A Castle On The Shore

There is something culturally significant and alluring about the Australian coastline. Between its rugged southern cliffs and the tropical northern points lie a myriad of seductive sandy coves or stretches of long white beaches that spear the horizon like a comet in the night sky, bordered by thousands of miles of dunes with hues and shades to make a rainbow weep in despair at its own lack of beauty. 

The Aussie sun, sand and surf is infamous for its body beautiful, bronzed bathers but equally, more recently, for the less appealling 'beached whales' that accompany the army of eskys and umbrellas on most weekends and public holidays. But while the aesthetic lustre of naked skin and lustful curves becomes a rarer and less forgiving sight, some things will never change.

Since the earliest of times, small children have watched attentively as older siblings built sand castles that often resembled St Basil's Cathedral as if it were sculpted by a collaboration of Picasso and Dali in a fit of artistic chaos fuelled by a night of absinthe and opium. 

Adorned by whatever flotsam and jetsam happens to be scavenged from the shoreline, these remarkable constructions bear little resemblance to reality and, briefly, even seem to defy the laws of physics before being crushed by the youngest child as they pounce on the precariously teetering turrets in a cataclysmic demolition of 9/11 proportions. 

The juvenile engineers will scream with disdain and the adults quickly intervene to prevent retaliatory strikes from those armed with plastic pails and shovels. A grey haired mediator is appointed to assess ground zero and resolves to assist in the reconstruction effort, promising to "build it bigger and stronger and better than before".

All parties excitedly agree to the proposal, with the false hope that the mediator has some esoteric knowledge about the qualities of sand and water. The building phase resumes once more as the sounds of peace echo through the warm breeze, caress the ocean spray and frolic with the screech of gulls.

Solid foundations are mapped out and compacted by a hundred eager footsteps. Walls are built as thick as they are high, and a moat is dug wide enough for any suitably scaled clipper to navigate at sailing speed without fear of running aground.  An esky lid becomes the drawbridge, ensuring that  a two year old giant can view the progress without causing further havoc.

Turrets soar into the air, three and four pails high. A pail being the industry standard  measurement for feats of engineering in this environment. The ageing foreman takes on most of the critical labouring tasks himself and sends his minions scurrying down the shoreline and into the dunes to secure materials for the fortification of the great building.

Many grand and exotic paraphernalia are returned to site and are first shown to respective mothers and grandmothers for assessment. A grimace or look of disgust from the matriarchs are a signal of approval to the proud scavengers and only increase their enjoyment of this collaborative effort as they squeal with laughter at their daring insolence.

Nature is recycled in a way that even the gods could not have predicted. Crab limbs become cannons, pieces of shell that survived the tumbling across reefs are reborn as armour cladding for battlements, while cuttlefish remains form the many brattices and hoardings from which the army can defend the castle walls. Strips of seaweed are tied to twigs and placed high atop each turret to proudly announce the royal standard under which this city is protected.

A quarrel breaks out between the three boys over who should be king. As swords are drawn and duels challenged, a fair lady charms the would-be knights with her siren voice and proclaims that Queen Barbie of Malibu shall rule, promptly placing Her Majesty atop the largest building in the keep. 

The small guild of artisans stand back to admire their work and the foreman instructs the 2 year old giant how to dig away a small portion from the side of the moat and create a trench toward the ocean. 

With each consecutive wave lapping the shore, a trickle of water begins to emerge in the trench. Six waves later and the sea starts streaming into the moat as the sandsmiths jump and squeal and clap their hands in appreciation of the miracle unfolding before them.

Matriarchs of two eras are dragged from their comfortably reclined positions and begged to give attention to the grand design of the latest generation. Pleasantries and polite accolades are duly offered and received before life is allowed to return to its dull, but serene, talk of the latest health concerns for poor Aunt Sally.

Back to the new fortification protecting Australia's shores, the builders seemed to have moved onto new projects. The three boys taking the southern part of the kingdom for practising their swordsmanship and jousting skills while their two female counterparts attend to Queen Barbie, ensuring that the castle is appropriately fitted with everything Her Majesty desires. 

The two year old giant is given a royal pardon, appointed to be the city's sentry and allowed to wade through the moat on the promise to never touch the castle. 

As the warm afternoon becomes cooler with a shifting southerly breeze swirling sand around legs and into eyes, it is time to pack away the accoutrements of modern civilisation and bid the medieval fortress a fond farewell. 

With its creators carried away by horseless carriages that are unfamiliar to its own era, the empty relic stands forlornly on the beach like a discarded toy in a field.

In a few short hours the sun will set on this small human endeavour. The flags blown from their poles by gusts of wind, the tide creeping in and lashing away at every grain of sand in its foundations, with the towers eventually crumbling into ruin. 

By sunrise the next day, no trace of the thriving civilisation would remain where once Queen Barbie of Malibu ruled. 

The pride of humanity over its entire existence is simply no match for the endless humility of nature. 

Lugere

From the last wind through autumn lungs;
Across the endless ache of winter bones
Through the dark shadow on a spring mind;
Into the constant drought raping a summer heart

Ever changing seasons bring nought new life;
The passing years unease tormented souls
Tears no longer flowing; dry faucet, an empty well
Time steps solemnly to the beat of a silent drum

Every surface gathers dust, thick shrouds of mourning
Heavy drapes, closed against rotting boarded windows
Cobwebs fill the dark, dank, lifeless spaces,
They speak like tombstones in a soulless graveyard

Haunted by the memories of pride and glory left behind
Old dreams, broken promises, forgotten lives
Collected, hoarded, possessed and now unwanted
An obsessive compulsion of nostalgic sentiment

No breath nor life, no mind nor soul
A broken home, heart broken; forgotten and unforgiven
Take heed, a living corpse; have pity, the walking dead
Abandoned empty vessels, derelict zombie love

The pathway to understanding

To understand any subject, one must gain the necessary breadth and depth of knowledge that usually leads to a simple, yet unfaltering conclusion - the truth.>

But there are very few absolute truths known to humanity, and so the pathway to understanding can only be obtained through the accumulation of experience derived from many a life's daily experiments, either directly or through the work of others handed down through the ages. As we progress we edge measurably closer to the truth.

