Picking a Pope

Much has been said about the accuracy of polls versus bookies when it has come to recent elections. The odds seem to be in favour of the pundits over the pollsters, but can we say the same for the one election that currently has the world on its toes.

The major difference between the papal ballot and a democratic government election is quite clearly the voters themselves.


115 "princes of the church" will meet tomorrow behind closed doors and away from the influence of the mortal world. They will choose, through a series of secret ballots, the man who will lead the Catholic Church and its 1 billion followers.


This is not democracy, nor is it representative. The next Pope must be an unmarried, single, male, Catholic. Even though the voting Cardinals can choose from the entire world they are likely to choose from amongst those in the conclave; and only those Cardinals under the age of 80 are entitled to be a part of that process.


Of course, this process is still much more democratic than the current process for electing our Prime Minister or Governor-General :-)


So who will be the new Pontiff?


If you listen to the people (via the bookies) the top candidates are:


NAME . . . . . . . . . . . . PADDYPOWER / SPORTINGBET



Joseph Ratzinger (Germany) 3 / 5.5

Jean-Marie Lustiger (France) 4.5 / 6

Carlo Maria Martini (Italy) 5 / 6.5

Dionigi Tettamanzi (Italy) 7 / 9

Claudio Hummes (Brazil) 8 / 8

Francis Arinze (Nigeria) 8 /10

Jorge Bergoglio (Argentina) 12 /10

Oscar Maradiaga (Honduras) 16 / 9

Angelo Sodano (Italy) 10 / 17

Jose Da Cruz Policarpo (Portugal) 12 / 15

Francisco Ossa (Chile) 14 / 17

Keith OBrien (Scotland) 20 / 21

Cardianl Ruini (Italy) 20 / 26

Christoph von Schoenborn (Austria) 33 / 15

Cardinal Scola (Italy) 33 / 17

Ivan Dias (India) 33 / 21

Giovanni Battista Re (Italy) 33 / 21

Cardinal Hoyos (Colombia) 40 / 17

Giacomo Biffi (Italy) 40 / 17

Jaime Alamino (Cuba) 40 / 17

Norberto Carrera (Mexico) 40 / 26

Ennio Antonelli (Italy) 50 / 17

Juan Cipriani (Italy) 50 / 17

Crescenzio Sepe (Italy) 80 / 17

...

George Pell (Australia) 66 / 101


The distribution of Catholics would suggest that the pontiff must come from Europe or Latin/South America. Therefore I will eliminate the popular Arinze from Nigeria (In addition I don't think the church is ready for a black Pope.) as well as Dias from India.

I'm inclined to eliminate all the Italians as the Church would appear to need to continue reaching out beyond its tradional homeland.

History shows us that the favourites are usually not the winners, so I'll eliminate Ratzinger and Lustiger. Similarly, I will deduct O'Brien as he originates from a superpower country - another unfavourable factor.

This leaves two Europeans (Policarpo and von Schoenborn) with seven from South America. But I think we can safely remove Alamino and Hoyos because politically, Cuba and Colombia fail to live up to the mark of delivering a Pope.

Thus, my shortlist is:


Claudio Hummes (Brazil)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Argentina)

Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga (Honduras)

Jose Da Cruz Policarpo (Portugal)

Francisco Javier Errazuriz Ossa (Chile)

Christoph von Schoenborn (Austria)

Norberto Rivera Carrera (Mexico)


It is possible to strike off Bergoglio because he is a Jesuit. Also, Hummes and Maradiaga are both considered progressives, which may go against them in a strikingly conservative conclave. Ossa and Carrera are strong contenders but who will the European Princes of the Church prefer?

Von Schoenborn would be a decisive vote for Europe, however he is reported to have made a few judgemental errors that have left him merely working in the shadow of retired Austrian Cardinal Franz König.

Policarpo, from Portugal, may be able to garner the much needed support of both Europe AND Latin America to ensure the papacy as a bridge between traditional Europe, which is home to 50% of all Cardinals and 25% of all Catholics, and Latin America, which commands 43% of the world's Catholic population but only 18% of Cardinals.

My money is on Policarpo or Ossa, with Carrera an outside third.


