Welcome back to another week at Pure Poison. Use this open thread to discuss anything that doesn’t fit the conversation under other posts.
Today is International Women’s Day, and it’s nice to see that some of our conservative commentators are taking the opportunity to raise important women’s issues.
Have at it.
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media, business, the environment and life.
Copyright © 2012 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey. All Rights Reserved.
Web development by Valegro
Editor: Jason Whittaker
Publisher: Eric Beecher
Political Correspondent: Bernard Keane
Level 6, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000
Ph: 1800 985 502
Fax: (03) 8623 9975
109 Comments
Roman Empire?1???
Oh, for f**k’s sake.
42 y.o. wife of a preznit going braless or a 50something hanging out in budgie smugglers.
Which one would have you pointing forks in an eyewards direction, and where would bolta’s post fit on a prurient/irrelevant graph?
Credit where credit’s due. I certainly didn’t expect to see this criticism on Andrew’s blog. Good on him for doing so, but I think he’s going to cop a pounding from his fan base – especially given all the staunch defending he’s done of Catholicism of late.
Gibbot, I was just about to drop in and highlight that post you linked to, as you say credit where it’s due. Sadly it hasn’t taken long for his readership to take him to task over taking a reasonable stance.
Ok ladies, that’s enough. Now back to the kitchen with you.
#TonyAbbottInternationalWomensDay
#tweetsnotintwitter
Bolt is an AGW-believer; a warmist…apparently:
http://andrewboltliesdeceptionsonagw.wordpress.com/2010/03/07/double-the-doubt/
Bolt must be proud of his readership.
Did Bolt get struck on the head by a hailstone over the weekend and have some sort of epiphanal moment. Not only is he showing warmist tendencies and not posting one anti-AGW post today, he also has a negative post about Tony Abbott questioning his judgment.
Podrick @ 8
It’s the Bolt Effect. It’s turned on its master. Soon he’ll be indistinguishable from Philip Adams.
First comment on Bolt’s blog WRT Abbot’s comments says:
And you call yourself a “conservative”!!!!!!!
Donny (Reply)
Mon 08 Mar 10 (11:13am)
Good on Andrew though. He knew that wouldn’t play well to his core audience, yet he posted it anyway.
Not only is he showing warmist tendencies and not posting one anti-AGW post today, he also has a negative post about Tony Abbott questioning his judgment.
As he does. He gradually will distance himself from someone such as Abbott when he realises that long term they are a liability.
#7 Rich Uncle Skeleton
“Australians are tired of minorities asserting victimhood, special status and entitlement to privileges in the name of equality.”
Apropos of nothing but I wonder what the response from this sort of mouthbreather is when you point out that global warming deniers are a small whinging minority who think they should get equal hearing in the media etc.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/01/19/public-opinion-global-warming-and-the-cprs/
ShaunHC @ 11,
I just love the havoc Bolt has caused amongst his disciples over at BoltWorld in relation to Abbott’s homosexual discomfort comment.
Not one of them seems able to see through the fog of self-absorbed idiocy in wanting to blame gays for “making them feel uncomfortable”…by existing apparently.
Of course, the in-your-face Mardi Gras gets a mention in the “they don’t have to flaunt it” category. These people just don’t seem to have a grasp of political history and how it is shaped and changed. Not so long ago, we were stringing them up and burning them at the stake. Changing opinion and outrageously unjust treatment of minorities doesn’t just happen by allowing conservatives to quietly mull it over – not as far as I can see, anyway.
And at least Bolt had the good sense not to credit the slippery slope references to bestiality. As some of us know – he did not do so in the past (see BoltWatch: In which Andrew dogwhistles a disturbing line.)
As already mentioned here, Bolt will be getting very uncomfortable about the possibility of losing the following he’s so carefully cultivated. Time for the pendulum to be given an almighty thrust back the other was I suspect…
Bolt Bait:
Wonder if he’ll bite.
I am also puzzled by Bolt’s delight at Inglorious Basterds getting an Oscar when the movie has so many factual errors. Or is it only left-leaning movies (like Avatar) that come in for criticism in the bolt-world.
And his use of the photo from Fair Day (not the Mardi Gras parade) is just pure dog-whistle. What he giveth with one hand he takes from the other.
Finally – his rant against his radio slot seems a bit odd as well…
Charles Johnsons of Little Green footballs gurns at Tim Blair: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35928_Thank_You_Internet_Gods
“Not one of them seems able to see through the fog of self-absorbed idiocy in wanting to blame gays for “making them feel uncomfortable”…by existing apparently.”
