By Jeremy
In his asinine attempt in today’s Herald Sun to portray those filthy un-Australian child-hating artists as being “conformist” groupthinkers, Andrew Bolt returns to the idiotic “name just one” attack we’d sadly thought a thing of the past:
WANT proof our artists think in a pack, and not for themselves? Then see their reaction to the photographs of Bill Henson.
Henson is now being investigated by police for taking sexually suggestive pictures of a naked 13-year-old girl.
In the two weeks of this controversy, Henson has been damned by politicians, priests, talkback hosts, columnists and the public, in poll after poll.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd rejected his pictures as “utterly revolting” and NSW Premier Morris Iemma called them “disgusting”.
But has a single artist, a single gallery owner, a single curator, a single arts critic said the same, and demanded Henson’s photographs be withdrawn from display and sale?
Answer: Are you kidding? The reaction from artists has been utterly, eerily unanimous in his support.
Oh Andy, it’s good to have you back. I’m not going to bother retorting to the stupidity of the facile line of argument you’re running (politicians and right-wing talkshow hosts who run with the pack are “independent thinkers” but artists who disagree are “conformist”), because it’s not important. What’s important is that we once again get to enjoy the “name just one” refrain you made such a compelling theme of your ultimately amusingly contradicted anti-stolen generation theories. We thought after you’d been forced to up the numbers in your classic demand of Manne you might have learned the dangers of “name just one”.
But you didn’t!
We can’t wait to see where else you apply it.
In fact, having a look at your current blog page, let’s see how you could add it to your other funny little posts:
- “Warming faith defied in Parliament”: How about – “not a single member of Parliament could contradict him with half the command of the issues and the evidence”! (No, wait, you did in fact write that. Sorry, you’re way ahead of me.)
- ““Liar” is no way to win votes”: How about – the water crisis is Labor’s fault for not building any more damns, and every water expert agrees with me. Name one who doesn’t! Just one!
- “Obama wins, and McCain must worry”: How about – There are no good people out there named Obama. Name just one!
- “More unfashionable speech banned”: How about – Canadians haven’t been able to enjoy free speech on the subject of abortion in years. Name just one instance where they have!
- “Rudd’s dodgy dagwood dog”: How about – there’s no such thing as a “dagwood dog”. Show me just one!
Alright, I’ll stop there.
Your homework for this week – try out The Andrew Bolt Game (TM). The aim is to disingenuously pop “name just one!” into as many discussions as possible. See how quickly people who are momentarily at a loss for words, stunned at having to waste time finding an example for something that is patently self-evident, recant their previous views and agree with you. It’s amazing!
133 Comments
4 June, 2008 at 2:41 pm
The aim is to disingenuously pop “name just one!” into as many discussions as possible. See how quickly people who are momentarily at a loss for words, stunned at having to waste time finding an example for something that is patently self-evident, recant their previous views and agree with you. It’s amazing
Yes it is amazing that someone would expect accountability to be brought back into a debate.
Jeremy your argument is flawed. You are criticising Bolt for requesting that his opponents produce evidence to back up their argument. He is challenging them to prove him wrong. A challenge that shouldn’t be hard to do if he is wrong.
It is a bit of a worry that you think that this is a bad thing.
If you really have a problem with bolt’s argument then take him up on the challenge. Name away and prove him wrong rather than lower yourself into the pettiness of attacking his style of debate.
4 June, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Name away and prove him wrong …
Actually Marc, he’s done this himself already…. So your point now is…?
4 June, 2008 at 3:21 pm
So Marc, how long have you been in love with the disingenuous one? Love is blind!!!
4 June, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Actually Marc, he’s done this himself already…. So your point now is…?
I have seen people take Bolt up on the offer of naming people who claimed to be of the “Stolen Generation”.
Bolt has effectively provided counter evidence to show that they were not stolen.
If jeremy had in fact taken up Andrew on the offer then his argument wouldn’t be that Andrew tries to ram his argument through by people surrendering because the effort was too much. It would be that Andrew is given names & he doesn’t concede that he was wrong.
Instead Jeremy’s argument is:
See how quickly people who are momentarily at a loss for words, stunned at having to waste time finding an example for something that is patently self-evident, recant their previous views and agree with you. It’s amazing
But the other major flaw in Jeremy’s argument is that he says on the one hand that the argument is; something that is patently self-evident then he goes on to say that; stunned at having to waste time finding an example.
Well if the argument was so patently self-evident, how on earth can people be stunned at finding an example.
4 June, 2008 at 3:26 pm
So Marc, how long have you been in love with the disingenuous one? Love is blind!!!
Arhhhh… Now i get it. Your real problem is that bolt tries to get his opponents to use facts when he debates them instead of doing what you do & take the debate to a child’s level with insults & namecalling.
4 June, 2008 at 3:27 pm
All geminis are, at least secretly, bisexual. Name one, just one, that isn’t.
4 June, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Reductio ad absurdum arguments, SB? Pretty desperate to have to stoop to that.
4 June, 2008 at 4:41 pm
I don’t know how much reading you do but seeing you are so blindly in love with Andy’s rants you probably don’t go beyond his columns.
Marc, its not so much that Andy is the problem, its thousands of people like yourself, who are stuck in a very narrow mindset.
Try reading the following for a start
http://homepage.mac.com/will_owen/iblog/C2062160667/E20080209121945/index.html
If you have the time try reading a book called “Hidden Histories”. Its a shocking story of our history in the Kimberley region. Heard of Wave Hill station?
Also read “Black Wars” about the Tasmanian aborigines. I am sure you are one of these people in love with Keithy Windshuttle too ?
4 June, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Marc,
Bolt “names” one in his very next article: Ivan Durrent.
But even if that were the case, let’s look at an analogy.
Walk into a convention of Southern Baptist fundamentalists and “Name one, just one” who can explain the basic principles of the Theory of Evolution.
I’m betting you’ll get nobody who can do it, because people who understand the thing generally aren’t opposed to it.
By the same token, those who support Hensen’s photography are likely to realise that they are not and were never aimed at being pornography. Rather, it is those who are willing to jump on the bandwagon pushed by Bolt’s ilk and scream “paedophile!” at the slightest provocation.
Bolt’s emotive and evocative language, his constant references to the “stripping” of this young girl (bringing to mind images of violation and rape) are designed to get people on this bandwagon.
The simple fact is that if Hettie Johnston had kept her motor-mouth shut, about twenty artistes would have seen the images (because Hensen’s photography, in my opinion, sucks and I wouldn’t go to another of his exhibitions if you paid me…) and that would have been it.
Now, the Johnstons and Rudds and Iemmas and Bolts and Blairs and Ackermans and the like have absolutely guaranteed that this girl’s image will be plastered all over the Internet for years to come, *really* available to *real* paedophiles, now.
I really wish the mouth-foaming fear-mongers would just learn to shut the frak up and let people get on with their lives, instead of stirring the pot about irrelevant crap that never should have been promoted in the mainstream media in the first place.
4 June, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Ironic that the on the same day as the Bolt story the Age should run a story about an artist criticising Henson’s work, thus contradicting Bolt’s argument.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/holy-cow-artist-ivan-backs-those-coppers-20080603-2lb5.html
I expect many artists who do not like Hanson’s work would feel uncomfortable with them being taken from dispaly and sale and destroyed. The last point, which Bolt cannot bring himself to say in his article, is the inevitable outcome if the photographs are child pornography. You can’t have private child pornography.
