Really.

I’m serious. No-one else in the media has ever been able to play “Crazy as a shit sandwich” as well as Beck. There needs to be a new award, or a padded cell. Honestly, the ravings, ramblings and incoherent mutterings of this guy are so nutty that he’s either completely unhinged or he’s an incredibly good performer. Some of his crazier ravings included the following:

  1. Accusing Barack Obama of being racist – of hating white people. Hell, that’s so bat-shit crazy it’s like Monty Burns in the Simpsons movie: “Well, for once the rich white man is in control!”
  2. Ongoing comparisons between anyone he doesn’t like with Hitler. Surely Beck has heard of Godwin’s Law, right? It seems that every second quote you find from Beck will have him comparing a person or their policies to Hitler.
  3. ‘Joking’ about people who need to be killed, or revolutions that need to be started. (“Would you kill someone for that?…I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore…I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,…No, I think I could.” – Glenn Beck radio show 17 May 2005.)
  4. Suggesting that the government might have him killed for all his nutty ramblings. (“For those of you in the administration, who are coming after me … remember, you’ve broken three [of the 10 Commandments], let’s not make it four; thou shalt not kill.” Fox News, 23 March 2010.)
  5. Anti-evolutionary stance. “I don’t think we came from monkeys. I think that’s ridiculous. I haven’t seen a half-monkey/half-person yet.” Hmmm, Glenn, I may be insulting monkeys, but have you looked in a mirror lately?

The fact that people seriously listen to this guy, and think he’s being honest and truthful tell us a few things:

  • Whenever there’s a person raving stuff that’s as crazy as a shit sandwich, someone will listen. (I think Sarah Palin proves this too.)
  • Just because someone listens doesn’t mean it’s the truth.
  • The greatly espoused American “freedom of speech” has its draw backs.

The real compelling questions are:

  • Does Beck actually believe any of the shit that he says?
  • Is it just a ratings ploy?
  • Did it start as a series of bullshit statements and he’s said them so many times now he’s starting to believe them?

No matter what, I just wish he’d shut the fuck up. That sort of crazy is catching.

 

As I watch the coverage from all these uprisings occurring in repressive nations at the moment, I’m increasingly reminded of a great little exchange in The Mummy that should be taken to heart by all these vicious dictators around the place:

Evelyn: You know, nasty little fellows such as yourself always get their comeuppance.
Beni: Yeah?
Evelyn: Oh yes, always.

I can’t help but wonder how soon it will be before Gadaffi, for instance, gets the comeuppance he so richly deserves.

The internet is allowing a generation of repressed people to sing their songs of freedom, and the nasty little fellows who have been repressing them for all these years are in for a some nasty little surprises.

 

In “Should employers be allowed to access your Facebook Login?“, The Atlantic discusses an issue occurring in the US where the Maryland Correctional Department demands the login name and password for the Facebook accounts of applicants.

Here’s the answer to the question posed in the headline:

NOThis is reprehensible behaviour on part of an employer. No employer has the right to inspect or expect unfettered access to our personal communications.

We are in a delicate period of privacy – in the past, much of the privacy we have come to expect has been the result of simple practicality: it hasn’t been possible or cost-effective for organisations or governments to probe into our communications – and by extension, our private thoughts.

Now, as electronic communications become more prevalent, we are faced with what may be savage fight as we realise the privacy we have come to expect has perhaps been as a result of practicality, and a changed practicality will result in some organisations and government bodies expecting a radical overhaul of the boundaries.

This is not the time to be afraid of Facebook – but the idiotic, small minded people with too much time on their hands who think that just because they can technically access our private musings, and the musings of those around use, that they have a right to do so. For they do not.

“Thoughts are free, who can discover them?
They fly past like shadows of the night.
No one can know them, no hunter can shoot them down.
When all’s said and done, thoughts are free.”

(“Die Gedanken sind frei“)

Never let it be said that the electronic age was when humanity let privacy become a thing of the past.

 

My ongoing process of getting a tattoo sleeve continued yesterday, with Daedalus being added to my arm. I’m going for the legend of Icarus and Daedalus, with Icarus falling from the Sun, and Daedalus trying to save him.

Icarus currently looks like the following:

Icarus

Daedalus appeared yesterday with a bang though:

Daedalus first session

Daedalus first session

There’s going to be some bits added between them – currently I’m thinking an albatross (since Icarus fell to his death over the ocean it seems appropriate), but here’s the overall look so far:

Icarus and Daedalus

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the artist. Having known her for years – long before she started tattooing, I can honestly say that Kim is a brilliant artist. Over at Black Bird Tattoo she focuses on art rather than just standard images – bespoke designs, if you will; if you’re near the NSW Central Coast and want some real talent looking at ink for you, she’s the person to talk to.

