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
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 » Show All
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.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 » Show All