I suspect that Bolt struggles with the consequences that follow from arguing that Henson’s photos are child pornography. Last week he illustrated a blog post with a Hanson photo that he argued was child pornography. Assuming his opinion was correct, publishing the photograph made him a child pornographer – something which I he is not. He later removed the photo from the site after complaints.
4 June, 2008 at 4:54 pm
“Keithy”, oh it doesn’t get better than this! You’re going straight into my favourites list John51. Please don’t stop.
4 June, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Saw that one, doublespeak. Hilarious. What’s more, Blair posted about it, giving the two of them a chance for some groupthink linky-linky. So cute, those two.
They’re also tackling the same big political issues today in true groupthink fashion. Wanna read about the great dagwood dog scandal? These boys, cutting-edge journalists that they are – have it covered.
4 June, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Oh shit. That hyphen should have been a comma. I hope Tim doesn’t see it.
4 June, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Sydney Jackson -ex Carlton champion footballer. He was removed from his family. In an article I read about him he said he was lucky that he went to a good family and got a reasonable education but missed his parents terribly. Unfortunately, one of his relatives who was taken also at around the same time committed suicide.
4 June, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Artists are generally more talented and educated than an ignorant baby boomers in rural Queensland who is likely to read Bolts blog and shit stur on this site.
Bolt simply associates artists with lefties, and since all his articles are about hating lefties…
4 June, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Correction, I spelt “boomers’ instead of ‘boomer’.
Those right-wing journalists might think me unworthy compared to their smartness.
4 June, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I wish I had the guts to be enough of an independent thinker to agree with the vast majority of the public…
4 June, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Name just one!
No way would I give a single name to Bolty because you open that person up for a character assassination. It’s like handing a list to the SS … Just look at the vitriol he stirs up for Gore, Flannery, et el. Which logically only leaves giving Bolty names of people he admires. I am seriously considering trawling through John Howard speeches for the contradictory sentence to throw them all into a terminal spin … but then I would be sitting here trawling through John Howard speeches.
4 June, 2008 at 9:26 pm
The Boltlovers just don’t get it. Andy doesn’t really care in his column or his blog. He’s an act. Andy, secretly, would have contempt for his band of simple minded followers.
It’s important that Andy keeps the act going. It’s a saleable item. Very lucrative.
Just like Sam Newman on the Footy Show. An act!
Andy’s not the problem. It’s the thousands of idiots who are sucked in by him. They get pissed off with things easily, need a simple explanation, & Andy is like a lightning rod to them.
4 June, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Robert Manne, absolutely demolished Bolt in a debate a couple of years ago. In response to Bolt’s idiotic “just name 10″ demand, Manne produced over 250.
Manne’s argument and refutation can be read here. It is a detailed, fascinating and impeccably referenced document.
4 June, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I bet he used this argument against his wife when she found the first grey pube crusted to the rim of their toilet.
‘I don’t have any grey pubes. Name just one!’
I mean as if she’s going down there to prove him wrong.
Oh I bet said pub was found about 90 degrees from the front of the toilet given Bolt’s happy chair stance of as wide as possible whenever possible…
5 June, 2008 at 12:11 am
I have seen people take Bolt up on the offer of naming people who claimed to be of the “Stolen Generation”.
Bolt has effectively provided counter evidence to show that they were not stolen.
Marc – just have a think about the ‘counter evidence’ Bolt comes up with. I actually agree with you that some of the targets he selects are worthy of ridicule, like O’Donohue who has as much as admitted that she was not stolen but abandoned by her father, but don’t let these dazzling examples blind you to the sleight of hand he uses with many of the others.
All Bolt does is find records kept by those who removed the children and then parrot those as though they are indisputible fact. Being able to dig up a record saying “child was removed due to neglect” doesn’t prove anything – it only proves that Bolt is completely subjective about what records he chooses to believe.
5 June, 2008 at 10:14 am
Exactly Mondo. In relation to SGs, Bolt “finds” evidence that their “home life” was not ideal by our (current!) standards and therefore concludes that they were removed on compassionate, non-racial grounds. Imagine how many non-aboriginal kids would be removed from their parents if the same standards were applied nation-wide, right now.
But, we must forgive Bolt – the ultimate denialist: wouldn’t we all love to play those games that we cannot lose?
5 June, 2008 at 11:25 am
As an experiment, here’s a Bolt comment I’m sure even the regulars here would agree with:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/so_how_much_say_exactly_will_china_get_over_us/
Views?
5 June, 2008 at 11:43 am
Not very smart Abu.
Lets consider the article he links to and the actual content, not Bolts ludicrous and disingenous conclusions.
“would encompass a regional free-trade agreement and provide a crucial venue for co-operation on issues such as terrorism and long-term energy and resource security”
Hmmm nothing there about labor laws or human rights.
“We need to have a vision for an Asia-Pacific community, a vision that embraces a regional institution, which spans the entire Asia-Pacific region – including the United States, Japan, China, India, Indonesia and the other states of the region,” said the Prime Minister. ”
Hmm Bolty forgets to include the United States. It’s all big bad China doing the bullying, unless of course the US is like you when Bolt does his regular round of dog whistling on the muslims.
“The body would be “able to engage in the full spectrum of dialogue, co-operation and action in economic and political matters and future challenges related to security”.
“The purpose is to encourage the development of a genuine and comprehensive sense of community whose habitual operating principle is co-operation,” Mr Rudd said.
“The danger of not acting is that we run the risk of succumbing to the perception that future conflict within our region may somehow be inevitable.”
”
Abu. You really need to read the content sunshine, not just take Bolts word for it. I doubt he even bothered to read it.
5 June, 2008 at 11:45 am
Good, good. Points for effort, Shane. And no bad language this time.
5 June, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Well done Shane!
5 June, 2008 at 1:28 pm
The usual Bolt logic: on the one hand accusing artists of rigid conformity and on the other attacking them for not all signing a letter. And rigorously ignoring the third par of the Open Letter, which states: “The public debate prompted by the Henson exhibition is welcome and important. We need to discuss the ethics of art and the issues that it raises.” And furthermore, respects the rights of others to hold their own opinions. (Which bit of “We understand and respect also that they have every right to their personal opinions” do these people not understand?) Oy veh!
As I said of Miranda Devine, I wish on both of them the task of getting a group of artists to agree about ANYTHING. Some have mentioned herding cats. Certainly, it’s a task that I can personally attest requires a will of steel and the patience of a saint. But hey, never let the facts get in the way of a good smear.
5 June, 2008 at 6:46 pm
How true Alison.
5 June, 2008 at 11:14 pm
manne vs bolt. what a laugh. that was a fantastic piece of work by manne. i know personally someone who was nearly stolen as she was being born by her aboriginal mother. thank goodness her white father turned up in time to angrily throw out the would be kidnappers. it makes you wonder how many women that happened to but if the father wasn’t interested in the child no one would’ve been there to protect her.
shame on them and shame on anyone who now denies what happened. very easy to sit back and live of the fat of a stolen land. in israel i think it’s a crime to deny the holocaust i know it’s illegal to nazi salute in germany. there should be a law against spitting on the sorrow of a people who’s cultural destruction is the root of our wealth.
scumbags.
6 June, 2008 at 12:53 am
recently someone on bolt’s blog named not just 1 but 11 aborigines that stolen.
no word from bolta. silense. wahts up with that?
