Mrs Davis: Why I can't recommend this show, but still do.

Mrs. Davis, as a TV show, is hard to recommend because when I look around at the different things on offer, what people seem to ultimately want (or what the studios have decided people ultimately want) is formulaic, generic shows that reinforce our desires: wishes for wealth, the desire for fame, the need to have that middle-class security. Mrs. Davis does not provide you with that.

What I love about Mrs. Davis is that it takes wild swings at really relevant topics, but it does not spoon-feed you. You're going to have to do some research, to do some thinking about each episode by considering the images used in each episode, and then stepping back at the end of it all and asking yourself how it all fits together.

There are certain images that allude to theological ideas that I've not seen done before in this way. Putting all that to one side, the performances by Betty Gilpin, Jake McDorman, Chris Diamantopoulos, and Andy McQueen are just fantastic. I found myself really moved by a lot of what was going on, but at the same time, what you are looking at is just absurd.

The religious ideas in the TV show are going to really upset people because they're just so left-field from what we're familiar with. But Damon Lindelof and Tara Hernandez, as the writers of the show, are conceptualising notions of religion without attempting to address any specifics in religion. It’s important for people to watch the show and go with the ideas being suggested, asking what it is that we're ultimately wrestling with and what is going on between the various characters, while at the back of your mind considering how universal ideas are addressed in this show.

I think one of the main themes is our relationship to technology, and the show future-casts what it will be like when AI becomes all-pervasive. However, I also suspect that the show is a critique of humanity's relationship with religion. At the bottom of it all is the unquestioning adherence to religion and technology, and the drive in people to be satisfied in order to be satisfied— not taking any risks or initiative, but pursuing gratification. I think if someone approaches religion as a cure-all, it leads to disappointment. Modern capitalistic sensibilities are at odds with deep historical truths that are conveyed in religion. As modern people, we approach religion in the same way as we approach self-help; this need to ‘get fixed’ (fixed according to whose?). The show parodies that idea.

I don't recommend the show without reservation. People are going to get offended at the religious stuff in the show. If people can look past the depictions into the iconography of what's going on and consider what is being represented, there are important exchanges between characters that are full of emotion, but what they're talking about is just really stupid. There's a brilliant moment in the show where there is a conversation in which one of the characters says, “This is all just so dumb.”

I watched a lot of this show thinking, this is so dumb and so strange—however, I'm deeply moved. Having seen a couple of Lindelof’s shows, in particular The Leftovers and The Watchmen (and as a caveat, I've never seen Lost, but my understanding was it became a bit of a disaster, and I think Lindelof learned some important lessons about not having a conclusion before you start writing). There are some really clean, coherent ideas explored in Watchmen and The Leftovers about spirituality, about family, about how we identify in particular ways. Watchmen hit the media simply because it addressed the Tulsa race massacre that occurred in 1921, which had largely been forgotten by popular culture, and this show brought it back to the forefront again. Such a spectacular address of profound issues through comic book characters.

When it comes to Mrs. Davis, the writers weren't restrained in their wild ideas, and so there are these endlessly brilliant sequences. It’s going to annoy the hell out of people, and if people make it past the first episode, be prepared to have to reflect on what it all means.

The Rise Of Gen Easy

 

I bumped into a former Philosophy student. He works at Bunnings during extended breaks from his University course. He was studying Education, but transferred across to Food guidance - I can’t think what it’s called right now. Dietician stuff. We spoke for a while and I ranted about the need for education to bloody wake up and begin to transition into the 21st Century - one in which AI is most definitely going to make a hell of a lot of people unemployed. That’s not necessarily a bad thing - provided we think about developing a society of hamlets where people are self sustaining and celebrate living instead of making money. Because as stupid as that sounds friends - it’s the future.

Reading Ken Robinson’s book Creative Schools - written in 2016 -it’s always upsetting to read common sense, and then look at the landscape that’s just…a bunch of glassy eyed politicians beholden to Big Corporations that could give a damn about the Common Good and would rather make generations worth of money during their time in power. 