Funny thing is, how many of these people even encounter gay people in their daily life?
As you say Dean, just their existence is an anathema to these people.
I wonder…….I wonder.
Is this sudden volte-face part of a larger plan of Andrew Bolt’s? He’s about to embark on a new radio show; it may be that he’s now so enamoured of the TV/Radio market possibilities that he’s rejigging himself for a wider appeal.
Let’s face it: his rigid polemic wouldn’t gain many fans in the wider community. It’s clear that on AGW for instance, his best efforts have hardly made a dint in the overall public conviction that AGW is real; and the illegal-immigration tub he’s been thumping hasn’t exactly resulted in a national cry of support, likewise his anti-Islamic threads.
I think he’s tooling himself up for a visual media career; he needs to dump the ranters he has so carefully cultivated all these years, because he feels he has now grown too big for the niche right-wing blog market, and those dopes would only embarrass him on air.
So it’s bye-bye Isobar, Watty from the Left Coast, Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod ( for some daft reason) and all the other fist-clenching blowhards of the Boltopia: he’s outgrown you. I think he will reduce his blog to a shadow, if not close it altogether. Big call, I know. Let’s see.
I’m hoping Rob comes here tomorrow so we can
bitch aboutdiscuss Fiedling who admitted tonight he’s a creationist who believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Frankly I’m gobsmacked.Rob: what did you think about Q&A? I reiterate my criticism that they should get the pollies off there, they add nothing to the discussion.
monkeywrench @ 18: you are forgetting that rightwing extremist views, including a following of “fist clenching blowhards” hasn’t hurt the ratings or career prospects of radio people such as John Laws, Alan Jones, Jason Morrison, Ray Hadley, and heaps of others who exist in other states. I’m inclined to think the about turn (if indeed it is one) has more to do with News ltd wanting to wrest back control of the climate change agenda – it will never control it while it presents a rampant denialist facade to the paying public. And denialism makes an easy target for government with a mandate for action, and majority public support for an ETS.
The pollies on Q and A are always and without fail, absolutely WOEFUL, Fielding is a complete embarrassment to the parliament (he seemed unable to defend his own beliefs, much less express them). Bishop is a frightening partisan robot ; the way she glared at the audience for daring to interrupt her was very telling..and Burke is irritatingly ‘blokey’ in his desperation to seem even handed. I’m sure he though he was being very noble…shame they didnt wind back the tape, he would have looked a bigger fool attempting to put words in Dawkins mouth.
The groans from the audience are almost always as a result of the partisan point scoring they predictably to resort to.
Bishop is an android
It was ace, Dawkins was entertaining, Fielding? Well he’s an idiot as were Bishop and Burke when they tried to attack Dawkins for telling the truth about the fairy stories they choose to believe.
“Australians are tired of minorities asserting victimhood, special status and entitlement to privileges in the name of equality.”
No, Andrew Bolt, just a fair go is what they want.
Just loved the way everyone got upset when Dawkins pointed out what they believed in. They realized how stupid it sounded that their God’s only way to forgive humanity was to have himself born, tortured and put to death.
As for Feilding, could anyone seem more embarrassed about their beliefs. Trying to get him to explain them was like pulling teeth.
AB really seems to be turning on tony abbott in the last couple of days. Today he’s announcing that tony has a “woman problem”. I wonder what he’s up to?
“Just loved the way everyone got upset when Dawkins pointed out what they believed in”
That was interesting, wasn’t it? Tony burke really was angry about that.
I actually question whether Bishop and Brown really are believers or just say so for political reasons. I have no doubts about fielding though, he’s an idiot!
Faux outrage I reckon, or just plain old embarrassment.
@7 :
That has to be the most awesome segue marathon ever. Officially gets a massive gold star.
Homosexuality/Socialism/New World Order/Homosexuality/Muslims/New World Order.
Just .. awesome.
That should read Bishop & Burke.
People ask me why I bother with Bolt’s blog. The answer is: I’m fascinated by the people he attracts. Check out the blog where he stands by his principles (credit to him) in relation to the Abbott pat/maternity tax. Several commenters actually state that they are happy for their political party to deceive the elecotorate (they expect that the policy will never be implemented) in order to get elected.
But, when he sees this and those that have also shown their colours on the homophobia threads, doesn’t Bolt wonder at the calibre of the following he has attracted? We’ve always known. Hasn’t he?
