Every cloud has a silver lining...

I believe that this is the funniest post about meat ever.

enjoy

Harry

You have freedom of speech, just choose to remain silent

Did you know that the UK Government has now banned homophobic jokes? I didn´t.

How is this not a matter that completely attacks the very notion of free speech? What happened to the idea of

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

What about the episode of Seinfeld when a comedian converted to Judaism just so he could make Jewish jokes? Is it then alright to make a poof joke if you happen to bat both ways or like exploring the chocolate mudslide? Or are all queer jokes banned?

As Mark Steyn wonders, does this mean that Little Britain will be breaking the law? (Check out Steyn´s article by the way, he´s an excellent writer, although probably a bit too small government/personal freedom for many people)

For an alternative point of view on the subject, check out Iowahawk´s post on gay joke smuggling. For me, the punch line is the very last line.

Who decides what should be allowed and what should be banned? Why is it ok to take a statue of Jesus and immerse it in a jar of urine but it´s not so cool to draw a cartoon featuring the prophet Mohammed (who isn´t actually divine, just a prophet for the divine)?

Why is it ok to promote the killing of old people through Euthanasia, but not ok to promote the killing of rapists and murderers through the death penalty?

As Steyn says, this is basically a way for the Government to gather more power and in my opinion that is almost always a BAD THING.

This is all very interesting and I could write a lot more about it, but basically I think you should be able to say whatever you want. If you post something as fact you need to be able to prove it (so those newspapers posting opinion as front page news, sort your shit out!). If you libel someone, you should be accountable. And if you post opinion, it should be properly advertised as such.

cheers

Harry

ps if you do tell people what you actually think, then everyone will know you´re a retard hating, communist loving, mediaeval and brutal monarchy bowing, nuclear proliferation appeasing, Chicago political whore, because your opinions are out in the open for everyone to see. Rather than pretending otherwise until it´s too late.

the four existential givens

Thanks to Jonathon, who I stole this off. I think it´s funny :)

cheers

Harry

Youth in Asia...

In the Australian today I read an article about Australians overseas and how irresponsible they are and how they depend upon consular services and complain heavily when they´re not given absolutely perfect assistance.

One quote:

The latest figures from the Department of Foreign Affairs show that 2009 is set to become the first year when more than 1000 Australians are arrested and when more than 1000 Australians are expected to die overseas.

and another:

...at how Australians were abusing consular services overseas, refusing to take responsibility for their own care, ignoring travel advice and complaining about embassy staff.

"Australian embassies are not travel agencies, nor is it their job to provide free travel insurance," he said, adding that a culture of complaint had developed where embassy staff were blamed and abused for "not helping" or being "too slow" during emergencies or where people had got themselves into trouble.

Speaking as an Australian currently overseas and engaging in dangerous activities and ¨adventure tourism¨ I think that this harks back to my old message. People need to be accountable for their own actions. More importantly, as a nation we need to look after ourselves, not expect the ¨nanny state¨ to sort out all our issues. This is another example of us becoming infantilised by a government that looks after us from the cradle to the grave.

As a tourist, I have travel insurance. More importantly, I have a strong realisation that the places I´m going, the Ecuadorian Government is not going to be able to provide search and rescure for.

Even back home, my friends and I have an attitude of ¨self rescue¨ wherever possible. If you´re in trouble you get out. If you can´t kayak out you walk out. If you can´t walk, you wait until you can. You don´t expect the chopper overhead and you don´t ask for it´s assistance unless it´s an emergency.

I personally don´t have a problem with someone who wants to walk through Colombia, or take a peyote tour of Mexico, or live in a slum in India with a guru or even row a boat across the pacific (not that you´d catch me doing ANY of those things).

But when the shit hits the fan, as it will, because it always does, take some responsibility. Try and get out of there yourself. And when a hard worked embassy official, who doesn´t really give a shit about you because you´re the 19th Australian this particular guru has buried in elephant shit, comes in and saves your arse, try being grateful, not narky because they didn´t find your bong at the bottom of the pile or he refused to fly you first class back to Sydney.

Get some travel insurance. Be polite, because that´s a good rule in life. TAKE PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS. Don´t attack people who help you. Try and payback the money expended on your behalf.

If everyone did that, would there really be any problem?

cheers

Harry

euthanasia

And no, I´m not talking about Japanese teenagers here.

This is a topic I´ve been thinking about for sometime. What has inspired me to post is a column by Andrew Bolt (crypto-fascists like him a lot as well) about Phillip Nitschke. Check out his column here. Some of what he writes about is pretty horrific, especially the fact that many of the people killed off by Dr Death have not only not had terminal illnesses, haven´t been in pain and have often been just old and lonely. Not exactly how things were meant to be is it?

So what do I think about euthanasia?

I support it, but with some (massive) qualifications. All those people who love the idea are too quick to forget that euthanasia is basically killing someone, and to take a human life is the greatest sin there is.

So who should be allowed euthanasia? In my opinion, those who are terminally ill (proven terminally ill), in great pain and with not long to live.

And where is my position different to Dr Nitschke´s?

I believe that euthanasia, as the taking of human life, must be treated as such and be subject to criminal prosecution.

If someone whom you love and care for is dying, in great pain and wants nothing more than to end it all, than most of us would be moved to try and do something to help. And if we truly cared for that person we would do this depite possible adverse consequences to ourselves.

I remember an example from my Legal Studies class in year 12 where an elderly gentleman killed his elderly wife because of the pain she was in. He was tried for murder, admitted his culpability but put forward the circumstances and the jury found him not guilty.

This man killed the woman he loved and accepted the personal consequences (a murder trial). If you aren´t willing to do the same than you shouldn´t be advocating euthanasia (a rather horrific name really, trying to disguise it´s own terrible reality).

I know that this leaves some people out in the cold. Many elderly people don´t have someone that close to them (many have no-one at all) who can do the deed. Others will find their loved ones simply can´t face the consequences. That is tough for them. But if Dr Nitschke wants to help out than he should. And then HE should go to court and justify himself.

I also remember hearing of cases from the Netherlands. Legalised euthanasia saw many doctors and nurses start to off patients who had never requested any such thing, more often than not without the knowledge or consent of family.

This is definitely a topic that is ¨thin edge of the wedge¨ stuff. Once you open up this particular can of worms, who knows where things will end up.

That´s another reason why my solution is simple and effective. It doesn´t change anything and it demands a meaninful sacrifice from those involved in assisting. Of course, in this day and age where the concept of sacrifice and service are often sneered at or reject outright my idea is unlikely to be popular. But hey, I´m not big on killing old people just because they´re old, so I guess we can´t all be friends, can we?

cheers

Harry

he likes it wet and sticky...

If you click here you´ll be linked to a video from Oregonkayaking.net, in my opinion just about the best kayaking site on the interweb.

While it´s a long video and not particularly exciting, check out what happens at the 10minute mark. A gentleman in a creekboat gets surfed in a hole for 2 minutes (!!!), while looking as if he really doesn´t want to be there.

While I´m no playboating expert, I think I can provide a few ideas for the next time he finds himself in such a situation.

1) Maybe try and do something fun. It looked like a pretty nice surf spot. Maybe do an upstream pry and try and drag the nose around so you´re surfing upstream. Maybe that way you could actually pull yourself to the shoulder?

2) Don´t lean back so much. You have much less control, especially with your hips, when you lean back.

3) Try and keep your hands a bit lower. Obviously in that situation it´s a little bit difficult, but so´s trying to roll with a dislocated shoulder.

4) Following on from number 1. If you don´t want to do something fun, but want to get out, try and stick the end of the boat into the water. An ender of some kind would more than likely have caught green water and gotten you out.

5) Following on from number 4. Do you notice the instant he went upside down he came out of the hole? That was obviously a big, deep river with lots of flow. Lots of green water around. Going upside down is a way for your big, fat, stupid head to grab some of that and get you out of there.

Like I said, I´m not an expert. I hate holes. I´m a massive pussy when it comes to stoppers, hydraulics, pour-overs, anything like that. I won´t even surf a wave if it´s breaking! But even I could have got myself out of that one a bit earlier.

cheers

Harry

what we really need is more money for wiccans to hold an inter-faith service celebrating the solstice...

As I´m sure some people may know, a few gentleman accustomed to motoring around the countryside on two wheeled contraptions had a bit of a contretemps at the Sydney Airport the other day. This little encounter among gentleman has rather upset some people, especially those who think that maybe the people responsible for security at the airport should have ¨done something.¨

Peter Faris, of the The Australian, suggests that the incident demonstrates gross incompetence by the AFP, that Mike Keelty should resign and asks the question what if those involved had been terrorists?

Key paragraph:

After Mumbai and Lahore, what is even more frightening to consider is that jihadist terrorists could arrive at Sydney airport by taxi, shoot hundreds of people in the terminal, and escape by taxi. It seems there would be no intervention by AFP security or anti-terrorist police. This, of course, is much more attractive to the jihadists, because they would not need to die in suicide bomb attacks.

I have to stand up and agree with the general thrust of this article, although I´m not sure I´d be putting more funding into the AFP. There are certainly excellent reasons to have an AFP, amongst them the coordination of efforts in dealing with crimes that cross state and federal boundaries and the past history of massive police corruption at a state level in various jurisdictions (most famously NSW). But improving and strengthening state police forces I believe is a much better solution, in concert with the continuing work of the AFP and the ACC. Although I would get rid of Keelty, he´s dead weight and has been for years now.

Faris says that citizens pay their taxes and deserve to be safe on the streets. I think it´s more important than that. I believe that a fundamental part of a nation´s social and economic well being is based upon the rule of law and the safety of citizens and their property.

While some may disagree with me, how about this for a theory. The crime and drug problems of African-Americans in the ghetto are not caused by poverty, lack of opportunity or lack of jobs. Rather, lack of opportunity and lack of jobs is caused by crime. Who´s going to start a business, or invest in a business or a property if they live in an area where every day you at risk from violent criminals? I´ve seen The Wire, so I know what´s it like the ghetto!

Why have many Asian countries dragged themselves upwards while many African nations continue to wallow in the pit of poverty and aid dependence? It´s obviously not corruption, since by reputation many Asian countries are ridiculously corrupt, especially Korea, one of the strongest Asian economies.

The difference is that it is incredibly difficult to start a business (a proper business, not selling some cabbages by the side of the road) in many African countries, many of them continue to use aid as a crutch to avoid doing anything to start an economy (a topic for another day) and many African countries cannot guarantee basic law and order for petty crimes, let along major ones such as kidnapping, rape and murder. Not only that, but there is a difference between corruption (skimming some off the top) and a police force or military that just takes whatever it wants.

If we want to maintain our free society and our strong economy, we need to ensure that we continue to keep our citizens and their property safe (and in these present economic circumstances that seems reasonable).

First step? Forget about more money, lets see much more respect given to those who enforce the law.



I think, as a general principle, that if a person were to spit at a policeman, than that policeman should (in approximate terms), kick them in the crotch, beat them lightly around the legs and body with a baton, chuck them in the paddy wagon and spray some pepper gas on them for good measure.

Instead, we have police copping abuse both physical, oral and psychological (in one of the toughest jobs out there) and having no real recourse, apart from courts that will often impose nothing but the mildest sentence, if anything. In Victoria we´ve even had a Police Commissioner going further than that, trying to get police to talk more and seeking less physically confrontational (read small female) police officers.

Police do a crappy job without the powers (of physical abuse) that are a traditional part of their repertoire. Can´t we move into the 21st century in a way which incorporates the good parts of physical violence and intimidation without the bad parts (corruption, criminality and beating confessions out of suspects)? And by the good parts I mean, again, that people respect police and if they don´t like them they certainly don´t voice their opinion because they know what´s good for them!

I think that would be a major step in reducing crime in Australia, particularly violent crime such has increased in a massive way in Melbourne´s nightclub district in recent years.

I have much more to say on this topic, but i´ll leave it there as an intro.