It seems that a lot of people like to throw around probability when arguing, though it's even more apparent that most of these people don't know how to do it. It does help having a solid knowledge of mathematics but it really isn't necessary. It's not hard to know the difference between a single event and a chain reaction.
Evidence-based approach
It should be made clear right off the bat that science doesn't work on probability alone (with the exception of quantum physics). It works on evidence.
Example
If I pick my iPod off my desk and leg go of it, what will happen?
There are three options:
* It will fall to the ground
* It will stay where it is
* It will move away from the ground
Using probability there is a 1 in 3 chance of each one happening
So that's it, a one in three chance? Well no. Since my iPod is a piece of junk (seriously, don't buy iPods) I don't mind conducting this experiment. I let go of it a total of 20 times, if it were just pure chance as people suggest probability is, I would see a even distribution on the three options.
The results were:
* fall to the ground - 20 times
* stay where it is - 0 times
* move away from the ground - 0 times
So what this shows us is probability isn't simply working out the possible outcomes and assigning an equal weighting to it. Probability should always be tied to evidence. And the more times we do a test, the more we can see it working. Repeatability is an immensely important factor in the scientific process. From observation and repeatability we can derive theories, formulas to explain the results and it allows us to test those theories under multiple conditions. I don't think anyone would dispute gravity as being anything other than a law, yet it's not proven. Gravity is a theory, just like evolution is. You can never prove science by example, only disprove it.
This is great news, it gives us relative certainty in an uncertain universe. It means that if you jump off a building you will fall. And using laws derived from observation, you will accelerate until you hit an object that will push back harder on you than you will on it. And it will almost certainly kill you as observable evidence shows that the human body can't absorb forces of that magnitude.
Evidence is the fact we have to work with in science, with evidence we look for an explanation to make sense of it. They don't call an idea a theory until it is quite rigorously scrutinised with suitable evidence to support it.
Coin flip logic
To understand the difference between combination and chance, let's look at a simple test of flipping coins. They have a 50/50 chance where it can either be heads or tails. Makes for a useful tool in seeing how to analyse a repeatable task statistically, and how to understand how combinations work.
Example
Flips - 10
Results - HHTHHTHTHT
H - 6
T - 4
After 10 flips, heads is more common. This is were repeatability comes into it. Let's go on.
Flips - 10
Results - HTTTTTHTHT
H - 3
T - 7
Cumulative total: H - 9 T - 11
Now there are more tails, but we can see it's getting closer to that 50%. Of course the experiment is biased by the way I flip the coin, there is no way to make this truly random. But we can see that it's getting closer to that 50% chance mark. One more time for good measure
Flips - 10
Results - HHHHHTHHTT
H - 7
T - 3
Cumulative total: H - 16 T - 14
The more you do something that has an certain probability, you can see that probability manifest in statistics. Rolling a die is another way to do this, rolling enough times should yield you statistics that show approximately a 1 in 6 chance for each possible result. With a deck of cards, a 1 in 52 chance, though you'd need to do it a lot of times to see that manifesting. The more variables, the more testing is needed to see accurate statistical significance.
The most interesting pattern is the sequence is the patterns involved. In the last throw sequence there was 5 heads in a row. The probability for that to happen is 1 in 32 (1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2). So on throw 5, what was the chance of me throwing a heads? It was still one in two. Patterns themselves are improbable, but the steps that make up the patterns are not. Which brings me to evolution.
Evolution and God
Evolution has overwhelming evidence to support it, it's been observed, there are extensive fossil records, the DNA evidence, genetics, the list goes on. Yet people still talk about the probability of evolution. How could we be an ancestor to modern prime-apes one day then humans the next? That would be highly statistically unlikely. But we didn't go in one step, we went in thousands of small steps. Take the average age of reproduction as 25 (a very conservative estimate) and there would be ~240,000 generations between our great ape ancestor 6 million years ago and us. 240,000 generations of environmentally caused mutations, diverging species (most of which died out), and suddenly the steps are a lot smaller. We don't have to lose all fur, walk upright, grow a bigger brain and develop complex vocal chords all in one hit. we can do it in small stages.
And the evidence points to this, through fossil records we can see a gradual change over hundreds of thousands of years. Even now we are still evolving as a species, there are mutations we can see in descendants of certain areas that aren't there in others. What we can do with probability is work out the rate of mutation and see if that is realistic over a 6 million year time frame. In one jump, I agree it's very unlikely. But evolution does not work in huge leaps. Evolution is a very gradual process, so the likelihood of slight mutations at each step is far more likely.
Moving on to God, a lot of people make the fallacy that God's existence is the probability equivalent to a coin flip, he either exists or he doesn't. Now when I say God, I am talking about the anthropomorphic deity that is the centre of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In this context We are told that God is a vastly complex deity, one of infinite intelligence and power, one who is all loving and concerns itself with the melodramatic squabbles of the human race. Now there are two things that come out of the creation story that don't add up; the first is how a being such as God came to exist, and how life formed out of nothing. If the being called God can be explained, then the 2nd event seems somewhat rational with logic, if there is a being with the power to create a universe, surely it would follow it could make humans from dirt.
As I explained above, when it comes to probability, it's always about it's intrinsic link to evidence. God is not 50/50 any more than the existence of Zeus. In the case of scientific enquiry, it takes a sceptical approach and asks for evidence. And at present there is no evidence that God exists any more than Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster or Albus Dumbledore. The best we can do is look at the world around us and use a critical eye on the evidence to see how much of a logical leap that is. As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
It's all to do with plausibility. If I were to say I'm levitating as I type this, no-one would believe me. They would call me a liar, ask me for evidence. And that is perfectly reasonable, it's an extraordinary claim that I'm doing something out of the bounds of human reality. Would anyone here take it on faith or say there is a 50/50 chance of it being true? I really hope not. A picture could show me levitating, but pictures can be taken mid-jump or doctored on photoshop. A video would be more conclusive, but again they can be edited easily on a basic computer or I could be concealing my levitation by a concealed trick. We need to understand that probability is absolutely useless without evidence and context.
The principle of parsimony
Don't get me wrong, probability is a powerful tool when used correctly. But it's abused time and time again by people who don't seem to understand how to use it. We see Pascal's Wager come up again and again. We see bile like The Probability Of God littering our shelves. Absurd claims that evolution and abiogenesis are improbable. All these sound good, but they aren't using probability properly. It seems as dangerous a practice as quote-mining for anything that can vaguely sound theistic in scientific journals. It's not that hard to understand how parts come together. Science is all about breaking down the how and finding how each little part works. If we can explain the pieces and can explain how the pieces can come together it makes it a far smaller assumption than just seeing the whole and thinking it came together in one big step. We apply the principle of parsimony because it gives us the most accurate representation we can possibly get. Probability plays it's part but only when used properly.
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
Saturday, 1 March 2008
The Art Of Being Wrong
Knowing where to begin is always a difficult question, when writing it is vital to capture the readers attention with the first few words, and then from that they'll work out whether it's worth your time. Indeed in a society where any chump can give his opinion, we work towards an instant gratification of our own senses and time. If one blog can't provide it, we can immediately switch to another that will. Now that technology is available for mass consumption we are seeing a shift away from the written word and towards video blogging, where any wanker can rattle on and post absolute nonsense that somehow satisfies the masses. In short, the written prose is a dying art. Podcasts, Youtube videos, things that require a little more than the ability to ramble on in a semi-coherent manner, we can see it and digest it without really having to think about it. The written word thus is marginalised.
Not to say that video blogs are a bad thing. I listen to podcasts, scour Youtube for my quick fix. There are some real gems hidden within the usual crap on there. When used properly the tools are incredibly powerful, very effective and quite convincing. Therein lies the danger. The otherwise worthless opinions of people who could scarcely make a living as a coat rack and being paraded as heroes and maestros, brilliantly laying down proofs and destroying the other side. But to anyone with a functioning brain, they are the overwhelming evidence that society is going down the shithole. So what does this have to do with the art of being wrong?
Instant Gratification Society
What this has to do with being wrong is a simple procedure called confirmation bias. Basically putting it, confirmation bias is counting the hits and ignoring the misses. We see this happening all the time, everyone is guilty of it. And with a society where gratification comes so instantly, we are often put in a position where the bias not only happens, but happens in such a way that is manufactured. In effect the media shapes our mind by being selective in what is broadcast. Try condensing the events in the world down into a 22 minute program, leaving enough time for sports and weather and there is very little about what can be broadcast. And thanks to the need for ratings, it seems to more and more follow the idea of "if it bleeds, it leads". The net poses an interesting twist to this where the choice is now yours. You can in effect choose how you filter, something that is wonderful. But there is a great danger in that in most cases people look purely for items that confirm whatever they already believe in. By filtering personally, they are ensuring that any dissenting voice is silenced. This way minds become very polemic.
So thanks to the internet we have come to expect things instantly. Right now I'm sitting at work annoyed that I'll have to wait another 4 hours to go home and download the new NIN CD (and yes, I am paying for it!). It's that kind of immediate response I'm talking about. TV shows that previously took months to come onto Australian television are able to be downloaded at the touch of a button, why should we wait anymore? At least TV networks are trying to correct this and are showing episodes almost as they appear in the US. The home DVD market has revolutionised how we watch TV, instead of tuning in and putting up with ads, we simply throw on a DVD. So when shows are only shown here at ungodly hours, on pay TV or not at all, it's a lot easier for us to have an alternate means of watching some of these programs.
So that is the society we live in now. One were fad diets come and go faster than magazines can cover them. Where miracle pills and surgery are favoured opposed to hard work. Where we expect immediate results for our actions, why read a book when we can watch the movie instead? This is a society where bookstores dedicate more shelf-space for religion & spirituality than science. Where someone can make a DVD like The Secret and can rake in a fortune. No regard to the truth of the matter, the promise of the spectacular from no work seems far more appealing to our natures than the truth behind it. We are a society that wants what we can get here and now, and for a species that is prone to confirmation bias, that creates even more problems.