6 June, 2008 at 12:54 am
“Views?”
you are a troll. chow down on that abu.
6 June, 2008 at 7:47 am
Wrong thread, you plonker. Try again.
6 June, 2008 at 7:51 am
Hello all,
Again, another Bolt post I’m sure we can all put our petty biases aside on and agree with here. Thank goodness for Keating, eh what?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hawke_keating_object/
Regards
Abu Cee
6 June, 2008 at 11:11 am
and once again keating is right and right to the point.
6 June, 2008 at 11:37 am
I’ll agree with Bolt on the Asia/Pacific if you can show me where Rudd is indicating that his plan requires any nation involved to surrender or sacrifice any of its sovereignty. Reference?
This is just another in the continuing idiocy of Bolt’s anti-Rudd vomitation. With Bolt on the record (via his own blog) as being so venemously critical of the Howard-Haters, it once again underlines what a Class A hypocrite he really is. We all expect this sort of rubbish from the everyday political tribalists on both “sides”; but coming from a supposedly respected media personality like Bolt, it’s laughable. Bolt is a Hansonite. Nothing more, nothing less.
6 June, 2008 at 12:28 pm
“Bolt is a Hansonite. Nothing more, nothing less.”
Been to a working man’s pub ever? You’ll hear a few blokes in flannies who are “Hansonites” but wouldn’t vote for her.
Labelling Bolt a Hansonite is puerile and, frankly, an irresponsible distraction. It’s like labelling Noel Pearson a racist for supporting the intervention.
Grow up, mate.
6 June, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Well Abu, if it’s a distraction, why don’t you ignore it and go back to the question: where is the loss/surrender of sovereignty in the Asia/Pacific community concept?
But, I believe that Bolt is a Hansonite and he appeals to those who supported her. He is a dog-whistler for the bigots, racists and the xenophobic. Which is not to say that he is necessarily any of those things – he just craves popularity and notoriety because it ensure him a bigger pay cheque.
AC – I couldn’t give a rat’s arse if you think I’m puerile or irresponsible. An opinion like that would only bother me if I had any respect for the person that held it.
6 June, 2008 at 12:46 pm
pearson never gave unqualified support. he was just glad that howard wasn’t sitting on his hands anymore.
noel pearson is a great man who works very hard for his people and writes academic papers in relation to all of indigenous australia, from his perspective, but you have to realise that there is a bitterness towards the alp since they didn’t give him pre-selection.
definitely a mistake on their behalf but that doesn’t mean that you don’t take some of what he writes with a grain of salt.
i wouldn’t call bolt a hansonite. he’s a follower of howard philosophy, closely related to hansonism but more deviously dressed up in some pretend concern for the kids. kids on the boats and kids in the communities.
bolt is also australia’s greatest intellect. he’s able to match wits with manne on history, climatology with eminent scientists in the field and economics with people who have private briefings with the highest levels of treasury. not to mention having the moral authority on abortion and care for aboriginal kids.
not to mention he’s totally self taught. and i totally forgot his refined musical taste and amazing teenage poetry. go get em tiger.
6 June, 2008 at 12:47 pm
not to mention i used not to mention too many times. did i mention that?
6 June, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“definitely a mistake on their behalf but that doesn’t mean that you don’t take some of what he writes with a grain of salt.”
Such equanimity! If only other fellow travellers on the left could apply such rational graciousness to both sides of politics.
I enjoyed your post and wasn’t going to mention the mention thing.
6 June, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Bolt’s intellect is severely affected and compromised by his political tribalism which one can easily see evidence for in his anti-Rudd stuff. Now that is puerility.
Bolt was correct about the anti-Howard stuff that many exhibited and still exhibit – But it undoubtedly now makes him a hypocrite.
Hannibal Lecter too had refined musical tastes…
6 June, 2008 at 1:12 pm
By the way, you can take you tongue out of your cheek now NAR.
6 June, 2008 at 2:11 pm
thanks for permission dean i was starting to get an ulcer. i would consider myself a howard hater. i hated nearly everything he did and stood for. i didn’t go out of my way to hate these things i just do.
i might add that i’m slightly uncomfortable with rudd. his uber bureaucrat style is another way that modern labor is all about management not leading. they’re as bad as the liberals in shrinking government and not developing any infrastructure. he makes all the right noises and symbols for some progressives but really does nothing. where’s the war cabinet for indigenous australia?
6 June, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Something to lighten the mood:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBG8UtgD0m8
I enjoy it because it’s amusing. You can enjoy the sentiment.
6 June, 2008 at 2:48 pm
i might add that i’m slightly uncomfortable with rudd
rudd is really turning out to be a complete an utter idiot. I can’t help but hate him more & more every day. With his constant Political spin mixed with lies all in the name of saving his preverbal political arse.
The latest episode of KRudd is becoming painful.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23820325-661,00.html
He can’t even tell the truth about what he ate at a football game. Was it a dagwood dog? a party Pie? or a chicken kransky.
What’s worse is that he needs advisers to tell him what he ate.
6 June, 2008 at 3:02 pm
BTW – has anyone else noticed how Peter Garrett now looks like a deer in headlights every time he fronts the media these days?
You can tell that he has been forced to sell out all his life long beliefs and become nothing more than a lap dog for KRudd.
Yesterday in parliament you could tell that he did not believe a word of the shit he was spewing from his mouth when he was trying to justify the Rudd Governments appalling policy on Solar Panels.
6 June, 2008 at 3:03 pm
“he needs advisers to tell him what he ate”
keating warned everyone. but anything is better then howard. i still want paul to make a come back.
6 June, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Ah well, at least there’s good, sound, politically-based reasons for your hatred, Marc. No one can accuse you of being a political tribie. Who the hell wouldn’t hate someone that can’t get their story right on what they ate and caused them to throw up? Your considered vote should be cherished by whomever you cast it to.
6 June, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Who the hell wouldn’t hate someone that can’t get their story right on what they ate and caused them to throw up?
You are forgetting the fact that he is relying on his advisers to tell him what he ate.
At least that way when he gets found out that he has lied, he can blame the advisers. Like when he first blamed it on a dagwood dog & it came out that Dagwood sogs are not sold at that stadium.
KRudd is a KDudd.
6 June, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Surely it’s pretty obvious that when Rudd’s adviser said “dodgy dagwood dog” he was using a euphemism, like when someone reckons they’ve eaten a dodgy prawn. You need to get over it, Marc.
6 June, 2008 at 4:11 pm
KRudd is a KDudd
Holy fuck – what an unbelievably insightful and mature piece of political commentary.
Please rain more pearls of your wisdom upon us Marc!
6 June, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I’m embarrassed for Marc. But I’ll be leaving his fatuous drivel up anyway.
6 June, 2008 at 5:09 pm
not that he’s the only one to use KRudd but could marc be matteron?
6 June, 2008 at 5:13 pm
“Surely it’s pretty obvious that when Rudd’s adviser said “dodgy dagwood dog” he was using a euphemism, like when someone reckons they’ve eaten a dodgy prawn.”
I agree. In this case it was likely a euphemism for “dodgy prawn”, or “minging kebab” or “funky pizza” or “myocardial infarction”.
6 June, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Did think of that possibility, NAR.
Doesn’t really matter what the truth is – to all intents and purposes, they are the same.
