No Clean Feed - Stop Internet Censorship in Australia

Such a jaunty little tune

By skepticlawyer

Amanda Palmer sings and performs in the same tradition as the artists in Cabaret, with jaunty and up little tunes about death, destruction, weird sex and squick. Once part of The Dresden Dolls, she had a large hit with Coin Operated Boy and has since done various other things, including a musical attempt to revive the flagging fortunes of Leeds United Football Club (now sadly languishing in the 3rd Division).

A friend pointed me to the video below, which, I think, combines ‘all the above’ in about equal measure (death, destruction, weird sex and squick). It made me laugh, but in the same way that large chunks of Python make me laugh: with a creeping sense of, oh no, you mustn’t, it’s cruel!

Palmer’s response to the blanket refusal of UK radio stations to play the tune was to point out the following:

I suggested that I might be allowed to play it if I just slowed it way down and played it in a minor key. Think about it. If they heard the same lyrics against the backdrop of a very sad and liliting piano, maybe with some tear-jerking strings thrown in for good measure, would they take issue?

She’s got a point, especially considering the success of Ben Folds Five’s Brick, which does the appropriately sad lilt with a side-serving of ‘rite of passage’. Interestingly enough, Ben Folds is often Amanda Palmer’s producer, so it’s clear that neither disapproves of the other’s approach. They just approach the topic differently. I suspect Palmer’s above comment is a tongue-in-cheek reference to Brick, which even gives us some strings.

Alternatively, Ben Folds just prefers to write sad songs, while Amanda Palmer just prefers to write happy songs. Even about poor old Leeds United, who may have missed the transfer window for all time.

A Welcome to Lawyers’ Weekly readers

By skepticlawyer

Some of the people who write this blog are actually organised. I, alas, am not one of them.

Unbeknown to me, this blog was prominently featured in this week’s issue of leading trade magazine Lawyers’ Weekly. The article discusses several sites across Ozblawgistan, including Stephen Warne’s professional negligence blog (you’ll notice he’s featured on LE’s blogroll) and several we hadn’t discovered, including this fabulous site, done by cartooning lawyer Paul Brennan. Two more specialised sites are also featured: Stephen Page’s divorce blog and his LGBT law blog. Three of these were unknown to me, which not only goes to show my lack of organisation, but also the diversity of Australian blawgs. I’m especially taken with Paul Brennan’s site. Do take a look at it — some of the cartoons are very funny.

Lawyers’ Weekly includes a very nice interview with Legal Eagle, which I’m very glad of as I wasn’t around to assist — the magazine contacted us while I was in the US. 

So, with that out of the way, it’s probably time to invite lurkers to introduce themselves, if they’ve got a mind to do so. Our stats have gone silly this week so we know you’re out there. I realise this kind of thing can sometimes fall flat, but if you found this blog via Lawyers’ Weekly, or have just been quietly reading over time without joining in, we’d like to invite you to leave a comment below.

Contemptuous spam

By Legal Eagle

Believe it or not, it’s now possible to commit contempt of court by soliciting your supporters to send hundreds of e-mails to the judge.

The case arose when a salesman, Kevin Trudeau, who apparently sells weight loss cures via infomercials on US TV was taken to court by the US Federal Trade Commission for deceptive advertising. The Chicago Tribune reported:

Gettleman [the judge] found Trudeau in contempt last year for using deceptive advertising as he marketed his book “The Weight Loss Cure ‘They’ Don’t Want You to Know About.” He told his audience the book detailed “the easiest method known on planet Earth,” when in fact the book required followers to not eat meat, poultry, starch, fast food or microwaved food, among other rules, and called for hormone injections.

In an effort to sway the judge to his favour, Trudeau asked his followers to e-mail the judge telling them how the cure had changed their lives. Well wasn’t that a mistake? The Chicago Tribune piece continues:

Gettleman came to a boil last week after Trudeau used an Internet radio broadcast and his Web site to urge supporters to e-mail the judge with messages about how Trudeau’s products had changed their lives.

Some 300 Trudeau fans responded, crashing the judge’s e-mail account and leading him to find Trudeau in criminal contempt of court. On Wednesday, Gettleman called the e-mail attack a deliberate attempt to “harass, intimidate and influence” him.

According to Virulent Word of Mouse, the judge turned on his computer in court so that counsel could hear the “bings!” as the e-mails hit his inbox. Have a read of the Virulent Word of Mouse post, it’s very funny.

The judge ordered Trudeau to serve 30 days in custody for contempt of court.

