Obama’s Own Twisted Logic

A comment in Barack Obama’s speech at the Fort Hood memorial shows that he can pander with the worst of them.

"It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy."

Damn right it’s hard to comprehend. We don’t even know what the true motive was yet so how can we possibly comment on the comprehensibility of it?
Then things got worse with the follow-up:

"But this much we do know -- no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice -- in this world, and the next."

Surely this is the kind of talk that prejudices trials. Not only do we have vague talk about “facing justice,” a comment deliberately designed to be whatever you want it to be, just as we had from W after the September 11th attacks, but we also have pre-emption of the Almighty’s view of the situation.

Obama certainly knows how to work to an audience and this was certainly not the place to talk about understanding what causes a man to snap. Be that as it may, it’s not much of a leap to interpret this comment as pandering to anti-Muslim sentiment. That’s bad enough on its own, but it’s doubly disappointing coming from a man who himself has faced prejudice because of his “Muslim name.”

All we know about Major Hassan’s motives is that we don’t know what they were. All further comment at this point is completely irresponsible. There was a lot of twisted logic that led to this tragedy. There is the twisted logic of victimising a man who volunteered to serve his country just because of his religion. There is the twisted logic of sending the same man to the front line after he had helped dozens, perhaps hundreds, of his comrades deal with post traumatic stress and would have inevitably taken on some of that trauma himself. There’s the twisted logic of assuming that only those in active combat are really fighting the war. And there’s the twisted logic of assuming that because a man has a certain name or belongs to a certain religion, then that must have motivated his crimes.

I am not for a moment seeking to minimise what he did. Nothing excuses his crimes, but we can look at what might explain it. Obama the thinker surely knows this, but instead chose over-simplification. Twisted logic is everywhere.

The Honesty of Being Out of Office

Last May, Alexander Downer wrote a rather good op/ed piece, venting his frustrations over how, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, it became his job to take responsibility for every foolish Australian tourist who got themselves into trouble overseas. It was everything he could never have said in office and I don’t blame him one bit for letting it all out.

Now, his former boss, John Howard has got himself back in the news by way of an interview with the Daily Telegraph in which he criticises his successor as former PMs are wont to do a year out from the next election. Cutting through all the predictable self-justification, he does make one fair point:

"Mr Rudd will say he had the global financial crisis to handle. Well, courtesy of us he was well endowed with money in the bank.''

I’ll pay him that one. Although, according to the documentaries, The Howard Years and Liberal Rule, that surplus was probably due more to Treasurer Peter Costello, who was apparently quite annoyed that so much of the savings he had made went to fund Howard’s pork-barrelling. Costello’s skill in savings is the most likely reason Kevin Rudd invited him to be on the board of directors for the Future Fund, which probably also rankles with Howard considering there is really no love lost between him and Costello. It also should be recognised that Howard supported many of the free market assumptions that led to the financial crisis, but I certainly won’t deny that the surpluses of the Howard government left Australia better placed to handle the crisis than many other countries.

However, the thing Howard said that really leapt out at me was this:

"People knew where we stood. We didn't try and be all things to all men. ''

It echoes a talking point brought up by Joe Hockey on Q and A last week, and almost channels an utterly fatuous assertion made by John Bolton that President Bush’s first responsibility was to govern in the interests of those who voted for him rather than all citizens equally. Call me old fashioned, call me naive, but I thought it was a national leader’s job to lead the nation. The nation as a whole, not just the ones our elected officials have decided are right.

This is the paradox of representative democracy. It assumes that representatives will represent all their constituents. It raises the question of whether we truly have a democracy or just an elective, occasionally consultative dictatorship. Do we elect officials to represent us, or merely to enact their own policies on our behalf? Howard’s comment implies that he thinks it’s the latter and that he and Hockey believe that trying to please everyone as a government is something to be criticised.

What I don’t think Howard even realises, is that he has just contradicted what he said in every election victory speech except 2001.

