Intellectual dishonesty is pure poison – A Crikey weblog

Open thread July 5-9

July 5, 2010 – 11:04 am, by Tobias Ziegler

Looks like we can expect to hear plenty about asylum seekers this week, with it looking like Julia Gillard is about to make that “lurch to the right” Kevin Rudd referred to. Meanwhile, let’s kick off a fresh open thread.

Comments (69) | Permalink

69 Comments

1

Pedro

Posted July 5, 2010 at 11:33 am | Permalink

I’ve got to say, Julia’s quite growing on me. She happily fell into line with the mining tax and now she’s got every chance of ending Rudd’s illegals balls-up. She gets that right and I may even consider voting for her!!
2

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 5, 2010 at 11:37 am | Permalink

Ah, not fair. I won’t repost – but I will like to the post I just posted ….

AB’s recurring beef with Lyse Doucet:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2010/07/02/weekend-talk-thread-july-2-4/comment-page-1/#comment-30734
3

confessions

Posted July 5, 2010 at 11:42 am | Permalink

Gavin

If your out there, you might find this post at LP about the ICC stuff interesting.

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/07/04/cricket/
4

Sammy Jankis

Posted July 5, 2010 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

…and now she’s got every chance of ending Rudd’s illegals balls-up.

(My emphasis)

The correct term is asylum seekers.
5

monkeywrench

Posted July 5, 2010 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

Outstanding example of Milnery. I’m not sure who is fooling themselves the most here, the Libs or Milne for repeating this as if it is meaningful:
Fourth, Liberals have been heartened from their research by evidence that despite the media over-hype that has accompanied Gillard’s ascension, voters still have not made up their minds. A tackle shop owner in the seaside town of Eden on the NSW south coast summed this up when he told the Liberal candidate, David Gazard: “Mate, same smelly feet. Just a different pair of socks.”
Laughable stuff.
6

shepherdmarilyn

Posted July 5, 2010 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

Pedro that illegals balls up you are on about is a racist lie.
7

Holden Back

Posted July 5, 2010 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

Anne Eckdote, patron saint of tripe, moving among the columnists giving them heart, and infallible authority and authenticity.

Swallow this one hook line and sinker at your peril, might be an appropriate comment.
8

John Reidy

Posted July 5, 2010 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

I wonder if there are any figures on the total number of asylum applications for all arrivals (of which boat people are a small part).
Could the total figure – of which I believe the majority are overstaying visa holders, be less than the last year of the Howard Govt?
9

Pedro

Posted July 5, 2010 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

Sorry, Marilyn @ 6. Our Jools says it ain’t racist. And she said that right out loud. Which, by the way, SURELY has seen more than a few heads on the left explode!

Geez, I love this PM!
10

confessions

Posted July 5, 2010 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

Oh how hilarious!

pedro: “Rudd’s illegals balls-up”

Marilyn: “that illegals balls up you are on about is a racist lie.”

pedro: “Our Jools says it ain’t racist.”

Hmmm. What did Our Jools say exactly?

Ms Gillard said people who were anxious about border security should not be labelled racist.

Nup, not an “illegals” to be found uttered from her mouth. Our Jools also said:

People should feel free to say what they feel.

Oh good. In that case, I’m with Marilyn: it’s a racist lie. And from someone who has in the past invented a tax bracket that doesn’t exist, and falsely claimed s/he was given approval by the blog owners to use the word “illegals” to describe asylum seekers.

Pants. On. Fire.
11

Holden Back

Posted July 5, 2010 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

@ confessions. Did you take joy in breaking up fights at school? There they both were both having the day’s barney, and you go and pull the rug out.
12

confessions

Posted July 5, 2010 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

HB: I am first and foremost a peace activist.

Closely followed by someone who loves taking the piss out of pedro’s multiple idiocies.
13

Pedro

Posted July 5, 2010 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

“People should feel free to say what they feel.”

I feel free to call them exactly what they are. Illegal immigrants.

And WTF are you on about with the tax bracket thing??
14

Jay

Posted July 5, 2010 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

“I feel free to call them exactly what they are. Illegal immigrants”.

Troll.
15

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 5, 2010 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

It will be interesting to see what JGill does … and whether it makes any difference.

It’d be curious to return to the hairy-chested days and not see a change in arrivals. Actually, that would be depressing. It wouldn’t change any minds, unfortunately – there’s always SOMETHING that can split a hair.

