Blisters&Weeds

Three Hundred and Fifty Two Thousand Million Dollars spent on Machine for Killing People

2006-12-13T21:11:00.000+11:00

In news which has delighted Defence Ministers, arms dealers and model plane nerds, the new F35 Particularly Good at Killing (PGK) aeroplane was recently taken for a test drive in America.

It is expected that the new aeroplane will be even better at killing people than current killing aeroplanes, making it worth every penny of the $352,000,000,000 spent on it.

To demonstrate the goodness of his heart and his pure Christian principles, US President George W Bush announced that the United States will accept money earned from the sale of worthless commodities such as grain, minerals, meat and medical technologies in exchange for the F35 PGK aeroplane.

Australia is considering purchasing a number of the F35 PGK, expecting to spend around $1600,000,000, or approximately 20 years worth of the total Australian production of the worthless commodity, wheat.

Hot. Very Hot.

2006-12-09T23:16:00.000+11:00

It was very hot (37 degrees) in Melbourne today. It was also quite eerie, because a thick blanket of smoke completely covered the city. That isn't cloud in the photo, its smoke, and it didn't change all day. I didn't see the sun once, not that I really minded because things were quite hot enough. The photo doesn't really capture the gloominess and oppresiveness of it all.

Obviously one hot day doesn't mean anything about climate change, and there have been shocking droughts/bushfires before, but after a day like today anyone who thinks that a few degrees hotter is nothing to worry about needs urgent psychiatric help. Or perhaps to be forced to fight bushfires in 37 degree heat for a couple of days.

Andrew Bolt, are you serious?

2006-11-24T19:24:00.000+11:00

I tend to try not to write much about Andrew Bolt, because;

a) His arguments are almost always nonsense.
b) To write about his stuff, you have to read it, and that can be painful.

Nevertheless, I have been lacking blogging inspiration lately, and if there is anything you can rely on Bolt for, its to write something annoying, stupid and/or plain dishonest enough to be worth criticising. For example;

"Greens leader Bob Brown sure won’t like graphic 7.5 of the Switkowski report into nucear energy.

Has Brown ever admitted to you that nuclear power actually tends to emit less carbon dioxide over the lifetime of a plant than does solar power?

Solar power: greenhouse menace"

Here, Bolt uses his amazing Bob Brown mind reader device to discover that Bob Brown won't like a graph showing that nuclear power emits slightly less carbon dioxide than solar power. I'm not sure exactly why this will upset Bob Brown so much, given that the graph also shows that solar power is much, much better in terms of carbon dioxide emissions than Bolt's preferred form of power provision, which is burning coal.

Bolt then makes the amazing logical leap from "solar power slightly worse than nuclear power in terms of carbon dioxide emissions" to "Solar power: greenhouse menace". I look forward to Bolt's article pointing out that bananas are a menace to health because they aren't as good for you as apples.

Mirko Bagaric's Aussie Sharia

2006-11-19T20:10:00.000+11:00

Islamic Sharia law is not very popular in Australia. Which is a good thing for anyone who thinks that the government should keep its nose out of peoples personal relationships as much as possible.

Someone who disagrees is Deakin Law School's resident embarrasment and now opinion writer Mirko Bagaric, most famous for saying that maybe torturing people isn't so bad really. Mirko has said lots of other stupid things as well. Most recently, offended by the decision of the High Court in Magill v Magill, where the Court found that a husband could not sue his wife for damages because she had been unfaithful to him, Mirko proposed that "fundamental betrayals", such as infidelity should be actionable at law. I imagine he means by payment of damages rather than stoning, but hey, he's on the right track.

Of course, I'm not too worried about Mirko's mad plan. It would be enormously good for lawyers (and therefore pretty unpopular with everyone else). It would also have the side effect of ensuring that an awful lot of people just wouldn't get married at all. In fact, Mirko's bright idea of ensuring loyalty in marriage by the force of the law would do more to finish off that particular institution than an entire mardi gras of poofs getting hitched. So, nice one Mirko, you goose. Keep the bright ideas coming.

Tagged!

2006-10-28T16:16:00.000+10:00

I have been tagged by Bruce of Bruces Rave and Rant, thus obliging me to post answers to the following blog-related questions. Which I should have done weeks ago, but have been busy busy busy.

1-Do you like the look and the contents of your blog?

Yes, pretty happy with both of these, although it would be nice to be able to customise it more..or would that just be a pain in the backside? I probably already spend enough time stuffing around with it already.

2-Does your family know about your blog?

Yes.

3-Can you tell your friends about your blog? Do you consider it a private thing?

Some of my friends already know about it, some don't. I'm not sure that all of them would be interested.

4-Do you just read the blogs of those who comment on your blog? or you try to discover new blogs?

I will read anything and everything provided it is interesting.

5-Did your blog positively affect (sic) your mind? Give an example.

Yes, I think it does hone my reasoning skills.

6-What does the number of visitors to your blog mean? Do you use a traffic counter?

Yes. I don't really care that not a lot of people see it, but the whole exercise would seem a bit pointless if there were no visitors at all.

7-Did you imagine how other bloggers look like?

Not really. Although I think sometimes I have an unflattering mental image of some of the more unpleasant ones. I'm sure Tim Blair doesn't actually have sharp pointy teeth, for example.

8-Do you think blogging has any real benefit?

Yes. The more people are blogging, or reading blogs, the less they are watching Today Tonight or The Australian (At least I hope that's right, for all I know they could be cutting back on reading great works of literature). Also, many blogs are interesting, and give a perspective not always offered elsewhere.

9-Do you think that the blogosphere is a stand alone community separated from the real world?

No.

10-Do some political blogs scare you? Do you avoid them?

Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair, and the army of unreasoning idiots that post on them. Although they really depress me more than scare me.

11-Do you think that criticizing your blog is useful?

Sure.

12-Have you ever thought about what would happen to your blog in case you died?

Not until now.

13-Which blogger had the greatest impression on you?

Andrew Bolt inspired me by annoying me with his bullshit. Boltwatch/Mr Lefty inspired me to start writing my own stuff.

14-Which blogger do you think is the most similar to you?

Oh god, I don't know. I agree with most of what is posted by Mr Lefty, Punditocracy Watch, Bruce, Broken Left Leg etc, but everyone has their own styles.

15-Name a song you want to listen to?

"A song to say goodbye" by Placebo (that may not actually be the name of the song)

Sheik self-immolates

2006-10-28T14:59:00.000+10:00

Disturbing news story of the week by about a hundred miles is the spectacular self-immolation of Muslim religious leader and vile fundamentalist fool Sheik Taj Din al-Halali, who compared immodestly dressed women to uncovered meat likely to attract unwanted attention from stray cats, and indicated that the uncovered meat rather than the cats was the problem.