I was disappointed that even (insert name here), our local representative, wouldn't take very seriously the interference taking place from Silicon Valley where every student needed to bring their own laptop to school (mandatory at a local public High School)- whereupon they are not educated to use it. A fact that one of the providers of said laptops actually expressed dismay and frustration over. Students are even encouraged to get a $150 stylus and there is absolutely no occasion to use it. 

I’m not even addressing the central crisis of education. Namely that it caters to less than 20% of the population.

Here’s a line from an article entitled “Top of the WA Class: Private Schools dominate rankings again”

“Education authorities this year refused to release details of the median ATAR achieved by students in each school, which previously formed the basis of school rankings in WA. 

After 15 years of releasing an annual league table, the school Curriculum and Standards Authority decided it would no longer compile a top 50 list based on median rank scores, because of concerns that some schools were counseling students out of ATAR subjects to improve their ranking.” (13 January 2023) 

Then in the comments section Tony Buti (that's whose photo heads this rant) the new education minister… wonders aloud about the concerning decline in students not doing ATAR, because they worry it’s too hard. 

That’s right. 

It’s their fault for being lazy. Something The West Australian picks up on in Saturdays paper: Rise of Gen Easy. target audience: BOOMERS and people with a reading age of 8. But hey, these people vote so it matters what they're reading.

Nothing to do with the fact that the West Australian Newspaper has been dutifully carrying out execution orders by publishing a Top Fifty school list - where schools actively move students around the board in order to bolster their performance - and then crow about it when they appear to do well. 

But let me get this straight (public or private - but my giddy aunt, the money thrown down by parents going to private schools!!!!) - parents are paying all this money to give their children an education and admin are quietly removing them if they are not guaranteed of getting above a C grade. No one had the courage to stand up to the system. Ultimately parents would peruse the West Australian in order to go shopping around for the best results. So they unwittingly only have themselves to blame. Stupid citizens being duped by Neo Liberal Politicians who only care about producing Lawyers and Doctors.

And we’re not even talking about the fact that in years 7 through to 10 students are encouraged to bring their own device and then, in Year 11 they’re expected to begin writing academic pieces of writing with little experience. I wonder why all those students are choosing not to do ATAR? 

AND THAT’s not even mentioning streaming in Year 5, 7  and 9 - all with the aim to farm students out to General Pathway classes - their sights firmly set on Tafe - and good luck when you get to tafe because the standards as far as writing and information processing are fairly high. Go inquire about how many students drop out of courses at Tafe (spoiler: it’s about 50%). 

Okay. Incoherent rant over.

Obi Wan Kenobi is Shit Because Gary Kurtz Is Dead

 As I've watched the five episodes of Obi Wan Kenobi with mounting horror, I've been trying to put my finger on what has gone wrong. 

Nothing has actually gone wrong and everything is progressing as it always has because Star Wars is, by and large, shit. The thing that we love, and never got over, was something (well a person, actually) that some of us have never been aware of. 

I really hate when the wrong people get the credit for something, or people that are essential to a process are left on the sidelines. We see it over and over again. That's the thing though, we DON'T see it over and over again. There's a 'thing' - be it a product from Silicon Valley, a film, a scientific breakthrough, a revolutionary theory - where it does exceedingly well. There is usually a team, but  always out in front is the front person. Like Bono. (Although I like Bono - but he's mercurial) Then everyone thinks that person is the genius, they get shoved the opportunity to do their magic all over again and, low and behold, they keep rolling out uninspired garbage. I guarantee the ingredient missing is a person who is part of the team. Edison did it to Tesla, Jobs did it to everyone, Stan Lee did it to Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko (seriously, look it up - Stan Lee is not the creative genius behind Marvel, not by a long shot), and George Lucas did it to Gary Kurtz. Sort of.

