That's - well, I see what you mean, but I don't think I'd have put it that way. But I see what you mean.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if I hadn't expressed it very well.

school assemblies are less overtly Christian than they used to be

For sure. That is to say, if they used to be Christian at all, they now almost never are. At my primary school we had a few overtly Christian things-- like a nativity play-- but I think we spent quite as much time on Eid (we had a large percentage of Muslim children). I missed a chunk of my secondary education, but in the five years I was attending assemblies there I don't think I heard more than two which were religious-- usually there was vague moralising, so if anything we were being pushed towards a sort of wishy-washy unnamed utilitatianism. I always suspected that it was less because it would be offensive to teach Christianity than because not enough of our teachers had a strong enough faith, of any religion, to actually stand up and talk about it confidently, but that could be wrong.

school uniforms, hockey sticks and mandatory Latin

I did have two of these three. But there wasn't even an option to do Latin, which I now rather regret.

Hil, your story reminds me of overhearing two boys discussing a classmate of mine (who, for added irony, would later convert to Islam when his mother started dating a Muslim). The first boy said, "I hate M." The second agreed, "Yeah, he's a Jew." The first added, "And a Nazi." The second concluded, "That's right-- he's a Jewish Nazi."

I concluded that they didn't know what the words actually meant.

I don't recall religion being mentioned once when I went to highschool. No prayer at school. No special privileges for certain religions. No marking religious holidays besides the standard xian holidays of xmas and Easter. No special foods in the tuck shop. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Which is how it should be in a secular state school.

You want religious shit for your child, then you pay the dosh and put them in a religious school. You want your kid in a secular state school, then fuck off with the religious crap and get off your high-horse when it comes to school prayer and bending over for the priest.

I am very glad for the extra exposure I got to Judaism. Above and beyond what you learn from your frieds, I got to listen to rabbis speak, and hear traditions explained, the whole deal.

I think my school, once they got over my way of not being Christian, was a very good just-a-little-religious school.

the Papacy and Protestants fight over the hearts and minds of Europe

Do the Protestants actually manage to caucus and, like, work together on stuff?? Or do they suddenly in the middle of the game get to attack each other and burn each other at the stake?

Do the Protestants actually manage to caucus and, like, work together on stuff?? Or do they suddenly in the middle of the game get to attack each other and burn each other at the stake?

The Protestants are a single player, so barring multiple personality disorder or being played by my brother, they work together. However, the game does allow for different personalities among religious debaters (both on the Protestant and Catholic sides) in the form of different bonuses to religious actions.

Does anyone know the keyboard shortcut to make the pound sign? I tried alt + some numbers, but it didn't work.

ita's entities page has it - [link]

This one? £

Obama hits back at Howard

February 12, 2007 - 8:02AM

US presidential hopeful Barack Obama this morning blasted as "empty rhetoric" Australian Prime Minister Howard's attack on his plan for a 2008 withdrawal of Iraq troops.

"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced," Obama told reporters in the mid-western US state of Iowa.

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400, so if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq.

"Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

Howard earlier attacked Obama's plan to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008.

The conservative leader said on commercial television that Obama's pledges on Iraq were good news only for insurgents operating in the war-ravaged country.

"I think he's wrong. I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory," Howard told the Nine Network.

"If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."

Democrats react angrily

A string of Democrats have reacted angrily to Mr Howard's comments which have received widespread media coverage in the US.

Terry McAuliffe, a former chairman of the Democratic National Convention, criticised Mr Howard's strong links to US President George Bush.

"The prime minister has been a great friend of George Bush's, he has been with him lock-step from day one on this war in Iraq," Mr McAuliffe said.

"He and George Bush, they can go off and talk to each other, we don't care what he says."

Democrat senator Ron Wyden said it was hard to be polite about Mr Howard. "The most charitable thing you can say about Mr Howard's comment is bizarre," Senator Wyden said.

"We'll make our own judgments in this country with respect to elections and Barack Obama is a terrific public servant."

Even Republicans have criticised Mr Howard for interfering in US domestic affairs.

"I would prefer that Mr Howard stay out of our domestic politics and we will stay out of his domestic politics," Texas Republican senator John Cornyn said.

However, Republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter has defended Mr Howard.

"I think the Aussies have earned a right to comment on the world stage about their partner in this endeavour because they've been fighting side-by-side with us in Iraq," Congressman Hunter said.

Prime Minister John Howard has defended his criticism of US presidential hopeful Barack Obama after Labor accused him of risking Australia's alliance with America.

Mr Howard attacked the Democratic presidential aspirant over his pledge to withdraw American troops from Iraq by March 2008.

The prime minister warned the policy could destroy Iraq and remove hopes of ever achieving peace in the Middle East.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd accused Mr Howard of putting the alliance at risk because of his personal relationship with US Republican president George W Bush.

"The prime minister's partisan attack on Mr Obama and the Democratic Party risks the strength of the US alliance," he said.

"Mr Howard must not allow his personal relationship with President Bush to impact on Australia's long-term alliance relationship with the United States.

"The alliance between Australia and the United States has prevailed with such strength and certainty because it has always been above party politics."

But Mr Howard said he had worked closely with both Democrat and Republican leaders.

A spokesman for the prime minister said he had worked closely with Democrat president Bill Clinton and Mr Bush, a Republican.

"The prime minister remains of the view that the policy Mr Obama is advocating regarding Iraq is not in the security interests of the USA or Australia," the spokesman said.

I felt the need to post that because both sides have managed to piss me off.

Obama needs to pull his head out of his arse and take a good look at the rest of the world. His comment clearly indicates he has absolutely no fucking idea about Australia, and that is shameful for a man who may one day have a powerful voice in the running of the United States. If Australia was to send another 20,000 troops to Iraq, that'd be almost our entire Armed Forces! Moreover, proportionally, 1,400 personnel is approximately the same number of US personnel per capita. Therefore, since the US started the fucking war, they should have more than triple the number of personnel they currently have in place.

It doesn't serve anyone to have a (potential) leader of arguably the most powerful nation in the world, who knows so little about the rest of the world, and in particular one of its fucking allies.

As for John Howard, he just needs to fucking die. Preferably from a long, painful cancer of the brain.