It's the question on everyone's lips

If you are the sort of person that enjoys the British TV show Skins or the musical stylings of Britney Spears then you’ll be wanting to spend a bit of time at this here website. At least, that’s what my search engine traffic seems to suggest.

Well over 2,000 visitors have found themselves at this blog after typing the word ‘skins’ into their search engine of choice and well over a 1,000 more have stopped by after searching for ‘britney spears’.

In reality, if you were in search of meaningful material about either subject you would be sorely disappointed.

My only mention of E4’s Skins was a short review of the show, republished here after appearing as a Daily Proposition in Crikey’s Daily Mail. Similarly, my only substantial mention of Britney Spears was a less-than-flattering examination of her on-stage antics some years ago.

So why is this happening and why should you care?

In answer to the former, well, it’s just the way search engines work. To simplify the process somewhat, search engines trawl through websites like this, compile a list of keywords that are attached to pages and articles and then add this information to a whopping great big database. Then, when a user searches for their favourite pop star, the search engine checks to see which sites mention the entertainer in question and suggests those sites to the searcher.

For over 2,000 people that searched for Skins and over 1,000 that searched for Britney Spears, this site would have been listed as a potentially relevant source of information.

Google’s folly aside, why should you care?

Well, let’s just say that search engine traffic can be a pretty hilarious beast.

As well as attracting readers who happen to be searching for a pop star or TV show I’ve mentioned at one point or another, there are some, shall we say, more unexpected search results driving traffic toward A Cursory Glance…

The phrase ‘hermaphrodite images genitalia’ is not one that I tend to make frequent use of in casual conversation and it’s certainly not one that I remember publishing. But while this particular phrase never appeared on the site in its entirety, it’s certainly true that I’ve used all three of those words before, albeit in completely different contexts.

It would seem that the unrelated use of the words ‘hermaphrodite’, ‘images’ and ‘genitalia’ were enough to drive at least one curious reader to this site. One can only assume they would have been rather disappointed.

In a similar vein, the search term ‘stephanie bendixsen lesbian’ has driven a number of ambitious readers this way and, as with the previous example, I suspect the result would have been rather underwhelming. I’ve certainly mentioned Good Game‘s Hex before and the word ‘lesbian’ has also been used but the combination of both is not something I’ve ever had reason to publish.

But perhaps the most entertaining search term to have deposited someone on my digital doorstep was: ‘Is Karl Stefanovic circumcised?’

The thing I like most about this particular search is that it’s clear someone actually wants to know whether or not Karl Stefanovic is circumcised. If the search had been ‘karl stefanovic circumcised’ you could argue they were searching for a video of Mr Stefanovic talking about circumcision, or something similar, but the way the search term is phrased – as a simple yes/no question – seems to leave little doubt.

For those that aren’t familiar with Channel Nine’s International Man of Misery©, Mr Stefanovic is the network’s go-to guy when it comes to on-the-ground ‘reporting’ of natural disasters. As Perth Now points out, Mr Stefanovic seems to have an unhealthy penchant for lobbing into disaster zones: he was there when Cyclone Yasi was wreaking havoc up north, he was on the ground when Christchurch was being torn apart, and he was doing his thing over in Japan after the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear-threat triple-header.

Again, there is a clear reason why a search term like ‘Is Karl Stefanovic circumcised’ takes readers to my blog. In one particular post I happened to mention Mr Stefanovic in passing and in a separate article I argued that women should probably avoid asking their male partners to get circumcised. The combination of these two articles (and their relevant keywords) provided a curious reader with a brief moment of hope.

Honestly though, did this curious individual actually expect to find an answer to their question? Were they hoping to stumble upon something like www.cgradecelebritycircumcisions.com? Or perhaps they were hoping for www.foreskinfinder.com.au?

In any event, it’s good to know that readers can find my site with a simple Google search. Now all I need to do is start saying something worth reading about…

This article was first published at The National Times

As our lives become increasingly saturated with technology, digital media and the internet, it’s no secret that our younger generations are spending less time in the great outdoors. Whether it’s hours spent in front of the TV, surfing the internet, playing on a games console or a combination of these, kids today seem far less inclined to enjoy the natural world than in previous generations.

While older generations have long bemoaned a decline in the time spent outside, there has been growing speculation that such a shift might also have negative health implications for those involved. According to Dr William Bird, health adviser to Natural England, a lack of exposure to nature has the potential to adversely affect the mental health of society’s youngest members.

But while Generations Y and Z are more likely to spend time playing video games than recreating the adventures of Enid Blyton’s ‘Famous Five’, they are not without inspiration when it comes to enjoying what nature has to offer.

