By Scott
Cross-posted at GrodsCorp
I’ve written about this issue at NewMatilda.com, but it still astounds me that respectable (sic) columnists like Andrew Bolt continue to peddle the line that to understand one must experience.
Maxine McKew, who has never had a child herself, spooks me a bit:
As Professor Frank Oberklaid and Professor Fiona Stanley keep saying, babies come out of the womb ready to learn.
Our job as policymakers is to ensure young children have access to a calm, stimulating environment run by professionals…
Get it? Maxine hasn’t herself sprogged so she musn’t dare form an educated opinion about sprogs. Watertight logic, Bolta, and not at all hypocritical. Here are some things that Andrew has recently written about in which he has both qualifications and experience:
I could go on, but you get the idea.
489 Comments
23 November, 2008 at 11:44 am
“Andrew Bolt continue to pedal the line that to understand one must experience.”
Typical chickenhawk, hypocrite, the guy has never been a soldier or a politician but reckons he can call victory in Iraq (more than once, when once should’ve been enough).
The guy is a clown, he writes (crap) opinon pieces for a living about a multitude of subjects that he has no experience in. The guy has no science credentials but reckons he knows more about climate change than the scientists that specialise in the field.
I don’t think Andrew Bolt has ever given birth to a child either? ;o)
23 November, 2008 at 12:06 pm
it suits dog-whistlers like bolt for australia to raise a generation of idiots who fail to reach their early learning potential. these are the people who read and believe his columns, so of course he’s going to be spooked by a government who wants to ensure australian’s are educated from an early age. readers who can see through his lies and distortions would be bad for business.
23 November, 2008 at 12:08 pm
lol!! LP accurrately depicts bolt and blair:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/11/23/an-inconvenient-resemblance/#more-6764
23 November, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Typical. Unlike yourself and most of your readers, Bolt has contributed to a volunteer force, namely the Army Reserve. M. McKew is an ABC hack and typical of a Labor party candidate. Was she object during her reporting years……no. If we had said so back then you would have fired back. Then she accepts the preselection, wins the seat on preferences (from your favs the greens), and disposes of J. Howard. This man, however, has enough grace to attend the handing over of the seat, and congratulates her………unlike P. Keating and other Labor Party illuminaries. The left hijacked education in the late sixties and it has never recovered. Explain to me, and your generally dull readers, why literacy and numeracy rates have actually gone down, not up, since the left decided that the three r’s were no longer relevent and everything had to be ‘interpreted’ in the context of modern society. Why do secondary school children study mobile phone text instead of the classics? Now we have a situation where by teachers at a primary and secondary school level are unable to grasp the basic tenants of grammer and spelling. Your blog site will never experience even close to the same numbers of hits that bolt does for the simple reason that the vast majority of the population dislike lefty airheads, unable to generate a thought by themselves!! Instead of monitoring other sites that are generally spot on and in touch with the general population, write something original………….clowns.
23 November, 2008 at 4:48 pm
“Now we have a situation where by teachers at a primary and secondary school level are unable to grasp the basic tenants of grammer and spelling.”
Three obvious errors in one sentence about the declining quality of written expression. Is this an attempt at irony Lisa, or are you a victim of The Left’s hijacking of the education system? Personally I think the basic tenants of grammer and spelling should just pay their rent and stop sponging on hardworking landlords who are just trying to generate an income for their self-funded retirement.
23 November, 2008 at 4:56 pm
“Unlike yourself and most of your readers, Bolt has contributed to a volunteer force, namely the Army Reserve.”
Is this why he is the oracle on matters such as Global Warming and Islam?
As a big fan of Blotas, you may want to update his wikipedia page for him, as it makes no mention of his stint in the armed services. Running around with a bullet proof vest on holding a dicta phone doesn’t count as ’service’ either.
“Now we have a situation where by teachers at a primary and secondary school level are unable to grasp the basic tenants of grammer and spelling.”
Christ. What’s your excuse then?
23 November, 2008 at 5:47 pm
“Pedal the line”
Oh dear, I’ve clicked into a site for illiterates.
(try “peddle the line” – as in “try to sell”
23 November, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Lisa – That was an excellent parody; satire really seems to flow through your veins.
Iron Leftist – everyone knows Wikipedia has a left-leaning bias, and just because anyone can edit it you expect the Boltheads to go in there and “fix” it? They are far too busy talking about how Kevin Rudd does nothing and the media does nothing about it – they don’t have time to do anything else.
23 November, 2008 at 6:26 pm
“Here are some things that Andrew has recently written about in which he has both qualifications and experience:
Meteorology
Islam
Biodiversity
Welfare policy
Water supply
Crime statistics”
ROFL!! Hilarious, very true though.
23 November, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Mick In The Hills
23 November, 2008 at 5:47 pm
“Pedal the line”
Oh dear, I’ve clicked into a site for illiterates.”
Mick, being a connoisseur of literary excellency unable to witness the slightest of spelling mistakes, I have a strong suggesion for you.
Do not ever read anything written by Tim Blair or Andrew Bolt!
Their literary efforts will make you want to bash yourself across the head with a blunt object until you pass out. Not only do they make the odd spelling mistake, (reprehensible, I know) they intentionally misinform their readers in order to push a conversation (i.e: bullshit) point of view.
No need to thank me Mick, this advice comes free….
23 November, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Mick in the hills.
Do you spend a lot of free time with your sister?
Are your parents first cousins?
Is Andrew Bolt and George W Bush your favourite idols?
23 November, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Um, he had a point.
23 November, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I can sort of see where Andrew Bolt is coming from. As a society, we have become obsessed with exposing children to ‘professionals’ at the earliest possible age while the importance of the role of parents seem to be diminishing. I believe parents are the best nurterers of knowledge for children in the first five years of their lives, not strangers with this-and-that qualifications. Professionals never will, and never should, replace parents. However I do agree that the attack on Maxine McKew was in poor taste, as is alot of Andrew Bolt’s opinions (remember the murdering green bags?)
23 November, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Of course professionals should never replace parents, but when it becomes necessary for parents to hand over the care of their children to childcare centres, they’re entitled to expect that they will be staffed by competent, highly-trained people. That’s what Maxine McKew was talking about, and Bolt chose to twist it to fit his culture-war view of the world. As he always does. With everything.
23 November, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Scott, please replace “pedal” with “peddle”. It looks stupid.
23 November, 2008 at 9:11 pm
celetina: andy’s post was just another excuse to attack maxine mckew and the left. why refer to her childlessness in relation to her portfolio responsibility if your not attacking her personally. it was a low cheap shot nothing at all to do with increasing use of childcare services.
23 November, 2008 at 11:29 pm
“Was she object during her reporting years[sic]……no. I………… The left hijacked education in the late sixties and it has never recovered. Explain to me, and your generally dull readers, why literacy and numeracy rates have actually gone down, not up, since the left decided that the three r’s were no longer relevent[sic]……………..Now we have a situation where by[sic] teachers at a primary and secondary school level are unable to grasp the basic tenants[sic] of grammer[sic] and spelling.” – lisa
‘Tis gracious of Lisa to show up here and offer herself up as an example of the victims of this awful leftist educational conspiracy.
23 November, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Though we must be grateful for Andy’s new take on experience – no more commentry on the science of clmate change, or any statistical analysis on crime rates, or opinions on graphs.
Everyone is a winner.
24 November, 2008 at 7:32 am
Re pedal/peddle: youse done saw nothink.
24 November, 2008 at 8:39 am
Based on Andrew’s comments he will be ceasing to comment on anything relating to childbirth until he actually squeazes one out….
24 November, 2008 at 8:58 am
“Now we have a situation where by teachers at a primary and secondary school level are unable to grasp the basic tenants of grammer and spelling.”
Monday 10am… and Lisa just made my week. I’m going to be chuckling to myself about this one for a while.
Say what you like about Bolt lovers, they can certainly entertain.
Thanks Lisa, your reel awsom!
24 November, 2008 at 9:23 am
Lisa’z ayce.
Uncannily like Abu though…
24 November, 2008 at 9:32 am
I’m surprised Nic isn’t here to throw in her two cents and pick on the Boltard’s crap grammar and spelling. Must be because Lisa is a Boltard, therefore idiocy is to be expected.
24 November, 2008 at 9:53 am
Well, RobJ – I just got here. The style of Lisa’s comments,does remind,me,of Phil Travers. Other than the style, her comment is pretty reasonable. This site seems to serve less purpose day by day (particularly as Scott crossposts at Grods).
For instance, it is interesting that you choose to attack Bolt over a few words, without addressing the substance of his comment. Surely he is right that it is not up to the government to be providing a stimulating environment for 3 year olds?
Off topic, does anyone care to defend Crikey’s foul attack on Trig Palin?
24 November, 2008 at 9:56 am
“or instance, it is interesting that you choose to attack Bolt over a few words, ”
Just pointing out his hypocrisy. And that fact that he’s a crap journalist writing for the lowest common denominator.
“This site seems to serve less purpose day by day”
Yet you’re still here?
24 November, 2008 at 10:09 am
Blow me down.
A post by Nic without one ‘(sic)’ included.
24 November, 2008 at 10:11 am
“Off topic, does anyone care to defend Crikey’s foul attack on Trig Palin?”
No!
24 November, 2008 at 10:14 am
“For instance, it is interesting that you choose to attack Bolt over a few words, without addressing the substance of his comment. Surely he is right that it is not up to the government to be providing a stimulating environment for 3 year olds?” – Nic
Wrong.
It certainly is. Early childhood education is an area of vital import as it has flow on effects for the rest of a persons life. Here in Oz we are one of the lowest spenders amongst the OECD.
If the Parliamentary Sec for childhood education doesn’t have a take on the issue, they are wasting oxygen.
And what was Bolts contribution to this debate? – McKew hasn’t given birth, so she should shut-up.
A pointless and stupid snark, even by Bolts lowly stadard.
24 November, 2008 at 10:16 am
“Off topic, does anyone care to defend Crikey’s foul attack on Trig Palin?” – nic
Huh?
24 November, 2008 at 10:23 am
It’s always good to have someone come along and tell us which part of Bolt or Blair’s comments were “the substance” and which were “satire”, “off the cuff”, or whatever else serves to diminish the importance of their inappropriateness.
Bolt began his post by noting that McKew does not have a child; Scott took issue with bringing such a matter into any evaluation of policy statements. If this was not “the substance” of Bolt’s argument, then isn’t it reasonable to ask why he inserted that information at all?
I certainly think it is – in fact, I have noted instances in the past where journalists have done the same, even though they are supporting the politician’s approach. Interestingly, it seems to be most common when a childless female politician is talking about education – if we actually extended the logic to other portfolios, Brendan Nelson should be our Minister for Health and Mike Kelly should be Minister for Defence.
It is definitely the government’s role to develop policy about what parents can expect commercial child care services to provide. McKew suggested that our expectations for child care services should go beyond child-minding to recognise the importance of exposing kids who are in child care to developmentally stimulating experiences. I support that view wholeheartedly.
No.
24 November, 2008 at 11:58 am
Off topic, does anyone care to defend Crikey’s foul attack on Trig Palin?
I was disgusted when I heard what Crikey said about palin’s son Trig. When has it been acceptable to call a baby with down syndrome a mongrel.
http://www.vexnews.com/news/1646/they-need-help-jonathan-green-and-eric-beecher-attack-a-baby-boy-with-special-needs/
24 November, 2008 at 11:59 am
Off topic, does anyone care to defend Crikey’s foul attack on Trig Palin?
I was disgusted when I heard what Crikey said about palin’s son Trig. When has it been acceptable to call a baby with down syndrome a mongrel.
24 November, 2008 at 12:28 pm
<It continues to astound me that warriors for the new green morality can be so barbaric.
It seems Der Bolta and Matt/Rad should see the doco ‘Standard Operating Procedure’.
‘New green morality’.
What f**king trite…
24 November, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Sorry.
Stuffed up the italics.
Should have read:
It continues to astound me that warriors for the new green morality can be so barbaric.
