People sometimes view humour like sex, in that the moment it touches something, it corrupts it entirely and therefore there are things that must be protected from humour at all costs. There are, they say, places where humour does not and cannot belong. Certainly humour is dangerous. It reacts to the serious explosively and destructively and that can undermine important issues. But it doesn't have to do so. Humour can enlighten, enrichen and embolden the serious and the critical, raise the level of debate, evince truth, encourage nobility and demand attention.
So it is that while some cry out that Steven Colbert testifying to congress about the conditions of migrant farm workers is a mockery, I say it is awesome. Especially when he drops character slightly and, in his less-intoned voice, speaks from the heart.
CONGRESSWOMAN JUDY CHU: Mr. Colbert, you could work on so many issues, why are you interested in this issue?
COLBERT: I like talking about people who don't have any power. And this seems like some of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers who come and do our work but don't have any rights as a result. And yet we still invite them to come here, and at the same time ask them to leave. And, you know, whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers, these seem like the least of our brothers, right now. And I know that a lot of people are the least of my brothers because the economy is so hard, and I don't want to take anyone's hardship away from them or diminish it or anything like that, but migrant workers suffer, and they have no rights."
With his comic spoonful of sugar, Colbert sneaks into the public consciousness, then shoots, scores and buries it to the bone.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Screaming in Crowds
One of my many day jobs is acting as a tour guide on horror and crime themed tours of my fair city. One of our tours, the Bloody Brisbane trail, talks about a particularly grisly murder. At around 4pm in a business office in Albert Street, in the centre of the city, a man discovered his secretary was moving to a new job, where he would no longer be able to pressure her into meeting his sexual demands. In a rage, he beat her savagely, tore off her clothes, raped her and then murdered her by throwing cleaning fluid in her face.
What was noted both then and now about the crime was that, according to witnesses, her screams were heard right across the busy CBD (then both a residential and working environment), up to a mile away. And when he'd finished, her killed walked out of the building covered in blood, with one of his fingers half bitten off from her struggles.
The suggestion made by the tour script is that most people are generally good natured. If you walk up to them and ask them for help, they will generally help. But they also assume, as part of their good nature, that someone else will help out of their good nature. Particularly in a big city. And most importantly, the more terrible the crisis, the more we assume someone else will help. Surely somebody is running to investigate that blood-curdling death scream?
The classic Milgram experiment found much the same thing. Yes, people kept pressing the button, sending shocks to the "victim", when ordered. What isn't usually mentioned however is that almost everyone who did so alerted the person giving the orders to their concerns and asked about the safety of the target. However, once they were assured that the survey organisers would take full responsibility and knew about the situation, they would continue pushing the button. Having cried "fire", they felt they had done their job. And indeed, we're told that that is the primary part of our duty - to alert people to the situation. As a child, we're told to tell a teacher or a parent or a policeman.
Of course, we're not usually told that this may do no good, and we have to keep telling until something is done.
The tour script concludes by suggesting that if ever you are in trouble, don't scream for help. Point to somebody or walk up to them and say "I need YOUR help". And if you see someone in trouble, help them or failing that, engage somebody else personally, by saying "THAT person needs YOUR help".
Where am I going with this? I'm going to politics, of course. We all like to believe that awareness is enough. That's the purpose of this blog, after all, to raise awareness (and vent hate, too, which is fun but ultimately masturbatory). That's also why we march in protest and write letters and call journalists. Once its in the paper, surely people will care? Once the crimes are known, surely they will stop? All it takes is awareness - if only the world knew, it would be okay. If only the media reported it more. If only the community understood the depths of depravity to which we have sunk. Then it would stop.
Except it doesn't. And we end up having newspapers reporting that it is the government's policy NOT TO REMOVE SHRAPNEL FROM CHILDREN because it costs money and hey, they're just worthless towelheads. And it's in the newspaper so surely something will be done? But no, it's like the blood-curdling scream - it's so incredibly horrible we assume even more it will be stopped (or we try even harder to assume it can't be that bad). And so it is never stopped and it only gets worse.
And the truth is, I don't know what the solution is. Yes, we can write to our MPs - point to them and say this is YOUR problem, fix it. But they too exist in a system where other people assure them the issue is being fixed. If enough of the public demand something is done, the government may act if they fear losing votes, but the democratic system rewards inaction and at the very best, change in teeny tiny increments. But even then, getting the public engaged at that level is terribly hard because things are so bad. We look at the Gordian knot and walk away.
Excuse me, I'm going to go read Watchmen again. Or chain myself to government house. Maybe both.