I’ve noticed a certain tendency among the bolters toward magical thinking – that the libs caused growth and low inflation just be being there, but nobody’s quite sure why. That they wouldn’t have needed to do anything about the GFC because they’re better economic managers. Despite being the highest taxing government in australian history, this was somehow different to ALP taxes. But when you try to pin any of them down on specifics, the thread goes quiet. At least, that was back in the old days, when there was any discussion going on over there at all.

So Joolz could put everything back the way JHow had it, and it would still be worse. If it worked, it’d just vindicate them. If it didn’t, it’d just vindicate them. That’s how skeptics work.
16

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 5, 2010 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

Somebody should do something !!!!

Save this child – and damn her parents

How do we produce such feral parents, and why are we so reluctant to draw a line and save their children?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/save_this_child_and_damn_her_parents/

It’s a good question. But I personally haven’t produced ANY parents, and coming from the side of the political spectrum that wants to see MORE social support and opportunities, I don’t feel all that personally responsible for them being produced at all.

Fact is, some people are just fracked up. Sometimes they’re just messed up and/or stupid. Sometimes they’re drug-addled or drunk. Sometimes (but rarely) they might even be psychotic. That’s reality. Tish happens, and nobody needs a license to have a kid (says keanu reaves: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098067/quotes#qt0359369 )

By all means second-guess the court and the law. Obviously the authorities are very keen to keep a child with at least one parent if at all possible – I believe that’s even their stated preference, for example see page 36: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/35/10859.pdf

It might even be argued that, on occasion, the support services and courts are too conservative. I don’t know enough to draw a general conclusion about that. But there’s an elephant question in the room, and I have never seen AB address it … or even hint at its existence. That question is:

What do we do instead?

It’s all very well to call for more kids to be taken from their parents. But until there are places to put them, it’s a pipe dream. You can’t take a kid from a home without another home to put them in. We can’t just stick thek in office blocks or holding pens of filing cabinets. I don’t think anyone believes there’s enough foster accommodation available now:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=foster+care+shortage+australia&tbs=qdr:y

Another problem is that it wasn’t all that long ago (i.e. the 80′s) when child support agencies (termed, back then, “social workers”) were being harrassed for being TOO aggressive – at least in the US and UK. I dare say that in the public’s assessment they really can’t win.
17

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 5, 2010 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

I think he’s mischaracterising this a bit:

New racism and humbugging an artist

Katoomba businesswoman Vesna Tenodi commissioned artist Ben Osvath to carve a sculpture – Wandjina Watchers in the Whispering Stone – to celebrate the deep spirituality of Aboriginal culture.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/new_racism_and_humbugging_an_artist/

He supplies two (yes, TWO) references. They’re interesting, because they’re (IMHO) somewhat at odds.

http://www.cultureofthearts.com/2010/07/wandjina-watchers-spat-reveals.html

http://modrogorje.com/news.html

The first (which quotes, of all things, the communist, reverse-racist ABC) criticises the actions of the locals who defaced the sculpture. Fair enough – there are some good points made, particularly the part about nobody bothering to actually tell Tenodi what the problem is. That’s significant (apart from the vioence bit, obviously)

Unfortunately, the second link undermines that claim a bit. The SMH reports that she HAS been made aware of the sensitivities of the images she used, and on more than one occasion. The problem doesn’t seem to be that she didn’t know.

I’m personally not inclined to restrict the images that artists can or can’t use. Actually, that’s a lie – I am so inclined. I don’t want them using realistic pictures depicting abuse of people, and preferably also not animals. And I want them to respect the creative property of other people. But that’s probably about it. “Community standards” would tend to agree with me about that.

Apparently the people involved in this story have a “community standard” that gets them very het up about the use of a particular image. I don’t agree with them, but then I’m not an artist. The problem here, I think, isn’t reverse racism at all – aborigines apply the same rules to one another as they do to outsiders. The problem here is somebody repeatedly reproducing a cultural symbol (possibly for commercial gain – that’s not entirely clear) precisely because it’s sacred to those people. In the modern world, that’s allowed (yet I’m NOT allowed to knock off copies of ken done paintings and sell them … interesting double-standard that, but never mind. I wonder, if I started selling copies of this artist’s sculptures, would they be ok with it?)

