Open thread 23 April ’09
We love having you comment here at Pure Poison but it’s a little bit difficult for discussion to continue uninterrupted on specific posts when off-topic comments land in the middle of them. So each day we’ll launch an open thread where you can leave comments that don’t quite fit on one of the other posts. Remember that tip-offs can be made here.
Have at it!
In reply to RICK68 in yesterday’s open thread, they did print my email address at Bolt’s blog. When I continued to try and contribute comments after that (some of which got through, presumably when the B team was moderating and didn’t know I had been banned), they printed a link to to my Facebook page. I should have complained to the editor.
I see Bolt has had a go at the ‘left’ again over Perez Hilton’s ‘intolerance’ against the Miss America contestant.
But surely Hilton’s explanation as to why he chose to vote against her was quite reasonable?
It went as follows…
“Hilton said Prejean should have been more diplomatic
He suggested she should have said: “Perez, that’s a great question and that’s a very hot topic in our country right now.
“I think it’s a question that each state should answer for themselves because that’s our forefathers designed our government.
“The states rule themselves and then there are certain laws that are federal.”
Did anyone catch this beat-up by some barrister named David Knoll in the Herald? http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/race-hate-is-so-much-more-than-words-can-say-20090422-afae.html?page=-1
In which he runs roughshod over JS Mill by suggesting the great man would have been in favour of modern group-thinkers and grievance-mongers using the power of law to restrict free speech, and then goes on to claim that black children have been teased on playgrounds with the taunt “Andrew Fraser says you’re stupid”…
FredP,
Complain to the Privacy Officer at the Herald Sun, highlight the fact that Bolt contradicts News Ltd’s own privacy policy.
I complained to them once but didn’t have the heart to pursue it since it was Richard Ryan’s email Bolt had published, though bolt was wrong, and the response from the Privacy officer was along the lines of, we protect private info except for instances when we don’t (straight up, the response was appallingly written and made no sense) RR is a {derogatory statement removed – Toby}. Not the sort I’m going to waste too much time sticking up for.
The link to your facebook page is unforgivable and I would guess illegal. There are some nasty bastards that post at bolt’s i would be very upset if my personal details were published there.
Seriously Toby, somebody called me a derogatory term (can’t remember exactly what it was) and a little fascist recently here, it got published, how come they got to insult me?
If moderation is going to be harsh at least keep it consistent.
Apologies if moderation has been uneven, RobJ. Because we all dip in and out of the moderation queue when we get a chance, and are often not in contact with each other while moderating, we often inadvertantly apply different moderation standards. Please understand that it’s not personal.
Apologies again.
No worries.. Thanks Scott (and Toby)
What Scott said, Rob – we’re all doing moderation on the fly and so the standards might not be as consistent as you or we would like. My apologies for any contribution I’ve made to that inconsistency.
But I would also suggest there’s a difference between comments where the “target” of an insult is active on this site and can be expected to see it and respond, and comments about someone who isn’t involved in the discussion here. I would argue that we can give a bit more leeway in the former case since there’s the potential for back-and-forth, provided the name-calling doesn’t get out of hand and override discussion of the issues.
I don’t usually go out of my wat to watch Q&A on the ABC, but tionight should be a beauty not least because PJ O’Rourke is a panellist. The line up is O’Rourke, David Marr, Julia Bishop, Craig Emerson and Dr Cindy Pan.
How the hell will Bishop go defending the Opposition’s stance of asylum seekers against Marr and Emerson, O’Rourke who said we should let “these great Australians” into the country and Pan who is Chinese. Marr will be on fire. I smell blood.
wah, I’m not convinced O’Rourke wasn’t being sarcastic about the asylum seekers, but yes, even I might watch Q&A tonight.
Thanks for the heads-up, Wah. Worth watching to see Marr and Bishop facing off.
I have always had a soft spot for O’rourke. Not his politics, but he is clever and amusing.
He may well have been being sarcastic sansblog, but i did recently heard him taking the piss out of Bush, admitting the failures of freemarket capitalism and suggesting that we measure the time until the Repugs are returned to office in ice ages, so you never know.
Oops! I meant “He may well have been being sarcastic CONFESSIONS.”
(need more coffeee)
Hello Savvas,
I think Hilton is trying to spin things his own way more than just a little here, had she given the answer he’s suggesting, she wouldn’t have been addressing the question that was asked of her …. She was asked wether she believed in gay marriage, and she gave in my opinion an honest and reasonable answer :
“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”
Wether we agree with her position or not, I don’t think she should have to lie about her beliefs and her family values just to appeal to the Politically Correct and keep onside with one militant gay judge.
Ta Wah, that should be a good line up. I wonder if Marr will call Bishop a grub like he did to Akerman on Insiders last Sunday.
Bolta is on insiders Sunday morning—TV angel, and on his blog with a little help from his beloved bloggers an anti-christ. Two different persons.
