Jon Savage, author of England's Dreaming, a magnificent history of the Punk era, has now published Teenage: The Creation of Youth Culture. The New York Times has a review by Camille Paglia here. 3am has a link-infested interview with Savage here.
And here is Cracker performing Teen Angst in a field:
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Friday, May 04, 2007
Someone needs a hug
Peasant at number 8 wire (Recalling Godzone & Kiwi virtues, amidst the detritus of Helengrad) has taken the Section 59 decision rather badly.
Tags: petty bureaucrats, reasonable parents, pigheaded utopianism, crime against common sense, Bradford's bill, lawlessness in every home, Leftist academics and politicians, enlightened mission, grubby masses, tradition, morals, personal property, responsibility, Helen's diabolical marxist dream, slimy piece of legislation, teachers, Big Sister, self-righteous a**hole, 80% of the population, controversial laws, long term outcomes, human nature, deluded fool, aggressive ideologue, totalitarian, Sweden, Cuba, Russia, true-hearted Kiwis, lies, corrupt, power-mad Labour party.
Tags: petty bureaucrats, reasonable parents, pigheaded utopianism, crime against common sense, Bradford's bill, lawlessness in every home, Leftist academics and politicians, enlightened mission, grubby masses, tradition, morals, personal property, responsibility, Helen's diabolical marxist dream, slimy piece of legislation, teachers, Big Sister, self-righteous a**hole, 80% of the population, controversial laws, long term outcomes, human nature, deluded fool, aggressive ideologue, totalitarian, Sweden, Cuba, Russia, true-hearted Kiwis, lies, corrupt, power-mad Labour party.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Thanks for the add
Techpresident reports on the The Battle to Control Obama's Myspace, as Barack Obama's campaign team beat up a geek for the Myspace page that bears Obama's name. Yes, these netsavvy political operatives can behave just as grown-up as teenagers on Myspace: it's like totally our profile and he like had no frigging right to it and we totally pwn him now, for sure.
It is interesting to note that profile had just over 160,000 friends when it was in private hands but has only about 12,000 now it is controlled by the campaign team. Evidently, Obama can no longer rely on the votes of teenage emo kids, wannabe rappers, unkown bands and imaginary women who love your profile and want to get to know you.
It is interesting to note that profile had just over 160,000 friends when it was in private hands but has only about 12,000 now it is controlled by the campaign team. Evidently, Obama can no longer rely on the votes of teenage emo kids, wannabe rappers, unkown bands and imaginary women who love your profile and want to get to know you.
News from the West Wing
Who'd have thought it? Karl Rove is an atheist, according to Christopher Hitchens. Now fundies will have one more evil atheist to throw into the argument about morals: Stalin, Pol Pot and Rove.
Well no, they're not going to do that are they, because Karl works for their boss. So does that make him a good atheist? Oh dear, its all so confusing, this morality business.
Myself, I am glad Mr Rove has made a life-long commitment to nothing. Like no god zone, I don't think one's atheism has anything to do with one's ethics. It tires me to see happy-clappy Christians and equally happy-clappy Humanists throwing famous people back and forth, as if the virtues and vices of adherents or infidels could prove the truth claims of either position. Whether one has religious beliefs or not says nothing about one's morality. There are bad atheists and good atheists; get used it.
Worse still is to witness some Humanists judging who can be called an atheist. The ridiculous Dr Cooke, in one of his editorials for the NZARH journal, deemed that Heidegger was the wrong kind of atheist, while Sartre was not an atheist at all. We couldn't have those nasty Continentals joining our clusterfuck, could we?
I could go on but I will save that for a later rant.
Well no, they're not going to do that are they, because Karl works for their boss. So does that make him a good atheist? Oh dear, its all so confusing, this morality business.
Myself, I am glad Mr Rove has made a life-long commitment to nothing. Like no god zone, I don't think one's atheism has anything to do with one's ethics. It tires me to see happy-clappy Christians and equally happy-clappy Humanists throwing famous people back and forth, as if the virtues and vices of adherents or infidels could prove the truth claims of either position. Whether one has religious beliefs or not says nothing about one's morality. There are bad atheists and good atheists; get used it.