The Australian people have given me the privilege of leading the Government of this country and I want to say it will be a government not only for the people who voted us but also for the people who voted against us. – 1996

The Government you have elected tonight will be a government for all Australians; the Government you have elected tonight will dedicate itself to the welfare of all Australian people. – 1998

We are happy, we are joyful that the verdict has been given by the Australian people but never forget the fact that governments are elected to govern not only for the people who voted for them, but also for the people who voted against them. – 2004

We all knew he wouldn’t, but he has now admitted that he didn’t even try, nor is he even kidding himself that he did try.

1001 Things

....to make you feel inadequate about your life.

I was browsing Amazon last night – I can’t even remember what for – and came across 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. I find such lists distasteful on several levels. For a start, there’s the horridly morbid tone of “before you die,” which kind of implies that your life has been wasted if you don’t experience everything on the list. Then there’s the insistent tone of “must,” which to me, conjures up images of someone with over-dyed hair and heavy-rimmed glasses saying, “Dah-ling, you simply must see Paris in the spring-time,” or something similar, which only serves to turn me off the idea, no matter how pleasant it ought to be.

There are masses of these books now, 1001 Movies, 1001 Albums, 1001 Books.... I thought things started to get a bit ridiculous with 1001 Gardens You Must See Before You Die. Now I like a good garden as much as the next person but it seems to me that expecting any individual to deliberately visit 1001 specific ones is probably asking a bit much.

It’s at this point that my mind veers towards reductio ad absurdum and starts to think what other lists of 1001 things people might try to publish. I wondered about 1001 Wines, but sure enough, that had already been done, along with 1001 Foods, 1001 Buildings, 1001 Historic Sites and 1001 Natural Wonders. So what’s left? 1001 Cars You Must Drive Before You Die? (Edited by Jeremy Clarkson of course) 1001 Cafés You Must Visit Before You Die? Of course, it would all have to finish with 1001 Lists of 1001-Things-You-Must-Do-Before-You-Die You Must Read Before You Die. With all these thousands of things to do, most people will have a hard time finishing the books, let alone the challenges they set.

There are others with slightly more life-affirming premises. Browsing these books also brought up a similar series from Time Out of 1000 Songs (or books or films) to Change Your Life. Having one’s life changed is such an upheaval (even when it’s a positive change) that I’m not sure if I could cope with it even a dozen times, much less a thousand. Not unless they are talking about the more philosophical change, meaning that once you have heard this song, you will no longer not have heard it and therefore your life is no longer as it was before.

I admit I do own one such book. It is 1001 songs by Toby Creswell. I think it stands out from some of the other wanker-at-a-party books in a couple of ways. Firstly, it is written by one person, not compiled from dozens of critics’ lists. Secondly, it’s subtitled The Great Songs of All Time. Not the greatest and no obligation to hear them all lest your life be unfulfilled.

Thirdly, hearing 1001 songs seems reasonably doable. If we assume an average length of four minutes per song, that’s about 66 hours and 44 minutes. If you listened for 12 hours a day, you could get through them all in about five and a half days, which could be an interesting thing to do on your holidays. Also, in terms of cost, at $1.69 per song from iTunes, it would cost you $1690 – probably less since if you’re any kind of music enthusiast, you probably have a hundred or so of them already.

If you were to take on 1001 albums, that would be harder. If we assume an average of 45 minutes per album, that would be 750¾ hours of music and if you were to listen for 12 hours a day, it would take over two months. And unless you had a fast internet connection and no scruples about stealing music, it would cost you somewhere around twenty grand.

If you want to see all the movies on the list, you can double that time if we assume an average length of 90 minutes, but then there’s the logistics of actually seeing them. Music can at least be enjoyed while doing other things, but movies and books demand one’s complete attention. Should all these films be seen at the cinema to see them as originally intended, or will DVD suffice? If so, how will you source them all? There’s sure to be a whole lot of stuff that isn’t available through either your local Blockbuster or Netflix.

When it comes to books, the variables go through the roof. There are so many different lengths and different costs and everybody reads at different speeds so while it’s perfectly possible for people to read well over a thousand books in their lifetime, many others are never going to get close.