What was noted both then and now about the crime was that, according to witnesses, her screams were heard right across the busy CBD (then both a residential and working environment), up to a mile away. And when he'd finished, her killed walked out of the building covered in blood, with one of his fingers half bitten off from her struggles.
The suggestion made by the tour script is that most people are generally good natured. If you walk up to them and ask them for help, they will generally help. But they also assume, as part of their good nature, that someone else will help out of their good nature. Particularly in a big city. And most importantly, the more terrible the crisis, the more we assume someone else will help. Surely somebody is running to investigate that blood-curdling death scream?
The classic Milgram experiment found much the same thing. Yes, people kept pressing the button, sending shocks to the "victim", when ordered. What isn't usually mentioned however is that almost everyone who did so alerted the person giving the orders to their concerns and asked about the safety of the target. However, once they were assured that the survey organisers would take full responsibility and knew about the situation, they would continue pushing the button. Having cried "fire", they felt they had done their job. And indeed, we're told that that is the primary part of our duty - to alert people to the situation. As a child, we're told to tell a teacher or a parent or a policeman.
Of course, we're not usually told that this may do no good, and we have to keep telling until something is done.
The tour script concludes by suggesting that if ever you are in trouble, don't scream for help. Point to somebody or walk up to them and say "I need YOUR help". And if you see someone in trouble, help them or failing that, engage somebody else personally, by saying "THAT person needs YOUR help".
Where am I going with this? I'm going to politics, of course. We all like to believe that awareness is enough. That's the purpose of this blog, after all, to raise awareness (and vent hate, too, which is fun but ultimately masturbatory). That's also why we march in protest and write letters and call journalists. Once its in the paper, surely people will care? Once the crimes are known, surely they will stop? All it takes is awareness - if only the world knew, it would be okay. If only the media reported it more. If only the community understood the depths of depravity to which we have sunk. Then it would stop.
Except it doesn't. And we end up having newspapers reporting that it is the government's policy NOT TO REMOVE SHRAPNEL FROM CHILDREN because it costs money and hey, they're just worthless towelheads. And it's in the newspaper so surely something will be done? But no, it's like the blood-curdling scream - it's so incredibly horrible we assume even more it will be stopped (or we try even harder to assume it can't be that bad). And so it is never stopped and it only gets worse.
And the truth is, I don't know what the solution is. Yes, we can write to our MPs - point to them and say this is YOUR problem, fix it. But they too exist in a system where other people assure them the issue is being fixed. If enough of the public demand something is done, the government may act if they fear losing votes, but the democratic system rewards inaction and at the very best, change in teeny tiny increments. But even then, getting the public engaged at that level is terribly hard because things are so bad. We look at the Gordian knot and walk away.
Excuse me, I'm going to go read Watchmen again. Or chain myself to government house. Maybe both.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Oh, and also...
Burning of Koran rumours spread by Taliban lead to Australian troops being put in greatly increased danger.
I'm really not making this shit up. Racism KILLS PEOPLE.
I'm really not making this shit up. Racism KILLS PEOPLE.
Suicide in detention centre
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen says that despite pressure on the detention centres, they are "coping".
Except that yesterday a man was flagged as being suicidal, and nothing was done. When he climbed onto the roof this morning, nobody with any suicide training was called, resulting in people doing REALLY STUPID THINGS that didn't help. Not surprisingly, the desperate man jumped to his death.
Now the protest on the roof of the Villawood centre is going through the night.
This coming a few days after it was revealed that child sex abuse is happening in a WA centre.
No, Mr Bowen, the centres aren't coping. The centres are FAILING. The centres are cesspools of abuse, violence, sickness, despair and terrible management. Stop them right the fuck now before more of this happens.
Except that yesterday a man was flagged as being suicidal, and nothing was done. When he climbed onto the roof this morning, nobody with any suicide training was called, resulting in people doing REALLY STUPID THINGS that didn't help. Not surprisingly, the desperate man jumped to his death.
Now the protest on the roof of the Villawood centre is going through the night.
This coming a few days after it was revealed that child sex abuse is happening in a WA centre.
No, Mr Bowen, the centres aren't coping. The centres are FAILING. The centres are cesspools of abuse, violence, sickness, despair and terrible management. Stop them right the fuck now before more of this happens.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Pacific Solution Back Again
You know, when we wanted the politicans to close the camps, we didn't mean close most of them so the other ones are filled to bursting. Because that would be stupid. Or evil.
But they did it anyway, and now they're too full so we need more in East Timor.
Dear Ms Gillard: Bite my shiny metal ass.
But they did it anyway, and now they're too full so we need more in East Timor.
Dear Ms Gillard: Bite my shiny metal ass.
