Baby Herbal Soup – what part of the word “hoax” don’t you understand?

Every now and again EM gets over run with people being directed to my various posts on the so-called Chinese Baby Herbal Soup story.

I have repeatedly pointed out that this is a hoax that began circulating a few years ago following a confronting and controversial performance art piece by a Chinese dissident artist Zhu Yu. But the set of images taken of this exhibition – in which Zhu does appear to cook and eat a newborn, or fetus-like human form – continuously bounces from bulletin board to chat room where the same old tired, racist cliches are trotted out until some more rational member of that forum kindly links to one of my denunciations of the hoax.

But it shows you how wide and shallow most of the internet pool actually is that the same junk-information and same slimy muck rises to the surface in different areas at different times. Such as this one, this week,  from Gaijin Pot; a forum ostensibly about expat life in Japan.

It's a hoax; not recent news from China

Another one popped up too at Rekords Rekords. Both of these sites are linking to the Seoul Times piece I mentioned in a blog several months ago. I wrote to the editor of the Seoul Times asking her/him to take down this offensive rubbish. I didn’t ever get a reply. The Seoul Times is not a credible news outlet, but it does have a masthead and therefore can very easily mislead the dribblejaws.

It is irresponsible for anyone to continue recirculating this hoax and I am grateful to all the sensible folk who brave the stupidity of  these threads and  link to my posts on this. Keep it up, the world needs you to maintain your vigilance against ignorance and prejudice.

An aetheist and his Bible! #2

I sometimes find a little pleasure in tracing back the Google searches people use to find Ethical Martini and this one is  a mystery.

Today three hits on my site were generated by a Google search on the word “bible”. Why I don’t know. I’ve just done a similar search and already 53 pages into the list generated by the B! word I still haven’t found the link to my An aetheist and his Bible.

But I did come across a couple of great sites. If ever you waiver in your aetheism, just go to either of these pages and refresh your (dis)belief.

Bible Atrocities

Bible Atrocities is a page hosted by Secular Web and managed by the Internet Infidels.

“Ah, small joys in a barbaric world.”

Evil Bible Home Page

EvilBible.com is a non-profit web site which was developed to promote atheism by revealing the wicked truth about the Bible and religion.

Chris “Ali Baba” Thiefe is currently the Editor, Web-Site Designer, and author of most of the material that does not have a “by line” associated with it.

For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes.  The so called “God” of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout.  This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children.

“Ah, men!”

“Victim accomplished” Bailey Kurariki: [no] life in a glass-walled cage

The angel faced 12 year old was the image that the media highlighted, which meant that Bailey Junior received a much greater punishment than those who were far more culpable for their actions than he who pretended to be the customer when Michael Choy arrived. I am not minimising his involvement – he was part of a group that predetermined to rob a delivery person and he played a role in that – but despite all the coverage, he did not kill Michael Choy.

Lianne Dalziel, “What will turn the tide?“

[Update]I added that epigraph this morning after reading Dalziel’s speech to the Restorative Justice Practitioners’ 2010 Conference.

The media attention “lavished” on Bailey Junior Kurariki this week is possibly driving the young man mad. A round of court appearances,  fresh charges and more lurid headlines is probably the last thing Kurariki needs right now.

Not that any of those reasons will prevent the media circus from continuing around this most [in]famous of young men.

The Junior Kurariki “brand” is also deadly to his chances of ever living a normal life: “New Zealand’s youngest convicted murderer killer”; the “baby-faced killer”. [tx Tim Selwyn for pointing that out]

That was then, this is now, but even that realisation doesn’t stop the news media from effortlessly [ie: without the effort of thinking through the consequences] reeling off these “pop shot” expressions every time there’s any reason to mention his name in relation to a story.

Obviously Kurariki’s no saint – he participated in a the brutal murder killing of 40-year-old pizza delivery guy, Michael Choy, when he was 11 or 12.  Kurariki’s role was to act as a decoy and give the signal for others to attack Choy; he did not deliver the fatal blow. [Updated Sunday morning]

he’s Kurariki’s been in and out of minor trouble ever since his release from jail in 2008 – but he’s not been given a chance to readjust to life outside either. He was something like 12 or 13 when he went to jail and nearly 20 when he came out.

Think about that for a moment.