(H/T Heath Gibson)

Privacy and WAGS

By Legal Eagle

I have to say that I never really understood where the acronym WAG came from – I had to look it up on Wikipedia, and I found that it originated as a descriptor of the Wives And Girlfriends of the 2006 English World Cup soccer club. Anyway, I’ve noted that our press has started referring to the wives & girlfriends of the Australian cricket team as WAGs. The woman who I have seen described as a WAG most often appears to be Michael Clarke’s fiancee, Lara Bingle. Her main claim to fame is that she appeared in the ad which asked Where the bloody hell are you? I’ve never had much interest in that kind of thing – the only reason I know who she is is because I like cricket.

Anyway, I saw that Bingle plans to sue footballer Brendan Fevola for releasing images of her taken in the shower some three years ago:

Lara Bingle’s decision to sue Brendan Fevola over the distribution of a near-naked photograph of the swimwear model strikes a blow for women’s rights, says celebrity agent Max Markson.

Bingle decided yesterday to sue the controversy-plagued AFL footballer for allegedly distributing the revealing picture, taken on a mobile phone during the pair’s brief affair in 2006.

Markson confirmed Bingle will take action against for the Brisbane Lions forward for breach of privacy, defamation and misuse of her image after the steamy photo appeared in this week’s Woman’s Day.

I understand that Fevola was distributing the picture amongst his football colleagues and friends, whereupon it found its way to Woman’s Day.

The thing which has amazed me is the venom which has been directed at Bingle for taking this action. This morning, Bingle’s agent, Max Markson, was interviewed by Jon Faine on ABC 774 (excerpt of interview here). Faine asks Markson, “So she’s happy for an image without her clothes on to be circulated as long as she’s paid for it?” In response to Markson’s comment that Bingle hasn’t done fully nude photographs as far as he’s aware, Faine says, “But she has taken her clothes off and posed for men’s magazines?” Markson responds that Bingle has successfully sued Zoo magazine for using unauthorised naked shots of her in the past. “So she’s happy if she’s paid for photos of her?” persists Faine.

Kristen, a talkback caller later takes Faine to task, pointing out that it’s Bingle’s choice that is at issue (atta girl Kristen). In response, Faine says that says that Bingle is just using other people’s moral outrage to protect her brand.

To extend Faine’s argument to a more shocking situation, would Faine argue that if a prostitute is raped it isn’t a problem? After all, a prostitute has sex with random men all the time anyway, and perhaps her problem is that she wasn’t paid in this time? I very much doubt that Faine would argue that. He needs to think about the logical ramifications of his argument here. Just because Bingle makes her living by posing in swimsuits doesn’t mean that she deserves to have naked images of herself taken without her consent disseminated around the Brisbane Lions football club.

And some of the comments on the various articles about Bingle instituting legal action! Apparently the photo was taken when Bingle was in a relationship with Fevola, and he was married at the time. She was 19 years old, and claims that she didn’t realise he was married. A few of the comments exhibit the view that Bingle is a slut and deserves what she got. (No, of course it’s not the married man’s fault that he had an affair, it’s all the woman’s fault.)

The point is that this photo was take without Bingle’s consent (it’s clear that she didn’t want the picture taken from the small version in the linked Herald Sun article). And when Fevola distributes the picture to all his mates, that’s a form of harassment and bullying. It was non-consensual. It’s arguable that its distribution is intended to humiliate and belittle her. It doesn’t matter whether she’s a WAG and a swimsuit model, or that she was having an affair with Fevola at the time. No one should have to put up with that kind of thing.

In terms of defamation, there is precedent on the release of naked photographs where the intention is to subject a person to ridicule and contempt. In Shepherd v Walsh [2001] QSC 358,  Sonia Shepherd successfully sued the publishers of a magazine called The Picture, after it published a nude picture of her. While the picture was of Ms Shepherd, she did not consent to its publication, and it was in fact sent in by her ex-boyfriend and his new girlfriend in revenge. There are also parallels with the case involving Andrew Ettingshausen, a famed rugby league player, who successfully sued GQ Magazine after it published a nude photo of him without first seeking his consent. At trial, he was awarded $350,000 in damages, but damages were reduced to $100,000 on appeal (see Australian Consolidated Press Limited v Ettingshausen (unreported, New South Wales Court of Appeal, 13 October 1993, Gleeson CJ, Kirby P and Clarke JA).

The question will be whether Fevola intended to subject Bingle to ridicule and contempt, or whether he merely sent the image on to a few mates and it got out of hand.