So if the logistics of seeing 1001 movies or reading 1001 books is daunting enough, the idea of recommending that anyone see 1001 particular historical sites or buildings or gardens, or all of the above is silly at best and cruel at worst.

Some things are worth experiencing just for the experience. My ever-sprawling record collection does include Never Mind the Bollocks, Here’s the Sex Pistols. And I even listened to it once. I own it because it’s an interesting milestone in pop music, not because a music journo looking to graduate from the inkies told me it’s important. The Sex Pistols, while not insignificant, are grossly overrated. I choose to own it because I am a collector and if the price is right, I’ll acquire pieces that are notable if not actually good. However, my life is no fuller for it and nor will yours be if you take these lists seriously. The experience is so much better when you discover it for yourself.

The MUSIC and ANIMATION COLLECTION – Paul McCartney (2004)

One of the biggest rock-star perks is that you get to be taken seriously in a second career, usually in a field where no-one would have taken you seriously under any other circumstances. Madonna is an actress, Nick Cave is an author, David Bowie was an ISP for a while and everyone from P Diddy to Liam Gallagher has been a fashion designer.

As might befit his fame, Paul McCartney has a few secondary careers on the go. He is a music publisher, a talent school patron, a painter (apparently) and a producer of short animated films, three of which are collected on this disc. Tropic Island Hum, Tuesday and Rupert & the Frog Song are all directed by Geoff Dunbar with music and voices by Paul. Of the three, Tuesday works the best, probably because it was based on an existing story rather than being developed by Paul himself. Multitalented though he is, his stories can be thin on substance. What’s evident in all of them, and in the bonus material, is a great love for the form and the traditional way of animating with hand-painted cells.

The other thing this collection makes you notice, (if you hadn’t already) is what an incredibly versatile composer and musician Paul McCartney really is. Even someone deeply familiar with his style would probably have a hard time picking some of the music as McCartney if you didn’t already know. Of course, there will be those who complain that it’s all kids’ stuff. To them, I would say, DUH! The Frog Chorus is regarded by many – including big fans – as the defining moment in Macca plot-loss, but he wasn’t out to impress hipsters or rockers with it. It’s a kids’ song and as such, it works perfectly for what it is. If you’d rather hear him belt out Helter Skelter, you still have that option. He’s also pretty good at character voices, which is interesting considering the fact that every live action film he’s ever been in has shown that he can’t act his way out of a paper bag.

While it would ruin this disc’s G-rating, it’s a pity it doesn’t include another McCartney/Dunbar production, Daumier’s Law from the early 90s.

On the extras side, the making-of programs are interesting but the line tests and storyboards will probably only interest serious enthusiasts.

Highlight: Tuesday
Feature: * * * ½
Extras: * * *
Audio: Dolby 5.1

LIVE AT THE CAVERN CLUB – Paul McCartney (2001)

Paul’s first made-for-DVD release is a good’un. It’s the complete show from his 1999 gig at the replica of the Cavern Club in Liverpool. And for someone who is generally used to playing venues that hold tens of thousands, he still knows how excel in a small room. The setlist is taken entirely from the Run Devil Run sessions with the exception of I Saw Her Standing There, which was only added to placate fans who might feel ripped off if no Beatles tunes were played. This is McCartney in pure rock and roll mode.

The band is a classic rock fan’s wet dream, comprising of David Gilmour, Ian Paice, Mick Green and Pete Wingfield, plus Chris Hall who plays accordion on a zydeco-influenced version of Chuck Berry's Brown Eyed Handsome Man.

Although the show only lasts for just over an hour, that is made up for by the inclusion of two 20-minute interviews, one reflecting on the show and the other promoting Run Devil Run, and two video clips. The promo for Brown Eyed Handsome Man is excellent.

Highlight: No Other Baby
Feature: * * * *
Extras: * * * * *
Audio: Dolby Stereo, Dolby 5.1, DTS

Previously posted at Strawberry Fields.