 

Those funny folks over in the Coalition are continuing their “we hate NBN” rhetoric, with the alternative, you know, being a fully wireless network.

(A wireless network aiming for 10Mbit peak connectivity, that is.)

As I said, every time I hear them blathering on about the wonders of wireless technology, I’m reminded of John Malkovich’s line in “Burn After Reading”: “You’re part of a league of morons“.

Amazingly, they’ve now descended into full force farce. Even our communications minister, (aka “Minister for Censoring the Internet”), who … let’s face it, struggles with technology concepts at the best of times – even he understands the inherent limitations of trying to get everyone onto wireless:

STEPHEN CONROY: This claim this wireless is going to replace fixed fibre networks and destroy the business case of the National Broadband Network is simply a misleading campaign by Tony Abbott because he doesn’t understand that wireless networks, the more people that use them, the slower they get and the further you stand from the tower, the slower the broadband gets.

(7.30 report, 15/02/2011).

The coalition solution? Oh, that’s easy:

MALCOLM TURNBULL: But of course you can install more base stations and you can supplement it with, you know, extra cells, wifi cells, if you like. So, there are many techniques for increasing the capacity of wireless networks.

(Ibid.)

What an amazing idea – if you don’t have enough cells, just build more of them!

Except … just how many cells are we talking about, Malcolm?

“In order to get those 100 megabit speeds and beyond you’d need to be installing a base station around about on every suburban block,” she said. “At the end of every street there’d need to be a base station.”

(Crikey: Coalition Broadband: a wireless tower in every street)

Just think of that! A cell tower in every street! Near every school – hell, there’d probably be one on each corner of the school. There’ll be cell towers near cancer patients and pregnant mothers, near old people and babies and school kids, and there’d be no escape – because there’d be one on every street.

Now, at the current levels of exposure, I’m not convinced cell towers pose a problem – I’m yet to see conclusive evidence either way. When those cell towers increase by several orders of magnitude to provide that level of coverage? That’s going to get a lot of people worried.

A lot of those people who are going to worry about cell tower radiation are those who are also thinking along the lines of “NBN bad. Wireless good.”

Let’s keep them appraised of the consequences of a wireless “high speed” internet for Australia, shall we?

 

Conservative religious groups make much ado about the “right to religious freedom”, and specifically the subsequent demand that they be allowed to avoid prosecution from discrimination on the basis of those beliefs.

This, for the most part, is bovine fecal matter, since for the most part it’s actually about demanding legal freedom to be a bigot.

We can sort the legitimate concerns from the immoral bigotry with 2 simple litmus tests:

  • Replace any reference to gender/gender identity, sexual orientation, etc., with a specific ethnic group.
  • Replace any reference to life circumstances with a life changing injury or disease.

Let’s have an example, shall we?

The Victorian government, sliding backwards, is currently considering enacting changes to the discrimination act that would return it to NSW standards. In The Age, “Baillieu promised a fairer Victoria, but it looks like the opposite“, we’re told:

At the weekend, the state government committed to reforming [sic] Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act 2010 in two ways: first, it will scrap measures to designed to actively promote equality, including stripping powers from the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.

Second, it will expand the “permanent exceptions” that give religious groups and entities – including those that provide public services using public money – a free license to discriminate against de facto couples, gays, lesbians and single mums, among others.

So, let’s apply the litmus test then on that second sentence:

Second, it will expand the “permanent exceptions” that give religious groups and entities – including those that provide public services using public money – a free license to discriminate against diabetic couples, hispanics, negroes and one-limbed mothers, among others.

Litmus test: FAIL.

Organisations and individuals cannot – they must not – be allowed to claim religious freedoms that would violate these fundamental litmus tests. To allow them to do so is contrary to morality, common sense and acceptable social behaviour.

 

In a moderately homophobic article, titled “Gay ‘marriages’ to be allowed in church“, the UK Telegraph discusses the impending protests of religious groups in the United Kingdom when proposed legislation allowing same-sex couples to marry in churches passes.

The Telegraph goes on to say:

Pope Benedict said same-sex marriage was among the “most insidious and dangerous challenges that today confront the common good.”

Really? So allowing people who love each other – regardless of their gender and the gender of their partner – express that love by marrying is an insidious and dangerous challenge to the common good?

Dear Pope Ratzinger: you’re a dirty, filthy pig. In fact, that’s insulting to pigs. I had a pet pig once as a kid. It was loving and kind and friendly. You have none of those attributes. You head an organisation that for years has shielded pedophiles who bugger and molest children. Actively shielded pedophiles. You are an affront to decency and morality with your claims that:

“In the 1970s, pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children,” the Pope said.

“It was maintained — even within the realm of Catholic theology — that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a ‘better than’ and a ‘worse than’. Nothing is good or bad in itself.”

