No you can’t have pie

The first was in the SMH on the 14th February 2011:

Hrmm.. Notice anything funny with the percentages and pie chart at top.

That’s a funny 52%.. It must be how politicians view most things: majority in favour but treated like a minority during policy making decisions.

Flood is what now? God speech?

The next flood related paper item was this doozy in the conservative opinion journal broadsheet paper The Australian (16th Feb 2011):

Oh, that's why we had a flood. I thought it was just weather.

If that’s how God speaks it explains the smell of the flood waters.

Follow up item
Funny how in the previous post: Trust me, I’m the chaplain I had Danny Allen imply that only people trolling Christians would make such assertions:

In reply to your first little witty caption — did you even bother to click through to Gavin Hudson’s profile? I’m guessing not, otherwise you would have seen that he’s not a chaplain, or even a chaplaincy supporter. He’s an atheist and, like you, is just trolling the SU QLD page to post inflammatory comments.

So Danny, unless the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia puts ads in national newspapers to troll Christians: I think it was a fair comment and I shouldn’t be expected to try and pick out trolling from other Christian commentators because, as comedians like Stephen Colbert prove: it’s almost impossible to tell them apart.

From the guys at PhDComics

And I guess just typical journalist misquoting:

The curse of headlines.

Now you might think that the media would just ignore what an individual with no significant public standing might spout on youtube. Nope: the goal was to manufacture outrage by doing a bit of a ring around to firstly the police, then the guy’s work, then the professional group for his job title then the usual suspects of a priest and Muslim leader (who have devoted their lives to peddling misinformation and fibs as gospel truth).

Now the only one that mattered was the police: and they told the paper to politely get stuffed as there was no crime committed (this is a modern, secular democracy, not a dictatorship enforcing bronze age supernatural dictatorships). That really should have been end of story. If we’re going to ask religious leaders who put ordaining women priests in the same category of crime as paedophile priests or who blame rape victims as asking to be raped because they refuse to dress up in what Professor Richard Dawkins referred to as a “bin liner”.

I have absolutely no idea what Dawkins was getting at!

Anyone asking these twits what they think about anything is quite often going to get a load of rubbish. It’s like asking the pope (an elderly virgin who wears frocks) for sex advice.

So in light of all this: I’d like to put forward the idea that religions don’t have rights, only people have rights. Ideas don’t get to claim rights or make demands of people to not offend or question those ideas.

Suddenly the idea morphs into unquestionable religious idea.

Humanity had a very hard time making what limited progress it has made with respect to science triumphing over whatever some desert dwelling possibly mentally ill prophets have said happened. World not flat: blasphemy! Slavery not fair? Blasphemy! Sun not orbiting Earth? Blasphemy! Only trouble is that back then questioning what was written in those books meant you got tortured and killed. Still does in many places in the world sadly.

So I think Alex quite accurately said:

“It’s just a f—ing book,” he says.

“Who cares? It’s your beliefs that matter. Quite frankly, if you are going to get upset about a book, you’re taking life way too seriously.”

But it seems we have at least two organisations (his work and his professional organisation, both which should be defending him against such blatant blasphemy driven censoring efforts.

Letter to Chancellery at QUT
Showing how not to be a secular, sensible organisation: QUT.

To the Chancellery,

I was just wondering why you have taken the extraordinary step of placing on leave one of your staff exercising their free speech and freedom FROM religion? It appears the vice-chancellor hasn’t made the effort to stand up for their employee or our freedom of religion anti-discrimination laws, but hopefully someone will have some sense.

In an article in Brisbane times today:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-atheist-burns-koran-and-bible-20100913-157ao.html

QUT Vice-Chancellor Peter Coaldrake moved to distance the university from its employee.

‘‘QUT does not condone the destruction of any religious artifacts. This was a personal view and action expressed in the person’s own time,’’ Professor Coaldrake said.

‘‘[Mr Stewart] does not associate himself with QUT in the clip.

‘‘QUT is tolerant of all religions and welcomes staff and students from many countries to our university and regularly celebrates their cultures and religions.

