Now They Can Stop Moaning

Religion in schools to go God-free

Well, this will give some other poor 'wretched'* sod a class full of kids to explain something to.

Religious instruction in schools is a no-brainer - why not? I don't see a problem with it and I don't see why others should either. There has never been a block to the Humanist agenda and I can confidently predict few parents and children will see the need for it. There will be an initial glut and then it will fade away when all the class does is have a quiet chat about the golden rule every week.

Again, I don't have a problem with it. First, it shuts up the enthusiast atheist mob who've read The God Delusion and bought into its viciousness and uncouth approach to atheism. Kids don't have to do RE anyway unless they sign up for it at a Christian school. (having said that, you can get out of it at Carey! Disgraceful.) Second, it will give the fundies who give any religion a bad name the chance to pipe up and create a few column inches.

Why is this good? All these sorts of triumphant stories do is provoke people to think about the issues. The twitter-sphere was full of triumphant tripe like this:

Spread the good news

as though this is the coming of reason. What these people don't realise is that it won't make a lick of difference.

Enthusiast atheists, like the goose above, like to think that once someone is told there is no God, they just automatically believe it. If they don't they're stupid. Kinda easy logic isn't it? There's no wriggle room there. Like, oh, there could be a God and he might be the one that Christians, Muslims or Jews worship. They also don't know the difference between the Gods of those religions (oh, no, that would be ignorant of them to learn) and prefer to either think that if there is a God, they'll 'slip in the side door' or if God is one of the above, they prefer Hell. It's all a metaphor anyway.

Which sort of brings me to something interesting Jeremy Clarkson wrote.

The BBC's letting loonies gag me with mink knickers.

Basically, what Clarkson is saying, is that you're not allowed to say anything anymore because there's always someone calling for your immediate execution:

'You could give me any subject matter: paving stones, cabbages, your next-door neighbour, dogs – anything that took your fancy – and I bet that after half an hour on the phone I could come up with someone who was prepared to be cross about it. If it got their name in the papers.'

'The problem is simple. If you say, in public, that you would not shoot a bear or you would not support an attack on Iraq or you would not buy a Range Rover because of climate change, you are offending nobody. Because you are saying, “I will not do something.” But if you say you would do something, like shoot a bear, then someone in an attic with a website and a silly acronym for their micro-organisation (membership: three) will jump on your case and not let go'

The world is full of these morons and unfortunately enthusiast atheism is on that bandwagon: "I do not believe therefore I cannot offend."

It's oafish, simplistic and mind-numbingly dull. Yes, I'm a Christian but believe everybody is entitled to their belief or disbelief. The New Atheists (who are just old atheists with bad tempers) seem to think they are saving the world when in fact they are reducing discourse to childish rabble-rousing and insults, using emotive terms like 'child abuse' to attract dullards and halfwits to their cause. And they cause themselves 'the smarts.'


* The goose who runs the Australian Council for the Defence of Goverment Schools' called RE teachers 'wretched.' Halfwit. Learn more about this cretinous little group here: ADOGS. Great website.

Deveney Watch, December 11

You either love her or loathe her

Oh, poor widdle Caffy Waffy. All these terrible readers who dare disagree with her. But guess what? No point - she doesn't read fan or flame mail because she's just little bit more self-important than I'd dare imagine.

I am genuine when I say that I think she has her heart in the right place. It's just that it's really obvious she is completely screwed up and has disappeared up her own, and by her admission, well-used fundament. She cheerfully admits to what many would consider failings and is so anti-marriage one wonders whether the father of her children has his stopwatch set for the end of it all. I have something to scare you with, Miss D - you're married whether you've signed the paper or not.

I actually don't love or loathe the woman, I do agree with her and disagree with her in equal measure, sometimes in the same column. I resent that there are better, more thoughtful writers out there with a wider variety of topics and infinitely more interesting takes on it. She is so black and white but does not accept the same attitudes from others. And is so stupidly arrogant as not to bother listening to those who opine about her. She sees no reason to defend herself, I suppose, but then again, some of the things she says are indefensible.