The traveller on this path will naturally have an inquisitive mind. They must care deeply about the subject to set out on such an arduous journey of research. In fact, they must care so deeply that they are willing to delve into the darkest places and are prepared to discover the most shocking of truths. What if the world is not flat or riding on the back of a giant turtle?

Yet, all the while the inquirer must remain coldly objective and aware of the numerous distractions, tangents and falsehoods that will throw them off the trail and risk losing sight of the truth.

This is the essence of the pathway to understanding; to care so deeply that the desire to understand allows for the objective process of questioning/researching/knowledge to ultimately lead to new understanding.

This is what we know as empathy.

On the other hand, sympathy is the irrational attraction of two like-minded beliefs drawn together as anecdotes in a falsehood dressed up as proof; a self-destructive co-dependency of propaganda.

For you to sympathise with my experience is to merely unveil your self-indulgence or servility by attempting to relate only to some peripheral similarities between our unique and separate circumstances. Our experience is more distinctly different than your simple desire for fraternity will allow you to believe.

To show me empathy displays your humanitarian character. It respects the simple truth that you do not (and probably cannot) have the complete knowledge to understand and fully comprehend my circumstances, that you are only an observer.

Yet it also demonstrates that you care enough to seek a level of understanding, rather than assume it's ownership through some inferior thread of connectivity.

The pathway to understanding is empathy; and the truth usually resides somewhere between at least two plausible perspectives.

A New World Religion Backed by the United Nations

This article was subsequently published at Online Opinion 
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12002


The world is going barking mad with religiosity! While many of us feel that we have known this for a long time, it has always been difficult to find substantial evidence that wasn't countered by arguments of religious vilification.

However, I’m not talking about Islamic suicide bombers, Protestants vs Catholics in Ireland, the abhorrent members of Westboro Baptist Church, ‘pro-life’ radicals bombing abortion clinics, or any of the other examples of minority groups being less than good examples of the faiths they follow.

Instead, I would like to open your eyes to a new pervasive religion that is steadily growing and insidiously lurking in your community. If successful it will have a terrifying impact on the existence of life as we know it.

Regardless of your political views, spiritual beliefs, faith or lack thereof, please bear with me for a moment while I tell you a short story. Even if it sounds a bit familiar, please persevere.

This story is set on a unique world; a smallish blue-green environment with abundant vegetation and teeming with wondrous life forms on land, air and water. In this world, there is a sentient humanoid species who believe that their world has an undefinable, immeasurable and yet omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent energy force that interacts with all life forms.

This force gives them life, nourishes, teaches and provides them with all that is needed to live well and, as if they were its own children, they call this force "Mother".

They recognise that Mother is an indivisible community of diverse and interdependent beings with whom they share a common destiny and to whom they must relate in ways that benefit Mother.

However, their world is confronted by an evil that is attempting to dominate and exploit Mother and other beings. This evil is causing severe destruction, degradation and disruption of the life-sustaining communities, processes and balances of Mother which now threatens the wellbeing and existence of many beings.

They are conscious that this destruction is also harmful to their own inner wellbeing and is offensive to the many faiths, wisdom traditions and indigenous cultures for whom Mother is sacred. These clans are acutely conscious of the critical importance and urgency of taking decisive, collective action to prevent the evil enemy causing impacts on Mother that threaten the wellbeing and survival of all species.

Sound familiar? No, it isn't the plot from James Cameron's blockbuster, Avatar - but the resemblance is not a mere coincidence. While Avatar has been justifiably compared to the historical and current issues of our own world, it now seems that the lines between fantasy and reality have blurred even further.

Apart from a few tweaks for syntax, everything above in italics is a direct quote from the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, which was passed in Bolivia on 22 April 2010 at the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth and has since made its way to the plenary floor (here and here) of the United Nations.

'Mother Earth' has been transformed from a metaphoric and mythical euphemism into pseudo-scientific woo! You have not entered the Twilight Zone; you are not watching a CGI enhanced movie; this is reality and the world is about to enshrine the beliefs of a new-age religion (or a revival of ancient mysticism) into legal rights on par with those of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Now, before you retort with “it's all about protecting the environment” or label me a shill for capitalism and corporate world domination, let me correct you. For the record, I am a staunch environmentalist. I believe in, and promote the protection of landscapes, habitats and species. I readily acknowledge that human activity is essentially bad for this world and that we need to curb our greed and consumerism. You will hear no argument from me on those facts.

But, that is NOT the point of this rant. What I object to is the use of pantheistic and Gaia inspired language that, if adopted on an international level in a legal treaty, will have the effect of making "Mother Earth" the new deity of a green-religion forced onto all of Earth's citizens.