He missed out on a whole bunch of shit that any “normal” young boy would go through in those vital teen years. He went from childhood to adulthood in the crazy-making artificial fishbowl world of 24/7 surveillance; huge restrictions on his every waking moment and in an environment that bears no relation at all to the “real” world.

In other words, Bailey Junior Kurariki learned to be a man under totally un-natural and irrational conditions. Is there any real wonder that today he displays behaviours that are considered un-natural and irrational?

An aetheist and his Bible

It’s not very often I go searching for my copy of the Holy Bible. But whenever I find it in my brief moment of need I always say a heart-felt “Thankriste”.

Last night was one of those rare moments: it took me a while too, I had to search through acres of groaning shelves to find my barely touched King James authorised version. In this edition the actual words of Jesus himself are helpfully colour-coded.

But it wasn’t Jesus I was after last night, rather the bloody and mercenary Moses. In particular the various points in the Old Testament where he receives the absolutely must obey rules from a vengeful and jealous God.

I was seeking out the various passages in Exodus – the bit that explains Bob Marley’s drug habit -  and Dudedontneuterme – the bit where the Levi-wearing Midianites beg Moses not to cut their bits off (in vain it turns out) – where the Ten Commandments are explained.

“And, as a level 7 aetheist, you are doing this why?” At least that was the reaction from a disbelieving Mrs Martini. She didn’t even know we had a Holy Bible in the house and she was most amused that I would choose it as my bedtime reading.

“Well actually, Moac,” I carefully explained, “I’m reading Vanity Fair and the Bible’s only here as a reference guide.”

Moac gets this; while doing her BA she was told to read the Holy Bible (I always feel there should be an exclamation mark here, like this: “Holy Bible! Batman.”) as it was the foundation for a lot of literary references. I pointed out to her that the late, great HST swore by the Bible. He swore at pretty much everything, but that’s another story.

Mr Hitchens carving himself a new one

This story is about the essay in VF by Christopher Hitchens in which he argues that the Ten Commandments should be revised and redacted. The points he makes – which is why I needed the Holy Bible! – are that at the various times in Exodus and Dudedontneuterme where the tablets of stone are mentioned, the wording does indeed change and that the surly and obviously mad-as-a-hatter Moses even smashes the original set in anger. An even angrier God has him go back up the fuckenmountain for another 40 days and 40 nights** to hew some more freakentablets.

I didn’t know, until I read in Hitchen’s piece that the Ten Commandments had changed from one passage to another. The Vanity Fair piece is worth a read; Exodus was a classic piece of reggae-rock;  the book of Dudedontneuterme is worth a laugh, but it’s far too frightening for children.

The New Commandments: Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair, April 2010

** I checked: this is not the same 40 days and 40 nights during which the earth flooded and Noah’s ark ended up on another fuckenmountain.

Mr Trotter’s on to something

I’ve been to Galbraith’s Ale House in Mt Eden road a few times to sup with Mr Trotter and his pals of a Friday evening. We’ve had some pleasant times and one or two beastly disagreements, but I think Chris is right in his recent assessments of the ACT-led National government.

Mr Trotter has an elegant and literary blog called Bowalley Road, named after a laneway in rural Otago, and from time to time it makes wise and interesting reading.

In a recent piece comparing the actions of the Key government with those of a previous National regime, Chris makes the following point:

National’s backwoodsmen may see nothing wrong with “kicking the bodies of public servants” and ruthlessly reaffirming the policy objectives of Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson, but those few wise heads that still remain in the National Party would do well to remind these backwoods Bourbons that the voters have firmly rejected them.

The Prime Minister’s winning smile cannot forever be relied upon to distract voters’ attention from the mounting casualties of National’s noxious nostalgia. [Plus ça change]

What Chris is describing here is the sheer brutality of the National party’s political agenda today. Perhaps even more chilling is the way in which the Auckland super city is being foist upon us without, it seems, any discussion or recourse:

If “Rogernomics” represented the triumph of private over public interests in economic matters, “Rogerpolitics” stands for the elevation of private over public decision-making in the political sphere.

When that happens, our entire system of responsible government will fall under its shadow, and the future of democracy itself will be imperilled. [Rogerpolitics]

Let’s not forget that the whole super city push is being led by ACT’s poison dwarf “Dr Jerkall”. ACT is not yet a Fascist organisation, but its individualistic and libertarian rhetoric is  damaging to the social good and ultimately a gateway drug to the Brownshirts.

The question is what to do about it?

