Kiddy pron - My take

I doubt that a pedophile would be particularly interested in Henson’s images - though I could be wrong.

Pedophiles are sickly attracted to children who LACK a sexual identity.  These pictures appear to aim to capture the awkward line between childhood and adolescence at precisely the point at which a sexual identity is being developed, and don’t depict pre-pubescent children - the types of children pedophiles are attracted to.

I don’t find the photos at all interesting on any level, though I don’t think that they are p-rn either. I just think that they’re pretentious.

If you’re looking for a real pervert wishing to exploit young girls, have a look at this sick fuck. Totally legal, yet far more offensive than anything Henson has ever produced.  These are actually images where girls as young as 12 are photographed in sexually provocative positions, yet none of the moral panic exists.  I suspect the conservative element has been inflamed by the Henson photos due to animosity they hold towards art and artists.

 
One more point - isn’t it funny that if some guy sitting in his basement downloaded Henson’s images, he’d be labeled as a pedo. Yet an inner city chic couple are able to view them with immunity.

 

 

Glimpse into a disturbed mind

Far right-wing punditand active supporter of the neo-nazi minutemen, Michelle Malkin, today gave us another insight into the deranged and paranoid world of the wingnut.

In a story almost too idiotic to be considered anything other than parody, Malkin succeeded in having a Dunkin Donut segment pulled from the air, because she claimed that the woman in the advertisement was wearing a type of scarf -

“popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos.”

WTF?

EVIL!!!!!!!!!! If the scarf wasn’t incriminating enough, Look at what she’s drinking!!!! A FUCKING LATTE!!!.  Off to Gitmo for you BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!

Offical outrage

Via Orcinus

Does this look big up my arse?

In all seriousness, this video is disturbing.  Not only because it shows graphic footage of a man having a large perfume bottle surgically removed from has anus, but because of the reaction of the surgical staff.

There are several non essential staff present in the room, including some with cameras.  Most of the excited onlookers are laughing and jeering.  It’s really horrible.

Just to reiterate that this video is highly graphic and certainly not safe for work (or eateries).

Stop trying to brainwash the kiddies!!

This is my version of the - WON’T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! post.

Having travelled to every state and territory (less Tasmania ) I can say without a shadow of a doubt, Queensland has the best weather.  No really it does, so stop arguing.  Unfortunatley it’s also home to some of the least enlightened people on earth, which kind of spoils the weather at times.

In 1910, Queensland passed a refurendum which is a bloody rare thing!  In fact, Queensland has only ever passed two, with the first one being the vote to bring Queensland into the federation.

So what was this monumental vote all about?  Well unfortunately it was to introduce religious education into Queensland State Schools. 

Fortunately in 2006, the then Premier, Peter Beatie, made some progress in mitigating the stupidity by introducing legislation that changed the ‘opt out’ nature of religious education to an ‘opt in’.  In other words rather than specifically having to exlude your child from RE class, you had to now specifically include them.  So, the default setting was non attendance unless otherwise stated. 

Godbothers, including the then Education Minister, Julie Bishop, became frantic -

“The Beattie Government’s proposed change to Queensland’s Education Act will do two things, it starts to place hurdles in front of parents who want to ensure that their children get some religious instruction at school, and it also opens the door to cultish groups to start preaching unacceptable views in schools,” Minister Bishop said.

Bishop’s hubris was laughable because of course Parents were still able to ‘opt in’.  Her reference to ‘cultish’ groups was in response to the act now broadening the scope of RE to include ‘religious or other belief’.  The thought of children dancing around a fire worshiping some druid deity was clearly too much for her.

Anyway, the legislation passed, and Bishop is now part of the most flaccid leadership pairing since the ‘dream team’ of Downer and Costello, so what am I whinging about?  Well, religion shouldn’t be in schools at all I tells ya!!

The term ‘religious education’ is a furphy anyway, as the only religion taught is Christianity.  I made the suggestion at my children’s school that the scope of the religious education could be broadened to include other religions, and the class could run more as a cultural awareness session.  Well, the poor old biddy looked as if I had just shoved 4 lemons, 2 grapefruits and a partially decomposed cat in her gob.  “Oh my goodness, we couldn’t do that”.

There are only a few kids whose parents opt them out of RE class, and they (including my kids) are forced to sit in a small stuffy room doing some menial chore, whilst the other kids sing songs about Jesus. 

Anyway, religion has no place in Public Schools.  We are a secular and tolerant society, and those wishing to practice religion are free to do so in their own time.  Just don’t bring my kids along for the ride!

Freedom of non-religion

Camp Speicher is an American Military base located just outside of Tikrit in Northern Iraq.  Recently a young Specialist, Jeremy Hall, organised for a meeting of atheists and other free thinkers to take place to share some ideas.

When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers at Camp Speicher in Iraq, he was excited, he said, to see an officer attending.