I note Bingle has also claimed breach of privacy – I’ll be very interested to hear where that claim goes. The case could be said to be reminiscent of Giller v Procopets [2008] VSCA 236, where Mr Procopets distributed explicit images of Ms Giller to friends and family after their relationship broke down. As I’ve discussed in a post here, the Court of Appeal did not find it necessary to decide whether there was a tort of invasion of privacy. I’ll be interested to see what happens with this one.

‘For War is a Drug’

By skepticlawyer

O wad some Power the gift tae gie us 
To see oursels as ithers see us! 
It wad frae mony a blunder free us, 
An foolish notion.

From Robert Burns, To a Louse

The course Burns commends has, of late, become unfashionable. Instead of observing others unlike ourselves and reporting back, we have been enjoined to comment on things within our ken and to leave others alone. Sometimes those who wish to comment on others–on those unlike themselves–are even chased away with sticks. Whole critical industries are devoted to writings from this or that minority group, or this or that victim group, forgetting that the first task of all imaginative literature (in which I include cinema) is to engender empathy in the reader or viewer, to make us imagine people and places at least partly unlike ourselves. It’s even better if the writer can engender readerly empathy for things wholly unlike us or outside our ken. Homer even makes you pity his horses.

This focus on the local and familiar has, of course, diversified literature at the expense of its imaginative depth. Our writers are licorice allsorts, but none of them can make you care about their human characters as much as you care about one of Homer’s horses. We seldom have to dust off our willing suspension of disbelief and ask whether the writer pulled off the high wire act or not, for the simple reason that most writers no longer try walking across Niagara Falls on a length of rope. This, I think, is a loss, and while diversity is nice, it is only nice, and perhaps it is time to reward imaginative power again.

A good opportunity to sample a large imaginative vision is to watch Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker, to date the only decent film about the Iraq War. This film succeeds because it honours warriors without expecting that they should be other than what they are. Unlike the preachy failures Redacted and Syriana, Bigelow’s film is painted on a much smaller canvas: a three man bomb-disposal squad in Iraq when the IED war was at its height (2004) and it seemed that the United States was getting nowhere. The Burnsian skill of Bigelow’s film is that she gifts us a woman’s vision of warriors, and does so with extraordinary skill and psychological insight. Some people, unfortunately, find this threatening:

What’s the point of this metaphor? It’s that I’m still coming to grips with how a woman could possibly have dreamed up this spartan American soldier in Iraq, who, while obsessively romancing death as a bomb-squad ace, outdoes the most extreme images of machismo ever produced by mainstream America. While Wayne set the testosterone standard in playing characters who lived to fight, his guys also found time to love women — Ethan’s Martha (Dorothy Jordan) in “The Searchers” and the Ringo Kid’s Dallas (Claire Trevor) in “Stagecoach,” to name two.

When they bonded with young, earnest boys, Wayne’s men became meaningful mentors — Gillom Rogers (Ron Howard) in “The Shootist” couldn’t have grown up without the wit and wisdom of Wayne’s John Bernard Books. But Will, with his Wayne-ian steely gaze, his laconic ease at the portals of death, and his patented hero saunter, loves “just one thing,” as he tells his baby boy before leaving him, maybe forever, to return to the killing fields of Iraq. And it isn’t women or kids.

The same critic goes on to complain about an absence of rom-coms at this year’s Oscars. A woman director, it seems, is to be penalised for seeing men as others see them, for giving us Burns’s gift. It is very sad. This despite the greatest imaginative art being about the ability to get inside other people’s heads, you know, like Tolstoy did to  Anna Karenina and Jane Austen did to Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice. 

It is also fashionable, these days, to pretend that all soldiers come back from the front damaged beyond repair, unable to become full and fit members of society again. It is similarly fashionable to run down what they do while at the front. In America at least, this quinella no longer puts bums on seats, hence the failure of Redacted and Syriana. The Hurt Locker–apart from its deliberately confined vision–captures the extent to which some men are extraordinarily good at war, and that this skill does not make them bad men or cruel men, just different men from the common run of man (and woman) hood. The line ‘war is a drug’ comes from Chris Hedges, and is featured as part of a larger quotation at the start of the film:

The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.

Will James (Jeremy Renner) may be crazy brave, even drugged on war, but he is very good at what he does. And he likes it. He is also less good at other things: the scene where this consummate warrior is all but defeated by the Wal-Mart cereal aisle back home is chilling in its intensity and power. He is not, however, a bad father–that is made very clear. He just likes other things more than fatherhood. Quite a lot of men do; ditto with women and motherhood. It may not be fashionable to say this, but it remains true.

