Saturday 24 August 2013
Saturday 27 July 2013
The more things are said to change for women, the more things stay the same
Sahar Gul, who was 15 at the time her ordeal, was burned, beaten and had her fingernails pulled out by her husband and in-laws after she refused to become a prostitute in a case that shocked the world.
She was found in the basement of her husband's house in north eastern Baghlan province in late 2011, having been locked in a toilet for six months prior to her rescue by police.
Her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law were sentenced to prison for 10 years each for torture and attempted murder, though her husband remains at large.
“But after the court reviewed their case, it found out that they were only involved in family violence,” Supreme Court spokesman Abdullah Attaee told AFP.
The court did not have enough evidence against them, he said, adding a fresh prosecution would be launched .
“For now, the court has ruled that the time they have spent in jail is enough for them,” he said, though he could not say when the ruling was made or whether the trio had yet been freed.
Afghan rights groups expressed indignation over the early releases, calling it a step back in time for Afghanistan's women......
Saturday 20 July 2013
I Fight Like A Girl
Saturday 9 March 2013
Friday 14 December 2012
Smoking the difference on either side of the Pacific Ocean
Sunday 18 November 2012
Doing something nice for your daughter
Tuesday 13 November 2012
"I suspect it may be dawning on a few white men as I write this that giving women the vote was a seriously bad idea."
Monday 6 August 2012
Quotable quotes
{Rabbett Run}
“I am outraged! Only I may rig polls!”
{Fake Andrew Bolt}
“BBC BREAKING NEWS: @MittRomney deported from Britain after discovery that UK already has its own home-grown gaffe machine in @LouiseMensch” {Brendan May}
“Explaining to the children what a ventriloquist was, he {Chris Gulaptis} compared it to watching himself perform in Parliament.”
{The Daily Examiner 2nd August 2012}
"Eww. Just tuned in and Tony Abbott's talking about having read 50 Shades but preferring Bride Stripped Bare.
Thursday 5 April 2012
Melbourne and Monash university academics help Journal of Medical Ethics create the perfect storm
Sunday 6 November 2011
A pictorial guide to why the 99% in America is so angry
In fact, income inequality has gotten so extreme here that the US now ranks 93rd in the world in "income equality." China's ahead of us. So is India. So is Iran.
Sunday 16 October 2011
It's World Food Day Today, 16 October 2011
It is World Food Day today and it’s no surprise to find that this event is supported by the multinational biotech industry and agricultural sectors which promote GMO crops.
To counteract this I suggest……………………...
Send an email of support to Millions Against Monsanto here.
Sign up for Mothers Against Monsanto weekly newsletter here and join the network here.
Contact your Federal MP and tell him or her that you demand a review of the Australian Government’s position on GMO labelling. Contact details here and here.
Write a letter to the editor of a local newspaper stating how you feel about genetically modified crops and foods.
* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.
Thursday 29 September 2011
Best quotes of the month
Monday 12 September 2011
Religious people are nicer than the rest of us?
I'm getting ready to duck, but don't shoot the messenger. The results are in: religious people are nicer.
He goes on to say about the book American Grace: How Religion Unites and Divides Us:
Their most conspicuously controversial finding is that religious people make better citizens and neighbours.
It isn’t until the thirteenth paragraph that Smart (a director of the Centre for Public Christianity) admits that religious belief itself is not what is driving this so-called ‘niceness’ and, he entirely neglects other pertinent aspects of the book.
One is, we have a lot of evidence in our book that religious Americans are happier and, for the most part, better citizens and neighbors than their more secular counterparts. And what do we mean by better citizens and neighbors? Well, they’re more likely to volunteer. They’re more likely to give money to charity. They’re more likely to help out in informal ways their neighbors and those around them.
While the strong emphasis on perceived religious values within American politics and the decline in religious belief since 1973 are similarly ignored.
International research indicates that people who are religious are more likely to give and to give more than those who are not. However, this effect does not necessarily hold when giving to religion is excluded.
In fact it shows that, when one excludes the amount of money given by Australian churchgoers to their own religion, the mean total and frequency of donations across the board markedly decline. While a higher frequency of church attendance also indicates that a person is less likely to give to secular charities/community groups.
