Christopher Pyne's Lament

Because the Good Old Days were so nice.

Federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne is upset. Our schools' curricula aren't doing their job. They're not currently teaching Australia's children The Things That Christopher Pyne Likes, which are (as he suggests in this interview) "history, literacy, numeracy, science", "Western civilisation" and "our Judeo-Christian heritage". Something MUST BE DONE.

Leaving aside the extreme wibbly-wobbliness of the not-quite-accurate "Judeo-Christian" claim (see the gaping holes in the term exposed by Tony Taylor here and by Chrys Stevenson here),  Mr Pyne wants to return to the Good Old Days, when children had phonics and times tables whacked into them with a cane, when nobody argued about what Australia Day means, and when multiculturalism was just a fancy way of saying "Look! There's spaghetti in the shops now!".

Maybe I'm not explaining what Christopher Pyne wants very well. Maybe Christopher Pyne needs to explain it himself, in rhyming couplets. Take it away, ChrisPy:

We must learn about Judeo-Christian conquerors and kings!

And Judeo-Christian history! And Judeo-Christian things!

And Judeo-Christian English! And Judeo-Christian science!

And Judeo-Christian punishment for wilful non-compliance!

Non-Judeo-Christian education simply shan’t be had.

It makes fine, upright, Judeo-Christian citizens look bad!

If a lesson fails to make Judeo-Christian people proud,

Then it’s simply (by Judeo-Christian standards) not allowed.

Any subjects that appease the God of Abraham are apt;

But the other, more barbaric ones should probably be scrapped.

Asian neighbours, the Indigenous and other foreign stuff

Are all well and good, but not Judeo-Christian-y enough.

Sure, for forty thousand years there’s been some people here, but look:

Nothing worthwhile really happened ‘til they met with Captain Cook.

Since that day, our nation’s greatness simply cannot be denied.

Our curriculum needs cleaning up, so here’s a simple guide:

If it’s nice and white and clean and mentions ANZAC Day, it’s IN.

If it dares to bad-mouth God or Jesus, CHUCK IT IN THE BIN!

If it’s yellow, brown or – worst of all – a shade of Green, NO WAY.

If it’s Western and it’s civilised and likes the Queen, then YAY!

Soon, Judeo-Christian schoolkids with Judeo-Christian knowledge,

Will bring shiny, Western thoughts to their Judeo-Christian college.

Their Judeo-Christian books will line Judeo-Christian shelves

While they frown upon those less Judeo-Christian than themselves.

Freeman-on-the-land

Because contributing to society is so hard.

Money troubles? Bills piling up? Parking fines? Got the government on your back to do stuff you don't really feel like doing?

Never fear! The Freeman On The Land movement is here! 

Become a Freeman On The Land and you can suddenly decide that the government, contracts, banks and the legal process all work differently for you, and you don't owe them anything. Your debts will be cancelled! Your financial responsibilities will be nil! You can tell police officers, magistrates and government departments to shove it! All based on the erroneous and ridiculous idea that governments are corporations; that laws only apply if you consent to them; and that people are contracted to the 'powers that be' unless they send them a letter saying they're not. 

Although it's been around for decades in one form or another, I came across the Freeman On The Land movement in the last couple of months, with thanks to experienced conspiracy theorists like Leon Pittard of Fairdinkum Radio (have a listen - if you can last longer than ten minutes without your jaw dropping open, you're stronger than me) and South Australian parliamentarian Ann Bressington. 

There's an extremely good run-down of the Freeman On The Land movement over at RationalWiki - I recommend it for some well-researched detail and a few hilarious examples of Freemen in the wild - but in a nutshell, followers of the movement believe:

• The government is a corporation, and all citizens are contracted to that corporation
• Each individual consists of a 'legal person', to whom laws, acts and monetary matters apply, and a 'flesh-and-blood human being', who is free and good and lovely and created by God.
• When a birth is registered, the child is effectively an employee of the government corporation, and has agreed to be governed and abide by laws.
• If you write a special kind of letter called a 'Notice of Understanding and Claim of Right' and send it to the Prime Minister or the Queen or Someone In Charge, you can remove your consent to be governed and abide by laws; and separate your legal person from your meat person. 
• Governments and lawmakers use language designed to make people inadvertently subjugate and obligate themselves to corrupt higher powers, but knowing your way around such language can save you from accidentally agreeing to be a government/corporate slave.