The Secret and other lies
It seems the perfect tie-in to this discussion, something I've wanted to rant about for quite a while. Endorsed by the likes of Oprah and with a seemingly never ending stock of DVDs & books on the shelves for people to buy, The Secret embodies everything that we have come to expect from "new age" spiritualism; hollow fluff, promising the world, mixing consumerism and material worth all in a convenient package. I'd like to say now I really don't care about how people spend their money, it's theirs to waste. I certainly waste enough of mine on mind altering purchases. What I hope to achieve here is write a coherent explanation of how it works so we don't need to rely on superstitious nonsense as a means of answering. In short, The Secret is bullshit. And here's why:
There are countless testamonials to The Secret's authenticity. People believe it works, so it must work correct? Well no. There are two aspects here that ensure that people will believe. Firstly, one of the steps is belief. There are three steps to The Secret.
1. Ask the universe for what you want
2. Believe that the universe will grant it to you
3. Receive the gift
It's all about positive thinking, if you don't believe hard enough that you'll get what you want, it's your fault it didn't happen. In effect this makes The Secret self-confirming, a tautology designed to fit nicely with the second reason that ensure people believes... yes you guessed it: confirmation bias. So if it doesn't work often we just ignore that, but when it hits it's testimony to it working. Now we have a very simple way of determining the truth of someone's claims, it's called a double blind study. We set up an unbiased way to conduct the experiment in controlled conditions and gather accurate statistical results. If The Secret did work, it would pass. If not, it would be like any other hack nonsense that is fundamental in the modern mix of consumerism and belief.
Now this isn't to say that positive thinking doesn't do someone good. It would be hard to argue otherwise. But that isn't what The Secret is promoting. It's advocating that the universe will respond and reward that positive thinking. Like attracts like. In effect The Secret boils down to almost exactly the same idea as a personal god, only without the anthropomorphic connotations. The comfort that the universe will reward for the right mindset must be staggering. The universe cares about them and what they think, it's God in a metaphysical form. Only without rewarding in an afterlife, it's rewarding now. Though this is starting to become an all too common idea of God in some evangelical communities, but that is something I'll get to in a minute. There is just a bit more left to destroy of The Secret first.
As I was saying before, The Secret is all about personalising the universe. They make such ambiguous claims like it's ancient wisdom. Ancient wisdom is itself a contradiction, but it gives the illusion to the user that it's been tested and demonstrated. It was also ancient wisdom that the earth was flat and the sun orbited the earth. Not to say that anything in the ancient world is unfounded, just that these days we have ways of testing their claims. It's called progress for a reason. It claims like attracts like, which in physics it's the opposites attract. Just use a magnet to find this out. But there is no force that attracts our thoughts as spiritual vibes to manipulate the universe to our whim. That form of psychokinesis is simply an absurd notion. What happens if two people are competing for that same parking space? There's only one there, they both are using positive thoughts... Bet it will be the one who is in the right place at the right time. When we have perfectly rational explanations for something, why should we even consider an irrational one?
Alternative medicine should not be trusted. It doesn't stand up to double blind tests, in fact most treatments refuse to subject themselves to a double blind study, though by doing so it could validate the process. The danger of invalidating though is far too great, not to mention the absurd notions of their explanations would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. There is a great danger in avoiding conventional medicine for the sake of these placebos and that is death. It's not uncommon to hear about people who shunned regular treatment for entirely treatable diseases and as a consequence hit an early grave. That is sad, but it's that persons own fault. What ticks me off the most is that people make a profit from another's suffering. I have no doubt that most of these charlatans believe what they are saying is right. But believing something is right doesn't make it right. They aren't lying, but they are wrong. (finally we made it)
Wilful ignorance
It's time to lay into the more conventional sycophants, namely creationists. So you might be alongside us sceptics in condemning alternative medicine, but with your faith healing, you are no better. Again, there is the claim of the miraculous, anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias, a tautology in case it fails ("the lord works in mysterious ways") so where do you creationists get off calling New Ageism nonsense? That really gets me about religious nuts criticising the beliefs of other religious nuts. It's quite laughable, at least to me because all of their ideas are crazy. Yes, god made us out of clay, then put a tree in a garden which we ate that made us aware of sin then spent 4,000 years waiting for God to come down in human form and forgive us on the proviso that we believe that we should be forgiven. Forgive the snickering you hear, it's my reason circuit malfunctioning.
Now I can say assuredly that creationists are wrong. Again, I'm sure they believe that what they are saying and doing is true. But belief that it's true doesn't make it true. It's one of the same old arguments you hear for the bible's account of Jesus' life. The people who wrote it down believed it was true and what reason would they have to lie? Well none, but not-lying doesn't equate to telling the truth. I can believe with all my heart that a dragon is flying above my house providing heat with it's fire breath, and winter simply is when the dragon hibernates, but no matter how much I believed that to be true, and no matter if I were able to convince others it were true, it wouldn't make it true. I can't prove it false, but I can come up with a rational explanation for how the seasons work. It's to do with the Earth's tilt and orbit around the sun. So why would I go with the dragon one? It flies in the face of reason.
But that is exactly what creationists do. They aren't all idiots, they just love the idea of God. Love it so much that anything that flies in the face of that must be wrong. This is what I call wilful ignorance. The evidence that evolution is the cause of our species is immense, to say it's false is to spit in the face of reason. The bible is inerrant, the bible says that God created us from clay, we must be created from clay. Right? Well wrong. The bible is not inerrant. It doesn't take much of a look to see it contradict itself, make absurd statements, write about a history that is not backed up by other cultures histories or archaeological evidence, to see that it's a bunch of stories, parables and allegories designed to help a society gel and for the individual to have a closer experience with God. But some people can't have the metaphor without the literal and we get an intellectual backwash where ID is being promoted at the expense of real science. Not that I think many of those who support ID know what ID is about, just that it sounds good.
So when they spread their assertions and their propaganda, they are spreading falsehoods deeply entrenched in their heads as fact. And we'll see the same arguments over and over again.
* Evolution doesn't pass the 2nd law of thermodynamics (yes it does)
* Evolution is only a theory (Only?!?)
* There is no evidence for evolution (yes there is)
* Carbon Dating is unreliable (Bullshit!)
* Evidence of the great flood is the Grand Canyon (You still want me to take you seriously?)
You've got to wonder how they get away with saying that stuff over and over. They are wrong, they are very wrong. But when we get propaganda websites like Answers in Genesis writing pseudo-scientific nonsense that sounds accurate to the uneducated. By taking myth as fact, we are seeing an attempt to rewrite history at the expense of accumulated knowledge. Is there a god? I don't know. I lean to the side of probably not. But will a global flood be proof of one? No. Yet the two are intricately tied together so that by proving the flood you prove the God. Though by believing in God, it's proof of the flood... it's all very circular.
The art of being wrong
So now is the point where I try and tie all this in, wrap in up in a few short sentences that are a great summation of my arguments. The truth is I ranted on a bit, the previous text is nowhere near as concise I would have liked. There is just too much to rant about and rip apart, and although I don't feel like making something this long is a good way of communicating, I feel that anything shorter would have missed stuff out. Hell, even now I feel I've only scratched the surface and I would probably write a whole book about it. Though there are already many other authors out there who have done so, and done so in a way much more proficient, accurate and in an elegant manner.
I'm sitting here now, listening to Ghosts I-IV on my iPod, it's been a few days since I started this entry but I really felt I needed the time to embellish and explore the ideas on the issue. This is as focused as I can get on an issue, it took a lot of restraint not to go off on tangents, like I said enough to write a book. And who has time for books these days? The internet age is all about conveying as much information is as short a space as possible. Something I can't do because I feel the urge to explain myself. Maybe in the future I should just videotape me talking for 5 minutes. Though I can't think of anything more mundane. But in a society where volume is greater than quality, the art of being wrong has never been easier.
Not to say that video blogs are a bad thing. I listen to podcasts, scour Youtube for my quick fix. There are some real gems hidden within the usual crap on there. When used properly the tools are incredibly powerful, very effective and quite convincing. Therein lies the danger. The otherwise worthless opinions of people who could scarcely make a living as a coat rack and being paraded as heroes and maestros, brilliantly laying down proofs and destroying the other side. But to anyone with a functioning brain, they are the overwhelming evidence that society is going down the shithole. So what does this have to do with the art of being wrong?
Instant Gratification Society
What this has to do with being wrong is a simple procedure called confirmation bias. Basically putting it, confirmation bias is counting the hits and ignoring the misses. We see this happening all the time, everyone is guilty of it. And with a society where gratification comes so instantly, we are often put in a position where the bias not only happens, but happens in such a way that is manufactured. In effect the media shapes our mind by being selective in what is broadcast. Try condensing the events in the world down into a 22 minute program, leaving enough time for sports and weather and there is very little about what can be broadcast. And thanks to the need for ratings, it seems to more and more follow the idea of "if it bleeds, it leads". The net poses an interesting twist to this where the choice is now yours. You can in effect choose how you filter, something that is wonderful. But there is a great danger in that in most cases people look purely for items that confirm whatever they already believe in. By filtering personally, they are ensuring that any dissenting voice is silenced. This way minds become very polemic.
So thanks to the internet we have come to expect things instantly. Right now I'm sitting at work annoyed that I'll have to wait another 4 hours to go home and download the new NIN CD (and yes, I am paying for it!). It's that kind of immediate response I'm talking about. TV shows that previously took months to come onto Australian television are able to be downloaded at the touch of a button, why should we wait anymore? At least TV networks are trying to correct this and are showing episodes almost as they appear in the US. The home DVD market has revolutionised how we watch TV, instead of tuning in and putting up with ads, we simply throw on a DVD. So when shows are only shown here at ungodly hours, on pay TV or not at all, it's a lot easier for us to have an alternate means of watching some of these programs.
So that is the society we live in now. One were fad diets come and go faster than magazines can cover them. Where miracle pills and surgery are favoured opposed to hard work. Where we expect immediate results for our actions, why read a book when we can watch the movie instead? This is a society where bookstores dedicate more shelf-space for religion & spirituality than science. Where someone can make a DVD like The Secret and can rake in a fortune. No regard to the truth of the matter, the promise of the spectacular from no work seems far more appealing to our natures than the truth behind it. We are a society that wants what we can get here and now, and for a species that is prone to confirmation bias, that creates even more problems.
