Pat Condell for President

Wishful Thinking

An example of wishful thinking:

http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/16-08/st_essay

Starting off grounded in fact about the reasons why the USSR, the US and China didn't blow the world to bits due to the deterrent of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), Jonathan Stevenson starts veering off into fantasy land by the end of the first paragraph:

"Threaten to launch an apocalyptic nuclear retaliation...and likely would even deter Iran."

Now, I'm no foreign policy expert, but I think I can safely say that the regime in Tehran is not what you would call a"rational actor". Every inducement, sanction and pressure from the UN has only fast-tracked it's nuclear ambitions further.

The rest of the article is essentially a coded Obama puff piece:

"Whoever wins the White House in November should take the opportunity to give US foreign policy a makeover,"

which candidate is likely to give the US foreign policy a "makeover"?

"the path is clear:"

"creative thinking.."

"A bolder strategy, driven by ideas..."

"A new tone in Washington..."

Cut, paste, wash, repeat from any of Obama's speeches. And I haven't even heard that many!

"need to acknowledge that radicalism remains highly appealing — thanks in part to the Bush administration"

The mandatory slagging of the Bush Administration whilst completely ignoring the larger conflict that has been waged against the US (and the West) by the Islamists since 1979 and earlier. The sneering implication that in responding to attacks, the US should have done what....talk about Change?

And now he completes his trip to la-la land with the following para.

"Of course, no official US site should sing the praises of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. But recognizing that such organizations have gained some legitimacy by participating in nonviolent politics would signal to potential recruits that there's an effective and honorable third way between capitulation and terrorism."

There, in a nutshell, is the exactly what is wrong with the approach of every Western government trying to grapple with this issue. The argument that "such organizations have gained some legitimacy by participating in nonviolent politics" is so deluded that it beggars belief. As if participation in non-violent politics makes any group worthy of political engagement, when the majority of their activities involve violence , the founding charter of one is based on the future genocide of a race, and they are incapable of seeing the world through anything other than a religious prism where non-believers deserve death for non-believing.

"But recognizing that such organizations have gained some legitimacy"

Just because these organizations have "legitimacy" although I think the word he was searching for there was "popularity", does not mean these groups are moral, rational or justified. They are, in fact the most prominent actors of the most de-civilising force at the moment.

It is extremely depressing to note that the author is a professor of strategic studies at the US Naval War College.

Illegal Points of View

Following on from my previous post, here's this little gem from the Register.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/ofcom_global_warming_swindle_adjudication/

From what I understand, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was taken to the UK broadcasting regulator for...denying The Warming.

That's right, they didn't offend any protected victim groups, they didn't show debauchery or violence, they had the unmitigated temerity to produce a show that denied the current climate dogma. So they got reported to the Broadcast cop.

Now the documentary may have some issues; any Australians remembering when this was broadcast in 2007 on the ABC, will remember Tony Jones going for the jugular of Martin Durkin (the doco's director and narrator) over a graph that...get this...ended 5 years before the show was made, thus in Tony's eyes invalidated the whole show. It was also followed by a panel discussion, I guess so that the ABC board could make sure they were not responsible for created "wrong thoughts" in the Australian populace about climate change Global Warming.

"the graph that doomed a doco" source: Wikipedia

Now lets completely overlook the fact that the UK High Court found "An Inconvenient Truth" to be so riddled with errors and one sided, tantamount to political propaganda that it ordered state schools to show alternative views if they had to screen the Gore Schlockumentary.

Why is The Warming SO important to those promoting it? Why is it so important to silence those that are skeptic? Is their belief system so brittle it can't take a couple of dissenting views?

These days, if your faith is challenged, I guess the first recourse is to go crying to the Government to stop the meanies saying uncomfortable things. A sorry State of affairs indeed...

An Inconvenient Scientist

You've all heard me rant on and on about the Hoax that was formerly known as Global Warming, and you may or may not have agreed with my opinion.

So...would you believe the dude who was responsible for developing the carbon models to measure our compliance to that Kyoto treaty thing?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

My favourite line:

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.

Amen, brother. Now how do we convince the rest of the world that??

"Turban Effect"

Re: this ground breaking new research.