Good source of info at the New York Times

The ongoing saga of Iraq

The ongoing US occupation of Iraq is swiftly fading into irrelevance among the media, and as a direct result, the minds of the citizens of the world, except, perhaps, those in the Middle East and for the families of those in the area.




But to keep it in perspective I'd like to remind our citizens, our governments and greater humanity about the truth. There's no news here ... just regurgitating the same left-wing rant as I always do - no apologies from me on that score.




The reason we went to war ...

www.minimumeffort.com



the ongoing financial cost (to the USA) of this war ...

www.costofwar.com



And, more importantly, the ongoing incalculable human cost ...

www.iraqbodycount.net



P.S. How is Afghanistan doing these days?



:-(

Priorities

I've been taking care of some important stuff in my life. Unfortunately, this blog wasn't on that list. Thanks to those who have enquired as where I've been and even "demanded" (or else!!) that I get back on here :-)

Here's something that I found in my inbox recently - it pretty much sums up what I've been working with lately. I hope you get something out of it too.

A professor stood before his philosophy class and had some items in front of him. When the class began, wordlessly, he picked up a very large and empty mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls.

He then asked the students if the jar was full. They agreed that it was.

The professor then picked up a box of pebbles and poured them into the jar. He shook the jar lightly. The pebbles rolled into the open areas between the golf balls. He then asked the students again if the jar was full. They agreed it was.

The professor next picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar.

Of course, the sand filled up everything else. He asked once more if the jar was full. The students responded with a unanimous "yes."

The professor then produced two cups of coffee from under the table and poured the entire contents into the jar, effectively filling the empty space between the sand. The students laughed.

"Now," said the professor, as the laughter subsided, "I want you to recognize that this jar represents your life. The golf balls are the important things -- your God, your family, your children, your health, your friends, and your favorite passions -- things that if everything else was lost and only they remained, your life would still be full.

The pebbles are the other things that matter like your job, your house, and your car. The sand is everything else -- the small stuff. "If you put the sand into the jar first," he continued, "there is no room for the pebbles or the golf balls. The same goes for life. If you spend all your time and energy on the small stuff, you will never have room for the things that are important to you. Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness. Play with your children. Take time to get medical checkups. Take your partner out to dinner. Play another 18.

There will always be time to clean the house and fix the disposal.

Take care of the golf balls first -- the things that really matter. Set your priorities. The rest is just sand."

One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the coffee represented. The professor smiled. "I'm glad you asked. It just goes to show you that no matter how full your life may seem, there's always room for a couple of cups of coffee with a friend."

ALP retains Assembly, but Council to move right

Ok ... yes I've bveen slack - I've fallen asleep at the wheel of the blogging vessel! please accept my humble apologies to the two or three people still reading this blog ;-)

Week four and five of the worming saga will be posted this evening, but I wanted to get up my election prediction as a matter of urgency.

• ALP to retain government with a likelihood of an increased primary vote.


• The traditional left and right balance will shift slightly in the upper house in favour of the conservatives.


• Also watch for the Christian Democratic Party with their best chance yet of breaking into WA politics for real.

I'll expand on this further tonight.

[+/-] show/hide this post

The Worm - Week 3

Did anything political happen in WA other than the "canal"??

Clearly not, as it was top of the media agenda, despite the Coalition trying desperately to move on and refocus on other policy launches. Meanwhile the ALP are carefully stringing it out for what it is worth, hoping that the populist idea can be overshadowed by enough questions about economic feasibility or social and environmental impact.

This week the wormers battled with the dial on the Perception Analyser like a joystick controlling some uncontrollable spaceship in a computer game. For the first time I swung my dial in a full arc from 0 (strongly disapprove) to 100 (strongly approve) and back again as Barnett and Gallop bombarded us with more arrogance, rhetoric and spin than should be a safe limit for any voter!

Clearly this issue is dividing WA like no other current issue and is reminiscent of Dickie Court's bell tower. You either love it or hate it!