24 November, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Who said it was acceptable RadMatt? And what does Crikey have to do with this thread, or this blog?
24 November, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Poor Pipper.
Kinda disappeared from the Happy Meal thread. Never came back after I pointed out that McDonalds gave 10c from each meal to the cause.
Now here he is bringing up something that is totally irrelevant yet again to this thread.
24 November, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Nic worte:
“Off topic, does anyone care to defend Crikey’s foul attack on Trig Palin?”
Nic already got two resounding “Nos” nevertheless Rad wrote:
“I was disgusted when I heard what Crikey said about palin’s son Trig. When has it been acceptable to call a baby with down syndrome a mongrel.”
Why are you guys trying to change the subject? This isn’t the ‘forum’ thread. What is this? Tag team trolling?
24 November, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Nic’s not a troll. RadMatt is. Actually he’s two.
24 November, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I’d beg to differ BadBob, did you look at the link I gave to Nic as a reminder? Tag team trolling with Abu Chowder in that instance.
24 November, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Who said it was acceptable RadMatt?
Did I say that people on this blog said it was acceptable? NO! I was replying to Nic’s comment on the topic with my personal disgust of Crikey.com.
And what does Crikey have to do with this thread, or this blog?
I was not the person that introduced this topic to this thread. You need to direct your comment to the person that did.
Kinda disappeared from the Happy Meal thread. Never came back after I pointed out that McDonalds gave 10c from each meal to the cause
Oh Please! Like 10cents from every happy meal is going to make any kind of difference. They would have to sell 10 million happy meals just to raise $1 million. Even then $1 millions isn’t going to make much of a difference. Especially when you consider that they can spend that amount in a single weekend sponsorship deal and that globaly they make $10’s Billions of dollars profit every year.
You really do have low standards.
24 November, 2008 at 1:07 pm
$1 Million is better than $0 little pipper.
How much should be raised for a charity then Rad.
Are you saying that if they can’t raise more than $x million then they shouldn’t bother?. -”Sorry we only got to $2 Million, that ’s not enough for Rad, call the whole thing off.
Sorry pal, it’s your standard’s that are really low here.
24 November, 2008 at 1:08 pm
So Rad – care to comment on Bolt’s stupid comment about McKew?
24 November, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Dam buster, you know he is going to say that Bolt was being sarcastic.
24 November, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Shane – don’t fall for it. All Rad wants to do is take the comments off topic because he can’t defend Bolt.
24 November, 2008 at 1:15 pm
All Rad wants to do is take the comments off topic because he can’t defend Bolt.
That why we didn’t hear a thing from him re: Bolt’s moderation is dodgy when TZ proved how AB is a liar…
24 November, 2008 at 1:21 pm
LOOK OVER THERE!!!
24 November, 2008 at 1:27 pm
$1 Million is better than $0 little pipper.
How much should be raised for a charity then Rad
That’s only if they sell 10 million happy meals. In a country of 21 million people it is unlikely.
But let’s just say they can sell that many. $1 million from a company as rich and big as McDonalds isn’t enough for me to suddenly change my opinion of the company to believe that McDonalds is now a champion of endangered animals.
I am more inclined to believe that it is more an investment in better PR for the company. Considering their profits, $1 million is pocket change compared to their annual expenditure on advertising and PR.
24 November, 2008 at 1:35 pm
What about the topic at hand, you know, Bolt’s blatant hypocrisy?
24 November, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I think the “mongrel called Trig” thing is quite interesting for how it shows the desperation of Bolt to distract from his African refugees foray.
The thinking seems to be that his dog-whistling might pale beside a callous attack on a baby with Down Syndrome.
Personally, I just don’t get it. Rad’s link seems to rest on the assumption that Crikey are suggesting a person with Down S. looks like a dog. They push the “mongrel” thing quite a bit. This is, apparently, “attack[ing] a baby”. They could teach politcally-correct bleeding heart lefties a thing or two about self-indulgent outrage.
I’m just wondering if they are terminally confused – people with Down S. were once referred to as “Mongols” due to the perception that they have an Asian facial appearance.
Have they confused ‘mongrel’ with ‘mongol’??
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.
24 November, 2008 at 1:45 pm
What about the topic at hand, you know, Bolt’s blatant hypocrisy?
You are taking a rather simplistic view of Bolt’s article. You cannot compare Bolt’s opinion on water management to a policy directed at what is best environment for children as said by a government.
I agree with what Nic said
“For instance, it is interesting that you choose to attack Bolt over a few words, without addressing the substance of his comment. Surely he is right that it is not up to the government to be providing a stimulating environment for 3 year olds?”
As a parent, Bolt is disagreeing with being told by a government what is the best environment for children, including his own.
A lot of parents do not like to be dictated to by governments about what is best for their children. Most parents will argue that they know more about what’s best for their own children than what some bureaucrat or government minister. This is completely different to a debate on meteorology, religion, crime statistics …. Etc.
24 November, 2008 at 1:46 pm
i so wanted andy to bring up the nixon somali stats on insiders yesterday just to see annabelle crabb go him again.
so rad how about bolt’s take on mckew’s lack of children and how that spooks him? are you similarly spooked by his lack of science qualifications and how he can’t stop commentating on climate charts and graphs?
24 November, 2008 at 1:48 pm
the baby trig mongrel thing came from a crikey reader. if we take rad’s view about reader comments they shouldn’t be taken to be indicative of the host views. i mean rad constantly says that about bolt and about this site. right rad?
24 November, 2008 at 1:51 pm
As a water engineer I do not like being dictated to by a tool who has no idea other than relying on emails from a guy who was sacked.. i mean made redundant from Melbourne Water years ago and has a chip on his shoulder.
24 November, 2008 at 1:54 pm
“You are taking a rather simplistic view of Bolt’s article. ”
He’s a rather simplistic person, appealing to the LOWEST common denominator of rednecks and other various idiots! His writing isn’t deep or nuanced, it is however sometimes subtle, because he’s a dog whistling bigot.
“i mean rad constantly says that about bolt and about this site. right rad?”
Rad’s job is to come here and defend Bolt, and if he can’t he just changes the subject or completely ignores the fact that he’s wrong! In other words he’s a troll.
24 November, 2008 at 2:01 pm
so rad how about bolt’s take on mckew’s lack of children and how that spooks him? are you similarly spooked by his lack of science qualifications and how he can’t stop commentating on climate charts and graphs?
Of course it doesn’t spook me as I do not have children. But I understand how a parent may be concerned by a government minster for early childhood learning not having children.
I take his comment more to mean that he is spooked with her job role and not being an experience parent. Especially given that she makes decisions that directly effect people’s children.
Now as a person without children I do not agree with his concerns. As a parent he does have the right to have concerns about people in power that make decisions that directly effect his children.
As a water engineer I do not like being dictated to by a tool who has no idea other than relying on emails from a guy who was sacked.. i mean made redundant from Melbourne Water years ago and has a chip on his shoulder.
But bolt is not in a position of power that effect water management so your comparisons are wrong. McKew is in a position of power in regards to early learning child care.
maybe if Bolt becomes the minister for water then your comparisons might have some weight.
24 November, 2008 at 2:08 pm
“maybe if Bolt becomes the minister for water then your comparisons might have some weight.”
right, of course. the experience to opinion thing only relates to government or people in authority. it means that any old hack no matter how many blog hits or newspapers he sells can continue to shout opinions totally at odds with his experience in such matters. rad i cannot beleive you just wrote that. just admit that what bolt said is crap, and he wouldn’t of said it if mckew were male.
24 November, 2008 at 2:14 pm
right, of course. the experience to opinion thing only relates to government or people in authority. it means that any old hack no matter how many blog hits or newspapers he sells can continue to shout opinions totally at odds with his experience in such matters. rad i cannot beleive you just wrote that. just admit that what bolt said is crap, and he wouldn’t of said it if mckew were male.
We live in a free democracy where we can all have an opinion. Bolt’s criticism of McKew isn’t a criticism of her opinion, it is a criticism of her policies compared with her experience.
If you cannot tell the difference then there is no helping you.
24 November, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Did you even read the article Rad?
[i]Our job as policymakers is to ensure young children [b]have access to[/b] a calm, stimulating environment run by professionals.[/i]
I didn’t notice mean old Ms Mckew dictating to Andrew that he had to utilise this service. Would he (and you), prefer the children were cared for in an un-calm, non-stimulating environment?
Nitpicking of the finest order even before his subtle “Heffernan” poke at her lack of children…
24 November, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Excuse the poor formatting…I composed it at Bolt’s blog and copied it to here thinking the formatting would remain the same.
24 November, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I didn’t notice mean old Ms Mckew dictating to Andrew that he had to utilise this service. Would he (and you), prefer the children were cared for in an un-calm, non-stimulating environment?
I never said that I agreed with Bolt. What I said is that as a parent, he has a right to have concerns of a person that has the power make decisions that effect his children.
What is wrong is to call him a hypocrite and then try and make a comparison with his opinions on water management … etc.
24 November, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“We live in a free democracy where we can all have an opinion.”
especially government ministers and elected representatives even maxine mckew who has referenced experts in her piece. again rad, what does her childlessness have to do with her comments apart from andy whipping up the sheep? nothing, that’s what.
sadly rad it looks like there is no helping you. you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that bolt is dogwhistling again and attacking labor ministers when there is no sound cause for such bullshit.
24 November, 2008 at 2:32 pm
especially government ministers and elected representatives even maxine mckew who has referenced experts in her piece. again rad, what does her childlessness have to do with her comments apart from andy whipping up the sheep? nothing, that’s what
She is making decisions that effect people’s children. Parents have a right to have concerns about a person who is not a parent, making decisions that effect their children.
It’s not an attack on her not having children, rather a criticism of her experience as a parent, by parents who’s children are effected by her policies.
You are just desperate to turn this into an attack on a woman’s right not to have children. It’s not about that confessions.
24 November, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Jesus you’re confused RadMatt. Anyway, what did you think of Bolt’s nasty little swipe at McKew for not having children? You still haven’t told us.
24 November, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I’m sure he’s thinks McKew is part of an evil leftist conspiracy to make Bolt say stupid things.
And it worked!
Damn those clever lefty’s.
24 November, 2008 at 3:00 pm
“It’s not an attack on her not having children, rather a criticism of her experience as a parent, by parents who’s children are effected by her policies.”
you are deluded there is no other way to explain your unwillingness to see what is directly in front of you.
“You are just desperate to turn this into an attack on a woman’s right not to have children.”
LOOK OVER THERE! of course, this entire thread has nothing to do with bolt. it’s really about me shoring up women’s rights. rad you need help.
24 November, 2008 at 3:03 pm
There are at least two problems with your reasoning here:
1. Why should people be more concerned about a “person who is not a parent” making policy decisions about child-care and education than they would be about a person who is a parent? Whether the person has gone through the experience of having or raising a child of their own has no bearing on whether they can understand the issues involved in formulating policy about children. That is the whole point of Scott’s post, and yet you have failed to articulate an explanation of why it isn’t flawed reasoning in all of the comments you have made so far.
2. You state that the policy decision of McKew effects (sic) Bolt’s children. I know that he has three kids, but I don’t know how old they are or whether they go to a child-care centre. Do you? (NB: In my view, this second problem does not actually matter until you can coherently address the first problem)
24 November, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I never thought I’d see anyone capable of twisting an argument to suit his agenda as egregiously as Bolt does, but RadMatt has trumped him! Congratulations RM!!!
24 November, 2008 at 3:12 pm
looking at the childlessness issue from another angle, sarah palin has 5 of them and instills no confidence that she has anywhere near the capability and intelligence of mckew. so what is your point rad?
24 November, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Oh how I wonder what might be said if McKew had only adopted children.
Based on the methodology only someone with extensive experience as a doctor or nurse could be the health minister, a water planner/engineer be the water minister, etc
24 November, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Just remember, you can’t learn nothing from reading, you have to do it.
24 November, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Maxine probably doesn’t even know any children. She’s from a Catholic family, and they don’t have that many kids do they?