6 June, 2008 at 10:32 pm
“It’s like labelling Noel Pearson a racist for supporting the intervention.”
noel pearson was never labelled a racist for supporting the intevention. he was however labelled stupid and time has proven this correct.
7 June, 2008 at 1:43 am
“he was however labelled stupid and time has proven this correct”
I’m suffering from cognitive dissonance on that assertion, I’m afraid. These things you write… you obviously believe them, but posting them doesn’t make them true rather than subjective opinion.
7 June, 2008 at 11:20 am
I am quite troubled by the arguments that occur in the comments on this site. They really are quite juvenile and missing the point entirely. Abu Chowdah’s youtube link to the flight of the conchords summed it up quite nicely, and it’s amusing that one of the most juvenile in his arguments chose an apt representation of his own arguing style.
I thought i might also link to some youtube videos to give you all some perspective and some real food for thought by people who are aware of the real and impending issues facing our globe at this moment.
Please watch these videos, and really consider the arguments made without any of your prejudices clouding your vision, and then do some research into the areas talked about, your eyes will be opened if you allow them to be.
David Holmgren was the co-originator of permaculture, and with permaculture we have some practical solutions to our impending global situation. Here he is talking about his latest book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFjFG24BeX8
Here is an interview with the makers of a new documentary titled “What a way to go, life at the end of empire”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFyI5ZYG_pE
I hope these videos lead you on a journey towards greater understanding and further research into our actual situation and what can be done about it, beyond the pettiness and narrow-mindedness of current political debates
7 June, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Rudd’s is too reactive at the moment. His responses to the oppositions cut of 5c in fuel tax and the Hansen pictures has disappointed me. The budget was a pretty weak effort as far as renewable energy is concerned.
8 June, 2008 at 10:00 am
OT – Mrs DB was at the book sales “Dirt Cheap Books” yesterday looking for kids books. Anyone can now pick up ‘Still no Sorry’ by one A. Bolt for about $3.
8 June, 2008 at 10:14 am
“I’m suffering from cognitive dissonance”
suddenly everything is explained.
8 June, 2008 at 10:58 am
A partial quote of what I posted. True to form, there, “confessions”.
8 June, 2008 at 11:35 am
Rudd’s is too reactive at the moment
I agree. Krudd has turned out to be nothing more that lies & spin. He is tangling himself up in a web of lies & political spin.
The elephant in the room for him that grows bigger everyday is his carbon trading policy. His political spin about reducing fuel prices, food prices, improving home affordability while fighting inflation are all building up like a time bomb.
When the public wake up to the reality that a carbon trading scheme will increase inflation and push up fuel & food prices, Krudd will face the fury of the voting public.
Krudd’s government is turning out to be a train wreck in slow motion.
8 June, 2008 at 11:39 am
Maybe someone should mention to Bolt that the charges have been dropped against the artist because…*drumroll*
HE DIDN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG… and Bolt should apologise for being a loudmouth pratt and getting it wrong… again.
Which is a relief really, because it would mean all the classical & religious artwork with naked children & naked jesus would be indecent, and all those doctors & pediatricians with medicals book with pictures of unclothed human bodies should be arrested by the police and Bolt righteous bigot brigade.
8 June, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I mentioned it Spark (in his post on Leunig) – unsurprisingly he just said that the decision was ridiculous.
8 June, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I think it’s great that there is a site like this so you like-mindeds who don’t ever seem to get Bolt or Blair’s serious attention can talk about your angst and feelings of rejection.
It’s very healthy as long as it doesn’t turn into an obsession.
8 June, 2008 at 7:52 pm
“Doublespeak
4 June, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Ironic that the on the same day as the Bolt story the Age should run a story about an artist criticising Henson’s work, thus contradicting Bolt’s argument.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/holy-cow-artist-ivan-backs-those-coppers-20080603-2lb5.html”
Spot on Doublespeak. Bolt lazily relies on most of his readers never checking aspects of his argument.
Crooked debaters are often like that.
8 June, 2008 at 10:10 pm
“I think it’s great that there is a site like this so you like-mindeds who don’t ever seem to get Bolt or Blair’s serious attention can talk about your angst and feelings of rejection.”
This from someone who openly admits to having cognitive dissonance. LOL.
Spark: the hypocrisy of the henson saga came to a head when that exibition of naked teenage boys was shown….to SILENCE FROM THE COMMENTARIAT. no faux outrage from andy and his sheep. nothing from miranda devine. no hetty-up from that infamous qld braveheart. nothing but silence.
and certainly no apology from those who condemned, and condemned before the classifications board had even brought down their decision!!!!! THAT is the outrage, that bolt, devine, and other twits like them feel it is ok to use their positions as opinion writers (sorry, cannot call them journalists) to ‘influence’ opinion, and then to irresponsibly not draw readers attention to such an important detail as the classifications board decision. helloooo? responsible, factual, honest journalism anyone?
the irony of all this is that bolt, devine and their herd mentality colleagues disparage the ABC for honest reporting. these fools who would be journalists could learn a lot from our national institution. it is simply too farcical for words.
8 June, 2008 at 10:33 pm
“This from someone who openly admits to having cognitive dissonance. LOL.”
Your selective quoting is most amusing. If you quoted me in full our friends would see that what I have trouble processing is the nonsense you post. But then… you’d have trouble scoring cheap points if you had to behave responsibly, wouldn’t you?
9 June, 2008 at 11:23 am
“I think it’s great that there is a site like this so you like-mindeds who don’t ever seem to get Bolt or Blair’s serious attention can talk about your angst and feelings of rejection.
It’s very healthy as long as it doesn’t turn into an obsession.”
If you’re just going to sling around silly little insults, you will simply just become ignored. The people that post here are far from like-mindeds, aside from a link-minded distain for pathetic excuses for journalism, dishonest political and social commentary, and immature, idiot attempts at debate. Regularly you will see different opinions on individual issues here.
As for being ignored by Bolt and Blair, both have felt the need to attack Jeremy, personally as retribution for running a site that critiques their rubbish. Having never posted on Blair’s site, I can also personally say that Bolt and his moderators have spent a lot of energy censoring posts that rationally reveal how inane and fallacious the bulk of his posts are (albeit not as much these days), and when I used to post there regularly Bolt responded to me a number of times, with vitriolic, patronising comments. Simply because I posted a calm, rational critique revealing his rubbish.
So essentially everything said in your qoute above, is simply noise.
9 June, 2008 at 12:26 pm
A carbon trading scheme will be a reality here one day. Not sure Labor has the guts to really pull it off.
Energy use will get more expensive. Australians are going to have to cop it!
Read last week (I think in the Age) that carbon trading is taking off big time in India.
9 June, 2008 at 4:13 pm
“If you’re just going to sling around silly little insults, you will simply just become ignored. ”
To be fair, Chris of Brisbane, I have been the subject of some pretty aggressive vulgarity on this site in recent days. My dig was mild in comparison. I think it is instructive to note that you don’t take people to task for really offensive behaviour but instead focus your energies on me.
Is that a fair comment or just “noise”?
10 June, 2008 at 12:13 am
oh oh bolt is saying nuclear bombs are a good thing. somebody needs to post about this.
10 June, 2008 at 8:43 am
Energy use will get more expensive. Australians are going to have to cop it!
No they won’t. KRudd will crumble at the first sign of a voter backlash if fuel & energy costs go up under a carbon trading scheme.