I find the whole concept so deliciously and outstandingly ludicrous that I simply had to try and make it rhyme.

I am a Freeman on the land, I wander wild and free;

The laws of corporate governments do not apply to me.

They try to trick all humankind;

So they can have their pockets lined;

The circumstantial evidence is there for all to see.

I am a Freeman on the land, combating the machine;

I signed a piece of paper and I sent it to the Queen.

It details what I understand;

And all the rights that I demand

Effectively, it wipes my slate of obligation clean.

I am a Freeman on the land, I don’t give my consent;

To statutes, acts or laws, or paying tax or fines or rent.

The bastards use their legalese

To try and trip me up with these,

But I use special words to dodge, evade and circumvent.

I am a Freeman on the land, my language is my craft;

Though corporations stalk me, port and starboard, fore and aft;

I say “Sovereign” and “Natural Law”

And “Court De Jour” and “Man of Straw”

And people know I’m free (that is, the ones who haven’t laughed).

I am a Freeman on the land, my name is not my name:

My legal person’s moniker and I are not the same.

What’s on my birth certificate

Is narrow and specific. It

Does not apply to me, despite what courts and judges claim.

I am a Freeman on the land, I want an easy ride;

I wear my social irresponsibility with pride

I won’t lie down and pay my dues

But I will nonchalantly use

The water, roads and hospitals that governments provide. 

Ipsedixitism

Because I said so.


Every so often, I hear a word that is so delicious, so sublime in its syllables, that I want to say it over and over again, to roll it around the inside of my mouth like a lolly until it dissolves into my vernacular. Such a word was recently introduced to me by my friend Chrys Stevenson, here.

And every so often, a friend, colleague or follower will throw down a poetry challenge, suggesting a word or topic and challenging, nay daring me to pen a verse about it. The person who does this most often is my friend Chrys Stevenson. You may have heard me mention her before.

This one's for you, Chrys.

“Why? Because I said so!” - we’ve all heard this one before,

When spoken to defiant kids aged three, or maybe four.

But once you’re all grown up, you shouldn’t hear it any more;

Especially not in academic texts or courts of law.

This bare assertion fallacy, as rhetoric depicts it,

Throws status at a problem, in a vain attempt to fix it,

And can’t disprove, with logic, any stance that contradicts it.

It’s known in legal circles by the Latin “ipse dixit”.

If you’re involved in some debate or argument or schism,

And adversaries resort to simple say-so when you quiz ‘em,

Don’t fall for their non-sequiturs and base antagonism,

Just raise an eyebrow, smile and say “That’s ipsedixitism”.

Argumentum ad Populum

Because 50 million Elvis fans might be wrong.

A million people can’t be wrong! Except, of course, they can.
You can’t prove something’s good ‘cause every wide-eyed fool’s a fan.
If that was so, then cigarettes
And squashy seats in jumbo jets
And racking up large gambling debts
And fighting in Sudan

And ugly outdoor settings made from old-growth forest wood
And weasel-worded documents that can’t be understood
And glossy gossip magazines
And cutesy angel figurines
And leggings made to look like jeans
And tofu would be good.

Godwin's Law

Because badness = Nazism

Wherever there are online screeds that someone doesn’t like;
You’ll find “That’s what the Nazis say!”
Or “Göring often thought that way!”
Or “Auschwitz still exists today -
It’s just like the Third Reich!”
And other frothing rants from those whose brains have gone on strike.


Discussions on the internet abide by Godwin’s Law:
As comment threads are slowly spun,
The chance of a comparison
To Hitler’s reign approaches one.
Of that you can be sure.
The best approach, as Fawlty reasoned: don’t mention the war.