No, I am not being overly dramatic. Read the details for yourself so that you can fully comprehend the implications. It is littered with religious undertones and metaphors that have enormous legal repercussions on every human being:

"we must establish systems for governing human behavior that recognize the inalienable rights of Mother Earth and of all beings that are part of her" and

"the fundamental freedoms and rights of Mother Earth and of all beings should be protected by the rule of law, and that the corresponding duties of human beings to respect and defend these rights and freedoms should be enforced by law"

Such statements, when taken to their natural conclusion, imply that you and I cannot even dig a hole in the ground or kill a cockroach for fear of prosecution under some future law. Even cleaning your house might become illegal because of the bacterial colonies that you would destroy in the process!

This is not merely a feel-good unifying statement of our inarguable environmental responsibility as custodians of the Earth. It is a deliberately transformational credo that redefines our very existence and our relationship with all life on this planet.

All of this poppycock has stemmed from the rising groundswell of support for an environmental movement that has ceased to function as a sensible social and political force. It is now, undeniably, a zealous quasi-religious cult that wishes to impose a narrow-minded and anti-scientific view that all life is part of one universal ‘energy force’, which we are now obliged to pay homage to, for all that 'she' has done for us.

This is nothing short of irrational pandering to the fantasies of earth-worshipping, crystal-healing, indigo children. Human beings are now eagerly lining up to be the sacrificial lambs at the altar of Gaia.

This type of international politicking and pseudo law-making will do very little to improve our relationship with the environment or save many species from extinction, but it will make some people feel good as they run naked through the forest with blue birds on their shoulders and rabbits bounding at their feet singing some Disney inspired anthem. Except that the forest is likely to become a restricted area - after all, animals and plants will have a right to exist without any human interference.

This is not an isolated event to be ignored or passed off as the random act of a fringe third world nation. This has been decades in the planning and follows the inclusion of Rights for Nature into the Ecuadorian Constitution in 2008 and the United Nations' proclamation of April 22 as International Mother Earth Day, distinct from Earth Day on March 22 each year.

The UN's own website for Mother Earth Day states:

In 2009, at its Eighth Session, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues requested special rapporteurs to prepare a Study on the need to recognize and respect the rights of Mother Earth. At its Ninth Session, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues will discuss the findings of the study, as well as works toward establishing a Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.

Please note that the United Nations did not act out of mere tokenism. This is a predetermined action to meet a predefined goal and it is sanctioned and supported by the member nations of the UN. Conspiracy theories aside, there is a real agenda in play and it is supported by:

Agenda 21: an initiative of the United Nations that seeks to create a world bound by the principles of sustainable development; and

Codex Alimentarius the UN global strategy to manipulate and control agriculture, food and supplements devised in 1963 and guided by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and World Health Organisation (WHO) with the support of 184 member nations.

All of this is pointing to a future where your current life and lifestyle is marked for demolition as unreasonable restrictions are inevitably placed on the energy you consume, the food you eat, the materials you buy and even the places you are allowed to visit.

The reality for the 7 billion human inhabitants of Earth is that something needs to change; to continue on a destructive path is certainly unsustainable. On that we can agree.

But the answer is not to anthropomorphise the environment, to give rise to a crass spirituality or empower the most weirdly radical movement of the modern era. Nor is it to throw the human race into an era of reliance upon heavily regulated food production by profit-driven corporations reminiscent of the science fiction classic, Soylent Green.

The answer lies in education and self-regulation of our own consumerism. We may not be doing enough in a timely manner, but we are making changes, slowly and surely.

Faith in our ability to succeed on that pathway is far more palatable than faith in Gaia and the religiosity that surely follows.

  

The cult of scepticism can't take criticism

I've been listening to several "skeptic" (US spelling - urgh!) podcasts over the last few months. I really enjoy Skeptoid, the Skeptics Guide to the Universe and the SGU 5x5. Each of these, along with DrKarl adequately provide my weekly dose of reality science.

I have also been listening to The SkepticZone but have been disappointed with how they present the show and discuss topics. There is a lot of inside jokes, sarcasm and unnecessary banter that comes off as ridicule, derision, condescending and even contempt.

While some may find this amusing, I feel that it simply shames and mocks anyone who happens to believe the "woo" (what the sceptics like to call pseudo science) rather than having any real educational benefit. Given that these folk profess to be 'educators' they seem to know nothing about pedagogy. I doubt that anyone could 'learn' in such an environment.

I finally decided that my time could be spent on other things than to continue listening to any more of their self-righteousness. I unsubscribed and wrote the following review on iTunes:

A podcast for the converted (2 stars)

At first I enjoyed the jovial banter and casual meanderings of this podcast, but then it happened; the novelty wore off. I began to tire of the condescending attitude, the "in-crowd" jokes and the constant put downs of their opponents! It seems that the Skeptic Zone crew have axes to grind and like to rub noses in the proverbial.

I have no time for pompous people who appear to laugh at anyone who isn't as clever as they consider themselves to be. They should be using this podcast to reach out and educate, but instead they choose to demean and ridicule.

I suggest that newbie skeptics should stick with Skeptoid or The Skeptics Guide to the Universe for less drivel and more grounded discussion with far less derision.

I admit that I could have worded this a lot better, and if I had been approached appropriately I would have considered a revision that was less critical of the individuals and more focused on the issues with the tone of the format. As you'll soon understand, I'm reticent to do that now.

My second mistake was to engage two of the podcasters on Twitter. The ensuing debacle is a textbook case of how NOT to react to criticism, especially towards customers in a public forum. See how many examples of poor debate, ineffective conflict resolution, bad customer service and negative PR you can spot. Admittedly Twitter, with its 140 character limitation, is horrendously tragic for effective debate, but this is no excuse for the tirade of vitriol foisted upon me.

Remember to keep this in a customer service context; I (polemicol) am the difficult customer with the complaint and they (skepticzone, DrRachie and podblack) are the service providers reacting to my criticism.