24 November, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I bet she wasn’t even a child!
24 November, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Following Bolt logic Peter Costello should not have been treasurer as he was not an economist or banker. Obstetricians should not deliver babies unless they have had one themselves. Bolt is a logic black hole, the guy is certifiable.
Did anyone see Bolt on Insiders in his white suit, he looked like Colonel Sanders meets Saturday night fever, the tastelessness of his clothes matched the tastelessness of the crap he was spouting. When he said councils shouldn’t be given more money by Rudd because they will probably spend it on a gay pride march was particularly inane. Bolt is slang for buffoon.
24 November, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Noticed that Bolta was sitting forward more than usual in his chair.
A copy of Timmeh’s Insiders posture perhaps?
Keep leaning forward Andy & Timmeh.
Makes you look really intimidating.
Hides the facts you’re lying bigots, way way out of your depth…
24 November, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Off topic, but there’s a decent takedown of Bolt’s recent conniptions over Somalian crime rates to be found here:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/11/22/of-race-and-crime-and-andrew-bolt/
24 November, 2008 at 5:19 pm
“When he said councils shouldn’t be given more money by Rudd because they will probably spend it on a gay pride march was particularly inane”
we couldn’t have that could we. after all it’s not as if local government has any role to play in community harmony or staging events that bring visitors to their shire to spend money in their businesses. besides, unless councils have actual gay councillors they don’t have the experience necessary to fund a gay pride event. that was probably what bolt was objecting to.
24 November, 2008 at 5:32 pm
an alternate take on bolt’s no experience, no opinion theories. this time from a disgruntled former military general in thailand:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/SE%2BAsia/Story/STIStory_305093.html
how would andy rationalize THAT one?
24 November, 2008 at 6:02 pm
confessions, you spend way too much time on this thing. You are obsessed with Andrew Bolt. A bit like Superman being obsessed with Kryptonite. I find it bizarre, and potentially just a little sad. Get off the keyboard sans Caps Lock and go and do something about it.
24 November, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“confessions, you spend way too much time on this thing.”
how so diacs?
“You are obsessed with Andrew Bolt.”
really? in all the comments on this blog about bolt and you somehow deduce from my posts such an obsession? why?
24 November, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Well I’m sorry confessions but I just find it bizarre that someone who loathes someone so intently bothers so regularly to contribute to the man’s debate.
Incidentally;
“really? in all the comments on this blog about bolt and you somehow deduce from my posts such an obsession? why?”
23 November
12:06pm
12:08pm
09:11pm
24 November
01:46pm
01:48pm
02:08pm
02:28pm
03:00pm
03:12pm
05:19pm
05:32pm
06:24pm
That’s why.
You mercilessly hack away at Bolt for going on about the same few topics over and over again. You do the same thing daily. Witness above.
You criticise Bolt for being blinkered and unaccepting of other views. You rarely, if ever, deviate from your own positions.
Perhaps I was a little harsh suggesting getting out more (and yes I realize the irony as I’ve just sat down to make a note of all your posting times) but I really think a few commenters on here should get off Andrew’s blog and start doing something they enjoy. I’ve said before that life is too short to be wasted on Andrew Bolt.
24 November, 2008 at 9:08 pm
lol!! you’ve just subjected yourself to bolt’s/blair’s law of statistical probabilities – if it happens on one or two days it must be a trend.
if you are attempting to set a new method of recording ouput per reader then i look forward to applying your methololgy to people like rad pipper. then again if you are attempting to set a new method of recording output according to the specifics of the topic under discussion, then i reckon your own methodology would give you a run for your money.
keep trying kid.
25 November, 2008 at 6:11 am
Bolt has had it in for McKew ever since she got rid of Johnny, nothing new here…….he’ll jump on anything about Maxine to put the boot in.
” Respectable columnist ” lol, at least you didn’t call him a ” journalist ‘
25 November, 2008 at 6:12 am
On the Crikey front, Jonathan Green has apologised for the Trig item in that poll. Hopefully that will help Rad to focus on making sense about Andrew Bolt.
25 November, 2008 at 7:49 am
Jesus you’re confused RadMatt. Anyway, what did you think of Bolt’s nasty little swipe at McKew for not having children? You still haven’t told us
Badbod you need to read what I wrote. I HAVE addressed that issue.
Let me help you there.
It’s not an attack on her not having children, rather a criticism of her experience as a parent, by parents who’s children are effected by her policies.
You are just desperate to turn this into an attack on a woman’s right not to have children. It’s not about that confessions
25 November, 2008 at 7:56 am
Rad, now address the problems I identified in that answer.
25 November, 2008 at 8:16 am
Rad, now address the problems I identified in that answer
You really need to learn to read my posts. I have addressed it.
Once again;
I never said that I agreed with Bolt. What I said is that as a parent, he has a right to have concerns of a person that has the power make decisions that effect his children.
What is wrong is to call him a hypocrite and then try and make a comparison with his opinions on water management … etc
I have said that I do not agree with Bolt’s concerns yet I disagree with this post’s attempts to label him as a hypocrite by linking his McKew comments to his comments on Water management …etc.
Once again a refresher for you;
But bolt is not in a position of power that effect water management so your comparisons are wrong. McKew is in a position of power in regards to early learning child care.
Now Tobias, I suggest you go back and read every comment I have posted on this threat because I suspect that you are having problems.
25 November, 2008 at 8:22 am
A quick check of Hansard (10 Nov 2008) reveals :
(Gillard) “… But let me tell you that that just goes to show how out of touch the Liberal Party is because there are mums and dads right around the country that would prefer that convenience.
Mr Pearce—What would you know about children?”
No-one hates like the .. um .. which side of the political spectrum was it again?
25 November, 2008 at 8:50 am
RadMatt: “It’s not an attack on her not having children, rather a criticism of her experience as a parent, by parents who’s (sic) children are effected (sic) by her policies.
You are just desperate to turn this into an attack on a woman’s right not to have children.”
This is one of the more incoherent pieces of gibberish you’ve posted here RadMatt. What is it with the Right and stupidity? Bolt’s piece was an attack on McKew’s policy credentials, on the basis that she has not had children so she would not know anything about their needs. That is, by any measure, both a nasty personal attack and a grotesquely distorted piece of reasoning.
Your second sentence makes it sound as though you are attacking the poster for arguing that women have no right to choose not to have children. You really need to try harder RM.
25 November, 2008 at 9:05 am
Bolt’s piece was an attack on McKew’s policy credentials, on the basis that she has not had children so she would not know anything about their needs. That is, by any measure, both a nasty personal attack and a grotesquely distorted piece of reasoning
If McKew had a strong background in Childcare then I would agree with you but McKew’s background is as a Report/TV presenter.
We as voter’s have a right to question the credentials of our elected government Ministers. In no way is Bolt being nasty. There is nothing wrong with not having children so some one point out the fact that McKew is not a Parent is not nasty. Especially when it is in reference to her policy making.
A comparison is pet owners criticising some local governments that place a ban on cat ownership in the municipality or housing estate. If the person in local government never owned a pet, it would be fair to use that as a point of criticism.
Now given all that I still do not agree with Bolt’s concerns, but I respect his right and the rights of other parents to be critical of McKew’s early childhood policies given that she is not a parent.
Your second sentence makes it sound as though you are attacking the poster for arguing that women have no right to choose not to have children. You really need to try harder RM
Re-read what I have written. That is NOT what I am saying. I am saying that Confessions is trying to turn the debate into one about a womans right not to have children, rather than a debate on the validity of the authors criticism of bolt in this post.
25 November, 2008 at 9:15 am
“. In no way is Bolt being nasty. ”
LOL
25 November, 2008 at 9:20 am
dear o dear. rad goes from this:
“I do not agree with Bolt’s concerns yet I disagree with this post’s attempts to label him as a hypocrite by linking his McKew comments to his comments on Water management …etc.”
to this:
“A comparison is pet owners criticising some local governments that place a ban on cat ownership in the municipality or housing estate. If the person in local government never owned a pet, it would be fair to use that as a point of criticism.”
please stop digging rad.
25 November, 2008 at 9:25 am
“please stop digging rad.”
Shhhhhhhhhhhh confessions, it’s entertaining. (in a perverted kind of way).
25 November, 2008 at 9:27 am
RadMatt: “Now Tobias, I suggest you go back and read every comment I have posted on this threat (Freudian sic)…”
He must really hate you TZ.
25 November, 2008 at 9:32 am
So RadMatt, you really truly seriously believe it’s a legitimate debating tactic on Bolt’s part to attack McKew’s childcare policy credentials on the grounds that she hasn’t had children? Please say you do.
25 November, 2008 at 9:32 am
please stop digging rad.
Confessions it’s not hard to disagree with another person’s concerns while understanding why they have those concerns.
Do you lack the ability of empathy?
25 November, 2008 at 9:40 am
So RadMatt, you really truly seriously believe it’s a legitimate debating tactic on Bolt’s part to attack McKew’s childcare policy credentials on the grounds that she hasn’t had children? Please say you do
Given that she has never had a background in childcare of any kind I do. I don’t agree with Bolt on this but I can certainly understand a Parent being concerned by the decision making of a person who is the minister for early childhood education and not being a parent. Especially when that same person has no formal background experience in early childhood development or learning.
This isn’t about attacking someone because they have never had children, it is about someone that has no experience with children (as a professional or as a parent) making decisions that effect children and parents being concerned by that. (even if those concerns are highly debateable)
25 November, 2008 at 9:40 am
Now he’s got out the backhoe.
25 November, 2008 at 9:41 am
Christ you’re a marvel RadMatt.
25 November, 2008 at 9:42 am
RadMatt, do you realise there are more than two forms of “experience with children”?
25 November, 2008 at 9:46 am
“Do you lack the ability of empathy?”
in your world, obviously. in my world your dismissal of water mgt comparison only to then compare mckew’s situation with pet owners makes you a hypocrite. empathy has nothing to do with it.
and rob’s right: resume digging, this IS highly entertaining.
25 November, 2008 at 9:47 am
RadMatt, do you realise there are more than two forms of “experience with children”?
I never said that I agreed with Bolt’s concerns. McKew would be relying on a team of experts to help her in her policy making as she does not have the experience to develop the policy making on her own.
As I said, Bolt’s concerns are highly debateable. What is wrong is the blatant and desperate attempt by people on this threat to label bolts concerns as something sinister or hypocritical.
25 November, 2008 at 9:51 am
“This isn’t about attacking someone because they have never had children, it is about someone that has no experience with children”
It’s about Bolt’s hatred of McKew actually.
Maybe he’s jealous, she was a good journalist (Bolt is crap) who went to knock over Bolt’s hero, the lying rodent JWH. Thus she is relevant in politics and Bolt isn’t, he’s stuck as a mouth piece for the lunatic fringe of rednecks and other bigots.
OT – You all watching The Howard Years? My contempt for Reith is totally justified, he’s an out of touch upper class twit of the first order.
25 November, 2008 at 9:54 am
Rad, I am not a vet nor do I own a dog. Do I have the right to lobby the council vis a vis dog ownership laws, or do I not have the right to get people to pick up their own dogs crap, or face fines.
The child rearing debate in this country amazes me, it seems people are happy to receive others money though baby bonus, family tax benefits etc, but when it comes to expressing an opinion one must have had a child in order to be taken seriously.
25 November, 2008 at 9:58 am
…but when it comes to expressing an opinion
And for Christ’s sake, whatever you do, don’t work in the arts…
25 November, 2008 at 10:01 am
Now Bolta is complaining about spelling mistakes.
What a shallow existence he leads.
25 November, 2008 at 10:03 am
“Now Bolta is complaining about spelling mistakes.”
For real? I’ll have to have a look. Damn you! ;o)
25 November, 2008 at 10:06 am
Oh, he is, more hypocrisy from Bolt, the journalist that frequently fails to use his spell checker and can even stuff up simple arithmetic!
25 November, 2008 at 10:14 am
LOL – Frank’s response, lamenting the state of education, yet he can’t use an apostrophe where it’s required. I’ll forgive his spelling error, it may have been a typo.
