Harold Bishop has a posse

The Rae St Institute > Blog archive > Let's get things nice and sparking clear (also feat. Warnography)

OK, so this here blog's been full of shit on a pseudo-hiatus lately, but it's crunch time for a bunch of different things; I've been busy.

However I promise that a regular diet of gruff media analysis and drunken rants about inconsequential junk will resume shortly.

For now, let's just make a simple distinction here. Two numbers for consideration:
A - 1446
B - 3
See those two numbers? Are they similar? Which is larger? A or B? Discuss.

WHAT'S THAT YOU SAY, JENNY? "B IS OBVIOUSLY MUCH LARGER!"

That's the number of pedestrian casualties on Victorian roads since 1986. Split here between
A - motorised vehicle vs pedestrian
B - cyclist vs pedestrian.
You are 482 times more likely as a pedestrian to be run over and killed by a motorist than by a cyclist.

Let's make that clear.

YOU ARE FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TWO TIMES MORE LIKELY AS A PEDESTRIAN TO BE KILLED BY A MOTORIST THAN BY A CYCLIST.

We'll come back to this.

See, the reason I have to look up stats like this is that while I've been busy writing a thesis etc, I've had people submitting theses of their own.

To me.

In comments.
  1. First dibs goes to the NMAA for an extended treatise on how A Current Affair is beyond criticism. HAH!
  2. Second goes to our old favourite Jenny Ward, for a long winded rant largely cross-posted between here and CM-MELB purporting to say she's pro cycling yet still spouting the same paranoid bullshit.
See, Jenny, here's your problem. From your recent rant/s:
Another thing that you might find surprising to know is that I am on YOUR side whenit comes to the provision of safe cycling facilities

Let's look at your original cane toads letter:
Will we have to resort to self-defence? ("Oops! Terribly sorry old chap, didn't mean to push your bike over!")
Why do the authorities turn a blind eye to these dangerous practices? Are they overwhelmed by the vacuous propaganda that passes for public comment on the alleged benefits of bicycles in cities? Or don't they care?

From your letter of October 9, 2002.

Here you are advocating violence (on no actual real evidence, please provide some if you have it), and attacking pro-cycling advocacy as "vacuous propaganda". I don't believe for a second you're pro-anything related to cycling. I do however believe that you have some real issues you need to deal with without resorting to threatening people with rottweiler attacks while hiding behind a fake email address.

I hope you get the help you need. If you have actual real evidence for your crap about "ploughing into pedestrians", etc., please provide it. For now, I've spent enough time on your trolling.

Anyhoo, on to War Pornography (or if I may coin a portmanteau - if somebody hasn't already - Warnography..)
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/Issues/2005-09-21/news/news.html
War Pornography
US soldiers trade grisly photos of dead and mutilated Iraqis for access to amateur porn. The press is strangely silent.
By Chris Thompson

Published: Wednesday, September 21, 2005

If you want to see the true face of war, go to the amateur porn Web site NowThatsFuckedUp.com. For almost a year, American soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been taking photographs of dead bodies, many of them horribly mutilated or blown to pieces, and sending them to Web site administrator Chris Wilson. In return for letting him post these images, Wilson gives the soldiers free access to his site. American soldiers have been using the pictures of disfigured Iraqi corpses as currency to buy pornography....
This reminds me of the (somewhat unhinged) review Phillip Adams wrote of Mad Max when it first came out:
... the pornography of death in films like Mad Max is far more sinister than sexual pornography. The latter tends to resolve itself in masturbation, which is something you do to yourself. But violence? That's something you do to others.
The whole idea of the 'pornography of death' in violent film is a complicated one. Personally I feel for the most part it performs more a cathartic than an inflammatory role - the comparison between violent cinema and the arena in Roman times is a valid one, I think. FOR THE MOST PART. There are certainly some people who take pleasure in film violence and are encouraged by it.

But photographic recording of violence (not just representation, but actual recording of real violence) and its jingoistic celebration by the colonial overlords "coalition forces" - all thumbs up and grins over smouldering corpses - traded for actual porn and resolving itself in masturbation counter to Adams' easy binary system?

Now that is fucked up.

Thankyou and good day.

Comments - none posted yet - [post a comment]