When it comes to volunteering there is also little to choose between believers and non-believers, with the exception that believers who volunteer in the secular sector tend to do so for more hours..
So are people holding religious beliefs generous, more altruistic and more involved in civic life as Simon says? Perhaps they might possibly be towards each other and within their relatively closed church communties. However, while probably more visible to researchers, what they are not is generally much better people than those found in the wider population.
Tuesday 23 August 2011
Britain 'terrorized by an underclass'. One of Her Majesty's subjects shows yet another ugly side of the United Kingdom
Britain is a riot - 3 Translation(s) | dotSUB
Pat Condell in full flight, advocating the withdrawal of human rights from convicted rioters.
Is this man a distant relative of Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt?
Saturday 20 August 2011
Ryan puts a smile on the dial of oldies who remember posties delivering twice daily and once on Saturday
Still smiling at this from Ryan O’Connell in Seven Things A Twentysomething Can’t Do……
“1. Mail something
Sunday 31 July 2011
When is a Christian not a Christian? When he embarrasses the flock of course!
The disconnected Labelling Debate score stands at
Breivik 'the Christian': 1 O'Reilly 'the Christian': 0.
This is Breivik writing in his manifesto:
Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?
A: As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. Being a Christian can mean many things;
- That you believe in and want to protect Europe’s Christian cultural heritage.
The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity - Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority).
It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the
enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want).
So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist(an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)).
The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian “culturalist” military order.
Religion: Christian, Protestant but I support a reformation of Protestantism leading to it being absorbed by Catholisism. The typical “Protestant Labour Church” has to be deconstructed as its creation was an attempt to abolish the Church Religious: I went from moderately to agnostic to moderately religious
My parents, being rather secular wanted to give me the choice in regards to religion.
At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church. I consider myself to be 100% Christian.
Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.
This is FoxNews Impact host Bill O’Reilly in runaway denial:
Now, on Sunday, the "New York Times" headlined "As Horrors Emerged, Norway Charges Christian extremist". A number of other news organizations like the "LA Times" and Reuters also played up the Christian angle. But Breivik is not a Christian. That's impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith.
Also Breivik is not attached to any church, and in fact has criticized the Protestant belief system in general. The Christian angle came from a Norwegian policeman not from any fact finding. Once again, we can find no evidence, none, that this killer practiced Christianity in any way.
So why is the angle being played up? Two reasons: First, the liberal media wants to make an equivalency between the actions of Breivik and the Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh and al Qaeda. The left wants you to believe that fundamentalists Christians are a threat just like crazy jihadists are.
http://youtu.be/Z3_DEp--J8c
Extended YouTube compilation of O'Reilly commentary:
http://youtu.be/mAxf3aL1WmU
The Young Turks response to O'Reilly:
http://youtu.be/dl6lOP_BfLg
Monday 25 July 2011
Breivik: a frightening perspective on the world
The Sydney Morning Herald on 24 July 2011:
The suspect in twin attacks in and near Oslo that killed at least 92 people has admitted responsibility, his lawyer says.
Anders Behring Breivik, 32, was arrested and detained for allegedly shooting at least 85 people dead at a youth Labour Party meeting on an island and killing seven more in a car bomb explosion which ripped through government buildings in Oslo.
His lawyer, Geir Lippestad, said his client had admitted he was responsible for the two attacks.
Snapshots (24.07.11) taken from a lengthy video allegedly created and posted on YouTube by Anders Behring Breivik:
Click on images to enlarge
Sunday 17 July 2011
One Man's Opinion: News Corporation is sorry.....
Advertisement placed in The Guardian newspaper in Britain and other media
during the week ending 16 July 2011
Click to enlarge
Rupert Murdoch and his sons Lachlan and James in happier days
What is the Murdoch family and the News Corporation media conglomerate it dominates sorry for?Why, for being caught of course.
Who will the family and corporation blame for the unfolding scandal? Inevitably, everyone and anyone other than members of the Murdoch family.
Is this the end of Rupert Murdoch's political influence?
Only if Britain, the United States and Australia all refuse to support the argument that the international media empire he heads is too big to be allowed to fail.