Why Conservatives Are Just Plain Bad People
The talk is here, but I'll summarise:
Basically the idea is trying to understand what divides liberal and conservative mindsets by breaking down our central moral values. The speaker, Jonathan Haidt, first posits that the idea of the human mind as a blank slate is completely false, and science tends to agree. He then says that his work looked to establish the things humans care about from birth. The things we are hard-coded from the moment of birth to believe in as important enough to load with a sense of right or wrong. They worked out a big five:
- Avoiding harm and caring for the weak
- That things should be fair and equitable (aka the duckfeeding rule, because every kid knows that that duck at the back hasn't had any yet)
- tribalism and groups in general are awesome things, giving us rejuvenation and strength in lots of ways
- authority is important and needs to be inherently respected
- there are things which are pure and things which are dirty (in various senses), and being pure is better.
Obviously, there are lots of good evolutionary reasons to have these thoughts. Then they did lots of tests in various ways to see which of the five people cared about more. Generally, everyone mostly cares about the same about Harm and Fairness, but liberals put little value on group membership, authority and purity, whereas conservatives, since they tend to like the familiar, value those things quite highly.
His overall point is that to bridge the divide between the two mindsets and work towards understanding (because we're stuck with conservatives, dammit, and hey, maybe they were born that way) is to understand that the five things may be equally valuable. That certainly we need purity, authority and groups to achieve great things. We know that total anarchy never works, that people need an encoded system of belonging, justice and right ways to do things to feel safe and act purposefully and hopefully. Lots of studies have confirmed this.
The fun bit is you can join this research and go to www.yourmorals.com and find out which ones you care about. Unsurprisingly, I am big on harm and don't give a damn about purity or authority...but that's partly because their examples of purity tend to be very culturally fixed. As a liberal (and a person who likes the new and the open) I would no doubt say this but I think in general the idea is flawed that these five things ARE worth caring about equally, or without great care, simply because we start with them encoded in us. Because the last three are the ideas that become dangerous incredibly quickly, and completely ruin the first two. (For examples, see Zimbardo himself talking about his Stanford Prison Experiment and Mr Milgram in another awesome TED talk here)
Good for understanding though, and lots of other good tests on that website (you must refister though, so they get good data). The OCEAN test is interesting, basically another Myers Briggs with slightly different categories - Openness (to new experiences, ie liberal vs conservative), Conscientious (planning, self control, ie a kind of purity), Extroversion, Agreeableness (going with the group) and Neuroses (do you worry). I'm a OceAN, of course.
Which prompts the question: do I just dislike purity and authority because I suck at them, or vice versa?
Basically the idea is trying to understand what divides liberal and conservative mindsets by breaking down our central moral values. The speaker, Jonathan Haidt, first posits that the idea of the human mind as a blank slate is completely false, and science tends to agree. He then says that his work looked to establish the things humans care about from birth. The things we are hard-coded from the moment of birth to believe in as important enough to load with a sense of right or wrong. They worked out a big five:
- Avoiding harm and caring for the weak
- That things should be fair and equitable (aka the duckfeeding rule, because every kid knows that that duck at the back hasn't had any yet)
- tribalism and groups in general are awesome things, giving us rejuvenation and strength in lots of ways
- authority is important and needs to be inherently respected
- there are things which are pure and things which are dirty (in various senses), and being pure is better.
Obviously, there are lots of good evolutionary reasons to have these thoughts. Then they did lots of tests in various ways to see which of the five people cared about more. Generally, everyone mostly cares about the same about Harm and Fairness, but liberals put little value on group membership, authority and purity, whereas conservatives, since they tend to like the familiar, value those things quite highly.
His overall point is that to bridge the divide between the two mindsets and work towards understanding (because we're stuck with conservatives, dammit, and hey, maybe they were born that way) is to understand that the five things may be equally valuable. That certainly we need purity, authority and groups to achieve great things. We know that total anarchy never works, that people need an encoded system of belonging, justice and right ways to do things to feel safe and act purposefully and hopefully. Lots of studies have confirmed this.
The fun bit is you can join this research and go to www.yourmorals.com and find out which ones you care about. Unsurprisingly, I am big on harm and don't give a damn about purity or authority...but that's partly because their examples of purity tend to be very culturally fixed. As a liberal (and a person who likes the new and the open) I would no doubt say this but I think in general the idea is flawed that these five things ARE worth caring about equally, or without great care, simply because we start with them encoded in us. Because the last three are the ideas that become dangerous incredibly quickly, and completely ruin the first two. (For examples, see Zimbardo himself talking about his Stanford Prison Experiment and Mr Milgram in another awesome TED talk here)
Good for understanding though, and lots of other good tests on that website (you must refister though, so they get good data). The OCEAN test is interesting, basically another Myers Briggs with slightly different categories - Openness (to new experiences, ie liberal vs conservative), Conscientious (planning, self control, ie a kind of purity), Extroversion, Agreeableness (going with the group) and Neuroses (do you worry). I'm a OceAN, of course.