Hilali then proceeded to pour further petrol on the burning corpse of his reputation by failing to understand what all the fuss was about, first indicating that his comments were acceptable because they were only intended to refer to prostitutes, then claiming he had been misrepresented and finally refusing to resign until the world is rid of the White House. Tragically, he was supported by some Muslims (although also rejected and condemned by many). The resulting media firestorm has done more to incite suspicion and division between Australian Muslims and other Australians than an army of Andrew Bolts.

Now, it pays to be suspicious of what you read in the papers, and Shiek Hilali's comments fit perfectly into the angle right wing elements of the press have been running for some time. Perhaps poor old Hilali has been verballed?

I wish it were so. The transcript of the speech in question, which has not been seriously challenged, reveals the following nauseating, misogynist nonsense.

"If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem! If it was covered the cat wouldn't have. It would have circled around it and circled around it, then given up and gone.

If she was in her room, in her house, wearing her hijab, being chaste, the disasters wouldn't have happened. The woman possesses the weapon of seduction and temptation. That's why Satan says about the woman, "You are half a soldier. You are my messenger to achieve my needs. You are the last weapon I would use to smash the head of the finest of men. There are a few men that I use a lot of things with, but they never heed me. But you? Oh, you are my best weapon."

The meaning is entirely clear (and entirely revolting), and it is that men are animals who cannot control their sexual urges, and that somehow this is the fault of women. Horrible, and disturbing that a religious leader in Australia in 2006 would spout such despicable nonsense. But what can we do about it? I suggest

Hilali should be immediately sacked from his position as supposed leader of Australian Muslims. Every Muslim group and organisation should cease to have any dealings whatsoever with him, and he should never be heard from again. This is up to Australian Muslims. Do this, or risk losing what support for your religion/culture remains.

We, as a society, need to work to strengthen rationality, responsibility and respect for other human beings (my very own three R's!). Rational, educated people who respect the rights of others are less susceptible to fundamentalist poison. They will understand that they are responsible for their actions, and that they are not cats, or meat. How to strengthen rationality, responsibility and respect? Well, thats a big question. Making sure we have a strong, secular and universal education system has to be a start. Having some rational argument instead of spin in political debate couldn't hurt. And keeping religion out of politics as much as possible seems like a good idea.

Australians will not allow their women to be subservient, anonymous or under cover!

2006-10-24T21:32:00.000+10:00

The Australian today got stuck into veil wearing and multiculturalism, in the process discovering a surprising enthusiasm for an Australia that is "postmodern and secular". Which is interesting given that these two qualities in schools seem to drive them into a positive frenzy.

Now, the veil question is difficult, and I personally don't think much of what the veil represents. Neither do the Australian's editors.

"Just as an Australian wouldn't go to Saudi Arabia to wear a bikini on the beach and drink beer in the corner pub, those who see the proper role of women as subservient, anonymous and under cover should not expect a postmodern secular democracy such as Britain or Australia to accommodate these beliefs."

But in the course of this trenchant defence of the rights of women, we get this..

"Australians, who quite properly want their daughters, sisters, wives and mothers to be able to achieve anything, are right to feel uncomfortable about religiously mandated coverings and the limits they imply. We do not allow practices such as female genital mutilation simply because they are practiced by an immigrant "other"."

What about Australians who ARE daughters, sisters, wives and mothers? Do they have any input into what is and is not allowed? Why is the "We" we are talking about only Australian men? The women have been completely veiled out of the picture! I'm sure this was unconcious, but I reckon it shows that our beloved editors are not quite as liberated as they like to believe.

Oh happy happy future

2006-10-20T20:41:00.000+10:00

I was reading the Australian the other day (it was in a sandwich shop, OK, I didn't buy it), and was just thinking "Oh well, maybe I have been a bit harsh on Uncle Rupert's trained Oompa Loompahs, this isn't too bad". Then I turned over the page into the middle bit they keep for opinion stuff to be confronted with this excited panting from one Nick Cater, deputy editor of the Weekend Australian and prize idiot. Nick is responsible for organising a series of articles on what life will be like in 20 years. And he's got good news for us. We shouldn't be fooled by silly dystopian fantasies like Metropolis, A Clockwork Orange and um, An Inconvenient Truth.

Oh no. Well, lets just ignore Nick's pathetic effort to lump a documentary in with a bunch of works of fiction, presumably in the hope that some of his stupider readers will consider that it IS a work of fiction and keep burrowing their heads deeper into the (increasingly hot and dry) sand, and see what kind of argument he can mount to support his happy clappy future visions.

"For these anti-Enlightenment movies to work the audience has to first suspend belief in a fundamental self-evident truth: that most aspects of life for most human beings get better over time, not worse."

Well, as far as fundamental self-evident truths go, thats a cracker. I don't think I'll bother going to work tommorrow I think I'll just coast along waiting for the general inevitable improvment of things to make my life even more amazing. To be fair to Nick, he does explain a little further.

"As a species we are blessed with the power to understand and improve our condition and, barring a cataclysmic event such as a meteor strike, we can reasonably expect life to be even better in 2026."

Yes, well, we are blessed with the power to understand and improve our condition. We are also cursed with the ability to totally mess it up too. You could try asking people who lived through either of the world wars how that was in terms of things getting inevitably better. You could try asking some of Australia's farming families just how good things are getting as Australia gets hotter and dryer. You might find a few Iraqis a bit sceptical the inevitable march of progress as well.

You might find, in fact, if you had a brain and were willing to use it (something much discouraged by the editorial staff of the Australian, despite their strident wailing about the poor quality of education), that human history goes back thousands of years, much of which time involved very little advancement in human understanding and some of which involved considerable reverse progress. Black plague anyone? Dark Ages?

In fact, there are plenty of people living pretty dystopian lives right now.. just perhaps not people suckling on Uncle Rupert's capacious if somewhat liver spotted corporate teat. Sure, we do have more electronic gadgets and gizmos than ever before. Things are pretty good for a lot of people, and thats great - but there are plenty of challenges ahead, and Nick's inevitable utopianism is a stupid fantasy. Makes me wonder - could this be the same person that thinks water is an infinite resource? Talk about the need for education...

When, oh when, will the ABC worship appropriately?

2006-10-18T19:06:00.000+10:00

Well, its all about the media this week, with the government's new media concentration laws sparking great excitement, particularly on the part of quintessial Aussie Battler, James Packer. If it makes James happy, its got to be a good thing. So stop your whinging, who needs multiple news sources anyway?

The other media hoo-hah is some new plan to eliminate bias from that crooked commie collective, the ABC. This is obviously a good idea, and I look forward to the departure of the imminent departure from the organisation of Keith Windschuttle, Janet Albrechtsen and Andrew Bolt, all demonstrably biased to the point of psychosis.

