How to commit blasphemy

A graphical example.
Step1 - draw a man:




Step2 - explain that you are portraying the prophet Mohammed:

Step3 - sit back and wait for the fundamentalist Islamic clerics to put a fatwa on your ass and declare war against you and your country.

The events surrounding the publication of drawings of the prophet Mohammed in the Danish daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten a couple of months ago has taken an even more dramatic turn for the worse.

A large Islamic extremist party in Pakistan has offered a reward of 50,000 kroner to anyone who kills any of the artists.

I forgot to mention Step4 - if you live in Victoria, you can expect to be prosecuted under our blasphemy laws for offending people's religious views.

Chewbacca blogs !

Now this is what happens when an individual with Photoshop skills has too much time on their hands.. enjoy !

Chewbacca's blog

Kim Beazley's big fat vision

I was just watching 10 minutes of Kim Beazley delivering a speech to the Canberra Press gallery broadcast by the Australian Bolshevik Collective. And all I heard was blah blah blah, blah blah blah as he outlined Labor's vision of a better Australia and insinuated lots of things against the Liberals.

When describing what Labor would do, Beazley pulled out the old meaningless slogans like "build a nation to be proud of" and "in the national interest" and "helping individuals create partnerships with government rather than dependancy on them"... hey, did he pull those words from Stalin's speeches?

You wanna simple translation to what all these phrases actually mean in terms of policy ? It means a socialist command economy, heavily regulated, high taxing country which will strip away freedoms from business and individuals alike. If Labor doesn't like something, they can ban it or tax it to death, all in the name of "the national interest".

Of course he tried to milk the AWB scandal for what its worth, saying that the current government is morally bankrupt. One interviewer from the Herald-Sun had the common sense to actually ask Beazley what he was basing his allegation on. Beazley could only answer that because the government didn't actually ask for a royal commission to investigate its own involvement, well, then they must be hiding something bad of course !?

Oh yeah, and Labor think that the U.S should stop investigating the AWB involvement in the U.N oil-for-food scandal simply because the U.N is already investigating it ?

The U.N, the most corrupt political group in the world, is "investigating" itself and Labor don't see any possible problems ? Pfffttt ! Surely this is a case of doublethink.

South Park rocks !

Anyone catch the South Park episode that makes fun of the trashy green-cult movie "The day after tomorrow"?

I was on the floor laughing.. the basic storyline is that Stan & Cartman crash a speedboat into the dam which floods a neighboring town. Nobody saw them do it, so the locals on both sides of politics blame either George Bush or Al-Qaeda for the floods. Then the local media interview "a bunch of respected climate change scientists" who put it down to the arrival of global warming.

From this point, the cartoon re-enacts the bogus scenes from the movie The day after tomorrow.
An emergency conference is held where these scientists bring along a graph saying that their computer model predicts massive temperature drops. When asked by a reporter "when will this happen", they respond "The day after tomorrow.. but we printed this out 2 days ago.. oh shit !"

What follows from this point is hilarious. Riots and looting ensure, people panic and flee the town screaming "We didn't listen!" , or "It's here ! Global warming !! Yaaargh !"

(Meanwhile, the skies are blue and its just another sunny day in South Park).

At the end of the episode, the scientists admit that they got it wrong. Not only does this episode take down the hysterical cult of global warming, it mocks the media and government.

One reporter was on camera saying "We have reports that over 60 billion people have died in Chicago already !"... the anchorman then responded "Have you actually seen these dead people?" to which the reporter replies "No.. no.. but I am reporting it !" (remind anyone of the media screwup covering the 12 trapped miners ?)

Another funny moment is when people ask the US military if they are gonna rescue civilians in the flooded town, to which they reply ... "No. We can't.. but tell them that the government cares very much". (sounds like New Orleans to me)

This episode highlights why libertarianism is such a superior way of life to all other political ideologies.

Melbourne talkback radio - same old same old

Driving to work today, I had my radio tuned in to 3AW to listen to Neil Mitchell's morning talkback show. The funny thing is that I'm not a huge fan of Neil Mitchell, and I find that the main value in listening to his show is that he covers local issues and often highlights some outrageous government incompetence.

I must be a masochist listening to this show, because Neil is one of the biggest nanny-state worshippers there is.

After hearing callers dial in to fully outline what the latest outrage of the day is, then Neil typically starts one of his rambles calling for more government intervention, more regulation and a "let's call up the responsible minister" attitude. Whilst I would bet anything that most people with Neil's attitude mean well and wish "the best", my blood boils over at the fact that they never bloody learn that government always fails !

Whenever there is a bureaucratic bungle or mess in health, transport, education, or a case of outrageous and unjustified government spending, Neil's cure is simply -- more spending and regulation! Why can't some libertarians call this guy up and hit him over the head with a clue-by-four? Does he even know where taxes come from, or is the theft of hard earned savings considered justified by this cretin ?

Which major should I pursue ?

You scored as Engineering. You should be an Engineering major! Engineering 83% Linguistics 75% Theater 67% Mathematics 58% Anthropology 58% English 58% Philosophy 58% Dance 50% Biology 50% Journalism 50% Psychology 50% Chemistry 50% Sociology 50% Art 25% What is your Perfect Major? (PLEASE RATE ME!!<3) created with QuizFarm.com

Movie review: Brokeback mountain

Went to see a preview screening last night of the much acclaimed "Brokeback Mountain" and wasn't dissappointed. Technically, the cinematography was slow, with broken dialogue but did have lots of stunning panoramic views of wilderness (it supposed to be Wyoming but the film was actually filmed in Alberta, Canada!).

But theres no doubting that its the pure focus on the main characters in the film that make this film what it is.

This film should not be distinguished for its controversiality as much as its originality and the brilliant individual performances of the two lead actors. Some people view the film as trying to make a political statement and approve/disapprove of it accordingly. Everyone seems to refer to it as the 'gay cowboy' film (technically, they were bisexual shepherds anyway). I hope others can avoid categorising the film and simply enjoy the characters.

I'll give it 4.5 stars.

Photo of the year

I hate ABC news and their smug arrogance. So this photo made my day, via Rachel at Legless in Perpetuum.

Movie review - Good night and good luck

Well, that was 90 minutes of black and white boredom I'll never get back. They might as well call the film Good Night for the effect it has on most people.

The black and white effect was obviously to give the film a historical feel to it, of how America was in the 1950s. The film actually used stock footage of Joe McCarthy rambling on about communist infiltrators. And the tobacco advertising and news anchors who smoked cigarettes whilst on air was also quite amusing.

But all in all, it was such a stiff and dry production. Clooney really takes himself and the subject matter too seriously. He only portrays the issue of the film as entirely clear cut and one-sided. There is virtually no character development, the actors rarely smile, there are no scenes apart from the CBS newsroom so its seems the director was obsessive compulsive over the one aspect of that decade.

I still concede that the film was accurate and objective, well-researched and all. But it really failed to represent the other side of the debate and seeks to glorify the CBS journalist Ed Murrow, who publicly stood up to McCarthy, as being solely responsible for his downfall. Whilst its clear that McCarthyism was all about a political witchhunt, the film fails to reveal that history has shown that some of McCarthy's exposed pinkos of the time were actually Soviet spies.

I'll give this film 2.5 stars.