James is joined by Sanborn (Anthony Mackie)–a sane and seasoned operator–and Eldridge (Brian Geraghty), the squad’s newbie. Sanborn is initially hostile to James, partly because he thinks he takes too many risks and partly because James’s predecessor in title was popular and well liked, not least of all by Sanborn himself. At one point he and Eldridge seriously consider manufacturing a ‘blue on blue‘ incident, so irritating does Sanborn find his new commander.

This hostility is diverted when the three men encounter a group of British mercenaries hunting down high ranking members of Saddam’s erstwhile government, featured–as you may recall–in the form of a deck of cards. Led by Ralph Fiennes, the Brits have gone Lawrence of Arabia native, and the Americans initially mistake them for insurgents. When this misidentification is overcome, the mixed group finds itself under fire from real insurgents, and there then follows fifteen minutes of the most suspenseful cinema you will ever see. This is broken by unintentional humour that is never forced or contrived: Fiennes’s character coyly reminding Sanborn that, ‘ah, we’re on the same side,’ or a soldier’s rifle jamming because the ammunition cartridge has been soaked with blood (necessitating extensive spit and polish in order to be made serviceable again).

Kathryn Bigelow is being heavily tipped for the Best Director Oscar. If she wins, it will be because she has held a mirror up to an aspect of humanity and made us see things we didn’t notice before. That’s the best, I think, we can expect of the narrative arts: they remind us what real life is like, if we’re willing to be reminded.

Science, religion and how things came to be

By Legal Eagle

I think I’ve said before that I was raised by scientists. When possible, I try to explain things scientifically to my children. Obviously there’s a limit to their understanding at this point, but when they were scared of thunder and lightning recently, I told my daughter it wasn’t monsters (as she feared) but electricity in the sky, caused by hot air hitting cold air.

When my daughter was asking why ice turned into water, I explained the concept of change of state to her. I explained that ice, water and steam were all made up of the same little tiny invisible pieces, but the difference was in how fast they were moving. The explanation ran thusly:

When the water was made cold, the little pieces got much more still and close together (making the water solid – ice). When the water was made hot, the little pieces whizzed around very fast and were very far apart (making the water gas – steam). When the water was normal temperature, the little pieces were able to move around quite a lot, slipping and sliding, making them liquid. Then I drew a diagram to show the difference. My daughter then copied my diagram herself and showed her father, and explained it to him. Daddy, who is also a scientist, was most impressed.

My mother was over and observed the diagram. “I think they should teach change of state as soon as possible,” she said approvingly. “It’s a fundamental concept. Instead, they don’t introduce it until Year 10.” I was totally shocked.

How far should we try to teach things scientifically to our children? What kind of credence should we give to other explanations (myth or religious explanation)? When I was telling my daughter about the lightning, I said that some people in the olden days thought there was a big man called Thor sitting in the clouds throwing lightning bolts down like spears, but this wasn’t true. Still, his name is where we get the name of thunder from (the proto-Germanic word *thunaraz gave rise to Old Norse Þorr, German donner, Dutch donder as well as Old English Þunor which turned into thunder).

The Australian reports today:

School students will learn about Aboriginal Dreamtime stories, Chinese medicine and natural therapies but not meet the periodic table of elements until Year 10 under the new national science curriculum.

The curriculum, obtained by The Weekend Australian, directs that students from primary school through to Year 10 be taught the scientific knowledge of different cultures, primarily indigenous culture, including sustainable land use and traditional technologies.

I find it very interesting that indigenous myth and legend incorporates important information about the land and the people’s observations about the environment about them. It’s a valid form of knowledge. But…it isn’t really science, except in the most broad terms (in that it is an observation about how the world works).  I don’t think indigenous myth and legend should be taught as science.

Science means “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.” Scientific method means carrying out experiments to ascertain how the world works. It is a particular product of the Western Enlightenment.

The idea is that you put up a hypothesis as to how a particular thing works, and you test that hypothesis. If you are seeking to establish the impact of sunlight on plant growth, for example, you may do a “control” experiment where you put a plant in normal conditions to show what happens if you change nothing. Other plants may be in the dark or in half light. Then you take the data and you draw a conclusion from it. It’s important to keep in mind Karl Popper’s “falsibility”. You can never actually confirm a scientific hypothesis, but if you disprove your thesis, it is decisive: it shows the thesis to be false. What can a scientist conclude then? A scientist can only conclude that for the time being the facts seem to be consistent with her thesis and thus her thesis has not been disproven.