THE PETA CONCERT FOR PARTY ANIMALS – Paul McCartney and Friends (2002)

Note “and friends” in the title. Paul himself appears for less than half the running time of this disc. That’s fine, just as long as you know that before you buy it. The main point of the night seems to be for B-list celebs to give each other plaques for making TV ads. It does make you wonder if there might be a better way to fight cruelty to animals. Fair enough if this helps to spread the word, but you have to wonder what’s going on when the inaugural Linda McCartney Memorial Humanitarian Award goes to Pamela Anderson. The awards are punctuated by some deeply unfunny comedy before the second half of the show which is the music. The B-52s open the set, Chrissie Hynde joins them for I'll Stand By You and Paul brings it home with fives songs from Run Devil Run.

Despite Paul being the host for the evening, it’s not really his show. At the right price though, it's worth having, especially for the only live performance of Run Devil Run.

Special features are a collection of short films exposing cruelty to animals. Be warned that if you have any decency at all, you WILL turn away in horror and disgust.

Highlight: Fixing the “discrepancy” in Brown Eyed Handsome Man
Feature: * * ½
Extras: * * * * (but be careful)
Audio: Dolby Stereo

Previously posted at Strawberry Fields and at Fishpond.

The Dangers of Evangelical Atheism

Christopher Hitchens was on Q and A a couple of weeks ago doing what is usually expected of him on such programs, which is to speak long and loud about why he knows better than everyone else, interrupting at the slightest opportunity and generally being an intellectual bully. Usually one of the first things you hear about the conservative writer and columnist is his atheism.

I have a problem with people like Hitchens. My problem is not that he is an atheist. In general, I have no issue with atheists. Some of the most Christian people I know of are atheists, and some of the most evil people I can think of would profess to be Christians. My problem with Hitchens is that he is an evangelical fundamentalist atheist.

The other problem I have with people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins is one of intellectual rigour. The arguments they present are the kind of arguments that they would dismiss out of hand if they were applied to any other subject.

The first is when they talk about the evils of religion. If someone wants to talk about the atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion, then they will get no argument from me – but that has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God. That’s like citing crooked cops as evidence that there is no law. It’s a complete non-sequitur.

The other, is their claim that there is no sound evidence of God. Of course, millions of believers will state that there is plenty of evidence of God, but I’m not going to go down that path in this piece. Let’s accept, for the sake of argument, their premise that there is no evidence of God. This does not mean there is no God. The apparent absence of evidence in support of one theory does not automatically mean that the opposite is true. That is fundamentally unscientific thinking and it disturbs me that people with intellects as sharp as Hitchens and Dawkins can’t see that.

The non-existence of God is just as untestable and unprovable as the existence of God. Therefore, whether you believe in God or not, it still comes down to an article of faith.

The popping sound you can hear is a thousand atheists’ heads exploding.
Faith in the negative is still faith.

And this is the point that separates the nice atheists from the dangerous radicals. I can get on perfectly well with atheists who accept their faith for what it is. The ones I have issues with are the ones who say that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Therein lies the great irony of atheism. My biggest disagreement with Hitchens, Dawkins and their supporters is their assertion that their particular faith is morally and intellectually superior to all others. That’s exactly the kind of behaviour they decry in other religions, and rightly so up to a point, but it’s okay for them because they’re atheists and that makes them better.

I would not have called atheism a religion a few years ago but that has changed with the launch last year of the “atheist bus,” and several other similar campaigns.

Everybody wants to get in on the act. Salvation atheist style.

There was a time when atheists were simply religious refuseniks and fair enough if that’s how you want to live your life. But now here they are, openly touting for converts, promising happiness, begging donations so they can do more good in the world (both through charity and expanding their own influence) plus an ego trip in the form of advertising Richard Dawkins’ website. And don’t be fooled by the “probably” qualifier. The website of the atheist bus explains that it was only added for legal reasons.

How is that not a religion? How is that not embracing everything atheists used to say was wrong with organised religion? And how can people as rational and scientific and Dawkins and Hitchens not see that? If they were not such intellectual snobs, I might think they just missed the point, but seeing as they are such great thinkers, I can only assume that they are being deliberately blind to their own contradictions.... which is just another thing they criticise believers for.