Is it bad form to cut ‘n’ paste posts from Bolt’s site to here? Considering it isn’t a post I made.
25 November, 2008 at 10:22 am
The child rearing debate in this country amazes me, it seems people are happy to receive others money though baby bonus, family tax benefits etc, but when it comes to expressing an opinion one must have had a child in order to be taken seriously
You are confusing having an opinion with a government minister that has power to change things.
We all have a right to question the qualifications of a government minister. Especially when they do not have formal qualifications in the field that they are in charge of.
Like confessions, it seems that you are more interested in turn this into a debate about people’s rights to not have children instead of what the debate is really about and that is the qualifications and life experience of a government minister.
25 November, 2008 at 10:28 am
“We all have a right to question the qualifications of a government minister. ”
He wasn’t questioning Robert Hill or Brendan Nelson when they sent our troops to war. Have either of them ever been soldiers? Didn’t think so.
Costello was a lawyer, not an economist
I think nearly all of them (Howard Cabinet) were lawyers, Nelson was a qualified medical doctor, so he got defence after Hill???? I can’t recall Bolt questioning these men or their decisions. Maybe you could link me to where Bolt did, because he may have but I’m no fan.
25 November, 2008 at 10:30 am
rad where the fuck have i tried to turn this into a debate about people’s rights? or is this another of your LOOK OVER THERE attempt to shift focus from your relentless backhoe action?
25 November, 2008 at 10:30 am
And Janette H was qualified for what?
Sweet f**k all!
Except, of course, being married to a lying rodent…
25 November, 2008 at 10:34 am
RobJ: i can’t bring myself to watch the howard years in the interests of my short term wellbeing. living through it all once was enough.
25 November, 2008 at 10:36 am
RadMatt said he didn’t agree with Bolt’s “concerns” about McKew not having any experience with children: “I never said that I agreed with Bolt’s concerns. McKew would be relying on a team of experts to help her in her policy making as she does not have the experience to develop the policy making on her own.
“As I said, Bolt’s concerns are highly debateable.”
Then he said he agreed with them: “We all have a right to question the qualifications of a government minister. Especially when they do not have formal qualifications in the field that they are in charge of.”
I don’t know whether to argue with you or not, RM. Get back to me when you’ve stopped arguing with yourself.
25 November, 2008 at 10:39 am
“RobJ: i can’t bring myself to watch the howard years in the interests of my short term wellbeing. living through it all once was enough.”
It’s a great show, I urge you to give it a go.. Poor Peter Costello, Howard really was a pig to his treasurer. Like in the GST election, Howard’s victory speech – pays tribute to Jeff Kennett???? Not Costello.
Turnbull declined to be included in the show, I’m picking it’s because he doesn’t have a good word to say about the lying, dog whistling, rodent.
Peter Reith – the guy is sick joke…
If you’re interested in politics check it out, yet again our ABC is something to be proud of.
25 November, 2008 at 10:39 am
I can’t recall Bolt questioning these men or their decisions. Maybe you could link me to where Bolt did, because he may have but I’m no fan.
And your point being? We also all have the right to be concerned by some issues more than others. All this says is that Bolt is more concerned about the job that the Minister for Early Childhood learning is doing compared with the job that the Minister for defences was doing.
It’s not a crime to be concerned by some issues more than others. All this says is that Bolt, as a parent is more concerned with the governance of early childhood learning than the governance of defence.
25 November, 2008 at 10:46 am
“And your point being? We also all have the right to be concerned by some issues more than others. ”
My point – that’s easy, Bolt is biased, he Hates McKew, he’s a hypocrite.
“It’s not a crime to be concerned by some issues more than others. All this says is that Bolt, as a parent is more concerned with the governance of early childhood learning than the governance of defence.”
No all this says is that you’ll go to any length to defend Bolt, you’ll even humiliate yourself on a public blog
25 November, 2008 at 10:47 am
Give it up Pipper. You are hopeless.
If you can’t see the contradictions that you make time and time again, then you are dishonest.
25 November, 2008 at 10:51 am
Stripped of the excess verbage Rad, you appear to be suggesting that Andrew Bolt has the right to talk shit because he doesn’t have the “power to change things”.
A poor argument, but in any event the inevitable conclusion of it remains that Andrew Bolt is talking shit…..
25 November, 2008 at 10:51 am
john howard was divisive, played games (with costello, his cabinet, minority groups and the voters), was only ever interested in his own political fortunes rather than those of the country, and picked a team of headkicking ministers (reith, downer, ruddock, abbott and co) to show that “safe pair of hands” the Oz kept crapping on about.
i really am glad we got rid of most of them – ruddock, andrews, costello left to go. and it can’t come soon enough for me. a disgraceful government led by a horrible PM that left a permanent black period in our countrys history. shame, shame, shame.
25 November, 2008 at 10:56 am
All this says is that Bolt is more concerned about the job that the Minister for Early Childhood learning is doing compared with the job that the Minister for defences was doing.
All this says is Bolt is trying to score a cheap point.
And as for electing people with experience or qualifications just look at what happened to Dr Karl last election. He says that he wished he had not run because of the huge personal toll it took on him.
A politician would be attacked by Bolt regardless of experience.
btw Can someone please show me Bolts journalism qualification …
25 November, 2008 at 10:56 am
Rubbish, Bolt is not concerned more with early childhood learning than defence. Every argument Bolt makes is from an ideological stance. Take his ‘what is it with violence and the left’. Bolt is not concerned with violence and never denounces right wing nutters violence, he uses violence or anything else available to try to bash his political opponents.
The short sighted love Bolt because he panders to their prejudice, he makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside about their twisted values.
25 November, 2008 at 11:10 am
Bolt is not concerned with violence and never denounces right wing nutters violence, he uses violence or anything else available to try to bash his political opponents.
Too true.
25 November, 2008 at 11:16 am
confessions, I have an idea for you so you can watch the Howard Years (not a patch on the Downer Months, but that’s another story): you remember the scene in the bar in the Blues Brothers where the band was performing inside a cage so the crowd could chuck bottles and crap at them without causing any damage? Well, you could build one of them around your telly and piff stuff at it while you’re watching Reith make a complete clown of himself. Win/win situation.
25 November, 2008 at 11:24 am
confessions.. watched the Howard Years last night. Missed last week. There is a saying that “there is no I in team”. But FFS how many times did Downer say “I” last night?
25 November, 2008 at 11:25 am
lol!! but as much as i like fran kelly i can’t see myself sitting through the show without puking.
25 November, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I get through it by saying to myself, over and over again: these guys are history.
25 November, 2008 at 12:14 pm
And confessions, what’s wrong with a puke bucket beside the recliner?
25 November, 2008 at 12:15 pm
“Dam Buster of Preston
25 November, 2008 at 11:24 am
confessions.. watched the Howard Years last night. Missed last week. There is a saying that “there is no I in team”. But FFS how many times did Downer say “I” last night?”
Remarkably pleased with themselves for a bunch of losers, aren’t they?
25 November, 2008 at 12:31 pm
BB – Of course.. the script is along the lines of:
Howard to Downer: “Fat boy, we are screwed unless you find somewhere to hide these bloody muzzie boat people”
D to H: “I, I, I, mean I could find somewhere. The poor bastards on Nauru are short of a quid after selling all the bird poop to us as fertilizer. I, I, I will give them a call, I, I, I will.”
H to D: “Get on it or I will have to get Reith to lie some more for me. And FFS don’t tell me everything or else how the F am I going to be able to say ‘I was not aware of that’ to the public?”
ten minutes later….
D to H: “I, I, I called Nauru and they are in.”
H to D: “F-ing marvellous”
D to H: “there is a catch”
H to D: “What the F?”
D to H: “It is going to cost us $1billion”
H to D: “Money well spent to stay in power hey old champ?”
D to H: “I, I, I, I agree. But how do I, I, I lie to the voters?”
H to D: “Leave it to me… We are going to call it ‘Protecting our Borders’”
25 November, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Remarkably pleased with themselves for a bunch of losers, aren’t they?
It just kills you that you and the left are the only people that see the Howard years in a way that just fills you with hate. The reality is that most people see the Howard government as being extremely successful at delivering very prosperous times.
Given the Rudd government’s legacy is dependant on how it performs in the current global economic catastrophe, people will always look back on the Howard years as the Golden age of low unemployment, massive tax cuts and increased budget surpluses.
25 November, 2008 at 12:45 pm
RadP “massive tax cuts”
try again Rad:
“LOW and middle income earners are set to pocket substantial tax cuts – up to three times more than those delivered under the Howard Government.”
from http://www.news.com.au/business/money/story/0,25479,23559081-14327,00.html
25 November, 2008 at 12:45 pm
RadP “massive tax cuts”
try again Rad:
“LOW and middle income earners are set to pocket substantial tax cuts – up to three times more than those delivered under the Howard Government.”
from news.com.au/business/money/story/0,25479,23559081-14327,00.html
25 November, 2008 at 12:57 pm
“It just kills you that you and the left are the only people that see the Howard years in a way that just fills you with hate.”
And all the decent people who abhor locking up children indefinitely, who abhor the Pacific Solution which solved nothing but cost loads, who abhor people who tell lies about children being thrown overboard, who abhor people who follow the US to a war of choice built on lies. Who abhor lying rodents. (who are mean and tricky to boot).
You don’t have to be of the ‘left’ to abhor John Howard and his henchmen, you just have to be a decent, compassionate person.
25 November, 2008 at 12:58 pm
“LOW and middle income earners are set to pocket substantial tax cuts – up to three times more than those delivered under the Howard Government.”
Funny how you just cherry picked one portion of what I said. This is what I said;
Given the Rudd government’s legacy is dependant on how it performs in the current global economic catastrophe, people will always look back on the Howard years as the Golden age of low unemployment, massive tax cuts and increased budget surpluses.
Howard’s tax cuts, including the family benefits, baby bonus… etc in combination with record low unemployment, and Budget surpluses. Let’s just see what Rudd is forced to do when the budget is at risk of going into deficit. He will have to compensate in other areas. Like Tax increases, and/or cutting services, and/or dumping his ETS… etc
My point was that the Howard years will always be remembered as a time of prosperity and wonderful economic times. Ie a golden age. The Rudd years will certain be remembered as a time of one of the biggest global economic disasters in a century.
So you can sit there and mock the Howard years, but I think after a few years of one of the worst global recessions in a century, people will not be viewing the Rudd years with as much fondness.
25 November, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Rad – “a golden age” get over yourself. In about 2 seconds I dismissed part of your statement.
No doubt you are happy with the $200,000 per head we spent ($1b total) on the pacific solution only to have most of the people come to Australia as refugees anyway?
RobJ – You forgot that Howard et al made themselves ‘not aware’ of other things like the AWB scandal.
25 November, 2008 at 1:09 pm
RadMatt: “….people will always look back on the Howard years as the Golden age of low unemployment, massive tax cuts and increased budget surpluses.”
….and of demonisation of refugees, neglect of public services, destruction of the universities, political meddling in the ABC, undermining of workers’rights, inaction on climate change, fire sales of public assets….
I could go on RadMatt, but the truth is I’m pleased to say I’m beginning to forget about those years of darkness, and watching them prattling on about how good they were is just a pleasant reminder that they’re GONE!
25 November, 2008 at 1:10 pm
No doubt you are happy with the $200,000 per head we spent ($1b total) on the pacific solution only to have most of the people come to Australia as refugees anyway?
RobJ – You forgot that Howard et al made themselves ‘not aware’ of other things like the AWB scandal
For the average Australian, it all comes down to standard of living, employment prospects and future security for their kids and themselves. In all these areas Howard delivered. Your average Joe only becomes concerned about government spending when economic times are tough and their job is at risk.
The reality is that after a few years of this devastating global recession, people will look back on the Howard years with fondness. Especially if unemployment goes up and people start to struggle financially.
25 November, 2008 at 1:10 pm
It’s been interesting to watch ‘lil Pip tie himself in knots while digging a hole with his defense of Bolts indefensible rubbish.