The Secret and other lies
It seems the perfect tie-in to this discussion, something I've wanted to rant about for quite a while. Endorsed by the likes of Oprah and with a seemingly never ending stock of DVDs & books on the shelves for people to buy, The Secret embodies everything that we have come to expect from "new age" spiritualism; hollow fluff, promising the world, mixing consumerism and material worth all in a convenient package. I'd like to say now I really don't care about how people spend their money, it's theirs to waste. I certainly waste enough of mine on mind altering purchases. What I hope to achieve here is write a coherent explanation of how it works so we don't need to rely on superstitious nonsense as a means of answering. In short, The Secret is bullshit. And here's why:
There are countless testamonials to The Secret's authenticity. People believe it works, so it must work correct? Well no. There are two aspects here that ensure that people will believe. Firstly, one of the steps is belief. There are three steps to The Secret.
1. Ask the universe for what you want
2. Believe that the universe will grant it to you
3. Receive the gift
It's all about positive thinking, if you don't believe hard enough that you'll get what you want, it's your fault it didn't happen. In effect this makes The Secret self-confirming, a tautology designed to fit nicely with the second reason that ensure people believes... yes you guessed it: confirmation bias. So if it doesn't work often we just ignore that, but when it hits it's testimony to it working. Now we have a very simple way of determining the truth of someone's claims, it's called a double blind study. We set up an unbiased way to conduct the experiment in controlled conditions and gather accurate statistical results. If The Secret did work, it would pass. If not, it would be like any other hack nonsense that is fundamental in the modern mix of consumerism and belief.
Now this isn't to say that positive thinking doesn't do someone good. It would be hard to argue otherwise. But that isn't what The Secret is promoting. It's advocating that the universe will respond and reward that positive thinking. Like attracts like. In effect The Secret boils down to almost exactly the same idea as a personal god, only without the anthropomorphic connotations. The comfort that the universe will reward for the right mindset must be staggering. The universe cares about them and what they think, it's God in a metaphysical form. Only without rewarding in an afterlife, it's rewarding now. Though this is starting to become an all too common idea of God in some evangelical communities, but that is something I'll get to in a minute. There is just a bit more left to destroy of The Secret first.
As I was saying before, The Secret is all about personalising the universe. They make such ambiguous claims like it's ancient wisdom. Ancient wisdom is itself a contradiction, but it gives the illusion to the user that it's been tested and demonstrated. It was also ancient wisdom that the earth was flat and the sun orbited the earth. Not to say that anything in the ancient world is unfounded, just that these days we have ways of testing their claims. It's called progress for a reason. It claims like attracts like, which in physics it's the opposites attract. Just use a magnet to find this out. But there is no force that attracts our thoughts as spiritual vibes to manipulate the universe to our whim. That form of psychokinesis is simply an absurd notion. What happens if two people are competing for that same parking space? There's only one there, they both are using positive thoughts... Bet it will be the one who is in the right place at the right time. When we have perfectly rational explanations for something, why should we even consider an irrational one?
Alternative medicine should not be trusted. It doesn't stand up to double blind tests, in fact most treatments refuse to subject themselves to a double blind study, though by doing so it could validate the process. The danger of invalidating though is far too great, not to mention the absurd notions of their explanations would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. There is a great danger in avoiding conventional medicine for the sake of these placebos and that is death. It's not uncommon to hear about people who shunned regular treatment for entirely treatable diseases and as a consequence hit an early grave. That is sad, but it's that persons own fault. What ticks me off the most is that people make a profit from another's suffering. I have no doubt that most of these charlatans believe what they are saying is right. But believing something is right doesn't make it right. They aren't lying, but they are wrong. (finally we made it)
Wilful ignorance
It's time to lay into the more conventional sycophants, namely creationists. So you might be alongside us sceptics in condemning alternative medicine, but with your faith healing, you are no better. Again, there is the claim of the miraculous, anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias, a tautology in case it fails ("the lord works in mysterious ways") so where do you creationists get off calling New Ageism nonsense? That really gets me about religious nuts criticising the beliefs of other religious nuts. It's quite laughable, at least to me because all of their ideas are crazy. Yes, god made us out of clay, then put a tree in a garden which we ate that made us aware of sin then spent 4,000 years waiting for God to come down in human form and forgive us on the proviso that we believe that we should be forgiven. Forgive the snickering you hear, it's my reason circuit malfunctioning.
Now I can say assuredly that creationists are wrong. Again, I'm sure they believe that what they are saying and doing is true. But belief that it's true doesn't make it true. It's one of the same old arguments you hear for the bible's account of Jesus' life. The people who wrote it down believed it was true and what reason would they have to lie? Well none, but not-lying doesn't equate to telling the truth. I can believe with all my heart that a dragon is flying above my house providing heat with it's fire breath, and winter simply is when the dragon hibernates, but no matter how much I believed that to be true, and no matter if I were able to convince others it were true, it wouldn't make it true. I can't prove it false, but I can come up with a rational explanation for how the seasons work. It's to do with the Earth's tilt and orbit around the sun. So why would I go with the dragon one? It flies in the face of reason.
But that is exactly what creationists do. They aren't all idiots, they just love the idea of God. Love it so much that anything that flies in the face of that must be wrong. This is what I call wilful ignorance. The evidence that evolution is the cause of our species is immense, to say it's false is to spit in the face of reason. The bible is inerrant, the bible says that God created us from clay, we must be created from clay. Right? Well wrong. The bible is not inerrant. It doesn't take much of a look to see it contradict itself, make absurd statements, write about a history that is not backed up by other cultures histories or archaeological evidence, to see that it's a bunch of stories, parables and allegories designed to help a society gel and for the individual to have a closer experience with God. But some people can't have the metaphor without the literal and we get an intellectual backwash where ID is being promoted at the expense of real science. Not that I think many of those who support ID know what ID is about, just that it sounds good.
So when they spread their assertions and their propaganda, they are spreading falsehoods deeply entrenched in their heads as fact. And we'll see the same arguments over and over again.
* Evolution doesn't pass the 2nd law of thermodynamics (yes it does)
* Evolution is only a theory (Only?!?)
* There is no evidence for evolution (yes there is)
* Carbon Dating is unreliable (Bullshit!)
* Evidence of the great flood is the Grand Canyon (You still want me to take you seriously?)
You've got to wonder how they get away with saying that stuff over and over. They are wrong, they are very wrong. But when we get propaganda websites like Answers in Genesis writing pseudo-scientific nonsense that sounds accurate to the uneducated. By taking myth as fact, we are seeing an attempt to rewrite history at the expense of accumulated knowledge. Is there a god? I don't know. I lean to the side of probably not. But will a global flood be proof of one? No. Yet the two are intricately tied together so that by proving the flood you prove the God. Though by believing in God, it's proof of the flood... it's all very circular.
The art of being wrong
So now is the point where I try and tie all this in, wrap in up in a few short sentences that are a great summation of my arguments. The truth is I ranted on a bit, the previous text is nowhere near as concise I would have liked. There is just too much to rant about and rip apart, and although I don't feel like making something this long is a good way of communicating, I feel that anything shorter would have missed stuff out. Hell, even now I feel I've only scratched the surface and I would probably write a whole book about it. Though there are already many other authors out there who have done so, and done so in a way much more proficient, accurate and in an elegant manner.
I'm sitting here now, listening to Ghosts I-IV on my iPod, it's been a few days since I started this entry but I really felt I needed the time to embellish and explore the ideas on the issue. This is as focused as I can get on an issue, it took a lot of restraint not to go off on tangents, like I said enough to write a book. And who has time for books these days? The internet age is all about conveying as much information is as short a space as possible. Something I can't do because I feel the urge to explain myself. Maybe in the future I should just videotape me talking for 5 minutes. Though I can't think of anything more mundane. But in a society where volume is greater than quality, the art of being wrong has never been easier.
Monday, 7 January 2008
The Farce and the Furious
It's cricket season once again, and in this era of Australian cricket minus the bowling legends that are McGrath and Warne, this summer promised something that hasn't happened for a long time... Australia to be challenged. Sri Lanka were a disappointment with the exception of the very final test match where they made a slight effort with the bat. Then New Zealand got their arses handed to them on a platter in the Chappell-Hadlee Trophy. And after the capitulation that India gave in the Boxing Day test, few could have predicted the turmoil that was to follow in the new year.
First off, aside from all the poor umpiring decisions, the dubious sportsmanship and the bad blood that has boiled between certain players, the match itself was a cracker. It had everything; brilliant bowling, wonderful batting performances, beautiful catches, and the result went right down to the wire, Clarke's last over will stand out in the memories of fans for a long time. There are two stand-out issues that come to mind from the test, the first is The Spirit Of The Game and the ethics of whether a batsman should walk, the second is the role of the umpires in the modern era.
The Spirit Of The Game
Now there has been a huge amount made of Andrew Symonds not walking when he was given not out despite a huge nick on 30. People saying he doesn't deserve his ton or he should have walked. Though very few seem to be mentioning the same of Sachin Tendulkar who should have been given out LBW very early on before him getting his ton. Yes, both were bad decisions, but this is the reason why we have umpires. If Australia weren't 6/134 at the time, would the media have made such a big deal of it? I think not. One thing we have grown accustom to is Australia dominating, so when a challenge arrives, of course elements of luck like a deaf old umpire come into play. Anyway, here are the points of contention that have blown up:
* Not Walking - There seems to be two thoughts on this, if you knick the ball the only honest thing to do is walk, or let the umpire rule on the decision because there are plenty of bad calls that get given out too. Now I'm not going to say one way is better than the other. But to take it as cheating seems a far stretch. There are few players in world cricket who actually do walk, one of them being the number 7 batsman donning the baggy green. But to stretch it and say that it outside the spirit of the game is saying that about all teams. There is even some thought that walking is undermining the umpires authority, but I won't go that far.
