I winced and my eyes watered when I read this.





Technorati Tags: penis transplant

Why is it that Muslims take offence so easily at anyone making even the slightest criticism of their religion? Are they very insecure about the legitimacy of their beliefs, or something? This week they have been angry at the Pope, who made some comments in a lecture to some theologians in his native Germany. The comments referred to criticism of the Prophet Mohammad by 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who said everything Mohammad brought was evil “such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”.

According to the Vatican, the Pope’s remarks have been misconstrued by those taking offence. The academic speech was meant as a “a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come,” said Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s Secretary of State.

While the reactions have been modest compared to the beserk responses to the cartoons earlier in the year, among other things:

• Morocco withdrew its Ambassador to the Vatican
• an Egyptian political leader called the Pope’s remarks a mistake which would only be removed by a personal apology
• Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan called the comments “ugly and offensive” and said they should be withdrawn
• Yemen’s president publicly denounced the Pope
• 5 churches in the West Bank were attacked (this is more like we come to expect)
• Egypt’s foreign ministry summoned the Vatican envoy to Cairo to express “extreme regret” at Benedict’s speech.

No fatwas declared so far ….that we know of!

The Vatican said on Saturday the Pope was sorry Muslims had been offended and that his comments had been misconstrued, but Muslim countries and religious groups remained angry at what they said portrayed Islam as a religion tainted with violence. (Perhaps its the crazy jihadists carrying out barbaric acts in the name of Islam, and the crazed violent responses to being accused of violence that actually give Islam its PR problems?)

This is the comment that really made me laugh:

“How can (the Pope) imply that Muslims are the creators of terrorism in the world while it is the followers of Christianity who have been aggressive against every country of the Islamic world?” prominent Saudi cleric Salman al-Odeh said. “Who attacked Afghanistan and who invaded Iraq?”

Ummm … I’ll grant you the invasion of Iraq was pretty dodgy, but Afghanistan - even the most fanatical Islamist could hardly claim the Taliban were innocent of wrongdoing (harbouring Al Quaeda and its training camps) and did not deserve what they got.

I always thought that religious faith is supposed to bring with it inner calm and things like that. On the evidence we see of the behaviour of many Muslims, it doesn’t seem to be hitting the spot for them.

Update (18/09/2006): More reasoned and non-violent responses from those offended by the linking of Islam and violence.

Technorati Tags: Pope Benedict, Catholic Church, Vatican, Muslim, Islam, Mohammad, jihad, protests, violence, faith, religion

Naomi Robson, host of Today Tonight, and lizard woman extraordinaire, has been detained by Indonesian authorities after attempting to enter Irian Jaya today. She and her crew are expected to be deported and possibly blacklisted from entering Indonesia ever again.

Clearly the Indonesian criminal code has a crime we could do well to adopt here in Australia - making a crap TV show. No doubts that Today Tonight scrapes the bottom of the barrell for crappiness.

Update (16/09/2006) - The shit fight between Channels 9 and 7 over this story is hilarious. Like two steaming turds circling each other. No need for a parody like “Frontline” - “A Current Affair” and “Today Tonight” could not be parodied any better than the joke they make of themselves.

Technorati Tags: Naomi Robson, Indonesia, Irian Jaya, Papua, deportation, lizard, Steve Irwin

According to John Howard, Iraq is a better place today than it was under the regime of Saddam Hussein. He said:

“I have no doubt the future for the Iraqi people is better now that Saddam has gone.”

The future maybe, but I think many Iraqis would question the applicability of that assessment to the here and now. Saddam - systematic brutality, vs today - random insurgency murderers. Great choice! The future is more than likely better than under Saddam, and probably the murderous thug Uday as his successor, but the Iraqi people must be completely mystified by how long the current state of near-anarchy will last, and what is the plan for the future.

Technorati Tags: Iraq, Saddam Hussein

Both John Howard and Kim Beazley have raised the question of “Australian values” lately. In particular in the context of immigrants to Australia having them. What exactly are these “Australian values”? Are they John Howard’s values, Kim Beazley’s values, my values or some mysterious set of values that have evolved from thin air and which we are all expected to have?