I guess I had a slightly different take on Q&A than is being expressed here, at least with respect to Richard Dawkins’ comments about the core of the christian belief. It was easy to see how some of the others were a bit offended, because Dawkins did come across as ridiculing those beliefs a couple of times. Yes, they are ridiculous beliefs, i agree. But the fact is there are those who genuinely believe them, and it is rarely productive to ridicule others. Sure, if they have begun the attack… then return in kind. But otherwise I think Dawkins would have done better to adopt a slightly different attitude when talking about those beliefs… perhaps one of being somewhat (and genuinely) quizzical about those beliefs.
It was my first time watching Q&A. I was somewhat surprised at Steve Fielding – I hadn’t realised he was so hopeless! And Julie Bishop – she came across as being completely untrustworthy. As if she was just sayiong what she thought would ‘work’. The other guy (the Minister for Agriculture) came across to me as a reasonable sort of bloke. I preferred him to the other pollies. Though he did seem to get a bit uncomfortable when having to defend the ‘turn back the boats’ scenario.
Can somebody who understands the ownership/alliances explain why the oz is so obsessed with highlighting the prurient aspects of lara bingle’s life? Surely no other nude shots have ever before led to so many individual stories about who got paid what, who responded how, whose marriage was affected. Even the dodgy pauline photos didn’t provoke so many individual stories from one paper (although that could just be my memory).
Are they profiting from this? Or are they trying to undermine somebody who is?
Like I say Fielding is an idiot, I’m not so sure that Bishop and Burke are really believers, they’re politicians, they speak all sorts of shit for all sorts of reasons. Dawkins responded with their own alleged beliefs, he outlined them, he didn’t tell lies, now if that’s disrespectful then disrespectful is the way to be!
RobJ @33
fair enough. though i still suspect he’d be better off not coming across as so dismissive at times. Perhaps he doesn’t realise it. Or perhaps it’s just how it came across to me. But it didn’t surprise me that there was a negative reaction to the ‘way’ he expressed a couple of his thoughts. Even when the thoughts themselves were simply restating the others’ beliefs. I gues the delivery can affect how the message is received.
Personally after listening to the God Delusion I think he’s a bit of a pompous prick and I reckon he’s only in it for the money and notoriety, however I believe he is right, Fielding is off the planet and Burke & Bishop were wrong to claim he was disrespectful, they are just wrong and they don’t like it being pointed out.
I would claim that Burke was just trying to shoot the messenger.
Absolutely coincident with Bolt changing his mind on climate change, the Bolt Effect kicks in: the sea-ice increases!
Bolt has saved the planet!
Rob: agree with you re Bishop and Burke and whether they really do believe. I also have doubts whether Bishop was parrotting stuff someone else had written for her.
I am genuinely interested in how someone can believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. What is their explanation for some of the aboriginal rock art that goes back tens of thousands of years? Or dinosaur fossils that are continually being dug up?
gregc09
Dawkins got applause for pointing out the God couldn’t think of a better way than to be tortured and put to death to forgive humanity’s sins, “what sort of depraved notion is that”. He was trying to get people to think what they actually believe in. When he pointed that out to them they got upset. People don’t like to be pointed out how stupid their beliefs actually sound.
It all came on the back of Feilding not answering a question on if he thought the Bible was the word of God and if so why not kill gays. Poor old Fielding liked the part about the world only being 10,000 years old but doesn’t agree with God about killing gays, straight to Hell for him!
Geez, or to be more topical, Jesus Christ!!! What did I say that triggered moderation? Seriously, tell me and I’ll avoid the term/word thus keeping my posts relevant, if it takes to long to approve them then they (my posts) become irrelevant.
I’m not disagreeing with what Richard Dawkins said. I happen to agree with him. And yes, none of us enjoy finding out some of our beliefs are just plain silly when looked at ‘from outside’. (And I’m pretty sure it happens to everyone at some point.) However, I also think that occasionally Rhichard Dawkins’ “manner” can come across as a bit ‘superior’ or arrogant (I’m struggling for the right words). So I wasn’t surprised with the reaction from those who’s beliefs were in the spotlight.
I imagine it might be possible to make the same point in a gentler manner. though that wouldn’t be as entertaining television, I agree.
