Your video, Clarke & Dawe on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

its blatent that the kid was just dawing it becuse its what u sell all over the place in a christain socity.

but still dead guy on a cross is quite cultish , I mean what if he drew dead people hanging from trees, or witches burning , or a guy getting head cut off with a gulatine.

ether way you cannot be ignorant of the idoitic cultral context that most people were probably christain in that country , so you should just explain to the kid how others might think its weard , but also accept that kids will draw pictures of what they see or are told about.

From what I have seen, many of the Cherokee could pass as white. In fact, on a visit to the Native American museum in the smithsonian, I was struck at how many tribal groups have a significant amount of members who could easily pass for white.

Why wouldn't they accept you? Was it because you were not on the Dawes Roll?: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7231&context=expresso

John Clarke and Bryan Dawe are fantastic! I'm an expat Aussie (now living in the US) so this really made my day. Anyone remember Clarke's farnarkling reports on the Gillies Report? Excellent stuff, artfully merging the turgid gravitas of sports commentary with the visual majesty of outrageous wigs.

Why? Did you reject him or something?

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
I think we all know why gwiz is making vague references to my weight...

Well well well. It looks like they might just pull it off after all. Marjorie Dawes really needs her own show. I never expected them to format it like this, but merging the British and American cultures is going to be hilarious. Anyone watching and in any way put off, just fast forward to 4.44. Priceless ripping of Rosie O'Donnell and one of the best characters from the show. I'm wondering how offensive they get. Great sift!

I disagree with Dag.

I don't think people should go into the theater thinking they are going to see a comic book movie. It's more crime noir than anything else, not the common and imaginary "good vs. bad" comic book fantasy. I think its entirety spoke to something greater: fear, control, uncertainty, sacrifice.

Yes, Rachel Dawes part in the story line is very limited, but it's because she serves as a foil for the men, because in the end, the movie is about the relationships between these men, their struggle uphold good despite deep self-sacrifice, while constantly being tempted by the ecstasy of chaos offered by the joker.

It was violent, but I believe it was tactful. There was barely any blood on the screen. No beads of blood splattering on the camera lens.
And if we are going to judge any movies by violence then Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan, and Kill Bill would be terrible films in comparison.

Bunk Bunk-chi-ka-bunk Daw-na. Bunk Bunk-chi-ka-bunk Daw-na. Bunk Bunk-chi-ka-bunk Daw-na. Bunk Bunk-chi-ka-bunk Daw-na.

SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP

This is a satirical sketch created by the comedians John Clarke and Bryan Dawe titled, 'The Front Fell Off' based on a real incident. Specifically an oil spill that occurred off the coast of Western Australia on July 21st, 1991 when the Greek tanker Kirki lost its bow, spilling 17,280 tons of light crude and subsequently caught on fire.

http://www.myspace.com/clarkeanddawe

I struggled over which newsclip to use. I chose this one because it was the first one. Here are the others:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwGEP4jL_E4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faFuaYA-daw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h4dVFOi3Xg

Firstly - the issue of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). This is an appalling crime, and one that is sadly prevelant in some parts of the Islamic world (I have studied FGM under the leading expert on women's rights in Africa - Dr Fareda Banda). However, it is important to be clear about the position of the Shari'ah with regards to FGM - and to do this I am going to have to provide a detailed explanation of some aspects of Islamic law.

Male circumcision is advocated by Islam - as it is by the Jewish faith. There is no dispute about this. However, there is a great deal of dispute about FGM. There is nothing in the Qur'an which advocates FGM. The most important source of Islamic law after the Qur'an is the hadith - sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. The hadith were compiled about 300 years after Muhammad's death. While some are authentic and beyond dispute, others are not and have been held by scholars of Islamic law to be weak. The only possible justification for female circumcision is the following hadith:

"A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina [Madîna]. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: 'Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband." (Sunan Abu Dawûd, Book 41, #5251.)

It is important to look at the authenticity and strength of this hadith. The hadith is found in the Sunan of Abu Dawud - an important collection of hadith. However, the compiler himself - Abu Dawud - classified this hadith as "weak". A hadith can be classified as weak for a number of reasons - but normally it is because the chain of transmission (isnad) from the Prophet to the compiler is broken or incomplete. When this happens, it is often suspected that the hadith could be fabricated. Consequently, one cannot derive a legal ruling from a weak hadith. Therefore, the vast majority of experts in Shari'ah law believe that there is no justification for FGM in Islam.

However, FGM still exists in parts of the Islamic world, and the above quoted hadith is sometimes used to justify it. What is important to note is that in those countries where Muslims advocate FGM and justify it by reference to Shari'ah law, Christains also practice FGM and justify it by reference to the bible. In reality, FGM is a practice who's origins lie not in the religious texts of the major world faiths but in the barbaric traditions of traditionally male-dominated societies.

Secondly, I will try and qualify what I think Farhad means when he says that "Sharia is no in no way representative of the religion of Islam." Shari'ah in many of its modern manifestations is not representative of the rich traditions of Islam. Much of the rigidity which people associate with Shari'ah law is a relatively recent phenomenon brought about by a number of factors. For example, there was an inherent flexibility in classical Islamic law. For example, there were five schools of law (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Zahiri) who differed in their opinions on certain issues, and this gave Shari'ah an inherent pluralism. Judges could choose between the positions of the various schools, and exercise their own judgment in order to reach fair judgments. However, in the 19th Century there was an enormous amount of pressure put on the Islamic world by the West to reform its legal system - either directly, in the form of colonialism, or indirectly in the form of economic/military pressure - to change its legal system in order to facilitate trade with Europe. The result was that the Ottoman empire, during the Tanzimat reforms, instead of working within the rich Islamic legal tradition, simply got rid of Islamic law in many areas and replaced it with European style legal codes. The Islamic law which was kept was that which would be called in Western legal systems the law of personal status - family law, inheritance. But, what the Ottomans did was codify this law - they codified one of the key Hanafi manuals of Islamic law. A similar codification occured in India under the British resulting in what was referred to as Anglo-Muhammadan law.This codification - which has continued in recent years throughout the Islamic world - has removed the inherent flexibility and pluralism in Islamic legal thinking. It has meant that judges only have one opinion to choose, and it has also meant that many judges have stopped practising ijtihad - deriving the law from its sources. All progressive scholars in the Islamic world agree that the Islamic tradition of ijtihad must be revitalized. Scholars must turn back to the sources - Qur'an and hadith - and derive Islamic law which is appropriate for modern times, and which is flexible.

There are some important examples of ijtihad worth mentioning. In the sub-continent, the prevailing legal tradition is Hanafi. Under Hanafi law, the grounds on which a woman could apply for divorce were limited. However in a landmark case, the judges used ijtihad to ensure that women could divorce much more easliy. What they effectively did was adopt a position from Maliki law and extended it. In Tunisia, women have complete legal equality with men - in marriage, divorce, no polygamy, etc. Morocco has also made important advances similar to those taken by Tunisia. In both cases it is important to note that instead of replacing Islamic law, scholars instead embraced the flexibility and pluralism inherent in the classical Islamic legal tradition. They derived new Islamic law - based on the Qur'an and the hadith - which provided full equality for women.

I found a new link.

In reply to your comment:
“Daw....went back to see this and it's *dead.”

Daw....went back to see this and it's *dead.