Of course a Parliamentary Sec is going to comment on matters related to their role – that’s the whole point. It was so stupid that I can’t believe that anyone else would be dim enough to try and defend Bolt on this.
25 November, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I could go on RadMatt, but the truth is I’m pleased to say I’m beginning to forget about those years of darkness, and watching them prattling on about how good they were is just a pleasant reminder that they’re GONE!
Oh I am sure people will feel the same way as you if unemployment hits 6 – 7% over the next couple of years and Rudd starts slashing services and spending to lessen the increasing Budget deficit. Yes people will be glad to be defaulting on their mortgages and losing their jobs, because the wicked witch of the west, Howard is gone!
25 November, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Of course a Parliamentary Sec is going to comment on matters related to their role – that’s the whole point. It was so stupid that I can’t believe that anyone else would be dim enough to try and defend Bolt on this.
How bad of me to think that it was OK in a democracy for people to dare to have an opinion of the abilities and policies of a government minister. Maybe I need to realise that we now have Chairman Rudd running this dictatorship country.
So much for free speech. We must treat government policy as gosbal.
25 November, 2008 at 1:25 pm
rudd will not cut services. my money is on the middle class welfare handouts of baby bonus and the like.
25 November, 2008 at 1:26 pm
have an opinion on their abilities Rad, but just so long as your not bringing in unrelated life circumstances in order to do so.
25 November, 2008 at 1:27 pm
“In all these areas Howard delivered.”
Are you an economist RadMatt? Are you qualified to assess the contribution of Howard and his government to the “prosperity” of those 11 dark years? Given the judgements now being made about the current crisis being at least partly a result of the excess of those years, is it just possible that your glowing assessment of the Howard years will not be shared by serious judges in the decades to come?
25 November, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Gosbal?
25 November, 2008 at 1:33 pm
have an opinion on their abilities Rad, but just so long as your not bringing in unrelated life circumstances in order to do so
It’s not unrelated. If McKew was the minister for transport and bolt mentioned that she did have children then you would be right. But McKew is minister for early childhood education. This means that because she has NO formal qualifications in child care or education, the next best thing is being a parent. Life experience that relates to your field of expertise is very relevant. Hence a parent of a special needs child would bring a lot of experience to policy making for policies that relate to special needs children.
25 November, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Gosbal?
gospel
25 November, 2008 at 1:37 pm
“For the average Australian, it all comes down to standard of living, employment prospects and future security for their kids and themselves. In all these areas Howard delivered.”
FTR – I’m an average Australian that wants future prosperity and prospects for my child.
“Your average Joe only becomes concerned about government spending when economic times are tough and their job is at risk. ”
I don’t really care what the average Joe thinks, I care what is done in my name by my govt, locking up children indefinitely is deplorable! (as are many other things done by the Howard Govt)
“The reality is that after a few years of this devastating global recession, people will look back on the Howard years with fondness. Especially if unemployment goes up and people start to struggle financially.”
You might, many of us are smarter and realise that the global economic catastrophe is not the fault of the current govt, for sure this govt will be judged on how well they handle it but that wont make me view the deplorable reign of John Howard through rose coloured glasses. To me there are more important things than prosperity, decency and honesty spring to mind.
25 November, 2008 at 1:37 pm
bullshit Rad! whether mckew has children or not has NO bearing on her ability to carry out her professional duties. you are such a partisan freak, your unwavering loyalty to bolt is affecting your ability to think clearly about exactly what the idiot is saying about mckew.
25 November, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Are you an economist RadMatt? Are you qualified to assess the contribution of Howard and his government to the “prosperity” of those 11 dark years? Given the judgements now being made about the current crisis being at least partly a result of the excess of those years, is it just possible that your glowing assessment of the Howard years will not be shared by serious judges in the decades to come?
I am not talking about political analysts or historians. I am refering to the average Australian voter that are the people that decide who wins government. These people matter far more to Rudd than a political analyst or finacial expert.
25 November, 2008 at 1:40 pm
RadMatt, you are the proverbial dog with a bone. You can be comprehensively dismantled, but you keep coming back for more. No wonder you’re so fond of Bolt. He’s a dead-set role model, isn’t he? You’re just a slightly dopier version, but you don’t have far to go to catch up. You just need to work on the art of the condescending put-down. Have a go at working the word “undergraduate” into your posts once in a while, and see how it goes.
25 November, 2008 at 1:44 pm
“I am refering (sic) to the average Australian voter”….of which you are one, yeah? Very, very average. The kind of “average voter” who decides who to vote for on the basis of how his standard of living has fared since the last election, regardless of the culpability or otherwise of the incumbent.
25 November, 2008 at 1:47 pm
of which you are one, yeah? Very, very average. The kind of “average voter” who decides who to vote for on the basis of how his standard of living has fared since the last election, regardless of the culpability or otherwise of the incumbent
Maybe you should say that to Rudd with all his rhetoric about working families. Also maybe you should say that to the Howard battlers that delivered Howard 4 election wins.
25 November, 2008 at 2:02 pm
OT but fucking scary:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/25/2429228.htm
what is it with the right and hate and violence?
25 November, 2008 at 2:05 pm
“rhetoric about working families.”
.
.
.
“Howard battlers” You forgot the ‘rhetoric’ ;o)
25 November, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Rad,
For god’s sake, stop being so deliberately stupid…..If Costello – who was an industrial relations lawyer, Nelson – a medical practitioner, and Ruddock – another lawyer, just to name a few in the Howard Cabinet, were ok to be our Treasurer, Defence Minister and Immigration Minister, and were making policy in those portfolios, then why isn’t McKew equally qualified to make policy in childhood education just because she isn’t a parent ?
The lunacy of your argument should be apparent to you — by your, and Bolt’s standards, those three should have been a banker or some sort of financial adviser, a member of the armed forces and an immigrant, otherwise they don’t have the experience for the job.
She has exactly the same pre-politics experience in her portfolio as they had in theirs…
Very few politicians have experience in the fields of their portfolios before they become ministers…Alexander Downer is/was a rare exception in that he at least worked in the diplomatic corps before entering politics.
By the way, De-Anne Kelly — Howard’s Minister for Veterans Affairs — would you mind telling me what war she served in please ?
25 November, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Very few politicians have experience in the fields of their portfolios before they become ministers…Alexander Downer is/was a rare exception in that he at least worked in the diplomatic corps before entering politics
Gavin, I never said that I agreed with Bolt’s concerns. In fact I do not. I agree more with you that McKew can use a number of experts to help her as she would not have the experience to do it on her own.
Putting my opinion aside, I disagree firstly with this thread that claims that because bolt has written opinion pages on the government’s water management then he is being hypocritical in regards to McKew. Also, even though I disagree, I can understand why a parent like Bolt may have concerns. Even if those concerns are highly debateable.
25 November, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Confessions,
I’m not so sure you can blame ‘the Right’ for the attacks in that article…they just seem to be of the usual run-of-the-mill racist variety to me…
25 November, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“White supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and the Council of Conservative Citizens have seen a flood of interest from possible new members since the landmark election of the first black president in US history.”
somehow i dont think these people interested in joining would be lefties. do you?
25 November, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Bolt’s hypocrisy in this case is that he demands a higher standard of qualification from McKew than he requires from those politicians that he agrees with.
25 November, 2008 at 2:23 pm
not just a higher standard gavin, but a higher, unrelated standard.
25 November, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Don’t know confessions, I think you’ll find that organisations such as those get members who vote both ways…their common bond is that they hate people who are racially and / or religiously different to them.
25 November, 2008 at 2:24 pm
“not just a higher standard gavin, but a higher, unrelated standard”
Yes.
25 November, 2008 at 2:35 pm
no, i’m not talking ‘voting’ gavin – that is the mistake the bolt sheep constantly make (only lefties vote labor etc). i’m talking about philosophical approach and belief system.
25 November, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Exactly, confessions. There are plenty of Labor voters with stupid, obnoxious Right-wing opinions about lots of things, and a few Liberal voters with moderate views. Christ, even RadMatt might have voted Labor once or twice.
25 November, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I’m not so sure that racists are Left or Right philosophically speaking…I think they just hate everyone who is racially or culturally different to them.
25 November, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I love the saying “I’m not racist, I hate all races equally”.
BadBob – is he old enough to have voted more than once?? :P
25 November, 2008 at 3:26 pm
“I’m not so sure that racists are Left or Right philosophically speaking”
i disagree. liberalism (and progressivism) embodies individual liberty, equal rights and equality of opportunity. it is highly unlikely that people who would class themselves as ‘progressives’ and believe in liberalism would consider joining the KKK.
25 November, 2008 at 3:33 pm
RadMatt did say once (actually twice, once as Rad, once as Matt) that he got a “fantastic education” at a government school. Given that government schools have been starved of funds since the mid-90s (earlier than that in Victoria, but I’m not sure where RadMatt lives) and so no-one has been able to get a fantastic education in the public system since that time, RadMatt would have to be at least 30 years old. Despite appearances to the contrary. This would mean there have been as many as four, possibly five, federal elections since RadMatt was foolishly given the vote, so he would have had ample opportunity to vote Labor. Am I right or am I wrong? Is it possible that RadMatt’s estimation of his education is a tad inflated? If so, I may have to revise my calculations.
25 November, 2008 at 3:46 pm
“liberalism (and progressivism) embodies individual liberty, equal rights and equality of opportunity”
It’s interesting isn’t it Confessions — that’s pretty much exactly what conservatives say their philosophy is all about.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on wether or not left leaning people would consider joining racist organisations, wether it be the KKK or other groups….But I think you’re kidding yourself if you think racists only come from the ranks of conservatives.
25 November, 2008 at 3:53 pm
“It’s not unrelated. If McKew was the minister for transport and bolt mentioned that she did have children then you would be right. But McKew is minister for early childhood education. This means that because she has NO formal qualifications in child care or education, the next best thing is being a parent.” – ‘lil Pip
It’s true- he’ll say anything, no matter how idiotic, to stick up for Bolty.
Do we need to find a Defence Minister who’s been in a war? Or, next best thing, a brawl down at his local watering hole?
25 November, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“But I think you’re kidding yourself if you think racists only come from the ranks of conservatives.”
yes, just like bolt kids himself whenever he goes on about how the left hate, convenient overlooking that hatred and vileness comes from all people. which is kind of the point i was trying to make with that news link – about bolt’s generalising that is.
25 November, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Personally I think Ironbar Tuckey should be the Defence Minister.
25 November, 2008 at 4:01 pm
“I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on wether or not left leaning people would consider joining racist organisations, wether it be the KKK or other groups….But I think you’re kidding yourself if you think racists only come from the ranks of conservatives.” – GavinM
Sure, the KKK is full of those tree-hugging, let’s apologise, free the refugees, po-mo types…..sure it is.
25 November, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Yes, Bolt’s a looney alright, to be honest i’m not sure what’s scarier — the fact that Bolt has a medium to air his views publicly or the fact that so many people seem to agree with him…
25 November, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Michael,
Great post…very insightful.
Maybe you should try following the discussion instead of jumping in and making a fool of yourself.
25 November, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Wilson for Attack Minister it is!
Penny Wong as Minister for EO and Multi-cultural Affairs
Ruddock – Minister for Aging (and the Walking Dead).
Garrett – Minister for Arts
Turnball has to be Treasurer.
Peter Reith- Telecommunications.
25 November, 2008 at 4:17 pm
“Maybe you should try following the discussion instead of jumping in and making a fool of yourself.” – Gav
I apologise for not being as insightful as you with your observation that after an increase in racist attacks following Obamas election one can’t “ blame ‘the Right’ for the attacks“.
It was the Obama supporters too…..sure it was.
25 November, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Michael,
Considering the UK Greens preselected twice a person who is now a member BNP and a Greens spokesman suggested that another member joined the BNP because they had the more hardline climate change stance, I’d have to say – yes I wouldn’t be surprised if the KKK is full of tree-huggers.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5197862.ece
You’ll find that a lot of the economic policies of groups that are labelled far right are the same as that of the greens and can be can quite socialist in outlook. Of course, they add on a whole layer of racist bigotry to that.