* Standing your ground - The reverse situation, highlighted by a bad decision giving the batsman out. Now this is really against the spirit of the game, once you are given out it's final. A lot is made of Ponting standing his ground, and that is a fair cop. Though it wasn't only him in this test, both sides had players standing their ground when they should have been on their way.
* Excessive appealing - Dravid's dismissal in the second innings raised a few eyebrows about how the Aussies are appealing. Gilchrist throwing the ball in the air when it was clearly off the pad with the bat tucked away inside. Did he believe it was a knick? We won't ever really know. Again excessive appealing is something that quite a lot of sides are guilty of, especially those from the subcontinent. Even in this match there was appealing that was excessive and unnecessary from both teams. Again it's part and parcel of cricket these days, though it can get to the point you wish they would just shut up and get on with the game. But in the end, the umpires decision is final and no amount of appealing is going to make up for any bad decisions. Outside the spirit of the game? Maybe. Only one side guilty of it? No way.
* Celebrating - The big one really seems to be that instead of taking the victory graciously, the players came together and celebrated just has they had done when they won the world cup. Given that it was the penultimate over when the game looked destined for a draw, a part time spinner taking 3 wickets to snatch victory and equal the record of most consecutive test wins, the celebrations seem more than justified. It was a fantastic finish to the match and I for one was caught up in the emotion of it all watching it on television, I could only imagine how they were feeling out on the pitch. Maybe sport has lost it's elegance and showmanship, it's just not in cricket but across all sports. Ponting probably should have shook Kumble's hand as the game finished.
* Catching - There was a gentleman's agreement between both sides about taking the fielding teams word for it that it was caught. In the first innings Ponting said that he didn't catch one that could have been given out, then in the 2nd innings Ganguly refused to go when Clarke said he caught it. As replays are really inconclusive and the interpretation of the law is still being debated days after the incident, it was India here who broke the gentleman's agreement, not Australia. If Clarke believed he caught it, then that is supposed to be good enough.
* Sledging - This one can be attributed down to Australian teams over the years, but now it's commonplace amongst cricket. Maybe sledging has gone too far and should be curbed, I not entirely sure where I stand on the issue. One thing that is taboo for sure is racism. That's something that should be out of the game and out of society. Ponting was right to call Singh out for a racist remark, anyone condemning Ponting for doing so is themselves going outside the spirit of the game. Racism should not be tolerated ever. The ICC is very clear on any racist conduct and Ponting simply followed the procedures all captains are told to follow. And given that this same thing happened a few months ago in India, if Harhajan was ignorant of the historical racial vilification of the term then, he surely was brought up to speed in the aftermath. Unfortunately it looks like Brag Hogg is going to be the unfortunate victim in all this for using the term "bastard".
Both sides had their moments of poor sportsmanship and conduct contrary to the unwritten code of cricket. In saying that, the game itself was incredibly exciting for it, the competition between India and Australia seems to bring that out. Like the Twenty20 semi-final, the rivalry and emotional strain both sides put into the game helps add to the drama of it all. And the ante could only be upped by the addition of Sreesanth to the Indian line-up. Given the domination of the Aussies in recent time, a competitive spirit from the opponents couldn't go astray. But this game really wasn't marred by the players on-field conduct, the umpires really made a hash of things.
The Umpiring Issue
Yes, the umpires had a bad game, a shocking game, possibly the worst display of umpiring in the modern era. And yes, while there were bad decisions for both teams, Australia benefited a little more than the Indian. That's not the Australian players fault, it's certainly not a home ground bias any more, quite simply Bucknor and Benson both had shockers of a test. One mistake compounded into another and by the end of it they were so ruffled in their own ability that the 3rd umpire had to be called for a run-out chance where the batsman was in by more than a metre. A couple of things now to consider:
* Neutral Umpires - This was brought in as a way of combating perceived bias on the sub-continent. It's a good concept in theory, but now I wonder whether it's really necessary any more. Officials are appointed by the ICC, not test-playing nations. They are under more scrutiny than ever thanks to technology, and when an umpire can't officiate a game from where he was born, we aren't getting the best umpires to officiate the best teams. Simon Taufel is the worlds best umpire, makes the fewest mistakes, can't officiate an Australian game. Darrell Hair was number 2 before being sacked for following the rules of the game, he can't officiate anywhere. Given that local umpires know local conditions, surely there would be some call for bringing them back. Each decision is analysed over and over by commentators, media pundits, spectators, officials and the ICC itself, any bias is now negated by technology and procedure.
* Technology - Umpires don't get the privilege we do as fans, they don't get replays over and over again. This debate has been going ever since even the whiff of new technology came. Should the umpires use technology to assist them making decisions? Currently they can for run-outs, stumpings and catches. Cricket really is the perfect game for decisions like that being so stop-start. Though I like many other have reservations about it. First off, technology isn't 100% accurate, using it for catches more often than not returns an inconclusive verdict. For LBW, HawkEye is all well and good but it can't guarantee anything. Snicko doesn't always pick up a noise, and often camera angles themselves don't show deflections well in slow motion. So no matter how good the technology is, there will always be doubt.
One thing technology has done is made the umpires afraid to be wrong, and I believe that in part it played on the minds of Bucknor and Benson in this test. When the 3rd umpire came into play for run-outs, all referrals used to be a matter of centimetres, now it's getting close to metres. Snicks aren't being given because if it misses the edge and the batsman is given out, there is a problem. Benefit always goes to the batsman, and with good reason too; they only get one chance. In the end, even a universal adoption of technology won't stop player complaints, at least it's better when we have umpires rather than computer programmers accountable.
The Sub-Continent Power Struggle
One more thing that I wish to talk about is the reaction to this match by the BCCI and the ICC. For one India should have never threatened to pull out of the tour. If Singh was found to be using racist language, he should be punished. For another, it undermines the ICC's quest for neutrality. And as we have seen with the sub-continent power base, when it wants something, it gets it. Darrell Hair sacked for following the rules. The redefinition of what constitutes a legal ball. Another sub-continent cricket world cup before it comes back down under (though that one seems reasonable given there are 4 cricketing nations sharing it). The truth is that the ICC relies on Indian money to fund the game. 70% of all cricketing income comes from India, a nation of over 1 billion cricket mad people, with a level of fanaticism rarely seen even in religion. When the effigies of Greg Chappell burned for sacking an out of form Ganguly, it showed to the world just how seriously they take the game.
Now the ICC probably did the right thing by removing Bucknor but it did so for the wrong reasons. To sack him on form is fair enough, he had a dog of a game and if he were a cricketer he'd be told to go back to state level and sort his game out. But they initially kept him on, then only removed him to appease the Indian demands. And given that the elite umpiring panel has 10 umpires, 3 of which are Australians and others are involved in other test matches around the world, there were very few options in who to choose. Bowden should do a good job, but I fear his position like all umpires is now compromised by the pressure of being sacked if you don't do as the BCCI wants you to.
So the fallout from all this is that the three-ringed media circus sideshow has overshadowed a test match full of excellent performances, a fantastic finish, and some of the worst umpiring seen in history. Seems like every Pom with a microphone or newspaper column can call the Aussies bad sports and get away with it. And it's sad that any Aussie who speaks out is having his patriotism called into question. I hope soon the focus is back on the cricket and we can look forward to Shaun Tait and Brett Lee bowling 150km deliveries in tandem at the WACA. The politics behind the sport should never be the headline.
First off, aside from all the poor umpiring decisions, the dubious sportsmanship and the bad blood that has boiled between certain players, the match itself was a cracker. It had everything; brilliant bowling, wonderful batting performances, beautiful catches, and the result went right down to the wire, Clarke's last over will stand out in the memories of fans for a long time. There are two stand-out issues that come to mind from the test, the first is The Spirit Of The Game and the ethics of whether a batsman should walk, the second is the role of the umpires in the modern era.
The Spirit Of The Game
Now there has been a huge amount made of Andrew Symonds not walking when he was given not out despite a huge nick on 30. People saying he doesn't deserve his ton or he should have walked. Though very few seem to be mentioning the same of Sachin Tendulkar who should have been given out LBW very early on before him getting his ton. Yes, both were bad decisions, but this is the reason why we have umpires. If Australia weren't 6/134 at the time, would the media have made such a big deal of it? I think not. One thing we have grown accustom to is Australia dominating, so when a challenge arrives, of course elements of luck like a deaf old umpire come into play. Anyway, here are the points of contention that have blown up:
* Not Walking - There seems to be two thoughts on this, if you knick the ball the only honest thing to do is walk, or let the umpire rule on the decision because there are plenty of bad calls that get given out too. Now I'm not going to say one way is better than the other. But to take it as cheating seems a far stretch. There are few players in world cricket who actually do walk, one of them being the number 7 batsman donning the baggy green. But to stretch it and say that it outside the spirit of the game is saying that about all teams. There is even some thought that walking is undermining the umpires authority, but I won't go that far.
* Standing your ground - The reverse situation, highlighted by a bad decision giving the batsman out. Now this is really against the spirit of the game, once you are given out it's final. A lot is made of Ponting standing his ground, and that is a fair cop. Though it wasn't only him in this test, both sides had players standing their ground when they should have been on their way.
* Excessive appealing - Dravid's dismissal in the second innings raised a few eyebrows about how the Aussies are appealing. Gilchrist throwing the ball in the air when it was clearly off the pad with the bat tucked away inside. Did he believe it was a knick? We won't ever really know. Again excessive appealing is something that quite a lot of sides are guilty of, especially those from the subcontinent. Even in this match there was appealing that was excessive and unnecessary from both teams. Again it's part and parcel of cricket these days, though it can get to the point you wish they would just shut up and get on with the game. But in the end, the umpires decision is final and no amount of appealing is going to make up for any bad decisions. Outside the spirit of the game? Maybe. Only one side guilty of it? No way.
