And then came another jolt. A Sydney plastic surgeon revealed he has performed breast enhancement operations for the Australian Navy, who also have their own surgeons swinging the scalpel. These ops are justified on "psychological grounds", and "provide a measure of self-confidence that helps sailors tackle their wider job." But how on earth did women with such existing psychological problems get into the Navy in the first place? If there is one section of society from which we could expect level-headed, solid values, it is the Navy. But the superficial worship of big plastic tits has infiltrated even this bastion.

How many male sailors wish they had bigger dicks? Are we already or will we soon be financing penis enlargement surgery so our officers can add a swagger to their walk? This would help so many defence personnel with issues of personal confidence, who could then discharge their Naval duties with more panache, thus bolstering our national security. Since so many positions of public office require skills that are sadly lacking at present, from that of the President of the USA down, perhaps penis enlargements all round is what is needed to get the world out of the mess we're in. Most taxpayers would agree it would be cheap at the price. . . read more

Please understand, when I say that sexism has had nothing to do with Clinton's electoral demise, I don't mean to suggest that there were no men out there who voted against her because of sexist, even misogynist views. I have no doubt there were. And it is certainly true that Clinton faced repeated denigration by male media pundits who played upon gender stereotypes and sexist imagery in their criticisms of her. All of that happened, to be sure, and it is indefensible (Interestingly, the worst example of misogyny probably came from Clinton supporter James Carville who suggested that Hillary has more balls than Obama, and ya' know, balls are just what the world needs more of). [More] . . read more

I'm afraid the principles of today's “war on terrorism” are the same principles as those of the game of chess, which are built on the idea that if you could capture the head of the other side or kill him, you win and then you can go off and think about something else. Evidently, somebody thinks that someday there will be an endgame in the war on terrorism. But there will never be an endgame in the war on terrorism. What we need is a beginning game for the process of peacemaking. As far as I can see, we haven't begun that yet.

North America has given only one philosophical tradition to the world, and that single philosophical tradition is pragmatism. For it to follow the principles of the Haudenosaunee Great Law, it has to be progressive pragmatism. Progressive pragmatism seeks ends that are universal and that have the quality of win-win negotiations. Both idealism — the idea that God is on someone's side — and vilification — the idea that one side is evil or fundamentally in the wrong — are barred from this process. Instead, this process lays out desirable outcomes that all sides can agree upon, and these must be adhered to through a set of protocols, because it is not possible to create peace by force and because peace requires rules that both sides embrace and honor. [More]

John Mohawk was a leading scholar and spokesman for the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy who died on December 12, 2006. . . read more

I'm very clear about what I'm doing - I'm not running a protest campaign. I'm running to win. I want to go to Canberra to represent the people of Bennelong and, in particular I want to go to Canberra to help map the future. I want to help promote a different kind of leadership. A leadership that is collaborative, a leadership that accepts there is no dishonour in owning up to a mistake. A leadership that anticipates change, and, above all, a leadership with a bit of imagination.

Let's imagine a country that signs the Kyoto Protocol, where every school has 21st century resources, and a country where fairness is more than just a word that is traduced in a Liberal Party ad campaign.  . . read more

Talk to any person on the street of Kabul and Baghdad or even Peshawar and they will tell you how much they hate Americans and their manipulative and occupying policies. Every freedom loving people want freedom, the same freedom which the U.S. constitution provides its citizens. In particular death is better for a Pakhtun than an occupation especially by the U.S. The U.S. has no need, no role, and no right to occupy others land and if it wants its own security it must secure others from its own occupation. "Yankees go home" is a very famous slogan which has been repeatedly shouted by millions and millions people of the world in various parts of the world, but deaf ears in Washington refuse to hear it.

Ultimately one has to talk to one's enemies, but the U.S. is always talking the language of force, bullets, and destruction... Instead of pressurizing Pakistan to kill its own people the U.S. must rather encourage and participate in a dialogue with people who want peace in the region and the world at large. Dialogue and negotiation alone will isolate the extremists and solve the problems of terrorism. Force is not the solution. [More] . . read more

Naturally, every politician inside the American Beltway misses the aforementioned contradiction and agrees with Dick Cheney that the Russians must not be allowed to have their way. After all, it is Washington's world now and, even if there is hardly a horse's hair worth of difference between the governments in Washington and Moscow, Moscow can not be allowed to think that it can be Washington's equal on the world stage.

It is in historical moments like this that the citizen can truly see how little they matter. We have two powerful regimes trifling over a piece of territory that most of the world could care less about. Both of these regimes have proven that they are more than willing to kill thousands of people, destroy hundreds of square miles of land and water, and waste billions of dollars in doing so just so they can establish their position in their battle to control their world. It is their world because no matter how it turns out they will profit and we will pay. [More] . . read more

At UNSW there was a good show from lectures and members of the CFMEU who showed their support by stopping construction and taking an extended lunch break. Yet, while the picket line and the rally was inspiring in sentiment, for Dr. Rubber Glove (someone very new to protests) it was demoralising to see how passively the people protested. The night before I'd imagined clashes with police, swearing and violently pushing students away:

But alas, in an era where fines for striking are exorbitant and Fred Hilmer is your Vice-Chancellor, patience rather than violence is probably a protester's best weapon. . . read more

Now, it means "criticizing Sarah Palin for any reason." Along with Elisabeth Hasselbeck, the old, white man who heads the Republican Party thinks it's so sexist to question $150,000 in clothing purchases, and whether it's legal for the GOP to buy such things. (80% of Guardian readers think not!)

It's probably also sexist to talk about Michelle Obama's cute outfit, except maybe not, because she's not Sarah Palin.  . . read more