- - - - -

RICHARD SAUNDERS @SkepticZone:

7:01 PM Mar 18th @SkepticZone your podcast would be better if you used it to inform & educate instead of scoff and ridicule. I have unsubscribed.

• 7:05 PM Mar 18th SkepticZone @PolemiCol I have not had the chance to hear your weekly podcast yet.

7:32 PM Mar 18th @SkepticZone thanks. point proved.

- - - - -

RACHAEL DUNLOP @DrRachie:

7:07 PM Mar 18th @DrRachie congrats on your shorty award. Take a tip - tone down the ridicule & self-righteousness on SkepticZone. It's unbecoming.

• 7:11 PM Mar 18th DrRachie @PolemiCol thanks on the congrats. Can I ask what did you thought was self righteous specifically, to help for future? Cheers

7:37 PM Mar 18th @DrRachie too much ridicule of those caught up in non-science. It would shame them rather than educate

• 7:46 PM Mar 18th DrRachie @PolemiCol Sometimes it's difficult to find a balance between going in hard when harm is caused & educating. I'll take it on board, cheers

9:46 PM Mar 18th @DrRachie it's more the case that every eisode makes fun of these people. E.g.: You can't teach evolution by deriding creationism.

• 10:05 PM Mar 18th @DrRachie that should have been I.e. not e.g.
• 10:09 PM Mar 18th DrRachie @PolemiCol I didn't realize it comes across that way. Admittedly sometimes I deride, eg ear candles. I'll keep it in mind, thx

10:21 PM Mar 18th @DrRachie it's easy to preach from the high ground. Even skepticism risks cult status if ppl create the culture and follow blindly.

- - - - -

At this point it seems that Dr Rachie has dealt with me in a civilised and mature manner, seemingly taking on board my criticism as it was intended. At this point I thought everything was rather reasonable. And then it was if I was channelling Homer Simpson ...

"Or what? You'll release the dogs? Or the bees?
Or the dogs with bees in their mouths so when they bark they shoot bees at you?

Yes, along came the dog with bees in her mouth ...

- - - - -

KYLIE STURGESS @podblack:

2:05 PM Mar 21st podblack @PolemiCol - email to let us all know if you condemn us _all_ - or just @DrRachie with your review. http://is.gd/aR77u & http://is.gd/aR78H.

• 2:23 PM Mar 21st @podblack I don't think "condemn" is the right word. I hope you can all work with criticism and aim to improve the show

2:54 PM Mar 21st {DM from podblack} You did not email, contact via Skype, outline EXACTLY what your issues were - you just wrote that review. 140 char tweets isn't discussion.

2:56 PM Mar 21st podblack @PolemiCol - if you bothered to outline EXACTLY what issues, examples, constructive criticism - then we'd listen. You just 'unsubscribed'.
2:58 PM Mar 21st podblack @PolemiCol - you clearly don't know the show if you're unaware that we work as educators (Richard, Rachie & myself) and always review.
2:59 PM Mar 21st podblack @PolemiCol - as it is, the most decent thing you could do is remove your review. I doubt you will, but I guess you don't aim to improve. :/

• 2:12 PM Mar 22nd @podblack its not the only bad review you have. Learn from it, or live with it. I'll remove the review when it is no longer true.
• 2:32 PM Mar 22nd podblack @PolemiCol - You learned nothing then. You gave no feedback apart from complaints and expect us to change? We don't need you - bye.

3:10 PM Mar 21st podblack And to think... @PolemiCol has met me at Skeptics in the Park & member of my Perth Skeptics group. If at TAMOz, we'd buy you a drink. :/

• 2:10 PM Mar 22nd @podblack I raised this issue at Skeptics in the park - but you brushed it off. Instead of being defensive, try being a skeptic Dr R did
• 2:33 PM Mar 22nd podblack @PolemiCol - when? And if you think not an issue, try reading my work. Complaining without evidence, chip on shoulder - not worth our time
• 2:35 PM Mar 22nd podblack @PolemiCol actually, she agrees. Listeners like you who do nothing but write reviews without talking first - @drrachie & I agree.
• 3:52 PM Mar 22nd @podblack "listeners like you" ?really? try applying a bit of critical thinking to the way you are handling my criticism

- - - - -

And then to top it all off, after I had posted a tweet asking for my followers to pass the good word around that I had a room to rent out, the bee-devil-dog then posted the following, before having second thoughts and deleting it from Twitter:

time not captured podblack @PolemiCol - don't expect help from anyone I know in Perth, that's for certain.

• 4:39 PM Mar 22nd @PolemiCol - don't expect help from anyone I know in Perth, that's for certain. (via @podblack) // credit to you for rethinking & deleting

- - - - -

So I put out a peace offering:

8:39 PM Mar 22nd @SkepticZone it seems we are embroiled in a bizarre conflict which could do with some resolution. Can we do it? Cc @podblack @DrRachie

• 8:57 PM Mar 22nd DrRachie @PolemiCol most certainly. Would you prefer to email me? Rachael at skeptic zone dot tv

Subsequently, I sent the following by email:

SkepticZone, iTunes and Twitter - 22 March 2010 22:43

Rachael,

Please forward this to Kylie, Richard or anyone else involved with SkepticZone at your discretion.

Let me firstly say that I stand by my comments. However, I seem to be guilty of a similar thing to what I've accused the podcasters of doing and for that I am sorry. I could have worded the review better and I hope to be able to rectify that.