* Celebrating - The big one really seems to be that instead of taking the victory graciously, the players came together and celebrated just has they had done when they won the world cup. Given that it was the penultimate over when the game looked destined for a draw, a part time spinner taking 3 wickets to snatch victory and equal the record of most consecutive test wins, the celebrations seem more than justified. It was a fantastic finish to the match and I for one was caught up in the emotion of it all watching it on television, I could only imagine how they were feeling out on the pitch. Maybe sport has lost it's elegance and showmanship, it's just not in cricket but across all sports. Ponting probably should have shook Kumble's hand as the game finished.
* Catching - There was a gentleman's agreement between both sides about taking the fielding teams word for it that it was caught. In the first innings Ponting said that he didn't catch one that could have been given out, then in the 2nd innings Ganguly refused to go when Clarke said he caught it. As replays are really inconclusive and the interpretation of the law is still being debated days after the incident, it was India here who broke the gentleman's agreement, not Australia. If Clarke believed he caught it, then that is supposed to be good enough.
* Sledging - This one can be attributed down to Australian teams over the years, but now it's commonplace amongst cricket. Maybe sledging has gone too far and should be curbed, I not entirely sure where I stand on the issue. One thing that is taboo for sure is racism. That's something that should be out of the game and out of society. Ponting was right to call Singh out for a racist remark, anyone condemning Ponting for doing so is themselves going outside the spirit of the game. Racism should not be tolerated ever. The ICC is very clear on any racist conduct and Ponting simply followed the procedures all captains are told to follow. And given that this same thing happened a few months ago in India, if Harhajan was ignorant of the historical racial vilification of the term then, he surely was brought up to speed in the aftermath. Unfortunately it looks like Brag Hogg is going to be the unfortunate victim in all this for using the term "bastard".
Both sides had their moments of poor sportsmanship and conduct contrary to the unwritten code of cricket. In saying that, the game itself was incredibly exciting for it, the competition between India and Australia seems to bring that out. Like the Twenty20 semi-final, the rivalry and emotional strain both sides put into the game helps add to the drama of it all. And the ante could only be upped by the addition of Sreesanth to the Indian line-up. Given the domination of the Aussies in recent time, a competitive spirit from the opponents couldn't go astray. But this game really wasn't marred by the players on-field conduct, the umpires really made a hash of things.
The Umpiring Issue
Yes, the umpires had a bad game, a shocking game, possibly the worst display of umpiring in the modern era. And yes, while there were bad decisions for both teams, Australia benefited a little more than the Indian. That's not the Australian players fault, it's certainly not a home ground bias any more, quite simply Bucknor and Benson both had shockers of a test. One mistake compounded into another and by the end of it they were so ruffled in their own ability that the 3rd umpire had to be called for a run-out chance where the batsman was in by more than a metre. A couple of things now to consider:
* Neutral Umpires - This was brought in as a way of combating perceived bias on the sub-continent. It's a good concept in theory, but now I wonder whether it's really necessary any more. Officials are appointed by the ICC, not test-playing nations. They are under more scrutiny than ever thanks to technology, and when an umpire can't officiate a game from where he was born, we aren't getting the best umpires to officiate the best teams. Simon Taufel is the worlds best umpire, makes the fewest mistakes, can't officiate an Australian game. Darrell Hair was number 2 before being sacked for following the rules of the game, he can't officiate anywhere. Given that local umpires know local conditions, surely there would be some call for bringing them back. Each decision is analysed over and over by commentators, media pundits, spectators, officials and the ICC itself, any bias is now negated by technology and procedure.
* Technology - Umpires don't get the privilege we do as fans, they don't get replays over and over again. This debate has been going ever since even the whiff of new technology came. Should the umpires use technology to assist them making decisions? Currently they can for run-outs, stumpings and catches. Cricket really is the perfect game for decisions like that being so stop-start. Though I like many other have reservations about it. First off, technology isn't 100% accurate, using it for catches more often than not returns an inconclusive verdict. For LBW, HawkEye is all well and good but it can't guarantee anything. Snicko doesn't always pick up a noise, and often camera angles themselves don't show deflections well in slow motion. So no matter how good the technology is, there will always be doubt.
One thing technology has done is made the umpires afraid to be wrong, and I believe that in part it played on the minds of Bucknor and Benson in this test. When the 3rd umpire came into play for run-outs, all referrals used to be a matter of centimetres, now it's getting close to metres. Snicks aren't being given because if it misses the edge and the batsman is given out, there is a problem. Benefit always goes to the batsman, and with good reason too; they only get one chance. In the end, even a universal adoption of technology won't stop player complaints, at least it's better when we have umpires rather than computer programmers accountable.
The Sub-Continent Power Struggle
One more thing that I wish to talk about is the reaction to this match by the BCCI and the ICC. For one India should have never threatened to pull out of the tour. If Singh was found to be using racist language, he should be punished. For another, it undermines the ICC's quest for neutrality. And as we have seen with the sub-continent power base, when it wants something, it gets it. Darrell Hair sacked for following the rules. The redefinition of what constitutes a legal ball. Another sub-continent cricket world cup before it comes back down under (though that one seems reasonable given there are 4 cricketing nations sharing it). The truth is that the ICC relies on Indian money to fund the game. 70% of all cricketing income comes from India, a nation of over 1 billion cricket mad people, with a level of fanaticism rarely seen even in religion. When the effigies of Greg Chappell burned for sacking an out of form Ganguly, it showed to the world just how seriously they take the game.
Now the ICC probably did the right thing by removing Bucknor but it did so for the wrong reasons. To sack him on form is fair enough, he had a dog of a game and if he were a cricketer he'd be told to go back to state level and sort his game out. But they initially kept him on, then only removed him to appease the Indian demands. And given that the elite umpiring panel has 10 umpires, 3 of which are Australians and others are involved in other test matches around the world, there were very few options in who to choose. Bowden should do a good job, but I fear his position like all umpires is now compromised by the pressure of being sacked if you don't do as the BCCI wants you to.
So the fallout from all this is that the three-ringed media circus sideshow has overshadowed a test match full of excellent performances, a fantastic finish, and some of the worst umpiring seen in history. Seems like every Pom with a microphone or newspaper column can call the Aussies bad sports and get away with it. And it's sad that any Aussie who speaks out is having his patriotism called into question. I hope soon the focus is back on the cricket and we can look forward to Shaun Tait and Brett Lee bowling 150km deliveries in tandem at the WACA. The politics behind the sport should never be the headline.
Sunday, 30 December 2007
The Music of 2007
That time of the year has come around again, where the calendar reaches it's end and we need to throw it away and buy a new one, where we have an excuse to get drunk and watch fireworks, and where we draw an arbitrary line in the sand as a period of time to reference events. What an eventful year this has been, we've gotten a new Prime Minister here in Australia and buried the coconut, Bush has become a lame duck as all focus is on the potential candidates for next years election (18 month election campaigns are a total waste), England bombed their Euro 2008 campaign while Pakistan was bombed by Islamic radicals, Australia won the world cup for the third time in the most farcical manner, Al Gore won a peace prize for his slideshow presentation (it was a pretty good slideshow, and he was way more deserving than Mother Theresa), and a heap of stuff more that I probably should be aware of.
In the end the year has left me with a sense of cautious optimism for the future. It's great to see the world coming together and working towards a global solution for tackling climate change, there has been a greater focus on the rights of the individual even in countries where Sharia law persists. No, it's not perfect, yes there is a lot of shit going down, Pakistan is extremely volatile right now, Afghanistan is going bad again while Iraq is still a shambles. But there is hope persisting. It will be interesting to see the impact of Blair's convoy to the Middle East, hoping we can see a Palestinian state in the next few years. But all of this is irrelevant to this blog, I just want to focus on the music of the year.
Albums
Top 10
10. Saul Williams - The Inevitable Rise And Liberation Of Niggy Tardust
I've covered the crux of this album in an earlier post. At the risk of repeating myself I'll recap why I believe this is one of the great albums from this year. Saul Williams is at his lyrical best, the production values are amazing, and apart from the Drum and Bass Reznoresque cover of Sunday Bloody Sunday the album really stands out as a classic. Turn it up and listen to how an Industrial god puts most rap producers to shame. Online is the future of album distribution, great to see quality releases like this embrace the format.
Best track: WTF!
9. Electric Wizard - Witchcult Today
A great album to chill the fuck out to. It rivals the sheer crunch that was Melvins - (A) Senile Animal, it's just unbelievably consistent and the album flows seamlessly from beginning to end. Slow grinding riffs are brilliantly layered between fitting drums and solid vocals. It's one of those albums that you can appreciate just as long as you sit down and hear the whole thing.
Best track: Satanic Rites of Drugula
8. The Icarus Line - Black Lives On The Golden Coast
This album took a while to grow on me, in the beginning I was lamenting Aaron North's exit from the band and saying "boo, not as good as Mono", but the more I listened the more I enjoyed the album for what it is. They've done something different and they have done it well. It's more melodic than anything they've released before but that is by no means a bad thing. the album itself is a nice variety, oscillating from intense to laid back compositions, though the only criticism I could muster is sometimes the need for vocals overshadows the rest of the music. Though the lyrics seem quite irrelevant at times and the vocals become another instrument in the bands. Overall a solid release, worth listening to over and over again.
Best track: Slayer
7. Dream Theater - Systematic Chaos
It's always good hearing technically proficient musicians working together, sometimes the precision gets in the way of the music quality, but not on this release. Dream Theater have gotten the balance right. The riff interchange between keyboard and guitar is seamless, reminds me a lot of UK's self-titled album. It's good to see a split track, In The Presence Of Enemies is both a fantastic opener and ender. This is a seminal prog-metal release, 78 minutes of everything that is great about the genre. I look forward to seeing some of these tracks live in a months time.
Best track: Prophets Of War
6. Rosetta - Wake / Lift
No this release is not The Galilean Satellites, the band has progressed their sound into something new. A much more Post-Rock release than their last, though it hasn't stopped this band from sounding as unique as they did 3 years ago. The music is so densely layered and the long winding compositions are so meticulously fine-tuned, it is a delight to sit back and just take in from beginning to end.
