T to the A to the P: the Sugar Daddy edition

Title courtesy of the Jackson 5.

It was bound to happen-almost all of the taps so far are of guys in their 40s, so it was inevitable that I would push the age boundaries of guys old enough to be my grandfather. I do believe I have done so in the classiest fashion, picking one of the classiest fellows. Presenting Sir Ian 'Magneto' McKellen (who is, funnily enough, the first gay to be anointed as officially tappable).










And because Ian is one of the few people who can make an otherwise ridiculous costume look villainous.

Election of Rudd officially worth it: part 2.

(yes, I know I'm in a rut of commenting late on issues. This time, I have an excuse; I was briefly posted to an outpost at Lorne)

Earlier this year, I commented that despite his constant me-twoisms during the 07 election, the Rudd Government was officially better than the Howard Government, as Rudd changed our foreign aid laws, allowing funds to go organisations which either terminated pregnancies or referred women to organisations that did.

Recently, Rudd has further improved Australia's human rights record by a) ending mandatory detention to the majority of refugees; only those who pose a threat to their community will remain in detention, and b) abolishing fees to refugees, which forced them to pay for their imprisonment.

(Most of) The Liberal Party, as always, has opposed the moves, stating that soften border protection cause an influx of refugees.

Petro Georgiou, the only Liberal with a functioning conscience, has written an opinion piece in the Age, showing how ludicrous the fee laws were:

The most obvious reason for repealing it is that it has totally failed to achieve its objective. Since the policy was initiated, only 4 per cent of the costs have been recovered. In the past four years, $139 million, or 81 per cent, of charges have been waived or written off, mainly by the coalition government, because it was impractical or uneconomical to recover the charges. This year it is estimated that it will cost $709,000 to collect $573,000. There is simply no rational basis to continue the charges. What these charges do achieve is making those subject to them more anxious and their lives more difficult. There is another fundamental reason for ending the detention charges — imposing these charges is part of the process of dehumanising people seeking refuge, part of the way they have been presented as being worse than the worst criminals. Do we charge drug dealers, serial pedophiles, sadistic murderers and multiple rapists the costs of their detention?

[my emphasis]

The government forced refugees to pay for their imprisonment dates back to 1992-in the 15+ years since, no legislation has ever been passed that forced criminals to pay for their detention. For over fifteen years, Australia treated the most vulnerable people on the earth more harshly than some of the most violent people on the earth. This, more than anything else, shows how corrosive fear is on a multi-nation's morality. Our fears of being swamped by Vietnamese Asians in general Africans led us to support truly amoral measures to deter refugees for our own security-yet these refugees still came regardless. It is amazing how powerful fear is in destroying one's morals.

But even if those harsher anti-refugee laws did work, we should still oppose them because of their inhumanity. They further wreck havoc with people whose lives have so nearly been destroyed by dictatorships, civil war or both. Refugees have a fundamental right to find a better place to live, and if that's Australia, then so be it. These laws reduced our human rights records to that of dictatorships. The mere fact that it took this long to be changes it utterly shameful.

That being said, it's good Australia is seeing the light.

Also see here, here, here and here.

Wow, a post under the topic of 'sex' that actually talks about something related to sex!...

...instead of just featuring hot boys and girls!

And before I begin, I humbly apologise for another post that should have been written 2-3 weeks ago. This soldier had to be transferred to the Warragul barracks for further nursing training, and between getting up at 0600 hours and returning to base at 1830 hours, there was precious little blogging time. But enough of that.

A while ago, the police raided several houses and computers, allegedly featuring Victorian-produced porn. This, as it turns turns out, is illegal. My calm and rational response is "WTF??!!!" Just HOW is it that in the 21st century, it is illegal to to produce consensual porn? These are the sorts of laws I would expect in theocratic Iran, or theocratic Iran-lite US states such as Alabama.

OK, there are allegations that that one of the models was under 18 years, and yes, I entirely agree that such allegations should be pursued. However, that doesn't change the fact that producing porn in Victoria is illegal. What possible justification could there be for such a nannying, self-righteous, authoritarian, "C'mon, let's just tell everybody what they can and can't do even though nobody is being hurt and it's entirely consensual" law to exist? Actually, there are several justifications.

1. It's obscene and evil and shouldn't exist.
- I won't even bother.

2. For the children.
- This is more of a thin veil for reason 1. Ironically, conservatives, the ones who are usually railing for 'parents' rights' and accusing Lefties of being irresponsible parents, see no hypocrisy in asking the state to prevent their children from viewing porn. I say that it is the sole responsibility of the parents to prevent their children from viewing it, and nobody else.