Take, for instance, her assertion that women who take their husbands names are either deepy insecure, deeply conservative or deeply stupid. Right. For the record, I encouraged my wife not to take my last name, not that she ever had any intention of doing so, but the fact remains, she criticises people's choices but won't listen to those who may criticise hers - because, in her little world, they're wrong.

Newsflash for you, Cath - you're in the same boat as Andrew Bolt. Ignorant and pig-headed in equal degrees, just from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Why The Age feels the need to promote you (complete with girly picture to replace the oddly unflattering one they usually use) and defend you from your detractors is anyone's guess. They wouldn't do the same thing for the equally crazy Miranda Devine in Fairfax's northern outpost.

Michael Pascoe Has A Point

Mergers are for suckers

The merger in particular question is the QANTAS - BA merger. Why the hell anyone, apart from Dixo-Joy and other 'advising' parties thinks this is a good idea is a mystery. BA is in desperate straits, negotiating with a far more suitable partner in Spain's Iberia Airways and a hulking great airline unable to turn a buck because it operates in a highly-competitive and mature aviation market. One that is deregulated to within an inch of its life and now dominated by RyanAir and easyJet-style low-cost carriers.

BA also has had its trans-Atlantic lunch comprehensively cut by Branson's Virgin Atlantic and its long-haul Asian routes are better served by lower-cost-base 'premium' carriers like Singapore, Cathay and now Emirates. Oh, they're in debt to their eyeballs, have billions in unfunded pensions and a fleet that resembles Noah's Ark. It is bereft of the cachet of flag carrier as Virgin, again, have managed to white-ant them out of that position. Anyone who has flown BA would also know how unutterably dull the experience is, but that's purely a personal thing.

Qantas, on the other hand, despite a disastrous year of morale-sapping bungles and mishaps, is in rude health. Dixon has cut costs to the bone because, well, frankly, he's a jerk, and bullied his staff into submission by threatening to take jobs overseas while taking home $12m and flying first class everywhere. His reign will be marked by a) his Henny Penny sky-is-falling routine before announcing a mammoth profit and b) his wild attempts to make millions of dollars through the failed leveraged buy-out last year. Oh and c) - the fact the airline is in decline with regards to standards, but that's always for the next bunny, Joyce, to deal with.

The airline still pretty much owns the trans-Pacific West Coast USA routes and also has a strangehold on the domestic, medium and long-haul routes via Jetstar and the main brand. The only fly in Qantas' trans-Pacific ointment is the Virgin Blue-backed V Australia (no longer owned in any part by Branson, sadly) which was to have launched by now but won't get in the air until around March when Boeing get around to delivering a few cheap-to-run 777s. The main victim of V Australia will be the risible United Airlines, who ironically are fed by Virgin Blue for the domestic routes. Oh and Airbus and Boeing haven't the faintest idea how to deliver a plane on time.

What's in it for Qantas shareholders? Nothing. Nothing at all. Actually, worse than nothing - BA will drag down Qantas shares as the new entity shoulders the debt and mismanagement of the bigger, fatter, slower-moving brother. No doubt there is some scary frequent flyer liabilities hidden in the BA business as well as significant cost problems in its home market. The only thing good that could come out of it is a platform from which to launch Jetstar Europe. But that's about it. The amount of money a Jetstar would have to make in that market would be astronomical to even cover the liability that is today's British Airways.

BA shareholders won't win either for all the same reasons. Yeah, they might make a penny or two in the short term but BA will drag the entity down and destroy two airlines instead of one. I can't see either government wanting to help too much if that happened. There will be significant resistance from Qantas shareholders, too. The most obvious suitors for Qantas are Air NZ (won't happen), Singapore Airlines (mmm...maybe....) and Cathay Pacific (uncertain...). Anything but BA, an airline mired in a market far away from the realities and opportunities of South East Asia and carrying an incompetent, inflexible structure that can't adapt to the new realities of aviation in the twenty-first century. Qantas aren't perfect either, but at least they're not doing as bad a job as BA.

All they have to do now is stop their planes from looking like they're going to fall out of the sky at any minute, restore customer service and staff morale and things look very bright for a BA-less Qantas.

The competitive concerns are null and void because there's a legal cartel in effect between Qantas and BA because they code-share on the bulk of seats and charge the same.

Melbourne's Fourth (Labor) Transport Blueprint

So here we are.