For me, the penny dropped just before Episode One dropped in 1999. I read a blog (which, I can't for the life of me find) that predicted what would happen to Episode One, and in fact the Prequel Trilogy. This individual absolutely nailed it. He went through the history of the production of Star Wars and spoke about the Producer Gary Kurtz and this is what largely informs my understanding of what has gone wrong in the Star Wars franchise. 

There are, of course, a lot of people to credit for the success of the original Star Wars (Episode IV) and Empire. But it's really interesting to note what happened to the franchise after Gary Kurtz left. It seems to me that Kurtz - who went through film school with Lucas- was the force that kept Lucas in check and brought the gritty realism to Star Wars. It was over the inclusion of the second Death Star, the refusal to kill off Han Solo and most importantly the inclusion of Ewoks instead of Wookies that resulted in Kurtz deciding to part ways. 

Like all things, all sides of the story must be considered for a fair reading of the circumstances to be achieved. I can't blame Lucas for pursuing the toy market instead of artistic integrity. Lucas kinda got screwed by FOX with the deal he struck, but he had a stroke of genius when it came to owning the rights to the toys - from which he made an absolute killing and further, allowed him to develop Lucas Film, Industrial Light and Magic and a bunch of other really significant industry breakthroughs. Remember when he donated 4 billion to fund American Schools? He's a truly good man, but he's no Hemingway. But for Kurtz, he could see that Lucas was making decisions not based on what was important for the narrative, but rather, what would make toys. So he walked. Once Kurtz' influence was gone you can see for yourself what happened to the films. 

So everyone figured that once George Lucas got back involved with Star Wars it would be rescued from the destructive 'woke' influence of Kathleen Kennedy. Wrong. Lucas had full control of writing and directing choices for the Prequel Trilogy and you can see that for yourself. 

Looking at the absolute mess that Obi Wan Kenobi is, think about all the patterns you see in the Prequels. They're literally all there. See if you can spot them? I'll confess, I haven't researched this aspect, I don't actually know if Lucas was helping the writing, but you know what, I won't be the least be surprised if he was. 

The father of Star Wars is Gary Kurtz. George Lucas was the sperm donor. 
 

What the Hell Happened to Education?

 

Tell me what the problem with education is? 

I've seen a few newspaper articles, commentaries and reports that suggest things are going backwards. Year after year the results for our students' result are falling. Some blame the teachers, some blame the lack of parent involvement, some blame social media, some blame the lack of a comprehensive approach to literacy, some blame NAPLAN. I totally blame NAPLAN, however if we're to examine how NAPLAN became such a big problem we need to think about NeoLiberalism.  

Before I go on I can't recommend Ezra Klein's interview with Wendy Brown and Noah Smith enough. It was a giant piece of the puzzle for me in understanding the daily struggles I was having with the madness of the world today. It's a long podcast, but it will lift a veil from your eyes. 

By definition, Neo Liberalism is market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy.

In a nutshell - the restraints from corporate interests are removed. The Government is powerless to stop the exploitation of the people. Further, the Government is infiltrated by Big Business to do the bidding of big business. The Common Good is no more. 

By the way I always talk about the Common Good all the time. When I use the term I'm saying that the common good is that which benefits society as a whole, in contrast to the private good of individuals and sections of society.

I think there's a couple of prongs to how NeoLiberalism manifests itself within education. 

One is the attitudes and beliefs of the people engaging in education at every level. 

The second is the permission given for Large Corporations to make decisions that impact teaching and learning - namely Silicon Valley operations like Google, Microsoft and Apple. 

As a belief system Neo Liberalism is pervasive and it is, by and large, THE belief that it's all about making money. Ideologically speaking, the goal of life within Western society or at the very least here in Australia is to make money. I use to ask students, why are you here at school? They would tell me it's to get a job. Anyone reading this may very well say to themselves - of course school is to get a job. Of course you would say that, look back at prong one of NeoLiberalism - that's you. You're in the system Neo. You ARE the system. 