My summary to this rambling pointless drivel is this:

(a) you guys over there, stop being violent bozos.
(b) you over there, come up with something original. They apparently, really don’t like you doing it, so maybe you could ask why it is you think you so badly need to do it? Yes, you have a right to, but jeeze louise … it’s a big playground, surely there’s enough room for everyone?

Reverse racism? Nup. A primitive form of intellectual property violation, if you ask me.
18

monkeywrench

Posted July 5, 2010 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

This Wednesday will see the release of the Russell report into the so-called “climategate” affair.
As we have had a pointed “ignore’ by Bolt on recent issues such as the article by serial fraud Jonathan Leake whom Bolt quoted approvingly, and Michael Mann’s complete exoneration from any fraudulent scientific activity, by Penn State University ( see Deltoid blog again), my bet is that the subject will receive a wide berth by the man if, as I strongly suspect, the East Anglia CRU scientists will be vindicated.
Nothing like intellectual cowardice, is there?
19

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 5, 2010 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

monkeywrench @18

He’ll report it as soon as he’s got word of something refuting it – and the refutation will be the story.

Whatever Phil wossname’s errors of judgment, micheal mann has been seriously misused in that whole affair. There was never any evidence that he’d done anything wrong in relation to the CRU – but because of the whole hockey-stick talking point he’s become the prime scalp that everyone wants to collect. So people just make tish up and chuck it. Bolt et al like to point at the totalitarian history of the left, but he seems surprisingly comfortable with the public persecution of scientists who do work he doesn’t agree with.
20

Sancho

Posted July 5, 2010 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

I just followed a link from Arts & Letters Daily to a fawning New Criterion review of Keith Windschuttle’s The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, and nearly threw up.

Windschuttle disgusts me on a level I never knew existed before he began spouting his revisionism. If you feel strongly about it, I urge you to comment on the article (no registration required), just in case the NC’s international audience starts thinking Windschuttle is respected in his home country.

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Aboriginal-sin–5337
21

monkeywrench

Posted July 6, 2010 at 10:10 am | Permalink

Bolt calls the response to Climategate a whitewash predictably enough. So I thought that he would link to the original Guardian article I linked to in post 18 above. But no: after a plethora of his own self-referrals, he links to an Age article by Paola Totaro.
It makes interesting reading to compare Totaro’s version to The Guardian original.
Totaro:
“The emails, mostly between Dr Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and colleagues both in Britain and the US, appeared to reveal a systematic attempt to evade freedom of information requests as well as open discussion on ways to play down research findings that did not fit within the framework of steadily rising global temperatures.The scientists also appeared to work actively to stop the publication of rivals’ work in peer-reviewed papers”.

The Guardian:
“Curry exempted from this criticism Phil Jones, CRU director and the man at the centre of the furore. Put through the fire, “Jones seems genuinely repentant, and has been completely open and honest about what has been done and why… speaking with humility about the uncertainty in the data sets,” she said.”

Someone’s trying to make the story a bit more scandalous, eh, Paola? But someone is still also guilty of intellectual cowardice. Aren’t they, Andy?
22

mondo rock

Posted July 6, 2010 at 10:46 am | Permalink

Gillards politics appeal to Pedro eh?

There’s the nail in Labor’s coffin. Expect a massive swing to the Greens at the next election.
23

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 6, 2010 at 10:53 am | Permalink

AB’s linking to these two videos, with the following annotations:

Green laws and a dead business

“How a change in environmental laws bankrupted a West Australian business – and killed the 20 jobs that went with it.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgFPDcPr5yA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCsi1Inc-rE

Without knowing all of the details, this does look like a shocking planning farce and a pointless bureaucratic tragedy. And I hope the Thompsons get some decent payback.

But is this really about “green laws”? Hmm. Those videos talk about a “vocal minority” complaining about their application. Having a quick look at these documents:

http://portal.environment.wa.gov.au/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/ADMIN_LICENSING/LICENCES/2006/TAB8118750/7873NARROGINBEEF_5.PDF

http://portal.environment.wa.gov.au/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/OAC/ADMIN_CONTENT/DECISION_SUMMARIES/2009/029-034-08%20MINISTERS%20APPEALS%20DETERMINATION.PDF

It looks to me like the main complaint was about the smell. That’s not usually the sort of thing that gets actual “Greens” fired up. My bet would be someone nearby. Without any direct knowledge, and being unwilling to guess, I simply draw dear reader’s attention to the following map:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=59.50923,97.382812&hq=&ll=-32.979004,117.147217&spn=0.121105,0.190201&t=h&z=13

That’s centered on the sand-coloured feedlot – that upside-down big dipper is (I figure) their evaporation pan. Now, I looks at that I and I wonders to meself … but no, I’m not willing to guess.