I want to thank you for the mature approach you took in responding to my initial tweet. While I was disappointed with Richard's 'lets-see-you-do-better' retort I can overlook it as an off the cuff remark, however I am completely baffled by Kylie's explosive behaviour, which included removing me from the Perth Skeptics group.

Oddly, I've been left feeling that my mistake was in alerting yourself and Richard to my view. Anonymity would have had a distinct advantage, but I've always felt honesty and openness has a better place in life.

My concern is now twofold; the issue about tone in the podcasts remains and I would be happy to discuss that further if it has merit. The greater issue for me is the manner in which I was treated in a public forum. While that is something that I could simply brush off, or resolve solely with Kylie, there is the broader ramification that it has potential to do more damage to SkepticZone than my isolated review ever could.

Imagine having that exchange with a shop assistant or a customer service officer at a bank. Imagine a chef blasting a restaurant critic for a bad review or worse, kicking them out of the local dinner club? It is a ridiculous thought, but that is in effect what has happened.

I'm keen to discuss this and come to a point of reconciliation with all parties.

I received a response from Dr Rachael Dunlop, and though we disagree on one point, I feel satisfied that it has been resolved as best as we can. To that end, she deserves many accolades for her exemplary attitude and conduct.

Unfortunately I can't say the same for Kylie Sturgess (@podblack), who is IMHO one of the most emotionally voracious individuals I have ever encountered in the scientific community. If you come across her in real life, I advise you to avoid any possibility of confrontation, for your own peace of mind and perhaps your safety too.

Kylie removed me from the Perth Skeptics group, which she administrates on MeetUp.com. When I tried to make peace and requested to rejoin I was sent a terse email:

I run this group, I pay for this site and you are not welcome
here due to what I consider to be threatening behavior towards
my friends.

Go away.

Do not contact me again.

The main points to take from this are as follows:

1. everyone is in the marketing game - even non-profit organisations or podcasters
2. a customer has every right to leave any review they see fit
3. customers are not obligated to approach a service provider with complaints
4. service providers who only expect positive reviews are delusional
5. attacking customers doesn't win business
6. conflict resolution should be a priority for any service provider
7. beware: social media leaves an accurate record of events
   

Sceptics (or skeptics) are equally at risk of cult-like groupthink mentality - ironically instilling blind faith in their leadership, who are often given guru status. If those that worship the scientific method allow themselves to become the centre of a faith-based movement, it will inevitably detract from the reasonable openness of mind that science should be promoting. It thus becomes even more dangerous than the ignorance of psuedo-science.

What do you think?

My reflection through other eyes

Often we wonder how others see us. We question whether people like us or enjoy our company. Do they find us attractive, amusing, intelligent or ugly, ridiculous and stupid? Most of the time we never know the truth, and perhaps we are better off not knowing.

However, it seems that social media is opening up Pandora's box and giving us a small insight into how others might really view ourselves. On Facebook there are dozens of 'applications' (I know because I've blocked them all) that will seek the truth from your 'friends', compare their perceptions, ask them to reveal their opinions as well as judge you on a range of issues and personality traits. Who needs a therapist any more?

And if that wasn't enough, now you can even be stereotyped, pigeon-holed and categorised by complete strangers. Break out the champagne!

Thanks to Twitter's introduction of 'lists' you can now gain an insight into how your followers see you via your profile and tweeting history. Let me explain by analysing the lists that I've found myself thrust into.

Firstly, geographic locations account for the vast majority of Twitter lists, so it is natural that I find myself grouped in with fellow sandgropers (Western Australians) on no less than 18 lists with names like perthians, perthites, perth-peeps, perth-people, perthmafia, perth-twitterati, the-perth-files, perthizzles, perthies or simply "perth". In addition I'm included on 3 generic "Aussie" lists and a "outside-usa-overflow-box".

That means that more than half of the 38 lists that herald my twitterings are geocentric. No surprises there, in fact it's pretty boring unless there is more to the 'mafia' than simple metaphor.

The next most popular type of category seems to depend on whether you can be confirmed as a real person with "people-not-spammers", "rl-peeps" (presumably rl='real life'), "knowirl" (know in real life), "yet-to-meet-irl" and "twitter-contacts".

What really sparked my interest (and the reason for this prattle) was the group of lists that categorised my activity. Apparently I make the grade for "Social media" by two followers, despite being nothing more than a mere user. Other tweeps have fashioned my twitter existence with descriptions like "rationalists", "politics", and most surprisingly "journalists".

Meanwhile there were compliments like "awesomepeople" and "they-make-me-smile". Both of which compensated for being on the "other and "random" lists.

I'm just not sure what to make of being on the list titled "naughty-max" :-p

A new creed

Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici

By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.

V for Vendetta

The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.

And the war begins ...

Xenophon's head up his own arse!

The impossible "war against paedophilia" is turning another idiotic page.

South Australian independent Senator Nick Xenophon's private member's bill would make it illegal for adults to lie to children about their age. According to reports,

The Bill will introduce three new offences. An adult misrepresenting their age online to a minor will now face a maximum 3 year jail term.

An adult misrepresenting their age in order to meet a minor will face a five year prison term and an adult misrepresenting their age with the intention of assaulting a minor will face a maximum 8 years prison term.

Clearly this is aimed at adult perpetrators posing as children - that's all well and good. What isn't clear is whether a 21 yo telling a 17yo he is only 20 is also a crime under the same offence. The ridiculousness of that situation is obvious.

Of course, the bill also fails to address those children who lie about their age in order to meet adults. Believe me, it happens a lot and some of them can get away with quite a few years!

Proposed laws like this are not only outright stupid, they are downright dangerous to the integrity of the justice system and a hindrance to the proper education and welfare of children.