From my understanding, it was never the purpose of education to train someone to just get a job. It's a pretty complicated topic worthy of some exploration. The modern version of Western Education takes form during the Industrial Revolution during the 19th Century in order to stop small children getting butchered by steam powered machinery. Laws were passed to prohibit children from being sent to work. Rich men wanted EVERYONE to work for them for next to no pay. God, once you look at some history you'll better understand why I SOUND like a socialist and grind my teeth each time a wild-eyed youngster starts crapping on about Ayn Rand and unfettered Capitalism. But what was to happen to all these children when they had to stay home qhwn mum and dad had to work gruelling hours. This is when the Church put it's hand up to say - we'll teach reading and writing and Jesus stuff. There's another lengthy blog right there!

I would get my students to think about this in the following way:  I would get them to do a little bit of maths. We would calculate how many years they would spend doing schooling from preprimary to tertiary. Then we would calculate on any given day how many hours they might spend at work. We would then consider how long we might spend in retirement. Ultimately we calculated that they might spend (and it's been quite some time since I did this activity- so the results are a little foggy) a third to a quarter of their life working. Given this, what about what we actually do at work - are we spending all that time at work working? Are we not primarily in relationship with other people. And further, what do we discover about being successful at work? Success in the workplace is about being able to successfully engage with other human beings. You might be very good at science, maths,  english and whatever else they've thrown at you in the curriculum but if you haven't been trained to be an effective listener (one of the key practices of a good communicator) then you're going to not be terribly successful. So, to clarify, we spend maybe eighteen years of our life preparing for a job. Then we get that job and discover that it sucks. Meanwhile some of us go through an existential crisis about the possibility that perhaps life is more than just working. What if, from early in life, we were trained to think for ourselves. What if were weren't hammered into believing that our fate is a little jigsaw piece to slot into the Western Industrial Complex?

Putin, Modi, Ana & Simeon

 

I 

I was listening to the podcast Today, Explained ‘Biden Vs. Putin (feat. Navalny)’ (28th April 2021) and I was overwhelmed by the injustice that has happened to Alexei Navalny, who is the opposition to Putin – Putin had his agents attempt to murder him with neural toxins and was almost successful, except Navalny was shipped off to Germany where he was saved. Returning to Russia he was immediately arrested and incarcerated. 

 I read an article by Arundhati Roy, about India’s disaster in the face of Covid, and the terrible antics of the Indian Prime Minister. 

 And I complained to the Lord, these people just reign, unchecked, reigning disaster down and oppressing people. These rich, selfish, boorish men are having the time of their life and people just have to live in the misery these bad leaders bring about. 

II 

Yesterday as I prayed I recalled the account of Simeon and Ana in Luke’s Gospel. 

 25 And there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and this man was righteous and devout, looking forward to the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s [o]Christ. 27 And he came [p]by the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, [q]to carry out for Him the custom of the Law, 28 then he took Him in his arms, and blessed God, and said, 29 “Now, Lord, You are letting Your bond-servant depart in peace, According to Your word; 30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation, 31 Which You have prepared in the presence of all the peoples: 32 A light for revelation [r]for the Gentiles, And the glory of Your people Israel.” 33 And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him. 34 And Simeon blessed them and said to His mother Mary, “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and [s]rise of many in Israel, and as a sign to be [t]opposed— 35 and a sword will pierce your own soul—to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.” 36 And there was a prophetess, [u]Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in [v]years and had lived with her husband for seven years after her [w]marriage, 37 and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She did not leave the temple grounds, serving night and day with fasts and prayers. 38 And at that very [x]moment she came up and began giving thanks to God, and continued to speak about Him to all those who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem. 

 So, Simeon and Anna? 

They spent their lives campaigning against the corrupt religious leaders of their day, and led many political marches against the Roman Empire during their lifetime. 

 No. 

 They spent the better part of their lives in the Temple. Doing what? Praying and fasting. I have no idea what their lives were like, Luke’s account certainly has Ana spending the bulk of her life in the Temple praying and fasting. Simeon, not sure, maybe he did do what I mentioned earlier? 