Bear Grylls is a former member of the British Special Services and has carved a place for himself in the popular consciousness through his TV show, Man vs. Wild. In the show, Grylls encounters various types of hostile terrain and places himself in stressful situations in order to demonstrate survival techniques.

The show has attracted some notoriety due to Grylls’ willingness to subject himself to otherwise-repulsive scenarios – eating unappetising critters for example – but it’s his passion for the outdoors and an unbridled sense of adventure that has the potential to inspire younger viewers to get off the couch and head outside.

As well as his Man vs. Wild adventures, Grylls has had a leading role in a number of truly impressive expeditions. In 2003 he led the first team to cross the North Atlantic Ocean in an ‘open’ rigid inflatable boat, in 2000 he led the first team to circumnavigate the UK by jet ski and in 1998, at the age of 23, he became the youngest Briton (at the time) to reach the summit of Mt. Everest.

But if Bear Grylls has the potential to motivate otherwise-sedentary TV viewers into action, then the efforts of Ed Stafford should be enough to spark an adventuring revolution among our younger generations.

Earlier this month the former British Army captain became the first person to hike the length of the Amazon River. The epic trek took Stafford 859 days to complete in which time he faced hostility from local indigenous communities, the constant danger of not finding enough food and unwanted attention from all manner of creepy crawlies.

Stafford’s journey began in April 2008 when he reached the summit of the Nevado Mismi, a peak in the Peruvian Andes which is widely credited as the source of the Amazon River. At that point Stafford had the company of friend Luke Collyer but after the two had a falling out and the latter left the expedition, Stafford continued on alone.

Five months into the trek, Stafford was joined by Gadiel ‘Cho’ Sanchez Rivera, a local Peruvian who planned to accompany Stafford for five days. When Stafford reached the mouth of the Amazon two years later, Cho was still by his side.

While it’s pretty hard not to be inspired by Stafford’s efforts, not everyone is going to find the idea of a two-and-a-half year hike all that appealing. In fact, only a small percentage of the population would even consider embarking on such an expedition.

According to to Dr Brad Wright, a lecturer in the School of Psychological Science at La Trobe University, it is a sense of ‘hardiness’ that sets the likes of Stafford and Grylls apart from the majority of the population.

‘Hardiness is defined by higher levels of commitment, challenge and control’, he said.  ‘Those with a drive to push themselves to achieve often gain immense satisfaction from achieving their ambitions.’

Sure, the efforts Bear Grylls and Ed Stafford might be beyond the reach of most people, but that’s not to say they shouldn’t be cause for inspiration. And, at a time when our younger generations are spending less time outside than ever before and the average Australian adult spends 90 per cent of their time indoors, there are certainly worse people we could be looking up to.

This piece first appeared at The Punch.

If you are a fan of reality TV then there’s every chance you’ve imagined yourself as contestant on one of the genre’s many shows. Maybe you’ve thought your singing ability could make you the next Australian Idol, perhaps your love of the outdoors made you feel like you could be the next Survivor or maybe you thought a childhood spent playing with table-tennis balls was worth $500,000. If The Amazing Race is your reality show of choice, your dreams of becoming a D-list celebrity could well be on their way to fulfilment.

Channel Seven recently announced that it will be producing an Australian version of the popular US reality series, giving a handful of Australians the chance to race around the world for a ‘massive cash prize’. The show has been running in the US for nine years in which time CBS has managed to pump out an impressive sixteen seasons, with a 17th due for broadcast later this year.

For those that haven’t seen the show, take the biggest scavenger hunt you’ve ever seen, add pairs of clueless tourists, some Big Brother-style 24/7 surveillance and the most stressful elements of travelling, mix them together and you get something that vaguely resembles The Amazing Race.

Hundreds of teams are likely to apply for this ‘opportunity’ and if you thinking of throwing your hat in the ring, be aware that the 16-page application form provides would-be racers with more than a few hoops to jump through.

For starters, you’ve got to be willing to divulge some fairly personal information, including your weight, your relationship status and the names and ages of any children you might happen to have. If you’ve been arrested you have to provide full details and if you’ve ever hit someone ‘in anger or self-defence’ you have to explain why you did it.

If the personal questions are a little pointed then the questions about your relationship with your teammate are even more so. ‘What is the worst experience you have had with your teammate?’ doesn’t seem to be all that constructive a question and ‘What is the biggest disappointment you have experienced from your teammate?’ is not a whole lot better.

Of course it’s all about building a profile of you as a potential contestant and there are several questions within the application that will help the producers to narrow the field. For example, answering ‘no’ to ‘I am available for 5 weeks between September and December 2010′ is likely to see your application rejected before they even get to read your name. An answer of a disparaging nature to ‘What is your opinion of foreigners?’ is equally likely to terminate your prospects of appearing on the show.