Oh, that's not what they meant?

No, what they really mean is that despite stacking the board with the most strident far-right culture warriors that can be mustered, the damn ABC still won't do what its told and keeps misleading people, discouraging them from booking package holidays in now-flourishing Iraq, suggesting that global warming might actually be a problem and planting bad thoughts in their heads about well meaning businessmen, like those who run AWB.

Now, while this clearly won't do, I fear that, like past efforts to tame the wild bolshevik beast that is "Our ABC" (note the creepy collectivist overtones!), the plan is doomed to fail. Just like all these endless efforts to ensure that Universities only teach approved market friendly ideologies have failed.

But why?! Why are such glorious plans always destined to smash and founder on the jutting rocks of recalcitrant leftism, despite the fall of the Soviet Union, despite the obvious glittering glory of our golden, wealth-creating age. What is wrong with these people. WHEN WILL THEY WORSHIP THE MARKET WITH APPROPRIATE REVERENCE, DAMN THEM!!

Well, heres the answer for our poor confused little pollies. These ungrateful curs don't love The Market because it doesn't love them. Public institutions like universities, the ABC and even schools pay relatively little compared to the private sector. According to The Market, the most important job in Australia is an investment banker or a CEO. While it is self-obviously true that one investment banker contributes hundreds of times as much to society as your average public servant, many deluded teachers, nurses and ABC employees prop up their fragile self esteem with the quaint belief that financial reward is not the only measure by which a man or woman is judged. From there, it is but a short step to all forms of Market doubting heresy of the type which so plagues the ABC.

Grim news indeed - but there is a solution! All that needs to be done is to pay employees of the ABC exorbitant wages. This will soon lead them to appropriate market worshipping, or attract suitably ruthless replacement staff..its that easy. It may be a little harder to do this with teachers and nurses though...

2006-10-10T22:40:00.000+10:00

Am not feeling greatly inspired at present. The whole North Korea nuclear bomb thing is obviously bad, (although didn't everyone assume they had them anyway?)

The usual deranged idiots (largely posters to Andrew Bolts forum) blame the whole problem on the Left/Greens/postmodernism/schoolteachers etc.

Have also been surprised to find a couple of opinion articles in the Australian that were actually quite good - this and this. Credit where credit's due.. I'm a little surprised though, there must have been a malfunction in the Uncle Rupert Omnipresent Media Content Monitoring Surveillance System.

Will hopefully post something more interesting soon.

The water crisis is over - or is it the editors of the Australian that don't know much?

2006-10-04T22:45:00.000+10:00

The Australian today extended their jihad against History and English teachers to those other known post-modernist nasties, Geography teachers.

Apparently evil concepts such as human rights and sustainability have infiltrated the geography curriculum, doing immense damage to a subject previously so boring it was capable of inducing sustained involuntary unconsciousness. These new-fangled postmodernist politically correct notions have debased our Geography curriculum to the extent that students have been told terrible leftist untruths, such as the one about water being a finite resource. Doesn't it just make you furious?

Hang on a minute. The editors of the Australian do not believe that water is a finite resource. This means they must think that it is an infinite resource.

Unlimited water. Use as much as you like. Hell, just leave the tap running, its infinite after all. And all those people whinging about their dried up gardens? The farmers with their withered crops? They must be imagining it, deluded by some vast left wing conspiracy, just like global warming. Empty dams? More leftist propaganda I suppose.

I don't know what sort of geography teachers our good editors had, but if they really reckon that water is an infinite resource (presumably based on the fact that they can leave the tap running in their posh Sydney homes and the water just keeps coming), I reckon they could do with some better ones - maybe even some of these newfangled postmodernists they are always putting the boot into.

Challenge..

2006-10-03T19:36:00.000+10:00

Need to procrastinate? Try this. The idea is to control the red block with the mouse so the blue blocks don't hit it.

Supposedly (very supposedly) the Air Force use it to test the co-ordination of prospective fighter pilots. The pilots are supposed to be able to go for 2 minutes. My best is 33 seconds. Beat that!

Quotes..

2006-09-28T14:05:00.000+10:00

I briefly tipped my toe in the sewerage that is Andrew Bolt's blog today. These quotes are good for a laugh.

"He has no charisma, isn’t all that bright, and uses dodgy “facts”"

Andrew Bolt, attacking Al Gore, but much more accurately describing himself.

"it is such general if-maybe-could waffle that it is essentially meaningless. I could have written it myself"

Andrew Bolt, accurately describing his writing skills.

The subject of quotes brought to mind this, from a Young Liberal student politician whose name I now cannot recall, at the University of Queensland around 1999;

"If we win the (student) election the first thing we're going to do is paint over that fucking coon mural"

Clearly a future prime minister. Have a nice day folks..

Take a stand for Australian Values, Mr Howard - Deport the Exclusive Brethren!

2006-09-26T20:55:00.000+10:00

We have heard a lot about Australian values recently. Those of us who didn't already realise it must surely now be aware that only Australians are capable of friendship, kindness and carrying dead soldiers on donkeys.

In the words of Brendan Nelson;

"We want them to understand our history and our culture, the extent to which we believe in mateship and giving another person a hand up and a fair go. And basically, if people don't want to be Australians and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well basically they can clear off."

Peter Costello;

"According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you. This is not the kind of country where you would feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts and so I would say to people who don't feel comfortable with those values there might be other countries where they'd feel more comfortable with their own values or beliefs."

John Howard;

"We know what our enemies think and what they are capable of. They hate our freedoms and our way of life. They despise our democratic values. They have nothing but contempt for a diverse society which practises tolerance and respect."

Kim Beazely;

"But mateship is uniquely Australian. We are a country that celebrates individual achievement. But above all we are a country that knows we must pull together. We are a country of mates."

Which is all pretty damn stupid really. Are our political leaders really so stupid that they think that only Australians are capable of being "mates"? Or are they just bullshitting to try and get votes? Hmm, I wonder.

But lets say for a minute there is something in all this piss and wind about Australian values and its not just some slimy politicians trick. From the above brief survey, it seems the crucial Ozzie values are mateship and democracy. Oi Oi Oi!

Well, now I have thought about it a bit, there is at least one group of fundamentalist religious maniacs who openly hold these great Australian values in utter contempt.

In fact, these people are so UN-MATEY that they seek to hold themselves entirely apart from Australian society. They only marry within their own religion. Their women cover their heads with scarves. They abhor television and higher education. They run their own schools where innocent children are force fed vile fundamentalist values. They will not even eat with ordinary dinky-di you-beaut Aussie battlers, or any other kind of Aussie who is not also a deranged religious maniac. Even more shockingly, they are forbidden to wear shorts. I'm not sure about thongs, that might be OK.