Worse still is to witness some Humanists judging who can be called an atheist. The ridiculous Dr Cooke, in one of his editorials for the NZARH journal, deemed that Heidegger was the wrong kind of atheist, while Sartre was not an atheist at all. We couldn't have those nasty Continentals joining our clusterfuck, could we?
I could go on but I will save that for a later rant.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Goodnight Vienna
The Gates of Vienna is one of those American conservative blogs that have sprung up in the years since 9/11. In case you do not get the reference in the title, a helpful subhead explains: At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war.
This blog is fighting in the Culture Wars. These wars are fought on two fronts: against the Muslim hordes and against the Liberals. The first enemy is responsible for Terrorism, the second for Secularism, Relativism and all the other evils that have made the West decadent and weak.
One of the team on The Gates of Vienna is Dymphna, a Catholic and a mother, as her personal blog shows. She has posted recently a message she received from her son at college, under the title Making The Modern Case for Monasticism, which Alicublog has also noticed.
Mother had warned him about young liberal co-eds and Mother was always right. This was his opportunity to find out if everything Mother had hinted at was true. He could have had SEX. First time sex with a young, drunk, liberal co-ed, not wedding-night fumblings with a nice girl approved by Mother. Not dutiful coupling for the purpose of procreation but wild, exciting sex, with biting and scratching. Dirty, dirty sex. There she was, a girl who must be Experienced, a girl who would have taught him; a girl who probably had books by Anais Nin on her night-stand and a pair of handcuffs in the drawer. And he missed his chance. If only he had known. If only he had recognised the signs.
If only.
This blog is fighting in the Culture Wars. These wars are fought on two fronts: against the Muslim hordes and against the Liberals. The first enemy is responsible for Terrorism, the second for Secularism, Relativism and all the other evils that have made the West decadent and weak.
One of the team on The Gates of Vienna is Dymphna, a Catholic and a mother, as her personal blog shows. She has posted recently a message she received from her son at college, under the title Making The Modern Case for Monasticism, which Alicublog has also noticed.
Dear Guys —Still intact, indeed. The truth will hit him sometime soon or maybe much, much later. It is not something he will want to write his mother about. Perhaps he will wake in the middle of the night, perhaps it will come to him at Vespers, perhaps while he is playing some healthy masculine contact sport with his friends. Then he will understand what she meant:
I know it’s late, but I thought you might “like” to hear about this. I had a fairly frightening experience with a young liberal co-ed tonight.
“Max” and I had water guns and were using them to squirt people at various points during the party [held at our dorm suite]...
This intoxicated young woman suddenly attacked me, trying to take the gun...
When I wouldn’t let her take it, she grabbed my glasses instead. Afraid she might break them; I grabbed her arm — without hurting her — and took my glasses back. At which point the girl said:
“I could call the police.”
I was mystified. “About what?”
“You attacked me!”
I looked at her, up and down. “There aren’t any marks on you.”
She drew her own fingernails down her skin. “Not yet. There could be.”
At that point I decided —
1) she was drunk, and
2) not worth talking to.
But I think this is an example of a perspective endemic on college campuses: the police aren’t there to protect you; they’re there to help enforce petty vendettas on men. Rather than stand on their own two feet, women are relying on men to help them out against other men.
If that’s not sexist and establishing women as an inferior, weaker, species, I don’t know what is.
Love,
Yer still intact and un-arrested boy
I looked at her, up and down. “There aren’t any marks on you.”She wanted him. He may have been a bespectacled Catholic boy who squirts girls with a water gun at parties and writes to his mother about it, but that young liberal co-ed was making her intentions quite clear, if only had known at the time.
She drew her own fingernails down her skin. “Not yet. There could be.”
Mother had warned him about young liberal co-eds and Mother was always right. This was his opportunity to find out if everything Mother had hinted at was true. He could have had SEX. First time sex with a young, drunk, liberal co-ed, not wedding-night fumblings with a nice girl approved by Mother. Not dutiful coupling for the purpose of procreation but wild, exciting sex, with biting and scratching. Dirty, dirty sex. There she was, a girl who must be Experienced, a girl who would have taught him; a girl who probably had books by Anais Nin on her night-stand and a pair of handcuffs in the drawer. And he missed his chance. If only he had known. If only he had recognised the signs.