3. It objectifies, exploits and degrades women.
- This is the most oft-cited reason against all porn-that it objectifies and exploits women. Fundamentally, I disagree, but I do admit it is a significantly more complex issue than reasons 1 and 2. First, 'objectification.' I agree that porn can, and does, objectify women*, however I see the objectification more on the part of those who view it. Somebody who watches a movie and sees nothing but sluts and whores hardly has a positive image of women in general to begin with.
- Secondly, exploitation. 'Exploitation' to me implies that full, informed consent has not been given-ie, the models are unable to forsee the consequences of their actions. I think that many, if not all, sex workers would be highly offended at the notion that they have the intelligence and emotional maturity of a six year old, unable to give proper consent. I also find it rather odd that only women are targeted here. Nobody see anything wrong in gay porn; those models aren't being exploited at all, apparently. To me, this echoes the double-standard outlined before; that men are more mature then women and don't need to worry about exploitation. There is also the argument that any form of sex work can lead to problems in the future of women being denied employment etc due to their work histories. I agree that this is a problem, but I feel this is a lingering hatred of womens' sexualities, which is hardly a reason to ban sex work.
- Finally, degrading. This is difficult, as most porn does degrade women (the number of times 'slut' appears in those sites probably outnumbers the number of dollars in Bill Gates' bank account). However, porn, and indeed all sex work, is not inherently degrading of women. Having scoped out Abby Winters (and several other sites, many courtesy of Sarah), it didn't appear degrading in the slightest.

And then, of course, there's the obvious counter; it should not be illegal to produce and sell adult material if no minors are involved and it is entirely consensual.

Funnily enough, the first two reasons were used to support anti-gay laws.

Topic cross-posted here and here.

*This post would be a heck of a lot easier if I watched more of it. Damn effective imagination.

Debating torture apologists: it's pretty frickin' simple.

(Yes I know, this post is late. It happens)

Recently, in America, President Obama and former Vice-President Cheney had a debate on American national security. Obama defended the changes made to security, such as attempting to close Guantanamo Bay and banning the American use of torture. Cheney, in contrast, defended the Bush Administration's previous policies, saying that they were in the national interest of security.

The pro-Cheney arguments are as such: terrorists are coming to kill us, and the conventional methods of stopping them are insufficient. Thus, to protect our citizens, we must take harsher methods, such as wire-tapping to intercept such terrorists, enhanced interrogation to extract other information and places like Guantanamo to keep then from getting out and trying to kill us.

The above argument does seem quite convincing to the undecided, but it cracks easily. And what surprised me was during the debate was how Obama didn't tackle the obvious flaws in the Right's argument: that such anti-terrorism methods are inherently undemocratic in every possible way. That these methods are the anti-thesis of a liberal, free democracy.

This is my vebalised response to Cheney.

What would happen if we wiretapped not only suspected terrorists, but also suspected murderers and rapists and placed these suspected criminals in high-security jails without trial, and tortured them into submission? There is a very high chance that we would slash crime rates. The worst people would be locked up, streets would be safer, Western countries would be safer. But there is a very good reason why we don't enact such pro-law and order policies: they are the antithesis of what our civilisation stands for.

In a morally right society, if you are suspected of a crime, and there is sufficiant evidence to say that you have committed the crime, then you are taken to court. Only then and there, if you are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt to have performed the crime, then you are sentenced.

This process undoubtedly results in guilty people being let free due to too little evidence. These unconvicted will often go back out into the public and often reoffend. So why don't we legislate policies to lock them away, in the same manner as suspected terrorists?

Being suspected of a crime does not mean that either you will commit one, or will do so. EVERYBODY (including myself) is capable of committing crimes. Being short tempered does not make you domestic abuser, an occasionally risky driver is not preemptively guilty of manslaughter, and a Muslim who is outspoken in their criticism of the US's history of meddling in Arabian politics is not a supporter of Islamic terrorism, and should not be judged as one until there is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that they are.

If we begin assuming that suspects are guilty simply for being suspects, then innocent people WILL be jailed in process. That is not the path to tyranny. That is tyranny.

Oh, and torture isn't just inhumane-it doesn't fucking work, either.

Topic cross-posted here, here, here, here and here. And from TIME: here, here and here.

The irony! It burns!

Why is it that religious conservatives (Liberals, Republicans, Fielding...) who continue to say that "the science is out on climate change"-defying the consensus of 2000+ scientists-never apply their skeptical and inquisitive nature to their own religious beliefs? As Field Marshal Editor so brilliantly put:

If only the AGW model was proposed in a collection of 2000-year-old texts of dubious authorship. That way there would be enough evidence.