These enemies of freedom are also vehemently OPPOSED TO DEMOCRACY to the extent that they FLOUT AUSTRALIAN LAW and refuse to vote in Australian elections. They believe that God is a higher authority than the elected government of Australia, and they believe that all of us who do not accept their ways will burn in hell forever. Their record of terrorist atrocities in Australia is as bad as any other religious group.

These people are clearly exactly who Brendan, Peter, John and Kim were talking about. They clearly "don't want to live by Australian values and understand them". They are "opposed to democracy". They "hate our freedoms and way of life" to the extent that they will not even eat in our presence. There can be no better example of people who, according to our pollies, should "clear off".

So why, then does Joe Hockey, Federal Minister for Human Services and Minister assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations (!!) say "I'd agree more with what the Exclusive Brethren stand for than the ALP." (see Harangueman for a more detailed explanation)

Why does the leader of the Victorian National Party meet with them and welcome their support?

Why do the Prime Minister and the Treasurer themselves defend the right of these lunatics to seek to influence the government, even though said lunatics hold the democratic process in such contempt that they will not vote themselves?

What the hell is going on? Can someone please explain to me why our leaders preach so loudly in defence of Australian values and then cosy up to religious fundamentalists whose beliefs are the absolute antithesis of the said values?

***UPDATE*** 1 October 2006*******

Along similar lines, see this article in the Sydney Morning Herald, and Andrew Bolt's pathetic response where he runs his "how dare you criticise Christians (or Americans, or conservative politicians) when there are so many Muslims that are so much worse" argument.

Applying Andrew's "logic" would mean that one can't criticise thieves because murderers are worse, but surprise surprise, he and his little herd of forum loyalists just don't get it.

Deconstructing the loony fringe

2006-09-24T22:14:00.000+10:00

On reading this headline for the Weekend Australian's editorial on 23 September 2006, I was initially hopeful that what they meant is that they had instituted a mighty purge of their opinion writers, thrown their crew of professional nonsense writers out into the street and engaged some actual journalists.

Sadly, this isn't right. What they really want to say is that they feel really, really threatened by people thinking for themselves. And they want it stopped, right now. Of course, when your actual meaning is something as fascist as that, its best not to use those actual words. So lets have a look at what they do say..

Start with some grand sounding platitudes that no-one could possibly disagree with;

"A real education is the right of every Australian child. Every school student deserves the best. We believe that to develop aspirations and to achieve them, young Australians must be taught how to think and write, not what to think and write."

Then, swiftly move from reasonableness into right-wing fantasy;

"Yet, instead of learning to value great literature, the infection of schools with postmodernist theory sees many pupils wasting their time "deconstructing" children's picture books, movie posters or television sitcoms to "unpack" concealed ideology."

The strategy here is to use a few nasty sounding words like "infection" and to assert, without evidence that, instead of students happily swotting up on their Shakespeare they are wasting their time with television sitcoms due to postmodernism. This appeals nicely to people who like to tut-tut about the younger generation, and is much more palatable to the Australian's overriding editorial line that "The Market is God" than saying "Yet, instead of learning to value great literature, bright-eyed young capitalists are telling their teachers to stick their dusty old Shakespeare up their underpaid public service employed backsides - after all, Shakespeare isn't going to give them a fucking job, is he"

"Jewels of Western literature such as Shakespeare are dissected under Marxist, feminist or racial analysis rather than according to the universal truths such as love, hate, pride, ambition and jealousy they represent."

Then throw in a few "nasty" buzzwords for good measure - Marxist and feminist are nice. Boo, hiss!. It doesn't matter if what you are saying doesn't make any sense (How exactly does one dissect Shakespeare according to the universal truth of hate?), in fact its positively desirable because its hard to disagree with something that has no meaning.

Then, identify the enemy.

"The Australian Association for the Teaching of English apparently disagrees with our stand. The current issue of the association's journal, English in Australia, carries a six-page critique by David Freesmith, an English master in his first teaching assignment at Prince Alfred College, an exclusive Adelaide private school."

Try a bit of playing the man, not the ball - note that Mr Freesmith is only in his first teaching assignment, and he is at an exclusive private school. Then select what you believe are the stupidest sounding parts of your opponent's argument;

"Mr Freesmith argues that our campaign for a "neutral" curriculum and a "commonsense" return to a classical pedagogy, including the politically neutral teaching of canonical authors from Greek tragedy to Shakespeare and from Jane Austen to David Malouf, masks an ideological motive of "promoting conservative, Eurocentric and nationalistic agendas"."

Yeah, well..he's right isn't he?

"We applaud the fact that our stand is allied with the paradigm endorsed by the vast majority of thinking Australians rather than with the lunatic fringe."

But we can't deal with his arguments, so will appeal to populism instead. Using some grand sounding language such as "allied with the paradigm endorsed by the vast majority of thinking Australians" will make it sound more impressive, again with the advantage that it doesn't actually mean anything.

"According to Mr Freesmith, this newspaper's "tactic" of ridiculing examples of absurd postmodernist jargon lacks critical rigour. Nonsense. We believe all parents will agree that prominent teacher-educator Wayne Martino's argument for the conceptualisation of the classroom as a sociopolitical site where alternative readings to oppressive gender hierarchies may be made available to students is one that has no place in our education system."

Then use a bit of (admittedly turgid) postmodernist prose to ridicule the opponent. Fair enough, but what does this nasty sounding phrase actually mean?

It means it is possible to teach children that just because a bunch of people (for example conservative fundamentalists at the Australian) say that something is so, doesn't mean it is.

For example, remember how people used to that women were items of property that shouldn't work or vote? Because thats just the way things were? Well guess what people, that was AN OPPRESSIVE GENDER HEIRARCHY, and it lost out to an ALTERNATIVE READING ie women aren't property and they are capable of thinking for themselves. If the editors at the Australian think that was a mistake, fucking well say so. Go on, I dare you, you weasel wording fuckers.

Then, to conceal the fact that you haven't actually made one single decent point, call in an expert to try and give yourself some credibility.

"The Weekend Australian invited the respected Queensland educationalist Kenneth Wiltshire to respond to Mr Freesmith's assault on this newspaper and his defence of cultural literacy."

Note again that Mr Freesmith is clearly a nasty type, witnessed by his "assault" on our poor little editorial flowers..hope they are OK, getting picked on by the nasty teacher man..

Then to conclude;

"What role, then, for cultural literacy - with its mantra of deconstructing texts, no longer considering texts to be timeless, universal or unbiased, focusing on the beliefs of the author and working for "social equity" and change rather than understanding - in schooling in 2006?"