If only.
So bloated-up happy I could throw things around me.
We won. Section 59 will be repealed. Yay us.
Well no, not really that yay. We hardly won the debate. The child beating lobby massed the forces of the fearful and indignant. They framed this issue, which concerns how we treat our children, as one of unwarranted intrusion by the nanny state in the lives of ordinary kiwi battlers, or something like that. They had resources, they had Talkback on their side. The voices of those who care for children and those who have expertise in this area were seldom heard.
As usual the media took an insular approach and barely considered how other modern democracies view the corporal punishment of children. The only time they took note of the rest of the world was when that ridiculous woman was flown over from Sweden to tell us how wretched life was in one of the World's most prosperous and peaceful nations. Then of course there was Professor Larzelere, who turned out to be much more reasonable than the child batterers would have wished.
Perhaps it was the involvement of Bishop Brian that made National come to its senses and support the Bill. That odious mixture of hate, greed and bad taste has become useful for progressive causes. The sight of Brian's army of Real Men marching down Queen Street turned a lot of opinion towards Civil Unions and doubtless he would have done the same for s59. National could be forgiven for being nervous: the party has caused itself enough problems by hanging out with religious nuts already.
I think National's concern about the Bill was all a stunt: a case of manufacturing dissent, as it were. John Key wanted to put some blue water between him and the Government, to create the impression that he was principled and policied. What better issue for this purpose than a private members bill from a member who is not part of the Government but who is associated with the far left, at least by those whose knees were made for jerking? The Government could not control Sue Bradford but also could not distance themselves from her. Perfect. Unfortunately for Key, the Government gave the Bill some breathing space which was filled by responsible and informed opinion: the very organisations that care for children. This made the Bill's opponents look increasingly silly, which they were. Key could have supported the Bill then and kept some credibility, particularly as there was genuine division within his Caucus. Instead he persisted with the Chester Borrows amendment [note to National's brand mangers: you must change that man's name] and with the strangely ethereal Compromise, which no-one could quite define.
In the end, National's Caucus was shown to have all the integrity of a used-car salesmen's convention when the Bill's supporters (all except the magnificent Katherine Rich, who should be leading the party) rushed to the other side in the face of determined opinion polls. Key kept up the pretence of principled concern, to his detriment: he now looks insincere and indecisive. He changed his mind at the last minute, making him look like either a mountebank or a wobbler, possibly both. He got noting except a silly and irrelevant note in the Bill, saying the Police should not use their powers frivolously. Woo Hoo.
I would imagine that a lot of National's supporters, particularly in the Rightosphere, must be feeling betrayed. After all, they put heart and soul into this issue, blogging day and night to protest the injustice of it all. Then their Leader pulls the rug from under their indignation.
Oh well, that's their problem. What matters is that it will no longer possible to defend beating your children with a riding crop or similar instrument. What needs to be done now is to create a culture where such barbaric practices will be unthinkable. That may take a little time and a lot of consensus.
Anyway, here's Martin:
Well no, not really that yay. We hardly won the debate. The child beating lobby massed the forces of the fearful and indignant. They framed this issue, which concerns how we treat our children, as one of unwarranted intrusion by the nanny state in the lives of ordinary kiwi battlers, or something like that. They had resources, they had Talkback on their side. The voices of those who care for children and those who have expertise in this area were seldom heard.
As usual the media took an insular approach and barely considered how other modern democracies view the corporal punishment of children. The only time they took note of the rest of the world was when that ridiculous woman was flown over from Sweden to tell us how wretched life was in one of the World's most prosperous and peaceful nations. Then of course there was Professor Larzelere, who turned out to be much more reasonable than the child batterers would have wished.
Perhaps it was the involvement of Bishop Brian that made National come to its senses and support the Bill. That odious mixture of hate, greed and bad taste has become useful for progressive causes. The sight of Brian's army of Real Men marching down Queen Street turned a lot of opinion towards Civil Unions and doubtless he would have done the same for s59. National could be forgiven for being nervous: the party has caused itself enough problems by hanging out with religious nuts already.