Your opinion should have been that a member of your staff was acting within the law and within the realm of his freedom of religion that you have no position on the matter. If you’re going to shuffle people off for distasteful beliefs: can I suggest you exclude anyone holding Christian or Islamic beliefs as a priority over someone demanding rational/proof for their beliefs.

That you seem to regard blasphemy as a matter worthy of condemnation and forcing them to take leave is pretty poor. I would have hoped freedom FROM religion would rate more highly in the grand scheme of things in an educational institution in our secular democracy.

Would you care to comment on the content of the books in question as to whether you approve of their message (since you seem to be delving into matters well outside the scope of your duties). In particular:

• Qur’an 4:34 sanctions domestic violence (“beating”) for disobedient women. Do you have a position on this? I might direct you to the various campaigns in Australia (such as the “Australia says no”) which indicate a strong government/legal preference towards eliminating domestic violence.
• Scattered throughout the Qur’an and bible are references to slavery (“that which your right hand possesses”): do you have a position on slavery? I couldn’t find one on your website.. perhaps I assumed that like in any modern society: the position would be condemnation of any text which advocates such a horrible concept.
• Bible (and Qur’an) puts forward the concept of blood sacrifice (Isaac/Abraham), genocide (various times by an authoritarian dictator figure “God”), infanticide (again a vengeful god kills all the first born children of an entire nation). Can I infer from your stance that you are supportive of the notion of killing children as a way to pay the debts of some small number of adults. Perhaps that is standard practice in the HR department of QUT?
• Incest appears in both books with a man (Lot) having sex with his two daughters (in the bible there’s alcohol involved, not in the Qur’an). Both books later refer to the incestuous father as a good and just man. What is QUT’s position on incest? Would you shuffle someone off on leave if they advocated a pro-incest stance? Or just those who light up a few pages containing pro-incest stories like the bible/qur’an?
• A complete intolerance for other religious viewpoints (including stories of murder/torture of those with different religion). If you’re not going to demand every Christian/Muslim take leave for their religious beliefs that Atheists or other religions are evil etc then you aren’t in a position to single out a person who does not have a religious viewpoint.

So could you please tell me what your stance on those items, as you seem mortified by the possibility that someone may have, in their own time, burnt pages containing those stories/concepts (which are by our modern, secular society’s standards: completely and utterly abhorrent).

I’d suggest that as blasphemy is not a crime under Australian law: you re-instate Mr Stewart to full duties and perhaps show some defence of the freedoms we enjoy in this country as a secular, democratic and civilised society (very far removed from that described in those two books Mr Stewart used as cigarette paper).

As it currently stands QUT is taking a pro-censorship, anti-freedom from religion viewpoint and discriminating directly on the grounds of a person’s religion (which is a violation of your duties under federal law I might add). If I was Mr Stewart I’d be considering my legal options as you are well out of line in your actions as an employer subject to the anti-discrimination laws.

Regards,
Nathan Lee

Yet another "put to death" lesson from the Bible.

So on to the other target for a letter! Now if only I were able to rustle up a mob with pitchforks, these protests would be a lot less intellectual and a lot more bloodbath-like.. Just like the more superstition run parts of the world do it.

Letter to Queensland Law Society

The other, quite similar letter to the society that decided to distance themselves from his actions and from our secular legal system it appears:

To the CEO Noela L’Estrange or other,

I was just wondering why you would be unsupportive of one of your members exercising free speech and freedom FROM religion?
In an article in Brisbane times today:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-atheist-burns-koran-and-bible-20100913-157ao.html

The Queensland Law Society condemned the clip but has not commented on Mr Stewart’s status as a registered lawyer.
“The Queensland Law Society does not support or condone Mr Stewart’s recent actions or views,” CEO Noela L’Estrange said.

Your opinion should have been that while ever a member of your profession was acting within the law and within the realm of his freedom of religion that you have no position on the matter.

That you seem to regard blasphemy as a matter worthy of condemnation is pretty poor.

