laden and I will refresh you. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.”

A recent Newspoll has shown that, at these words, electors all over Australia, who had been considering voting Labor, fell to their knees like audience plants in a Benny Hinn service, or a Hillsong meeting, praying:

” Almighty Sweetie Dollar, new Father of our nation, Maker of all things, Judge of all men; We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed, Against Thy Divine Majesty, Provoking most justly Thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, And are heartily sorry for these our misdoings: The remembrance of them is grievous unto us; The burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; Forgive us all that is past; And grant that we may ever hereafter Serve and please Thee In newness of life, To the honour and glory of Thy Name; Through the Divine Grace of the Holy Trinity – the Rodent, the Don and the Ming. Amen.

Unrepentant sinners assert that Costello has been the Treasurer of a morally corrupt government which has methodically vandalised individual and legal freedoms and rights, a government which has never told the truth when a lie would do, a government which has, as a matter of policy – which Costello has wholeheartedly and enthusiastically promoted – systematically and systemically marginalised large sections of the society which it has then vilified and punished for their marginalisation.

Uncharitably, these sinners point out that he has had almost twelve years to act on his professed compassionate impulses. And he has done nothing. They say that he has the moral backbone of a leech. Even if he had wanted to stand up against the viciousness of the outgoing Prime Minister he never had the guts to do so, showing more compassion for his own ambition to sit in the big seat.

The unforgiven suggest that his awkward, nauseating, muculent Uriah Heep impression, the soft-voiced caring and concern of the radio interview, contrasts starkly with his more characteristically spiteful, arrogant performance in Parliament today when he proudly paraded himself as the supercilious, bullying, narcissistic misanthrope that he truly is.

(May the Almighty Sweetie Dollar have mercy upon them. R’amen)

The Courtier’s Reply

Sep 18, 2007 | Australian Values, Cultural Values, Freedom of Speech, Religious Values, Values

The Courtier’s Reply

The Emperor’s New Clothes

 

The King is in the altogether,
The altogether, the altogether,
He’s altogether as naked as the day that he was born.
~ Danny Kaye/HC Andersen

One of the constant “arguments” – actually not so much an argument as a condescending whinge – made against Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion is Dawkins’ failure deeply to consider the omnitude of historical religious discourse – what Sam Harris in Letters to a Christian Nation describes as “bookish men parsing a collective delusion” – and in fact this “oversight” is often used to insinuate an intellectual inferiority.

Of course it is nothing of the sort.

The worst, or at least most voluble, of these – really, mendacious – detractors is H. Allen Orr who wrote

” You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology in Dawkins’s book (does he know Augustine rejected biblical literalism in the early fifth century?), no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions (are they like ordinary claims about everyday matters?), no effort to appreciate the complex history of interaction between the Church and science (does he know the Church had an important part in the rise of non-Aristotelian science?), and no attempt to understand even the simplest of religious attitudes (does Dawkins really believe, as he says, that Christians should be thrilled to learn they’re terminally ill?).

Breathtakingly illogical, as you can see, since Dawkins’ point is not the finer subtleties of religious credos but lack of any gods at all.

Dawkins has attempted to answer these critics and criticisms, but it is difficult to hope that your answer might make sense to someone who so obviously cannot, or refuses to, understand the question.

Dawkins wrote to The Independent to answer two other such detractors, Messrs Cornwell and Stanford:

” Cornwell’s slighting of my reading list is singled out for special praise by Stanford. This is a stock criticism. It assumes that there is a serious subject called Theology, which one must study in depth before one can disbelieve in God. My own stock reply (Would you need to read learned volumes on Leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?) is now superseded by P Z Myers’ brilliant satire on the Emperor’s New Clothes…

Stanford’s trump card is his observation that “religion is not primarily about belief, as we understand the word today, but faith.” Religion, as he sums it up, “simply isn’t about facts.”

Exactly. I couldn’t have put it better myself.

So here is the meat of The Courtier’s Reply by PZ Myers.

” I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, “On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat”. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all.
[….]
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

How dare he. The impertinence!