I don’t think this was about greens. I think it was about nimby self-interest and its ability to Get Its Way. Who knows – they might have had a justifiable complaint? But that should have been taken into account in the first place, NOT after the millions were spent.
24

savvas jwnhs

Posted July 6, 2010 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

Well, as I expected, most of the governments of the world are balking at any action on Climate Change (according, at least, to Andrew). And isn’t he just gloating about it!!

I hope you are right Andrew. But what was that percentage of scientists that agree Climate Change is a serious problem?
25

monkeywrench

Posted July 6, 2010 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

Nice behaviour by those whom Andrew Bolt would approve of for being “sceptics”. It would be interesting to find out whether any of his contributors had ever sent death-threats to scientists. I would be unsurprised if they had.
26

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 6, 2010 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

monkeywrench @25

Yes.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/pitman_cries_poor/ (see second update)

And http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm

I once came across an article written by a recipient of such abuse, in which he claims that some of the emails were even CC’ed to AB himself. I can’t rember who it was, though. I’ll have to dig around for that – someone else might know who it was.
27

confessions

Posted July 6, 2010 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

Gillards politics appeal to Pedro eh?

Here is an excerpt from Gillard’s speech (a great speech too IMO):

For too long, the asylum seeker policy debate has been polarised by extreme, emotionally-charged claims and counterclaims; by a fundamental disrespect that I reject.

But as poor as this commentary is, even worse is the deliberate use of inflammatory politics presented as policy. I speak of the claim often made by Opposition politicians that they will, to quote: ‘turn the boats back.’

This needs to be seen for what it is. It is a shallow slogan. It is nonsense.

Under John Howard, only a handful of boats were ever turned around.
Tony Abbott claims that the Howard Government had an active policy of turning boats back. This is simply not true.

For the entire time of the Howard Government, only seven boats were turned back. The last Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel (SIEV) “returned from whence it came” was SIEV14 which arrived at Melville Island in the Northern Territory on 4 November 2003 with 14 Turkish passengers.

The Howard Government did not turn a boat back after 2003.

Let’s ask ourselves why. Was it because the Howard Government suddenly lacked the resolve to turn the boats back? Of course not.

The Howard Government’s actions changed because of a change in the practical reality, and the reality that confronted Prime Minister Howard confronts us today: the reality that to avoid being turned around boats are sabotaged raising safety of life at sea concerns for Australia’s customs and border protection and defence personnel as well as the asylum seekers on board.

And the second practical reality is that there is nowhere to turn the boats back to.

My opponent, Mr Abbott, is good at slogans: a great big new tax on everything; a great big new tax on mining; a big bad tax; and now, turn back the boats.

But these slogans are hollow.

The Opposition is trying to sell the Australian community a fairy tale in which all you have to do is go out to an asylum seeker boat and turn it around and everything will be fixed - but this fairytale is not the facts.

The facts are the boat will be scuttled and start to sink.

The facts are that this nation would then be confronted with a stark choice: either we could leave the scene in the certain knowledge people including children would drown or we could rescue the asylum seekers from the water.

Today let me say one thing loud and clear: our nation would not leave children to drown. We are Australians and our values will never allow us to embrace this kind of evil. So, inevitably, the so-called strategy of turning the boats back would become a strategy of rescuing asylum seekers from the water with all the risks that entails to the lives of defence and customs personnel.

The slogan is hollow and Mr Abbott knows it.

I’m betting pedro’s absence signals s/he is no longer impressed by Ms Gillard’s politics!
28

Pedro

Posted July 6, 2010 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

Hmmm. Have I read Our Jools wrong or did she just announce “Pacific Solution 2010 But This Time It’s In The Indian Ocean So It’s All Good”?