Who or what will be the losers if Murdoch's political balls aren't removed?
Without a doubt, democratic institutions in every county in which News Corp, its subsidiaries and affiliates, operate.
But News Corp isn't behaving badly in Australia is it?
Oh yes it is. In the absence of world war, widespread civil conflict, country-wide famine or desperate national financial crisis driving a need, the Murdoch press has broadly stated an aim of destroying one minor democratic political party and repeatedly calls for an early election (beginning within days of the 2010 ballot results) with the aim of regime change at federal level.
It deliberately misquotes and misrepresents those public figures or scientists who do not support its skewed views.
It is known to have attempted to charge at least one political party for favourable published comment (Page 1 & Page 2) by its journalists during an election campaign and patently wouldn't recognise its own (or indeed any other) Professional Conduct Policy if it fell over a tattered copy on the footpath.
A bit of background courtesy of The Guardian UK and Granny Herald AUS:
Phone hacking: Murdoch goes on defensive over 'total lies' by MPs
Les Hinton sacrificed, but the worst is yet to come for News Corp
Rebekah Brooks's resignation letter
Phone hacking: Met police put pressure on Guardian over coverage
Phone hacking: Murdoch paid US anti-bribery law lobbyists
Rebekah Brooks's belated resignation intensifies spotlight on James Murdoch
News of the World phone hacking - interactive timeline
Murdoch's strange hunt for a handout
Pics found at Google Images
UPDATE:
Staying true to the lack of ethics displayed by its parent company, News Ltd's Herald Sun published this incitement to murder in a comment section, according to @heraldsunreader:
Friday 8 July 2011
Fox News dissected
From 14 Propaganda Techniques Fox "News" Uses to Brainwash Americans
Saturday 2 July 2011 by: Dr. Cynthia Boaz, Truthout | News Analysis
1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.
2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.
3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you're using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It's often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.
4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palin's mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they'll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.
5. Scapegoating/Othering. This works best when people feel insecure or scared. It's technically a form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.
6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness. This is more of what I'd call a "meta-frame" (a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways news is reported constantly. For example, terms like "show of strength" are often used to describe acts of repression, such as those by the Iranian regime against the protesters in the summer of 2009. There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force - it can turn wars into sporting events. Secondly, especially in the context of American politics, displays of violence - whether manifested in war or debates about the Second Amendment - are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony) moral. Violence become synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.
7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a "win."
8. Confusion. As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user's claims veracity in the viewer's mind.
9. Populism. This is especially popular in election years. The speakers identifies themselves as one of "the people" and the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always "elitist" or a "bureaucrat" or a "government insider" or some other category that is not the people. The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the right is that accused "elitists" are almost always liberals - a category of political actors who, by definition, advocate for non-elite groups.
10. Invoking the Christian God. This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and "real Americans" (those are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not. Basically, God loves Fox and Republicans and America. And hates taxes and anyone who doesn't love those other three things. Because the speaker has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. It's a cheap and easy technique used by all totalitarian entities from states to cults.
11. Saturation. There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated cover and over, it must be everywhere and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. "Saddam has WMD." Veracity and hard data have no relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the same message over and over, regardless of whether it's true or if it even makes sense, e.g., "Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States." If something is said enough times, by enough people, many will come to accept it as truth. Another example is Fox's own slogan of "Fair and Balanced."
12. Disparaging Education. There is an emerging and disturbing lack of reverence for education and intellectualism in many mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. Fox), higher education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some commentators, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. The disdain for education and other evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why they are so viscerally demeaned.
13. Guilt by Association. This is a favorite of Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, both of whom have used it to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Here's how it works: if your cousin's college roommate's uncle's ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with Gorbachev's niece's ex-boyfriend's sister, then you, by extension are a communist set on destroying America. Period.
14. Diversion. This is where, when on the ropes, the media commentator suddenly takes the debate in a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where most Fox anchors start comparing the opponent to Saul Alinsky or invoking ACORN or Media Matters, in a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or they'll talk about wanting to focus on "moving forward," as though by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand will likely be called deflection, an ironic use of the technique of projection/flipping.