As pointed and personal as the application is, it’s the fine print that will determine how much people are willing to sacrifice in order to get their faces on TV. One section explains that applicants ‘agree to comply with all requests and directions given by the Producers’ with a later paragraph insisting that such cooperation will be on a ‘twenty-four-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week basis’.

But if the desire to get your face on TV outweighs your desire not to be a Channel Seven pawn, it’s worth considering the contestant pool from previous versions of the show. For example, if the US version is anything to go by, the 11 teams are likely to cover a mixture of ethnicities, relationship types, ages and sexual preferences.

There will be an old married couple, a gay couple, the young female friends who provide eye-candy in the promos, a non-Caucasian team, a team of brothers or sisters, a father/son or father/daughter team and, being an Australian version of the show, a team of bogans. Tailoring your written and video applications to one of these combinations is likely to be the best route to the audition process.

But of course your application needs to be special in order to stand out from the hundreds of entries that Seven are likely to receive and it’s the video application that presents the best chance of catching the producers’ collective eye. You should try to engage with the viewer, convince them that the show would benefit from your presence and as the application form says, ‘personality counts!’

But if you want a serious advantage in making your application stand out then John Safran’s 1997 audition tape for Race Around the World is just about the best audition tape you are ever likely to see. Not only is Safran aware that the producers need a way of labelling him but he uses his otherwise-annoying voice as a way of selling himself.

Having said that, Race Around the World did see Safran running naked through the streets of Jerusalem and placing a curse on his ex-girlfriend.  Whether or not these sort of antics will be included in the ‘requests and directions’ given by producers of The Amazing Race Australia remains highly unlikely…

This article first appeared at Crikey.

It’s been a long time coming, but Skins is finally back on Australian TV. It’s been four months since the show’s fourth season concluded in the UK and now, finally, Australian audiences get to see it.

For those that are new to the award-winning British drama, Skins follows the exploits of a group of friends as they negotiate the ups and downs of teenage life in Bristol. Season four sees the return of the previous season’s cast, including some of the most memorable and believable characters in the show to date.

James Dean-wannabe Cook (Jack O’Connell) is a stand-out and is as entertaining as he is repulsive, the school’s new headmaster — the hilariously harsh Professor David Blood — is played to a tee by stand-up comedian Chris Addison, and Hugo Speer is chilling as a psychiatrist later in the series.

Focusing on the exploits of family-man and occasional DJ Thomas Tomone, tonight’s season opener sets the tone for the series in more ways than one. The episode’s dark overtones are a fixture throughout the entire season and the tragic events of the episode’s opening minutes serve to drive a main plotline for over half the series.

Unfortunately, season four is the shortest Skins season to date at a measly eight episodes long. This comes as a bit of a disappointment when US dramas like Gossip Girl manage to churn out 20-plus episode per season. Still, the age-old quip about quality vs. quantity is most apt here, and the length of the season is just about the only drawback to be found.

Skins’ strong point has always been its ability to combine heavier, more dramatic events with the more whimsical moments of troubled youth. Just when an episode feels like it is being weighed down by tragedy and the trials of teenage angst, a lighter moment is invariably introduced to balance the mood. Similarly, the show’s lighter moments never feel like they are allowed to dominate the tone of the show and a more dramatic moment is never far away.

All the ingredients of angsty teen drama are here — the unbridled passion of first love, the tragedy of a broken family, the waxing and waning of old friendships. But what sets Skins apart from the likes of Home and Away and Neighbours is its ability to go beyond the soap-opera clichés and embrace the hedonistic and oftentimes dangerous world of teenage life.

There’s frequent drug use, explorations of s-xual orientation and a peek into the frightening world of mental illness and they all make for truly compelling viewing. This is gritty, believable and honest storytelling that works overtime to engage the viewer on an emotional level. Not to be missed.

The details: Season four of Skins starts tonight at 10pm on SBS One.

For those that were fortunate enough to miss my torrent of Twitter and Facebook spam two weeks ago, I had an article published on News Limited’s opinion website, The Punch. The silly little piece about Channel Seven’s new US-import Hung attracted criticism from a large percentage of the 84 readers that commented, leaving me feeling a little despondent.

As well as attracting a whole slew of comments, the Hung piece also attracted the attention of one reporter at the Sydney Morning Herald. She was keen to find out more about my distate for the show and after interviewing me over the phone, my comments made it to her story the next day.