Unfortunately for Jeremy, the Officer, Maj Freddy Welborn turned out to be a very pious and insecure prick, and began ranting at Mr Hall and other attendees -

People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!”

According to a sworn statement by Mr Hall, Welborn then began threatening some of the enlisted men present, stating that he would see to in that they weren’t reenlisted. 

Following Maj. Welborn’s claim that atheism was some how a huge insult to the founding fathers, I thought it was worth having a look at the US Constitution to see if he had a point; and to my surprise he did.  Only kidding, of course he didn’t!  The words God, Jesus, creator etc.. don’t appear at all in the Constitution full stop. 

The only mention of religion in the entire document appears in the First Ammendment(which also forms part of the US Bill of rights) and what it says is hardly any comfort to Maj. Welborn -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In other words, the founding fathers would be utterly appalled by Maj. Wellborn’s actions. 

In 1802, the then US President, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letterto the Danbury Baptist Church in which a now famous phrase was coined.

… I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. (My emphasis)

Though Jefferson was a deeply religious man, he understood the importance of this separation - a point clearly lost on Maj. Wellborn, who not only showed intolerance, but also complete ignorance of the document he claimed to be representing.

As an atheist I have no religion, but feel strongly about protecting the rights of others to practice relgion if they so choose (as long as it doesn’t negatively affect my life).  Unfortunately, the favour isn’t always returned.

 

Liberal’s plan for the future - Return to the dark past

Impotent Liberal Leader, Dr Brendan Nelson, yesterday called for a public debate to take place in order to discuss the reopening of Mental Health Institutions.

“I also think, as a society, we need to have a serious debate about whether or not we need to go back toward an institutionalised model for a lot of these people” (emphasis mine)

Perhaps ‘these people’ offend Brendan’s born to rule sensibilities, however, the later part of his comments make some sense -

“The argument was we could put these people out into the community,” Dr Nelson said.

“Then, of course, the money that was tied up in those magnificent residences that our forebears had put aside for them didn’t follow them into the community. It went into other things.”

He’s right when he suggests that the money went into to other things.  In fact, the amount of money spent on Mental Health in Australia represents only a small fraction of what is required to address the problem.  Australia currently spends approximately 7% of its health budget on Mental Health.  According to the Mental Health Council of Australia, the figure needs to be closer to 20%.  When compared to other Western Countries, it becomes even more of an embarrassment, with their average expenditure being closer to the 14-15% mark.  In other words, when it comes to the treatment of mental health, we are an international laughing stock.

Nelson’s solution is simplistic and offensive.  Although He appears to be speaking of people with serious psychotic illness, his comments will without further stigmatise the vast majority of those with mental health issues, who aren’t the ‘psycopaths’ he is talking about.

So what is the solution?  Leonie Young, the CEO of national depression initiative beyondblue, is happy that at least  the issue has become a talking point again, so there’s a start!  As mentioned earlier, Nelson is right when he suggests that the money has not be spent where it should, however shoots himself right in the foot immediately after by wishing to adopt a 19th century approach.  Appropriately directed money is the key, and here are some reoccurring themes according to the MCHA -

• Consumers of mental health care have severely limited access to primary care (exacerbated by declines in bulk-billing rates), emergency care, specialist care and rehabilitation services.
• Care systems are perceived to be chaotic, under-resourced and overly focused on brief periods of medicalised care within acute care settings. (in other words, ‘in community’ care is lacking)
• Private psychiatric services are grossly maldistributed and involve large out-of-pocket costs, while access to specialist psychologist and other allied health services is restricted largely by lack of government or private insurance support.
• Persons with mental illness report ongoing abuse within hospital care (particularly emergency departments and acute care settings of general hospitals), and ongoing abuse and neglect in the wider community.
• Persons with mental illness report ongoing discrimination in key areas of employment and insurance and restricted access to basic welfare services and support.
• The focus of care under the National Mental Health Strategy has moved from institutional to community-based care, but no effective management system has evolved to provide high quality care or the support that is necessary to live productively within the wider community. (my emphasis)

The last point is the most salient in my opinion.  Following the closure of mental health institutions, the primary mental health statagy sought to support mental health consumers in the community.  The truth is all Governements have failed to achieve this.  This is what Nelson should be talking about,  not proposing a return to the dark ages.

Like any illness, there may be times someone with a Mental Illness may need acute hospital care.  This is to be expected.  However, once the person is stabalised, there needs to be the support in place within the community to ensure they are given the best possible chance to stay well.  This simply doesn’t exist, or those providing the care are so overstretched, they’re simply unable to do their job.

The whole issue of how those with a mental illness are treated should never be considered soley within an economic rationalist framework.  This is a human rights issue, and needs to be respected as such.

Hi there!

Hi, I’m Albi.

Nice to meet you.