Would you care to comment on the content of the books in question as to whether you approve of their message (since you seem to be delving into matters well outside the scope of your duties). In particular:

• Qur’an 4:34 sanctions domestic violence (“beating”) for disobedient women. Do you have a position on this? I might direct you to the various campaigns in Australia (such as the “Australia says no”) which indicate a strong government/legal preference towards eliminating domestic violence.
• Scattered throughout the Qur’an and bible are references to slavery (“that which your right hand possesses”): do you have a position on slavery? I couldn’t find one on your website.
• Bible (and Qur’an) puts forward the concept of blood sacrifice (Isaac/Abraham), genocide (various times by an authoritarian dictator figure “God”), infanticide (again a vengeful god kills all the first born children of an entire nation). Can I infer from your stance that you are supportive of the notion of killing children as a way to pay the debts of some small number of adults. It’s a little outside the legal system in this secular democracy, but..
• Incest appears in both books with a man (Lot) having sex with his two daughters (in the bible there’s alcohol involved, not in the Qur’an). Both books later refer to the incestuous father as a good and just man. What is the society’s view on incest?

So could you please tell me what your stance on those is, as you seem mortified by the possibility that someone may have, in their own time, burnt pages containing those stories/concepts which are by our modern, secular society’s standards: completely and utterly abhorrent.

Perhaps while considering answers to my questions you can refer to our democratic, secular legal system for inspiration for an appropriate response.

Regards,
Nathan Lee

Now you’d think that a group charged with looking after a bunch of legal types would be more interested in Earthly legal matters. Sadly no. This isn’t unique I might add: if you look at what happened to Rushdie. Instead of defenders of freedom, there were any number of people clamouring to defend the indefensible: a death threat which lead to him having to uproot his life and hide from the nutcases. The pope also joined in on that too, so the Catholic mob can share some of the blame for not standing up for freedom (continuing their clean record of campaigning against the rights of individuals over the rights of religion).

Excercising your rights may piss off ignorant barbarians. That they get offended while hiding behind the same rights offends me. Well, as much as I tend to get offended.

Atheist outrage?
Let’s look at what would happen if someone burnt a copy of say, “Origin of species” or “The god delusion”. Would there be rioting? Murders? Riot squats and burning buildings?

Atheist inspired crimes throughout history.

Nope. That’s because if you aren’t driven by superstition then a book is just a book and certainly not worth killing someone over. That the immediate thought from the muslim leader was to ask his brothers (I guess the sisters are all so nicely divinely repressed and subservient that they don’t rate a mention) to remain calm. At what point do we stop trying to overlook the ease at which vile acts, vile viewpoints etc can find a solid divine justification in these most horribly outdated books. Until they get a major overhaul to incorporate the advances in the last thousand or so years. The Qur’an and Bible could do with an upgrade to include such things as equality for women, freedom of religion, gays as people, democracy rather than authoritarian dictatorship (would have to be able to vote in God however), geological record of the universe, the elimination of blood debts, no stoning, no beatings, no death penalty.. free acceptance of the marvels of bacon!

Not quite cooked enough yet though.

Until then, if someone wants to buy a book: they can do what they please with it (like any other book).

I wouldn’t mind staging an atheist/science book burning just to show the twits how sane people handle books getting a BBQ. It isn’t like the books vanish in these days of e-readers and amazon.com stockpiles.

BUT, let’s assume someone else brings out a device like the iPad, but with a name that at least appears to have had a woman on the marketing panel and with ability to do more than just suck down overpriced useless apps.. well, here’s some ideas on how to present the magazine.
MartView
I’ll start with the one that’s not vapourware;this actually exists and has been around for some time.

But it isn’t really anything more than an e-book reader for magazines. That’s because it hasn’t got content that has been purpose built to take advantage of the interactive nature.
So that’s the base line. Let’s see what else there is out there.

Sports Illustrated
Aah, sports illustrated. I once had a girlfriend who kept a copy of the swimsuit edition handy under the bed (beats Cleo or Woman’s weekly right?). So I know at least one person who likes the content in the magazine in paper form. So, let’s take a look at their idea for a tablet based magazine:

Here’s a new user getting a walk through to prove it is at least partially hacked up:

Bonnier Research & Development
Another mob have mocked up their vision for content on a tablet device.

Their idea is complete mock up at this stage by the looks of it.