I think National's concern about the Bill was all a stunt: a case of manufacturing dissent, as it were. John Key wanted to put some blue water between him and the Government, to create the impression that he was principled and policied. What better issue for this purpose than a private members bill from a member who is not part of the Government but who is associated with the far left, at least by those whose knees were made for jerking? The Government could not control Sue Bradford but also could not distance themselves from her. Perfect. Unfortunately for Key, the Government gave the Bill some breathing space which was filled by responsible and informed opinion: the very organisations that care for children. This made the Bill's opponents look increasingly silly, which they were. Key could have supported the Bill then and kept some credibility, particularly as there was genuine division within his Caucus. Instead he persisted with the Chester Borrows amendment [note to National's brand mangers: you must change that man's name] and with the strangely ethereal Compromise, which no-one could quite define.
In the end, National's Caucus was shown to have all the integrity of a used-car salesmen's convention when the Bill's supporters (all except the magnificent Katherine Rich, who should be leading the party) rushed to the other side in the face of determined opinion polls. Key kept up the pretence of principled concern, to his detriment: he now looks insincere and indecisive. He changed his mind at the last minute, making him look like either a mountebank or a wobbler, possibly both. He got noting except a silly and irrelevant note in the Bill, saying the Police should not use their powers frivolously. Woo Hoo.
I would imagine that a lot of National's supporters, particularly in the Rightosphere, must be feeling betrayed. After all, they put heart and soul into this issue, blogging day and night to protest the injustice of it all. Then their Leader pulls the rug from under their indignation.
Oh well, that's their problem. What matters is that it will no longer possible to defend beating your children with a riding crop or similar instrument. What needs to be done now is to create a culture where such barbaric practices will be unthinkable. That may take a little time and a lot of consensus.
Anyway, here's Martin:
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Searching for clues
- I saw a man wearing a shirt that said: Find It, Fuck it, Forget it
- Burger King uses women in bikinis to advertise its chicken burger
- Women are organising to take back the blog
- In today's Guardian, Kira Cochrane discusses Torture Porn
Perhaps these are connected.
Wild about nothing
I wrote this piece for the current issue of Craccum, which is all about religion. It was written hastily and despite a bout of food poisoning, so it is a bit rough.
Dear Matty,
A few days ago, you called me and asked me to write about Atheism for this edition of Craccum. Since then I have done a lot of research and a lot of thinking and I have come to this conclusion:
Atheists do not believe in gods
Will that do? I guess not. I think you said something about wanting two pages. I suppose you could make the typeface really large but the readers might feel cheated. Or you could leave the rest of the space blank to symbolise the absence of belief and the emptiness of life; but that would be a little bit Elam. Then again, you could fill the empty space with pictures you have found on Internet.
I know what you are thinking. You are thinking this just is not good enough. You have asked someone who describes himself as an Atheist to talk about Atheism and all he can come up with is a six-word statement of the bleeding obvious: Atheists do not believe in gods. The trouble is, there really is not much more to Atheism than that. It hardlydeserves that capital A; in fact, Atheism is not really an ism at all.
At this point, I could resort to the last refuge of a journalist in need of a story: Google. I could tell you that a search of the word Atheism produces 1,700,000 pages, which is a very large number. I could read some of these pages and tell you what other people think about Atheism. I could quote from Wikipedia, which says there are varieties of Atheism: Strong and Weak, Positive and Negative, Implicit and Explicit. But I think that would confuse matters. Whatever the nuances, Atheism comes down to an absence of a belief.
Now, I find this a relatively simple matter. Some people believe in a god, others believe in many gods, Atheists believe in none. But it seems to cause a lot of confusion, even amongst Atheists. Apparently,Strong Atheists believe in the non-existence of gods while Weak Atheists reject belief in gods. But that is not a very helpful distinction, if it is a distinction at all, which I doubt.