Is This Our Future?

Uncle John Brumby who is a self-styled action man has commissioned a bunch of reports. Woo-hoo!

The plan is, basically, a let-down. Two of Melbourne's most psycho roads, Hoddle Street and Alexandra Parade/Princes Street, both fed by the overloaded Eastern Freeway, will be left untouched. Hoddle Street gets a study, which will cost $5m, to decide if under/overpasses are viable. Fat chance. They won't do it because they don't have the nuts. Why? The biggest piece of the Eddington plan was the tunnel from the end of the Eastern Freeway that would go under the city and end up in the West.

It gets worse. All they've got for the Eastern suburbs is - drum roll, please, because this is awesome - more buses. So anyone coming down the Eastern Freeway has no hope for trains or light rail for the next forty years, basically.

The government (and the bovine media) are hailing this as a transport revolution. It's nothing. It's not even treading water. The initial stage of the metro will stop at Domain Road. Domain Road! The bulk of passengers need to keep going down to the Dandenong Road interchange.

The Maribyrnong tunnel is actually a bloody good idea a long time coming, I will applaud that. But the rest? Vapour. Three more years of this (at least) and if Brumby is booted out on his arse, the axe will fall immediately.

There won't be the money available to do the metro anyway, so kiss it goodbye. Private public partnerships should be dead if they aren't already because nobody is going to extend the credit to make it all happen after the series of disasters in Australia, the only bright spot being Citylink.

Deveney Watch

This week it's article number one, as detailed below:

Robert Doyle is mayor...so what's the punchline?

'The Liberal Party leadership handover from Robert to Ted was the Born to Rule dream-team; White and Whiter; 100% charisma-free, idea-resistant and void of all traces of originality or your MCC membership back!'

'I was thrilled to hear a middle-aged, middle-class rich bloke in a suit won the mayoral bling. There just aren't enough of them in highly paid ceremonial roles that consist of hand-shaking, ribbon-cutting and posing for photographs with visiting local dignitaries.'

Again, don't get me wrong. I agree with her. But we've heard it all before.

Some racial stereotyping, referring to John So in the Melbourne ads:

'It was like a confused Asian businessman being led around Melbourne by his translator. As Livinia spoke on his behalf, John So looked like he just wanted to hit the casino, play golf and buy opals'

The punchline, Cath, is that you need some new ideas to talk about.

Oh, I forgot, your article about Sexpo was completely devoid of feminist bluster or indeed any commentary on its basic failure to treat humans as humans. Why? Sexpo is supporting the objectification of women and men through the medium of sex. Women are reduced to tits and orifices that will accept penises and other objects and faces on which to splash semen.

Oh, that's right, we're just animals in clothes and attacking Sexpo for that reason (you just complained it was unsexy) would give lie to your piece from last year. Unless the Mayor of Mt Isa says anything, of course, in which case, you change your story.

Melbourne Is Not Going Anywhere

City transport plan revealed

I should have put the word plan in inverted commas because, after reading this, there isn't a plan. Anything big (Uncle Rod's road tunnel) and the St Kilda Road metro are 'years away.'

Translation: anything big isn't happening on John Brumby's watch. We've had a ton of these 'transport blueprints' and none of them have achieved a single improvement in Melbourne's public transport. Vacillation is the order of the day, as are stupendously expensive consultant reports which the government, as though compelled by legislation to do so, routinely ignores, whatever the report says.

All Brumby is doing is shifting an already-promised 2016 start for the South Morang extension, bringing it to 2010 (huzzah, sort of), commissioning more 'detailed studies' (see above) and suggesting he might maybe one day do Uncle Rod's tunnel and the metro line. Contingent on...?

Yes, Federal funding. Another translation for you: 'We've pissed the good times up against the wall for the last 15 years, wasting money on the Commonwealth Games and other pointless, money-losing sporting events so now we need your money.'

Uncle Kev's response will be short and sharp: 'Get stuffed.' Good, too, this government deserves a thorough bollocking at the next state election (2010...shock!)

Of course there's more roads in there, as though that will fix things but there isn't any more than about $1.2bn in actual commitments, out of about $20bn worth of announcements. Chairman Mao would be proud of this sort of talking down to the people. He really would.