Apart from the great Colinic-irrigation scheme, the Libs managed to belt out a riposte in the Hospital sector, announcing 750 additional beds within 4 years (compared with the ALP promise of 1000 beds in the next 10). The ALP scored a few brownie points with announcements to raise the school leaving age to 17 in two stages and threw in a $200 bonus to assist with education costs ($400 for TAFE students)

Perhaps both parties are warming themselves up for a barage of pork-barrelling in the final two weeks of the campaign. Maybe they have something up their sleeves for us?

The score thus far, as I see it, is:


ALP ... one point for each of the following announcements - education, health, car rego


LIB ... three points for the canal, two points for their coup with the nurses (if it holds out), but they lose one point for roll back on cannabis

That leaves the Libs marginally ahead at this stage and in a precarious situation over Barnett's arrogant commitment to the canal plan. The question on everyone's lips is whether he can remain firm and beat off his detractors - predominantly the ALP and most of the media!

[+/-] show/hide this post

Libs bring out the dead

All the candidates for the WA State election are finalised and among the names we find a few surprises and a couple of laughs. I'll just highlight two of the Libs for now.

First off the rank has to be Graham Kierath returning as a candidate for Alfred Cove. Graham was a long-time Liberal MP and Minister for monumental failures, including Labour Relations and Health. He is unlikely to unseat sitting independant, Janet Woollard ... and we should all be thankful for that!

Graham seems to be in good company with the Libs also resurrecting failed Court (Dickie, not Sir Chuck) Minister, Roger Nicholls. He is well known for his poor management of Family and Community Services, among other notable events. I had a memorable clash with Roger in his early days as member for Mandurah and I find the man totally underwhelming. Roger is third on the ticket for South Metropolitan, which gives him little chance of taking a seat in the Council, so frankly I'm hoping he is merely trying to prop up the Libs rather than reinvent himself as a serious candidate.




[+/-] show/hide this post

The Worm - Week 2

Worming was more interesting this week! Not only did we have more detail about Barnett's canal project, there was also a grab bag of minor policies from both sides that managed to attract media and voter attention.

The ALP plans to drop vehicle registrations by $25, build a new tertiary hospital in Murdoch and expand the Joondalup health campus. However, the hospitals are long term projects that will result in only a few hundred extra beds over the next decade. Take a walk through any hospital and, after noting the many empty beds, you will soon realise that a lack of resources (primarily funding & staff), not beds, is the major problem with our health system.

Meanwhile the Libs are going to rollback the law reforms for private cannabis use, making possession a court matter once again. Add this to his intended partial rollback of equality for same-sex attracted people and defacto couples and a common theme emerges. Barnett continues to promote the "we will reduce taxes" mantra that appears to be his key platform.

The majority opinion seems to be that Colin Barnett, despite his lack of charisma and continued negativity, won the Leaders Debate by a smidge. Though I do not share that opinion I will concede that he still has the stronger chance of winning ... even his canal project has caught the imagination of many voters - go figure!

We were also asked our voting intention regarding the referendum question on Sunday trading hours. The first group was split roughly 70/30 in favour, whilst the second group was almost 50/50 (excluding the undecided). Presumably the second question regarding extended weekday trading will be asked in future weeks.

It is interesting to note that more than 70% voted in favour of daylight saving (last week's topical question), yet this state has failed to support it in three previous referenda. Perhaps the difference lies in the fact that regional voters are not represented in this worm project. In light of that fact, perhaps daylight saving should be introduced for the metropolitan region only. :-)

[+/-] show/hide this post

Barnett digs world's longest political grave

The election campaign may be into its second week, but until last night's televised Leaders Debate, it was flying low on the radar for most Western Australians.

Less than 24 hours ago this election seemed to be a choice between tweedle-dull and tweedle-duller. Now, with the help of an event equivalent to a Chernobyl-style meltdown inside of Colin Barnett's cranium, duller has become moronic, if not certifiably insane!

Of course, I'm talking about the Coalition (or is it just the crazy Libs?) promise to build the world's longest canal from the Kimberley to Perth, a distance of around 3700km. But it is not an original idea - the ALP set about investigating the concept last year (see the Guardian report here).

What is incredulous, is not that the idea has been raised (every option is valid until proven invalid) - the real problem is that Barnett used the Leaders Debate to publicly commit (presumably as a core promise) to the $2bn project without even so much as a feasibility report!!