It causes even more confusion amongst believers. I have had so many long, tedious conversations with people who believe so strongly in a god (usually God with a capital G) that they cannot conceive of anybody not believing in any god. They are far happier, on the whole, with people who believe in a different god; these people are just plain wrong, but at least they believe in something. People like me are baffling. The believers usually make things worse for themselves by taking it personally - they assume it is their god with a capital G which I don't believe in and convince themselves that they can persuade me to believe in Him with a capital H if only they try hard enough. But it is not that simple, because I do not have an opposing belief. I have none.
I can see this is not really helping. I'm sorry. Belief is a very difficult subject. Unbelief ought to be a very simple matter but it is complicated by people taking it to be a form of belief.
Myself, I blame the Rationalists and Humanists. As you know, I used to be the Spokesman for the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists (Inc) but I am not blaming them specifically. My problem is with Atheists attaching other names to themselves to qualify their unbelief. They do it all the time and they come up with far too many names. There are Rationalists, Humanists, Freethinkers, Non-theists, Anti-theists, Naturalists, Brights and so on and so on. And don't get me started on the Agnostics.
Ignoring all the others, Rationalists bother me because they seem determined to prove that there are no gods. They go on about religion all the time, pointing out errors in the Bible, arguing how God is philosophically impossible. Say what you like about them, but at least they take religion seriously. Far too seriously, in my opinion. Their error is a tactical one: they are fighting on their opponents ground.
Believers love this sort of argument, because they have been trained in arguing the case for their beliefs. Long, tedious conversations are the inevitable result.
And then there are the Humanists. Now, don't get me wrong; most humanists are thoroughly nice people. Some however, are authoritarian prigs. One such is Dr Bill Cooke, Vice-President of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists (Inc). For him, mere Atheism is a bit vulgar. In his long incoherent essays he often expounds the superiority of Humanists like him over us simple Atheists. Here's an example, from one of his editorials in the Open Society, the journal of the Rationalists and Humanists:
What it comes down to is that Dr Cooke has a world view: "What label we use to describe the positive world view we build on the foundation of atheism is neither here nor there. I call it humanism. But that such a construction must be built is imperative. There is so much more to being non-religious than simply being an atheist."
No there is not. Simply being an Atheist is quite enough. Religious people have world views, through which they filter all their responses to the world. Most Atheists do not have a world view. We have opinions about lots of things. Our opinions differ, often. They have precious little to do with our Atheism, which is simply an absence of belief.
I could go on but I would be repeating myself. As I said, it is a difficult matter talking about unbelief. It is much easier to writeCanada News. All I need to do is read Canadian newspapers on Internet and write something about Hockey games and Avril Lavigne. I think Craccum can be proud of its distinction as the only New Zealand student newspaper to feature news from Canada regularly. This Atheism business is a bit more tricky.
Perhaps you should fill up the rest of the space with pictures. But what pictures could you use? It is not as if Atheism has symbols like crosses and crescents or cathedrals or men in funny clothes performing strange rituals. I don't want to tell you how to do your job but maybe you could download some pictures of cute kittens. People like kittens. You will find lots of pictures of kittens on Internet.
Yours faithlessly,
Paul
Dear Matty,
A few days ago, you called me and asked me to write about Atheism for this edition of Craccum. Since then I have done a lot of research and a lot of thinking and I have come to this conclusion:
Will that do? I guess not. I think you said something about wanting two pages. I suppose you could make the typeface really large but the readers might feel cheated. Or you could leave the rest of the space blank to symbolise the absence of belief and the emptiness of life; but that would be a little bit Elam. Then again, you could fill the empty space with pictures you have found on Internet.
I know what you are thinking. You are thinking this just is not good enough. You have asked someone who describes himself as an Atheist to talk about Atheism and all he can come up with is a six-word statement of the bleeding obvious: Atheists do not believe in gods. The trouble is, there really is not much more to Atheism than that. It hardlydeserves that capital A; in fact, Atheism is not really an ism at all.
At this point, I could resort to the last refuge of a journalist in need of a story: Google. I could tell you that a search of the word Atheism produces 1,700,000 pages, which is a very large number. I could read some of these pages and tell you what other people think about Atheism. I could quote from Wikipedia, which says there are varieties of Atheism: Strong and Weak, Positive and Negative, Implicit and Explicit. But I think that would confuse matters. Whatever the nuances, Atheism comes down to an absence of a belief.