What's next? Making it a crime for predators to lie about their intentions? Or will they make it a crime to lie about your weight or the size of your cock or boobs? I might support that if it applied across the board for all adults (lol - joking) :-p

Get real, Xenophon, you moron. Do something useful like allocate government funding for online awareness education for parents and children. Teach the kids how to use the Internet with respect and teach the parents about taking responsibility for their child's access!

Pride risks nationalism

Something I came up with today in a discussion about national pride and nationalism:

A preoccupation with the colours, emblems or subjective values of a nation instead of the beauty of the peoples and cultures that inhabit it, is pure nationalism and we should despise it before we learn to fear it.

There's a fine line between pride and nationalism and I choose to stand as far away from that line as possible. To that end, I don't like:

• vehicles adorned with flags (as if we don't know what it looks like)
• tattoos of flags or other nationalist symbols (as if you need proof of where you were born)
• objections to the burning of flags as a valid form of protest
• anything that promotes bigotry or vilification of any kind

What do you think?

Google v China

The last straw seems to have been placed on the back of Internet behemoth, Google. At least in China.

In a carefully worded announcement, Google announced it's intention to cease censoring search results for China after a detailed investigation into last year's cyber-attack which, among other issues, seems to have been aimed at Chinese dissidents and human rights activists. The company fell short of pointing the finger directly at the Chinese government, but the diplomatic language was unequivocal in assigning guilt.

Read the full announcement here.

The question remains, is this merely sabre rattling on Google's part, or do they fully intend to undo the many years of painstaking work and withdraw from the fastest growing market in the world? Time will tell what discussions, negotiations and concessions are made to the current arrangements and whether Google.cn is closed and the Google offices in China are vacated.

Almost 3 years ago to the day, Google admitted that the decision to assist with censorship was a mistake. <China censorship damaged us, Google founders admit, The Guardian, 27 Jan 2007)

Season's Greetings

Friends, family and fellow journeyers of life,

In the spirit of the festive season I wish you joy and peace ...

... in amongst the corny jokes and silly hats, whining kids, paper cuts, sunburn, carpet burn, grazed knees, poked eyes, pulled hair, gluttony, intoxication, hangovers, accidentally drinking the bottle of Grange, busted toys, missing batteries, things you never wanted, gifts you'll never use, presents you don't even understand, overflowing bins of garbage, sinks full of dishes, mozies and flies galore, overturned pot plants, cricket balls thru the neighbour's window, toddlers whacked with totem tennis racquets, siblings drowning each other in the pool, groin injuries, all night parties down the road, blaring music, police sirens, smashed bottles, slashed tyres, broken side mirrors, burnouts on the front lawn, broken sprinkler heads, rolling drunk uncle Joe, skinny dipping great aunt Ethel, and other relatives you wish you could sell into slavery, ...

Yes ... I do hope you all find that precious moment of joy and peace ... somewhere, quietly, alone, even for just a few seconds !

Season's Greetings!

:-)

Clima-facsism

Clima-fascism: A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with anthropomorphic climate change, in which a mass-based grouping of committed environmental militants, manipulated by and working in an uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues its anti-humanistic goals through the manipulation and suppression of debate, without ethical or legal restraints [Courtesy of Open Your Eyes News]

its basis:

Fascism: A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion [Robert Paxton]

P***** Off!

POLEMICOL polysemously proposes to profusely ponder and promote the polymorphic potentiality and perpetuity of policing political polemics through perpetration of proscribed pyrolysis in pandemic proportions.

RIP Jack - and please don't haunt me!

It is a day of many and mixed emotions when one's nemesis passes away. Where would Sherlock Holmes have been without Moriarty, Batman without Catwoman, Superman without Lex Luthor.

It is such a day for me, not that I consider myself to be a fictitious crime-fighter devoid of a super-villain; but the death of former Australian Democrats Senator, Jack Evans (see announcement below) does leave me feeling a little nostalgic, somewhat wistful and even a dab of sadness.

Anyone who followed my few years as an active member of the Democrats will know how I came to blows with Jack and his excremental offsider, Andrew Murray. Jack may very well have had good intentions to protect the party, but his vice-like grip did more damage than good and it blinded him to the facts. He was, unfortunately, more interested in retaining tight control more than upholding the democratic foundations of the party.

That was no more evident than by his actions during the WA Democrats fiasco in and similarly in several less public stoushes and faux pas' in the years since, culminating in his support for Murray during his ridiculous and damaging dummy spit of 2001/02.

Readers may wish to search through my very early posts on this site for an insight or review detailed documentation from Brian Jenkins and other online sources.

One day I might manage to upload all of my email records and other documentation from the AusDemocrats ... please contact me if you are a budding researcher interested in delving into the mire ;-)

Dear Friends,

It is with great sadness today that I have the duty to inform you that one of our greatest has passed away. Jack Evans died early this morning in Perth.

A former Senator, National President and National Campaign Director, Jack Evans was instrumental in the formation of the Australian Democrats, and was a significant figure in many of our greatest moments, including rafting the Franklin River with Don Chipp all those years ago.

Jack was a man of visions and ideas. He wanted to make things happen, and often they did. People would get caught up in his enthusiasm and share his vision and work hard to make it happen. He had a deep and commanding voice and chose his words carefully. He didn’t prattle on, but spoke with quiet dignity after listening to others opinions. Therefore – people listened, felt heard and had confidence in his ability to deliver.