Gregc09: sometimes educated British people come across as haughty or superior when they aren’t. I didn’t perceive Dawkins as being that way. I also loved how he sat Jones back on his bum when he said he wanted to answer a previous question that had actually been put to him. Jones is a useless moderator IMO.
MoC @ 32: They are certainly trying to get something out of it. I have a theory:
http://uphereincazaly.blogspot.com/search/label/Bingle%20Effect
It is a bit like the Bolt effect, just different. What I found interesting was that in ACA’s expose last night on the Woman’s Day story she did not even appear other than in pre recorded doco stuff and the photo flashed another 400 times. This must have been part of the deal with WD to secure the rites to her side of the story.
I think the photo has been in the Herald Sun at least once every day since.
Dawkins was right. I think the “impedance mismatch” is caused by the gauzy reverence that religions wrap around their doctrines. Pick any other non-mainstream or ancient religion, and there’d be no expectation that anyone would use hushed tones and in-terms to describe its practices. I’m sure the aztecs (or whoever it was) would be horrified if they heard somebody describe their sacrifices as “shoving somebody over a rock and cutting their heart out with a knife”. I’m sure they had lots of wonderful allegorical terminology that highlighted its spiritual significance while glossing over the butchery.
It just comes back to the same point: there’s only one subject where somebody’s opinions and beliefs have to be treated with kid gloves. You can call somebody an idiot for voting for X, or backing team Y – but religion is different.
“I also think that occasionally Richard Dawkins’ “manner” can come across as a bit ’superior’ or arrogant ”
Yes he does at times, though with having so many media appearances and being asked the same sort of questions I can see why.
Also sitting next to Fielding, who wouldn’t answer one question, might have bought a little frustration on.
Not to me, at least not as silly beliefs as Bishop and Burke.
RobJ @41
Is that a claim that all your beliefs/opinions are internally consistent with each other and eveidence-based?…
Now I’m in moderation. WTF?
SonofMogh @ 40
yes, i agree… sitting next to Steve Fielding would be challenging. I particularly liked the almost disbelief expressed by Richard Dawkins that Fielding believed in a 10,000 year old created earth and was an elected representive.
There may be inconsistencies but I don’t believe in anything as silly as Burke and Bishop. Unless of course there’s something you can think of that i may believe and is as preposterous?
confessions, must be a word you typed, I have a post waiting since 9:53am.
That’s because we have a fucked up system where someone can gain a senate seat with just 2% of the vote.
Aaaah, it must be naughty words that are forcing posts into moderation… I will now refrain.
Robj @45
There’s probably a bit of ‘eye of the beholder’ in determining relative silliness. Chances are I’d probably agree with you if all your beliefs were compared with the religious belief being discussed on Q&A. But then, I suspect Burke and Bishop might not agree. I guess they are wrong.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that it can be possible to question/challenge a belief without seeming to put down the believer. Though when it comes to many religious beliefs, it’s probably not easy, I agree.
RobJ et al.
We’ve had to add blue language to the mod list because a few comments that could have upset some people slipped through. I think you’ll agree that this is still much better than full moderation control.
But it doesn’t explain why my comment went to the sin bin.
No worries Dave, I’ll refrain, though pr..k is rather tame. maybe it was ‘pompous’
“I think you’ll agree that this is still much better than full moderation control.”
Yes.
“We’ve had to add blue language to the mod list because a few comments that could have upset some people slipped through.”
Isn’t upsetting people part and parcel of the free speech process?
Was I the only person that noticed that Fielding tried to rope Rudd into his little Creationist club when he gave his first answer?
“STEVE FIELDING: Look, I’m not an expert on these issues whatsoever and I think people in Australia have different beliefs and their faith may drive them one way or the other. I actually believe in creationism. I think the Prime Minister does as well, so I suppose at the end of the day each person will come to their own conclusion on the issue, Tony.”
In fairness to the good Senator, he made a concerted effort not to say that he believed the world is 10,000 years old. (Whether he does or not is another matter of course)
”
RICHARD DAWKINS: So, you’re a young earth creationist, who believes the world is less than 10,000 years old. You’re a parliamentarian in Australia, who believes the world you live in is less than 10,000 years old?
STEVE FIELDING: I didn’t say that, by the way. You’re saying that I said it was 10,000.
TONY JONES: Okay.
STEVE FIELDING: I didn’t say that.
TONY JONES: Okay. No, you didn’t say that.”