66 people (demographic unknown) are asked to play a computer game, where statistics are collected on the 'innocents' shot, and the proportion of those shot wearing turbans or hijabs is enough to conclude that "A MUSLIM-style turban is seen as a threat by the average Australian, even those who think they are free from racial prejudice". [capitalisation from the article]

If we completely overlook making a generalisation of 20 million people on the basis of a sample of 66 individuals, and then factor in a methodology of the research which involves a computer game in which every facet can be programmed (what is the proportion of turbanned 'innocents' to say jeans wearing 'innocents'? Are they programmed to walk in between the shooter and their desired targets? etc etc etc), I believe the inference is, to put it nicely, a bit of a stretch.

And of course this phenomenon is sooo widespread (66/20,000,000 = 0.0000033, or to put it in english, the study has shown that 0.00033% of the Australian population act this way) that they have dubbed this the "turban effect".

Well I propose my own study which will be as scientifically robust as the one mentioned in the article, based principally on observing myself playing computer games and then making sweeping generalisations to the rest of the Australian population. Here are my conclusions:


The "drug dealer effect": When I'm playing Grand Theft Auto Vice City, I target drug dealers with whatever weapons I have on hand (including cars) to kill/maim/incinerate/crush them and then take all their money. On this basis I now assume that most Australians believe that the death penalty is too good for drug dealers.


The "ghost effect": I have probably seen in excess of 60 people play Pac-Man in my entire life, and I can say with 100% certainty that each and everyone of those players, when they had the chance, gobbled up the ghosts, proving that 0.0003% of the Australian population are Phasmophobic, which clearly shows that Australians are religiously intolerant and do not accept alternate beliefs or worlds.

The "big ears effect": When I'm playing World of Warcraft (WoW), I don't care if I'm in the middle of a raid, or just walking around the countryside, if I see Night Elves, I just have to attack them. I hate those purple bastards! With their long ears and purple flesh, and I know I'm not the only one, and since WoW is accessible by anyone in the world with an internet connection, there is a percentage of world population that will attack and kill digital creatures who don't have the standard humanoid features. That is scary. What an intolerant world we live in.

Back to the 2nd last sentence in the article:

"He said that although the findings demonstrate stereotyping, the research, did not assess actual aggressive behaviour."

So in other words, completely contradicts the conclusion you were hoping to draw.

Pacifist Paramilitaries

From this:

"Kent trained overseas at a para-military camp (and) trained in weapons, explosives and topography (the) training lasted about two months,'' Mr O'Sullivan said.

Mr O' Sullivan said the evidence was a fact.

"Obviously it has a resonance...there is no logical inference in connection between undertaking some form of military training (and) terrorist organisation,'' Mr O'Sullivan said.

to which I would reply "Are you !@#ing kidding?". I think Mr O'Sullivan, that there is more than just a whisper of "resonance" and there is indeed an iron-clad "logical inference" by undertaking, some form of 'freelance' military training in some random, as yet unnamed country, and an intent to be a participant in a terrorist organization.

A question I would put to Mr O'Sullivan would be: which country? Would this be one of the many countries DFAT reconmmend Australian citizens avoid? Would our actual military members be able to travel freely to said country? I think we all know the answers to those questions...

"Only a fundamentalist pacifist would suggest all those people are on the road to terrorism.''

A fundamentalist pacifist?? Don't you mean a fundamental pacifist? Ah no, of course you don't, you would like to confuse the jury with the term fundamentalist, because it's not just evil, civilisation fearing, misogynistic and barbaric animals who commit (or in this case, want to commit) mass slaughter of innocent civilians who are known as fundamentalists, it's also those who refuse to lift a finger even to defend themselves. Those damned fundamentalists pacifists!!!! Always stuffing shit up for the innocent terrorists.

"This training took place in 2001 (and) there's no evidence at all he was ever heard to say a single word about that training to anyone."

Well then, let's completely forget all about it. Nothing to see here, move along. Good ol' anglo sounding Shane Kent can turn a propane tank, some paper clips and old recycled copies of The Age into a device that could kill and maim hundreds of people in one go, thanks to his training, but he doesn't talk about it to anyone, so well, that's makes him just an innocent John Q Citizen, like you or me.

