Weird Mob

The US is reeling from the Wikileaks political revelations, but apart from some potentially dodgy, but probably standard for oil company, dealing by a Shell executive and some conversations between Wayne Swan’s chief of staff and US embassy officials concerning BHP’s shady-ish tampering with a deal between Rio Tinto and Chinalco, we haven’t seen much info about the private sector. 

What wonderful scandals and outright corruptions are we not yet privy to? Just how much control do corporate interests have over our governments? The imagination runs wild. Just how fat are the cats?

In other news, a year-long investigation by the Productivity Commission has shown that free-trade agreements signed by Howard and to a lesser extent Rudd are going to cost the country millions. 

Of particular concern are the new copyright extensions and freedoms granted to pharmaceutical companies when dealing with the PBS. Thanks to these amazing documents which ostensibly create greater opportunities for trade, we are simply sending hundreds of millions of dollars directly to the US. Commercial benefits for Australia? Not many.

I think of little Johnny in his big-boy’s suit, at his big-boy’s table in his honest-to-goodness Prime Ministerial office being absolutely honoured to sign a trade agreement with the US of A. He had such a wonderful time with Mr Bush after all. No problems with whatever strictures you require, Uncle Sam!

Relax local content laws on our television stations so as to better assist with your cultural imperialism? Sure!

Change our legislation so US pharma companies can make more profits off the vulnerable people of our society? Yes we can!

Alter our copyright laws in stark opposition to all sane advice? No worries!

You’re playing with the big boys now Australia!

Wikileaks has done more for us than just provide classified material.

Obviously the leaks are important in their nature and content. As Assange is keen to point out, Wikileaks has already changed governments with previous releases and the new leak is clearly of great import to governments worldwide. But the leaks are only the first part of the demonstration. Now that we have seen the dirty laundry, we get to observe the frantic attempts to hide it.

This is really the biggest revelation for most people - not that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is urging the US to attack Iran, or that the US was spying on UN diplomats, or that Mark Abib is a shameless US suckup. No the most shocking aspect of all of this is government’s irrational reaction.

The US State Department is lying like a losing lawyer. They told Paypal that what Wikileaks is doing is illegal, so of course Paypal make the decision to end the relationship. The problem is that what Wikileaks is doing is not illegal. That clearly needs to be said, over and over, until it sinks in. The only way Wikileaks can be shut down legally is if they change the law and then apply it retroactively. 

But what panic exudes from the oily faces of government officials! Visa and Mastercard join the side of censorship and are immediately targeted by Anonymous. Meanwhile one of the founders of the Pirate Bay is supporting Wikileaks by continuing to allow donations through his system.

Let’s just quickly run through the players in this situation:

US Government: Cables show illegal actions on their part, they attempt to shut Wikileaks down, call for Assange’s assassination and demonstrate their inability to think clearly by calling Assange a traitor.

Australian government: Fractured and confused. When they can stick to a single position on Wikileaks for more than a day I guess we’ll know more.

Visa/Mastercard/Paypal/Amazon: Corporate giants able to weather any storm fold at the slightest hint of wind from the US State Dept. 

Wikileaks: Holding tough.

Pirate Bay: A group of hackers are now more trustworthy than four major corporations. I would send my credit card number in an email to those guys, they have fucking honour.

So we see a nebulous group of hackers and a website for data pirates becoming the most honourable public groups on the planet, while governments show themselves to be corrupt monsters. Interesting times indeed.

This is Assange’s legacy: The emperor has no clothes. Governments only have the power we assign them. If governments are corrupt, they will topple - or will they?

If we do not become outraged over our goverment’s reactions to these leaks then what will outrage us?

There is a new Facebook fad making the rounds. In order to show your support for the fight against child abuse, you should change your profile picture to that of a cartoon.

A noble cause indeed. Who dares, in this day and age, to show support for victims of child abuse? A concerted action involving millions of cartoon characters will send a strong message.

Of self-congratulatory inaction.

Every so often these things float past and I see certain people on my friends list jumping on the bandwagon. I also see some people whose lives have been affected by the current issue du jour joining in and don’t really know how I feel about that.

There is nothing wrong with bringing light to an issue and perhaps, for those who have been personally affected by these issues it can be heartening to see apparent support for your pain. But is it really support? How exactly is a groundswell of reaction against something that is fairly universally reviled going to achieve anything?

It seems to me that a concerted inaction serves only to undermine actual support for the cause. Give to charity? Sorry, I gave in Farmville.

