Worrying

Stanley Kubrick, a hero of mine, apparently remarked “If the Labourites ever get in, I’ll leave the country.”

If he were alive today, he'd probably have left the country by now.

These Orwellian talking-CCTV-cameras are extremely worrying development, though apparently this is a minority view I hold, according to Home Secretary John Reid.

Over this mornings hot-cross buns and coffee, the guys, girls and I discussed this. Some put forth the view that it didn't matter since they wouldn't break the law. However, I think this view falls down after some extrapolation.

Firstly, I think everyone acts differently when they're knowingly surveiled. Apprently Foucault would agree.

Secondly, do you think it's right for someone to be publicly humiliated for an act which could be totally innocent?

Thirdly, it sets precedent. Whilst I don't wish to take the slippery-slope fallacy, the significance of legal precedence must not be ignored.

Finally, it should be worrying that this is how the Labour party acts these days. Some might say that the Tories would be worse, and that's potentially true, but not necessarily.

Shadow home affairs minister James Brokenshire said the government should be "very careful" over the cameras.

Hopefully people haven't forgotten the origins of 1984's INGSOC.

On the other hand, I also agree it's possible the Tories could be even worse, and Orwell was hardly a Tory anyway.

Again, as I maintain, both sides are flawed.

On that note, I think I'll go pickup a 2nd hand copy of 1984, it's been too long.

Musicovery

Allow me to put the spotlight on Musicovery for a moment.
My friend Kevin introduced me to it, and I've had a very good relationship with it ever since.

I love the way it categorises music according to mood, and then genre.

I spend most of my time in the calm section, slightly left of center.

Coincidentally (?) it seems to line up with my position on the political compass.

Also, it introduced me to the artist Richard Bona.

To paraphrase Ron Burgandy..."Musicovery.....drink it in...it always goes down smooth".

You stay classy San Diego.

Iain Hall, Missing in Tsunami

Iain Hall has been reported missing, feared dead, after a killer-tsunami struck the coast of Eastern Australia today.

Sir Iain is a prominent blogger with many years experience in the fast-food industry.

"McDonalds has lost a faithful employee, customer, and friend" said an industry source.

More on this as information becomes available.

UPDATE:
We have it exclusively, direct from the source. Sir Iain has, apparently, been found. He was hiding in the disabled toilet of the Dalby McDonalds.
"It was apparently some kind of an April Fool's joke" remarked an industry source, "has no one told Iain it is the first of April that is the appropriate day for such spoofs?"

In related news, the tsunami also appears to have been a belated April Fool's day joke from fed-up weather forecasters.

Battleground God

Following on from The Political Compass post earlier, a friend of mine told me to take the Battlefield God game over at The Philosophers Magazine Online.

It's a rather well laid out questionairre which will put your religious beliefs to the test of rationality.
Have you thought out your conception and of God?

Naturally, I scored perfectly, because I spend time thinking about these issues.



But will you? Keep in mind, it doesn't matter whether or not you believe in God, it matters that you have consistent views.

A fun way to spend five minutes, in any event.

Let me know your results.

Caught up in Suspense of Mystery Bride

"The world's hairiest man, Yu Zhenhuan, is going to marry this year."

Came across this great article on Pravda (yes, I know it's an ironic name for a newspaper).

Check it out, by all means, but I wasn't able to spot any hint of old Yu's fioncee, which is surely what we all want to see.

I'm just so caught up in the suspense of it all. What will she look like?

We must proceed by a process of deduction.

I'm not game enough to type 'world's hairiest woman' into Google, but if anyone else is, please let me know what you find.

On that note, this seems an ideal time to update on Amanda Vanstone (via AAP):
"It is mischief making in the extreme to suggest I used taxpayer funds to learn another language," Senator Vanstone said.

Ah, but Mandy, I'm not suggesting that you used taxpayer funds to learn another language.

I'm saying you used taxpayer funds and failed to learn another language; an even more despicable waste of money.

But nonetheless, what could her motivations for learning Chinese have been?

I put it to you, that Old Yu's bride-to-be is none other than.........

Mandy Vandy

Editors must be having the pun-tastic time of their lives.
Vandy spent up to $70,000 trying to learn Mandy.
That's our crazy Mandy Vandy. It would normally defy belief, except that it's now relative to the very recent revelations of stupidity from Ian Campbell, Kelvin Thomson and Santo Santoro.

Firstly, I'm amazed that such a sum of money could be spent at all, given that someone could do an Arts degree double majoring in Chinese and still only incur $12,000 in costs.
$70,000? Granted, the confirmed figure so far is $31,000, but even that is still ridiculous.

But aside from the issue of cost itself, the part that disgusts me the most is that it has apparently been wasted on an inept Vanstone. A Mandarin-speaking businessman was present at a speech which Vanstone delivered in Canberra, and apparently (from the Sydney Morning Herald):

"She doesn't appear to believe in tones, which are the most important part of speaking Mandarin," the businessman said. "It was excruciating".

Appalling. Keep in mind Vanstone very recently pronounced:

"If you say hello to someone in their own language, you touch their heart, if you say hello in your language you only touch their head,"

Indeed. I might add, if you butcher someones native language, you can piss them off.

Quite literally, in Chinese, one tone can be the difference between an accent(口音) and a blowjob (口淫).

And to think, the PM is considering posting her to Beijing as an ambassador. That's an alarming lack of judgement. It's no wonder Rudd is leading Howard on the issue of national security.

It's an interesting time we're at. Some of the most valid criticism of the Howard government is coming from conservatives like Andrew Bolt, criticism which by its nature isn't based on left or right ideology, but on pure rationality. To the point where Bolt is pointing out that "From this Government now comes the first unmistakable whiff of decay."

Some would say that the smell has been there a while now, but the point remains.
I suppose this whole Mandy Vandy Mandy issue will just act as a metaphor for the larger issues of incompetency of the incumbent government.

Compare Mandy Vandy's Mandy to Rudd's. Whilst it's not really related to policy, I think it's that sort of contrast that people are starting to perceive, and that's what's leading to the consensus of 'it's time'. It's not just an issue of ideology, but competency.

I'm sure Liberal party advisers will be desperately searching for a fluent Mandarin-speaking, fresh faced member to hold up to the spotlight.
That's definitely not Mandy Vandy though.



Vanstone, in the middle of a Mandarin tutorial.

"Sufficient Reason" vs "Causal Chains"

And now for something completely different...

Have you ever considered the question of whether everything needs a cause or reason? A lot of scientific method relies upon the assumption of cause and effect, and subsequent inductions are made. And the argument of "Sufficient Reason" assumes that the world, composed of contingent objects which have an external cause, must have some being or event which is the reason of itself, not consequential of a contingent other. It concludes the existence of a 'necessary being'.

On the other hand, it's been suggested that perhaps events merely occur in 'causal chains', whereby the first cause in the chain has no antecedant cause. In these cases of first cause, it would seem to suggest that there is room for chance (something happening without cause). Take the quantum transition of atoms, for example.

So what do you think? Is there true chance in the world, or is it just our lack of knowledge that leads us to appeal to chance?