A tribute to the King Of Pop.

Michael Joseph Jackson, the King Of Pop, is dead, age 50. For anybody interested, I am quite a fan. Asides from almost all of his albums (except for a few from his childhood), I have his DVDs and videos, many vinyls, several cassettes, a few biographies and various memorabilia from his Bad and HIStory tours (which I haven't seen, unfortunately). Hence, I would like to present a music video tribute to the artist. However, as some prat has refused the videos to be embedded, I can only give you the links.

From Off the Wall: Don't stop til you get enough

From Thriller: Billie Jean

From Bad: Man in the Mirror

From Dangerous: Heal the World

From HIStory: They don't care about us

From Invincible: You rock my world

In particular, I suggest you watch Mirror, World and T.D.C.A.U. in their chronological order, as they are all humanitarian songs. However the contrast between in the latter two is spectacular.

RIP, Michael.

The definitive top 10

GrodsOfficials Colonel Jester and Admiral Phoenix have both produced what they believe are the greatest ever songs. However, it is a well established fact that a lowly soldier whose blog is never commented on possesses the best taste in music. Hence, here are THE greatest songs ever produced (in no particular order). As a restriction, only songs written by the singers was allowed. Tough, but singers wailing about stuff they haven't written sounds somewhat hollow.

The Boxer - Simon and Garfunkel.

This is by far my favourite S&G song. The end chorus is brilliant, featuring violins and horns producing a sound greater than the sum of its parts.

A Man needs a Maid - Neil Young.

Further proof that violins make already perfect music even more so.

Calm like a Bomb - Rage Against the Machine.

Rage are a wicked band, and Bomb is a treat. Raw lyrics and a brutal guitar that would make Hendrix shit himself.

Stan - Eminem

A shocking, haunting song that reads more like a thriller. A fan of Eminem (Stan) becomes increasingly obsessed with his hero until tragedy strikes, and Em intervenes. There really is no fault to this song.

Sing for the moment - Eminem

Not just lyrically fantastic, but a great tune to boot. You need to examine the lyrics line for line, as there's a shitload in there.

When I'm gone - Eminem

If it seems as if almost a third of the songs being Eminem's cheapens the list, than that's simply because these songs are all that great. This is no different. Mathers sings/raps about a life in which his alter-ego Slim Shady has corroded his ideals and love for his family, which ends in a vicious argument between him and his daughter. It's a psychological Frankenstein; Mathers creates Shady, which takes over and ruin's Marshall's life. Eventually, Mathers, horrified by what Shady has done, decides to his alter-ego's life.

Earth Song - Michael Jackson

OK, I'm a Greenie, so it was kinda inevitable that I would enjoy this one. But it is EPIC.

We've had enough - Michael Jackson

Another humitarian from Jackon, and I think even better, not just for either the lyrics or melody, but the actual structure of the song itself. Most songs go "Verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus." This one is "Verse-verse-bridge-EPIC CHORUS."

Another Brick in the Wall (part 2) Live - Roger Waters.

There is only one way to appreciate this.

Across the Stars - John Williams

If I had the time, energy, talent, skill and desire, I could create the greatest ballet dance to this.

And because there are others - The runners-up:

They don't care about us - Michael Jackson.

A humanitarian-inspired song, but truly chilling. It features a cold military beat and a violin or two backing throughout the song (have I yet mentioned how great violins are?). The depressing reason why it was left off is because various idiots interpreted the lyric "Jew me sue, everybody do me. Kick me, kyke me, doncha black 'n' white me" as anti-Semitic. It's an obvious allusion to how Jews have been so heavily scapegoated in the past. Michael, sadly, caved into the said idiots, and played a couple of electronic noises over the words 'Jew' and 'kyke.' It may sound nitpicky, but it really does take away from the song.

Man in the Mirror - Michael Jackson.

Again, a fantastic humanitarian song with a spectacular finale. The only real reason why it couldn't be included in the top 10 is because Jackson didn't write it, hence it legally cannot make the top ten.

Desparados Under the Eaves - Warren Zevon

A truly kick-ass song with a Man needs a Maid-style ending.

When Doves Cry - Prince

A personal Prince favourite. Losing the bass guitar was one of the best decisions he made, creating a stark and original piece.

Maneater - Hall & Oates

A thousand and one times better than the remake (but that's still saying something). It gave something other than a run-of-the-mill guitar solo, which was rare for the 1980s.

Baker Street - Gerry Rafferty

Because saxaphones rock.

Billie Jean - Who else?

I know Michael gets a lot of coverage in this post, but you can't deny that this is a wicked song. Especially the intro.