Aboriginal myth and legend is not a series of scientific experiments. It is a religious, legal and spiritual explanation of the world which depends upon faith and cultural practice. Some of the elements of that explanation may match up with conclusions of the Western scientific method, which is very interesting, and shows that some parts of myth and legend may have a basis in empirical observation.

My parents recounted that when they visited Uluru, they were told by the non-indigenous guide in reverent terms that a particular cave was “Mala putu” (Mala’s pouch or the pouch of the female hare-wallaby). That’s not a scientific explanation of the cave, and it is not the pouch of the female hare-wallaby. However, some people believe that explanation, and their faith is fine by me. Just don’t try to pass it off as science or reality.

My worry is that if you start putting such observations up as science, you may end up having to give fair play to other non-scientific explanations of the world. Specifically, you are leaving it open to people to start claiming that their particular religious explanation of how the world was created is “scientific”. Do you end up having to give fair play to Ken Ham’s “Creation Museum” as “science”? Because that ain’t science. It’s faith.

I think the reason behind the desire to put indigenous culture into science teaching is a desire to make up for the oppression and ill-treatment of indigenous people in the past. There’s no doubt that indigenous forms of knowledge were disrespected, and indigenous people were written off as “savages” who were not worthy of being treated as equal human beings. (Although I note that whitefellas learned pretty quickly to be respectful of blackfella knowledge if they got stuck in the bush or needed a tracker to follow someone). But you don’t need to say that indigenous beliefs are scientific in order to give them respect.

Just because woo-woo is believed by people who have historically been victims doesn’t make it any less woo than the Abrahamic religions. It’s still woo, not science.

In which SL gets her art deco fix

By skepticlawyer

I have just arrived in Oxford (via a somewhat circuitous route) from New York. Everything was very late, I was astoundingly lucky to catch a cab (NY end) and astoundingly lucky to catch the last bus back to Oxford (after catching the last Heathrow Express). I came within a whisker of spending the night among the glorious amenities provided in Terminal 5. Three feet of snow will do that to you.

Anyway, the main reason for this post is for me to engage in some gratuitous art deco property porn. I do like me some art deco, and have long wondered why modern architects make office blocks/skyscrapers so anonymous. With notable exceptions, architects in New York have avoided this. The buildings are all different. And some of them are fabulous. My prize for truly fabulous goes to the Chrysler Building, which is a marvel. Most people are familiar with the steel spire and the chrome gargoyles (okay, I have a soft spot for gargoyles; put it down to living in Oxford), but there are so many other nice touches. One of them is (get this) the lift doors, which are marquetry. This is constructed on the same principle as parquetry, but is done on a wall, door, ceiling, cupboard or desktop. It is often more intricate than parquetry, for the simple reason that the pieces of wood veneer don’t have to be as hardwearing (they’re not getting walked on, for a start). The use of metal highlights in this piece is a neat and innovative touch.

This is a lift door to die for ;)

Outside the building (including around the margins of cashpoints; no, I don’t know why) are various intricate exercises in what can only be described as large scale ’steel filigree’, which is combined with what I suspect were once gas lamps. All of the detail has a wonderful rhythm, like the interlocking borders around Roman mosaics or the repeated floral motifs in Persian carpets.

It is art, but art that builds on a ‘craft’ rather than a ‘fine art’ tradition, and when combined with the precision machining that was so much a part of the industrial revolution, the effect is glorious. I’ve included one image of the lights and the metal border; this one is a bit larger and situated around the doorway to a bank, which has modified its trademark to fit in with the overall design scheme.

Now I suppose I can get all Prince Charles-ish and start complaining about the ugly carbuncles modern architects produce, and also point out that skyscrapers do not have to be ugly. That so many of them are ugly is down to a failure of imagination, and nothing more.

Rotten Foundation

By DeusExMacintosh

An independent inquiry found today that there were “shocking” systematic failures of hospital care in Mid Staffordshire that left patients routinely neglected, humiliated and in pain as the trust focused on cutting costs and hitting government targets.

Today’s report from the inquiry led by Robert Francis QC, which was commissioned by the health secretary, Andy Burnham, concluded with 18 recommendations for the trust and the government, but was criticised by some families who reiterated calls for a full public inquiry.

The Francis inquiry was commissioned in last September after a damning investigation by the Healthcare Commission six months earlier, which found that between 400 and 1,200 more people died at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust than at other hospital trusts between 2005 and 2008.