Best track: Wake
5. The Dillinger Escape Plan - Ire Works
I was hotly anticipating this album on the back of the quality of Miss Machine. Despite Chris Pennie defecting to C&C and Brian Bennoit taking a break due to a hand injury, they've come back and done something fantastic again. Greg Puciato has taken a much more expansive role with his vocals, there is actual singing on this release. The album itself is technically brilliant, the interplay between drums and guitar is as sublime as we've come to expect from DEP, and the song writing is more mature than ever. There are parts that are going to piss off the die-hard fans of Calculating Infinity but who cares? This is a wonderful album in it's own right, full of aggression, mathematical precision and sublime musicianship.
Best track: Dead As History
4. Dark Tranquillity - Fiction
This is just an incredibly balanced album, Dark Tranquillity have gotten the balance perfect. Melodic Death Metal at it's finest right here. The interlay between the keyboard and guitar as the melodic instrument is done seamlessly, the interlaced piano transforms the album from solid to fantastic, everything has just fallen into place. Even the lyrics are perfectly fitting for the chaos surrounding them, yet never are overbearing on the sound. The metal release of the year for sure, just listen to Icipher and see for yourselves.
Best track: The Mundane And The Magic
3. Battles - Mirrored
This was a very pleasant discovery of 2007, decided to check them out after they were added to next years Big Day Out line-up. While being a perfect example of avant-garde math-rock, most of all this is a fun album to listen to. The almost chipmunk like vocals fit beautifully over the music, elaborate compositions that you just want to dance poorly out of time to.
Best track: Tonto
2. Deerhunter - Cryptograms
A perfect mix of ambiance, post-punk and noise rock, Deerhunter have created an album truly worthy of being called a masterpiece. It captivates from the first few notes of the intro and leaves you wanting more when Heatherwood finishes. The composition is sublime, each track flows so well into the next and the mix of ambient pieces spacing out the more rock style pieces is done just perfectly. Each listen just begs me to start over again.
Best track: Heatherwood
1. Porcupine Tree - Fear Of A Blank Planet
What can I say? It's been a year of excellent prog releases. And Porcupine Tree have made the best of all of them. One thing this album does above all others is the focus on songwriting, the intense tracks come from a perfect balance of lyrics and prog styling in a way only Steve Wilson can deliver. It's one of the best concept albums I've heard in years, it really captures the apathy that is the offshoot of modern technology and culture. Sometimes the music is a thing of beauty, the harmonies hit just convey the meaning so precisely. Since it's release in April, it's had the staying power to be played all year despite the stream of other great music out there. And the subsequent EP Nil Recurring completed and complemented this release so well. The best praise I can give it is it's better than In Absentia. Well done Porcupine Tree.
Best track: Anesthetize
Honourable Mentions
So many good albums came out this year, so this list will be a little longer than normal, but all these deserve mention in some form. No particular order to this.
* Riverside - Rapid Eye Movement
* Puscifer - V Is For Vagina
* Radiohead - In Rainbows
* Coheed & Cambria - No World For Tomorrow
* Alchemist - Tripsis
* Symphony X - Paradise Lost
* Clutch - Frome Beale Street To Oblivion
* Ministry - The Final Sucker
* The Ocean - Precambrian
* Minus The Bear - Planet Of Ice
* Unkle - War Stories
* Strung Out - Blackhawks Over Los Angeles
* Paradise Lost - In Requiem
* Down - Over The Under
* Queens Of The Stone Age - Era Vulgaris
* Rosetta & Balboa - Project Mercury (split)
* Animal Collective - Strawberry Jam
* Nine Inch Nails - Year Zero
* Regurgitator - Love And Paranoia
* Arch Enemy - Rise Of The Tyrant
* Daysend - The Warning
* Skinny Puppy - Mythmaker
* 65daysofstatic - The Destruction Of Small Ideas
Notes
Just wanted to say a few more things. It's sad to see Ministry go out, been consistenly good for almost 2 decades, The Last Sucker was a fitting end to their recording career. Good to see NIN release something different and while it may not have pleased many hardcore fans, it's good to see Trent try something new. A Nick Oliveri-less QOTSA showed it could still rock, while Billy Corgan didn't quite match it for the Smashing Pumpkins reunion record. Baroness tried to copy Leviathan if it were mixed with a little Neurosis while The Ocean did a better job of staying on the forefront of what is great with modern metal. In terms of Australian music, Regurgitator released their most consistent album in a decade while Alchemist and Daysend showed that the metal scene here is alive and kicking. Radiohead captured the media's imagination with it's gimmicky fight against piracy while capturing Pitchfork's love of the band. Punk died a little more on the inside with Bad Religion's new release, though Strung Out did it's best to try something different. Marilyn Manson has faded into obscurity as his shock rock tactics grow weary and all musicians around him work on other material. And still no democracy in china...
Next year sure is shaping up to follow the spectacular. New Meshuggah, Opeth, Nevermore, The Mars Volta and Cog to name just a few I'm excited about, plus there is sure to be countless others and the second half of Year Zero. Something to look forward to in the new year I suppose.
The Gigs Of '07
2007 was my busiest year for live music ever, 12 live shows and 3 music festivals, it's left me worn out and my credit card maxed out. Still a lot of fun though.
Top 10 Sets
1. Nine Inch Nails (Hordern Pavilion, 16/09)
2. Tool (Sydney Entertainment Centre, 24/01)
3. Nine Inch Nails (Luna Park Big Top, 15/09)
4. Muse (Gold Coast Big Day Out, 21/01)
5. Slayer (Thebarton Theatre, 15/04)
6. The Cure (Sydney Entertainment Centre, 10/08)
7. Isis (The Metro, 03/02)
8. Bad Religion (Hordern Pavilion, 07/11)
9. Cog (Greenroom, 27/11)
10. These Arms Are Snakes (The Metro, 03/02)
Honourable mentions
* Kasabian (Gold Coast Big Day Out, 21/01)
* The Killers (Gold Coast Big Day Out, 21/01)
* NoFX (Manning Bar, 17/02)
* The Bronx (Greenroom, 28/02)
* Mastodon (Thebarton Theatre, 15/04)
* Regular John (Come Together Festival, 10/06)
* Mammal (Come Together Festival, 10/06)
* Shihad (Come Together Festival, 10/06)
* Alchemist (Bar Broadway, 17/08)
* New Pants (Greenroom, 05/10)
Next year I already have 6 gigs lined up, including the prize scalps of Rage Against The Machine and Dream Theater. I've been waiting to see RATM since I was 14, so the teenager in me is going into overdrive. The Big Day Out line-up is great though I can foresee many clashes. And with Tool, Dillinger Escape Plan, and Coheed & Cambria all rumoured for tours within the next six months and a Rosetta tour in June (so stoked they are playing Canberra) I'm already excited about the prospects, maybe even a Helmet show to these parts as well. Though finances will keep me away from V Fest unfortunately, though Smashing Pumpkins, QOTSA & Air are tempting me more than an open bottle of fortified wine.
It's been a great few years for music, and there still are plenty of albums I didn't probably check out due to time. I look forward to the next twelve months and can only wait in wonder to see what the music world can offer me*. Happy new year!
*a legal equivalent to Oink
In the end the year has left me with a sense of cautious optimism for the future. It's great to see the world coming together and working towards a global solution for tackling climate change, there has been a greater focus on the rights of the individual even in countries where Sharia law persists. No, it's not perfect, yes there is a lot of shit going down, Pakistan is extremely volatile right now, Afghanistan is going bad again while Iraq is still a shambles. But there is hope persisting. It will be interesting to see the impact of Blair's convoy to the Middle East, hoping we can see a Palestinian state in the next few years. But all of this is irrelevant to this blog, I just want to focus on the music of the year.
Albums
Top 10
10. Saul Williams - The Inevitable Rise And Liberation Of Niggy Tardust
I've covered the crux of this album in an earlier post. At the risk of repeating myself I'll recap why I believe this is one of the great albums from this year. Saul Williams is at his lyrical best, the production values are amazing, and apart from the Drum and Bass Reznoresque cover of Sunday Bloody Sunday the album really stands out as a classic. Turn it up and listen to how an Industrial god puts most rap producers to shame. Online is the future of album distribution, great to see quality releases like this embrace the format.
Best track: WTF!
9. Electric Wizard - Witchcult Today
A great album to chill the fuck out to. It rivals the sheer crunch that was Melvins - (A) Senile Animal, it's just unbelievably consistent and the album flows seamlessly from beginning to end. Slow grinding riffs are brilliantly layered between fitting drums and solid vocals. It's one of those albums that you can appreciate just as long as you sit down and hear the whole thing.
Best track: Satanic Rites of Drugula
8. The Icarus Line - Black Lives On The Golden Coast
This album took a while to grow on me, in the beginning I was lamenting Aaron North's exit from the band and saying "boo, not as good as Mono", but the more I listened the more I enjoyed the album for what it is. They've done something different and they have done it well. It's more melodic than anything they've released before but that is by no means a bad thing. the album itself is a nice variety, oscillating from intense to laid back compositions, though the only criticism I could muster is sometimes the need for vocals overshadows the rest of the music. Though the lyrics seem quite irrelevant at times and the vocals become another instrument in the bands. Overall a solid release, worth listening to over and over again.
Best track: Slayer
7. Dream Theater - Systematic Chaos
It's always good hearing technically proficient musicians working together, sometimes the precision gets in the way of the music quality, but not on this release. Dream Theater have gotten the balance right. The riff interchange between keyboard and guitar is seamless, reminds me a lot of UK's self-titled album. It's good to see a split track, In The Presence Of Enemies is both a fantastic opener and ender. This is a seminal prog-metal release, 78 minutes of everything that is great about the genre. I look forward to seeing some of these tracks live in a months time.
Best track: Prophets Of War
6. Rosetta - Wake / Lift
No this release is not The Galilean Satellites, the band has progressed their sound into something new. A much more Post-Rock release than their last, though it hasn't stopped this band from sounding as unique as they did 3 years ago. The music is so densely layered and the long winding compositions are so meticulously fine-tuned, it is a delight to sit back and just take in from beginning to end.