Keen to get another article in The Punch as soon as possible, I penned another piece, this one critical of the Nine Network’s choice of programming. Nine’s RBT, a show about random breath testing (hence the ultra-stylish acronym), premieres tomorrow night and I thought it a worthy target of some sarcasm-laden criticism.

The folks at The Punch said the piece was good and that they would get back to me on Thursday about publishing it on Friday. I didn’t hear back from them and I’m not quite sure why; it’s not like there was a major political story unfolding that day or anything.

So, without further ado, here’s episode two of ‘The Discarded’, ‘Front-line heroes…’

With around a third of Australian road fatalities being directed related to drink-driving and with millions of drivers being breath tested every year, you’d think that people would start to realise that drink driving might be a bad idea. Apparently not, given that the percentage of alcohol-related road fatalities has remained constant over the last two decades.

This Sunday, with the premiere of their snappily-titled reality show RBT, the Nine Network will do their bit in the fight against drink-driving. Or, to put it another way, Nine will now start capitalising on people’s inability to separate the acts of alcohol consumption and motor vehicle control.

For those that are a little confused by Nine’s trendy acronym use, RBT stands for Random Breath Testing; a decidedly less marketable title you might agree. According to a press release from Nine, the “compelling new series goes behind the lines of the NSW Police force on breath testing operations”.

While it’s true that RBT is a “new” series for Nine, the idea of going behind the scenes of a public department or service is about as original as the songs being played by the cover band at your local watering hole. The “front-line heroes” formula has produced a number of forgettable shows for the commercial networks in the last few years; Ten’s Bondi Rescue, Nine’s Customs and Seven’s essentially-xenophobic Border Security, just to name a few.

The “front-line heroes” show is a close cousin of the “feel-good” reality show, examples of which include Seven’s RSPCA Animal Rescue, the soppy Find My Family and Nine’s equally emotional Random Acts of Kindness. Both genres are in the business of thriving on their emotional impact; the “front-line heroes” show drawing strength from a feeling of pride in the admirable work done by our community services, the “feel-good” show drawing us in with the promise of tears and emotional fulfilment.

As well as drawing respectable audiences such shows have the added bonus of being very cheap for their respective networks to produce. After all, why bother paying someone to write and create an original show when there’s money to be made by sending a crew to film the everyday workings of an existing department or service?

While I’m not nearly important enough to get my hands on an advanced copy of RBT, I have been privy to the fleeting promos for the show’s upcoming premiere. And, while this isn’t a review of the show, I’m willing to hazard a couple of educated guesses at what one might see, should they decide to tune in to RBT in its run on Nine;

What you will see

-          A disproportionately high number of drivers being caught under the influence of drugs and alcohol

-          Nine hamming up the “front-line heroes” angle

-          At least one concerned-looking police officer proselytising about how “kids these days think they’re invincible”

-          Commercial breaks featuring the latest alcohol-awareness ads

What you won’t see

-          The overwhelming majority of Australian breath tests that show drivers to be free of alcohol or drugs.

-          Commercial breaks full of Carlton Draught and Victoria Bitter ads

-          A nuanced analysis of what makes people decide to drink-drive

So as we head into the weekend and many of you head to after-work drinks I’d like to propose a toast to the 33 per cent of Australians who have admitted to drink driving. Without you lovely folk providing work for breath testing officers we wouldn’t have the likes of RBT on Australian TV.

Cheers.

Update: Once the dust had settled on the Labor leadership spill, the folks at The Punch got back to me and said they still wanted to run the piece. So, I tracked down the first episode of RBT on the Nine Network’s website, had a watch and re-wrote the piece. The finished product is now online at The Punch.

Image courtesy of the ABC

Given the lack of attention that Jason Akermanis has had over the past few weeks, I thought I’d spend some time analysing a little article that the Bulldogs’ forward penned recently.

For those that missed Aker’s charming attempt to play counsellor for gay footballers, the original article is well worth a read; if only for the story about a perfectly good team shower ruined by a gay team mate.

According to Akermanis ‘the world of AFL footy is not ready’ for gay players to ‘come out’, saying that such a revelation could ‘break the fabric of a club’. While I could terminate the discussion here by pointing to the excellent retort written by Gerard Whateley, I would be denying myself a tantalising opportunity to provide an overly sarcastic, holier-than-thou analysis.

Come to think of it, Akermanis is not that far off the mark. Sure, his assessment of the situation is fairly lacking in nuanced analysis but the idea that blokey sporting clubs aren’t ready for gay men to come out is, well, fairly spot on.

Having been a member of a decidedly blokey sporting club for some years I can confirm that sporting culture and empathy for homosexuality aren’t really the greatest of friends. I never played alongside any openly-gay teammates but the blokey banter was enough to leave me with a fair idea of the general attitude towards ‘poofters’. Indeed the use of the word ‘poofters’ should be indication enough.