The Bolt Effect again: we recall that when he opined that the Sun was going to have another Maunder Minimum due to the lack of sunspots, the solar cycle kicked into gear and before you could say “coronal mass ejection”, we had up to 70 spots a day……until two days ago, when Bolt decided to go soft on AGW:
This from Spaceweather.com:
-Sunspot number: 0
Updated 07 Mar 2010
Spotless Days Current Stretch: 2 days.
It’s uncanny. I’m actually starting to think it may be real.
No, I noticed too but it **doesn’t matter what Fielding says or thinks, last night he demonstrated that he’s an idiot who believes the earth is less than 10 000 years old.
**Unfortunately it does really matter since he often holds the balance of power – Thanks ALP!!! Thanks a lot for giving a nut case so much influence!!!!
Yeah you’re right couchy but he’s a new earth creationist, i mean if one wasn’t then they’d deny it, not squirm and avoid the question.
Sadly, some people who work at large media organisations decide to channel their upset into threats of legal action.
Shabadoo, upsetting people is also part and parcel of the “contacting our publisher and threatening legal action” process – not to mention the “writing a post on a 2 million hits a month blog about the horrible names Crikey allows people to be called” process.
RobJ, the decision to filter some of the dirty words has not been about how severe the language is, but the fact that people sometimes precede them with “That guy is a …”.
We’re trying to keep discussion as free-flowing as possible on a site that has moderators with full-time jobs doing other things. But at the same time, there shouldn’t be any illusions that unlimited free speech is plausible – on any commercial site where the publisher might be held legally liable for what commenters say, we have to control the risks. Personally, I’m very grateful that our commenters have understood what we’re aiming to do with the moderation approach and we don’t need to take action very often.
If you take the transcript back a bit, you get this exchange:
Of course he believes the earth is less than 10,000 yo, otherwise he’d just say No when he was asked. He was fudging and it shows.
Groupthink.
Ahhh. That explains my earlier comment. Thanks Toby.
And FTR I have no problem with the moderation thingy.
If Steve Fielding is a new earth creationist why is he so scared to say it?
Surly he should be proud to announce to the world that dinosaurs and people used to live together, of course not in that sort of way.
Can you stone a dinosaur to death for laying down with a man?
My impression of Q&A was that Fielding really didn’t understand what terms like “creationist” or “new earth creationist” meant. I honestly don’t think the guy has his head around the distinction between believing in God and believing the literal truth of the Bible. He was floundering to answer questions he didn’t understand.
So the 2 choices are he’s a new earth creationist or someone who ain’t too bright.
Let this be a lesson to everyone, never vote above the line in the senate.
gold
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/09/deathjulie/?source=cmailer
It is fascinating that a member of the QLD police can be alleged to have: kneed an Indigenous man in the stomach, then squeezed him by the throat until the man wet himself, drove over an Indigenous woman’s foot, causing a fracture in which the bone protruded and punched another Indigenous man five times in the upper body, and hurled abuse at the man as he was dragged to a cell.
The same police officer was later in charge of an indigenous man who died. He had multiple face and internal injuries including broken ribs and his liver had been, literally, split in two. Previous to coming into police custody he had no injuries.
There is a good article about it here http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/09/2840386.htm?site=thedrum
To me at least it seems that the police in Australia can get away with murder. And the stench of pervades us all.
My observation was more that Fielding was smart enough a polly not to admit specifics – personally, I’m going to miss him on some levels. (Just not the whole “unrepresentative swill” level)
What exactly are the ABC trying to convey with this? They’ve got the Abbott still “threatened” by homosexuals article, covering his Lateline remarks last night, but have accompanied it with Action Tone photo from the desert, presumably to portray him as a blokey bloke. Are they therefore trying to say that because he’s a blokey action man that it’s okay for him to be a homophobe?
I think an important thing to draw from Fielding’s efforts last night is that not only is a creationist nut, he is a AGW denialist also. I think you’d be surprised at the number of people who exhibit those to symptoms of general wingnuttery. Some of my engagements with AGW denialists have revealed that they think evolution is lie too. Wonder if Tony Abbott is a creationist?
Fielding has obviously been told by his press advisers NOT to enter into discussion about his creationist beliefs, and probably justifies it to himself by saying “They obviously don’t understand.” That, I can understand, as I tend to keep my mouth shut about a number of my own convictions – child vaccination, vegetarianism and animal ethics, as well as a number of other issues – because I know that talking about them polarises people and alienates them so that they listen to nothing I say after that.