Best track: Wake
5. The Dillinger Escape Plan - Ire Works
I was hotly anticipating this album on the back of the quality of Miss Machine. Despite Chris Pennie defecting to C&C and Brian Bennoit taking a break due to a hand injury, they've come back and done something fantastic again. Greg Puciato has taken a much more expansive role with his vocals, there is actual singing on this release. The album itself is technically brilliant, the interplay between drums and guitar is as sublime as we've come to expect from DEP, and the song writing is more mature than ever. There are parts that are going to piss off the die-hard fans of Calculating Infinity but who cares? This is a wonderful album in it's own right, full of aggression, mathematical precision and sublime musicianship.
Best track: Dead As History
4. Dark Tranquillity - Fiction
This is just an incredibly balanced album, Dark Tranquillity have gotten the balance perfect. Melodic Death Metal at it's finest right here. The interlay between the keyboard and guitar as the melodic instrument is done seamlessly, the interlaced piano transforms the album from solid to fantastic, everything has just fallen into place. Even the lyrics are perfectly fitting for the chaos surrounding them, yet never are overbearing on the sound. The metal release of the year for sure, just listen to Icipher and see for yourselves.
Best track: The Mundane And The Magic
3. Battles - Mirrored
This was a very pleasant discovery of 2007, decided to check them out after they were added to next years Big Day Out line-up. While being a perfect example of avant-garde math-rock, most of all this is a fun album to listen to. The almost chipmunk like vocals fit beautifully over the music, elaborate compositions that you just want to dance poorly out of time to.
Best track: Tonto
2. Deerhunter - Cryptograms
A perfect mix of ambiance, post-punk and noise rock, Deerhunter have created an album truly worthy of being called a masterpiece. It captivates from the first few notes of the intro and leaves you wanting more when Heatherwood finishes. The composition is sublime, each track flows so well into the next and the mix of ambient pieces spacing out the more rock style pieces is done just perfectly. Each listen just begs me to start over again.
Best track: Heatherwood
1. Porcupine Tree - Fear Of A Blank Planet
What can I say? It's been a year of excellent prog releases. And Porcupine Tree have made the best of all of them. One thing this album does above all others is the focus on songwriting, the intense tracks come from a perfect balance of lyrics and prog styling in a way only Steve Wilson can deliver. It's one of the best concept albums I've heard in years, it really captures the apathy that is the offshoot of modern technology and culture. Sometimes the music is a thing of beauty, the harmonies hit just convey the meaning so precisely. Since it's release in April, it's had the staying power to be played all year despite the stream of other great music out there. And the subsequent EP Nil Recurring completed and complemented this release so well. The best praise I can give it is it's better than In Absentia. Well done Porcupine Tree.
Best track: Anesthetize
Honourable Mentions
So many good albums came out this year, so this list will be a little longer than normal, but all these deserve mention in some form. No particular order to this.
* Riverside - Rapid Eye Movement
* Puscifer - V Is For Vagina
* Radiohead - In Rainbows
* Coheed & Cambria - No World For Tomorrow
* Alchemist - Tripsis
* Symphony X - Paradise Lost
* Clutch - Frome Beale Street To Oblivion
* Ministry - The Final Sucker
* The Ocean - Precambrian
* Minus The Bear - Planet Of Ice
* Unkle - War Stories
* Strung Out - Blackhawks Over Los Angeles
* Paradise Lost - In Requiem
* Down - Over The Under
* Queens Of The Stone Age - Era Vulgaris
* Rosetta & Balboa - Project Mercury (split)
* Animal Collective - Strawberry Jam
* Nine Inch Nails - Year Zero
* Regurgitator - Love And Paranoia
* Arch Enemy - Rise Of The Tyrant
* Daysend - The Warning
* Skinny Puppy - Mythmaker
* 65daysofstatic - The Destruction Of Small Ideas
Notes
Just wanted to say a few more things. It's sad to see Ministry go out, been consistenly good for almost 2 decades, The Last Sucker was a fitting end to their recording career. Good to see NIN release something different and while it may not have pleased many hardcore fans, it's good to see Trent try something new. A Nick Oliveri-less QOTSA showed it could still rock, while Billy Corgan didn't quite match it for the Smashing Pumpkins reunion record. Baroness tried to copy Leviathan if it were mixed with a little Neurosis while The Ocean did a better job of staying on the forefront of what is great with modern metal. In terms of Australian music, Regurgitator released their most consistent album in a decade while Alchemist and Daysend showed that the metal scene here is alive and kicking. Radiohead captured the media's imagination with it's gimmicky fight against piracy while capturing Pitchfork's love of the band. Punk died a little more on the inside with Bad Religion's new release, though Strung Out did it's best to try something different. Marilyn Manson has faded into obscurity as his shock rock tactics grow weary and all musicians around him work on other material. And still no democracy in china...
Next year sure is shaping up to follow the spectacular. New Meshuggah, Opeth, Nevermore, The Mars Volta and Cog to name just a few I'm excited about, plus there is sure to be countless others and the second half of Year Zero. Something to look forward to in the new year I suppose.
The Gigs Of '07
2007 was my busiest year for live music ever, 12 live shows and 3 music festivals, it's left me worn out and my credit card maxed out. Still a lot of fun though.
Top 10 Sets
1. Nine Inch Nails (Hordern Pavilion, 16/09)
2. Tool (Sydney Entertainment Centre, 24/01)
3. Nine Inch Nails (Luna Park Big Top, 15/09)
4. Muse (Gold Coast Big Day Out, 21/01)
5. Slayer (Thebarton Theatre, 15/04)
6. The Cure (Sydney Entertainment Centre, 10/08)
7. Isis (The Metro, 03/02)
8. Bad Religion (Hordern Pavilion, 07/11)
9. Cog (Greenroom, 27/11)
10. These Arms Are Snakes (The Metro, 03/02)
Honourable mentions
* Kasabian (Gold Coast Big Day Out, 21/01)
* The Killers (Gold Coast Big Day Out, 21/01)
* NoFX (Manning Bar, 17/02)
* The Bronx (Greenroom, 28/02)
* Mastodon (Thebarton Theatre, 15/04)
* Regular John (Come Together Festival, 10/06)
* Mammal (Come Together Festival, 10/06)
* Shihad (Come Together Festival, 10/06)
* Alchemist (Bar Broadway, 17/08)
* New Pants (Greenroom, 05/10)
Next year I already have 6 gigs lined up, including the prize scalps of Rage Against The Machine and Dream Theater. I've been waiting to see RATM since I was 14, so the teenager in me is going into overdrive. The Big Day Out line-up is great though I can foresee many clashes. And with Tool, Dillinger Escape Plan, and Coheed & Cambria all rumoured for tours within the next six months and a Rosetta tour in June (so stoked they are playing Canberra) I'm already excited about the prospects, maybe even a Helmet show to these parts as well. Though finances will keep me away from V Fest unfortunately, though Smashing Pumpkins, QOTSA & Air are tempting me more than an open bottle of fortified wine.
It's been a great few years for music, and there still are plenty of albums I didn't probably check out due to time. I look forward to the next twelve months and can only wait in wonder to see what the music world can offer me*. Happy new year!
*a legal equivalent to Oink
Thursday, 20 December 2007
Merry Chrifsmas
Rejoice, for it's that time of year again, where everything winds down at the office but everything winds up at home. The time for personal reflection of the years past while frantically organising for that one day in late December where consumerism is mixed so seamlessly with tradition. The cricket is on television and a summer of music festivals is just around the corner. So what is this blog about? Well I want to explore the idea of Christmas and what it really means in our society, also I want to explore a bit of the year that was; at least through the filtered eyes from which I see. Mainly the 2007 election in Australia. Anyway, best get too it.
"Happy Holidays"
It's interesting listening to the debate about this, on one hand we have those who talk about Christmas being a celebration of Jesus and on the other hand being that Christmas is merely an extension of pagan celebrations. And in a way they are both right. Christmas is a tradition that is derived from other celebrations that follow the Winter Solstice. There is a reason for it being December 25th after all, and no that is in all probability not Jesus' birth date. There were many traditions kept from those pagan days that have been amalgamated into Christian folklore like gift giving. But the reason we celebrate Christmas here in Australia is almost exclusively because of our historical ties to England colonialism. Of course with the take-up of capitalism, the influx of multiculturalism and not to mention the localisation as is inevitable with any tradition, which brings me to my point: traditions change.
It seems that in an effort to make society a more hospitable for everyone, there is a push to refrain from calling it Christmas, instead using the generic term "holidays". Personally I don't see the point to this, yes it's a more encompassing term, and yes it still probably does reflect all that encompasses what Christmas has come to be, but there is really no use for it. All you do is piss off the traditionalists and give ammunition to those deluded fools who thing there is a war being waged on Christianity. Not one of those real wars, but a phoney one to confirm in their minds how dangerous secularism is. Christian persecution complex at it's finest. The truth is, the label in the end is quite irrelevant. Of course churches are going to push their message about Jesus, people are going to claim that it's a Christian holiday and we are going to be inundated with the same crappy carols as we frantically push through crowds to find gifts that will probably go unappreciated. The point is that really Christmas is only a label, and it is a label entrenched into society so there is really no point in changing it, the term itself has expanded to be encompassing of multiculturalism.
The War On Semantics
A few years ago I was boarding while going to university. One of the people I lived with was probably the closest thing we have to a Fundamentalist Christian in Australia. He complained that people who aren't Christian shouldn't be allowed to celebrate Easter or Christmas, they are just taking advantage of Christian tradition as an excuse to have days off work. While initially I dismissed it as the lunatic ravings of a broken man, it made me think about what Christmas and Easter really mean in these cultures. So now, I think it was the lunatic ravings of a broken man who couldn't separate religion from culture. And I think that in it's essence is the problem. Culturally we have come on in leaps and bounds, and the holiday has changed to reflect that. You're more likely to find a family at the beach having a BBQ in between a game of cricket and swimming than seeing them in silent prayer at a church. Throwing back a few beers and discussing how the Aussies will fare in the Boxing Day test with friends and family while the kids have toys is a much more fitting image than sitting around a table saying grace. But that is just the essence of what I am saying, the reality is very different from the idealist fantasy of respect. We don't need to change the label "Christmas" because Christmas changed for us.