I can also speak with some authority in agreeing with Akermanis’ suggestion that ‘locker room nudity and homoerotic activities’ are the norm in that environment. I always found it amusing when my teammates would slap each other on the arse during a match, happily shower naked together, and yet still use the word ‘poofter’ as an insult, completely oblivious to the ironic corner they had backed themselves into.

I also agree with Akermanis in saying that the outing of a gay man might tear at the fabric of an AFL club but, as Jack Marx points out, that might well be a good thing. The problem here is not that gay players are a threat to the manliness that football culture is built upon, rather it’s football culture that is a threat to gay players.

While it would be genuinely tough for an AFL footballer to ‘come out’ in the current football climate, few things could be more beneficial to the sport in the long run. What better way to combat institutionalised homophobia than to have proudly gay footballers declare their sexuality while being prepared to discuss it in the public arena? Sure, the footballing world might not know how to handle it initially but it would surely be a step in the right direction.

I mean, even Eddie McGuire thinks it’s a good idea for gay AFL players to come out, telling SX News that he ‘would love it’ were such a revelation to occur. Then again, Eddie also thought it was a good idea to describe figure skaters as not ‘leaving anything in the closet’ while commentating at the recent Winter Olympics.

But it’s not just sporting clubs that seem to feel threatened by homosexuality. If Channel Seven reporter Adam Walters is to be believed, the Australian public are so concerned about homosexuality that a story about David Campbell’s visit to a gay sauna is the biggest news story of the week. To foster a greater sense of connection between Jason Akermanis and the former NSW transport minister I would like to invoke the wisdom of Twitter user @heavyphotons;

‘Akermanis tells gay men to live a lie. David Campbell shows us how you’re treated when you do.’

For those that missed Adam Walters’ shameful excuse for investigative journalism, David Campbell handed in his resignation after ‘a 7News investigation’ filmed him leaving the ‘gay sauna’, Ken’s at Kensington. The initial accusation was that Campbell was at fault for using his ministerial car to visit the venue, but when 7News discovered that he was well within his rights to do so, the focus of the story changed.

As Jonathon Holmes explained on Media Watch last week, the issue morphed into a question of Campbell’s sexuality and the fact that he had allegedly been ‘living a double life’. Thankfully, 7News’ decision to run the Campbell story – ruining a man’s career and personal life in the process – attracted the scrutiny of many within the Australian media, not just the watchful folk at Media Watch.

Journalist and former Media Watch presenter David Marr was typically succinct when commenting for ABC TV’s Lateline: ‘Campbell was destroyed by Channel Seven for being gay, full stop.’ David Koch of Sunrise fame impressed many with his criticism of Adam Walters’ apparent double-standard and Crikey’s Andrew Crook took the criticism even further, accusing Walters of having a score to settle.

But perhaps the most telling reaction to the 7News’ ‘investigation’ was the collective damnation of the story by journalism educators around the country. As Crikey reported, more than 50 journalism academics put their names to the statement ‘we deplore what you did to David Campbell and his family’.

It goes without saying that the reaction to Campbell’s ‘double-life’ would have been far less had he been cheating on his wife with another woman. The fact that he seems to enjoy the attention of other men has turned a routine breach of a public figure’s privacy into a ‘gay witch hunt’.

Footy clubs have never been known for the progressive attitudes on matters of sexuality but David Campbell’s trial by media is a sad step backwards in our quest to achieve understanding and respect for everyone, regardless of their sexuality. Channel Seven’s attempt to assess  ‘public interest’ stories hopefully says more about the misguided direction of the network rather than society’s thirst for gay blood.

But lest we finish this evening in a cloud of doom and gloom, let’s be grateful that we Australians don’t have the likes of Fred Phelps throwing their weight around. Never mind gay ministers and gay footballers, if Mr Phelps is to believed, we Aussies have far bigger problems on our hands. The good pastor provided this glorious insight during the Black Saturday bushfires last year:

‘God hates Australia, land of the sodomite damned. The fag-infested land of Australia – the fire of God’s wrath is sending hundreds of those filthy Australian beasts straight to hell. We at the Westboro Baptist Church are rejoicing, and we are praying for the dear lord to burn many more Australians alive.’