Throw in negative buzz-word "mantra" compared with the nice-sounding ones "timeless, universal and unbiased". And also suggest that working for social equity and change are incompatible with understanding!. All spin and bullshit so far, but maybe Professor Wiltshire can save the day!

"he describes as a recipe for laziness, indifference and an unwillingness to identify common values an approach that insists Shakespeare can only be understood through a prism of gender or racism."

Oh dear, more bullshit. Who exactly insists that Shakespeare can ONLY be understood through a prism of gender (boo!) and racism (boo!). Please identify these demonic educational zealots..or don't they exist?

And finally, a bit of pre-emptive triumphalism..

" And we look forward to the inevitable passing of critical literacy into the large well of dumped educational fads."

Because there's nothing that makes us sicker than people questioning the way things are..why can't people see that things are the way they are because thats just the natural order..the rich are rich, the poor are poor, women have babies and men control everything else. Just don't go thinking OK? We'll make it easy for you by publishing lots of opinion-drivel that actually makes no sense but sounds impressive.

Andrew Bolt fails the test on Global Warming

2006-09-17T16:23:00.000+10:00

If anyone still believes that anything Andrew Bolt says about climate change (or anything else, really) has any credibilty, cure yourself by checking out this refutation of Bolt's recent attack on the Al Gore film "An Inconvenient Truth".

Among other things, Bolt's supposed evidence includes comments from a scientist who died in 1991 and other stuff that is just plain wrong. Now that's an inconvenient truth, Andrew!

****update**** 4 October 2006

And check this out - one of the scientists Andrew relies upon (one that's still alive) says he has been misrepresented.

New model of hair dryer launched - "The Beazely"

2006-09-17T14:39:00.000+10:00

This week has seen enough hot air ventilated about "Australian values" to fill any number of balloons, generated most effectively by champion hot-air blower and alleged leader of the ALP, Kim Beazely with his outstandingly stupid suggestion that everyone who comes here, even tourists, should have to sign off on some ludicrous statement about, among other things, the value of hard work. The Government was in on the act as well, crapping on about how we can't just go handing out citizenships willy nilly or all kinds of people will be using them to wipe their bottoms on (or something like that)

All this bullshit must have appealed to the editors at the Australian who entered the general festival of stupidity with this offering. I can't be bothered dissecting the drivel in its entirety , but the article is a fine example of political language at its excrecable worst. There are a few particularly vigorous maggots of stupidity crawling around in the dung though. Like this;

"The US's open and flexible labour market means migrants still regard it as the land of opportunity and take the pledge of allegiance with pride. In contrast, many immigrant communities across the Atlantic are marked by high unemployment and ghettoisation."

Yes, there you have it folks. The answer to the terror problem is AN OPEN AND FLEXIBLE LABOUR MARKET. Thank goodness we have Workchoices, we can stop spending so much money on spies and police!

And in conclusion;

"It's time for a national conversation about whether mutual obligation must be the new standard for citizenship."

What the fuck does this actually mean? "mutual obligation must be the new standard for citizenship" Mutual obligation between whom, to do what?

More War?

2006-09-12T21:48:00.000+10:00

Its been all about September 11 and the war on terror this week. Which is fine with me. I am all in favour of a war on terror. Terror is not nice at all. In fact, I think we should also have a war on stupidity, hatemongering, irrationality and general nastiness.

Unfortunately, this isn't very likely given that it would require George Bush and John Howard to declare war on some of their own political supporters, as evidenced by the following exchange between two prominent American fundamentalist Christians, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, shortly after the September 11 attacks:

Falwell said, "What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."

Robertson replied, "Well, Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven't begun to see what they can do to the major population."

Falwell said, "The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...successfully with the help of the federal court system...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."

Robertson said, "I totally concur, and the problem is we've adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system."

Falwell added, "Pat, did you notice yesterday that the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, the People for the American Way, NOW, etc., were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress, as they went out on the steps and and called out to God in prayer and sang 'God bless America' and said, let the ACLU be hanged. In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time, calling on God."

Thanks to EvilBible.com for this evidence that not all the fundamentalist lunatics are hiding in caves in Afghanistan. And no, getting in pre-emptively in case any stray conservative sheeples wander in here, this DOESN'T mean I support Osama Bin Laden. I just have a problem with freedom-hating fundamentalist lunatics of all stripes.

Andrew Bolt's Symphony of Hate

2006-09-09T17:33:00.000+10:00

Yes, I too am a little concerned that this blog is becoming too focused on Mr Bolt, which I would like to avoid given that Bolt's illogical journalistic abominations are ably and regularly demolished at Boltwatch. But he just provides so much material, I can't leave it alone. Its like picking at a scab or squeezing a pimple or something. You know its wrong, but somehow..

And of course, there's the other great thing about Bolt - his forum, a fine opportunity for those with strong stomachs and masochistic tendencies to observe just how dysfunctional political debate can be. For those who aren't familiar with it, Bolt's forum works like this.

Every day, Bolt posts short snippets of supposed news, carefully tailored to smear anyone whose political beliefs do not hail from the far right and to confirm the prejudices of his loyal audience of bug-eyed fundamentalists and whip them into an ecstatic frenzy of bilious hatred. Like the conductor of some hideous orchestra of drooling madmen, Bolt wields his journalistic baton and conducts his shrieking acolytes into Wagnerian riffs of hatred directed against Muslims, the Greens and academics. Like a man throwing live chickens to a pack of rabid dogs, Bolt dishes out misleading gems like this one - a picture of a woman in a modified extra-modest hospital gown, offered to patients in England. Bolt for some reason, however, entitles the article "And this is nurse.. nurse um", even though the gown has nothing to do with nurses.

Anyway, I hardly feel the need to provide multiple examples of Bolt's post-modern approach to the truth, but the numbers of responses that the squawking, flapping chickens of deceptiveness elicit as they are torn to pieces by the dog pack provide an interesting insight into what really fires up a right wing extremist. I have done a quick survey of the last 20 Bolt forum entries, and the results are as follows:

Muslims are nasty: 3 articles, 141 comments
War in Iraq: 1 article, 11 comments
Steve Irwin( generally left-wing hatred of) : 4 articles, 176 comments
Academics: 3 articles, 171 comments
Global warming: 2 articles 55 comments
Jews: 1 article 18 comments
Iraq: 1 article 31 comments
Evilness of nature: 1 article 24 comments
Evilness of unions: 1 article 59 comments
Stolen generations: 1 article 26 comments
Tony Blair: 1 article 13 comments
Nice stuff about muslims: 1 article 10 comments

So, based on this rather cursory survey, the things that incite Andrew's dog-pack the most effectively are Muslims, academics and the supposed hatred of the left for St Steve Irwin. I'm a bit surprised the Australian Greens aren't in there, actually. What do you think readers? What fires up a nutter the best? What makes them absolutely purple with self-righteous rage? Suggestions please.