As reported by the ABC:

Jorg Imberger, from the Centre for Water Research at the University of Western Australia, says Mr Barnett's policy is premature.


"Technically, a proposal like that is feasible, but whether it is economic or not is totally another question," he said.

Not just economically - what about environmentally? What effect will such a project have on native wildlife when it effectively creates a barrier between coastal and inland WA? What will be the effect of increased agriculture due to the proposed irrigation schemes along its path?

And why, oh why, should we use pristine clear water to supply industry, while many of our regional communities lack suitable potable water? If they do intend to use this resource for domestic supply, how will they guarantee the safety of the supply? At least with a sealed pipe (the much maligned Ernie Bridge proposal) it is more secure from deliberate or accidental contamination.

So many questions, so few answers. But at least it has a bit more credibility than the idea proposed by a former Democrat candidate who, quite a while ago, suggested towing an iceberg from Antarctica! :-)

If there was anything that might put a stop to the Libs gaining Government, this commitment just might do it. The ALP are probably celebrating already.

[+/-] show/hide this post

Iraq voter numbers are fantasy

No matter how many journalists, commentators and diplomats put their spin on the recent election in Iraq, one thing is for sure ... the USA is relying on the simple fact that most people can't count, or won't bother to question basic math!

In recent media reports, no doubt fuelled by US propaganda, speculation about the depth of voter turnout for the Iraq election has been remarkably positive. However, if you scratch beneath the thin sugar coating one big conclusion is apparent - they fudged the numbers!

Quite simply, the math doesn't add up!

Take this article from the BBC which states what many other news sources also claim:

The overall election turnout has been estimated at about 60% [of what], with some eight million Iraqis voting. It remains unclear how many Iraqis were registered to vote.

60% of what? 8 million voters @ 60% surely must equal more than 13 million eligible voters! And if the voters weren't registered how could they vote?

Even a seventh grade student can calculate a simple percentage if given the figures. So away we go to the CIA's World Factbook, which tells us that the population of Iraq aged 15yrs+ is approximately 15 million. Given that those between 15 and 18 are probably ineligible to vote the eligible voting population would be closer to 13 million - surprise!

It then isn't hard to calculate that the "8 million" who supposedly voted is roughly equal to 60% of eligible voters. So why then is it "unlcear how many Iraqis were registered to vote"?

The only possible conclusion is that someone, somewhere, has been plucking figures out of the air. It is far more likely that 60% of registered voters placed a ballot, and that the number of registered voters was somewhat less than the maximum 13 million eligible! It is more probable that even fewer than 8 million, possibly less than 5 million, were registered to vote given the difficulties of establishing a secure electoral roll.

With all this in mind it would surprise me if the total number of ballots received exceeded 3 or 4 million under such circumstances - less than 16% of the total population.

[+/-] show/hide this post

The Worm - Week 1

Tonight Channel Nine recorded the first session of the "worm". Our responses were gauged via handheld dials, which we turned in approval or disapproval as we watched 8.5 minutes of Colin Barnett and Geoff Gallop commencing their election campaigns with very little gusto and relying on far too much rhetoric.

The ALP are planning to run on the strength of a booming economy and low unemployment, which are probably more reflective of Howard's work, than Gallop's. The only truth in Gallop's opening election address that he could claim rightfully as their own was the strong lead the ALP has taken on the environment.

Meanwhile the State Libs are promising to run a "positive" campaign (we'll see) and to cut stamp duty on cars and reduce other taxes. But, paradoxically, Barnett won't commit to not raising taxes, even after being asked three times and the cock failing to crow! A case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, no doubt!

Amazingly, the Libs have managed to score a tremendous coup this week, by brokering a deal to end the Nurses dispute should they be elected. This single act might prove to be the Coalition's greatest election asset. They may win with that platform alone!

What can I say about the election thus far? Not much at all, unfortunately. But I'm committed to remaining objective throughout the next five weeks. I'm going to try and see politics through the eyes of average Joe Bloggs. I'm putting aside my left leaning beliefs and will move my dial responsibly over the next five weeks. I might even find myself conflicted about where to send my vote!