He was a deal maker, pulling people together to make things happen. He was also very cautious and very much kept what he saw as the Party’s best interest deep in his heart. He was very protective of the Party when he could see people who’s intent was questionable or potentially problematic and some took this as obstructionist. He knew how to be a strategist and develop ways of achieving goals. Jack never spoke ill of people despite the criticisms he would inevitably receive and had a remarkable ability to tenaciously push through obstacles, disregarding personal cost.

There was nothing more he loved, it seemed, than talking about political ideas, about ways to address the big issues, about the way the Democrats could continue to make a difference. He remained absolutely committed to the ideals of the Party and those remaining have a responsibility to Jack to do their best to ensure those ideals are not lost from the political landscape.

He remained very private about his personal side, yet once one of his friends he was warm and gracious, always showing a keen interest in those around him.

People like Jack Evans are rare – I know he touched and inspired many Australian Democrats and others across the country. To those close to him we offer our deepest and most heartfelt condolences. We will all miss him.

Julia Melland
National President
Australian Democrats

And in a strange way, yes I will miss him too.

Andrew Murray on the other hand ... well, let's not go there.

Not recommended for vegans!

Following on from my posts about killing day old chickens and the dolphin for food campaign I thought I would share this enlightening fictional perspective written by Terry Bisson.

The title is also the first line; it thus commences:


"They're made out of meat."

"Meat?"

"Meat. They're made out of meat."

"Meat?"

"There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."

"That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"

"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."

"So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."

"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."

"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."

"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat."

Full story here

Closer to A Brave New World

In a recent post I asked "Is a virus secretly killing you?" and cited growing examples of how common and uncommon virii are being connected with various cancers.

Here is more research that points to the same conclusion, this time in relation to prostate cancer.

Big pharma must be joyous at the opportunity to develop more and more vaccines. Meanwhile the world's fresh food supply is becoming more restricted leading up to the implementation of codex alimentarius.

I'm patiently awaiting the arrival of soma and soylent in the marketplace.

Dolphin Dilemma

Simultaneously published at Online Opinion

It is both intriguing and bewildering watching the fallout and resulting hype over the documentary The Cove which portrays animal activists, led by Flipper trainer Ric O’Barry, outing the not-so “secret” practice of dolphin fishing in Japan.

At the heart of this political campaign is the emotional bond that we have been conditioned to believe exists between dolphin and human; that somehow dolphins are more human than other animals and thus deserving of something more than what we give to other animals. On the other side is a tradition spanning thousands of years across many cultures all around the world; that dolphins are a genuine food source.

According to the campaign material on various websites in support of or directly related to the movie, the purpose of the film is to alert people to the “heinous” activity and gain support in demanding that the Japanese government ban the practice. They raise only the following few points:

• 20,000 dolphins and porpoises are killed each year in Japan;
• the way in which the dolphins are killed is "brutal";
• Japanese consumers are being sold dolphin meat;
• the meat can contain high levels of mercury; and
• the meat is often labelled as whale meat.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the aim is to prevent dolphins and porpoises from being killed (full stop) and that the other issues (the horror of death; that Japanese people are barbaric for eating dolphin meat; health and safety of consumers is at risk due to toxins; and illegal trading practices include mislabelling of seafood) are merely designed to attract a sympathetic audience from as far and wide as possible.

Subsequently, I’m not going to be drawn on debating some of these points in detail as they are simply red herrings, which I will explain shortly. My intention herein is to play Devil’s advocate by taking a philosophical look at each of the other points raised by the filmmakers to determine whether the practice of dolphin fishing is indeed as bad as they suggest.

Ultimately the question open for debate is whether dolphin meat should be available for consumption. Individual moral values aside, there are only three points to logically consider when determining whether we should eat a particular food (be it beast or plant):

1. Is the food fit for human consumption? It must be nutritious, palatable and have no ill side effects.
2. Will consumption hasten the extinction of that species or be detrimental to the population in a particular area?
3. Are the practices of bringing the food to the table the best available? Are they environmentally sound, humane, hygienic, efficient, competitive and honest?

Let’s look at these in detail for the example of dolphins and porpoises in light of the movie, The Cove. First, dolphins, whales and other cetaceans have been an integral part of the diet of numerous cultures for many thousands of years. Technically it is a nutritious and pleasant food to consume if you don't draw any conscious familiarity to Flipper. Those that are squeamish about the concept are likely to have similar issues with eating Bambi or Thumper.

Concerns about toxins, such as cadmium or mercury, are justified but are equally applicable to other seafood caught from the same waters as the dolphins. All pollution eventually reaches the oceans, so seafood has experienced increased levels of toxicity in recent decades and the developing nations of Asia are the leading culprits.

Similarly, we have examples in Australia where a cheap fish is substituted for an expensive one, such as barramundi. Labelling and toxicity are matters for the relevant agencies to address and most consumers are right to expect their food to be labelled correctly and to know that it meets health guidelines, no matter whether it was chicken or whale.

These are not issues unique to Japan or the dolphin trade and both arguments are simply red herrings. Thus, there is no gastronomic or biological reason for banning dolphin as a food item. Let’s move on.

As to the second question of extinction, my research indicates that this isn't a critical issue for dolphins like it is with, say, whales, the great cats or the orang-utans. With the exception of a few localised problems (e.g. Solomon Islands dolphin population being relatively small), global dolphin populations are quite safe. 20,000 per year may seem like a large number, but it represents about one third of a per cent (0.0033 per cent) of the world dolphin population.