This Is Not Going To Work

Sydney bike plan: shared pavements

Normally, this is where I'd rub my hands with evil glee but sadly, a lot of people are going to get very, very badly hurt.

I'm wondering how councils get so full of bike-loving idiots. Not car-hating specifically, not pedestrian-hating, but bike-loving. The country's councils appeared to be filled with lunatics who think that bicycles must at all times be subject to extra care and attention while pedestrians, motorists and public transport can go hang. Here's some choice quotes:

'At least 12 cyclists have been hit by cars or trucks on College Street between 2003 and 2007.'

Awful. How many of them were the fault of the cyclists? No figures, of course, it must have been the car's fault.

'A council spokesman said the shared pathways would not have a painted line to separate bikes from pedestrians.'

Perfect. So whoever is biggest and fastest gets right of way. So bikes win.

'Cyclists would be encouraged to keep to the left, whether they were travelling north or south'

Bwahahaha. Yeah, right. Pedestrians won't keep right, bikes won't keep left. Someone is on the crack cocaine and has been smoking it like a cigarette.

'"The general rule is to keep to the left. It will slow all the traffic down and everyone will mingle at the same speed. There won't be a line on the ground so it will take a bit of understanding from everyone involved."'

Bzzt. Enough people are idiots, on the phone, distracted or all three. That includes people on bikes.

Here's my favourite:

'Councillor John McInerney, chair of the council's traffic committee, called for riders to stick to a 10kmh speed limit on the shared path.'

Fat chance

'"Of course, there will always be the odd rogue cyclist or even the rogue pedestrian..."'

....who will actually stick to the rules.

'"But we want to mirror the European experience."'

Which would be what exactly? Europe's a big place. I believe heaps of cyclists are killed in Poland. In Europe they are kept off the footpaths on ludicriously wide bike lanes.

Harold Scruby started well:

'"I think we should offer $1000 prize money to the first person to see a cyclist doing 10kmh."'

I second that.

'"The long term outcome will be that many pedestrians will be seriously injured and some will be killed."'

Steady on. The really fast riders will stay on the road causing their usual mayhem.

But seriously folks. They can't be serious. Bicyclists need to be separated from pedestrians and cars for everybody's safety. Cyclists have this apoplexy they reserve for loss of momentum that is commonly referred to as road rage when it's a driver that carries on like that. This is moronic, dangerous and a waste of money. Since when do pedestrians walk at 10km/h? A brisk walk, something the average Aussie fatty can't manage, is 6km/h. Mingling? More like mangling.

Here's the best one from the bike side:

'Alex Unwin from Bicycle NSW said increased cycling would increase "the levels of community health ... while addressing the great issue of our times, global warming."'

Like they're the only solution. Halfwit.

Cath Deveney Gets Paid For This?

Goodness me, this article is total tripe:

Move over Ians, let the loose cannons have a go.

Dear Fairfax Editor,

I'd like to point out that Cath Deveney has two articles on high rotation: -

1. Men rule the world and this is possibly a bad thing (I agree, but stay with me).
2. We have to love everybody. Really we do.

Occasionally, she adds a third one into the the mix: -

3. I'm really smart. I'm an atheist. Boo sucks to you, thickie. But be tolerant of me and my beliefs you overbearing religious ****.

Anyway.

Today's piece of paid writing is brought to you by first-year feminism, in conjunction with bitter middle-class-woman rage. Cath is, I'm sure, a fine human with her heart in the right place. I just don't see why The Age sees fit to pay her to write those three articles over and over again.

You see, the thing that annoys me is that she craps on about white men running the show and makes little attempt to change it. If I tried to change it, well, it would be situation normal, being a white man. Is she in at a corporate trying to break the glass ceiling? No, she's revelling in the cosy surroundings of the armchair critic. Go team.

Cath's articles are pieces of red wine fuelled inner-Melbourne rage, moaning about private schools (with St. in the name, generally) asking her to mentor young writers for no fee to which she published her snippy reply. Nice. She's awesome. We're animals in clothes, but when the mayor of Mt Isa treats as such, out comes the righteous rage. Oh, she's inconsistent alright.