Look at the 9/11 truther movement. A lot of them are on the left and some parts of that movement are explicitly racist (e.g. blaming it on the Jews).
There is racism on both sides of the spectrum. Pretending that racism is only on the right is silly.
25 November, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Michael,
If you read what I wrote, you will see that I said the attacks seemed to be being carried out by racists…
I probably should have said that its not clear that they are being carried out by right-wingers because of Obama winning the election…A statement I think that is backed up in the same article where it says that attacks on Latinos have been steadily increasing since 2003, and attacks on Muslims increased in the wake of 9/11.
Teenagers beating up coloured people and calling them Obama amongst other racial taunts is hardly indicative that they are conservatives. Rather it just shows that they are racist teenage thugs.
As to the burnt crosses left on peoples’ lawns — yes a KKK calling card — can also be done by any racist who has seen Mississippi Burning or any of the myriad of other movies or articles about the KKK, is there any proof of who actually left them there ?
As I said, the philosophy of the racist is not Left or Right, it is simply a hatred of those who are different.
25 November, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Gavin, you’d make Rad blush with that drivel.
Let’s just take a few examples from the article,
“We have seen a fairly dramatic backlash over the last three or four weeks, since the final weeks of the campaign”
“In other examples, a family in New Jersey that supported Mr Obama found a charred wooden cross on its lawn a few days after the election.”
“On election night, two teenagers beat up a black man on Staten Island, New York, and cursed him with racial epithets and ‘Obama’.”
Hhmmm…who could possibly be leaving burning crosses in people’s front yard?? Let’s see, who in the US usually does that……….yes, very likely it’s those lefty, multi-cult, Democrat voting folks who are putting burning crosses in the front yards of Obama supporters.
Deliberate stupidity isn’t a good look Gavin.
25 November, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Gavin, I think what you’re trying to say is that some racists are non-political, in that they don’t have a clue about politics or political philosophies and are just dumb, bigoted thugs, whereas others attach themselves to pseudo-philosophies of one kind or another and justify their thuggery by reference to some allegedly higher ideal (such as “British culture” or “Western culture”).
Now some of the former kind might be used by movements of the far Left (e.g. the anti-Semitism sometimes displayed by the Soviet communists, or the anti-Muslim activities of “Greater Serbia” under Milosevic), but invariably those of the latter kind are of the Right. There is no Leftist philosophical system I know of that embraces racism, but they are a dime a dozen on the Right.
25 November, 2008 at 9:19 pm
“There is nothing wrong with not having children so some one point out the fact that McKew is not a Parent is not nasty.”
Best.post.ev0r.
I’m pointing it out. Or not.
I can’t decide.
25 November, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Hi Lisa
You wrote “Explain to me, and your generally dull readers, why literacy and numeracy rates have actually gone down, not up, since the left decided that the three r’s were no longer relevent and everything had to be ‘interpreted’ in the context of modern society. ”
Um could it have something to do with an influx of migrants that have low literacy and numeracy rates? As a matter of fact educational outcomes in Australia rate in the top hree of the world Lisa.
You then wrote “Why do secondary school children study mobile phone text instead of the classics?”
Have you read any of the classics Lisa? For example do you know what the ‘Iliad” is about? Could you recite some lines of the ‘Aeneid’ for me? Perhaps those are too tough. Perhaps you could tell me the last time you read Dante’s ‘Inferno’?
As a teacher I’ve taught all those classics as well as many others you would never have heard of. Like the ‘Ramayana’, and the ‘Mabinogion.
The truth is many schools would love to teach the classics but when any teachers try some parents instantly complain about this ‘useless junk’ the teachers are teaching their children.
25 November, 2008 at 10:45 pm
“As a teacher I’ve taught all those classics …”
You lost me at “As a teacher.”
I mean, come on who says ‘ Could you recite some lines of the ‘Aeneid’ for me?’ with a straight face. What a wanker.
Don’t blame only parents for the lack of teaching classics in schools. It is a result of the declining standards of parents, children and (yes, amazingly) teachers. It is a problem of society. It is a shared responsibility.
But of course, certain teachers can in the same breath state that Australia is in the top 3 of ‘educational outcomes’ (whatever that may mean) whilst also bemoaning that they adore such classics in their downtime but are ruthlessly shackled against teaching such legendary literature by the parents of their class.
I’ve vomited more coherent arguments.
26 November, 2008 at 8:13 am
http://images.theage.com.au/2008/11/25/302472/svLETTERS-200×0.jpg
26 November, 2008 at 8:16 am
I think you just vomited one of your own Daics.
26 November, 2008 at 8:17 am
Back to the Howard Years et al…
http://images.theage.com.au/2008/11/25/302472/svLETTERS-200×0.jpg
26 November, 2008 at 8:27 am
more misrepresentation and/or lies by andy. on his thread Healthier statistics andy says this:
“Good news as another statistic used to shame Australia proves dodgy”
note the word “proves” and note the word “dodgy”. andy is quoting a peice in the oz that talks about ABS death rates and how using different statistical method the life expectency for aboriginals is higher than thought. it’s a shame then that andy hasn’t thought to go direct to the source:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyReleaseDate/1694B8E1A43E6686CA257501000C3468?OpenDocument
the ABS released a discussion paper proposing the change, noting the analysis is very preliminary in nature, and inviting feedback. they are proposing a change to the way statistical analysis is done for indigenous life expectency. this hardly concedes the previous methods were “dodgy” as andy claims.
also, nothing has been ‘proved’ because as yet the statiscial method isn’t uniform across ABS analysis, and is very much under review. but none of this gets in andy’s way of bashing aboriginals.
andy’s lack of statistical experience spooks me.
26 November, 2008 at 9:36 am
confessions – see the other column today on “build a dam” again. interesting to correlate with the abandoning of the dam in Queensland that Andy pointed to as ‘proof’ we should be doing the same.
26 November, 2008 at 9:40 am
Hello Bob,
Yes, you’ve pretty well summed up very succinctly what I was trying to get at in your first paragraph…Curse my clumsy writing..
Michael,
As I said in my above post, anyone can leave burnt crosses on a lawn — these days it doesn’t necessarily mean it was done by the KKK — Incidentally do you really think that no Democrats have ever been members of the KKK, if so you better do some research on the Klan, a simple Google search will provide you with plenty of links.
Of course some of the backlash since the election will be from the lunatic fringe of the Right, that’s to be expected, much in the same way that had McCain won we would have seen a backlash from the lunatic fringe of the Left, all I’m saying is that the beatings and killings that are referred to in the article seem to be more racially than politically motivated.
26 November, 2008 at 9:43 am
Hhmmm…who could possibly be leaving burning crosses in people’s front yard?? Let’s see, who in the US usually does that……….yes, very likely it’s those lefty, multi-cult, Democrat voting folks who are putting burning crosses in the front yards of Obama supporters
There is one very obvious fact that you are forgetting. That is that it was the religious right president George W Bush that appointed Colin Powel and Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state. If the right were as racist as you claim, then 2 thing would have happened.
1. If the right were as racist as you claim then after bush appointed them secretary of state in his first term, the right in America would have turned their back on bush in 2004 and they would not have turned out to vote. Hence John Kerry would have been president.
The reality is that Bush won in a landslide in 2004, proving that the right are not racist. Their only problem with Obama is his political ideology.
2. Or bush would never have made them secretary of state.
Remember that the secretary of state in the US is the second most powerful person in the US government behind the president. Hence why Hilary is not VP but secretary of state in the new Obama administration.
26 November, 2008 at 10:00 am
My 2 cents – racism is the domain of the ignorant, there are plenty of ignoramuses on the left and the right, like those who voted for Hanson, you had ex-labor and ex-liberal voters, ignorant clowns!
26 November, 2008 at 10:42 am
“much in the same way that had McCain won we would have seen a backlash from the lunatic fringe of the Left, all I’m saying is that the beatings and killings that are referred to in the article seem to be more racially than politically motivated. – Gavin
If McCain had won the news reports would have been of a white man attacked in the streets “cursed….with racial epithets” called “McCain”, and McCain supporters would have had burning crosses put in their front yard???
These attacks were racially and politically motivated. This stuff is strongly associated with the conservatives who are predominately Republican in orientation. Obviously that doesn’t mean that all Repubs are like this. But there is a very high correlation.
You may find this uncomfortable, but you know it’s true.
26 November, 2008 at 10:44 am
By the way Michael…
To help you with your research, you can start by Googling Robert C. Byrd, the only US Senator to ever have been a member of the KKK, and guess what party he’s in — Clue for you, it starts with a “D”.
He’s since repented and apologised …Even endorsed Obama’s tilt at the Presidency…but after reading what he said about negroes during his time in the clan, and things he said after leaving it, one has to wonder wether the apology is genuine or just politically expedient.
26 November, 2008 at 10:45 am
Since when are teenagers beating up other teens politically motivated ?
26 November, 2008 at 10:48 am
These attacks were racially and politically motivated. This stuff is strongly associated with the conservatives who are predominately Republican in orientation. Obviously that doesn’t mean that all Repubs are like this. But there is a very high correlation
If that is the case then why didn’t the same events happen when Bush appointed Colin Powel or Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state? If the was such an element of racism with the conservatives, why did Bush get re-elected in 2004?
Unfortunately for you, your argument has so many holes in it one would think it was a colander.
26 November, 2008 at 10:52 am
To help you with your research, you can start by Googling Robert C. Byrd, the only US Senator to ever have been a member of the KKK, and guess what party he’s in — Clue for you, it starts with a “D”.
Ouch Michael. Gavin just caused your argument to collapsed.
26 November, 2008 at 11:41 am
In medieval times the Catholic Church had a doctrine which was summarised in the dictum “Error has no rights”, which basically meant that if you disagreed with the Church’s teaching you could be tossed into a dungeon or burnt at the stake or otherwise disposed of. Sometimes when I’m reading RadMatt’s unbelievably stupid posts I get nostalgic for those days….
(NB: RadMatt, this is a joke.)
26 November, 2008 at 11:46 am
Somebody here (more than one person I think) is assuming the Democratic Party is a leftist party. Just as well RadMatt didn’t study American History instead of Applied Physics – they wouldn’t have let him get to 2nd year.
26 November, 2008 at 11:50 am
Somebody here (more than one person I think) is assuming the Democratic Party is a leftist party. Just as well RadMatt didn’t study American History instead of Applied Physics – they wouldn’t have let him get to 2nd year.
I never said the Democratic party was a leftist party.
26 November, 2008 at 11:52 am
I didn’t say you said it RaddyMatty. I said someone (possibly someone with a guilty conscience) was assuming it.
26 November, 2008 at 11:56 am
I apologise to ‘lil Pip for presenting a somewhat complicated idea (”Obviously that doesn’t mean that all Repubs are like this“) and expressing it difficult to understand terms like “very highly correlated“.
I don’t know what came over me.
26 November, 2008 at 11:58 am
I didn’t say you said it RaddyMatty. I said someone (possibly someone with a guilty conscience) was assuming it
OK Badbod.
26 November, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Bob,
I was responding to this
“Hhmmm…who could possibly be leaving burning crosses in people’s front yard?? Let’s see, who in the US usually does that……….yes, very likely it’s those lefty, multi-cult, Democrat voting folks who are putting burning crosses in the front yards of Obama supporters”
You’ll note the term “Lefty, multi-cult, Democrat voting folks”
I’ve said from the start of this discussion, racists come from both Left and Right, they are culturally not politically motivated.
26 November, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I apologise to ‘lil Pip for presenting a somewhat complicated idea (”Obviously that doesn’t mean that all Repubs are like this“) and expressing it difficult to understand terms like “very highly correlated“.
I don’t know what came over me
I never said that you meant all republicans were racist. This is what your did say:
This stuff is strongly associated with the conservatives who are predominately Republican in orientation. Obviously that doesn’t mean that all Repubs are like this. But there is a very high correlation
Once again your argument collapses when you realise that bush won in a landslide in 2004 with Colin Powel as the secretary of state and Condoleezza rice being nominated to replace him.