Research has shown that thinking about exercise can provide the same glow of wellbeing that comes from a quick physical session. Would it be too surprising to discover the same mechanism in action here? Who wants to bet that ‘supporting a cause’ in this way lowers the chances of people actually contributing?

Charity relies on that warm glow you get from giving. If you’re getting that glow from charity’s placebo, where does that leave charity?

Please, next time something like this goes around, consider not joining in the cacophony of self-congratulation and instead quietly donating some money to the cause.

Do it for Pedobear.

Australia’s least attractive loud man in a frock once again provides his unique insights into atheism.

On Sunday at St Mary’s Cathedral the Cardinal made remarks that seem to speak more to some religious people’s existential terror than to the moral philosophies of atheists, as he intended.

”A minority of people, usually people without religion, are frightened by the future, it’s almost as though they’ve … nothing but fear to distract themselves from the fact that without God the universe has no objective purpose or meaning. Nothing beyond the constructs they confect to cover the abyss.”

Without the slightest hint of irony…

It is a constant refrain from outspoken religious leaders: without a heavenly deity to dictate terms, there can be no moral direction. This is obviously, laughably incorrect. Morality can be engendered by education, or constructed through experience by even the slowest of our species, without indoctrination.

Meaning is something humans bring to the world, not something bestowed upon us by an unknowable, supernatural father figure. We make our meaning and we place it where we like. This is self-evident to those with no religion, yet with morals and meaningful lives.

I’ll just edit his statement, so as to be more accurate:

”A minority of people, usually people with religion, are frightened by the future, it’s almost as though they’ve … nothing but fear to distract themselves from the fact that the universe has no objective purpose or meaning. Nothing beyond the constructs they confect to cover the abyss.”

Atheists could make many hurtful comments about Catholics… Things like: Catholics are sexually dysfunctional child-rapists who are lead by a  former Nazi.

We could do that very easily, and be correct. Unfortunately Pell is not correct in his exposition on moral philosophy. Atheists everywhere continue to lead meaningful lives, giving to charity and loving their families, all without the threat of eternal fire. Cardinal Pell cannot understand this, without God his life has no purpose or constraints. One imagines that, were it not for the church, Pell would give in to his animal nature and start raping and murdering everybody.

Do other religious people feel this way?

We, the irreligious, have no need to hate religion, or act against it. Religion is simply not relevant to our lives. Hate religion? It’s so much more satisfying to just ignore it.

What confections are you constructing to cover the abyss?

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and mine is better than yours.

Last week we saw Joe De Bruyn chime in with his irrelevant opinion on gay marriage, suggesting the Gillard government drop the issue, which, according to him, Australia does not care about.

That is a fair enough public statement for someone who sits on the Labor National Executive, but going so far as to add “We all know that marriage is between a man and a woman not just because that is what the definition of the Marriage Act says but simply because this has been the way that it has been in the existence of the human race,” shows us that old Joe is stepping outside his purview.

Oh well, he’s got a press secretary, so we have to hear his opinion.

Then there was Miranda Devine’s faux-journalistic rant in Sunday’s Herald Sun. Miranda, bless her unscrupulous black heart, spends a few paragraphs on her headline, then treats us to a review of the standard misinformation, referring to such hilariously outdated clichés as marriage being the bedrock institution of Judeo-Christian society, after asking “what gays will bring to marriage? How will they improve the institution?”

I don’t know why Miranda thinks that is a relevant question, but she writes for Murdoch, so we have to hear her opinion. What would she bring to the institution of marriage, one wonders…?

There was also Tim Cannon’s piece in The Punch, which tells gay people they must first justify marriage as a social institution before being philosophically able to desire it, mentions some slippery-slope scare tactics in full seriousness (what’s next, polyamorous, incestuous, goat on goat marriages?) and finishes with what is either intellectual dishonesty or a true failure in comprehension:

“To put it crudely, the legal institution of marriage is about recognising the social utility of permanence in heterosexual relationships, given their inherently procreative nature, and encouraging such permanence.”

Divorce, childless marriages?  Whatever. Tim writes for a cool website and has a disgruntled look on his Punch avatar, obviously his opinion is vital.

Every arsehole has an opinion, but in this debate I only want to hear from one group of people. That is the group of people who will be affected by this potential change in law. As far as I can tell, that group is solely made up of homosexuals. Homosexuals want to get married. That is the end of that.