'jane's law'

One of the great things about going to university is the friendships you make with your fellow students. In my case, even though I am an external student and seldom get closer to my new buddies than a late night skype, this particular brand of collegiality is one I haven't enjoyed since leaving the church. And perhaps not even then.

For a grammar and punctuation stickler such as I am, it's been particularly heartening to find that university is peppered with similarly pedantic sorts. Finding each other has been a revelation - akin to the moment you overhear a stranger ordering a peanut butter, lettuce and mayonnaise on white at the sandwich bar and the universe pauses to acknowledge that the two of you share an important little difference unappreciated by the bulk of humanity.

On my favourite university Facebook group, people other than myself often bemoan the appalling standard of English on uni discussion boards and elsewhere....and others soon chime in with their Irritation of the Week citations. It's fantastic! But I've begun to notice a rather disturbing pattern and I think it's time to made official note of it.

Recently, one clever uni friend joined our whinge-fest, describing her understandable horror at a hairdressers' shop sign which read 'Appointments not nessecary'. My friend went on to describe herself as having been 'aghaust'. A few minutes later, another fellow English-rules-nut gave the folk who write university student advisory pages a spray stating that they could use a few 'lessions' in grammar and spelling. This struck me as very close to some kind of delectable Freudian slip; I imagined if she got those advisors alone for just a few minutes she would inflict horrible wounds on the ignorant cusses - perhaps belting them with the sharp edge of a dictionary.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not criticising these uber-bright women - precisely the opposite is true. I'm acknowledging that there may be little-understood mystical powers at work. My friends are, as I have been many times, the victims of what I'm going to call 'Jane's Law' - at least until I discover that someone has beaten me to it. So here it is:

Jane's Law states that the degree of righteous indignation one expresses while criticising (in writing) the grammatical, spelling or punctuation failures of another is directly proportionate to the likelihood that one will produce an ironically similar error right at that moment.

As I see it, that's the only plausible explanation for the frequent and humiliating failure of usually reliable English skills at times like those. At least, that's what I'll be blaming in future.

Acknowledgement: Photos from http://www.oddee.com/item_96509.aspx

some issues are too important to fool with crappy logic

Recently I got the pip with a pithy little number that was being reposted all over Facebook. Grinding my teeth about its ignorance and illogic didn't seem sufficiently cathartic so finally, with trembling, I posted a response.

My doing so almost cost me at least one friendship. I realise now I should have posted here in my own little space and not on Facebook where people I care about would be embarrassed. And I could have taken more care to emphasise that I did not mean to criticise those who had been reposting it in good faith. Anyway, I've more or less been able to patch up the mess I made with one much-loved friend and thought I'd note the experience here. Mostly so I can look back in a couple of years' time and see what a pedantic twerp I was.

What follows is the original burr-under-my-saddle post and then my Facebook response to it. Oh, and in the interests of giving discredit where it is due, a little Google search revealed that the post originated here.

“So, let me get this straight...Charlie Sheen can make a "porn family", Kelsey Grammar can end a 15 year marriage over the phone, Larry King can be on divorce #9, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with EVERYONE. Yet, the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really?”

A lot of very caring, smart people on my list have been reposting a statement which identifies some less-than-admirable celebrity marriage stories, and uses them to argue in favour of same-sex marriage. I have to say, I've read the post several times, and while I'm supportive of non-discriminatory social policies for everyone, including gay and lesbian Australians, and while I think I understand the reasons why my friends are posting it, I won't be. Here's why:

Firstly, it’s just not good logic. Pointing out the moral or relational failures of others does not speak to the issue of same sex marriage in any way. Unless, of course, Charlie Sheen is holding himself up as an example of how marriage should be done and suggesting that same-sex couples are incapable of doing the same excellent job with their relationships and thus should be denied the right to marry. But as that post is written, Charlie Sheen and the other celebrities’ relational failures have nothing whatever to say about anything or anyone but themselves.

Further, while I understand that the post was just meant to be mildly humorous, I feel that making such poor arguments can cause detractors who spot the shoddy logic feel that there *are* no sound arguments for changing the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriage...or else we wouldn’t be getting so excited about ones like these. And in our democracy, the good will of the people counts. I think those who are pressing for these changes need to take every opportunity to explain their case and show the community what good sense it makes.

Also, as my clever daughter pointed out, once we start criticising people on moral grounds, we are encouraging them to weigh us in the same scale. And we know that many social conservatives object to same-sex marriage on moral grounds anyway. Taking that tack seems to me to be akin to stepping back giving the other side a good clear space for a free kick.