Now, I find this a relatively simple matter. Some people believe in a god, others believe in many gods, Atheists believe in none. But it seems to cause a lot of confusion, even amongst Atheists. Apparently,Strong Atheists believe in the non-existence of gods while Weak Atheists reject belief in gods. But that is not a very helpful distinction, if it is a distinction at all, which I doubt.
It causes even more confusion amongst believers. I have had so many long, tedious conversations with people who believe so strongly in a god (usually God with a capital G) that they cannot conceive of anybody not believing in any god. They are far happier, on the whole, with people who believe in a different god; these people are just plain wrong, but at least they believe in something. People like me are baffling. The believers usually make things worse for themselves by taking it personally - they assume it is their god with a capital G which I don't believe in and convince themselves that they can persuade me to believe in Him with a capital H if only they try hard enough. But it is not that simple, because I do not have an opposing belief. I have none.
I can see this is not really helping. I'm sorry. Belief is a very difficult subject. Unbelief ought to be a very simple matter but it is complicated by people taking it to be a form of belief.
Myself, I blame the Rationalists and Humanists. As you know, I used to be the Spokesman for the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists (Inc) but I am not blaming them specifically. My problem is with Atheists attaching other names to themselves to qualify their unbelief. They do it all the time and they come up with far too many names. There are Rationalists, Humanists, Freethinkers, Non-theists, Anti-theists, Naturalists, Brights and so on and so on. And don't get me started on the Agnostics.
Ignoring all the others, Rationalists bother me because they seem determined to prove that there are no gods. They go on about religion all the time, pointing out errors in the Bible, arguing how God is philosophically impossible. Say what you like about them, but at least they take religion seriously. Far too seriously, in my opinion. Their error is a tactical one: they are fighting on their opponents ground.
Believers love this sort of argument, because they have been trained in arguing the case for their beliefs. Long, tedious conversations are the inevitable result.
And then there are the Humanists. Now, don't get me wrong; most humanists are thoroughly nice people. Some however, are authoritarian prigs. One such is Dr Bill Cooke, Vice-President of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists (Inc). For him, mere Atheism is a bit vulgar. In his long incoherent essays he often expounds the superiority of Humanists like him over us simple Atheists. Here's an example, from one of his editorials in the Open Society, the journal of the Rationalists and Humanists:
Atheism is only about what I don't believe...you can't build a way of life entirely on what you don't believe. The next step of determining our way of life is much more interesting and rewarding. My humanism is about what I do believe and my rationalism is about how I believe it.What Dr Cooke's Humanism is all about is a bit of a mystery, even though he talks about it all the time. It seems to involve something called Eupraxsophy and the novels of Iris Murdoch. I think it is all a load of pseudo-academic wank, but that is just my opinion.
What it comes down to is that Dr Cooke has a world view: "What label we use to describe the positive world view we build on the foundation of atheism is neither here nor there. I call it humanism. But that such a construction must be built is imperative. There is so much more to being non-religious than simply being an atheist."
No there is not. Simply being an Atheist is quite enough. Religious people have world views, through which they filter all their responses to the world. Most Atheists do not have a world view. We have opinions about lots of things. Our opinions differ, often. They have precious little to do with our Atheism, which is simply an absence of belief.
I could go on but I would be repeating myself. As I said, it is a difficult matter talking about unbelief. It is much easier to writeCanada News. All I need to do is read Canadian newspapers on Internet and write something about Hockey games and Avril Lavigne. I think Craccum can be proud of its distinction as the only New Zealand student newspaper to feature news from Canada regularly. This Atheism business is a bit more tricky.
Perhaps you should fill up the rest of the space with pictures. But what pictures could you use? It is not as if Atheism has symbols like crosses and crescents or cathedrals or men in funny clothes performing strange rituals. I don't want to tell you how to do your job but maybe you could download some pictures of cute kittens. People like kittens. You will find lots of pictures of kittens on Internet.
Yours faithlessly,
Paul
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)