One of the Key things is to begin joining the dots:

1. Attacks on higher education
2. Attacks on school teachers and education
3. Attacks on welfare and social security beneficiaries
4. More jails and more jailers
5. Maintaining a low wage economy
6. Less money for public service broadcasting
7. Ditching the TVNZ Charter obligations
8. Privatising Auckland City governance
9. Opening up the national estate to strip mining
10. A higher profile for “our” SAS boys in Afghanistan

This is just off the top of my head. I’m sure you can add many more to this list.

Any opposition that fights on single issues against this juggernaut government is doomed to defeat. Only a consistent application of the principles of a genuine united front can offer any hope.

Or as Winston says in 1984: “If there’s any hope at all, it lies with the Proles.”

Human rights – [dis]honoured in the breach

You’ve gotta love that  worm and cuddly, short and brutish Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett. A “Westie”, a single mum and a battler, who through hard graft and sheer rat cunning, has made it to John Key’s illustrious front bench.

“Bruiser” Bennett has once again demonstrated  she’s made of sterner stuff than most with her “damn the torpedoes” approach to welfare reform. When informed by the Attorney General that sections of the Orwellian-themed Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill breach the Bill of Rights Act, her Churchillian response was a two-fisted “Idongivafuck”

The Attorney-General is required to draw Parliament’s attention to breaches but Governments are not obliged to act on them and routinely ignore breaches. [Some welfare reforms breach rights]

Bennett believes (or so she’s obliged to say) that the discrimination on the grounds of gender, marital status and family status is fair enough and that plenty of Kiwis will support her:

“I think that is a discrimination that most New Zealanders will see as being fair and reasonable.”

Where does it stop? Some New Zealanders might think discrimination against Gays is “fair and reasonable”, or against Polynesians, Koreans, Indians or Chinese.

Am I paranoid?

The last time I visited those great United States, in September 2008, I flew all the way from LA to NYC with a couple of stops on the way and didn’t really have too much trouble. The time before that in 2007 the locks on my bags were broken open by the Transport Safety Authority and Moac & I had to de-shoe in St Louis one time.

But on my way out of the US in the first week of October 2008 – British Airways to London – I was told that my name had appeared on a US Government “watch list”.

Nothing came of it really. I was allowed to travel and the woman who told me really played it down.

But today I got a notification that the United States Embassy in Wellington is following my blog via Twitter.

USA out of my Tweets

I  sent a polite message asking why the embassy wants to follow me and also seeking to know who the embassy staffer is who’s charged with keeping tabs on my blog.

I will block them tomorrow  if they don’t reply.

Am I paranoid?

I really am egotistical enough to think my words are pearls**, but unless there’s some closet radical working in the Embassy mailroom, I don’t think my brand of commentary would be to the Ambassador’s tastes.

This unwelcome attention comes on the first business day after I published my post supporting the Waihopai three.

We should all be self-aware enough to know that our electronic lives are not secure or private, but I do find this a little weird and sinister.

**Dribblejaws alert: That’s a joke, calm down

Waihopai jury – I’m on your side.

The next tinpot “security expert”, armchair jurist or newspaper columnist who farts on about how the jury in the Waihopai sickle-slash case “got it wrong” is in for a big surprise.

I am [note to dribblejaws],” metaphorically”, not literally, going to ride my bike over to their place and slash them a new wingnut with my scythe.

The jury made a decision based on the evidence and the arguments presented. A not guilty verdict is still a verdict.

Leave it at that, but no…this is political, so the jury’s fucked and the law’s an ass. At least that’s true if you think the war in Iraq and the presence of Kiwi SAS troops in Afghanistan is a good thing.

Well I don’t. I think the jury got it right and I think that the verdict shows that ordinary New Zealanders are sick and fucking tired of the lies about “freedom” and “defending” our way of life while we [the major western powers] casually murder women and children “over there”. al Qaeda is not coming to the rugby world cup, so we should leave the Afghan people alone too.

Waihopai jury: congratulations on a sane and honourable verdict.

[Sunday morning update: I know I'm right, Michael Laws takes a reasonable stand:

12 completely mad Wellingtonians staged their own protest and found three guilty "peace" activists not guilty. Lord knows why. A protest at the food, or the rate of pay? A sick St Patrick's Day joke? Whatever the spite, it was a perverse finding. (Deluded jury lets greenies plant seeds of terrorism)

Blame the jury Michael, that's the ticket]

Chat roulette – too much weirdness for me

I’ve just spent about 20 minutes on the latest gimmick website Chat Roulette; I won’t be going back for a second look.