All of a sudden, Jason Akermanis doesn’t seem like such a bad bloke…

In the world of five-star hotels the serving of breakfast seems to be inextricably linked with the serving of breakfast television. Until a few weeks ago our news-tainment provider of choice was Channel Seven’s Sunrise, hosted by dynamic duo Kochie and Mel. Nowadays, at the behest of “the man”, we fill our restaurant with the sounds of Karl Stefanovic and Lisa Wilkinson of Channel Nine’s Today. According to the powers that be within our reputable establishment, Nine’s breakfast offering is “better” than Seven’s. It isn’t exactly clear what “better” means in this context but I’m willing to hazard a few guesses.

Perhaps the celebrity gossip on Today is “better” than the gossip featured on Sunrise. Perhaps the advertising spots on Today are of far greater quality than those seen on Sunrise. Or maybe it’s Today‘s ability to sensationalise recent news stories better than Sunrise that makes it the pick of the breakfast viewing.

On yesterday morning’s edition of Today the team ran a story about the recent stabbing death of 12 year old Brisbane boy Elliot Fletcher. The story began with several parents discussing the apparent increase in violence in Australian schools before cutting to host Lisa Wilkinson reading through a list of incidents that demonstrated such an increase. As if Today‘s angle on this story wasn’t clear enough already, they concluded the story by “interviewing” Norm Hart of the Queensland Association of State School Principals.

As a journalism student I have been taught that interviews should consist largely of “open” questions rather than questions which lead the interviewee to a specific answer or force a simple “yes” or “no” answer. In the case of the story in question, something like the following might have been appropriate;

“What does the recent stabbing death of Elliot Fletcher tell us about safety in our schools?”

But no. Apparently that line of questioning is a little too boring for Ms. Wilkinson who decided to go with something a little different;

“Should parents be worried as they send their kids off to school this morning?”

To Mr Hart’s credit he participated in the interview as well as could be expected given that he need not have been there at all. I mean, why would you bother inviting someone to give their expert opinion on an issue if, when concluding the interview, you are going to completely disregard everything that they’ve said thus far?

“Understandably a lot of parents (are) not feeling that’s the case today but we do thank you very much for your time this morning”.

Sure, you could probably argue that Lisa Wilkinson isn’t technically a journalist in her role as co-host of Today but if you are presenting news items and interviewing relevant authority figures related to said items, then surely some minimum standards of journalistic integrity must apply? You know, like presenting information in an rational and objective way rather than trying to sensationalise important issues.

Let’s keep things in perspective here – a 12 year old boy getting stabbed to death while at school is truly horrific and of real concern to parents and teachers alike but that doesn’t mean that kids around the country are suddenly unsafe at school. There are a lot of kids going to a lot of schools on a lot of days of the year, I hardly think a couple of isolated incidents of school yard violence are cause to keep the kids at home.

But it’s all about the kids. The mainstream media loves nothing more than a “kids are at risk” story but most of the time such stories are dependant on deliberate scaremongering in order to provoke emotional responses from concerned parents. That’s not to say that the issues at hand aren’t important, they should just be dealt with rationally and in a considered fashion.

Speaking of fashion, most people know of Miley “Hannah Montana” Cyrus but far fewer would be aware of her younger sister, Noah. Nor should they be because Noah is a little girl of 10 years old – not that you would know it from her choice of attire.

In October of last year Miley’s younger sister “made headlines” when she donned a “dominatrix-inspired” costume for Halloween celebrations and in the last couple months there have been rumours circulating of a lingerie line being released by junior Cyrus and her friend Emily Grace Reaves. Thankfully such rumours appear to be false and the clothing company in question, Ooh! La! La! Couture, seems to make tutus with tanktops rather than girls’ lingerie.

Noah Cyrus is only one example of an apparent shift toward the sexualisation of young girls and social commentators like Mia Freedman have written extensively on this issue. To a significant percentage of the community, young girls dressing and acting as if they were far older results in the corruption of childhood and the premature loss of innocence. “They are growing up too fast”, the older generations often remark, with advertising, the media and the internet often copping the blame.

Regardless of one’s own thoughts on this issue, it’s hard to deny that it is an issue that a lot of people feel very strongly about. While the solution to the problem isn’t as easy as banning the sale of lingerie for young girls, for example, it’s clear that parents have an important role to play. If you are concerned about your little girl growing up too fast then it’s probably not a good idea to let them watch Beyonce film clips at six years old.

The mainstream media has an important role to play as well. Rather than the aforementioned scaremongering that the commercial networks love to fill their “current affairs” and breakfast shows with, there should be a greater focus on programs that facilitate meaningful discussion about serious issues. The ABC’s Q & A is a perfect example of such a program and it makes for brilliant viewing.