However, we all know that Fielding is a nutter anyway, so why is he trying to appear otherwise?
returnedman @74
It seems to me that if he is a Famiy First politician, he is aiming for the christian vote, so why should he be told by his press advisers not to discuss what all of his voters believe in?
RobJ: what’s your view on Bob Brown’s endorsement of Abbott’s regressive, feed the wealthy FT employed parents Parental Leave Scheme proposal? Why are the Greens endorsing a parental leave scheme that is regressive and serves only to entrench existing inequalities? As Mark Bahnisch at LP says:
But the Greens do.
Err because it’s completely unLiberal like? Why shouldn’t employers provide parental leave?
” feed the wealthy FT employed parents” Doesn’t it include all working parents?
To be honest confessions I hadn’t thought about it much because I believe it’s a stunt, I reckon I know what you’re getting at though and I’ll say I don’t have to agree with every Green policy for them to be a best fit, I vote Green because I’m a Lefty, the ALP does not represent Lefties…
I forgot to add – you mean all working parents?
Guys, there is an imposter over at the Hun masqueradingas Bolta. He has actually written an article anti-Abott. Then on top of this an article confessing his and other loonies love for Julia.
Just not fair, where the hell am I going to go to get my funnies for the day.
gssiam@80
I’m not sure that piece on Julia Gillard qualifies as a billet-doux. He makes the usual weak Boltian humourless “jokes” about her, but the whole piece is aimed at puffing life into the stale meme that she’s a closet Commie. It’s just Bolt doing his propagandist thing as usual.
I predicted that Bolt would become a Gillard fan after he went on the junket with her to Israel, after all Gillard is an apologist for the brutal and illegal occupation of Palestinians.
Rob: The Abbott proposal favours high income, fulltime employees. Employees on minimum wage would be worse off under his plan, but break even, if not be better off under the government’s. If government is going to tax companies it should be distributing the benefits equally, not disproportionately towards the high income end.
The media reporting of this has been appalling – just prima facie accepting that any plan to make rich companies pay to support parental leave is good, without looking at what is actually proposed and the outcomes which would result.
“If government is going to tax companies it should be distributing the benefits equally, not disproportionately towards the high income end.”
Fair enough I just get the feeling that you’re trying a gotcha on me because I claim that the Greens represent the left and the workers and the ALP don’t. Brown isn’t perfect, I’ll be the first to acknowledge that, far from it, he is after all a………………Politician..
monkeywrench, yes he is peddling out his usual commie nonsense about Julia. However, one has to admit he has changed his tune over the last couple of weeks. Maybe its the skin shedding season or he got caught out in the hail storm on the weekend. But for mine he has changed his tune, does anyone know if Govt. has promised/delieverd funds/concessions to News Corp.
No gotcha attempt at all Rob. I’m genuinely interested to hear what Greens voters think of it because Brown’s cheering Tone took me completely by surprise. I know I don’t sympathise with all Greens policies, but by the same token I don’t think of myself as a raving economic rationalist either.
My guess is once Brown becomes better familiarised with what’s actually being proposed by the Libs he’ll back away from it quickly.
I meant in a friendly sort of way
Rob: no worries. I was just thinking, remember when Brown gave Latham the thumbs up on his forests policy, and that was interpreted as the kiss of death for Labor – being supported by the Greens? I’m wondering if Brown cheering Tone on his regressive parental leave scheme is the kiss of death for the Libs!
LOL – Brown’s master plan
How come there’s been no response to Alan Howe’s offensive article on Monday (“We’re safer why argue?”) where again he showed his contempt for Palestinians and his blind support for Israel’s actions re the Dubai passport scandal? I was deeply offended by his words and Im sure others wre as well. He argued that Mossad is so great they have Hollywood movies made after them!!!!! Disgusting racism.
kyneton, I raise the issue of Palestine and Israel frequently, it seems not many are interested in slagging off Israel’s illegal, brutal occupation of the Palestinian people. I believe that most people in the West blindly support Israel, I say blindly because if they thought critically about what’s happening then they’d soon start slagging Israeli policy as I do.
GavinM is pretty much the only one who’ll engage me on the issue (good on him)
“He argued that Mossad is so great they have Hollywood”
If they were so great then surely they would have put themselves out of business?? I read a book once about their escapades and concluded that some of the stories must have been utter bullshit, like when they reckon they nicked their German built patrol boats from Cherbourg, riiiiiight, they must have been allowed to nick them because France would have easily blown their patrol boats out of the water had they desired.
