What is Satire, what is misrepresentation?

I'm seeing more and more sites on the net now that are producing stories very close to the mark - stories that take big issues and write about them in ways which damage, hurt, or misrepresent, what the story is about.

We've probably all seen The Onion, one of the most popular satire sites on the net. They are an example of how to do it right. They take big issues and parody them, they have fun at their expense, they satirise them. When you read one of their articles it's pretty easy to realise that you're not reading an actual, factual, news page. They highlight the big issues and bring them to your attention in a way that only the most obtuse could mistake for news.

Then you get others, like The Stately Harold. This site does not mention it is a satire site. It tries its best to look like a real news site. There is almost nothing in the 'About' except the letter from the 'editor' claiming dyslexia and deliberately misspelt. There is nothing on the 'Contact' page but a 'write your message here' box - no details of the company, no address either postal or email, no phone number, nothing.

Then you go to some of their stories, such as the recent one about ANZAC Day. They headline it with a picture showing a typical ANZAC scene with medallion on the left and a young girls photo on the right. She is introduced as the '20yo feminist writer, Cassidy Boon'. The article is purporting to be this womans feminist rant against ANZAC Day and how sexist it is. Nothing in the article suggests it's satire. Nothing in it is done with the intent of making you laugh, or poking fun, or parodying things. It's written just as if the young woman in the picture really did write it.

Except that the '20yo feminist writer, Cassidy Boon' is actually a profile pic stolen from a 13 year olds Twitter profile from a few years ago. Cassidy Boon does not now, and never has, existed as this 'feminist writer'. All over Australia though, there are people who are losing their shit over how this 'feminist writer' has attacked one of the most widely beloved and respected traditions of Australia. There are hate groups against her. There are people shouting about why THIS is why we should 'get rid of the Feminazis'.

This is not satire. This is deliberate misrepresentation designed to cause anger, hatred, disgust, and they have provided the picture of a SCHOOLGIRL to be the focus of that anger, hatred and disgust.

This is the same method the right-wing fascist parties are using on Facebook - use something that will get an immediate kneejerk emotional response and slant it to attack the groups they are against.

All I can say is, Check your sources. If you see something that immediately gets you angry, step back and think before posting. Is it true? Is is verifiable? Is is from an actual satire site? Is it in the major news networks? If you're still raging after those checks, then you will at least know you have good reason, and a strong argument in your favour for any doubters!

"But sugar feeds cancer cells!"

"But sugar feeds cancer cells!"

I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen this. It's based on research that has since been totally discredited but, like the anti vaxxers and their discredited sources, it just keeps getting used.

No. Glucose feeds cells. ALL cells. That means that sugars, starches and fats, all of which are broken down by the gut into glucose, feed the cells. Yes, that includes cancer cells, but increasing or decreasing the intake of refined sugar has been shown to have no effect on the growth of existing cancer cells.

It has also been shown that being on a ketogenic diet (less than 20 grams carbohydrate per day) can be harmful to people going through chemotherapy or radiation as at these times the body needs more energy and the ketogenic diet, with its reliance on fat as an energy source, can result in unintentional weight loss, autoimmune problems and lethargy.

Sugar is not the enemy. Too much sugar, yes, that is bad for you, whether you have cancer or not. A high intake of simple carbs such as refined sugar messes with insulin levels, causing the well-known sugar rush followed by the sugar crash. Excess carb intake can also lead to obesity which does have a corresponding increase in risk of cancer, although the researchers have yet to find out the exact correlation - if indeed there is one correlation and not many contributing factors.

As for the Paleo claims that we have not had simple carbs until recently in our evolutionary history, there is clear evidence of this in prehistory, and in the remaining paleo tribes today, in the form of tree saps, honey, use of sugar cane and similar plants, even the collection of sugar ants in native America. It may not have been so prevalent, but it has always been there.

So, does sugar feed cancer? Yes, in as much as it feeds all cells, no in that it makes no differentiation between cancerous and normal cells. Is sugar poison? No. Arsenic is a poison, cyanide is a poison, hemlock and deadly nightshade are poisons. Sugar is a simple carbohydrate that like any food should be taken in moderation. That is all.

https://www.oncologynutrition.org/erfc/healthy-nutrition-now/sugar-and-cancer/

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer-causes/art-20044714?pg=2

http://www.cancercenter.com/discussions/blog/does-sugar-feed-cancer/

BDSM. There are no shades of grey.