Snotty nosed whining conservative brats

2006-09-07T20:46:00.000+10:00

Bolt recently added "broody second son" to his list of pejorative adjectives to describe anyone from the left of politics , on the basis of some junk science article about how second sons are more likely to be rebels.

While I don't see anything wrong with being broody, a second son or a rebel, Bolt did remind me that two can play the insulting junk science game, hence I draw to your attention a recent Berkeley study, published in the Journal of Research Into Personality, showing that whiny 3- and 4-year-olds:

... tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests.

The professor who conducted the study concluded that:

"... that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial."

Andrew Bolt slithers to New Depths in Efforts to Exploit Death of Steve Irwin

2006-09-05T20:00:00.000+10:00

What's this?

Yep, its a slug. Its a Banana slug, apparently this is a good kind of slug, almost never found in gardens or crops..hmm, maybe I should change the photo to a Great Grey Slug or something.

What's this?

Thats right, its a slimey attempt to use the tragic death of the perhaps not overly cluey but generally well loved Steve Irwin to further Andrew Bolt's own obsessive jihad against the left of politics generally and the Greens in particular.

According to Andrew, the "Left" demonstrated its lack of compassion on the Jon Faine show, with some callers apparently less than appropriately reverent

"“I’m glad he’s no longer an ambassador for Australia,’’ said one. Others complained he was a mere showman, bad for animals and not worth all this fuss. Another said that others did more for wildlife but didn’t have a PR machine like Irwin’s."

I don't know how Andrew knew these callers were all lefties..oh hang on, I forgot, Andrew has his Amazing Lefty Mind Reader Device handy so he can examine the innermost thoughts of these callous monsters and find out why they are so filled with hate.

And what does he find..well, apparently they are lefties, and the Left is "a resort for the failed, resentful and the broody second son" and "has a natural antipathy towards success". Which would be why there are so many more leftish voters amongst people who are oppressed by tertiary education and well paid professional jobs. Losers.

But thats not the main reason for all this left wing hatred. This was something else..and Andrew and his mind reader device is right onto it!

""Could Irwin’s real sins include having said this about Greens leader Bob Brown after he’d heckled George W. Bush:

"Oh Crikey mate, he needs to be taken out the back and given a good belting."

Or was it what he said about John Howard when the Prime Minister visited his wildlife park:

"In front of us right now is the greatest leader Australia has ever had and the greatest leader in the world."

Well yes, those quotes do make Steve Irwin sound a bit stupid and nasty - and using my Amazing Andrew Bolt Mind Reader Device, I reckon they're meant to, in the hope of provoking some ill-judged responses in the comments to prove Bolt's original theory. Particularly as both quotes are less offensive in their original context - the transcript of the quote about Bob Brown ends with "(laughs)" and may well have been a (not very amusing) joke - but Andrew didn't feel the need to mention this for some reason..

So, does Andrew really think that Steve Irwin's family want him remembered as the guy who reckoned Bob Brown should be taken out the back and beaten up? Or as a partisan political figure extolling Mr Howard's virtues? I doubt it, but clearly this doesn't matter to Andrew as long as he makes his point.

Rather amusingly though, no one takes Andrew's bait and he is the one who gets a bit of a well deserved verbal belting in the comments thread. So at least that's something!

Shock Crisis in Maths and Science teaching - Editorial Staff at The Australian Unable to Understand Basic Mathematics

2006-09-04T20:55:00.000+10:00

Whats this? Its a spinning dervish, also known as a Sufi, a spiritual offshoot of Islam. Although today entertainers, not true Sufi perform most of the shows.

And whats this?

Its the editorial staff of the Australian, spinning faster and more vigourously than the most enthusiastic dervish in an effort to prove that black is white and we really shouldn't be worrying about climate change. Their subject is a new report from the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), and they claim that the report

" helps separate fact from hype"

Well, maybe it does. Certainly, the editorial helps separate readers from reality. This is the same IPCC report that Andrew Bolt was misrepresenting on Saturday. And the editors at the Oz spin things much the same way, but with even less respect for what the report actually says. Lets see how they do their spinny thing.

First, we get a sudden dramatic change of heart about the accuracy of climate change predictions - you know, the computer models global warming denialists are always rubbishing as innacurate.

"THE world's scientists are getting a clearer idea of just how the Earth's climate is changing and just what that means for us humans living and working on it."

See, climate models are ALL GOOD when they give you the result you want..

"Rejecting doomsday scenarios, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has projected a rise of 3C in average daily global temperature by the end of the century, assuming greenhouse gas emissions remain stable. According to a draft report obtained exclusively by The Weekend Australian, the world's top climate scientists have narrowed the band of predicted temperature rises and all but eliminated the possibility of a 5.8C average temperature increase mooted when the group last met in 2001. In other words, according to the IPCC, the planet is heating up - but nowhere near as much as once thought or feared."

Except, unfortunately for the apparently scientifically and logically illiterate editors, as I explained in yesterdays post about Bolt, THIS ISNT WHAT IT SAYS. It says that out of a range of temperature rises between 1.4C and 5.8C, the IPCC expects a 3C rise - right in the middle of the previous forecast! In other words, the last report was right, global warming is real and its serious. But why let the facts get in the way when there's greenies to be got at..

"The report is particularly valuable as a rebuke to that radical and disproportionately loud fringe of greenies and leftists who treat environmentalism as a religion for whom humanity's sinful, decadent ways threaten to bring down the wrath of nature or the gods and must be changed."

Oh yes, the old environmentalism as religion straw man bollocks. But here's the best bit;

"It is also further evidence that such alarmist scenarios such as the "hockey stick" theory (so named for the shape of the line on the graph it is taken from) are, well, overheated."

Is it really?

Now class, please turn to page 163 of Tim Flannery's book "The History and Future Impact of Climate Change". See that there graph - yes, the one known as the "hockey stick?" That alarmist one, right? Got it?

Well, see the thick black line right up the middle..yes, the "alarmist scenario" one forcasting likely future global warming to 2100? Yep. Well, what temperature rise does it alarmingly suggest?

Oh.. 3C,

EXACTLY WHAT THE IPCC ARE NOW PREDICTING. The report doesn't disprove the hockey stick graph it supports it! Did no-one at our premier national broadsheet notice this before they so confidently claimed the exact opposite? How odd!