As I say, it is time that the same people probably stood aside and let everyone else have a lash at it. She's clearly still annoyed about Hilary not getting a go but was curiously participating in the flensing of Sarah Palin. But, hold on, she's not a white man and she had a different way of doing things. Oh, I see, I get it - she disagrees with Deveney on some key points (I refer you to Deveney's third article). It doesn't maker her sexist, it makes her human, (she bleated about being given a going over after ripping into Palin) but the point remains, when she gets what she wants, she doesn't like it. And what does she do about it? Writes a column.

With Friends Like David Marr...

...you know the rest.

Book Claims Henson Scoured Playground For Models

Gosh. And I'd already asked what would happen if someone ever found kiddie porn on his computer but this is so much better. Apologist for all that is artistic (no matter what), David Marr has written a book about the Henson kiddie pictures debacle.

To recap, I didn't think it was kiddie porn and the whole thing was made about something other than the reality - that every adult involved had let this girl down and that she had been unable to give informed consent. I did think it was a bit creepy, though.

Anyway, His Shrillness, David Marr, mentioned in his book that Henson was given a guided tour of a St Kilda primary school trawling for models. Normally, this would be known as kerb-crawling.

Marr got his head on Sky News (probably the only ones game to show him) and said this (as reported by the SMH):

"The impression has been put about by Senator Heffernan and by others that he kind of roamed, roamed the playground unsupervised, perhaps interviewing children, perhaps photographing children.

"That is not the case. The impression that he is sort of loose in the playground is actually factually wrong."

Okay, fair enough. But dude, he was trawling for models for his pictures.

The SMH again:

'Mr Marr said Mr Henson was accompanied by the school principal at all times and he did not tell the children he wanted them to model for him or take any photographs.'

Oh, well, that makes it perfectly acceptable. Nobody knew why he was there, Henson would pick kids he liked the look of (wow, is this sounding like a brothel to you yet?) and then the principal would put Henson in contact with the parents of the kids he liked the look of. Woah, there, hold on a minute. The principal did what?

It wasn't bad enough the principal had let the guy on the premises without telling the kids or the parents who he was or what he was doing, parents would then be contacted by Henson so that he could ask that they pimp their kids out to him.

This is frickin' awesome! Why didn't I send my son to that school? We coulda been famous. Like that twelve-year-old girl and her profoundly retarded attention-whore parents.

So here we have a podium of stupid. In third place is David Marr, a clueless idiot par excellence. For someone so intelligent he is so completely, self-consciously off centre he has lost where the centre is. He'll lay the blame at the hideous treatment he claims has been perpetrated upon him by the Anglican Church - newsflash: they disagreed with his lifestyle choices, quelle horreur. And to add insult to injury, when he tells them to reform, they tell him to get stuffed. So now he doesn't believe in God, which in the Christian world is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Doesn't leave himself with much wriggle room, come judgement day.

In second place, is the principal of the school, now sacked, thankfully. Wonder if Henson will dig them out of the crap with a helping hand? Probably not.

I save the winning idiot title for Bill Henson himself. He and Marr clearly have a moral compass that points in odd directions, because not only did Henson do something reprehensibly creepy, Marr is defending him with the kind of slack-jawed dismay only he can display when someone disagrees with his impeccably, implacably correct correctness. Henson is obviously off the planet, he has no idea where the line is but Marr should know better. He's a journalist who lives in the real world some of the time (if you count being molly-coddled by Tony Jones on Q&A and working for Fairfax the real world). He's supposed to be uncovering and eviscerating those responsible for betraying trust. What does he do? He defends it.

Marr doesn't have kids. In a way, thank goodness he's gay so he can't have any so we won't be seeing them nude in some art gallery while Marr and the artistic nutcases (who remain silent today) defend the exploitation.

Malcolm Turnbull, who Cath Deveney confidently proclaimed the only public voice of reason when the stink first happened, has expressed disgust. Ouch.

Henson's supporters painted him as the little boy lost last time around. Marr has now outed him as a kerb-crawling creep. Wonder who'll want to be profiled by Marr in future?

Euthanasia Thoughts

Euthanasia is one of those always-hot topics that arises when somebody like Philip Nitschke leaps into the public arena to tell us all how inhumane we are.