I'm a bit of an outsider in the BDSM scene. I make leatherwork, much of which is in demand from people in the scene, and it is a fascinating place. It is an umbrella term covering a huge number of practices from voyeurism to domination, slave/master relationships to intense pain and degradation. It is certainly not for everyone.

There is one thing that the whole BDSM community can stand behind though, and that is that all play, all scenes, all relationships, are consensual. SSC, or Safe, Sane and Consensual, is one of the terms you'll hear used. There are others, particularly for the heavier end of the scene, but mostly you'll hear SSC. What does it mean? Exactly what it says. Whatever your kink, keep it safe, sane and above all else, consensual.

No abuse. No threats. No Mr Grey.

Consent is not something of blurred lines, there are no grey areas. Either you have consent or you do not. If you have consent and the other party changes their mind for ANY reason partway through, you stop - you no longer have consent. If the party is unconscious and you have not already discussed this scenario, you do not have consent. Consent is the absolute key to BDSM relationships.

Everyone has limits, but in BDSM you can define those limits easier than in 'vanilla' life. You can, and are encouraged to, define exactly what you are comfortable with, what you are willing to discuss further before deciding whether to try it, and what you will not do. Your partner or partners know then what your desires are, and you know theirs. You all agree what is acceptable.

50 Shades is not BDSM. It is a series about a deeply disturbed individual who uses his wealth , position, threats, and the innocence of his victim, to manipulate her into doing things far outside her comfort zone. This is abuse, plain and simple.It is a man who openly admits to being mentally unbalanced forcing his will on another and using guilt to keep her from leaving. This is a stereotype of an abusive household, not a BDSM relationship. He encourages empathy and uses that to force her beyond her limits. He uses threats, both economic and physical, to keep her from leaving. He does this not with an experienced woman but a naive, inexperienced virgin. She stays partly through fear, partly through guilt and partly through thinking she can 'fix' him.

She cannot fix him. That would take a fully qualified and experienced mental health team and many years hard work on HIS part, not on hers.

Find entertainment in the book if you can. Watch the movie if it appeals to you, but do not ever make the mistake of thinking this is what BDSM is. This series is about abuse and domestic violence, sexual harassment and mental instability, not BDSM.

Same horse, same race, a new jockey won't change much

So now the Aussie PM Abbott has survived hs spill motion and said he'd start 'good government' - and what was he doing before, if that's the case? - and this week has shown nothing of the new leaf he was supposed to have turned over. More captains calls, more verbal assaults and insults at any that do not agree with him and more media frenzy over how long he can last.

The thing is, will changing the jockey alter the race?

My belief is that it will not. The LNP has been the most repressive, the most unilaterally unforgiving, the cruelest government this country has seen since the original landing by Cook.

Over 87% of frontline services that help victims of domestic violence have lost their funding completely and most still don't know what they will finally end up with. The changes to the Centrelink, Aged Pension, and Medicare systems are directly aimed at the young, the poor, the low income families and the elderly. The rich have benefited from tax breaks and superannuation benefits. Businesses, most especially mining, have seen huge amounts of public funds given to them as well as the repeal of the carbon tax. Laws have been changed to allow the state to hide more of the funding it gets from businesses and laws have been enacted which impact huge numbers of innocent bikies for the sake of a few crooked individuals.

All this from the same party, the LNP. The ministers who are being touted as possible replacements for Abbott are ministers in this same government, so they either agree with what has been done or cared too little to try and change the decisions.

In fact, it's less like changing the jockey in a horse race and more like a pit stop in Formula One. They went out with the wrong rubber on the car, they have lost ground and now want to pit early in the hope they can regain ground before the race finishes at the next election. The car is the same, the mechanics are the same, the team is the same, all they want to do is scrap the worn out tyres and put some better rubber on, but not even Bridgestone could help when the party is heading in the wrong direction!

Creative Uncommons - the demise of the artisan/craftsperson

This is dedicated to all those of us who are makers. The wood and metal workers, the potters, the leathercrafters, the jewelers, the stitchers and seamstresses, to name a handful of the wonderful talent we are so busy losing.

Why do I say that? Ask an artist. It is so easy these days to buy cheap from overseas that the local artists are becoming an unwanted resource. The world is so biased towards the disposable society we no longer look for craftsmanship, we just want something cheap and right now.

It has took me years to learn my skills. To understand the materials I use, how they react to different techniques and methods, how to use them the best way, how to get what I want from them. It's not an overnight thing. Except, it can be. There's companies overseas that specialise in deconstructing your work and making it in large quantities at a fraction of the cost I could offer and selling it through online sites. Many even steal the pictures from your site to promote their knockoff, linking you to their poorly made versions, as people will recognise the pictures and assume it's a licensed copy or even that you yourself are responsible.