Anyway, I really can't be bothered dealing with the rest of the article in detail. There's lots more unsubstantiated assertions, an alarmist claim that reducing greenhouse emissions by half will cut real incomes by 20 percent, and the "well, we're only a little country it won't make any difference if we do something anyway" argument. Theres also a bit of the old "well it won't be so bad really" thrown in for good measure. Basically a mass of grand sounding statements, made with the utmost confidence and no evidence. I'm pretty confident that the level of credibility of the rest of the editorial is the same as the first part, ie very little.

Andrew "Greenhouse" Bolt

2006-09-02T16:15:00.000+10:00

Andrew Bolt doesn't live in the same universe as the rest of us. He lives in a strange and frightening parallel universe where evil pagan leftists rule the roost, supported by a savagely biased left-wing media.

The rules of logic also work differently there - ordinary logic is overuled by "Andrew's first Law of Politics" which provides that "a fact is only a fact if it supports an extreme right-wing political ideology".

Andrew's reality disconnect is most ably demonstrated at Mr Lefty's excellent blog Boltwatch, but I found a nice example today at Andrew's own blog.

Andrew claims that a draft report recently released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that "we have only half as much to fear (from global warming)", because it predicts a likely 3C rise in temperature, rather than the rise predicted in 2001 of between 1.4C and 5.8C.

This is clearly an application of Andrew's First Law of Politics, and is therefore not valid outside the BoltUniverse. The projected 3C rise is right in the middle of the projected range. The IPCC is actually saying "yes, we were right, climate change is happening as predicted, and we now think it will be around 3C.".

And yes Andrew, this is about half the projected maximum. But it is also MORE than half the projected minimum! It would be just as accurate to say "New figures show global warming to be more than twice as bad". I know I shouldn't shout, but UNLESS YOU ARE LIVING IN BOLT'S PARALLEL UNIVERSE, THIS IS NOT GOOD NEWS!

And given that global warming is a pretty serious problem, Andrew's efforts (pathetic as they are) to confuse the issue make me very annoyed. Very, very poor Mr Bolt. I hope you one day enjoy telling your grandkids about how we once used to have snow in Australia, and how there used to be funny animals like polar bears in Canada, but that Grandad and a few other rightist wingnuts managed to muddy the waters on global warming for long enough that no-one did anything about it until the snow was all gone, and the bears were all dead.

Oh yes, and just to respond in advance to any poor souls who pipe up with "But it was really cold the other day, global warming is such nonsense", I suggest you check out this years snow chart from Mt Hotham.

The Australian declares Jihad on Jack Thomas

2006-08-31T20:34:00.000+10:00

The friendly folks at the Australian are conducting their own holy war on "Jihad" Jack Thomas, using a heavy bombardment of dubious but inflammatory rhetoric... 7 articles today, 6 clearly supporting the government position. Particularly dubious was yesterdays offering, headlined

"Bomb victims all for surveillance"

Which suggests that all the victims of the Bali bombings support the government actions. But if you actually read the article, only two of the three people quoted actually do. Why wasn't the article titled "Two thirds of bomb victims for surveillance"?

Bob (the builder) Day

2006-08-28T21:31:00.000+10:00

Did anyone else catch the recent article in (sigh) The Australian by a Bob Day, stated at the end of the article to be

"chairman of the Institute of Public Affairs' Great Australian Dream Project."

Basically, Bob blames high house prices on restrictions on land development. Its essentially a defence of urban sprawl. Which is all very well. Bob has a right to his opinion. But I might respect his integrity and therefore his argument a little bit more if Bob had bothered to mention that as well as being the chairman of this lovely sounding Great Australian Dream Project, he is also Managing Director of Home Australia Pty Ltd, one of Australia's leading homebuilding companies. And what sort of homes do Home Australia build? Check out the website

Surprise surprise, they build enormous McMansions. And where do they buld them? The city fringe. Suddenly Bob's keen interest in cheap land subdivisions makes a lot more sense!

Oh, and yes, he is apparently also an aspiring Liberal party politician - so blaming high house prices on the State Labor governments makes a lot of sense too!

An "E" for the editorial staff at the Oz

2006-08-26T18:37:00.000+10:00

I have a feeling the Australian's editorial staff are going to feature prominently on here. In the 26 August Weekend Australian, they throw a tanty because a few people dared to disagree with their paper's frantic yelping about the overturning of Jack Thomas' terror conviction.

Our outraged editors go on to presume that the negative response was prompted by them seeking a response to the dismissal of the conviction from the father of a Bali bombing victim rather than a civil rights lawyer. They claim that

"such criticism also betrays an ignorance of the principles of journalism. Besides helping to move the story forward, when an alleged terrorist's conviction is quashed, who better to talk to than the victims of terrorism? It is hard to imagine a civil rights lawyer would have anything more relevant to say."

Its hard to imagine that a civil rights lawyer could ever have anything to say that the editors at the Oz might think relevant, given that they seem to hate the breed. Of course, you might think that the legal principles behind a Court of Appeal decision might be best explained by a lawyer. But if you think that, you're probably a latte sipping terrorist supporting unAustralian Greens voter anyway.

The Oz crew then launch happily into the right-wingers favourite tactic - inaccurately re-stating their oponents position. In this case, claiming that

"Better, say the likes of Crikey, Ackland and The Age (and their counterparts in the civil rights lobby), that one man who had trained to do Australia harm go free than 20 million Australians have faith that their legal system takes the terrorist threat seriously. "

No they dont. They say we dont need to throw the right to a fair trial out the window in order to deal with a bunch of fundamentalist madmen. They say that for people to have faith in the Australian legal system, it should be fair.

Further, just because you believe in the right to a fair trial doesn't mean you don't take the terrorist threat seriously. But this particular smear is a favourite one of rightists everywhere, and is re-presented in a variety of ways for the rest of the article eg

"just what it will take to get Mr Thomas's apologists to take the terror threat seriously. Suicide bombers detonating aboard Melbourne's trams?"

"And Crikey, Ackland and The Age should remember their loyalty is to their readers' wider interests, not to civil rights lawyers."

Then we get this red herring

"And curiously, the same voices who cheered Mr Thomas's release have been largely silent on the 20-year sentence Sydney architect Faheem Khalid Lodhi received on Wednesday for plotting a terrorist atrocity, even though he had never trained with terrorists."

Gee, could it be because he was actually plotting a terrorist atrocity, not just hanging out in Afghanistan with some bad people? Could it be because he got a fair trial and wasn't convicted on the basis of evidence obtained under duress? Nahh, those explanations are far too sensible, why not just hint at some kind of evil leftist conspiracy.

Overall, a miserable effort, but also quite routine for editorial material from the Australian, which seems to exist in the kind of fact and reason free vacuum ordinarily inhabited by people like Janet Albrechtsen and Andrew Bolt. An "E" for the Australian's editorial staff - as "Australia's only national broadsheet newspaper, with over four decades' experience in the business" they should be able to do much better than this.