By the way, do you think Shane is known as "Shane" to his comrades in arms?

Sophistic Speculation

From the Herald Sun on the 7th July, comes this incredibly well thought out op-ed from the Director of the National Gallery of Victoria (NGV). Ladies and Gentleman, I present you Dr Gerard Vaughan:

ART or pornography?

The controversy surrounding Bill Henson's depiction of nude teenagers in his photographic art began as a reaction to the image of a 13-year-old printed on the invitation to his commercial exhibition at the Roslyn Oxley 9 Gallery in Sydney.

Within days - encouraged by the ill-judged comments of some senior public figures in NSW and the ACT - we observed the depressing spectacle of police raids on public galleries there, and the removal from public view of works by Bill Henson.

I am pleased to say that in Victoria no such reaction occurred.

I have submitted the last sentence from Dr Vaughan to various dictionaries to be considered for the definition of “smug”.

The Victoria Police visited the NGV to view one work by Henson, and wisely decided to take no action.

Note the “wisely”, in which you can almost hear the italicization.

In due course, the Classification Board declared Henson's work as depicted on a media website as "mild and justified by context".

Finally, the NSW Police concluded that it would be almost impossible to mount a successful prosecution under the present law, and that the matter should be dropped.

The issue of the appropriateness or otherwise of the photographic depiction of nude children or teenagers has now erupted again with the publication by Art Monthly Australia of Polixeni Papapetrou's photographs of her daughter Olympia.

Suddenly, all the issues are back, including the issue of consent - of both the under-age model and the parents or guardians.

No sir, There is no “suddenly” reappearing to these issues. They never went away. The art elite had a tantrum and the politicians broadly reflected community opinion , but these issues are very much still there and a deliberately provocative action such as publishing yet another naked child will indeed bring those issues to the fore, which Dr GV and his colleagues clearly support in the name of Art.

While it is entirely appropriate for a magazine such as Art Monthly Australia to engage issues that have absorbed so much public time, attention and debate, there are some in the art world who regard the timing as unhelpful.

Ya reckon? Sorry, there is a good time to publish pictures of naked children?!? Will the good Dr enlighten us plebs when this time has come....

They regard the cover image as provocative, calculated to enrage again those who believe that the mere possibility that such works could fall into the hands of paedophiles suddenly renders them objectionable.

“They” being these unhelpful people in the art world who would, space monkey forbid, actually feel some sort of humanity in that stripping naked the most vulnerable members of society and publishing their pictures in public is a step too far. And it's not like the stated aim of the magazine publishers was to be provocative and protest the controversy over the Bill Henson pictures.

The argument is a total non-sequitur.

Isn't that awesome? That the Doctor, with his superior knowledge and super powers, can just reframe an argument at will, to completely disregard what most people in the community would think is the entire point of the argument, but No! Dr GV waves his arms and unleashes the powers of “total non-sequitur”, completely destroying the opposing arguments in a debate.

That would be soo cool, I can see it now:

Concerned Community Member:
- “Don't you think that pictures of naked children are these days likely to encourage and enable those that would have less than noble intentions towards young people?”
Dr GV:
- “No sir, I don't agree with you at all” [waves arms]
Concerned Community Member:
- “What was I saying? Oh yes, have you checked out the hot 6 year old on the cover of Art Monthly Australia?”

Note also his use of the phrase “total non-sequitur”....how does one make a “partial” non-sequitur? In fact if it is a “partial” non-sequitur, then it no longer is a non-sequitur, because by definition, it has something to do with whatever is being discussed. The esteemed Doctor's use of the word “total” is his way of “totally” dismissing the opposing argument, without ever having to address the point. The fact that a museum director (with a PhD) makes this tautological statement (or in academic speak: a mistake) indicates that the good Dr (and his PhD) might not be using all his faculties when focusing his awesome brain power on this issue.

The fact that paedophiles might access these works does not suddenly make them pornographic, nor do they make the artists pornographers.

Correct. However the fact that paedophiles may (and will) access these works and use them as pornography should make most normal people hesitate before publishing naked pictures of their own kids.

Both Bill Henson and Polixeni Papapetrou have produced bona fide works of art, not pornography.