What struck me was that, as far as we would be concerned, they were doing nothing.

 Part of this comes from my own angst – I want to serve God by getting out there and making the world a better place. 

This is what came to mind yesterday. 

III 

I was chatting to Tan this morning and that’s when I began to join the dots. I keep wondering why everything seems to be getting worse. Then I realised my old mistake of expecting God to fix everything up so that we can have an easy life right now. If I read Revelations right, the Devil and his angels have been unleashed on the Earth. Satan has dominion over the Earth. Jesus in the wilderness doesn’t challenge the Devil’s authority when he says to Jesus that he’ll hand the kingdoms to Him, if Jesus will just bow down and worship him. We are witnessing this. That makes sense of the satanic nonsense I see unleashed upon the Earth. We’re not here to ‘fix’ things up. I don’t think we’re here to make the world a better place. But all through history, you can see the campfires in the darkness. The moments when the Church of Jesus Christ ignites and God is made know to the people all around. And people can enter that Kingdom and live in that Kingdom and experience that Kingdom in their lives right then and there. It’s a kingdom of peace, and of joy. Where the burden is light. Where we bear much fruit. But that Kingdom is not coming through the flesh. That kingdom won’t appear in the flesh. There are righteous men and women that transform their systems. Lawyers, politicians, nurses, cleaners, doctors, social workers, school teachers – the ones who listen to Jesus and bring light and life. And for a moment around the people that know them, there is a reprieve. They’re not going to bring the perfect legal system, or a perfect hospital system, or a perfect school system. But for the people who know them, they bring Christ. These people I just mentioned. I think they’re the Anas and Simeons in the temple. Of course, the temple is long gone. The veil was torn in two. We now, are the temple. We are the body that grows up into the Head Who is Jesus Christ, Christ Who looks and sees what the Father is doing, and follows that lead. We must pursue the prayer and fasting, the worshiping of God and the participation in His life before we do anything else. Not to look around us and go and fix problems that we think are problems, because I suspect there is someone else out there stirring up trouble in order to lure us into our flesh. 

 One caveat: it looks like I’m being nihilistic. 

‘Just sit back and do nothing because the world is meant to go to Hell in a handbasket.’ I think of the Martin Luther Kings, the Dietrich Bonhoeffers, the William Wilberforces, the Florence Nightingales etc etc… they did not sit back. They had deep, deep convictions that cost them mightily. Nothing could have stopped them, I suspect. But they started from a place of prayer. And they were raised up for that moment. All I’m saying is that, perhaps we’re called to the place of Ana and Simeon. They’re only mentioned because they enter the same space as the Christ. There are oceans of Anas and Simeons that will only ever have the attention of the One True God.

Martyn Iles 'The Truth of It' is anything but.

I'm curious. If you are a Christian, and you have strong opinions about Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, do you know where those opinions come from? What is it you're reading? Do you hear this from the pulpit? Online? Other Christians. Perhaps you have no idea what I'm talking about. 

I've come across this a lot recently. People have expressed the sentiment that the Democratic leadership will lead to the downfall of America. I suspect one of the key issues for people is the issue of abortion. 

This is not the place where I'm going to discuss abortion. 

The point of this post is addressing the claims, made by a person of influence, that are false. In September 2020 Martyn Iles released an episode of The Truth of It entitled: 'The Truth about Kamala Harris'.

 The first half of the episode Ilse outlines Harris' political position and some of the things she's voted on. In summary he describes her as very, very, very LEFT. Oddly enough the 'LEFT' regard Harris as way too RIGHT. But the dog whistling here is the description of Harris as LEFT, which, of course, sets people off. That's pretty much the end of any rational discussion because, well, cUlTuRaL mArXiSm!!!!!!!! Thanks Peterson.  Anyhow: I'm not addressing the first half of the video. My concern is Iles' misrepresentation of the facts in the second half of the video. 