That however, is a rare occurrence. The usual response to seeing a craftspersons work is along the likes of, "Oh, how lovely, it's perfect! I wish I could afford that," followed by them walking away. I am often asked about my prices. Can I do this item at that price? Why is it so expensive? Well, that's because getting quality materials is not cheap. I'll drop anywhere from $300 to $700 each trip to the leather shop, and that does not include tools, stamps, hardware, thread, dyes and finishes. Add the same again for all that and you have my minimum costs for materials for a month or so. Then add my time, and you'll see it's not going to be cheap.

So what happens? People see the lovely handmade goods, exclaim over them, see the price, and walk away. The artisan then has the choice of trying to cover costs by lowering the price, or making enough to get by. Often it's a double edged sword as if you price low you still can't beat the imports but you will end up being accused of importing since 'all the good stuff is really expensive so it must be from a sweatshop!'

What this world has forgotten is that we depend on the skills of the artisan. We have done for thousands of years. It's the only backup there is to the global marketplace, and it's essential to keep those skills current. The more we lose, the more difficult it is for the next generation to learn those skills, and without them it's a very precarious, not to say dull, existence.

Support your local talent - the artists, the craftspeople, the makers and the bodgers. They are the heart of the community, and the heartbeat is fading...

Ethical jobs - only in the office?

There's a site here in Oz that posts jobs from ethical companies - that is, to quote from their site 'about' page,

"a job-search site for people who want to work for a better world.  We list community jobs, environmental jobs, not-for-profit jobs and social enterprise jobs that contribute to a more equitable, more just or more sustainable world."

There's only one thing. There are only white collar jobs on there - office work, basically. That and some work in the mental health industry make up the total ethical jobs market, apparently.

So what about us blue collar workers? The tradies, the labourers, the line workers and machine minders, the factory workers and the rest of us who don't work in the office? Where are the ethical companies we can work for?

We want to work for a better world too. We want a sustainable world. We don't want to have to carry on working for the grasping, greedy, money-first, people last corporations that are so often the only option for those who don't have the degrees, the swivel chairs, and the healthy monitor tans.

 Where can we work? Where are the ethical manufacturers, the caring corporations, the employee-friendly factories? Give us somewhere to work too! I would take a wage cut to work there if I knew the company was using that money to better the environment instead of paying huge bonuses to their CEO's when they manage to squeeze another drop of blood from the workforce.

Islam - we're fighting the wrong war with the wrong tools

I find it ironic that the western world stays on friendly terms with arguably the worst of the Islamic nations when it comes to womens rights. 

I find it incredible that the same people shouting at us form the political lecterns about how evil Islam is and how badly it treats women are the same ones that are quite happy to host a Saudi prince and give them the keys to the country if they visit. 

I find it deplorable that we decry in one nation the exact things that we ignore if that nation is rich and powerful.

Why is it that we only ever see Islam in the news as a terrorist force? Over a fifth of the worlds population is Muslim and yet all we ever hear about are the less than one percent of those 1.6bn people who are prepared to die for their faith and take us with them.

How about we start looking at some of the other places, look at the lives of those who are not in the Middle Eastern warzone.

Places like those wonderful and generous allies of ours in Saudi Arabia, where women have the least rights of any nation I can think of. But it's all right, they are the good guys! Religious police in the Gulf Kingdom which is governed by Sharia Law only recently lifted a ban on females riding motorbikes and bicycles – as long as they wear the full-length veil and are accompanied by a male relative.

It is illegal for Saudi women to travel abroad without male accompaniment. They may only do so if their guardian agrees by signing a document know as a 'yellow sheet' at an airport or border crossing.

In November 2012 it emerged women were being electronically monitored with authorities using SMS to track them and inform their husbands of their whereabouts.

And it was only in 2011 that women were given the right to vote and run for office in municipal elections in 2015.

But let's ignore all that, they are our allies! Let's demonise all the other muslims instead, even the ones living in progressive Islamic nations, even the ones with female leaders and equal rights for women, because it's not Saudi Arabias fault, it's just their culture! A culture of misogyny, of repression, true, but hey, they are rich and have oil, so we must be friends, right?

It's time to bring pressure on the countries that deserve it, and stop killing people - including our own - in countries whose sole fault is that there might be some terrorists somewhere in them hills.