You just have to look at what’s going on in Europe at the moment with all the protests over carbon Taxes on Fuel. Gordon Brown’s Government is going to suffer badly at the next British election because of the pain that their carbon policies have inflicted on the British voter.
The Australian people will not stand for it & the power of the voter will be inflicted on the KRudd Government if energy costs go up due to their carbon trading scheme.
10 June, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Krudd is a popularist PM who also happens to be a media whore so I agree with you Mark. He nearly shit his pants when the Libs applied heat to them with their 5cent cut in excise.
When it becomes time for Krudd to release his carbon trading policies he will drum up as much political spin as he can muster to try and cover up the truth that the his claytons carbon trading policies really does tax the people on carbon.
10 June, 2008 at 9:57 pm
As soon as I see Krudd in a post I ignore it …
11 June, 2008 at 9:16 am
When it becomes time for Krudd to release his carbon trading policies he will drum up as much political spin as he can muster to try and cover up the truth that the his claytons carbon trading policies really does tax the people on carbon
It’s lose/lose for the KRudd on this one Ron. No matter what way KRudd spins his Carbon Trading Scheme he will receive a hammering by the public.
I am now beginning to believe that Krudd has lost his mind. His daily spin filled thought bubbles that he tries to wrap up as announcements is becoming embarrassing.
His latest one about the donation (or should I say free gift) to Toyota for the hybrid Camry.
Krudd said It is not a production subsidy, it’s about starting up a new business and that’s what we set as an ambition last year. We are proud of the fact that we’ve been able to realise that ambition.
We later discover that he was lying because Toyota have now said that they were going to make the hybrid Camry anyway & they didn’t know what to spend Krudd gift of $35 million on.
President of Toyota said this: “.I should also add some words here at this moment in terms of the amount mentioned we are not sure in what way we would like to use that amount
11 June, 2008 at 9:47 am
I’m sick of the juvenile “Krudd” jibes from idiots. Call him Kevin Rudd or Kevin or Rudd or Mr Rudd or The Prime Minister or whatever, but “Krudd” is just stupid.
Further comments using the expression will be summarily deleted, whether anyone’s responded to them or not.
11 June, 2008 at 10:04 am
gee the vitriol against rudd by the nuts from bolt’s peanut gallery is amazing.
everyone’s complaing about petrol prices and now he’s trying to get more car’s in australia that can go over 800km per tank. what those idiots don’t realise is that these cars are not just better for the environment but save money on fuel and would improve air quality in cities and of course reduce noise pollution.
the rudd haters should just calm the fark down. i’m sure like all pms he’ll give you something to really complain about soon. when you carry on in such a desperate manner to critise everything you’ll lose you opportunity to really let loose when you really should.
rudd has many flaws but as an australian you must be rapt that he’s not howard.
11 June, 2008 at 10:09 am
Marc,
People can throw out as many govenments as they want but we are all going to pay more for fuel and energy in the long run. They are going to have to cop it! Think a little more long term.
11 June, 2008 at 10:28 am
everyone’s complaing about petrol prices and now he’s trying to get more car’s in Australia that can go over 800km per tank. what those idiots don’t realise is that these cars are not just better for the environment but save money on fuel and would improve air quality in cities and of course reduce noise pollution
OMG… are you referring to the Hybrid cars?!
Please explain how a hybrid car reduces noise pollution?
MY GOD. It sounds like you have been mesmerised by Rudd’s spin.
Also the criticism directed at Rudd isn’t because he is in favour of hybrid cars, rather that he has been caught out in blatant lie that is motivated by political spin.
NAR – Please explain why Rudd should be giving Toyota $35 million when they were already planning to make Hybrid Camerys here & the president of Toyota does not know what to do with the money?
Couldn’t that money have been better spent subsidising solar panels for people’s roofs?!
Oh wait!!! I forgot!!! Rudd is trying to slow down the solar panel industry because it is “Over heating”!
11 June, 2008 at 10:52 am
People can throw out as many govenments as they want but we are all going to pay more for fuel and energy in the long run. They are going to have to cop it! Think a little more long term
Long or short term, people will not stand for a government raising energy prices with Taxes. What’s happening in Europe in regards to all the protests regarding taxes on fuel & energy, is a sign of what governments here can expect if they try the same thing.
Rudd must be horrified by what he is seeing in Europe at the moment. Especially when you consider that he is a PM who follows popularism and policy targeted at the 24 hour media cycle.
There is a very good chance now that Rudd will only serve one term as PM before being booted out in disgrace.
11 June, 2008 at 11:46 am
apologies if this is a double post but the last one was lost n the ether (Jeremy / Editor you can delete if required):
Marc – Hybrid cars make less noise than conventional cars – try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_electric_vehicle
try arguing with some proof rather than your strawman tactics of “Kevin must be shaking in his boots”.. You will also note in that link that air quality is improved because the worst emissions generated by cars are when they are idling.
Try arguing fact rather than fiction.
You know John Winston Howard created more taxes on fuel when he introduced the “never ever” GST. He added 10% tax but reduced the wholesale tax by 7 cents.. So as a result we are paying more taxes on taxes due to the former Liberal government.
11 June, 2008 at 2:30 pm
“oh oh bolt is saying nuclear bombs are a good thing. somebody needs to post about this.”
Bolt doesn’t know a single thing about strategic international affairs or global security management, rather he is just another idiot of conservative diposition, who believes that due to his politics, and his watching of a couple of World War Two documentaries, he is qualified to make a call on the issue of global Nuclear Weapon proliferation. Regardless of politics, only a complete and utter idiot, would voice such a stupidly black and white argument about something so complicated and multifaceted. This is just another example of the idiotic, child-like approach he adopts towards issues, which perplexes me as to why rational conservatives give him and credibility at all.
His behaviour in desperately grabbing at anything to discredit Rudd is getting more pathetic and immature. Just like his column “Stuff Blatter, Rudd know better”, he believes his position as an opinion columnist entitles him to pontificate about issues he knows nothing about. What does Bolt know about the politics and processes that go towards the appointing of hosts for football world cups.
11 June, 2008 at 2:38 pm
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/lame_lambert/
http://www.box.net/shared/yf3copg08c
He’s finally had enough, poor fella.
11 June, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Here’s a classic Bolt line related to Rudd from one of his current columns: “Can’t the man do something I could praise, if only to let me show I’m fair?”
Bolt is the author of the most politically biased blog on the internet but he’s still trying to convince people he’s fair and objective? FFS, why?
It’s one thing to be a one-eyed political tribalist, it’s another to be so self-deluded as to try and claim you’re not, in the face of the evidence of your own demented blog!
Yes, Bolt is definitely a man that can be taken seriously, a man whose opinion is worth reading. How embarrassing it must be to be someone trying to defend Bolt!
11 June, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Yes, Bolt is definitely a man that can be taken seriously, a man whose opinion is worth reading. How embarrassing it must be to be someone trying to defend Bolt!
This coming from someone who has never said anything positive about John Howard.
I have one thing to say to you dude.
Pot, kettle, BLACK
11 June, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Professor Purnendra Jain in an article in the Asia Times:
“Rudd has proposed an Asia-Pacific community by 2020… Cobbled together hastily before his departure this week to Japan and Indonesia, Rudd’s proposal is unlikely to go very far… His proposal is at best premature and at worst presumptuous…
Rudd’s obsession with China and the hope that by jumping in bed with Beijing he could both serve as a bridge between China and the West and secure diplomatic leverage in Asia has produced nothing but contempt for him in the region… Rudd has also managed to spoil Australia’s budding relationship with India.