Accordingly, at this early stage and based solely on the performance of the two leaders this week, my preferred Premier is Geoff Gallop. And, without any clear policy breakthroughs I would vote for the Greens if today was election day.

Balancing the books

So far it is costing the USA approximately US$4.8bn each month they remain in Iraq. And there is no doubt that the physical, mental and cultural cost to the Iraqi people (not to mention the international contingent of military, civil staff and volunteers) is far greater with in excess of 100,000 lives lost, and growing on a daily basis.

Now the Bush administration is seeking to ask Congress for an appropiation of a further $80bn to keep the invasion and crusade going. The BBC reports that the total cost for Afghanistan and Iraq is now edging towards $300bn in only 3 years.

Even more shocking is that the Pentagon's annual budget (excluding the two wars) stands at $400bn and looks set to put the Bush administration into catastrophic meltdown with an ongoing deficit of $500bn annually.

Meanwhile southern Asia continues to struggle to rebuild from the tsunami that killed in excess of 200,000 citizens and tourists and will cost a mere $20bn (1/15th of the cost of the ongoing and futile war against terror), to restore the necessary infrastructure to these nations and herald a bright new future for the orphaned, homeless, jobless, lonely, starving, ill and distressed citizens.

Is it just me, or are the USA priorities so wrong when they can justify spending 15 times as much money destroying precious lives under the guise of peace and liberty, rather than allocate a fraction of the cost to improve the lives of those hit by the worst natural tragedy of our generation?

[+/-] show/hide this post

Worming the WA election

Old news: The WA State election has been called for 26th February.

Related news: I am participating in the Channel Nine "worm" research over the next five weeks. It involves 60 voters watching a series of policy announcements from the ALP and the Libs and recording responses via a handheld dial - the same technology used for the Federal Election Debate.

I'm interested in being part of the process as much as seeing how the voting intentions of the other 59 participants might change over the election campaign.

Our first bite at the worm is being recorded this Thursday night and will be aired on the following Friday evening. The same process will be repeated each week until the fat lady sings.

Stay tuned for updated worm bloggings :-)

[+/-] show/hide this post

The Bush Resume

The following is good for a laugh ... if it wasn't so damn serious!

Obviously I missed its premiere on Crikey in 2003, but I'm glad they mentioned it again this week.

The George W Bush CV

Arrogant humanity?

Common Dreams offers a deeper insight into the human psyche and how the world might be dealing with the catastrophe that is the Tsunami and its after-effects.

Few disasters have come as greater surprises than this one, and part of that surprise was its origin in nature rather than man. Perhaps that's one reason George W. Bush and Tony Blair, shuttered in the closed universe of the man-made "war" on man-made terror, were so slow to awaken to the dimensions of the catastrophe. (Both leaders remained on vacation for more than a week after the event.) They seemed unable to conceive of a tragedy that was both irrelevant to their crusade and hugely exceeded it in scale and human importance. But in truth, most people around the world seemed disoriented by nature's shock. The human capacity for mass destruction has been so highly developed in our time that we seem, without quite realizing it, almost to have claimed title to the art, as if to say, "Wait, how can nature do this? Isn't killing hundreds of thousands of people our business?"

Which brings me to another topic. Early in December I changed my email signature to read ...

If the frogs or bees could have weapons of mass destruction, perhaps we'd show a little more respect for the earth!

How I wish this event could be proved to be connected to the way we treat the Earth. Mother Nature fighting back against the parasites of humanity would be a powerful message. Alas, the affected countries are not the ones to blame. If Nature showed vengeance and was also just, the Tsunami would have hit the East Coast of the USA, rather than the poor nations of South West Asia.

The Tsunami

I've been waiting to write something about the Tsunami. Words are often meaningless in such tragedies. Actions are the only comfort.

For once my admiration goes to John Howard and the Liberal government for their ability to comprehend the enormity of the situation and commit to a pledge of at least $1 billion for Indonesia. Finally Australia is showing signs of growing into a mature and responsible nation.

The death toll is sure to exceed 200,000 when the count is finalised with many more (probably running into the millions) who are seriously injured, homeless, grieving loved ones, or affected by hunger, thirst and disease.