Heh. She’s just NAILED my vote! (Cause we know with this latest budget blow-out, that inane ETS isn’t going to be implemented anytime soon, either. You guys do realise that, yeah?)
29

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 6, 2010 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

Pedro @28

I don’t think she wants an ETS – JGill has already clearly indicated a preference for a carbon tax. That’s not the same thing (and preferable, IMHO)

Meanwhile, christmas island is already in the indian ocean, and east timor … isn’t.
30

confessions

Posted July 6, 2010 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

This policy differs in several ways from howards:

- As I understand it, Timor is signatory to the UN convention. Nauru isn’t
- Timor is in the Indonesian archipeligo, removing the need for boats to travel in the open seas, and possibly dealing the people smugglers out of the game
- the UNHCR will be involved, possibly overseeing the process
- NZ may also take those whose claims are approved

PS: If you liked Gillard’s boat policy, then wait till you see what she’ll do with climate change!
31

monkeywrench

Posted July 6, 2010 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

Pedro’s now one of us! C’mere darlin’…. *mwah mwah* welcome aboard!
32

monkeywrench

Posted July 6, 2010 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

Actually, Pedro, my money is on some form of carbon pricing announcement in the ensuing weeks….
33

Pedro

Posted July 6, 2010 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

Confessions: “I’m betting pedro’s absence signals s/he is no longer impressed by Ms Gillard’s politics!”

I’m not in the least surprised that it wouldn’t dawn on YOU, confessions, that an evil, four-letter word called W O R K is responsible for Pedro’s absence.
34

Pedro

Posted July 6, 2010 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

Confessions.

Gillard’s policy doesn’t differ from Howard’s in the most important way.

No on-shore processing. No responsibility.

Matthew.

East Timor… is.
35

monkeywrench

Posted July 6, 2010 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

Isn’t that typical of the Right? Bludging on the web on the boss’s time!
36

confessions

Posted July 6, 2010 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

monkeywrench @ 32: i reckon too.

Here’s Bernard Keane’s take on the Dili Solution:

If the one hard commitment Gillard made proceeds, it will be hideously expensive. The Pacific Solution was estimated to have cost around $1b over five years. The Dili version won’t be any cheaper. We’re also forking out for eight new patrol boats to guard our north-western and northern waters.

Taxpayers will be wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on several thousand asylum seekers, to assuage the xenophobic instincts of a few swinging voters in marginal electorates.

The Pacific Solution was a white elephant, which did nothing to stop people seeking asylum, merely divert boats to some other place for processing. Over 90 percent of those people ended up living here anyway. i expect the Dili Solution will be no different. But, if ignorant people like those who call AS ‘illegals’ feel their fears have been assuaged by this expensive game of smoke and mirrors, then at least we won’t have them spamming the internets with their paranoia and fear. Surely that’s a good thing.
37

Pedro

Posted July 6, 2010 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

Er. No, monkeywrench @ 35. Even you would be aware that’s the lazy left’s proud motto.

I actually OWN the company I work for.
38

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 6, 2010 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

Pedro @34

Yep – you’re right. I assumed that the timor sea was exclusive of the indian ocean, but apparently not.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indianocean.PNG

Strangely enough, that also means the bight, and even part of tasmania, are also in the indian ocean. That’s not intuitive

As for:

“No on-shore processing. No responsibility.”

I think you mean “No on-shore processing. No visibility.”
39

Pedro

Posted July 6, 2010 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

Gosh, confessions. Quite the turnaround from post 27 to 36!

“A great speech” has deteriorated into “It’s expensive and won’t achieve a thing.”

See, that’s the problem with you loopie lefties. You actually had nothing until Bernard told you what to think.

Much like you had it completely ass-backwards on Julia Gillard’s coup until everyone here told you what to think.
40

Pedro

Posted July 6, 2010 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

Matthew, Matthew, Matthew.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. Or I’ll be tempted to say things like:

I think you really mean, “It was VERY, VERY BAD when Howard did it but REALLY, REALLY GOOD now that Gillard’s doing the same thing.”
41

confessions

Posted July 6, 2010 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

No on-shore processing. No responsibility.

LOL! Who exactly do you think is responsible for assessing the claims of those seeking asylum in Australia? The government of the US? India perhaps?

You really didn’t understand the pacific solution, did you?
42

confessions

Posted July 6, 2010 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

Parts of her speech were wonderful. It shat on the racists like you.

The policy is woeful. It panders to the racists like you.

This is the problem with intellectually bankrupt racists: you hear a dog whistle and lap up the goods regardless of the detail. Perhaps you can start thinking for yourself.