The weekly show features a panel of expert guests who discuss topical issues as directed by the audience and moderated by one of Australia’s greatest interviewers, Tony Jones. Of course he isn’t “Australia’s best interviewer” because that mantle belongs to Tracy Grimshaw of Nine’s A Current Affair. Step aside Andrew Denton, stop tryin’ Kerry O’Brien, Ms. Grimshaw has you both covered…

As an employee of a reasonably-professional accommodation provider, I am required to work the occasional breakfast shift. As if the horror of getting up at 4:30am isn’t enough, the powers that be insist that we broadcast mindless drivel on the restaurant’s television.

Now I don’t know anyone that’s going to claim that Channel Seven’s Sunrise program even vaguely resembles quality programming, but last Sunday’s episode was something special. Not half an hour after broadcasting this attempt at balanced journalism the Sunrise crew were throwing to their resident astrologer for the daily horoscopes.

As was explained in the aforementioned video, astrology is the pseudoscience that claims that the positions of the stars and planets can be analysed in order to provide information about human personalities, behaviours and the workings of society in general. In the West this tradition manifests itself most frequently in the form of horoscopes which can be found in trashy magazines and newspapers everywhere. These lovely snippets of “information” claim to provide predictions about the future, based solely on the reader’s date of birth.

According to astrologers a person’s zodiac sign is determined by the position of the sun relative to the background stars on the date of their birth and that person will have certain character traits determined by their particular zodiac sign. For example, between November 23 and December 22 the sun is said to appear in the constellation of Sagittarius and therefore, with my birthday falling on the 25th of November, I am said to be a Sagittarius. According to Astrology.com.au Sagittarians are extremely confident, prone to bouts of good fortune, are known for their contagious enthusiasm and so on.

But there are some major problems with this theory. Firstly, in order to believe what astrologers tell us, we must convince ourselves that the position of the sun at a particular date, relative to the background stars, can actually affect an individual’s personality. Exactly how it does this is a mystery but Astrology.com.au offers this helpful explanation;

“…our luminescent sun apparently moves month by month throughout the year, transceiving the energy of those different constellational signs and thereby transmitting the celestial radiations to our Earth“.

Ok, so that makes perfect sense. The sun somehow grabs some sort of mystical personality-building energy from constellations that are millions of kilometres away (the closest star in the Sagittarius constellation is Ross 154 and is located 91,577,915,000,000 kilometres from the sun) and beams it down to earth. Sounds very scientific to me.

Secondly, even if it’s true that the position of the sun at the time of my birth imbues me with certain character traits, astrologers would have us believe such traits are common to all Sagittarians. That is, everyone born between November 23 and December 22 is supposed to share a set of common character traits. I find it rather difficult to believe that everyone born between these dates is confident, lucky and enthusiastic as I supposedly am.

Even if we believe all of that, there is still one major hurdle to overcome. When the Babylonians first drafted the Zodiac around 2,500 years ago, the sun was in the constellation of Sagittarius between November 23 and December 22. However, thanks to the efforts of Greek fellows like Aristarchus of Samos, Hipparchus of Rhodes and Ptolemy we now know of the phenomenon known as “axial precession”.

While you may know that the Earth spins while in it’s orbit around the Sun, you might not know that it spins off-centre. While we are taught to think of the Earth as spinning around a vertical axis, this axis is actually tilted by 23 degrees. In addition to causing the different seasons that we experience on Earth, the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis has a secondary effect. As this short clip demonstrates, by having an axis that is a certain amount away from the vertical, the axis of rotation actually moves over a period of time. This results in a gradual change in our observable “star field”.

Imagine you are lying in the dentist’s chair at the end of a check-up, focused on a spot on the ceiling. Imagine too that you can’t move your eyes at all and that you are forced to look straight ahead. As the dentist changes the angle of the chair to bring you into an upright position, your eyes, unable to look around, will trace a straight line from the ceiling down the wall. Axial precession is kind of like that – as the angle of the Earth’s rotational axis changes, so what we can see from our vantage point on the Earth changes.

So, what does this have to do with astrology and the Babylonians? Well, as I mentioned, the signs of the Zodiac were first assigned around 2,500 years ago. Since that time axial precession has changed the apparent location of the background stars. So, the Sun, which once appeared to be in the constellation of Sagittarius on the 25th of November now appears to be in the constellation of Scorpio. Therefore I am no longer “a Sagittarius”, instead I am “a Scorpio”.
In order to be a Sagittarius now I would need to be born between December 18th and January 19th.

Well that’s all pretty clear cut isn’t it? Astrology is a pseudoscience that makes claims above and beyond its station without considering the workings of relevant celestial phenomena.