Kim Beazley has suggested Australian visa forms could include a statement of Australian values so all people arriving in the country would understand what was expected of them. John Howard has not dismissed this suggestion, but it has been rubbished by some, such as the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria as well as a number of Labor MP’s.

The sort of values suggested include democracy, respect for women and mateship.

Most of the recent debate around “Australian values” has been in the context of certain ethnic or religious groups not living by them, and not integrating into Australian society. Muslims in particular have been targeted, most likely without much justification, but because bearded men and women in headscarves stand out, and because of the “Muslim = terrorist” hysteria that has been whipped up.

I think its a reasonable expectation that people who come to live in Australia should endeavour to participate actively in our society, rather than live entirely within an enclave where they seek to recreate the society they came from. In particular, participation in Australia needs people to actively learn English - its pretty hard to work, be educated, participate in commerce or leisure activities without it. And I think people should accept Australian institutions, at least passively, and not seek to actively undermine them or replace them with substitutes from their previous countries. Beyond that, pursuit of your religion, cultural practices (within reason, ie things like female circumcision, infanticide against female babies, human and animal sacrifices etc, are unacceptable in any way, shape or form, etc is fine. What I really object to is people coming here and seeking to continue their ages old hatreds against other ethnic or religious groups - this really ought to be left behind in the dark ages in their old country, and if they can’t let go of it, they should stay there. Doesn’t matter if its Arab vs Jew, Sunni vs Shi’a, Serb vs Croat, Catholic vs Protestant, Redneck vs Negro … it doesn’t belong here. Same for people who come here and support violent jihad - piss off. Same for Christian conservative wackos who want their beliefs to govern how everyone else lives - fuck off.

Now back to these Australian values. What about values like going on a pub crawl and getting maggoted, going to the footy and abusing the referee/umpire, and the like.

Technorati Tags: Australian values, democracy, respect for women, mateship, racial hatred, jihad, Muslims, immigration

= 5.8181818181818181818181818181818.

Today marks 5 years since the terrible attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon on September 11, 2001. It just doesn’t seem that long … I remember how the events unfolded that night like they were much more recent than 5 years. The initial reports on the late news just before I was going to bed, that a plane had crashed into the WTC, then as soon as the 2nd plane hit the other tower, it was obvious that this was no accident, but a terrorist attack. Then came the attack on the Pentagon, and right through this time was much fear and speculation … were there any more targets? I think I finally got to bed around 4 am, and at work the next day was one of many tired people.

Nearly 3,000 people died in that evil act. Hopefully there will never be a repeat. Those that committed it are/were evil lunatics, and they and their ilk deserve to be eradicated from the face of the earth. To the 3,000 who died, and their families and friends, commisserations.

I had intended to be in New York this week, but my meeting has been deferred a few weeks - looks like early next month now.

Technorati Tags: 9/11, World Trade Center, New York, Pentagon, terrorism

According to a documentary on ABC TV last night, the mysterious deaths of Gilbert Bogle and Margaret Chandler, on New Year’s Eve 1963, may not have been murder after all. The theory posed in the show was that they died of hydrogen sulphide poisoning. I didn’t see the show, so I’m going from what has been said in the papers. Apparently Bogle and Chandler, went down to the riverbank beside the Lane Cove River in Sydney, for a root, and chose a hollow where unfortunately for them, a high concentration of hydrogen sulphide gas had gathered, having escaped from a sewerage overflow vent into the river. Rather than being overcome by lust, the gas quickly overcame them, and they died where they lay.



Now I have a problem with this theory - hydrogen sulphide is not known as “rotten egg” gas for no reason …it stinks. You’d have to be very horny to miss the fact that you’d just walked into a very toxic fart cloud.



Maybe the mystery is not solved after all though. Police say they’d discounted the theory back in 1971.



Next mystery to be solved on TV - the Beaumont children?





Technorati Tags: Bogle-Chandler murders, Gilbert Bogle, Margaret Chandler, unsolved murders, hydrogen sulphide, Beaumont children

What a surprise? One thing that both sides of Federal politics can agree easily on is to increase their remuneration, in this case specifically, superannuation.



