by cameron | Mar 20, 2007 | censorship, climate change, environment, freedom of speech, US politics
From the LA Times’ coverage of the Hansen case:
James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, took particular issue with the administration’s rule that a government information officer listen in on his interviews with reporters and its refusal to allow him to be interviewed by National Public Radio.
“This is the United States,” Hansen told the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. “We do have freedom of speech here.”
But Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) said it was reasonable for Hansen’s employer to ask him not to state views publicly that contradicted administration policy.
Of course, the most shocking suggestion here is that the Bush administration has a policy? Who knew!?
The suggestion that a senior scientist on the government payroll should not be able to talk openly about his scientific views because they might contradict administration policy is absurd. The dangerous theory here that Issa wants to sell is that the Government is a regular employer who should be able to determine what is said publicly by their “employees”. This theory fails to recognize that ALL Government employees and actually employees of the PEOPLE, paid for by THE PEOPLE, and their first (and only) duty is to fulfill their public responsibility, not to toe the line.
By the way, know where the term “toe the line” comes from?
According to the Grammar Tips site:
The phrase “toe the line” is equivalent to “toe the mark,” both of which mean to conform to a rule or a standard. The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2002; ed. by Glynnis Chantrell) says, “The idiom toe the line from an athletics analogy originated in the early 19th century”.
The specific sport referred to is foot-racing, where the competitors must keep their feet behind a “line” or on a “mark” at the start of the race–as in “On your mark, get set,
go!”
So one who “toes the line” is one who does not allow his foot to stray over the line. In other words, one who does not stray beyond a rigidly defined boundary.
by cameron | Mar 20, 2007 | freedom of speech
Scenario: A student stands out the front of a high school with a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesusâ€.
Question: Should he be allowed to? Can the school expel him on the grounds that his message is “pro-drug”? Or is that a violation of his freedom of speech? Can the student sue the Principal of the school for violating his free speech?
This is a real case going on in Alaska at the moment. Education Week has great coverage here. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing the case and the justices are split.
For my money, this should be clear-cut – this is about speech, not drugs. Our public institutions, such as schools, may have anti-drug policies, but TALKING about drugs isn’t DOING drugs. It’s back to my argument about Nitschke. Our freedom to talk about subjects, as offensive as those subjects might be considered by certain members of society, is fundamental to a free society. As soon as we relax our stance on this issue, we’re on a slippery slope.
Your thoughts?
by cameron | Mar 13, 2007 | Australian politics, science, science vs religion
As mentioned here last week, Democrat Congressman Pete Stark from California has outed himself. Wonkette says he is a “Unitarian”.
“When the Secular Coalition asked me to complete a survey on my religious beliefs, I indicated I am a Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being,” Stark said. “Like our nation’s founders, I strongly support the separation of church and state. I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services.”
Unitarian Universalism describes itself as creedless, meaning that it has no underlying authoritative statement of religious belief. While some members believe in God, not all do.
I still find it almost unbelievable that in 2007 this is such big news but there you have it. Do you think this means the rest of the US politicians actually believe in mythical beings? Or that they are just too scared to front up? Either way, it’s pretty scary. The LA Times says:
A USA Today/Gallup poll last month found that only 45 percent of respondents said they would vote for a “well qualified” presidential candidate who was an atheist. Ninety-five percent said they would vote for a Catholic candidate, 92 percent a Jewish candidate and 72 percent a Mormon candidate.
I would love to run a similar survey in Australia. Perhaps the Secular Coalition needs an Aussie operation?
And what’s with this “nontheist” crap? What’s that?
According to this blog:
a nontheist is someone who does not accept a theistic understanding of God, as described in the preceding paragraph. Such a person may reject all understandings of God, may embrace certain non-theistic understandings of God, may find God language useful and rich in trying to describe their experience of the world but not true in a literal sense, may believe in certain non-material, transcendent realities that have little in common with the common understanding of the word “God.†An atheist falls within this understanding of nontheist, as does an agnostic, a humanist, a Buddhist, and many Quakers who find the whole practice of labeling our belief systems an unfortunate distraction from genuine religious living.
We definitely need a better marketing term than “nontheist” or “atheist”. I prefer “rational”. Or “sane”.
by cameron | Mar 9, 2007 | Australian politics, Melbourne, Podcast, technology
On episode 211 my guests are Dr Phil Burgess, Group Managing Director, Public Policy and Communication, Telstra and Garry Barker, Technology Editor at The Age. We spent an hour at Telstra’s Melbourne offices this morning discussing the state of broadband in Australia.
Phil is often in the news (here are some recent stories) debating the broadband issue with other Australian corporate executives, the ACCC and the Federal Government, but this is a rare opportunity to hear him speak (loudly and passionately) about Telstra’s official position on the broadband debate for an hour.
Thanks to Phil and Garry for participating and to Paul Crisp and Rod Bruem at Telstra for making it happen. I know Phil is a supporter of blogs and podcasts (he is the guy who make Telstra’s ‘Now We Are Talking’ blog happen) so hopefully this will just be the first of many such conversations.
If you enjoyed this podcast, make sure you don’t miss future episodes by subscribing to our feed and leave us a voice comment!
by cameron | Mar 6, 2007 | Australian politics
The “NoGodBlog“, the official blog of the American Athiests, is all excited about the announcement that on March 12th, a U.S. Congressman/woman is apparently going to announce that he/she is an atheist. This is obviously a big deal in the country where, according to Richard Dawkins, a recent poll indicated that the majority of U.S. voters said they would not vote for an atheist.
I’m wondering how many “outed” atheists we have in Australian politics? We need a site which tracks such matters, something like “They Work For You“, the U.K. site. I’d love to see one of those operating in Australia. Does anyone have any idea where to find out the religious stance of Aussie pollies?
by cameron | Mar 5, 2007 | Australian media, Australian politics, censorship, Podcast, US politics
My guests today are Dr Kris Klugman PhD and Bill Rowlings from Civil Liberties Australia. I invited them onto the show to help me understand what’s happening with a variety of civil liberty matters such as:
David Hicks
Dr Phillip Nitschke’s book
Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock
Banning of Muslim books
Sedition and other “anti-terrorism” laws passed in Australia
The use of fear as a tool of manipulation
Free Speech
An Australian Bill of Rights
The troubling rise of the Christian Right in Australia
Gay marriage
If you are troubled, as I am, by these issues, then get off your backside and DO something about it. Join the CLA, write a blog, record a podcast, run for politics, create some street art, just DO SOMETHING non-violent. Don’t get sucked into this bullshit mindset of “what difference does it make?”. That’s what “they” want you to think. Remember – you boil a frog slowly.
If you enjoyed this podcast, make sure you don’t miss future episodes by subscribing to our feed and leave us a voice comment!
The G’Day World Theme Song is “Save Me†by The Napoleon Blown Aparts.