Which prompts the question: do I just dislike purity and authority because I suck at them, or vice versa?
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Also, this man has balls of steel
Imam goes to talk to Jones face to face, looking for understanding. This makes Chuck Norris look like a total pussy.
When everybody is disavowing, maybe you should reconsider your POV...
Pastor Terry "Happy to Endanger American Soldiers" Jones has been disavowed by his own townsfolk and community. Of course, he's also been disavowed by religious groups, protesters around the world, news journalists and the head of the US forces in Afghanistan has told him to shut up, the President has told him to shut up and Secretary of Defence has called him at home to tell him to SHUT THE FUCK UP.
But you know, I'm sure he knows best.
But you know, I'm sure he knows best.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Our message is very clear
"When we fly planes into the Twin Towers, our message is very clear. It is not to the moderate Americans. It is not a message of hate. Our message is a message of warning to the radical American and I think we see right now around the globe provides exactly what we're talking about."
Or maybe we should stop spelling things out with fire.
Or maybe we should stop spelling things out with fire.
Wait a minute, your ideas are SILLY!
CNN interviewer points out to Terry Jones that he's being a BIG SILLY (and has blood on his hands) when he claims that burning the Koran is just a way to say no to radical Muslims and that moderate Muslims should be for them. Your grasp of semiotics is shithouse, Jones. Or maybe...you're just a racist fuck.
I mean, this is from the interview:
Pastor who wants to burn the Koran on 9-11:
"Our message is very clear," he said. "It is not to the moderate Muslim. Our message is not a message of hate. Our message is a message of warning to the radical element of Islam, and I think what we see right now around the globe provides exactly what we're talking about," he said.
And this is from your website, "Islam is of the Devil"
Pastor who wants to burn the Koran on 9-11:
"Any religion which would profess anything other than this truth is of the devil. This is why we also take a stand against Islam, which teaches that Jesus is not the Son of God, therefore taking away the saving power of Jesus Christ and leading people straight to Hell," the site says.
Also note that he begins his spiel by saying he's honouring the 9-11 dead. If you're gonna get your hate-erection on, please don't do it on the graves of the innocent.
I mean, this is from the interview:
Pastor who wants to burn the Koran on 9-11:
"Our message is very clear," he said. "It is not to the moderate Muslim. Our message is not a message of hate. Our message is a message of warning to the radical element of Islam, and I think what we see right now around the globe provides exactly what we're talking about," he said.
And this is from your website, "Islam is of the Devil"
Pastor who wants to burn the Koran on 9-11:
"Any religion which would profess anything other than this truth is of the devil. This is why we also take a stand against Islam, which teaches that Jesus is not the Son of God, therefore taking away the saving power of Jesus Christ and leading people straight to Hell," the site says.
Also note that he begins his spiel by saying he's honouring the 9-11 dead. If you're gonna get your hate-erection on, please don't do it on the graves of the innocent.
Giving comfort and support to the enemy
Newsweek reports that the protests against the Not Near Ground Zero Not Mosque is helping Taliban recruiters up their numbers.
And General Petraeus himself has reminded the lunatics planning their "Burn the Koran Day" that they are endangering the lives of American soldiers.
Again, I say: do you think we're against racism because we like the hippy wardrobe and the marching gives us fresh air? You think I'm out there on the streets with a sign because I like joining things? You think I wouldn't rather be home watching cartoons? We protest because LIVES ARE AT STAKE HERE. We're trying to reduce the rate of murder. The day you stop pointing guns at the undeserving and the innocent is the day I can fucking stay home and watch cartoons.
And that, really, is why I'm so pissed off. I WANT MY FUCKING CARTOONS BACK, but no, you had to go all kill-happy with your torture-boners.
And General Petraeus himself has reminded the lunatics planning their "Burn the Koran Day" that they are endangering the lives of American soldiers.
Again, I say: do you think we're against racism because we like the hippy wardrobe and the marching gives us fresh air? You think I'm out there on the streets with a sign because I like joining things? You think I wouldn't rather be home watching cartoons? We protest because LIVES ARE AT STAKE HERE. We're trying to reduce the rate of murder. The day you stop pointing guns at the undeserving and the innocent is the day I can fucking stay home and watch cartoons.
And that, really, is why I'm so pissed off. I WANT MY FUCKING CARTOONS BACK, but no, you had to go all kill-happy with your torture-boners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)