Remind me again: which country is responsible for assessing the claims of those seeking asylum in Australia?
43

confessions

Posted July 6, 2010 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

“A great speech” has deteriorated into “It’s expensive and won’t achieve a thing.”

Hmmm. Pedro seems not to be able to distinguish between words in a speech and the policy itself.

I can’t say I’m surprised.
44

Pedro

Posted July 6, 2010 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

Wow, confessions! Not only three wild and ranting posts in barely 15 minutes but in just one of them you managed three screaming RAAAAAAAAAAACISTs in just three lines!

To use your favourite word, “LOL”!

Angry much??
45

Johnny Come Lately

Posted July 6, 2010 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

So Pedro, what’s your take on the asylum seeker issue?
46

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 6, 2010 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

Pedro @40

“Matthew, Matthew, Matthew.”

You clearly have never seen the movie “beetlejuice”, or you wouldn’t have gone there.

“Please don’t put words in my mouth.”

Sorry. I figured people would assume the words were mine.

“Or I’ll be tempted to say things like: I think you really mean, “It was VERY, VERY BAD when Howard did it but REALLY, REALLY GOOD now that Gillard’s doing the same thing.”

No. It’s a bad thing, no matter who does it. My comparison will always be with Britain’s “Cyprus solution”. I’m all for finding ways to stop the flow upstream, as long as people land in viable circumstances. But if they’re really willing to risk life and limb in a leaky boat … I think they’re probably worthy applicants. PJ is absolutely right about that.
47

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 6, 2010 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

Lets talk about the word “intellectual”. David Marr. Most Wanted at our dear friend’s place Over There. Watch this:

http://www.publicchristianity.com/Videos/life_and_faith_of_Patrick_White.html

Now compare that to AB’s (X) attempts at addressing religion.

(X) can stand for any number of adjectives. I’ve decided to leave all of them out. If you can’t say it with flowers …
48

PeeBee

Posted July 7, 2010 at 7:52 am | Permalink

Andrew bolt deserves a special mention after what he wrote in the Hun today. He accused the CSIRO of making dud predictions about Global Climate Change. To back up that assertion, he provides one example of a ‘dud’ prediction the CSIRO has made, namely their claim that a quarter of the snow on the snowfields will disappear by 2018. (I imagine that is the best he could come up with).

Unlike Andrew, the Hun readers will have to wait until 2018 to see if Andrew’s prediction is a dud!
49

confessions

Posted July 7, 2010 at 8:07 am | Permalink

Teh Oz has had an amazing transformation since Rudd Removal. Gone are the angry headlines, with every second article a chronicle of government failure. I wonder if it has anything to do with Rudd not being PM anymore, or are they gearing up for Rupe’s paywall?

you managed three screaming RAAAAAAAAAAACISTs in just three lines!

Well, if the shoe fits…..

Matthew @ 46: I’m very encouraged by Ramos-Horta’s public statements regarding how the asylum seekers will be housed. He’s said they will be entitled to “certain freedoms” in his country, and that he will never turn his back on people fleeing persecution despite his not wanting the arrangement to be a long term one. It’s embarrassing that Timor is showing us up in terms of decency and regard for fellow human beings.
50

monkeywrench

Posted July 7, 2010 at 8:15 am | Permalink

Pedro@37
Typical of the Right! Idling on the internet while the worker makes your profits!
51

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 7, 2010 at 9:36 am | Permalink

confessions @49

I suspect that everyone is probably looking to see how the changes might affect their own self-interests. If we think rupe’s concerned about the ABC 24hr news channel and an NBN, then we should wait and see what happens on those two policies and how they respond.
52

Sammy Jankis

Posted July 7, 2010 at 10:52 am | Permalink

Andrew cannot be serious…

Today he cites an article from the Canberra Times about Afghani refugee Gairat Baykhil and asks:

Excuse me? We’ve helped a refugee escape persecution so terrible in Afghanistan that he travels back three times on holiday?

So I read the article, expecting to hear of the pleasant time Gairat spent in his country of origin, lazing about the pool sipping on Pina Coladas, on “holiday”. Instead I read this:

“…the shop under the hotel in which he was staying was bombed. One the smoke cleared and he was able to get out of the building, the 28 year-old had to sidestep several dead bodies on the way.

On that visit, his third since arriving in Australia as a boat person in 2001, he says people were killed around him every day…”

Yep, sounds like a “holiday” to me.

But wait – there’s more! Andrew also remarks:

And has family still living in safety in Pakistan?