They may make some of us uncomfortable, and we may not like them, but that is a different issue.

I wonder if Bill Henson and Polixeni Papapetrou would consider making works of art on say naked depictions of Mohammed or have their naked children hold the Quran? I know that would certainly make some people “uncomfortable” and they would definitely “not like them”. His (and the artists) sneering dismissal of peoples' discomfort being a "different issue" would be, I suspect, not such a secondary issue, should those peoples' discomfort translate directly into physical threats and attacks to the artists/models/curators, as some discomfited people have been known to do.

All of which leads me back to considering where a public art gallery stands in relation to these debates.

When the Henson affair first erupted, I said any publicly funded gallery needed to act responsibly on the question of what it exhibited.

A public gallery should try to avoid deliberately offending community values but equally it cannot succumb to censorship. This is a fine line to negotiate, and any institution will at times wish to promote work that is confronting and on the edge.

See my comments above about Mohammed and the Quran. Don't see much activity in the Australian Art community about pushing works that are “confronting” and “on the edge” there.

It is about balancing good judgment with the courage to confront things that are difficult and new.

One might ask, where is the good judgement here? And what exactly is difficult about NOT exhibiting naked children??

I have been asked if there are limits to what the NGV would exhibit.

My response is "yes".

Occasionally I see works of art that I know I would never put on display at the NGV, and others that would require a clear warning that they might cause offence.

See my comments about Mohammed and the Quran. I would bet that such art work fall into this category, o brave, brave Dr GV.

These cases are not exclusively about sex and sexuality, but might also cover the depiction of violence, or views on blasphemy.

Blasphemy? Really? Don't remember the NGV having much difficulty or a crisis of conscience when displaying Andre Serrano's Pisschrist. I suspect that some members in the community might have thought that was a little blasphemous...

It is all about finding a balance in supporting freedom of expression within the limits of accepted community values.

“accepted community values”, like say, not publishing pictures of naked children?

The NGV as an institution has stood up for Bill Henson, one of Australia's most respected artists and one of the very few Australian artists with a strong international reputation and following.

Dr GV and his NGV are ever so brave.

Our council president, Allan Myers, QC, has also been vocal on these issues, defending the right of the artist, and the artist's public, to freedom of expression.

He warned against ill-judged reactions that in any way reduce the freedoms we expect and have fought for in a sophisticated civic society.

At a time when public galleries were being intimidated into removing works by Bill Henson, the NGV significantly increased its public display of his work, due to the high level of public interest.

Braveheart brave.

In the case of Bill Henson, his photographic work is clearly art and not pornography, as none of the pre-requisites for pornography is met.

Well that's a philosophical debate to which we are trying to find a resolution. And a cultural relativist like Dr GV should be familiar with the saying “Pornography is in the eye of the beholder”

But equally, some very great art was clearly produced as pornography, although in the refined world of art history and museums and galleries it is more readily referred to as erotica; and of course not all erotica, no matter how explicit, is pornography.

Most of this art, however, belongs to the past, as modern pornography belongs firstly to the world of commercial publishing through photography and film.

The fact that Henson and Papapetrou use photography as their medium of expression is of course a key reason for the disquiet expressed by some, who do not distinguish between the artist's/photographer's depiction of a nude child - in the tradition of so much of the great art of the past - and perverse child pornography in the same medium.

Could you be more of an elitist git?!?! Translation: I/We the artistic community will decide what pictures of naked children are Art, and you plebs will accept this without question, and not get confused with other pictures of naked children that may be pornography. Remember we are the guardians of "the tradition of so much of the great art of the past" which somehow includes photographic depictions of naked children.

From my perspective as a museum director, it all comes down to context, and to understanding the artist's intention, and for society to be able freely to debate the demarcation line between art and pornography.

I think you'll find that any context involving pictures of naked children is likely to be misconstrued, regardless of the intention of the artist, model, or fuzzy thinking museum director. And it might be wise to err on the side of caution and not cry censorship, instead of publishing yet more provocative pictures to score political points, and making paedophiles across the world happy.

A museum of art should always seek to respect and defend the artist's right to freedom of expression.
Dr Gerard Vaughan is director of the National Gallery of Victoria