Peace to those taken by nature's chaos, and peace to those left behind to rebuild their lives.

What to write?

Honestly? I have no friggin idea! I thought about a few subjects and nothing really seems worthwhile. So here I go with just a silly rant.

The gay & lesbian lobby in WA has succeeded in raising the spectre of "rollback" after my least favourite self-described editor (think Marlon Brando in "The Godfather" meets Dr Evil from "Austin Powers") of Wackos On Weed managed to get Colin Barnett (Who? The Leader Of the Opposition Party - LOOPy) to confirm what was already common knowledge. Bully for her - what a scoop! Surely that deserves a mock Walkley! :-)

In other news, Western Australians don't give a damn!

Predictably, WA voters are more concerned about issues that matter to them. Gay age of consent, IVF access and adoption hardly equate to water restrictions, power cuts, excessive stamp duty, hospital bed shortages, waiting lists, fishing zones at Ningaloo, prison security, extended trading hours, daylight saving, school uniforms etc.

The gay lobby (namely Gay and Lesbian Equality and Pride) in WA are wasting precious resources trying to run a public smear campaign against the conservatives. Meanwhile the ALP is struggling to get any good news out through the media and seems impotent when it comes to identifying issues that can attract the spotlight in a positive way.

If the polls are anything to go by, the Gallop government is set to be a one hit wonder and the Libs will win without having to run a campaign of any substance.

So far the whole lead up to the election is like watching paint dry ... a very plain shade of beige!

Unravelling child pornography

A fellow blogger and Melbourne philospher has asked my view on child pornography. More specifically, he has questioned how it should be dealt with - zero tolerance or with a view to rehabilitate offenders?

I support both a zero tolerance approach with severe penalties for purveyors of such material, including gaol, and compulsory rehabilitation programs conducted by appropriate psychologists and sociologists for the consenting recipients (i.e. not those who accidentally download or receive such material).

That is the simple answer to the question, however the bigger issue is what constitutes child pornography. Most people do not ask themselves this question, and when they do there is often no suitably comprehensive answer. Even government agencies like the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) find it a difficult topic to define.

I'll explain further below, but don't hope to see any conclusions, except that I believe that the whole debate is frought with ambiguity, conjecture and the biased perception of the individual.

There would be very few that would argue against the typical public definition of child pornography. Something along the following lines:

"any material depicting a child or children engaging in a sexual act, posing in a sexual manner, or produced for sexual gratification of another person."

The problem with this is that there are several ambiguities to this approach. Such a definition is conditional upon a subjective opinion an what constitutes such things as "material", "child", "sexual", etc.

The Material.

Take for instance my baby photo, lovingly snapped by my parents as I lay naked in the bath at 6 months of age, my family jewels floating carefree in the shallow water for all to see. Pornography? Hardly! At least not to me or my family. But what about someone who found such material sexually arousing? To them it would have the air of pornogrphy just as a Bel Ami production would seem to me.

One person's innocent pic is another person's tool for sexual gratification.
Context is clearly important in this matter.

The Child.

No-one would doubt that a minor (less than the relevant legal age of consent) would be considered a "child" under the definition, but what of jurisdictions where an age of consent might differ from, say, 16 in Western Australia? What of jurisdictions in other nations where the age of consent may be 14 or 21? An enormous grey area lies between a mature young adult, sexually inquisitive youth and an innocent child.

It also begs the question of how we might deal with different scenarios such as:

1. a 22yo male who is yet to reach puberty and may look like a pre-pubuscent 14yo.


2. a 14yo female who is well developed and looks like a 22yo to any reasonable person.

Sexually explicit material containing either of these people would be defined as child pornography by some and legal porn by others. Now simply swap the gender of the two examples and, depending on the individual's perspective, the status of illegal porn or legal erotica may change.

Similarly, The different maturity and development of teenagers presents a problem in determining how the "reasonable person" might see a certain piece of material. The age (real and perceived) AND the gender of a child are major factors in determining whether material qualifies as criminal pornography or merely X-rated erotica.

The Sexual Behaviour.