Bush could never have won in 2004 if their was a very high correlation between racism and conservatives who vote republican.
26 November, 2008 at 12:16 pm
What does “a very high correlation” mean RadMatt, statistically speaking? I could ask Michael, but you’re the one making an issue of it.
26 November, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I think what some in the left, like Michael and Confessions can’t handle or cope with is the reality that Bush was NOT a racist. In their fantasy world they love to get all hot and bothered dreaming about evil bush as a racist. But the truth is that George W Bush was the first to appoint African Americans to the second most power position in US government ( secretary of state). Adding to this is the massive endorsement by the republican base to re-elect him in 2004 given these appointments. To this day, Condoleezza Rice has massive popularity amongst conservatives and the religious right in America.
Facts that Michael and Confessions deliberately choose to ignore.
26 November, 2008 at 12:18 pm
By the way RadMatt, are you saying it would be impossible for racists to vote for a party that has a couple of African-Americans in its administration?
26 November, 2008 at 12:21 pm
What does “a very high correlation” mean RadMatt, statistically speaking? I could ask Michael, but you’re the one making an issue of it
Excuse me! I think if you read this thread, you will see that it was in fact Michael that made that statement. So he is the one making it an issue. I am disputing his claims.
26 November, 2008 at 12:25 pm
By the way RadMatt, are you saying it would be impossible for racists to vote for a party that has a couple of African-Americans in its administration?
I doubt that a racist would vote for a political party that has appointed the second most power position in the government to a person who is a target of their sick hatred.
Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powers roles in the Bush administration were NOT just a party that has a couple of African-Americans in its administration.
The only person more powerful than them was Bush.
26 November, 2008 at 12:28 pm
RadMatt: “Excuse me! I think if you read this thread, you will see that it was in fact Michael that made that statement. So he is the one making it an issue. I am disputing his claims.”
No, he used the term, then you appeared to define it to mean something like a one-to-one correlation. So I was interested to know if that’s what you meant. I think Michael has been pretty clear about what he means by it, but you seem to be taking it to mean that a very high proportion of Republican voters are racists. It’s pretty clear to me that that’s not what he meant. See my 5.17 pm comment from 25/11 for an indication of what I think he meant.
26 November, 2008 at 12:30 pm
RM: “I doubt that a racist would vote for a political party that has appointed the second most power position in the government to a person who is a target of their sick hatred.”
So no racists voted for Bush in 2004. Remember, you heard it here first.
26 November, 2008 at 12:35 pm
BB, don’t ask ‘lil Pip, his neural circuits will overload.
Maybe we could draw him a Venn diagram, and then he might get it?
26 November, 2008 at 12:36 pm
No, he used the term, then you appeared to define it to mean something like a one-to-one correlation
I never said that. I am making the point that if the conservative base had a significant level of racists in it’s ranks then Bush would never have won in 2004.
There is NO one to one correlation in that.
26 November, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Maybe we could draw him a Venn diagram, and then he might get it?
Michael, I would not be introducing Venn diagrams into this argument if I were you. Venn diagrams support Gavin’s argument and destroy yours.
26 November, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Poor ‘lil Pip.
Nuance is so hard for him.
26 November, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Poor ‘lil Pip.
Nuance is so hard for him
Naunce is hsard for you little Michael with comments such as this:
This stuff is strongly associated with the conservatives who are predominately Republican in orientation. Obviously that doesn’t mean that all Repubs are like this. But there is a very high correlation
Because words like strongly associated and a very high correlation just scream nuance.
26 November, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Every so often I get so bored that I take RadMatt seriously and try to engage him in meaningful debate. Fuck I’m stupid.
26 November, 2008 at 12:54 pm
You just can’t cope with naunce, can you RadMatt?
26 November, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Fuck I’m stupid – Badbod
Well that would have to be the smartest observation you have ever made Badbod.
26 November, 2008 at 12:58 pm
That was a bit of naunce, RadMatt.
26 November, 2008 at 1:01 pm
“I think what some in the left, like Michael and Confessions can’t handle or cope with is the reality that Bush was NOT a racist.”
rad i am getting mighty fucked off with you putting words into my mouth. this is the second time in 2 days i’ve had to ask you to prove where i’ve ever made the assertion you accuse me of.
and this time (unlike yesterday) i am not letting you get off the hook by just disappearing like you do.
26 November, 2008 at 1:01 pm
You big nauncy boy you!
26 November, 2008 at 1:02 pm
You are right Rad, the Republicans are not an inherently racist party, they are even worse.
I think that a group (or individual) who are not racist, but who are willing to manipulate racism and xenophobia in others for political advantage are even more despicable than a genuinely racist person or organisation.
26 November, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I love how RadMatt talks about Bush in the past tense. Really, I do love it.
26 November, 2008 at 1:04 pm
You mean like Howard and Bolt and Ruddock, DbD?
26 November, 2008 at 1:05 pm
That was a bit of naunce, RadMatt – Badbod
Well maybe you should restrict yourself to doing that in the privacy of your own home. There is a thing called dignity.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=naunce&defid=1078791
26 November, 2008 at 1:06 pm
The funny part is, I don’t really think RadMatt is a racist, I think he’s just too dumb to see how his heroes exploit racism.
26 November, 2008 at 1:06 pm
RAD! where have i ever said i couldn’t cope with bush not being a racist?
PROVE IT OR SHUT UP.
26 November, 2008 at 1:07 pm
i>That was a bit of naunce, RadMatt – Badbod
Well maybe you should restrict yourself to doing that in the privacy of your own home. There is a thing called dignity.
1. Naunce –
Dancing stupidly, or skipping.
The happy children naunced down the hall,
or
The group of dancers naunced to their favorite music
26 November, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I was waiting for that RadMatt. Guess who coined it?
“Naunce is hsard for you little Michael with comments such as this:”
26 November, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Jesus H. W. Christ!
26 November, 2008 at 1:11 pm
rad: please provide a link that shows where i have ever said i couldn’t cope with bush not being a racist.
PROVE IT OR SHUT UP.
26 November, 2008 at 1:14 pm
rad: please provide a link that shows where i have ever said i couldn’t cope with bush not being a racist.
PROVE IT OR SHUT UP.
Oh Please! I was being sarcastic confessions. But given you eruption into anger, maybe there is some truth in my sarcasms?
Please enlighten us all Confessions?! How do you feel about the reality that George W Bush is NOT a racist?
26 November, 2008 at 1:19 pm
How do YOU feel about making a goose of yourself, nauncy boy?
26 November, 2008 at 1:23 pm
How do YOU feel about making a goose of yourself, nauncy boy?
I didn’t. Mine was clearly a typo. What’s your excuse badbod?
26 November, 2008 at 1:36 pm
You dropped a dog turd on the ground, hid behind the bushes waiting to see who would stand in it, then came out and stood in it yourself.
26 November, 2008 at 1:42 pm
You dropped a dog turd on the ground, hid behind the bushes waiting to see who would stand in it, then came out and stood in it yourself
Are dropping dog turds and hiding in the bushes something that you regularly think about?
26 November, 2008 at 1:52 pm
‘You mean like Howard and Bolt and Ruddock, DbD?’
Yep. But the list could go on.
BTW BadBob, regarding todays encounter with Rad P, this ones for you!
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=zAZ8xwXE5UY
26 November, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Only when I’m prompted to do so by your magnificently glorious displays of stupidity, RaddyMatty. The metaphor just suggests itself.
26 November, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Only when I’m prompted to do so by your magnificently glorious displays of stupidity, RaddyMatty. The metaphor just suggests itself.
I just hope you don’t play that game too much. BTW Badbod, I hope you use gloves when you are carrying the dog turd.
26 November, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“Because words like strongly associated and a very high correlation just scream nuance. – ‘lil Pip
Yes they are, you poor little thing.
I needed to make it clear that I wasn’t saying that all racists are Republican or that all Repub’s are racist, otherwise some lame troll would come along and say – ‘but Bush appointed African-Americans, so your argument is full of holes’………….oh, wait……….
26 November, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I needed to make it clear that I wasn’t saying that all racists are Republican or that all Repub’s are racist, otherwise some lame troll would come along and say – ‘but Bush appointed African-Americans, so your argument is full of holes’………….oh, wait……….
Oh dear! You really do have problems understanding Michael. I never just said but Bush appointed African-Americans, so your argument is full of holes’.
I made the point that Bush was re-elected after appointing an African American to the 2nd most powerful position in his government. So if there is A racist element to the republican base, then he would have lost in 2004.
That is very different to just saying that Bush appointed African-Americans.
26 November, 2008 at 2:48 pm
“Oh Please! I was being sarcastic confessions.”
no you weren’t you were stating, fact-like that i had suggested i couldn’t cope with george bush not being a racist. given that you cannot provide proof to back up your claim this means you were lying.
stop backpeddling and stop lying in an effort to get yourself out the mess you always seem to drop yourself into. a pathetic child.
26 November, 2008 at 2:50 pm
He’s got you there Michael. If there was a racist element to the Republican base, none of them would have voted for Bush in 2004 and there were so many of them that it would have made all the difference. Am I making sense?
26 November, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Sarcasm is the last refuge of the troll.
26 November, 2008 at 3:03 pm
in rad’s case that would be lies coupled with serious backhoe action.
26 November, 2008 at 3:15 pm
BB “sarcasm” but isn’t that how Bolt and Blair always try and write?
The issue with written forms of sarcasm is that it is almost impossible for readers to know the writer is in fact being sarcastic.
26 November, 2008 at 3:20 pm
“He’s got you there Michael. If there was a racist element to the Republican base, none of them would have voted for Bush in 2004 and there were so many of them that it would have made all the difference. Am I making sense? – BB
As much as ‘lil Pip.
26 November, 2008 at 3:26 pm
DBoP, I just love the way whenever RadMatt gets caught out for writing something exceptionally stupid (sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference I know) he claims he was being sarcastic. He uses the same tactic to defend Bolt.
26 November, 2008 at 3:27 pm
“As much as ‘lil Pip.”
That was the idea.
26 November, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I fear we’ve gone off topic in relation to the article that Confessions linked to, here is the link to it again — (hope you don’t mind me borrowing it Confessions). Please re-read it.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/25/2429228.htm
It details racially based attacks since Obama’s election, nowhere does it suggest that these attacks are politically motivated…From the second paragraph of the article:
“Hundreds of incidents of abuse or intimidation apparently motivated by racial hatred have been reported since the November 4 election…”
Those charged with the killing of the Latino teen are teenagers themselves, hardly likely to be motivated by Federal politics in their attack.
As I have said all along, these attacks don’t signify Left or Right, they simply show that the racist element in the US aren’t happy with a coloured President — I’d be willing to bet that most of them didn’t even vote.
26 November, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Hmm…
I just put a comment in and its awaiting moderation….very unusual, I wonder if its because I borrowed Confession’s link from her earlier post…
26 November, 2008 at 4:05 pm
oops…nevermind
26 November, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Let me de-party political it for you – conservatives (social and political) are much more likely to be involved in anti-minority violence incited by the election of a African-American as Prez.
26 November, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I can’t imagine too many conservative teenagers running around bashing people to death Michael, I can imagine though, teenage racist thugs doing so…
26 November, 2008 at 4:42 pm
It doesn’t need “too many’, just a few.
Gavin, resorting to disingenuousness won’t help to explain away that story.
26 November, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Let’s define what conservative means. I have a feeling Michael and Gavin are arguing at cross purposes. Michael? Gavin? Your definitions?
26 November, 2008 at 5:47 pm
my origianl point tho was about the increase in membership to rightwing extremist group like KKK. i could not imagine lefties (as defined by philoshopical belief rather than voting intention) rushing to join such disgusting organizations. i also think you are confusing ‘conservative’ with rightwing. conservatism embraces some of the same philosophical nuances as liberalism and even crosses over liberalism on issues like economy and trade markets. rad completely missed the point when he went off on a tangent about voting republican in 2004 – WTF? just as racists vote labor here – the white australia policy originated through union concern about protection jobs from asians and was implement by labor i’m sure racists vote democrat in the US.
but people whose core values are individual freedom, social harmony, equality of opportunity and individual and collective rights would not join the kkk – such people like me ( and i reckon most others here) are repulse by such organisations, i can’t even brihg myself to google them and scroll through the results. it chills me. and if you ask people who do join the KKK about equality of opportunity for minorities, rights and freedom i reckon you’d get answers that white people have no rights, black people have all rights. in other words not lefties.