Rudd has already made far too many unforced diplomatic errors and it will take a huge amount of time and effort to put the relationships with its major Asian partners back on track.”
Anyway, I just thought it was interesting to get a non-Australian media or local blog perspective.
12 June, 2008 at 9:47 am
Ron Blogger,
I didn’t know you were so intimately familiar with my political opinions and views. Sadly though, you are wrong.
Here’s some positives on Howard:
1. He fairly obviously sincerely had/had what he believes were/are the best intentions for Australia and Australians – his commitment and loyalty to the job and to the people is unquestionable.
2. What he did on gun control in the aftermath of the Bryant massacre was phenomenal and his greatest act as PM.
3. I believe that the work for the dole scheme is worthwhile and could be extremely beneficial to the unemployed – however, the delivery was flawed in that it’s main focus was political (i.e. to create a perception of being tough on welfare) rather than serving the interests of the unemployed.
4. Taxation and work relations required steamlining if not major overhauling. To the extent that Howard tackled this is deserving of praise. The way in which these were delivered/packaged is obviously open to debate and certainly attracted crticism.
So, you can apologise now.
12 June, 2008 at 11:07 am
Anyway, I just thought it was interesting to get a non-Australian media or local blog perspective
Rudd is fast becoming an international embarrassment for Australia. The Japanese media ripped him to shreds in a media conference yesterday.
12 June, 2008 at 11:23 am
Marc – i disagree with you. Rudd showed his strength by asking them how many japanese ministers had visited Australia since the Labour govt was formed. the answer was zero compared to 7 of our ministers visiting them. Having a trade relationship goes two ways.
Have you seen the full footage of the conference? “rip him to shreds” is inaccurate.
12 June, 2008 at 11:25 am
Marc – hybrid cars do emit less noise in low speed environments. try looking at the wikipedia entry on “Hybrid_electric_vehicle”
and the dozens of citations. more importantly they do not emit fumes while idling as a normal vehicle. Idling engines produce more toxic fumes than an engine running at speed as fuels are partally burnt.
12 June, 2008 at 11:55 am
the dozens of citations. more importantly they do not emit fumes while idling as a normal vehicle. Idling engines produce more toxic fumes than an engine running at speed as fuels are partally burnt.
But unless there is a problem with horrendous traffic, the car spends most of it’s time moving rather than idling.
Basically the success of the hybrid car comes down to cost. Why would someone buy a hybrid car that will cost them $4000 – $5000 more with it only saving them at most $1000 a year in fuel costs. It would take up to 5 years to break even. Then there is the cost of replacing the battery when it goes. How much does it cost to replace the battery & service the car?
But this still leaves us with Rudd donating $35 million of tax payers money to a wealthy multi-national that was already going to make the hybrid Camry without government money. Rudd used the money as an opportunity for political spin.
12 June, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Well Marc – Last answer to your questions:
Lexus GS can operate at up to 40km/h on the electric motor.
Prius 45km/hr
weigh that against the average peak travel speed in Melbourne of around 23km/hr and I think you can do the maths.
12 June, 2008 at 1:54 pm
But this still leaves us with Rudd donating $35 million of tax payers money to a wealthy multi-national that was already going to make the hybrid Camry without government money.
Good God.
Now the conservatives are complaining about Government subsidies to business to encourage Australian manufacturing! Is Marc somehow unaware of the billions in business subsidies that were handed out under the previous government?
These Howard huggers are truly desperate. They’ll say anything.
12 June, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Now the conservatives are complaining about Government subsidies to business to encourage Australian manufacturing!
Who said anything about me being a conservative?
just because someone doesn’t like Rudd, it doesn’t make them a conservative.
BTW – Rudd is a self confessed conservative. A religious, economic conservative.
Is Marc somehow unaware of the billions in business subsidies that were handed out under the previous government?
I love this one Mondo. Basically you are saying that just because previous governments have handed subsidies to business, it makes what ever money Rudd gives to business above criticism.
Mondo you need to assess each policy on it’s OWN merit. Rudd giving $35 million to Toyota, on it’s own merit it an appalling abuse of tax payers dollars. Especially when you learn that if he hadn’t given Toyota the money it would not have made any difference to Toyota’s plan to make a Hybrid Camry.
These Howard huggers are truly desperate. They’ll say anything
Once again Mondo you are making the assumption that because someone dares to criticise Rudd, they must be a “Howard Hugger“.
FYI dude. I have never voted Liberal.
12 June, 2008 at 3:43 pm
From the Australian:
“The governments’ critical support and strong desire to introduce new environmentally friendly technology and promote increased innovation within the Australian automotive industry enabled Toyota Australia to develop a case for a locally built hybrid Camry,” yesterday’s statement says. “Toyota’s decision to build a hybrid Camry in Australia was based on various business considerations. However, the governments’ support was a critical factor in securing local production.”
Mr Rudd said Toyota president Katuaki Watanabe had also made clear on Tuesday that the government support was crucial.
This is in contradiction to the statement to the Oz yesterday by company spokesman Mike Breen.
Curious you didn’t mention this fact, Marc. Or didn’t you know about his clarification? Otherwise, one could be tempted to believe you’re being a little disingenous.
12 June, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Abu Chowdah, the link that you provide, is one worth reading, and contains many things that I would agree with.
I have had a lot of faith in Rudd’s diplomatic abilities, given the significant amount of knowledge that he has in foreign affairs, something he impressed upon me when he occasionally gave talks during my time at University. Also Labor’s history in building relationships bilaterally and multilaterally is something that I have also been impressed with.
But Rudd has being doing some things, and sayings some things recently that I find to be
poorly thought-out in the least, and seems to have a penchant for promoting grand schemes, himself being at the fore-front, without providing a lot of substance behind his statements. His expertise in China is something that is and will be very valuable to Australia, but I just wonder if the China focus, is making him too one-dimensional, and allowing him to take his eye of the ball in other areas of foreign affairs. Perturbing Japan, is something that could have been avoidable, particularly given Rudd’s credentials.
Saying that he was going to put a blow torch to OPEC was unhelpful and strange
Dismissing the perhaps, legitimate concerns amongst public servants was unnecessary, and potentially problematic.
Making lofty, off the hip statements, such as the fact he wants too initiate the elimination of Nuclear Weapons is unrealistic, and something he should know better than too do.
12 June, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Marc – you have created an argument against yourself here dude. On one hand you cry that there will be howls of protest about the increase in energy and “What’s happening in Europe in regards to all the protests regarding taxes on fuel & energy, is a sign of what governments here can expect if they try the same thing”
yet complain when the government actually sees an opportunity to develop a new industry in Australia and invests in it. The $35million will be repaid into the Australian economy over and over through component manufacturers etc.
Now the government is challenging other manufacturers to do the same as Toyota. This is at least a government that will look at the issue and see opportunities to prosper from it rather than bury the collective head in the sands and try to ignore it (see liberals and kyoto).
12 June, 2008 at 7:38 pm
So Marc, you say you aren’t a conservative. Where do you stand on issues of promoting renewable energy forms and reducing carbon emmisions?