So child buggering is not “good or bad”, because “nothing is good or bad”, but … oh shit, men marrying men, or women marrying women … that’s against “the common good”?

Fuck you Ratzinger.

 

Over at Crikey in December, @pollytics wrote yet another one of his fascinating summaries of polling information – this time on the topic of same-sex marriage.

It’s a fantastic, in-depth analysis of the polls, and I’d highly recommend you have a good read of it. For those wanting the quick picture showing how far we’ve come, his first graph gives the good news:

Support for Same Sex Marriage

Support for Same Sex Marriage

As you can see, over the years there’s been a marked increase in the number of people supporting same sex marriage, and an almost equal decrease in the number of people. My interpretation of the above graph is a simple one: those who fundamentally believe that same-sex marriage is wrong have not changed their opinion, and those who fundamentally believe same-sex marriage is a must have not changed their opinions either; instead, the opinion of the general public has swung to support the moral high-ground: equal rights for all Australians.

Pollytics then goes on to give a fantastic deep dive into the stats and figures – percentage of supporters by political allegiance, by state, by marital status, by socioeconomic status, by household income, by age, etc.

This analysis offers us two very distinct things:

  • Hope – the tide is turning, we are going to get there.
  • Focus areas – where, and with whom, we have to press the point in order to get this fundamental human right across the line.

Make sure you read it – and thanks, Pollytics.

 

In ‘Appalling’ law lets schools expel gay students (Sydney Morning Herald), we’re told:

A SENIOR Anglican bishop calls it “appalling” and a gay and lesbian rights group condemns it as “deeply offensive”, but the Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, backs a NSW law that allows private schools to expel gay students simply for being gay.

The law, it turns out, was introduced in the Wran era in NSW politics, and allows private schools (with a particular focus, methinks, on religious private schools) to have the power to expel students for being gay. Except under the most lucky of circumstances, same-sex attracted teenagers have the most difficulty during those formative years, and don’t deserve this headache. You may say “sure, then don’t send them to a religious school” – but if you did, you’d be not thinking of the most simple fact: most kids don’t really get a say in what school they go to: it’s a parent/guardian decision.

Quoting the article further:

The chief executive of ACON, Nicolas Parkhill, condemned the law as “deeply offensive, patently unethical and damaging to our society on multiple levels. Recent research shows that young same-sex-attracted people are up to 14 times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers and that 80 per cent of the verbal or physical abuse they experience occurs in schools.

“Allowing religious schools to reinforce this negative experience by giving them the right to expel the victims of homophobic attitudes is incomprehensible.”

Nicolas Parkhill is being remarkably restrained, I think.

That this hateful, mean spirited, spiteful, bigoted, moronic and evil law was ever introduced is enough of a stain on the spirit of NSW – that it remains, and has the current Attorney General still approve of it, is utterly disgusting. Yet, we shouldn’t be surprised – this is a state excessively dominated by religious pandering. The separation of church and state is a farce in Australian politics. Cults get special dispensation to exclude themselves from compulsory voting, then get to raise their “concerns” with how the country should be run to politicians. They also get to interfere with elections by helping to campaign against politicians they don’t like. Religious leaders get to have special forums with politicians to quiz them about how they’re going to behave spiritually if elected.

And arseholes get to expel kids from school for the transgression of how they were born, thanks to a legal shield.

You know what I’d like to see?  A legal shield against bigotry. But to get that, we’ll need an Attorney-General who supports the ending of bigotry, rather than supporting bigotry.

 

Recently a bunch of people got very upset with cloud backup provider, Mozy, changing their terms from being Unlimited backup capacity to, well, let’s just say: much less than unlimited.

I’ve always known that my use case scenario for backups considerably exceeds that of a cloud backup provider – I have more storage at home than a lot of businesses have – but it does bring to home an important point: the notion of “unlimited X” is actually a very bad one, and needs to end.

My personal theory is that humans are genetically predisposed to behave gluttonously when the opportunity presents itself. We all have it in us – some of us for food, some of us for spending, some of us for internet, etc. Like it or not, there’s a lot of people out there who like to consume as much as they can, regardless of whether they need it or not. I know, I’ve been there – and I still sometimes find myself having to question whether I need something for real, or just out of a sense of gluttony.

In short: we must fight our base animal instinct on this, and become more than our genes would have us be.

After all, look at what Google auto-suggest starts to prompt with when ‘unlimited’ is typed in:

Unlimited

It seems everyone wants unlimited something. Can’t we just be happy with limits?

The first world in particular at times seems to be drowning in a sea of gluttony. I need, I need, I need seems to be the catch-cry of a generation – in fact, not I need, but I am entitled to. There’s a lot of things we should feel entitled to, of course – such as personal freedom and happiness – but do we need to be entitled to unlimited everything?

Greed and gluttony lead only down one path.

© 2012 unsane Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha