Bad day for the Godly

Two egregious examples of (alleged) Christian thoughtlessness have come to my attention in the last 24 hours.

The first is an already notorious Youtube video in which a young woman thanks God for the Japanese earthquake. I'm not linking it because a) it has been pulled by Youtube, and b) I don't want to be seen as joining in the viral hate campaign against this woman.

Since she posted it, her (alleged) identity has been exposed, and her address and contact details have been posted online. It's depressing that she made the video in the first place - though I suspect it is actually a hoax - and even more so that people have responded by aiming hatred and vituperation at someone who is already a rather troubled individual. It's contemptible bullying.

As I said, I'm not even convinced as to the authenticity of the video. I wouldn't be surprised if it was some demented atheist making them, pretending to be a demented Christian, and chuckling at how clever she was being ... not realising that, all along, she is merely demented.

There's no limit to how far people will go when in the grips of some crazed obsession, either pro- or anti- religion. We like to think atheists are sane, rational, reasonable ...people, but there are plenty of fuckhead loons on our 'side' as well.

I'm even less convinced by the address or addresses?) being put up, supposedly allowing people to contact this young woman. People are assuming that they are real, but they have no way of verifying that. I wouldn't be surprised if someone had taken advantage of the furore to get some cheap revenge on a personal enemy, or simply make someone's life Hell for a while.

On one level, it doesn't matter if it is a genuine address or not. People should not be hounded by Hellish hate campaigns simply for sounding an opinion, no matter how dumb. On the other hand, of course, the idea of an innocent person being the target of abuse, hatred and possible violence is disgusting. The people posting the address are, too my mind, worse than the very silly girl in the video.

Far more deserving of contempt is Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the head of the Catholic church in Scotland, who condemned the British government for increasing aid to Pakistan without demanding a guarantee of religious rights for minorities:

Speaking at the launch of a report into the persecution of Christians worldwide, Cardinal O'Brien said: 'I urge (UK Foreign Secretary) William Hague to obtain guarantees from foreign governments before they are given aid.

'To increase aid to the Pakistan government when religious freedom is not upheld and those who speak up for religious freedom are gunned down is tantamount to an anti-Christian foreign policy.

'Pressure should now be put on the Government of Pakistan - and the governments of the Arab world as well - to ensure that religious freedom is upheld, the provision of aid must require a commitment to human rights.' (1)

On the surface, this seems sensible. Why send aid to these reprehensible fundamentalists that are murdering and terrorising anyone who doesn't adhere to their perverse, brutal creed?

But it is also short-sighted and naive. Pakistan has just been buggered ruthlessly by massive flooding (remember that?) and effectively washing our hands of it (religious pun intentional) will just leave more desperate, hopeless people to be recruited by the militants and hate-mongers: "Brother, your life here is over, no-one cares about you. they have left you and your family to die. Take this gone and go and wage jihad against the infidels in Afghanistan!"

And I didn't realise the good Samaritan checked up the worthiness of the people before offering succour.

1 - "Pakistan aid is 'anti-Christian': Stinging attack on Government from church leader," unattributed article. Published in The Daily Mail, 15th of March, 2011. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366351/Pakistan-aid-anti-Christian-Stinging-attack-Government-church-leader.html#ixzz1GgoB06zA)

Idiots in glass houses should not throw empty insults

THis was submitted to the Dominion Post in response to a letter published in that paper; since I've had no response from them, I'm assuming they don't intend to publish it in either extended or condensed form submitted. Since it was fun to fulminate, I reproduce it here. Who needs a readership, anyway?

It was amusing to read Leith Gunn's letter of the 2nd of March, 2011,titled "Populist governments are to blame " on the alleged "inane diatribe" of one Greg Edwards, identified by Mr Gunn as a "naive, left-leaning statist." (1)

It is a rule that any country styling itself as "Democratic" can only be a totalitarian Hell hole; similarly, we can be sure any writer accusing another of producing an "inane diatribe" will go on to do precisely that.

Leith Gunn does not disappoint.

He points the finger - with justification - at the actions of the American government in the 90s, particularly the repeal (masterminded by the Republicans Phil Gramm, Thomas Leach and Jim Bliley in 1999) of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

He suggests - again with justification - that the removal of restrictions on the market brought about the financial catastrophe of 2008.

But in trying to pin the blame on "populist governments," and ""Political decisions, Left and Right," he makes a complete fool of himself.

And whatever else you can say about Gram, Leach and Bliley, they were not motivated by populism. Only a small percentage of their votes came from those who benefited from their legislative irresponsibility. Only a few benefited from it, after all.

I suspect, however, a considerable percentage of their campaign funding came from these sources.

He also overlooks the fact that the the system worked for seven decades, then within seven years of the controls being removed, the 'invisible hand' of the free market lead us to disaster.

In other words, it wasn't actually the actions of any "naive, Left-leaning statist" that brought the roof down, but the actions of naive, rightwing free marketeers.

So, we really need these "statist" controls to stop markets from eating themselves alive. Mr Gunn tries to duck this issue by claiming, "Political decisions, Left and Right, are where the problem lies" and babbling about fiat money.

No, old chap, the fixes and controls put in place by the leftish politics of the New Deal era, after one free market induced disaster, kept things ticking over quiet nicely for decades. With those controls were removed, it took just nine years for the free market to go all to
Hell.

Again.

1 - "Populist governments are to blame," a Letter to the Editor, by Leith Gunn. Published in the Dominion Post, 2nd of March, 2011. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/4720817/Letter-Populist-governments-are-to-blame)

About face

The British chancellor, George Osborne, has realised that he's fucked things up royally, and needs to do an economic three point turn to stop Britain sliding even further into the cesspit he's been shoving the country into:

Speaking at the Welsh Conservatives' spring conference in Cardiff, he said: 'We cannot place all our bets on the City Of London. Wouldn't it be great if Britain made things again?

'What I want to see is a manufacturing revival.

'In the budget in less than three weeks' time, we will confront the forces of stagnation that stand in the way of success, bring down new barriers that stop Britain getting back on its feet.

'The Budget is going to be unashamedly pro-growth, pro-enterprise and pro-aspiration. It will look at the planning delays, the new regulations, the bureaucracy and the costs that hold business back and stop jobs being created.

'Not just in London, or the South East, but across Britain.' (1)

Fucking shite from Osbourne. Almost the first thing the coalition did was cut £2 BILLION of spending commitments, a lot of that aimed at precisely this sort of thing, including

• £80 million loan to Sheffield Forgemasters,
• £620 million for the Rollout of the Future Jobs Fund,
• £50 million for the Local Authority Business Growth Initiative,
• £30 million for a six month recruitment subsidies package. (2)

And don't even get me started on what the shitheads did with the Building Schools for the Future programme.

These were all measures aimed at increasing growth and employment, that exceed the crumbs Osborne is offering.

Of course, Osborne prefers to do it through tax cuts, which won't work but will a) make the sort of people who vote Conservative happy and b) reduce the tax take, justifying even more 'austerity.'

1 - "'Let's get Britain making things again': George Osborne plots manufacturing revival with recreation of 'enterprise zones' and £100m business tax cuts," unattributed article. Published in The Daily Mail, 5th of March, 2011. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363197/George-Osborne-revive-enterprise-zones-promote-investment-areas-potential-growth.html#ixzz1Fol1yBws)
2 - "Transport and health projects halted as Government backs down on £10bn commitments," by Andrew Porter. Published in the Telegraph, 17th of June, 2010. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7835519/Transport-and-health-projects-halted-as-Government-backs-down-on-10bn-commitments.html). The details of what exactly was being cut or suspended can be verified in the government press release, "Action to tackle poor value for money and unfunded spending commitments," released on the 17th of June, 2010, hyperlinked from this story.

Christian couple can not write their own job description

A Christian couple have been told they can't force Derby City Council to let them foster children. The conflict arose because the couple in question, Owen and Eunice Johns, felt their faith meant they could not say homosexual lifestyles could be good (1).

This is a good thing, and a bad thing.

It is a good thing because people who shouldn't be able to enforce their personal views on people; they are, effectively, council employees and should adhere to the council's standards. If they can't meet those standards, then they can't do the job.

One of the job requirements was that they did not disparage homosexual lifestyles. It seems they were not able to meet this requirement, went to court to have it overturned, and failed in their bid.

It is worth baring in mind that the Johns were not barred from fostering by the council. They chose to withdraw from the vetting process when how they'd deal with the issue of homosexuality was raised.

It's a bad thing because these people have acted as foster parents for over fifteen years, apparently without a hitch. Now they will not be able to do so, and it isn't like there is a wealth of foster parents.

But I don't blame the council for that. They have to ensure a safe and nurturing environment for all the children in their care; they are ultimately responsible for whatever happens to the vulnerable youngsters it places in foster care.

It's important to remember that they were applying as foster parents, not adopting. They would be dealing with a lot of children staying with them for short periods of time, so they'd be encountering adolescents with questions and troubles that would need to be addressed.

Mr Johs suggests that "Eight-year-olds we have looked after want to play, not talk about their sexuality." Fair enough. but to young people, everything is "gay." Children will ask why they were called gay at school, and if that is a bad thing. Are some people gay? Is that wrong?

My opinion is that it is a great shame they didn't wait to hear the verdict of the panel; and that they seem to have been so intransigent in their beliefs they couldn't mouth some homily about love and respect being the most important part of any lifestyle. Their refusal to do that means they won't be around to help children who need it. Render unto Ceasr, and all that ...

They should have thought a bit more on the 'Judge not' and 'don't cast the first stone' parts of their creed and less on the intermittent homophobia that permeates the OT and the scribblings of St Paul. Jesus, notably, didn't have anything to say about homosexuality, that I can recall.