Salon has published an article on the latest revelations of the torture that was conducted by the previous US administration. I have a post up on the blogocrats about it. To think that some still deny that waterboarding is torture baffles me.
http://www.blogocrats.com/index.php/top-menu-sections/human-rights/573-it-was-torture
Robj, how does one go about occuping a group of people?
occupation of the Palestinian people @19
That should be ‘occupying’
The Gaza Strip and West Bank are real places PeeBee. You want to debate Israel/Palestine or play semantic games?
Robj,
No debate from me Israel/Palestine issue, as I see it the same way you do.
I was just having a lighthearted bit of fun on a turn of phase that pulled me up, that’s all.
No worries PB.
I suppose that’s why i don’t get much of a debate going here at PP, I’d like to think that I’m mostly preaching to the converted.
A rumour has been posted that Gunns will soon be going into administration.
I have no idea about the validity of the rumour, but if it’s true it will be interesting to see the political fallout in Tasmania.
Dave, I think the link works, but there is no content – I wonder if they have pulled the story?
It certainly looks like the story about Gunns has been pulled.
There’s an interesting opinion piece by James Hansen in the Australian today. But it does raise a question. In it Hansen advocates a carbon tax approach as opposed to a cap-in-trade approach. I wasn’t aware that James Hansen was an economist with expertise in taxation versus markets. Certainly he is entitled to an opinion about them. But unless he has special expertise in those, it’s not clear why his opinion should carry any more weight than any other layperson. It’s sort of like asking for an opinion piece by an economist on the evidence for/against AGW.
One woman is splashed all over the papers and allegedly asks 1 million dollars for her story….
another one actually achieves something and gets buried somewhere in the sports pages….
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/stephanie-gilmore-wins-laureus-action-sports-award-20100311-pzsu.html?autostart=1
I know which one I want my daughter to look up to!!!
Nowadays, you are famous for doing stuff all!!!!
Gregc09 @101
…but the chances of you getting an effective carbon-reduction strategy out of most economists is hamstrung by their lack of heart to upset the industrial status quo. So perhaps Hansen would be better to listen to than the average economist….
gezzam@ 102 – I agree completely. A nameless someone wanted a higher media profile and now realises what happens when you get what you wished for!
I am getting heartily tired of the Coalition’s party line on virility. The orchestrated
( should that be “orcastrated?) campaign to show Abbott in his smalls at every opportunity is bad enough…..now today we have Christopher Pyne describing the Coalition maternity-leave scheme as “virile”. What effing eff!?? “Virile”….? Let me get that straight : from the Latin word for “man”, we have a “manly” maternity-leave scheme?
They’re making a laughing-stock of themselves again.
monkeywrench @103
fair enough, though again why Hansen’s opinion regarding an economic-related question probably holds no more weight than say, your’s or mine. I have no quibble with him commenting on the climate change science. That’s his domain of expertise. But I’m not convinced he has anything to add to the tax versus cap-in-trade debate beyond the rest of us. There are actually people who spend their research careers trying to understand better the pros and cons regarding taxes and market approaches. Lets hear from them.
monkeywrernch: I know exactly what you mean. I choked on my coffee this morning when I read this:
Is someone who has a fear of the Predatory Tone a Tonaphobic?
I noticed that no one seems to have had a go at Paul Sheehan lately.
As someone who works in the health industry, there was one statement in his most recent opinion piece that stuck out above all else: “for every 20 doctors and nurses providing primary care there are an estimated 30 bureaucrats administering what they do, how they are paid and how much patients are recompensed”.
I refer to http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/pubs/2009/pdf/annualreport09_249-272.pdf, where it shows: “Medical, nursing, allied health, other health professionals, scientific and technical staff, oral health practitioners & ambulance clinicians as a proportion of all staff %” – 72.3% as at June 2009.
The 27.7 % not included in this category is broken down into a few other broad categories, which I wont go into. Suffice it to say very few are “bureaucrats”.
I also noticed, in that same quote, that he appears to misuse the term “primary care”. Ordinarily this might not matter, since the meaning is clear from the context of his article. But in the broader context of the current health debate it is important to know that “primary care” usually does NOT mean hospital care, which is what he was commenting on.
One of the laudable aims of Nicola Roxon’s recent proposals, as I understand it, is to try to encourage Australians to make a much greater use of “primary care” (ie GP’s, etc) to keep them out of hospitals.