The appalling picture painted by the commission – which described how some patients drank water from vases because they were so thirsty and how many had to rely on their families for food – was not exaggerated, Francis said today.

His inquiry heard evidence from some 900 patients and families, finding that many patients “suffered horrific experiences that will haunt them and their loved ones for the rest of their lives … There can no longer be any doubt as to the enormity of what occurred”…

Gordon Brown described the management failure at the trust, which hit targets and achieved elite foundation status, as completely unacceptable and said the government was working on plans to strike offhospital managers responsible for such issues.

The Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley castigated the government’s “tick box” culture and underlined his party’s backing for a public inquiry.

Julie Bailey, who founded the campaign group Cure the NHS after the death of her mother at the hospital, described the report as “absolutely outrageous”. “All he’s done is recommended another independent inquiry,” she said.

The families also complained that evidence to the Francis inquiry was not given in public.

Many staff had expressed concerns about the situation at the trust. “The tragedy was that they were ignored,” Francis said. “I suggest that the board of any trust could benefit from reflecting on their own work in the light of what is described in my report.”

The Care Quality Commission, which has replaced the Healthcare Commission, said Mid Staffordshire was now safe to provide hospital services but it would ensure standards were met.

- The Guardian

The Statue of Liberty is very green

By skepticlawyer

It is likely impossible to say anything new about New York so I am not going to try. This post is a placeholder and an apology for not being around the blog very much, something likely to continue for the rest of this week while I see the sights.

Briefly, I attended a conference in Washington DC and rather than catch the red-eye express back to London, I am staying with a fellow BCL graduate in New York (a city I have never visited before) until Friday. Today (my first day without the effects of jet lag) was spent tramping around Liberty and Ellis Islands.

Unfortunately, the US hasn’t had a great deal of practice at responding to home terrorism (unlike the British) and watching this basically friendly and welcoming people enforcing Tower of London style security (badly, I might add) at the base of the Statue of Liberty was quite distressing. I particularly felt for the young chap from the National Parks service who had to keep shouting the same information (no water bottles, no back-packs, take off your shoes etc etc) over and over again until he was hoarse. No-one had thought to put up a sign, or prerecord the announcement. No-one had even thought to give him a megaphone.

As I mentioned in the comments to this thread, the Statue of Liberty is a rather fetching green, something I hadn’t appreciated fully until now. A photograph of her in all her greenness is therefore included in this post. 

Presumably because it is less symbolic and thus less likely to be a target for loonies, Ellis Island (the main processing centre for US immigrants between 1892 and 1924) was not overburdened with security. It is a striking piece of Victorian architecture, lovingly restored (comparable to Kings Cross-St Pancras in London). I have included a photograph of the vaulted reception hall. It also contains within a museum that I recommend to anyone with even the most passing interest in statistics.

It is one thing to present masses of data in an economics paper to an audience with some training, and another thing entirely to make that information accessible to those who can but add and subtract. The thought that has gone into conveying statistical information in a three-dimensional visual form in the Ellis Island museum is second-to-none and very informative. Highly recommended if you haven’t seen it before.

Sunday Funnie and Open Discussion Thread

By DeusExMacintosh

Iran’s supreme leader has denied it is developing nuclear weapons, after a new report from the UN atomic watchdog, the IAEA, sparked an international outcry.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said any fears were “baseless” as Iranians’ beliefs “bar us from using such weapons”.

The blunt report raised concerns Iran was working on nuclear weapons.

Russia said it was “very alarmed” over the report while the US warned Iran it faced consequences if it failed to meet international responsibilities.

According to the unusually forthright report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran’s level of co-operation with the agency was decreasing, adding to concerns about “possible military dimensions” to its nuclear programme.

Britain and Germany both said the report reinforced their “great concerns” about Iran’s enrichment of uranium and other nuclear activities.

Enriched uranium can be used to fuel nuclear power plants. Very highly enriched uranium can be made into atomic bombs.

- BBC News

SkepticLawyer is at a libertarian conference in Washington this week and LegalEagle is down with a tummy bug so I’m throwing open the thread for general discussion. What are you up to? What do you think about the departure of Pauline Hanson? Or the Canonisation of Mary MacKillop? (Or the canonisation of Pauline Hanson..?)

Is the recession really over or will the massive public debts incurred in bailing out the banks mean a double dip is inevitable? Is Manib al-Masri the next Palestinian in line for assassination, or should he be?

Feel free peeps.