THE CLAIM

The claim by Martyn Iles, the managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby - (you’d know him as the legal defence of Israel Folau ), that Kamala Harris was a rabid Pro Choice persecutor of Pro Life campaigners and it’s really dangerous she’s in power, is not correct. 

I feel really strongly about the misrepresentation of Kamala Harris, (newly elected Vice President), particularly by Christians. 

Some time ago Martyn Iles posted a Vlog on his Youtube channel: The Truth of It. It was called The Truth about Kamala Harris. (I've embedded a link a little further on, so keep reading) I think it's one of the reasons why Australian Christians are under the impression that the Harris and Biden are double teaming for satan. 

If you can’t be bothered reading everything here my main point is:

1. Iles is claiming that Kamala Harris is a rabid Pro Choice persecutor of Pro Life campaigners and insinuates that it’s really dangerous she’s in power.

2. Martyn Iles is repeating claims that have been THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED through criminal investigations, and court cases.

I’ve heard Martyn Iles speak, he’s a gentleman and an exceptional speaker however as the Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby he has an obligation to faithfully represent all sides of an argument without trotting out claims that have been debunked. 

And I mean REALLY debunked by people of the highest integrity. 

You can Martyn Iles video here. watch the video before proceeding (I'm only dealing with his claims from 6.42min so fast forward to that.

I’m starting from 6:42min Regarding the David Daleiden matter….. 

David Daleiden 

Now, you may recall that the reason Daleiden got into so much trouble was because back in 2015 he posed as a Bio pharmaceutical company looking to buy ‘baby parts’ from Planned Parenthood. He edited the videos of the interviews he conducted so it looked like the Planned Parenthood representatives were ACTUALLY selling him baby parts. (go check the Wikipedia entry on him - I'm not posting a link cos all you gotta do is write the guy's name and + wikipedia).

He and his partner was raided and the full videos were presented to the court. One of the claims made by Martin Iles was that Harris presided over the raids. 

FACT CHECK• "While Harris was California attorney general, her agency investigated the anti-abortion activists. They were charged with violating state privacy laws (and raided) AFTER Harris left for the U.S. Senate. (See for an amazing fact check website on the entire matter: here

The full un-doctored videos did not in any way demonstrate that Planned Parenthood had actually accepted his offers. He got into a tonne of trouble because he released these doctored videos, putting the lives of Planned Parenthood staff at risk. Everything is on the public record. 

Martyn Iles goes on to make three key claims: 

7:13min Iles: 

"They included meetings with very senior executives from America’s largest abortion service Planned Parenthood. They confessed they had been doing for some time, they’d been doing the following…" 

CLAIM ONE 

"...selling baby body parts or the body parts of aborted babies as an industry standard practice thereby trading in human organs and tissues." 

NOT CORRECT. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform website CLEARLY scuttles that argument. Planned Parenthood does not, and has never, participated in the selling of  body parts of aborted babies. You got any doubts fact check it yourself over at the House Committee website. It's got tonnes of video and documented evidence. 

CLAIM TWO 

"...adjusting their abortion procedures to birth late-term babies alive and harvest their organs whilst they are still alive to obtain the best quality specimens." 

This one is tricky. It's a mix. I think it's presented by Iles in a way that is misleading. There's a Scientific America article that interviews a bioethicist who 'raised an eyebrow' at a Doctor:

"In one video, physician Deborah Nucatola, the group’s senior director of medical services, describes how she crushes fetuses above and below key organs to preserve them intact for research. She also described turning a fetus into a breech presentation to deliver the head last, when the cervix is more dilated, thus preserving the brain.

This raised the question of whether physicians are altering abortion techniques to accommodate research requests, violating a widely held precept of research ethics. Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the New York University School of Medicine, dismisses the videos as “pure politics”, but some of the footage “did get my eyebrow to arch”, he says. “You can’t use a different approach to the abortion to try to preserve something. Those are just no-no’s.”

Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Amanda Harrington says that the organization is not aware of any instances in which the method of an abortion has been changed to preserve organs. But, she adds, “if minor adjustments that have no bearing on the woman’s health and safety are done when the woman has expressed a desire to donate tissue, that is entirely appropriate and ethical and legal”. Women’s health and safety, she says, “is always the number one priority”."

Further, I Googled: 'do Planned Parenthood harvest babies organs whilst they are still alive?', and I found a Snopes article 'Did Planned Parenthood Harvest the Brain from a Living, Late-Term Fetus.?

That article said:

What's True According to unedited Center for Medical Progress video reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, the heart of an aborted fetus was briefly restarted before its brain was harvested. 

What's False A portion edited out of the video stated that the fetus was dead at the time the organ was removed. ' 

So, I think Mr Iles is oversimplifying things there to the point of, well, I don't know if his Youtube Channel should be called 'The Truth of It.'

CLAIM THREE

 Iles: "Providing price lists to biotech companies for such things as whole babies heads, whole foetus’s and hearts that are still beating.You can buy those things as a biotech company off an abortionist." 

NOT. TRUE

I'm sorry but it's Snopes again. But that's their job, fact checking, and they're a lot better at it than Iles. Click here for the link.

Here's the gist of it

"The anti-abortion website LifeSite published a story containing a headline that said the CEO of the biotech company StemExpress admitted in court to “selling beating baby hearts, intact baby heads.” That headline was not only false, but it presented a security risk to a witness in a criminal trial, according to a report from an investigator with the California state Department of Justice."

I won't go on. However this is all part of a bit of a project of mine to try and understand why people, in particular Christians, are so susceptible to buying into conspiracy theories so readily. 

Seeing some of the stuff that Iles puts up, as someone that Christians are supposed to trust, sheds some light on that mystery. 

The Time I Lawrenced of Arabiaed a student

Fire is a purifier. 

I used fire as a metaphor today. 

It came just after my Lawrence of Arabia analogy. Allow me to explain, and yes, it is well over a year since I last blogged but two things happened over the last two days that has compelled me to kick this off again. 

Where I work, they have laid prostrate before the god of technology and thrown wide their arms to receive the iBlessing. 'Bring your own device' policy has meant you can bring any device. ANY. DEVICE. Except that one, and that one, wait....yep not that one either. Hell, just....let's just use Mac okay? So when you have a class the student with throw open the wee satan clams and clatter away on their scrabble sets. And what are they doing? Playing games. What sort of games do you play on a $1500 machine? 16-bit stuff that looks like what we were playing in the 80s. 

Anyway, it's a damn pain. ESPECIALLY if you have to use the damn laptops because the kids are addicted. The minute they have to think their neurons go - I NEED FLASHY CATS WITH RAINBOWS - and off they go.  Now to actual do anything of a disciplinary nature, you need to catch the kid dead-to-rights. It's no good explaining to parents that you THOUGHT Annie or Andre looked like they were enjoying themselves in class, so you drew the obvious conclusion that they were playing games.Thanks to the innovation of that dead god Steve and his anxious slaves, kids can just wave their hand and boom. Problem gone. There is NO WAY YOU CAN CROSS THE ROOM FAST ENOUGH TO CATCH THEM so your best bet is to hurl a chair. 

But today I got lucky. Today I got to give my Lawrence of Arabia speech. Unfortunately the girl I was addressing stormed angrily out of the room before I could get half way through, so as far as she's concerned Lawrence risked his life to save some Arab guy. Actually if people started applying just that principle things might be a little more peachy, globally speaking. 

So what happened? I bloody won is what happened. Ironically it was the magic touch-pad three finger  swipe that saved the day, for me, that is. Not the girl. She got Lawrenced of Arabiaed. 

Me: (sitting at front of room in chair) What are you doing?
Girl: My work?!
Me: (looking at girl next to her) Is (insert girl's name here) playing a game?
Girl slowly shakes her head but the fear in her eyes is saying, 'Yes Limb...yes she most certainly is'.
Me: (moving towards the girl who shall soon feature in my Lawrence of Arabia analogy)
Me: Show me.
Girl: (grinning triumphantly - turns the laptop around - and it's what she should be working on)
Me: (not saying a word I reach into the heavens and I snatch Steve Jobs Heavenly Three Finger Swipe and I ruin that girl's day in a manner she won't understand for 4 minutes yet).