They could easily have told any curious foster child something bland and neutral like, "Love and respect are the most important part of any lifestyle or relationship." I don't see how that would have compromised their principles, and would have allowed them to continue the good work they've done over years. Instead, they placed their vision of their faith above their Christian desire to help people.

1 - "Christian beliefs DO lose out to gay rights: Judges' ruling against devout foster couple," by Tamara Cohen. Published in The Daily Mail, 1st of March, 2011. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361469/Christian-beliefs-DO-lose-gay-rights-Judges-ruling-devout-foster-couple-lose-case.html#ixzz1FGqNRecy)

Wail watch

A couple of days ago, Guardian journalist Mark Townsend wrote a piece about a survey that revealed 48% of British people would consider voting for an anti-immigration party, if it wasn't tainted with violent and fascistic associations (1).

The next day, a very similar piece - almost word for word - appeared in the Daily Mail, under the anonymous 'Daily Mail reporter' by-line (2).

Though the Mail does cadge a lot of it's content from other sources, it is usually from local papers. It's bizarre to see the Mail regurgitate a Guardian piece like this. Perhaps we have misjudged the Mail, and they are subtly trying to turn everyone into unwitting Guardianistas.

Or maybe not, as the few changes made to the story serve to distort it.

the Mail claims (an addition to the original piece), that 48% of people "would vote for far-Right party." This is (unsurprisingly) misleading.

The survey appears to have found that about half of the electorate would consider voting for an anti-immigration party. The mail drops the crucial 'consider,' making the support sound much more solid than it is. Most people cast their vote on either more than one issue, or none at all.

A party running on an anti-immigration platform would also need other policies, and they would alienate sections of its potential support, unless immigration becomes absolutely the overwhelming issue in the minds of voters.

1 - "Searchlight poll finds huge support for far right 'if they gave up violence'," by Mark Townsend. Published in The Guardian, 26th of February, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/27/support-poll-support-far-right)
2 - "Half of Britain 'would vote for far-Right parties if they gave up violence'," by Daily Mail Reporter. Published in the Daily Mail, 27th of February, 2011. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361068/Half-Britain-vote-far-Right-parties-gave-violence.html#ixzz1FANICIIM)

Fire sale II

Interesting-ish article on this by John Harris. Good to see someone (other than my own sweet self) can see David Cameron's war on the deficit for what it really is - a cynical, ideological project to strip state assets and advance the private sector. For which he has no mandate.

He forgot to mention, however, that The Shock Doctrine is the literary equivalent of toxic sludge. I hacked my way through all 550 odd pages of it. It needed to be a tenth of the length, as the essential idea of it was pretty slender. Harris sums it up pretty well in a couple of paragraphs, in fact:

The other day, I picked up a copy of Naomi Klein's underrated book The Shock Doctrine, and was reminded of a celebrated quotation from Milton Friedman: "Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable."

The Klein book, published in 2007, examines how Friedman's instructions were followed, and free-market "disaster capitalism" forced on Iraq, eastern Europe, Sri Lanka and elsewhere, in the wake of wars, natural disasters and revolutions (watch out Libya and Egypt). Four years after it came out, I was struck by a simple and mind-boggling fact. Here, as the coalition sets about the benefits system, marketises the NHS, threatens to do the same to schools and now apparently plans to put the entire public sector out to tender, what crisis was it that set the stage? Answer: that of the very economic model that is being pursued as never before. (1)

There. Saved you a few dollars and several hours of your life, reading The Shock Doctrine.

Don't say I'm not good to you.

1 - "The coalition has sneaked a coup on a sleeping public," by John Harris. Published in The Guardian, 27th of February, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/27/coalition-coup-sleeping-public)

Christchurch

This probably won't win me any friends, but here goes ...

WTF is John Key doing in the middle of an earthquake zone? It limits his effectiveness, puts him in danger and distracts resources. He should be in Wellington. I can't shake the nagging suspicion that Key needed to be choppered in to Christchurch because Phil Goff happened to be there as well.

What's happening in Christchurch is a disaster and a tragedy for those involved. But it doesn't need his immediate presence. As I/S points out, there's no effective difference between a local and a national emergency (1).

The buildings stood up pretty well when the first Earthquake struck, back in September. Since then, it's been continual aftershocks and a particularly brutal one today. I think the buildings did as much as could be expected of them. People just didn't take the hint and move after the September jig.

I'm baffled by the behaviour of tourists."Oh, here's a place that's just suffered a massive bastard of an earthquake and is still experiencing continual significant after shocks, lets go there. And while we're there, lets climb up the steeple half hanging of the half ruined cathedral, that's not at all stupid."

Of course, the tourists themselves are only acting predictably because they were told the cathedral was safe. Whoever allowed access to the tower can expect to be in for a pretty thin time.

Slightly more sympathy for the poor buggers who lived there, as the September quake was out of the blue (comparatively) and it's not like you can easily sell a house in an quake ravaged city in the middle of a recession.

1 - "No difference," posted by Idiot/Savant on No Right Turn on the 23rd of February, 2011. (http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2011/02/no-difference.html)