Finally, shining a spotlight on the failures of a visible and not particularly representative few only opens the way for your enemies to treat you to some of your own medicine. It would be too easy for someone to draw attention to a few similarly uninspiring stories from the gay community. That’s what happens when we start flinging poop around - the other guy is going to come back with an infantile, ‘Oh, yeah? Well, you can’t talk!’ And he’d be right. And you’d have asked for the humiliating serve that follows.

So, I just wanted to state for what it’s worth that although I will not be reposting that statement, it’s not because I don’t care for my gay and lesbian friends or that I don’t think they deserve social equity. It’s just that I think flip statements like these may actually *harm* their cause. And I wouldn’t want to participate in doing that.

wbc and dummies like me

In the past week, the members of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeca, Kansas have come to the attention of news media even here in far off Australia because of a case being heard in the US Supreme Court which challenges church members' First Amendment rights. WBC members apparently picketed the funeral of Matthew Snyder, a US Marine killed in Iraq four years ago. Snyder's father, Albert, subsequently sued the WBC for damages on grounds of mental suffering he claims he endured when his son's funeral was turned into a WBC debacle. In the current case, Albert Snyder is appealing the overturning of that court decision in which he had been awarded $11 million.

As probably everyone but me already knew, WBC, led by founder Fred Phelps, regularly pickets military funerals claiming that God had killed the serviceman or woman to make a point, and that he enjoyed doing it. WBC's website states that they have carried out 44, 286 such protests so far. Church members wave large, colourful signs at these events which bear such frank slogans as "God Hates Fags", "God Hates America", "God Hates You", "Your Pastor is a Whore", "The Jews killed Jesus", "Aids Cures Fags" and "God Hates Your Feelings". Subtle WBC is not.

WBC targets high-profile funerals, such as that of brutally murdered gay student Matthew Shepard, in order to attract maximum media attention. They are doing a great job with that. According to one report WBC's membership totals less that 100 adults, over 80% of whom WBC admits are related to each other by birth or marriage. For such a small and exclusive group WBC has a very, very loud voice.

WBC's main webite www.godhatesfags.com is a fascinating read. There they state their position on numerous issues supplying a smorgasbord of Bible references in support of each. In a nutshell, if I'm understanding them rightly, here's are some of their core beliefs:

• The Bible is the Word of God
• Sodomy, sex outside of marriage, adultery, divorce and remarriage are all sins and those who are guilty of them will burn in hell for eternity
• People who have had an abortion, likewise
• In fact, God hates everyone who is not among his chosen - the Elect
• Only God's chosen will make it to heaven - eternal damnation awaits the rest of us
• Pastors who preach that God loves the non-Elect are lying whores
• America supports homosexuality and divorce and is, therefore, doomed to destruction 
• Disasters like 9/11, Hurricanes Katrina & Rita and the Boxing Day Tsunami are all evidences that God's blessing has been removed from those nations. Indeed, those tragedies were brought about by God to make that very point
• God laughs when sinners die
• God is especially glad when soldiers die - anyone who would fight for a country that tolerates homosexuality is, by definition, not a friend of God's
• God particularly hates non-elect Jews and will ensure they burn in hell (see WBC website www.JewsKilledJesus.com)
• If you've missed the hit list so far you should know that sending your kids to public school qualifies you for the lake of fire

WBC members consider themselves Calvinists in that they hold to the well-known Five Points of Calvinism sometimes known as TULIP. This means, in part, that WBC believes than mankind is intrinsically sinful and cannot choose to reach out to God of his own volition. In this view, believers - the Elect, are saved by the grace of God, chosen by God to be saved. All those who do not belong to this group are destined to suffer an eternity of fully-conscious torture in Hell. Indeed, these folk were hand-selected by God for Hell before they were a twinkle in their Daddy's eye.

Although it would, I think, be true to say WBC share some of these views with many nice, ordinary Reformed Baptist and Reformed Presbyterian churches, their extreme Calvinism perhaps accounts, at least in some degree, for the group's astonishing lack of compassion. Recent posts on WBC's blog Godsmacks, one of the many websites the group hosts, include one praising God that a Moslem child was killed by a monkey in Malaysia, and another rejoicing that so many gay and lesbian young people are committing suicide. The post which states, "Thank God Fewer Than Half of Americans Oppose Same-Sex Marriage" trumpets that this is great news indeed and clear evidence that the Lord's return is imminent.