So I turn again to the article, expecting hear of Gairat’s family safely nestled away in a leafy suburb of Pakistan, happily going about their daily lives in comfort and security. Instead I read this:

“He still worries about his family, which is in Pakistan…”

The article says the family is in Pakistan. I suppose it’s only fair to assume they are safe. I mean, there’s been no report of trouble in Pakistan in recent times, right?

And to think a newspaper blithely prints this without asking any of the obvious questions. But so many journalists reporting on boat people seem to have lost every sceptical instinct.

I know one “journalist” reporting on boat people who seems to have lost the ability to demonstrate basic comprehension.
53

fred p

Posted July 7, 2010 at 11:06 am | Permalink

Why do people keep responding to the troll? It is not here for an actual debate of the issues, you know.
54

confessions

Posted July 7, 2010 at 11:20 am | Permalink

Possum has a great piece on the government’s asylum seeker announcement. This bit perfectly sums up my view:

The non-policy aspects of the PM’s speech are to be commended – it was a far more pleasant kind of politics than the grubby stroking of the dark underbelly of the electorate that Howard pursued in 2001 and which some of us were half expecting to re-emerge yesterday. For the first time in a long time we had a Prime Minister that spoke about the reality of the numbers when it comes to asylum seekers arriving by boat, a political leader that treated the public like adults and sought to remove some of the heat from the issue – although not quite managing to fully substitute that heat with equal parts light.
55

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 7, 2010 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

confessions @54

As always (or at least, that’s how I like to think it is), I’ll wait and see what they actually do, and what impact it has. That’s ultimately what matters in the real world.

But in the political world yes, you’re right. For the ALP this is a difficult decision, one they will have to manage very carefully not to put their own base offside. For the liberals it was manna from heaven. They can talk about how they were really just trying to save the lives of asylum seekers, but that doesn’t account for the demonizing public language, the bizarrely eager way vanstone ran the immigration department (among others) and the PM’s eagerness to be seen to be aggressive toward the Tampa (all the goodwill of the 2000 olympics, sunk to the ocean floor like a stone). For the libs, “cracking down” could be profitably combined with showboating.

The libs drew support from dumping on foreigners – when they screwed up, it wasn’t their supporters who got furious (otherwise they’d have been dispatched much earlier – history will show that liberal supporters mostly cared about interest rates). Labor will have to tread much more carefully. Just one Jovicic, Solon or Rau will probably see them having to swap the PM job again – and possibly for a liberal.
56

Bolt cherry-picks and dissembles while the world warms – Pure Poison

Posted July 7, 2010 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

...] bizarre attack on the CSIRO and its new chairman — including, as PeeBee noted in the open thread, the declaration that a prediction of something still 8 years into the future [...
57

confessions

Posted July 8, 2010 at 8:53 am | Permalink

A couple of good posts at LP unpicking the ‘claims’ made by so called whistelblower Craig Mayne, whose claims that billions of dollars are being wasted under the BER program have appeared in the Courier Mail, the Oz and on Red Kerry. The full post is lengthy, but worth a read, and the second one lists 10 questions the MSM need to answer for their uncritical reporting of the man’s claims. And once again we see the heavy lifting of investigative reporting being done by the blogosphere, not the MSM.

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/07/08/analyzing-craig-maynes-claims-full-post/

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/07/08/lazy-media-and-the-ber-scheme/
58

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 8, 2010 at 10:04 am | Permalink

This one’s interesting:

“Shame! Father donates time and money to child’s school”

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/shame_father_donates_time_and_money_to_childs_school/

Basically, it seems that Simon Overland is a guest speaker at a 100$-a-pop fund-raising dinner for his old school. I’m not sure how it stacks up – I doubt, for example, that ANYONE is paying 100$ just to hear a police commissioner talk. I suspect that the tickets are probably being bought for the dinner and charity, rather than the floor show (unless the floor show gets quite a bit more flashy than that).

So I kind of agree with AB. But not entirely. The guy is a high-ranking public servant, not a successful private businessman. So while I agree that there’s nothing wrong with what he’s doing (unless of course a bushfire breaks out, in which I’m sure I can rely on the Hun to pillory him later on), that does need to be kept in mind. Hiow high up the chain can it go? Can the PM speak at a 100$-a-ticket fundraiser for his old school? Yes, but ….