But two days after watching Sunrise at work I stumbled upon a book at my local shopping centre that I couldn’t resist flicking through. It was “What Your Birthday Reveals About You” by Phyllis Vega and it claimed to provide “astonishingly accurate revelations about your future, your secrets and your strengths” based, you guessed it, on the individual’s zodiac sign. I flicked sceptically to November 25 and read through some of my alleged character traits;

• Those born on November 25 are inclined to live “intense lives of crusading ideals”

• Although I “give the impression of being a bit of a loner”, I’m “actually searching for meaningful ways to connect with other people”

• I could “satisfy my creative muse…as a writer, journalist, publisher, artist, musician or actor”

• I am “a natural athlete with a genuine love of the outdoors”.

I could go on. Scarily, all of these suggestions are quite true and as I read on, more and more of the statements seemed to be accurate. I faced a brief internal struggle – “I know astrology is bogus, but how are these predictions so accurate?

And then it occured to me. If astrology is an accurate and consistent scientific pursuit then surely these predictions are based on some immutable, objective truth that is directly related to my date of birth. Consequently, if I was to go to another source of birthday-based wisdom, I would find similar, if not exactly the same results. So, does Astrology.com.au say the same things as Phyllis Vega about those of us born on November 25?

Life of crusading ideals? Not mentioned. Loner with intent to communicate at a higher level? Not in so many words. Suited for a creative career like journalism? Not quite. Naturally sporty? Doesn’t come up.

However, I am apparently blessed with a colourful imagination and a rare tolerance for others. Are either of these mentioned in Ms. Vega’s book? I think you know the answer to that…

You know it’s time for bed when those religious programmes come on TV. You know the ones – they start about 3am and invariably feature the effervescent preachings of middle-aged American men. I thought I’d watch a couple such programs after work this morning, you know, for a bit of a laugh.

As I watched I found myself consistently amazed by the strength of conviction possessed by these men. Unfortunately for our overnight-evangelists though, confidence in one’s beliefs does not make such beliefs any less wrong.

One of the delightful programmes that I sampled was Life Today, a faith-based lifestyle program that, this morning at least, featured a plea to help Africa’s starving multitudes. You can picture the scene – middle-aged American gentleman and his good lady wife, talking into the camera about how viewers must find it in themselves to donate to Life Outreach International, their associated charity. Throw in some footage of hideously malnourished African children and some tears from the hosts and you have compelling viewing.

I mean, they have a point right? Who doesn‘t feel like they should do something to help out the millions of kids that are far less fortunate than ourselves? I’m pretty sure human compassion will lead us to that feeling everytime without being guilted into it by teary-eyed believers.

Speaking of human compassion, how about this tasteful effort by Life Today‘s South African missionary who gave up his professional rugby career to spread the word of God. After a teary introduction by the show’s hosts, James and Betty Robison, the programme cuts to footage of a child so badly malnourished that he can’t muster up the strength to blow the flies off his lips. Perched over the child and dressed in a snappy outfit is the decidedly healthy looking missionary who delivers the following compassionate analysis;

“This child could die any second – I’m literally watching children die before me. Who will be next?”

At this point, the missionary turns to where a throng of not-quite-as-badly-malnourished children are sitting, clearly bemused by the spectacle. He places his hand on the head of one of the smallest children and hypothesises thus;

“Will it be this child?”

There is a very serious challenge that must be put to the Robison’s and all of those that believe God has compelled them to aid starving children. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent and perfectly good, as the majority of Christians seem to think, why would he let children starve in the first place?

To me that’s almost an “I win” button for atheism but, of course, there are those that offer potential explanations. Are we to believe that God rates freedom of choice and freedom of action so highly that he is prepared to sit back and let millions of innocent children suffer every day? Are we to believe that God has given us all the necessary tools to fight poverty and starvation but that any failure to do so is a failure on mankind’s behalf?

Well, that last idea isn’t so bad, but to paraphrase Pierre-Simon Laplace via Dawkins and Hitchens, it works fine without the idea of God.

Finally, I couldn’t help feeling a little sorry for the gracious hosts of Life Today as they recounted, tearfully, the story of a child they met some years back;

“When we were in Africa we visited little Matthew in hospital. As we left his bed the nurses told us that he wouldn’t make it through the night. But we went back the next day and Matthew hadn’t died during the night. We went back a year later and we were kicking a soccer ball with him. Matthew didn’t die, he was a miracle of love”.

This sort of reasoning is laughable at best, and at worst, deliberately misleading. Why is it that one child’s survival against the odds is put down to divine intervention and yet, when thousands upon thousands of other children are dying through starvation, dehydration and AIDS, God is nowhere to be seen? What did that one child do to deserve life that countless others didn’t?

Those who find it within themselves to aid those in need are truly worthy of praise. God, however, is not among them…