I remember the moment I realised that personal testimonials aren't worth a smidge of rat doody. It was some years ago as I watched the video suicide note left behind by members the Heaven's Gate Cult. In it several young men - wide-eyed with rapture - described the incredible happiness they had enjoyed as a direct result of cutting off their testicles. They went on to explain that - joyous day - they were about to swallow cyanide in the happy anticipation of being collected by friendly aliens later that afternoon. The sincerity of their happiness was absolute. So... I'm not the one to be impressed by the glee of two of Fred Phelps' granddaughters as they explain in this video that, not only is it their God-honouring duty to be thrilled to bits when sinners suffer and die but that, even that if it weren't for the bonus of that putting them on the same page as God, they would find the sinner's misery pretty satisfying anyhow. Indeed it would be difficult to imagine even the most TULIPpy Calvinist failing to be a little disturbed at the bright-faced young things' giggly delight as they envisage the destruction of the damned.

While WBC allows that God can and does save some sinners - them for example - and that salvation, once you've got it, is keepsies for good, members are quick to cast out any in their midst who question WBC's beliefs or practices. This short documentary details the shunning of 24-year-old Lauren, oldest daughter of senior WBC member Steve Drayne. It is not so much that Steve and his wife voted with other WBC members to force their daughter to leave both the group and her home that I find shocking, but that Steve apparently experiences no sadness whatsoever about the loss of his child. Indeed, now that he realises Lauren is one of those predestined for Hell - the giveaway was Lauren's asking some sticky questions - Steve is genuinely glad to see the back of her.

Nate Phelps is one of only four of Fred Phelp's 16 children who have turned their backs on their parents' faith. As noted in this video, Nate's former friends and family at WBC aren't all that impressed with him as a result. But Nate is in good company - there are a lot of people who WBC don't like. Swedes for example. WBC don't like them *at all*. It's worth pasting here a section regarding the Boxing Day Tsunami from WBCs FAQ page as an example of the frothing venom WBC is capable of generating when their dander is fairly up.

Do you realize that among the dead and missing are 20,000 Swedes and over 3,000 Americans? Filthy Swedes went to Thailand - world epicenter of child sex traffic - to rape and sodomize little Thai boys and girls. 20,000 dead Swedes is to Sweden's population of 9 million as 650,000 would be to America's 290 million population. We sincerely hope and pray that all 20,000 Swedes are dead, their bodies bloated on the ground or in mass graves or floating at sea feeding sharks and fishes or in the bellies of thousands of crocodiles washed ashore by tsunamis. These filthy, faggot Swedes have a satanic, draconian law criminalizing Gospel preaching, under which they prosecuted, convicted and sentenced Pastor Ake Green to jail - thereby incurring God's irreversible wrath: "He suffered no man to do them wrong; yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm." Psa. 105:14,15. America, who is awash in diseased fag feces & semen, and is an apostate land of the sodomite damned. Let us pray that God will send a massive Tsunami to totally devastate the North American continent with 1000-foot walls of water doing 500 mph -- even as islands in southern Asia have recently been laid waste, with but a small remnant surviving. And you wonder if this is the wrath of God?

But lest you mistakenly assume that WBC actually cares what happens to those 'little Thai boys and girls', they go on to explain that no-one is innocent, no matter his or her tender age and anyway...

...It is God's prerogative to kill children to punish their evil, Godless, vile, filthy parents and others who were raising them for the devil anyway; they are most certainly better off now than they were in the hands of such evil people...

Oh, well then. Just so long as they are better off.

WBC see themselves as modern day Jeremiahs preaching an eleventh hour sermon of repentance to a world hell-bent on destruction. They openly scoff at the suggestion that they ought to be praying for the lost, citing as their example the words of Christ in John 17. Remember, that's the scripture where Jesus states that he does not pray for the world but only for those the Father has given him. WBC accept the unlikely possibility that some may be saved in response to their 'preaching the truth' but they admit they don't care a whit either way. Their duty is just to preach the gospel, and God's business is to save - or, most likely, not. WBC seem pretty sure there aren't too many left on earth who are going to escape eternal and firey misery. They frequently make statements to the effect that the 'day of grace has passed' for the vast majority of us 'dummies'.

***

I've written in the past about drawing a distinction between radical Christian fundamentalism and the caring, intelligent, Bible-believing folk I know and love. But, although members of WBC are undoubtedly less shy about their views than most, as I read through their beliefs and practices, I was struck by how familiar much of it seemed. Certainly I know (and love) many self-professed Calvinists and would once have considered myself in that camp. Further, I personally know many Christians, who, for example, would agree that AIDS is God's judgement on homosexuality. And it's only a few months since I overheard a Christian woman at a homeschooling event explaining to the young non-Christian mother with whom she was attempting to share the gospel that the Boxing Day Tsunami was plainly God's judgement on Islam and Moslems. Evidently she hadn't twigged to the Swedes.