Annoying person of the week

2006-08-24T22:28:00.000+10:00

This weeks annoying person is, surprisingly, provided by Rupert Murdoch's (un)Australian. His name is David Flint and he is mighty upset at the Victorian Court of Appeal finding that evidence obtained by threatening to rape someones wife (among other things), is not admissable in an Australian court (full article here). This unreasonable attitude

"raises issues that go to the heart of the criminal justice system, a system that was once the pride of the nation"

Well, he's actually right about this - a fair trial, and the exlusion of evidence obtained by inducements or threats does go to the heart of the criminal justice system. I'm not so sure about the criminal justice system once being the pride of the nation..ever heard your nanna going on about how she used to be so proud of the criminal justice system?

He then proceeds to claim (without evidence) that the "criminal classes" (presumably street urchins and pickpockets) are laughing at the justice system, and that

"individual responsibility has been substantially diminished and punishment significantly lightened"

Unfortunately for Flinty, this sentence bears no relationship to reality. Check out the sentencing data for some actual facts - sentences are, if anything, increasing. And as for individual responsibility, its all we ever hear about! Where the hell have you been living, Mr Flint - the last hippie commune in Australia?

Flinty then gets all nostalgic for the good old days, when there was no crime, just lots of healthy beatings and universal respect for judeo-christian values.

"Senior citizens recall, and the young believe, that in former times incipient criminal behaviour was often nipped in the bud by the discipline then prevailing in homes and schools. This was assisted at times by conscription and, above all, reinforced by the universal respect for those Judeo-Christian values that permeated society, until they too were quietly whittled away."

Yes, like Dickensian England for example. Or perhaps the 1950s, because there was no crime then. No crime at all, it was all nipped in the bud by conscription and daily beatings. Doing well Mr Flint.. but wait, there's more!

"Few Australians share the unbridled optimism of some experts for rehabilitation. They reject the advice to legislators that they should never impose mandatory sentences, caring little for the often-cited international human rights instruments. They know Australia once applied the ultimate mandatory sentence - the death penalty - for murder and treason, which was withdrawn against their wishes. Even today, few Australians are absolutely and in all circumstances opposed to the death penalty, particularly in wartime or for terrorist outrages."

Well, thats a killer argument - lots of Australians care little for human rights and wouldn't mind a bit of governmental murder. Lots of people once thought the earth was flat, too, it doesn't mean it is.

String-em up Flint then gets stuck into the Appeals courts (you know, those unreasonable ivory tower latte sipping types who insist on giving people a fair trial), using his amazing lawyer mind reader device to dicover that

"at all times during the trial, the primary consideration of counsel for the accused is to be alert for the slightest slip, to be stored for use later to claim a mistrial"

And here was silly old me thinking that they might be thinking about actually winning the case the first time round..ridiculous, I know.

Anyway, Flinty continues on in his merry but uninformed way, bleating that the system is biased in favour of the accused ( its called "innocent until proven guilty") and whining that that the system is inefficient to a degree which would be unacceptable in any other endeavour (perhaps it would be more efficient just to shoot anyone who is accused of a serious crime?).

He then moves from the idiotic to the sublimely stupid, claiming that

"the conviction rate is so low that it could be said rape is almost lawful in our country today"

Well, it could. You could say that if you want. You'd be wrong though. Still, I guess being wrong doesn't matter as long as you get the general "truthiness" across that judges and lawyers are a bunch of terrorist loving pinko scum.

Mr Flint then claims that the real problem is that the system doesnt respect the jury. He claims that "the aim is not to inform them (the jury members) but to keep them in the dark". Which isnt true either.. is there a pattern emerging here?

He continues;

"Take the Thomas case. His interview in Pakistan was crucial. But the appeals court says the jury should not have been told of the interview. This is ridiculous, and if it is a correct application of the law, then the law should be changed."

Why no mention of the REASON the appeals court said the evidence shouldn't be relied upon, Mr Flint? Don't want to taint your evidence free little rant with references to unpleasant things like threats to rape someones wife, or have their testicles crushed? Certainly you don't want to mention that there might be good reasons to exclude evidence obtained by such dubious means. Ever considered that such evidence might not be really reliable? Or that its important not to encourage torture? Lets just leave out those inconvenient facts...

Flinty concludes with an appeal to the good sense and fairnes of the average Australian - but he clearly doesn't think the average Australian has enough good sense to be told the reasons the Court of Appeal did what it did. Very poor, Mr Flint.

Not much to say, today

2006-08-17T20:25:00.000+10:00

Hmmm, so whats news today..nothing too exciting. A "mystery buyer" wants to buy Coles (keeping it a secret because its a present for one of the kids perhaps?). The Herald Sun's take on this was to point out the happy news that around 400,000 "mum and dad" investors enjoyed a 12 percent spike in the value of their Coles shares. Hopefully that will make them feel a bit better about the endlessly plummeting value of their Telstra shares. Strangely, there was no mention of the reaction of the 250 rich pricks who own the other 97.3% of Coles. Presumably they are also happy that their already immense wealth has further increased.

And they've found some guy in Thailand who is supposed to have killed that Jon Benet child in the US - remember her, the child beauty queen found dead in her parent's basement a few years ago? It seems the alleged murderer wears collared polo shirts and cream slacks pulled up to his navel, so chances are the allegations are correct. Judge for yourself (first impressions are always the most accurate).

Oh yes, and Andrew Bolt wants us to know about the link between the Greens and the Nazis! He is keeping the information about both the Greens and the Nazi's being child-eating lizard men from Alpha Centauri until closer to the next election. The editorial staff at the Australian are giving the Howard government soft wet kisses regarding the PM's change of heart (does he have one?) on allowing a conscience vote on stem cells, and outright sloppy journalistic fellatio over the government's brave efforts to ensure that Australian children are taught proper history instead of all that left wing crap about unions, abos and womens rights. Actually I can't remember being taught any of that, just a lot of stuff about explorers. Odd.

Anyway, thats enough. Must go cook dinner.

Too easy

2006-08-16T21:11:00.000+10:00

Well, that was easy. Too easy...

Something doesn't seem quite right about this, Mike...

...quiet......

What's that noise? Its coming closer, sounds like its straight ahead? Its right on top of us.....They're in the roof..AAARRGGHHH!

What, ALIENS?!

ARGHH, no, worse!! AARRGHH

What, what is it?

News Limited opinion columnists...AARRGH!! We're fucked man!

Fuck! Fuck! They're in the roof. We're FUCKED!

Yep, we're fucked. This is a very silly post, but hey I have to start somewhere.