NB: Please confine your comments on this thread to the issues raised by Dawkins and Hitchens’ position, and post any general comments on the issue of child abuse and the Catholic Church on tigtog’s thread.

Today my daughter was playing with her pink superball while my son was asleep (it’s small, so she’s only allowed to get it out while he’s sleeping). I heard her mutter to her toys while brandishing the pink superball, “This is the Prime Minister, and if you do something he doesn’t like, he will bounce in your eye.” My husband has pointed out that she may have learned the concept from a book entitled Blossom Possum (beautifully illustrated by Rafe Champion’s late wife, as it happens). I have also tried to explain to her what a Prime Minister does, but given the actions of the superball, I’m not sure if she quite “got it”.

Anyway, after I posted this incident on my Facebook page, the post started off a string of reminiscences about people’s childhood political memories. It transpires that an amazing number of my friends just loved Bob Hawke when they were kids. I don’t know if that means my friends’ families were generally Labor-leaning, or that Bob had a special appeal which made him loved by kids? When my sister was a little girl, she loved Bob. One general election, she asked Dad who he voted for, and Dad teasingly said he voted for Andrew Peacock because the Liberals gave him a shortbread round (actually he’d bought it at the school stall at the voting booth). My sister sobbed and sobbed, and said, “Now the forests will die because you haven’t voted for Bob!”

Mark Bahnisch commented that when he was in Grade 2, he wrote a poem about Gough Whitlam. Then Mark and I decided that we should write a joint post about what everyone’s earliest political memories are. I remember that I never liked Joh Bjelke-Petersen as a child. In addition, with a child’s merciless observation, I noted his head was shaped like a peanut, and thus I thought it was extraordinary that he was an ex-peanut farmer. Like my sister, I also loved Bob Hawke when I was little.

Do you remember whether you liked particular politicians when you were young? Or did you dislike particular politicians?

It would seem that I’m not the only person facilitating such conversations in a university context. Melissa Gregg, from Sydney Uni, wrote a really ace post the other day about some issues which had arisen in tutorials she convened about Facebook and employers’ demands for profiles as part of the recruitment and selection process. She writes about this at home cooked theory:

…for me, the most disturbing revelation came in tutorials, when students started talking about how many employers are now asking for print-outs of Facebook profiles from job applicants. It sounded particularly common in entertainment and service industries, even though I detected some were suggesting it was commonplace in corporate interviews as well–that it should be taken for granted if you were looking to work for a significant firm.

Her remarks sparked some interesting comments, and prompted a post on the legal issues surrounding this sort of demand by Legal Eagle at Skepticlawyer. Legal Eagle’s post, as usual assured in its comprehensiveness and insight, correctly notes that the law has not kept up with technology in this domain, as in many others.

There’s another set of issues arising here about the increasing blurring of professional and personal identity. A lot has been written about emotional labour, and the breakdown of boundaries between work and personal life. There’s another angle – following Norbert Elias’ sociological thought – about informalisation as a secular process in modernity. But it would be very interesting indeed if there were to be some more research and discussion focused on the impact of social media on these broader trends, and concomitantly, on their impact on social media, privacy and subjectivity (and indeed on how human or workplace rights are affected by the distribution of personality throughout webspaces). Social media reveals the distributed nature of subjectivity and cognition and undermines the unity of the individual subject of legal rights. It strikes me that social networking is a key node accelerating, or perhaps accentuating, cultural shifts which have been on the boil for some time.

But I wanted to clarify something – in comments at Troppo, mel wrote:

I wonder if Wilson tipped Mark Bahnisch off about the hoax …..? AFAIK he was the first blogger to flag the issue.

Aside from – as appears to be his wont – making false and self-serving statements regarding moderation on this blog and throwing in a bit of personal abuse for good measure – never a good start – mel is committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which abounds these days. I posted about the Crikey story because I happened to be online when I received the Crikey email. That’s all. That was the first I’d heard of it. I don’t read Quadrant as a rule, and I’m actually not all that exercised about this whole affair.

My post is pretty neutral about the issue, and really just explains what occurred, and points people to Margaret Simons’ story. Since then, because there’s been a fair bit of interest, I’ve been updating it regularly with new links as they come to hand.

In any event, Kath Wilson and LP didn’t part on excellent terms, to put it gracefully – as is well known, she requested that all posts and comments she’d made here be removed, something we weren’t at all happy with. I don’t believe I’ve had any contact with her since early in 2007. In any case, we don’t know Wilson was the hoaxer.

I apologise for bothering folks with this, but since I have a new computer, my Troppo password hasn’t stuck, and the new password feature isn’t working for me, and I can’t register a new commenting account with the same email. But I did want to set the record straight on this one.

Incidentally, I think this whole affair has brought out both the best and the worst of the blogosphere. But I might wait until some more water has passed under the bridge to expand on that comment.

Update: Katherine Wilson has been revealed to be the hoaxer, and Margaret Simons examines the sequence of events, with something of a focus on the journos v. bloggers angle.