No matter what the topic is, or what is being said;
Some sorry troll will always come
And follow Godwin’s rule of thumb;
Reductio ad Hitlerum
Will raise its ugly head;
And render any argument immediately dead.

Argumentum ad Antiquitatem

Because arguments from antiquity are getting old.

A broad definition describing ‘Tradition’,

Is ‘that’s just the way things have always been done’.

It’s nice when applied to the dress of a bride,

Or a yard glass of ale when you turn twenty-one.

But it soon becomes strange when opposing a change,

And relied upon solely, as if it’s enough.

If we never advance from traditional stance

Then we may as well keep all the following stuff:

Religious castration. Race-based immigration.

Foot binding. Forbidding gay people to wed.

Apartheid division. Slave trade. Circumcision.

The hanging of men by the neck ‘til they’re dead.

Lobotomies. Caning. Sex-ed by abstaining.

Denying black people and women the vote.

Widespread public flogging. Old-growth forest logging.

Bloodletting through cuts in the arm or the throat.

The hunting of foxes. Bare-knuckled pro boxers.

Re-homing indigenous children with whites.

A solemn expression of prayer in each session

Of parliament. Flabby posh men wearing tights.

The Queen of Australia and royal regalia.

A seat allocation in ‘smoking’ or ‘non’.

Church leaders dictating. Bullfighting. Bear baiting.

I think my point’s made. Now it’s time to move on.

A Field Guide to Logical Fallacies

I done went to the big smoke to talk into a microphone.

Last night I popped another significant skeptical cherry. I attended The Amazing Meeting Australia Fringe event, Skepticator Live - The Skeptics Open Mic Night. In person. Had I known that one could meet so many fabulous people in such a short space of time, I might have dragged my arse to a skeptics gathering ages ago (hello lovelies!).

But I digress. As usual. Here's what I spouted:

When one is a skeptic, one’s often accused
Of pooh-poohing things we know nothing about.
But out of the skeptical toolbox are used
Many sharply-honed tools of considerable clout.

So instead of resorting to snarky replies,
And to being aggressive, dismissive and callous, we
Learn to think critically and recognise
What’s known ‘round the traps as a logical fallacy.

With non-sequiturs and deceptive dilemmas,
Red herrings and strawmen creating confusion,
Just how do we prove that the arguer’s premise
Does not proceed logically to their conclusion?

As jungles of thought are explored, over time;
You’ll find, in your brain, fallacies are compiled.
I’ll try to provide you, through amateur rhyme;
With examples of critters you’ll find in the wild.

Argumentum Ad Hominem or “to the man”
Attacks not the premise, no matter how clear.
Adherents of this one will try, if they can
To attack their opponent, and go for the smear.

For example: a certain Liberal politician
Might think that abortion’s a horrible sin.
I might challenge the cogency of his position
Because he’s a twat with an idiot grin.

Next on the list is the old false dichotomy,
Not quite as simple as, at first, it seems.
It’s like giving multiple choice a lobotomy
Leaving two monochromatic extremes.

For example, a nation preparing for war
may declare, “If you’re not with us, then you’re against!”
One’s choices seem pared to “contrary” or “for”,
Though there’s plenty of room for one’s bum on the fence.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, essentially,
Is causation assumed and improperly reckoned.
It’s said when two things happen sequentially
That the first necessarily leads to the second.

For example, a man at his neighbourhood shops
Is eating a take-away lunchtime lamb korma.
A sniper somewhere shoots him square in the chops,
So it’s clear: curries lead to extensive head trauma.

Argumentum ad Populum needs lots of friends,
Like the bafflingly popular kids in high school.
It claims that the value of something depends
On how many people believe that it’s cool.

For example, a singer named Britney Jean Spears,
Has been known to behave perhaps not as she should.
But her music sold squillions in just a few years,
So being a spangly dumb tramp must be good.

And so there you have it, a short little list,
Not exhaustive, but perfectly fine for a starter.
A field guide sufficient to give you the gist,
Or if not, enough big words to make you sound smarter.