One round of weirdness is enough for me.

In case you’ve missed it – and that would be hard, given the press coverage in the past two weeks – Chat Roulette is an even more instant and ephemeral application than Twitter.

The basic premise is that you go to the site and turn on your webcam. You are then randomly connected with the other users – when I checked it out late on a Kiwi Wednesday afternoon there were 20000 similarly bored souls linked in.

I few of the “partners” I was connected with didn’t have their cameras on and all I can say after my brief excursion is that was probably a good thing.

I managed to capture some screen shots of the worst offenders, but why they would go to the trouble, I don’t know. I suppose the chances of finding someone to play hand music with are higher on Chat Roulette than just about anywhere else online – at least for free. But these unattractive specimens would cause most sensible people (me included) to quickly hit the “next” button.

Adults only content after the jump. Please don’t go there if you’re offended by fat hairy bellies and scruffy men’s undies.

Some sensible people write about Chat Roulette

Zoe Williams in The Guardian

Sam Jones in The Guardian

Rebecca Barry in the NZ Herald

Rugby terror threat story a damp squib…Minister’s hose suspected

I’ve had time now to consider the Sunday Star Times extensive coverage yesterday of the alleged threat to security at the Rugby World Cup next year.

To recap briefly, the SST sent some reporters to rugby stadiums in Christchurch, Hamilton and Auckland to test the security arrangements ahead of next year’s RWC. The problem for the paper is that Police Minister Judith Collins blew their cover on the Friday before publication with a pre-emptive media release in which she lambasted the SST for a stupid stunt.

Ms Collins was advised that a newspaper commissioned people to masquerade as terrorists who then gained access to restricted areas at Super 14 matches in Hamilton and Christchurch.

“The actions are unbelievably stupid and irresponsible. This stunt had the potential to result in games being called off and stadiums evacuated,” Ms Collins said. [Scoop 12 March]

Undeterred, or perhaps realising it had no option, the SST went ahead with the story on Sunday.

The toy “explosives” carried in one reporter’s bag were just that – obvious fakes. Nobody would have mistaken them for a real bomb. The reporters also carried a letter bearing the paper’s masthead confirming their identities and providing the name and mobile telephone number of the deputy editor. In other words, if the reporters had been stopped, their identities and what they were doing would have been instantly revealed. There was no possibility of anyone mistaking them for real terrorists. There was therefore no possibility of any panic, or evacuation, or a sudden halt to the games.

[Political beat-up detracts from real issues]

But wouldn’t real terrorists go to great lengths to hide their identities — such as carrying fake ID and so on? And how did the paper’s editors know that the security guards and cops wouldn’t have reacted badly? Did the paper do a real risk assessment?

As I mentioned in an earlier post; if the SST had not had its cover blown on Friday, Sunday’s “expose” of “major flaws” in security arrangements may well have detonated a different response from police, public officials and the rugby community.

Instead, it looked like the paper was just trying to catch up and scramble to cover its embarrassment.

It might also be instructive to think about the Police Minister’s pre-emptive media strike against the SST on Friday too. It now seems that her initial claims — that the SST had hired actors dressed as terrorists — were false, or at best highly-exaggerated and based on false information.

Collins’ media release on Friday suggested that the SST had hired actors to pose as terrorists — invoking images of be-turbaned and bearded fanatics running around with plastic Kalashnikovs. But this Minister, as you knew at the time, was highly misleading and designed to whip-up feelings against the paper.

Certainly the pictures of Jonathon Marshall in Sunday’s paper don’t show him with a turban and fake beard and the paper denies that any members of the public were put at risk.

I must admit that without the benefit of any further information – I did try to find out more – I was one of those lining up lat week to condemn the Sunday Star Times. On reflection, I was perhaps a bit harsh (more on that later).

Perhaps the Minister’s venom was a cover too — a way of softening the blow of the SST‘s revelations of lax security and also of deflecting any flack from the explosion that a fresh Sunday front page might have caused without the dampening effect of the early negative publicity.

At the heart of any assessment of the SST‘s actions must be the public interest test: Was the contrived security breach justified because an issue of vital public importance and public interest could be revealed through the action?

In other words: Did the ‘ends’ justify the ‘means?