13 June, 2008 at 9:34 am
Marc – you have created an argument against yourself here dude. On one hand you cry that there will be howls of protest about the increase in energy and “What’s happening in Europe in regards to all the protests regarding taxes on fuel & energy, is a sign of what governments here can expect if they try the same thing”
yet complain when the government actually sees an opportunity to develop a new industry in Australia and invests in it. The $35million will be repaid into the Australian economy over and over through component manufacturers etc.
You are only correct if it can be shown that Rudd’s $35 million donation to Toyota was the solution to the anger people feel towards taxes on energy & fuel.
The truth is that it has been proven this week that Toyota was already going ahead with making the hybrid car in Altona before they heard of the $35 million donation from Rudd.
Also the hybrid car is not cost effective to combat the rising cost of fuel. On average it would save $1000 a year, driving 20,000Km. The car will cost the consumer $5000 more than a non hybrid equivalent. On top of this there is the increased cost of servicing a Hybrid car every 6 months or 10,000Km.
This was Rudd spending $35 million for political spin & a photo opportunity, not releasing a policy that was going to solve the problems around rising fuel prices. So you are wrong to say that I have created an argument against myself.
13 June, 2008 at 10:06 am
Curious you didn’t mention this fact, Marc. Or didn’t you know about his clarification? Otherwise, one could be tempted to believe you’re being a little disingenous.
Curious Dean that you accept the political spin. Serveral sources from Toyota, including the president & Australian spokesman publicly said the day of the announcement that they were already planning the Hybrid car in Altona without the Government donation. The president of toyota said they hadn’t decided what to do with the money with Toyota Australia spokesman Mike Breen saying to the Australia: “It would have happened regardless.” .
Funny enough, the next day after the government was publicly attacked in the media, the President of Toyota comes out & totally contradicts what he said the day before.
It looks like you have been sucked in by Rudd Spin again. They are playing you like a fool dean.
13 June, 2008 at 10:14 am
The truth is that it has been proven this week that Toyota was already going ahead with making the hybrid car in Altona before they heard of the $35 million donation from Rudd.
Fuck this blog attracts some idiots. Dam Buster raises actual quotes that dispute Marc’s insistence that the $35mil made no difference to the decision to manufacture the hybrid in Australia – so Marc simply ignores that and asserts the opposite has been ‘proven’. Does this kind of intransigent nonsense pass for debate anywhere in the intelligent world?
Basically you are saying that just because previous governments have handed subsidies to business, it makes what ever money Rudd gives to business above criticism.
Wow – more phenomenal stupidity. “Basically” I was saying nothing of the sort. “Basically” I was highlighting your hypocricy Marc.
Mondo you need to assess each policy on it’s OWN merit.
No shit Sherlock. Investing $35 mil to encourage environmentally friendly manufacturing within Australia is excellent policy. Do you have even half a clue about what the vehicle industry is worth to us each year? It’s about .5% of our GDP – which is about $3.5billion per annum.
This is a no-brainer.
FYI dude. I have never voted Liberal.
The only way this statement could be true is if you’re 17 years old. I smell a liar.
13 June, 2008 at 10:18 am
Wow – more phenomenal stupidity. “Basically” I was saying nothing of the sort. “Basically” I was highlighting your hypocricy Marc
If that is the case mondo then show where I have supported Government backed subsudies to private Business.
13 June, 2008 at 10:49 am
Hey congratulations Marc – you have just used the “Name just One!” argument by stating “show where I have supported Government backed subsudies to private Business”.
As for you comment directed to me refer to my statement “This is at least a government that will look at the issue and see opportunities to prosper from it rather than bury the collective head in the sands and try to ignore it (see liberals and kyoto).”
13 June, 2008 at 11:05 am
As for you comment directed to me refer to my statement “This is at least a government that will look at the issue and see opportunities to prosper from it rather than bury the collective head in the sands and try to ignore it (see liberals and kyoto).”
LMAO. You are being sarcastic. Right?
For more information refer to the Governments disastrous policies like Fuelwatch, solar panel rebates, anti-waling commission, taking Japan to the international court over whaling… etc And coming soon Rudd’s carbon trading scheme.
You are right is one thing, This government doesn’t bury it’s head in the sand, instead it buries it’s head in a mountain of Political spin & empty media announcements.
13 June, 2008 at 11:12 am
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23857158-5005961,00.html
The Mr Rudd is to lay a wreath later today at the Kalibata Heroes Cemetery, the resting place of Indonesian military veterans and other prominent people
WTF?? Rudd has totally lost it.
The next question that needs to be asked is: When will Julia Gillard make a play for rudd’s job.
13 June, 2008 at 2:00 pm
So Marc, you’re just a Rudd hater then?
I have a “name one”. Name one Japanses diplomat or Japanese government representative at any level that was upset with Australia’s stance on China. Just one.
13 June, 2008 at 3:04 pm
So Marc, what are your ideas on renewable energy, carbon trading and reducing carbon emmisions?
Could you just leave Rudd out of it for one “insightful” comment. I would like to hear your original ideas than just slagging off Rudd.
You do exactly the same as Bolt. No original thinking. Well I guess he promotes the building of more dams, but not much else.
13 June, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Ok Marc, can you please explain what the previous government did? Let me get you started:
They introduced a tax on a tax on fuel;
They introduced a “never ever” tax to stop the back market of cash jobs which in fact has increased it;
They bent over and took whatever any foreign ‘power’ was offering;
I am glad Rudd stood up to the Japanese.. A bi-lateral agreement means give and take from both parties not one side giving in and the other taking it all.
13 June, 2008 at 3:17 pm
John51 – It is easier to criticise than to create. Do 99 great things and nothing will be mentioned, but as soon as there is 1 things to criticise… BAM let em have it. Isn’t that right Marc?
13 June, 2008 at 8:28 pm
“I have a “name one”. Name one Japanses diplomat or Japanese government representative at any level that was upset with Australia’s stance on China. Just one.”
An impossible task, and therefore not a useful demand. Professional diplomats of any value wouldn’t express such sentiments. The key is what the national media is saying. Does anyone know what the Japanese and other Asian media services are saying? That would be useful. Perhaps they are indifferent? I admit I don’t know.
14 June, 2008 at 10:15 am
A lot of the anti-Howard sentiment came from people that felt powerless against the fact that he maintained office. A lot of it was wishful thinking and tribalist hatred. Many people though are able to readily describe those aspects of his policies and legislation that they disliked.
But I think, since the time I’ve been interested in politics, I’ve never seen the sort of inane, puerile, unsubstantiable tribally-based hatred that is coming from those from the “conservative” side. It’s bizarre and the height of hypocrisy from a crowd that used the term Howard-haters as one of derision.
I didn’t vote Labor – I voted for the Greens but I admit that, at this stage, I’d much rather Rudd than Howard – but purely on what Howard did rather than some preconceived notion of what Rudd might be doing or will be doing. Rudd’s been in office for a few minutes and has only just passed his first budget.
Therefore, the anti-Rudd brigade need to realise that their position can only be based purely on scare-mongering, demonising, political tribalism. They have no more right to be taken seriously, or their opinions respected than those people that held a similar puerile position on Howard.
As has been pointed out – if you’ve used the term Krudd – you’re out of the debate and you’ve outed yourself immediately as a fool that cannot be taken seriously – a Mighty Matt.