Guinness World Records

More of an annual publication, here’s a look at Guinness’ tablet version:

IKEA Catalogue
I guess this’ll be the next thing we see popping up in stores: tablet devices for searching through the store without having to walk around much. I suspect there’d be a need to try and really direct the “related” stuff in order to get the impulse/proximal buying that current store layouts work so hard to achieve.

The Sun Newspaper
Expect a lot of this in the future, the “I’m low tech so screw you techno hippies”.

They do raise some good points however: things that companies like apple make a pain in the arse. Stuff like sharing content (oh sorry, the DRM doesn’t even cope with one person having 5 devices let alone 5 friends with 1 device), problems with getting a display big enough etc. All things these companies could fix if they weren’t so damned short sighted about extracting maximum dollar even at the expense of end user convenience.

Or perhaps the idea of having computers we carry around is going about it the wrong way. Imagine this concept on steroids:

Or how about the constant stream of scumbags who do the cowardly hit and runs on pedestrians and cyclists. Like on the 27th of October this one who hit and killed an elderly man got out and then took off. Or on the 12th of November an 11 year old girl hurt out the front of a school by a driver who got out and then again took off. Or 18th of  October another elderly guy hit, broken pelvis and leg and the driver “reversed, drove around the victim and left the scene”. A 9 year old was hit by a car driver who then “sped from the scene” in Brisbane.

Or let’s look at cars vs cyclists: 19th October teenager charged with killed 39 year old cyclist via hit and run. A cyclist suing the RTA over unsafe road where he was hit and run and left blind and brain damaged by a car driver.

Too true.. Particularly in Sydney.

Or we could even look at motorcyclists (presumably motorcycle thieves I should point out): police search for motorcyclist who hit and with assistance from two men in a car fled the scene.

I mean fair’s fair: How many cyclists have done hit and runs leaving people dead and in hospital? It’s pretty hard to hit someone on a bicycle and not end up about as damaged yourself.

I’m sure there are some, but compared to the deluge of drivers just doing hit and runs on pedestrians that make the Sydney Morning Herald for just the last month: shouldn’t we be calling for a ban of cars from roads? Instead we have twits like the (thankfully)EX transport minister Carl Scully stating emphatically “Cyclists do not have the same rights as motorists on the roads” and uttering such utter garbage as:

.. also acknowledge that it is motorists who pay fuel levies, tolls, registration and licence fees, as well as the huge cost of buying and running a motor vehicle. Apart from a negligible amount of GST on their equipment, cyclists pay nothing towards the cost of the roads they wish to use and rely on motorists to fund most of the cost of cycling infrastructure. Being more aware of this may make more cyclists a little more sensitive to the needs of the motoring public.

I barely know where to begin with this stupidity:

• Cyclists pay taxes, unless, like in Carl Scully’s world they’re all dole bludging hippies.
• Cyclists also pay for licences, registration, tolls, fuel levies if they own a car.
• The personal cost of buying and running a motor vehicle as something worthy of respect by cyclists (who presumably get their bikes left by santa claus) is about as relevant as stating the running costs of a lawn mower. No one twists your arm to buy your vehicle, just like no one twists your arm to buy a bike
• Complete ignorance of the taxation system is how I’d sum up the notion that roads are paid for entirely by motorists’ fuel levies, tolls and registration. Cycle ways aren’t funded by car drivers, they’re funded by TAX PAYERS which happens to include a mix of car drivers, bicycle riders and non drivers/non riders.
• Seemingly complete ignorance of the notion that people ride bikes for more than just recreation. For a minister of transport it boggles the mind to realise that this numpty doesn’t realise that people ride to work and that people WANT to ride to work more.
• Ignorance of the fact that car drivers are the ones that need to be more sensitive to the needs of cyclists who are exposed on the roads and who can have their lives snuffed out by a moment’s inattention by a driver (who might, as the articles I listed above, just drive off and leave them bleeding in the gutter)

Anyhow, it’d be nice if there was even the slightest attempt of fair coverage without the hysterical “cyclists are evil and must be banned from the roads” when there’s a one off  incident. After all, for every cyclist that’s a healthier (well.. aside from breathing petrol fumes.. but that’s another issue) and not burning petrol to get to/from work or using up space on public transport: that’s better for society.

So how about a bit less demonising in the press of those who are doing the more noble thing and pedalling to work.