Anyway, this whole whale thing got me thinking. Sydney has been in thrall over the past few days over the little-humpback-lost, Colin (turns out he is a she) who lost contact with its mother and ended up in Sydney's Pittwater. All terribly sad, this poor, pathetic figure nuzzling up against yachts thinking they might be Mum. Heart-breaking. Should have been left to die quietly, frankly, but the media weren't going to allow that.

So, the circus got interesting when NSW Parks and Wildlife decided that they were to euthanase the animal. Some idiot, possibly for a joke, called himself a whale-whisperer and was filmed by news crews whistling and beeping over the whale while it 'told him' it could swim as far as Brisbane. And got Jack Thompson along to lend some cred. Ooookay. Lordy, how could they, shrieked the Gaia-crew, you can't kill a living thing just because it might be suffering. The rent-a-crowd yelled and sallied forth about the inhumanity of the whole idea.

Right. So, if you're a human who might be suffering, society is expected to allow, nay, encourage, euthanasia. Kill the suffering human, it's the only way. Don't think, just do it! But if it's a whale, oh, no, not allowed.

Hypocrites.

Telstra Out To Screw Workers

Oh, look...

I always say that if a company treats its workers with contempt, how must they treat their customers? But this isn't a 'why is Telstra service so bad?' rant, it's more fundamental than that.

The people who run Telstra are just as much to blame as the people who own Telstra. Not every Australian, like it used to be, but the madding crowd who surged to buy Telstra shares, to separate it from a creaking, but fair-minded bureaucracy. Telstra used to have the public service mentality, as well it should. It owned a national utility, and, it must be said, a national treasure. It is now driven by 'shareholder value', that one-sided throw-away tag meaning 'we'll make and take every cent we can get.' Just look at their mobile data plans and you should see what I mean.

What has replaced the creaky old mentality is the sort of pugnacious brand of arrogance only a bleating, politicising American executive like Sol Trujillo can manage, with his merry band of grumpy old men behind him. As the article states, Telstra are about to embark on what is likely to be an expensive anti-union campaign with the goal of saving $50m over three years. That's $16.6m per year. Or, as it turns out, what it costs the shareholder to have the pleasure of Sol Trujillo's company and the seven other execs who are paid $46.6m (thats their salaries). So add on the expensive lunches, business class everywhere, large offices, mobile bills, the cellular tower placed near their homes to ensure good reception, the limos, the this, the that, the fact-finding tours - well, there's an easy $50m per year.

Presumably, after making this saving, there will be some back-patting and extra bonuses for those who achieved the cost-cutting. How will this help shareholder value? Not one iota, because it's a break-even proposition. And in a $2bn-plus yearly profit, a drop in the ocean. What's 16m from 2bn in percentage terms? 0.008%. So no massive dividend returns, then, for the idiots who own Telstra shares and complain about their pricing.

So, how do Telstra treat their workers? With comtempt. Their shareholders? With contempt, feeding them the sort of low-level sophistry of which Mao Zedong would be proud. Their customers? Join the dots. Sad thing is, Optus are just as bad.

No Internet For You, Me Old China

From The Age:

China reneges on 'open' pledge

Is the world really this silly? Did they really think that the Chinese government, a government whose attitude towards violence is so casual that they don't even acknowledge it's happening rather than defend it, would allow an open Internet for the Games. It's also been revealed that visitors will have their access monitored. Like they do in every hotel in the world, but let's not let that get in the way of a good story...

Oh, trill the offended journalists, we can't get to our sites! We can't get to google.com! We can't blah blah blah. This from the Chinese official, Sun Weide, who presumably was able to keep a straight face:

"Our promise was that journalists would be able to use the internet for their work during the Olympic Games. So we have given them sufficient access to do that."

Followed, no doubt, with a sheepish, Scooby-Doo laugh. Note the crushingly unsubtle changing of the goalposts. Despite all the ominous signs that this is just one of many probable broken promises, there is a silver lining. Kevan Gosper, or as Roy and HG like to call him, Lord Gosper, is embarrassed.

From the Age article"

'Senior IOC member Kevan Gosper apologised to the world's media for misleading them about access to the internet.'