So all this has got me thinking: Are the members of WBC an aberration, a bizarre hate group that has little if anything in common with orthodox Christianity? Or are they, as they claim, just a bunch of good ol' Baptists who are willing to live and die on the ground of plain and honest doctrinal integrity? Are they dangerous fringe-Fundys? Or would it be true to say that many other Christians would agree - just quietly - that WBC's beliefs do indeed reflect the clear meaning of Scripture? I mean, although some of the fundies I have known wouldn't be saying so outside of select company, many do believe that God hates gays, and Jews, and Moslems and other unbelievers and that he is pretty chuffed when he sends some nasty suffering or other their way.

So I'm just asking the question: If God hates gays, where does it leave me...as I don't? Can I utterly reject the bigotry of the ilk propagated by WBC and yet keep Christ? Or am I going to have to admit that I am teetering on the brink of ditching Christianity altogether? Should I face up to the fact that I can no longer honestly claim to be Christian because there is more than one segment of the Bible with which I am probably never going to happily reconcile? Am I vainly trying to ignore the unpleasant fact that the Bible is, as so many have said, a sexist, misogynist, racist and homophobic document? Am I just attempting to build a new religion that suits me because the orthodoxy of the one I used to hold so dear I now find offensive in so many respects? Is it going to come down to Integrity OR Christ? And what will that mean in real life? What will that mean for me?

Clearly there is some thinking still to be done.

Oh, but before I sign off I need to mention that WBC specialises inmusical parodies. Would you forgive me if you missed 'Hey, Jews', 'Fat-bottomed Whore' or '50 Ways to Eat Your Baby'? Or if you are up for some light reading, you could try this fascinating treatise which takes subject of baby eating further than you can probably imagine.

kudos in the twittersphere

I'm in the process of writing my second assignment on Twitter. Until I began researching, I had never been near the medium. Now I can't tell enough people what an exciting, democratising innovation it is.

Through Twitter, I was able to get interviews with 2010 Australian Young Journalist of the Year Latika Bourke who, according to social media analysis done at Tribalytic was Australia's most influential tweeter on the #ausvotes hashtag during the 2010 federal election. I sent her a quick tweet asking for an interview, she tweeted back in minutes having 'followed' me so that she could direct message me and we set up a time.

I followed the same process with the ABC's chief online political reporter and Walkley Award winner, Annabel Crabb. She's such a celebrity now that I just couldn't get to her through the usual channels. Multiple emails to ABC got me nowhere. But one quick tweet and I had the kindly Annabel on the line assisting me with my assignment. As a big fan of Annabel's writing, it was a pretty exciting moment for me.

My initial assignment on Twitter concerned the layering of tweets into on-screen content on television programs like the ABC's Q & A. The first time I tried to follow a parallel tweet-stream while watching the on-screen debate I felt like I was being hit in the head with a radio tuned to talk-back. But I got the hang after a couple of times. In the end, it became fun, a real event, and something I would have liked to continue - but with NSW changing over the Summertime, alas, Q & A won't be screening live to Queensland until March next year. I, along with other northern #qanda fans will be relegated to tweeting to each other as we catch up with the program...but will not enjoy the excitement of competing for on-screen kudos.

Anyway, Q & A generates so much Twitter conversation that it sometimes is still at the top of the Twitter world-wide trending chart 24 hours after it goes to air. And because Q & A actively encourages the twittisphere to engage with the program by selecting tweets to appear onscreen, #qanda tweeters strive to outdo each other for wittiness and publishability.

Which brings me to my point. This morning, I read this article by Jonathan Green in The Drum in which he discusses the king-like demeanour of former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, which remained unruffled even when a disgruntled protester pitched his shoes at him during last week's Q & A.  His point is that Howard still looks like a man in charge, still exudes a statesman-like presence. And then he reveals that indeed that is to be the theme of this weekend's The Spectator Australia who will be running the headline, 'Remember when Australia had a real PM?'

And there it is. That headline was one of the tweets that appeared on-screen during last week's Q & A. Tweets have managed to move from obscurity, to an ABC on-screen presence, to influencing front page content of serious political media. There is going to be one happy tweeter out there. And 10,000 more who will redouble their efforts to better him.

wooot, woooooot!!

Assignments back from CMM17 and CMM18 - both HDs!

Doing the happy conga.

annabel on the death of journalism

The following is a text version of Annabel Crabb's AN Smith lecture in journalism, delivered on October 27, 2010 at Melbourne University.

The end of journalism as we know it (and other good news).

a liberal/conservative dialogue

I'd love to have time to write my thoughts about everything I'm learning but I don't. But rather than just let them pass me by, I'm going to post them. Who knows? I may be able to get back to them sometime.

Can't get this video to embed....but here's the link.