“According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, there are likely more than six million dolphins worldwide. A few species are at risk of extinction, but most number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.” (National Geographic, August 2009)

In comparison, it is estimated that there are fewer than 5,000 blue whales, no more than 8,000 right whales, less than 50,000 fin whales and about only 60,000 humpback whales in existence (International Whaling Commission). But even these represent high populations when you look at the plight of the tigers with less than 7,500 worldwide with three of the eight sub-species already declared extinct (The Global Tiger Forum).

On the flipside chickens are almost exclusively farmed to meet human food needs and rarely exist in the wild. According to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) “The world population of domestic chickens increased by 160%, from 13.5 billion in 1998 to 35 billion in 2006” (Assist America). The vast majority of these birds are killed for food every year and our growing demand ironically ensures the survival of that species, as they almost certainly could not survive in the wild. Modern cattle, swine and sheep also enjoy high populations almost exclusively to serve human needs.

It’s important to highlight some points about farming. Apart from the fact that it would be extremely difficult and expensive to "farm" dolphins, captive breeding (modern farming) isn't always good for the animal, the species or the consumer. It requires more intensive land use and is often reliant on antibiotics, pesticides and nutritional supplements. Additionally, pollutants are a common issue across most Asian seafood so if a dolphin farm was developed (like a tuna farm) it would probably exist in the same polluted waters.

To argue, as I have heard some do, that dolphins are somehow different to other animals because they are not farmed is once again another red herring. If we were to farm dolphins in the same way that we farm tuna or salmon would that make the practice more acceptable? Perhaps not for those who are deep in the heart of the moral campaign. That makes it merely a straw man argument.

So now we come to the issue of herding and culling. Is it an unavoidable fact or an inhumane brutality? Again, let’s look at it from an objective perspective. Humans are predominantly omnivores. We eat meat, therefore we must kill animals. Killing involves shock, pain and bloodshed as anyone would expect. Unfortunately it is not efficient to put every animal “to sleep” with a chemical before slaughtering it. What we all would hope is that we engage best practice in our methodology. If we discover a better way to kill a cow that doesn’t drastically increase the costs, we should employ it.

The question therefore, is not about whether the practice of herding dolphins into coves for slaughter is barbaric, brutal or inhumane. Instead it is about whether a suitable alternative exists. I have found none, but I’m open to being educated on the subject and will gladly campaign for the worldwide introduction of such methods if they exist.

DO NOT WATCH IF SQUEAMISH! - Dolphin slaughter in Japan

Currently it can take a few minutes for a dolphin to die after it is cut open and bleeds to death - the same method is used to slaughter pigs, albeit after they receive an electric shock and they are hung upside down to hasten the bloodletting. I have a feeling that electricity and water would not be a good recipe for dolphin fishing, but perhaps the hanging of the carcass would make the event swifter and ease any suffering.

There is a distinct similarity between herding cetaceans and trawling for fish, however the trawl is less efficient due to the large amount of by-catch taken. Additionally, fish can take much longer to “suffocate” out of the water, resulting in higher levels of stress than other produce.

The only other difference is the cuteness and human-like qualities we observe in the prey. Anyone who has owned pet fish, mice, birds, cats or dogs and studied their behaviour might see that dolphins are hardly unique and that it is we humans instead who have the cute animal-like qualities. Cuteness is hardly a rational argument for deciding what to eat.

In conclusion, if we have a food that is palatable, fit for consumption, honestly labelled and reaches our plate in a manner equal to that of other produce, as long as that food is from a sustainable population and not at risk of future extinction then there is no argument against it continuing to be available. Whether you choose to buy or consume it is entirely up to you.

Certainly, no adult should be forced to eat kangaroo if they don’t want to, but please don’t argue that I shouldn’t eat it because it’s cute, has feelings, isn’t humanely killed or simply because it happens to be on our coat of arms. Similarly, the arguments don’t stack up with dolphin!

At the current levels of dolphin fishing, matched against wild populations there is nothing to suggest we should stop the practice of dolphin fishing. It is simply not in the same league as whaling. However, there is clear evidence that we could improve the method of culling and that we should proceed with haste in that direction.

To those readers who might like to jump in and claim that I have skirted around or ignored the moral issues, please feel free to do so now. Your morals are your own and they should direct your life, not anyone else’s and least of all mine.

All I'm asking is that people understand why they are reacting in horror upon watching The Cove - ultimately because it’s a cute dolphin and not an ugly pig.

Ask yourself “if a dolphin farm existed (like a tuna farm), that was free from pollutants and they were slaughtered as humanely as possible - would you allow dolphin meat to be sold?” If not, why not? Can you find a single reason that isn’t purely emotional and tied to your programmed conditioning of what a cute dolphin represents?

For the record, I eat meat - I know how it gets to my plate and I'm OK with it. Most people don't want to know because knowledge means accepting responsibility.

How to kill a day old chicken

There is a fair bit of hype going around the Internet at the moment about this video showing day old male chickens being "ground alive".

WARNING: do not watch the video if you are squeamish about how your food is produced!

According to this article on the RSPCA website:

"The Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry (http://www.publish.csiro.au/books/download.cfm?ID=3451) states that all culled or surplus newly hatched chicks that are destined for disposal must be treated as humanely as those that will be retained or sold. They must be destroyed promptly by a recommended humane method such as carbon dioxide gassing or quick maceration."

If the RSPCA believe that being ground alive is a quick and humane death, then that is good enough for me.

Who's for a roast chook?

On Monday (7 September 2009) I will be publishing a detailed article (on OnlineOpinion as well as here) with regard to dolphin fishing, which is practiced around the world in many countries but has been highlighted in the new film The Cove.

I take a look at the arguments raised by the film makers and test their veracity. You may be surprised at what I discover and the unusual conclusion that results.

The simple truth