It gets better:

'Mr Gosper revealed that "some IOC officials had negotiated with the Chinese to have some sensitive sites blocked". Mr Gosper said he had been unaware of the deal while telling the world's media for months they would have unfettered freedom to report while in China.'

Wow, two things together that need unpicking. The first, in direct contravention of Olympic ideals we're always hearing about, things are being locked down, or, if you prefer, politicised. Nice. Second, Lord Gosper is 'unaware' of something that has been open in the media for seven years. A lie, as we now know, but brilliant nonetheless. Nothing like watching these clowns squirm.

I have entertained serious doubts about the Olympics for years. They are a tedious wank for whichever city gets a hold of them, costing serious dollars and without fail leaving a hefty debt of approximately a gazillion dollars. They are supposed to be apolitical but are swimming in political urea at all times. They are supposed to be free of the sort interference commercial dollars bring but chunks of the world's population are denied access to the spectacle by draconian copyright protection. And now they negotiate with the Chinese government and decide what can and can't be allowed on the internet. Awesome. Sign me up.

Oh Look - Naked Kids Are Back.

The genius of the arts world continues apace. In an attempt to return 'dignity' to the debate, the unutterably pretentious Michael O'Riordan of the pompous (Government-assisted) Art Monthly has published pictures of a naked six year old girl on the cover. Awesome. Dignity has not broken out, if you're interested.

Now, the shot itself is quite ordinary in many ways, nothing to get too fussed about. Inside the magazine, things get a bit dodgy with the same little girl (did I mention she's just six?), dolled up in jewellery and in allegedly 'sexualised' poses. Haven't seen 'em, can't comment. O'Riordan, somewhat gleefully, announces there are also teenaged girls inside.

But wait, it gets better. Get a load of this:

'The young girl whose naked photo appeared on the cover of an arts magazine, sparking a new controversy, has defended the picture, saying she is proud of it.'....hmmm...rolling her out to defend her mother's work. Did I mention she was six when the photos were taken and that she is now still a very young 11?

'The magazine's editors said the images were chosen as a protest against the recent furore over similar pictures by artist Bill Henson.'

Yeah. Sure they were.

'The now 11-year-old said she did not believe the photograph amounted to abuse and was upset with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who said he hated the shot.

"I'm really, really offended by what Kevin Rudd had to say about this picture," Olympia told reporters outside her Melbourne home, accompanied by her father, The Age art critic Robert Nelson.'

Ah-ha. It's all become clear. I thought the Henson shots were exploitative. This gets so much better.

"I think that the picture my mum took of me had nothing to do with being abused and I think nudity can be a part of art.''

I know a lot of eleven year-olds who speak like that. Really. At least...oh, hang on, none.

"(It) has nothing to do with pedophilia. The connection between artistic pictures and pedophilia cannot be made and there is no evidence for it. No one's producing any science," he said.

Right about the first bit. It's not about pedophilia. It's more fundamental. Here's why:

[Nelson] said the magazine cover was "a risk worth taking".

A risk worth taking? Is it his cock on the block? No. It's his daughter's, so to speak. Of course it was worth taking, he gets to shower in the publicity, force a child to face the media and parrot her parents' idiocies. Now, I don't discount she may hold this view in seven years, but frankly, I reckon when she's a parent, she might think differently.

Nelson, on the other hand, is behaving extremely poorly, as is the girl's mother (yes I know their names) who took and displayed the photos. Doting dad continues:

"I think we have to defend the dignity of children's nudity ... otherwise we are in for a culture where you can't expose children in any circumstance because someone might take some joy in looking at their bodies."

Dignity? This is dignified? Every parent's dream is that their kids can get through life without being gawked at when they're at the beach or the pool or running around on the front lawn. Plastering them across the front of Art Monthly is not dignified. When the photos were for private consumption, there was little wrong with them. And, if I may take his final point, is art not for enjoyment? If so, what are we supposed to do with these images? Not enjoy them? But that would make us Philistines. If we did enjoy them, we're pedophiles. Where are we again?

Rudd, for his part, has miscommunicated or been miscommunicated. He should be going after the parents and the media for this, not the image or subject itself. There's nothing inherently wrong with a naked child (surely this is the point), there's lot wrong with these 'artists' who insist on exploiting children without the subject's informed consent.