Santa is a more central figure in Christmas preparations than Jesus. Walking through a busy crowded centre reaffirmed just that. Crosses were few and far between while there were children with "I *heart* Santa" shirts on. Being the salvation of mankind pales in comparison to being a fat man bearing toys, or Australia is a Godless country doomed to eternal damnation thanks to the greed of children... If I'm going to hell, I'm blaming that 6 year old girl ;) But to get serious again, Santa is pretty much the ultimate embodiment of Christmas. He transcends cultures, religions and countries. And even though an obese man wearing fur clothing is going to burn up in Australia, he is the perfect symbol for the interfaith multicultural holiday that Christmas is now.
There was a recent article in the times lashing out at Richard Dawkins that I found quite disturbing. It was just one long ad hominem blasting someone for actually taking part in the cultural side without believing in the spiritual side to Christianity, the absurdity can be summed up with the following quote
In the end, Christmas means a different thing to everybody. For some, it's a celebration of the deity they attribute their life's worth too, for others it's an excuse to drink and spend time with mates. For me personally, it's a day I can spend with my family and just be content with life in general. The consumerism annoys me, though I do like to both give and receive gifts, but the less time spent pushing through crowds the better.
Ruddslide '07
The election result came as a significant but pleasant surprise. It's great to see Howard finally gone and I hope that Rudd can restore some of the international parity that was lost under the Howard years. Though that remains to be seen, but there is an encouraging start with the ratification of Kyoto and the beginning steps to apologising to the Indigenous population for past injustices. It's going to be an interesting ride over the next three years, my hope is that Rudd doesn't screw everything up.
The election itself was quite an interesting spectacle, after the crushing Labor received under Mark Latham, it was going to take a minor miracle for them to win. In the end, the victory was severe enough to force the Liberal party to change their policies when it comes to the environment and work choices, but not enough to restore balance in the senate. Come July 01, the Liberals will lose their majority, but the balance of power now either rests with bipartisan support or a combination of the Greens, Family First and an Independent. Pretty daunting and it will probably ensure that nothing radical will be able to get pushed into law. There is always the chance of a Double Dissolution if the senate is too hostile.
The one sad thing about the election result is the final death-call for the Democrats. I was a huge fan of this party, and it's sad to see a moderate influence on the senate cut away to nothing. It is sad to see voters abandon the party in droves, those on the left disenchanted by the introduction of the GST and those on the right who saw the in-fighting as far too destabilising. My hope is that people will realise what they are missing and the party makes a comeback in 2010, though it's more a fools hope than anything else. Democrats, you will be missed.
Howard's legacy is an interesting one, there is a healthy dose of xenophobia and racism in there. Workchoices and the Environment really hurt him, standing blindly behind the US as the globe warms wasn't the smartest choice, nor was taking away workers rights. But I want to take a moment and single out a few good things he did:
* Gun Control - The Port Arthur Massacre was a national tragedy, something that shocked a nation. And it was a Prime Minister just 6 weeks into the job who decided to place tough restrictions on gun control. It brought the ire of some, especially followers of his own party, but he stuck to it and now Australia has a strong gun control policy.
* East Timor - It was a great step in Australian diplomacy that we stepped into East Timor and ensured the peaceful transition to independence for the former Indonesian state.
Well I've kind of run out of steam and out of time if I want to get this posted before December 25th. So Merry Chrifsmas to all.
"Happy Holidays"
It's interesting listening to the debate about this, on one hand we have those who talk about Christmas being a celebration of Jesus and on the other hand being that Christmas is merely an extension of pagan celebrations. And in a way they are both right. Christmas is a tradition that is derived from other celebrations that follow the Winter Solstice. There is a reason for it being December 25th after all, and no that is in all probability not Jesus' birth date. There were many traditions kept from those pagan days that have been amalgamated into Christian folklore like gift giving. But the reason we celebrate Christmas here in Australia is almost exclusively because of our historical ties to England colonialism. Of course with the take-up of capitalism, the influx of multiculturalism and not to mention the localisation as is inevitable with any tradition, which brings me to my point: traditions change.
It seems that in an effort to make society a more hospitable for everyone, there is a push to refrain from calling it Christmas, instead using the generic term "holidays". Personally I don't see the point to this, yes it's a more encompassing term, and yes it still probably does reflect all that encompasses what Christmas has come to be, but there is really no use for it. All you do is piss off the traditionalists and give ammunition to those deluded fools who thing there is a war being waged on Christianity. Not one of those real wars, but a phoney one to confirm in their minds how dangerous secularism is. Christian persecution complex at it's finest. The truth is, the label in the end is quite irrelevant. Of course churches are going to push their message about Jesus, people are going to claim that it's a Christian holiday and we are going to be inundated with the same crappy carols as we frantically push through crowds to find gifts that will probably go unappreciated. The point is that really Christmas is only a label, and it is a label entrenched into society so there is really no point in changing it, the term itself has expanded to be encompassing of multiculturalism.
The War On Semantics
A few years ago I was boarding while going to university. One of the people I lived with was probably the closest thing we have to a Fundamentalist Christian in Australia. He complained that people who aren't Christian shouldn't be allowed to celebrate Easter or Christmas, they are just taking advantage of Christian tradition as an excuse to have days off work. While initially I dismissed it as the lunatic ravings of a broken man, it made me think about what Christmas and Easter really mean in these cultures. So now, I think it was the lunatic ravings of a broken man who couldn't separate religion from culture. And I think that in it's essence is the problem. Culturally we have come on in leaps and bounds, and the holiday has changed to reflect that. You're more likely to find a family at the beach having a BBQ in between a game of cricket and swimming than seeing them in silent prayer at a church. Throwing back a few beers and discussing how the Aussies will fare in the Boxing Day test with friends and family while the kids have toys is a much more fitting image than sitting around a table saying grace. But that is just the essence of what I am saying, the reality is very different from the idealist fantasy of respect. We don't need to change the label "Christmas" because Christmas changed for us.
Santa is a more central figure in Christmas preparations than Jesus. Walking through a busy crowded centre reaffirmed just that. Crosses were few and far between while there were children with "I *heart* Santa" shirts on. Being the salvation of mankind pales in comparison to being a fat man bearing toys, or Australia is a Godless country doomed to eternal damnation thanks to the greed of children... If I'm going to hell, I'm blaming that 6 year old girl ;) But to get serious again, Santa is pretty much the ultimate embodiment of Christmas. He transcends cultures, religions and countries. And even though an obese man wearing fur clothing is going to burn up in Australia, he is the perfect symbol for the interfaith multicultural holiday that Christmas is now.
There was a recent article in the times lashing out at Richard Dawkins that I found quite disturbing. It was just one long ad hominem blasting someone for actually taking part in the cultural side without believing in the spiritual side to Christianity, the absurdity can be summed up with the following quote
"But if you loudly and repeatedly make a career of denying any possibility at all of the reality of God, how honest is it to sing?"It's a terrible way to try and undermine a persons point of view. Hypocrisy comes from doing something you preach against. Dawkins is a supporter of the cultural aspect of the Church, anyone who actually reads the God Delusion can see how Dawkins regards religion itself as an important part of our culture. Taking away the supernatural side and being upset at the child abuse and intolerance does not mean that it's all bad. Such an absolutist view, an all or nothing approach that really is trying to reinforce that Christmas is a Christian holiday rather than a cultural one.
In the end, Christmas means a different thing to everybody. For some, it's a celebration of the deity they attribute their life's worth too, for others it's an excuse to drink and spend time with mates. For me personally, it's a day I can spend with my family and just be content with life in general. The consumerism annoys me, though I do like to both give and receive gifts, but the less time spent pushing through crowds the better.
Ruddslide '07
The election result came as a significant but pleasant surprise. It's great to see Howard finally gone and I hope that Rudd can restore some of the international parity that was lost under the Howard years. Though that remains to be seen, but there is an encouraging start with the ratification of Kyoto and the beginning steps to apologising to the Indigenous population for past injustices. It's going to be an interesting ride over the next three years, my hope is that Rudd doesn't screw everything up.
The election itself was quite an interesting spectacle, after the crushing Labor received under Mark Latham, it was going to take a minor miracle for them to win. In the end, the victory was severe enough to force the Liberal party to change their policies when it comes to the environment and work choices, but not enough to restore balance in the senate. Come July 01, the Liberals will lose their majority, but the balance of power now either rests with bipartisan support or a combination of the Greens, Family First and an Independent. Pretty daunting and it will probably ensure that nothing radical will be able to get pushed into law. There is always the chance of a Double Dissolution if the senate is too hostile.
The one sad thing about the election result is the final death-call for the Democrats. I was a huge fan of this party, and it's sad to see a moderate influence on the senate cut away to nothing. It is sad to see voters abandon the party in droves, those on the left disenchanted by the introduction of the GST and those on the right who saw the in-fighting as far too destabilising. My hope is that people will realise what they are missing and the party makes a comeback in 2010, though it's more a fools hope than anything else. Democrats, you will be missed.
Howard's legacy is an interesting one, there is a healthy dose of xenophobia and racism in there. Workchoices and the Environment really hurt him, standing blindly behind the US as the globe warms wasn't the smartest choice, nor was taking away workers rights. But I want to take a moment and single out a few good things he did:
* Gun Control - The Port Arthur Massacre was a national tragedy, something that shocked a nation. And it was a Prime Minister just 6 weeks into the job who decided to place tough restrictions on gun control. It brought the ire of some, especially followers of his own party, but he stuck to it and now Australia has a strong gun control policy.
* East Timor - It was a great step in Australian diplomacy that we stepped into East Timor and ensured the peaceful transition to independence for the former Indonesian state.
Well I've kind of run out of steam and out of time if I want to get this posted before December 25th. So Merry Chrifsmas to all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