This is justified on the basis that parliamentarians need to be properly remunerated if high quality candidates are to be attracted to a career in politics. The argument is that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Problem is by paying more, all that ends up happening most of the time is that the same monkeys end up being paid more. Sure some of the politicians could no doubt score better paying jobs - but I’d bet that a majority of them would battle to get anything like what they get from their parliamentary salaries. How many faithful party hacks are going to be in demand for private sector jobs paying over say $80k? Or to put it another way. how many current politicians would quit if they had to take a $20k pay cut? I think the answer would be maybe a handful. People don’t go into politics for the money, nor for job security - most would do it regardless of the pay and conditions.



The decision announced today is to increase the employer superannuation contribution to politicians elected since 2004 from 9% to 15% of salary (remember that in the leadup to the last election the government caved into Mark Latham’s populism and reduced the entitlement for future members). Pre-2004 members get a lifetime pension, indexed for inflation, once they have served more than 7 years in Parliament. Whats more they get it from when they leave politics, not from normal retirement age of 55 or so (except for those elected after the 2001 election who do have to wait) …so you get examples like Mark Latham getting $80k per year for life from his early 40’s - bloody nice if you can get it! The proposed 15% is equivalent to the contributions made for federal public servants - it is 2/3 higher than the general community standard which is 9%. Now 15% is not exactly unreasonable, but if the politicians and public servants get it, why not extend it to the whole workforce? And why not put all politicians on a 15% contribution, not just the new ones? The current scheme is exceedingly generous. Or to look at it another way, why not pay 9% and expect the employee/politician to top it up to 15%, which seems to be considered as about the amount of your income you need to put into superannuation to have a reasonable retirement? Why should your retirement savings be fully funded by your employer - surely people should be taking some responsibility for their own savings and contributing from their salary?



Politicians seem to look at the salaries of CEO’s and senior managers in the private sector as a comparator for their worth. As I’ve indicated above, there would be a handful of them who could honestly claim that they’d be worth that on the open market. Peter Hartcher in the SMH today compares the backbencher base salary of $118k with the average full time adult wage of $56k. Thats a tad disingenuous, because parliamentarians get a lot more by way of perks than your typical wage earner, for example very generous superannuation (most of them anyway), with the employer contribution to parliamentary superannuation calculated actuarilly at 67.6%. which represents another $80k, plus an electorate allowance of around $30k which is essentially a non-accountable slush fund, plus travel entitlements, generous support staff allocations, etc, etc - at a minimum they’d be on $200k packages, probably getting up around $250k. (This is quite a good summary of parliamentarians’ remuneration).



As for the argument that not paying enough might encourage corruption, thats just a comment on the morality of politicians. Its an extremely spurious argument. Those with a tendency to corruption are going to be corrupt irrespective of whether they are paid $100k or $500k - its a character flaw, not an economic response.





Technorati Tags: parliamentary salaries, superannuation

OK, so there’s now photographic evidence that Suri Cruise (Holmes) exists, after several months of speculation. Of course, it could all be an elaborate photoshop scam, I suppose.

Next question - is she really Tom and Katie’s? I suspect they’ll need to release a DNA test conducted by an independent laboratory to quash that speculation, assuming they care what the cynics among us think.

PS: I find it hard to believe that such a nice baby was responsible for this.

Technorati Tags: Suri Cruise, Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, Vanity Fair, photos

Given that video footage exists of the death of Steve Irwin, I wonder what our media outlets would do if they managed to get hold of it? Show it, or not?

The Sydney Morning Herald has a poll on its site asking whether the footage should be shown - don’t know how people are voting as the link gives me an error message. I’d hope most people have the decency not to want to see it - but that may be too high an expectation.

Update (06/09/2006) - discussion of this very subject in the SMH today.

Update (07/09/2006: - todays Crikey! has a rumour that Channel 10 contacted the SES in Tasmania on Tuesday, to see if they could fly them out to the site of his wife Terri to be the first ones there so they could film her reaction to the news of her husband’s death. The pilot of the helicopter told Channel Ten he would rather quit than fly them out there to film that. Good on him!!!

Technorati Tags: Steve Irwin, Crocodile Hunter, death video