A game. A flashy game that actually looks mildly interesting. 

Girl: some comment about something about the game something. 

I return to my desk. 

Silence

The jury wants a verdict. I sigh. 

Me: Well, you guys know the rules (I have at this point no damn clue about what the rules are)
Group of boys in the gallery: Sir, it's a send out. 
Me: Well, I'd better write this up.
I write a message to the Deputy Principal and hit send.

Girl: (who had been smiling, suddenly loses her composure and is outraged) THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!! WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT WERE PLAYING GAMES?!?!?!?! 

Me: You know (put the girl's name here) ? It's not fair. Not fair at all because you're right. I bet heaps of students in here were playing games. But I caught you. Don't take this personally, but you have to leave now... in fact have you ever seen LAWRENCE OF ARABIA?

Girl: (in a pitched fury is packing up her stuff)

Me: Has any one here seen Lawrence of Arabia?

One kid puts up his hand but I actually couldn't care less because I'm now going to deliver my Lawrence of Arabia analogy. 

Me: See there's this scene where Lawrence of Arabia has to cross the desert in order to attack and take a fort from the rear because it's impossible to take, as it's heavily fortified by the Turkish because it faces the sea. 

While Lawrence of Arabia and his faithful followers are crossing the desert they lose a man in a dust storm. They only realise this when they get to the other side of the desert. They all decide the man is a lost cause because, well, they'll all cook to death and they bloody miraculously made it in the first instance. But not Lawrence of Arabia, because he's Lawrence of Arabia. And do you know what he does? 

(at this point the door to the classroom slams and we're all distracted because the girl is now erratically walking backward and forward and I'm hoping to God she does not walk back into the classroom because it will completely ruin my Lawrence of Arabia analogy. Thankfully she just left.)

Resuming... Lawrence of Arabia goes back and he gets that guy and he rescues that guy and everyone is so happy and he is friends with the guy.

Later in the film Lawrence of Arabian is trying to bring all the warring factions of the Arab tribes together because he's Lawrence of Arabia. But in an awkward and somewhat predictable moment,  there's a murder. So Lawrence is called upon to adjudicate. Now everything has been going so swimmingly well, (in spite of it all being a desert) that everyone thinks that maybe, just maybe they can pull together. But there's a murder between two warring tribes and everything's about to go to pot. So Lawrence of Arabia announces that they must bring the murderer to him. 


AND THEN THE BIG REVEAL.... DUM DUM DAAAAA 

A man is roughly brought before Lawrence of Arabia and the hood comes off and IT'S THE GUY!!!! IT'S THE GUY LAWRENCE OF ARABIA SAVED FROM THE DESERT!!!!

and you know what he did kids?

He let him off. 

(weirdly the class kind of slumps like it's a bit lame but then I yell, laughing suddenly and to be honest I was a bit alarmed that I burst out laughing) 

NO HE DIDN'T!! HE SHOT HIM IN THE FACE.

A girl interrupted me.

Interrupting girl: But sir, it's NOT FAIR. You didn't tell the other....

I obviously cut her off. 

(And then I really yelled. It wasn't an angry yell. It was now time to Samuel L. Jackson it up.)

DON'T SIT THERE LIKE I JUST MURDERED STRAWBERRY SHORTCAKE OR WINNIE THE POOH. YOU PEOPLE ARE PLAYING WITH FIRE. THE TINY MAN IS NOT TO BE CROSSED BECAUSE YOU WILL GET BURNT. TODAY (insert girl's name here) GOT A LITTLE SINGED. BUT IF I LET HER OFF, WHAT IS THE MESSAGE YOU WILL BRING TO CLASS TOMORROW???