14 June, 2008 at 2:30 pm
But I think, since the time I’ve been interested in politics, I’ve never seen the sort of inane, puerile, unsubstantiable tribally-based hatred that is coming from those from the “conservative” side. It’s bizarre and the height of hypocrisy from a crowd that used the term Howard-haters as one of derision.
I think there’s some haters out there, but to declare they’re worse than the sort of people who hate Howard is a bit of a stretch, old bean. Indeed, considering the venom that has been spat at Howard over many years, one wonders whether it’s simply pay back and your calls for the referee to blow the whistle are equally as hypocritical. The people you admire (even if you voted Green, you really voted Labor) are getting the same sort of heat and you simply don’t like it, so to your way of thinking it’s unreasonable.
What’s probably more hurtful is the reporting that is emerging (surprisingly from the ABC) that Labor MPs are starting to get fed up with Rudd’s lack of substance so early in his term. He was held up as some sort of messianic figure (actually not uncommon amidst the religious fervour of the Left) and he has quickly shown himself to be less than godlike, poor fellow.
Additionally, Labor’s monopoly on Federal and State power seems to be bringing out a bit of power-lust with the Belinda Neal stuff and I am sure that must be very irritating to hardcore ALP supporters who (I think honestly) felt that their politicians were as idealistic and trustworthy as the members – and naturally more so than those horrible, nasty Coalition capitalist running dogs. They’ve failed you – and so soon in the piece – so the wheels have come off this new dream.
I must admit, I’m a little surprised at how quickly we’ve seen so many behavioural slip ups and actual media criticisms of transparently opportunistic and unresearched policy announcements so soon into Rudd’s reign.
14 June, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I must admit, I’m a little surprised at how quickly we’ve seen so many behavioural slip ups and actual media criticisms of transparently opportunistic and unresearched policy announcements so soon into Rudd’s reign
I agree. it has really surprised me at the speed at which Rudd’s government is falling apart.
I suspected that Rudd was 100% spinn with no political substance but I figured that he would have been able to wing it for at least his first term before the wheels started to come off.
I never thought that Rudd would be exposed after 6 months.
He is in real political trouble now. he is getting a reputation for using political spin to cover the truth.
14 June, 2008 at 11:08 pm
It’s early days. We’ll see how the opposition performs over the next 12 months.
The right nutters wrote Rudd off in opposition. Bolt referred to his supposed “glass jaw”.
He’s made mistakes but I think he is a work in progress. The opposition are going to have to offer a lot more than a cut in fuel excise if they going to get back in at the next election.
15 June, 2008 at 10:42 am
He’s made mistakes but I think he is a work in progress. The opposition are going to have to offer a lot more than a cut in fuel excise if they going to get back in at the next election.
I agree regarding the Opposition, but you’d have to admit Rudd’s struggling.
It will be interesting to see if Milne, the ABC and other journalists will out some of these Labor MPs they claim are worried and dissatisfied with Rudd, instead of pussy-footing around. Perhaps Brissenden will do it when he gets back from leave – he’s shown himself to be flexible and opportunistic on the old OTR gentleman’s agreement. Though this concerns ALP politicians so maybe he will be less inclined to break confidentiality/ranks.
16 June, 2008 at 9:11 am
Indeed, considering the venom that has been spat at Howard over many years
Determined not to get it, AC? That’s the point. Howard was in office for many years and people knew him. After that amount of time Howard had a record on which he could be judged. And he was.
To lose office (and your seat!) in such strong economic times will haunt JWH until his death.
even if you voted Green, you really voted Labor
Let me introduce you to someone who can easily be convinced that black is white. You write well, AC, but well-written bullshit by the self-deceived is worth no more that the scribblings of a lunatic. Write us some more foolishness, AC.
16 June, 2008 at 11:20 am
Abu simply seems to enjoy riding around on his straw horse, slaying his straw demons.
who (I think honestly) felt that their politicians were as idealistic and trustworthy as the members – and naturally more so than those horrible, nasty Coalition capitalist running dogs.
Take THAT you naive Labor voters!! You all thought your preferred politicians would be beacons of honesty and transparency – yet you were all deceived. What gullible fools you were not to see what was so clear to ME all along!
Making obviously self-serving guesses about what your ideologiocal opponents think, and then belittling them over those guesses, is nothing more than deluded grandstanding.
16 June, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Mondo! A post without an ad hominem attack and lame use of vulgar insults! I do believe I am a moderating influence on your baser impulses.
Keep it up. I was right: you can do better.
16 June, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Yeah Mondo, you just got served by Abu!! I bet you’re feeling the pain right now huh?
16 June, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Is ‘ad hominem’ the new buzz phrase for dimwits who can’t handle someone being rude to them during an argument?
Back on your horse Abu – I think there’s a hemp-filled Ogre that needs a good thrashing with your mighty blade.
17 June, 2008 at 6:20 am
I think you have it backwards Mondo.
The “ad hominem” attack is one of the greatest barriers to carrying out a civil debate.
You are interested in civil discourse during public discussions I assume?
17 June, 2008 at 10:38 am
Ahh Rachael – the classic error of the intellectually prissy.
Ad hominem is indeed a barrier to civil debate, but only because it is a completely irrational argument. It is an appeal to insult as the authority for an intellectual position – “you are wrong because you’re stupid”.
Being rude whilst in the course of making a substantive point is not Ad Hominem – it’s simply colourful discussion.
Abu likes his rudeness to manifest as elitist condescention combined with a kind of patronising sneer. I like mine to be a tad more direct and colourful.
Neither needs to derail the argument provided the audience refrains from being overly sensitive.
17 June, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Mondo has even started appropriating my vocabulary and style. This is disappointing. I had thought he was a worthy opponent until now.
Yours in disappointment & etc,
Your humble mentor,
Abu Chowdah
19 June, 2008 at 12:19 am
There’s that elitist condescention again Abu.
You really can’t help yourself, can you?
19 June, 2008 at 9:08 am
There’s that elitist condescention again Abu.
You really can’t help yourself, can you?
This coming from someone who admires Al Gore. Now that’s funny.
19 June, 2008 at 9:47 am
What an odd remark.
It probably makes sense in Timmy’s echo chamber, though.
19 June, 2008 at 10:02 am
“I think you have it backwards Mondo.”
No Rachel, I beleive that you have it backwards, a rude response is not necessarily an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is when one dismisses and argument not on the basis of the argument but because of who made the argument. An ad hom can be polite and a rude post does not necessarily equate to an ad hom.
For example:
“Rachel I did not propose that anybody should have the right to vote removed you stupid cow.”
Is not an ad hom, it’s factual :0) whereas:
“Rachel, you thought I was wrong once when in fact I was right so whatever you’re arguing must be wrong.”
Is an ad hominem attack.
19 June, 2008 at 11:10 am
Hey Abu, you can spend as much time as you like composing elegant interventions for this “dreary” blog, but you know what? All I have to say is “Abu is a big Bolt bummer”, and I still win.
19 June, 2008 at 12:12 pm
“Is ‘ad hominem’ the new buzz phrase for dimwits who can’t handle someone being rude to them during an argument?”
The other buzz word at Andrew Bolt’s blog is “Troll” invariably used in a trollish manner by a troll to describe a non-troll.
21 June, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Hey Abu, you can spend as much time as you like composing elegant interventions for this “dreary” blog, but you know what? All I have to say is “Abu is a big Bolt bummer”, and I still win.
Let me stoop to your level and merely note that you seem to have trouble spelling your name.
Comments are closed.