{I’m going to have to ask you to tone down the names you stick to Bolt, RICK68. No need for things like anti-Christ — Scott}
“wah, I’m not convinced O’Rourke wasn’t being sarcastic about the asylum seekers”
Yesterday at the National Press Club while not commenting on Australian politics directly, O’Rourke made passing references to the need to accept asylum seekers as being consistent with conservative philosophy: “Aren’t we pro-life? Aren’t refugees life?”
http://www.theage.com.au/world/the-world-and-its-crisis-according-to-pj-20090422-afbz.html?page=2
O’Rourke is more a Liberal Conservative than a right winger.
Can we still use Possum’s glorious ‘Undescended Testicle’, Scott?
{Can’t see why not, since Crikey published it over there, but I’m sure there are nicer things to call him — Scott}
Everybody is so polite and refined here, on Bolts blog I was told to go f-ck myself, and it was left there for hours.
Kim Beazely writes that the numbers of refugee boats heading to Australia from Indonesia is directly related to our relationship with Indonesia and not whether or not the goverbment is seen as soft on asylum seekers.
He says: “We do not have a border protection crisis unless we have an Indonesian problem. For a decade prior to the East Timor affair, under Liberal and Labor governments, about 500 to 1000 arrived by boat to go into detention each year. When the Howard government turned a humanitarian act in East Timor into an opportunity for triumphalism, things changed. They were exacerbated by an arrogant refusal to engage in high-level visits to Indonesia by the Australian PM. The result: 3700 boat arrivals in 1999, 2900 in 2000 and 5500 in 2001.
“The boat secured by the Tampa was boat 136 in this three-year period. The collapse in numbers after this period coincided not only with the Pacific Solution and temporary visas, but with marked efforts to improve relations with Indonesia in the wake of 9/11 and the subsequent Bali horror.”
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/lets-not-rock-the-boat-on-border-security-20090422-afay.html?page=2
Guess who told me to go f—myself?
“Turnbull wants to visit injured asylum seekers”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/23/2550589.htm?section=justin
“He says he wants to meet some of the asylum seekers too.
“I’d very much like to, but the question is whether that will be made available,” he said.
“We have certainly [have] sought to do that but my understanding is that’s not going to be possible.”
Hmmmm, I guess this begs the question, do the injured asylum seekers want to meet him? Considering the Liberal Party’s appalling track record of how they treated asylum seekers when they were in power. Let alone the appalling behavoir of prominent Liberal supporters such as Andrew Bolt, someone who claims that Rudd lured these people to their deaths (which to me implies that Rudd wants asylum seekers to die).
Err, Jay Santos? universal or MattR?
Gavin M,
You make a valid argument. But I would think that to be considered a legitimate contender for the crown of Miss America you really need to show a degree of diplomacy that would render your answer fair without comproming your beliefs. I don’t know how she should answer it, but hey, she was the person who ‘trained’ for this moment, and she fluffed it. Maybe the quesiton was unfair, but her role is to be apolitical. Then again, I would like to know if previous contestants and/or winners have made political statements, and has it cost them the title?
This may have been discussed in the past, but I have only just been made aware of it. Interesting findings!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5349018.story?coll=la-home-center
@ RICK68 – The Undescended Termagant hisself? BTW how was that Toby? Or what about the Undescended Teredo? Ah no, I’ve got it – the Undescended Teras. Yes that’s it.
I’ll be watching Q&A, but not for O’Rourke’s modish, smartarse cynicism. I’ll be watching to see Marr tear him, Bishop and Emerson to shreds.
That’s interesting Stonefree and could explain why people say they get more conservative as they get older – I’m actually becoming more bolshy as I age.
I hope so Bloods05, I like Marr but wasn’t really keen on his performance when he was belittling the Christian politician on one of the earlier episodes, I agree with Marr, religion is preposterous (to me), fairy stories basically, however Marr came across as smug and rude.
I might come across as smug and rude myself from time to time, but let’s face it, I aint on the telly, I don’t write a blog, I’m basically a nobody (and proud ;o) )
So, what explains you, wah?
Hi Savvas,
It is an interesting situation, I’m not sure if any others have lost the title because of a political statement, I do recall one contestant had the title taken off her because she had posed for Playboy though (I think it was Vanessa Williams — could be wrong though).
I wonder if the contestants are briefed on the questions beforehand or if they are ‘on the spot’ so to speak, I’m not a great follower of the pageant, but on those occasions I’ve seen footage, the answers from the contestants at times seem a little too glib to be off the cuff.
Fair comment Rob, I don’t like smug and rude, but sometimes people just have to be told. Marr can be waspish, but I’ve rarely found him smug or rude. Even when his behaviour is a little unappealing, I’ve never found him bog-stupid, which is more than I can say for Bolt, Henderson and Ackerman. That is the cardinal sin for me. However, I didn’t see the performance you’re describing, so I’ll accept your judgement on that.
Just when you think Turnbull can’t get any sleazier:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/23/2550589.htm
So, what explains you, wah?
My brain stopped developing when I was 12.
Re: Perez vs Beauty queen.
Perez used to be on the radio at work and he annoys the living daylights out of me. He has absolutely no redeeming features. Who is he to carry on about the contestant needing to be being more politically sensitive … did you see his video reply on the internet and the name he called her? They guy knows nothing about style or class. He in no way embodies the element nescessary to judge a Miss USA pageant.