Heralding back to the baby in the bath and comparing that with full sexual intercourse we can also see that the behaviour depicted in any material is also relevant to the context and thus the classification.

Take our pre-pubescent 22yo male (bearing in mind he looks 14) and in each of the following scenarios try and determine if it is considered criminal child pornography:

1. use his naked photograph in a medical journal.


2. in an explicit sexual act with a 16yo woman (i.e. legal age in WA).


3. in an explicit sexual act with a 22yo woman


4. in an explicit sexual act with a 48yo woman

Now, in each scenario, change the woman to a man. Does it make any difference to the classification? How about if we change him to a typically developed 22 year old who looks his age?

Finally for each of the above scenarios, change the main person to our 14yo well developed girl who looks 22yrs. Does the classification change depending on the gender and age of the people involved? Does it change if she is now 22years old instead of 14?

Throughout this exercise the majority of people will find at least one double standard due to age or gender. Clearly this highlights the ambiguous nature of sexuality and the law.

This issue is one of the most complex we have in our society today. Given that laws against child pornography are made to protect children from predation, more than stopping individual sexual gratification (no-one is legislating against imagination) perhaps the future for these people lies in technology.

In the future, with the increasing sophistication of computer graphics, we will need to determine whether computer generated material is just as offensive as the real thing. At this point it becomes a debate about an individual's unfulfilled desires, rather than protecting innocent children. At that point, where will we draw the line?

I previously mentioned the AIC site and it is well worth reading the various definitions to understand the complex nature of child pornography and the relevant laws.

On a final note, I admit to agreeing with Germaine Greer in her book, The Boy, in which she deals with the subject of the naked human form. Though she specifically wrote about young boys, I share the same enjoyment of both genders in art. Non-sexual nudity, in tasteful artistic representation, has been enjoyed by the masses throughout the ages. I do not consider such art to be pornographic, though others might. Each to his own.

Nudity can be sexualised by any individual for his/her own gratification, but such material must be judged by their context, not purely by the subject's age or gender. The context of someone caught with thousands of naked child pictures is similar, though less repulsive than someone caught with images and/or videos of children in sexual acts. The latter requires a harsher penalty than the first. Our laws need to reflect this as well as differentiate between the purveyors of child pornography and those who collect material for their personal use.

Just like drugs, the dealers are the real criminals preying on vulnerable people (children and the weak-minded), whereas some of the users often just need a helping hand to get them out of the situation.

[+/-] show/hide this post

The modern family

Some interesting articles are being published over at Online Opinion on the topic of the meaning of "family".

Bill Muehlenberg rises from murky christendom to denigrate women and homosexuals .. no surprises there!

Fortunately Bill and his ilk receive an upper-cut from a woman - in a same-sex relationship, no less! :-)

A great excerpt from a young girl's speech about her special adopted family gave me some joy that Australia hasn't been completely lost to the world of religious indoctrination and bigotry.

But perhaps the best argument is made by sociologist, Maggie Walter, with her simple conclusion "You don’t have a family; you be a family".

I'm waiting to see if my submission makes it into the list of published articles. Regardless I'll post it up here soon enough.

In the meantime, still on the topic of family, here's a little humour regarding the modern family ...

"Daddy, how was I born?"

Dad answered: "Ah, my son, I guess one day you will need to find out anyway! Well, you see your Mom and I first got together in a chat room on MSN. Then I set up a date via e-mail with your Mom and we met at a cyber-cafe. We sneaked into a secluded room, where your mother agreed to a download from my hard drive. As soon as I was ready to upload, we discovered that neither one of us had used a firewall, and since it was too late to hit the delete button,nine months later a blessed little Popup appeared and said ----- "You've Got Male!"

... or this ...

What I COULD have been doing the last two weeks if I had substantial Lotto winings!

Sorry!

I'm trying to choose the most plausible reason for not posting for the last two weeks.

1. kidnapped by aliens


2. recovering from malaria


3. overwhelmed by being gainfully employed again


4. underwhelmed by world events


5. enjoying my lotto winnings


6. upgraded and reconfigured the home PC network


7. severe case of apathy


8. infiltrated the White House to discover the truth about ...

Other suggestions would be appreciated!