It's not about porn, it's about children and the consent that they can honestly give at this age. It's also about the duty of care the parents are required to fulfill. They may not agree that their six year old shouldn't be displayed naked in newsagents, but they must respect the idea that the very same child is a better than even chance that they will withdraw that consent. I do just love the idea that the parents have de-contextualised Rudd's abhorrence as telling her that Rudd has a problem with the child rather than the image. No, they're not filling their child's head with fantasies, uh-uh. This is reality.

Nelson and his photographer wife have gone one step further than Henson's subject - they've actively pimped their child in the media, to turbo regurgitate the crap they've fed her - an absolute no-no in my opinion.

Militant atheists, a good number of whom are also artists, are always ranting on about a family religion being child abuse - what the hell do they call this?

The Bill Henson Debacle - It's Not About Porn

Australia...where your opinion on art places you, the opiner, in a box you never wanted or expected to be in.

The Cultural Cringe is alive and well in one of world's best countries. You'd have to be living under a rock not to have heard of Bill Henson by now. Tabloids and broadsheets the world over have been splashed with the news of a police raid on Paddington's Oxley9 Gallery to seize twenty images by celebrated photographer Bill Henson.

The art world has gone bananas. The media has of course beaten the story to a pulp, conveniently excoriating what dignity the subject of the photos, a naked thirteen year old girl, had left. Cate Blanchett led the charge with a letter to the newspapers and Michael Gow joined in, later by the irritating (but occasionally astute) David Marr and eventually Germaine Greer.

One of the big targets of the art ridicule is Kevin Rudd - he expressed an opinion ('protesting too much' says Greer) for which he was instantly skewered. In a moment of great irony, Gow mentioned Rudd's own words before the 2020 Summit where he discussed the need for contention in society, to which the artista were very amenable, because at the time it suited them, it made Rudd 'one of them.' Until he disagreed with them, of course, setting them on fire and rapidly denouncing Rudd. Gow went as far as to say that he now regrets attending the summit. Sigh.

Rudd's comments, I thought, were ill-considered. The images were not 'revolting' - the girl in the is quite striking and she is very beautiful. I can't imagine she would have felt all that pleased about the quote. The images are not pornographic in themselves (no matter what Henson's intentions were). Rudd should have been more considered.

You see, the problem I have here is that this girl has been forgotten in all of this. Every adult who has been involved in the handling of this image has failed her. The media has splashed her across its pages, unobscured, a number of times. Her face was published in the Herald Sun yet again on Saturday. She will forever be known as the naked girl. So what's the real problem here?

Exploitation. There's an always entertaining and heated blog over at theage.com.au, called the Religious Write. Moderated by religion editor Barney Zwartz, it attracts a group of libertines, pagans, militant atheists and on the other side a range of religious views dominated by various flavours of 'theism' and Christianity, but mostly Christians. What's been interesting about this particular debate is that the usual alliances are not so clear. Some who would be expected to brand Henson's opponents as morality crusaders are themselves decrying Henson as at the very least creepy, at worst a pornographer.

A mostly lone voice, who calls himself Ray H, continues his campaign as a pro-Hensonite while others mass against him. What has been interesting about the argument are the repeated agreements that it probably isn't porn (unless, of course, Henson turns out to be a kiddie-porn purveyor, which is unlikely) but that it is actually exploitation. The Ray H's of the world are calling the anti-Hensonites Philistines for not understanding art, a supremely arrogant assertion, one put by the Gows and Blanchetts of the world, parroted by artista across the globe.

Calling someone a Philistine is not a unique attack. John Howard, the (thankfully) former PM would brand those who disagreed with him un-Australian

Across the internet, the question 'Would you let your child do this' is met with a stony silence, or a dismissal that this 'isn't the point.' The fact is, it's precisely the point. That this girl has been exploited by Henson is obvious and unsurprising. It's what he's best at. That the media has also exploited her is even less surprising. That her own parents allowed this is is by far the most disturbing part of this equation. How could a parent dream of allowing this to happen? How could a parent be such a slave to art that they are willing to effectively pimp out their own daughter (who Henson says he has known for ten years)?

There will be no answer because the media will drop it shortly. The sooner the better and the sooner that little girl can return to relative obscurity.