I don’t know enough to judge this one, but:

“Gillard’s Fair Work regime is very fair to a child pornographer”

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillards_fair_work_regime_is_very_fair_to_a_child_pornographer/

Apparently a convicted sex offender got a payout (10 days’ pay – SHOCK), for unfair dismissal from his job. The circumstances are bad – he was (allegedly) harassing and stalking other employees. But FWA decided that their process was unfair, so they have to pay whatever miserable pittance the compensation amounts to.

But … does anyone know if Uncle Toby’s (a brand of the tiny family-owned company called Nestle) would have been excluded under work choices from unfair dismissal provisions? I have my doubts, but I don’t really know.
59

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 8, 2010 at 10:09 am | Permalink

This speculation about senator Faulkner’s reasons for departing …

I am absolutely certain I heard him announce his retirement well before the last election, citing “nothing more in the tank” or some such. I was quite surprised to discover that he was still in parliament at all – I’d assumed he’d have been on his way. I guess winning might have changed his mind, but I’m therefore also not surprised to hear that he’s stepping down now. If I’m right about the last announcement (and I might not be – I might be confusing him with somebody else) then it sounds to me like he’s just jack of it.
60

Blastbeater

Posted July 8, 2010 at 10:23 am | Permalink

I noticed today that Bolt sneakily tries to imply that Gillard would approve of paedophilia. That is the worst kind of smear. I am oblivious as to how he can get away with such things. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillards_fair_work_regime_is_very_fair_to_a_child_pornographer/
61

Tobias Ziegler

Posted July 8, 2010 at 10:25 am | Permalink

Matthew, your memory is pretty close to the mark. He resigned his Senate leadership and Shadow Cabinet roles after the 2004 election loss. After Labor returned to government in 2007 he was working on a reform agenda to improve government accountability and transparency, but he was pressed (back) into the Defence role after Joel Fitzgibbon’s run of controversy last year forced him to stand down.
62

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 8, 2010 at 10:57 am | Permalink

TZ @61

No idea what he thinks about his success viz accountability (I have my doubts), but he deserves a decent send-off. He’s a pretty formidable character, and (from my distant impressions) he’s scary smart – not somebody I’d want to be facing at a senate inquiry. He strikes me as somebody you would actually WANT on a company board (as opposed to, say, be willing to take on because he might have sent a bit of work your way … not naming anybody).
63

RobJ

Posted July 8, 2010 at 10:58 am | Permalink

So, when Gillard grabbed the top job the other week Abbott opined that it was great that no job in Australia was barred to women… Journos joked with him, he did admit that women weren’t likely to become full forwards in AFL clubs (or something like that ) but why didn’t ANY journo ask him about women Catholic priests or bishops? Slack, slow witted media we have..
64

Cuppa

Posted July 8, 2010 at 11:35 am | Permalink

RobJ,

Surely you don’t expect this country’s pathetic one-party media to ask difficult questions of Abbott! What next?
65

RobJ

Posted July 8, 2010 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

No I don’t…. I reckon I could do a better job.
66

Holden Back

Posted July 8, 2010 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

Hmm

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/industry-sectors/foxtel-shelves-telstra-net-tv-deal/story-e6frg9hx-1225889144015

Any comments?
67

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 8, 2010 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

Holden Back @66

“Any comments?”

Just one: Good.
68

Holden Back

Posted July 8, 2010 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

I just wondered if this had anything to do with the parent compnay’s hatred of the NBN.

Nah, that would be some species of bias overa commercial relationshiop- couldn’t be.
69

Matthew of Canberra

Posted July 9, 2010 at 9:14 am | Permalink

Holden Back @68

Actually, without having any inside information, I’m more inclined to think it’s a case of not locking themselves in. Plenty of ISPs have the infrastructure to be ABLE to deliver video – I’m sure a few of them would like to have a chance to do it, if someone can deal with the licensing issues. The question is coverage, and bigpond is a big outfit. If the NBN comes along and gives everyone access to 10mb/s+, then any distributor’s going to feel pretty silly about having locked themselves out of part of that market with an exclusive deal. So I actually suspect it’s a pro-NBN move. Assuming it happens.

Crikey

Open thread July 5-9

69 Comments

Post a Comment

About Pure Poison

Navigation

Recent Comments

Pages

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Crikey Blogs

Info

Daily Mail

Elsewhere

Policy

Partners

Popular Partner Pages