26 November, 2008 at 5:59 pm
This will be interesting.
I see it broadly, as those who oppose innovation in the social and political realms – everything is OK just as it is, so leave it alone. Hence, historical opposition to civil rights, womens sufferage etc. At a contemporary level, opposition to other innovations in democratic developments such as gay rights (ie, gay marriage), and somewhat ironically, the environment. Self-defined, they tend to espouse a robust individualism as a defining character and mistrust of big gubmint.
In the US version ,which seems to be what we are discussing, it’s a slightly different beast which is especially suspicious of ‘liberals’, which here would be anything to the left of John Howard, much enamoured of the ‘free market’, fixated on ‘God’, opposed to affirmative action (which morphs into discrimination against the ‘white minority’), sees universal health care as a socialist plot, distrusts minorities who aren’t more patriotic than they are and wonders why anybody would want a passport.
26 November, 2008 at 6:03 pm
confessions, I take your point.
There does seem to be 2 parts to the Repubs in the US – a clasically conservative group and the new Rightards. McCain and Palin probably illustrate that reasonably well.
26 November, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Michael: actually my post was meant for gavin, sorry! but your right, the republicans have definately been influenced by the religious right – rightards as you say. an interesting article about race and republicans:
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1861280,00.html
also this one about the religious right in the republican party:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-devin/the-christian-right-kille_b_137946.html
conservatism has become a hotchpotch of different values and i believe most people actually don’t understand it’s original philosophical base.
for example most of the bolt/blair sheep call themselves conservatives but champion the howard govermnet achievements, namely big government, big spending and welfarism. these are not conservative principals. another section of bolt/blair sheep call themselves libertarians but champion howard government meddling into private lives by opposition to gay marriage, restrictions on RU486 and stem cell research. these are not libertarian values.
but conservatives as a whole generally are not the rightwing extremists you see at bolt and blairs or in the kkk. they are on the fringes and thankfuly in australia don’t have much influence over the normal majority. while voting intention is no indication of people’s philosophical belief, the bolt/blair sheep voted liberal but i reckon only because a strong social conservative leader was installed. i’ll be interested to see what they do this time around with turnball. maybe pauline hanson will run again?
26 November, 2008 at 6:52 pm
“McCain and Palin probably illustrate that reasonably well.”
the amusing thing about mccain is the rightards refer to him as a RINO – republican in name only. check out bolt’s blog just after the election and you’ll see the word use repeatedly to justify why republicans didn’t win – mccain wasn’t ‘republican’ enough! lol!!!
27 November, 2008 at 6:07 am
Notice Rad writes like Bolt, as in, claiming he was being sarcastic when he is caught out trolling ( again )
I still say Rad is Bolt in drag. :-)
27 November, 2008 at 7:07 am
Sarcasm is the last refuge of the troll.
Maybe you should say that that Jeremy given the style of his Blog site.
stop backpeddling and stop lying in an effort to get yourself out the mess you always seem to drop yourself into. a pathetic child
LOL. You wish Confessions. I can see right through your mock outrage.
He’s got you there Michael. If there was a racist element to the Republican base, none of them would have voted for Bush in 2004 and there were so many of them that it would have made all the difference. Am I making sense?
You cannot be that stupid Badbod. Elections can be won or lost on as little as 1 – 3% of the vote.
27 November, 2008 at 8:06 am
Elections can be won by as little as 1-3% may be true Rad, in a country of 300 000 000 like the U.S. 3% equates to 9 000 000 people. Expressed as a percentage it may seem small but 9 million people is not a small amount.
27 November, 2008 at 8:39 am
Elections can be won by as little as 1-3% may be true Rad, in a country of 300 000 000 like the U.S. 3% equates to 9 000 000 people. Expressed as a percentage it may seem small but 9 million people is not a small amount
You need to revisit your calculations. 300,000,000 is the population of the USA and they do not all vote in US elections. That. At this year’s election just over 120,000,000 people voted. 1-3% equates to about 1,200,000 to 3,600,000 which equates to less than 1% of the overall population of the USA.
But my point was in reference to those like Michael and confessions who are claiming that;
This stuff is strongly associated with the conservatives who are predominately Republican in orientation. Obviously that doesn’t mean that all Repubs are like this. But there is a very high correlation
So even if Confession’s statement relates to only 1% or 2% of the US population then you would expect that there would have been some kind of backlash against Bush in 2004 for his appointment of secretary of State.
27 November, 2008 at 8:54 am
rad there you go again lying. please state where i have made that statement you refer to?
27 November, 2008 at 8:56 am
Andrew is again taking an each way bet on topics.
27 November, 2008 at 9:00 am
I tend to agree that racists attacks aren’t necessarily the work of Republicans, but are more likely just opportunistic racists using the fact Obama is the first black president to push their pathetic cause.
Whether Democrat or Republican neither party would tolerate racists in their ranks, it would be to damaging to the party. Many people like to accuse Bush of being racist because he has toughened up on illegal immigrants, especially Mexicans, however I do not believe that Democrats will change his policies much once they are in power.
27 November, 2008 at 9:04 am
RAD: please provide evidence of where i made that statement you attribute to me. you have a habit of doing this, lying about what other say and then running away when asked to back up your claim. prove it or shut up mate.
27 November, 2008 at 9:05 am
rad there you go again lying. please state where i have made that statement you refer to?
My Mistake. I meant to say Michael only in reference to that quote.
Let me rephrase the question;
But my point was in reference to those like Michael who are claiming that;
This stuff is strongly associated with the conservatives who are predominately Republican in orientation. Obviously that doesn’t mean that all Repubs are like this. But there is a very high correlation
So even if Michael’s statement relates to only 1% or 2% of the US population then you would expect that there would have been some kind of backlash against Bush in 2004 for his appointment of secretary of State.
You never answered my question Confessions;
How do you feel about the fact that George W Bush is not a racist? Your not trying to dodge the question are you?!
27 November, 2008 at 9:12 am
Hello All,
Yes, I think Michael and I are probably arguing at cross-purposes, here’s a shortened summary of how I would define conservatism:
Belief in natural law
Belief in established institutions
Preference for liberty over equality
Suspicion of power—and of human nature
Belief in exceptionalism
Belief in the individual
I suspect what Michael is referring to is the ultra Right-wingers who are basically loonies, as are the ultra Left-wingers. Which is why I said at the beginning of all this that racists aren’t strictly from the Left or the Right — they are from both sides.
Just a quick question Michael, in what way was I being disingenuous in my comments about teenagers bashing other teens ? I was referring to the specifics of the article. Perhaps I’ve led a pretty sheltered life, but I have never seen a teen beat another teen over politics – I have however, seen teens attacked by other teens over race, both verbally and physically.
It’s interesting that you suddenly decided to “de-political party” this discussion, you were quite happy for it to be party-political to begin with — your change of mind wouldn’t have anything to do with Richard Byrd would it ?
Hello Confessions:
“i could not imagine lefties (as defined by philoshopical belief rather than voting intention) rushing to join such disgusting organizations. ”
I wonder if the reason you can’t imagine it is because you just don’t want to….What’s that old saying — something like “believe in the worst in your opponents and in the best in your friends” ?
I think you’ll find there plenty of racist Lefties around too. I know its a couple of years old, but you may find this article interesting :
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/an-unholy-alliance/2006/09/03/1157222010013.html
27 November, 2008 at 9:12 am
Would someone please find ‘lil Pip some friends to pway with?
I’ll check back after 2.00pm when RadMatt, as usual, disappears back to his WoW…
27 November, 2008 at 9:14 am
Rad: not at all, i didn’t realise you asked me about him.
personally i couldn’t care less about whether bush is a racist or not. the fact is he is the worse US president they’ve had in my living memory, and i’d prefer to concentrate on the things we do know about him rather than try to second guess irrelevent issue about his character.
27 November, 2008 at 9:19 am
I think the problem on this thread is that Michael doesn’t know the meaning of the term “very high correlation”. That term means close to 1-1. His comments indicate that almost all Republican voters will go out and committ race-hate crimes. I assume that is not what he actually means.
If Michael was suggesting that people who are violently racist were more likely to have voted Republican in the last election – then sure, that is probably correct as violent white racists would be unlikely to vote for a black person.
However that doesn’t mean that there is any correlation between ordinary Republican voters and race hate. Ordinary voters, whether Democratic or not, are highly unlikely to be racist and are highly unlikely to commit hate-crimes.
27 November, 2008 at 9:22 am
Idlaviv – what is wrong with playing computer games? Jeremy, one of the authors of this blog, has his own blog on computer gaming.
27 November, 2008 at 9:23 am
personally i couldn’t care less about whether bush is a racist or not.
Also I would add that racism isn’t just a white thing. In the US there is also Black extremists groups like Jeremiah Wright who is clearly a left wing democrat voter.
27 November, 2008 at 9:33 am
Nic,
Absolutely nothing wrong with Gaming.
I work in the industry, play ‘em, my friends play ‘em, family members play ‘em. WoW was brilliantly conceived and is fantastically designed & implemented. I don’t play it myself as it is a Life/Wife killer.
I’m just generalizing with ‘lil Pip. Just the way he does on all topics much like his hero AB…
Now, outta here, till after 2.00pm. When the IQ of this blog dramatically increases…
27 November, 2008 at 9:36 am
When the IQ of this blog dramatically increases…
Sorry badly put.
I was only referring to one certain troll…
The rest of you…
I am greatly humbled to be in your presence.
27 November, 2008 at 9:43 am
I suspect that most of the extreme Right-wing nutter racist groups wouldn’t have voted at all, from everything I’ve seen and read about them, they all seem to want to be independent of any Government.
27 November, 2008 at 9:44 am
OK, so RadMatt has finally admitted (sort of) that maybe 1-2% of Americans are racists. There are racists in America, apparently, although yesterday he wasn’t so certain about that. So if half of them voted, about 0.5-1% of voters were racists. Hmmmm.
OK, now we’ve established that, who do you reckon they would have voted for, RadMatt?
27 November, 2008 at 9:53 am
Nic, you’re right about Michael’s use of the term “very high correlation” being confusing (although I note that RadMatt disputes your interpretation of it as meaning something close to a one-to-one correspondence), but his fundamental point still stands, that the racially-motivated attacks following the election of Obama are clearly the work of conservatives/the Right/Republican sympathisers or whatever you want to call them, as defined by Michael in his 5.59 pm 26/11 post.
27 November, 2008 at 9:58 am
BTW, sorry Gavin, but I much prefer Michael’s definition.
27 November, 2008 at 10:04 am
BadBob – We’re talking about racist scum here. While they might vote republican, (or perhaps, more likely, probably don’t vote at all) I don’t think you can use that to allege anything about ordinary Republican voters.
27 November, 2008 at 10:17 am
Bob,
That you would prefer Michael’s definition doesn’t surprise me in the least…His one is far closer to the way the Left sees conservatives.
27 November, 2008 at 10:18 am
OK, so RadMatt has finally admitted (sort of) that maybe 1-2% of Americans are racists.
– Badbod
EXCUSE ME!!! I was not the one claiming that there was a very high correlation between racist attacks and conservative voters.
As Nic put it;
I think the problem on this thread is that Michael doesn’t know the meaning of the term “very high correlation”. That term means close to 1-1.
– Nic
There are racists in America, apparently, although yesterday he wasn’t so certain about that
– Badbod
I never said that badbod. Please link to the comment I made that claimed that there were no racists in the USA.
I clearly said that racists are not typically republican voters or conservative.
OK, now we’ve established that, who do you reckon they would have voted for, RadMatt? – Badbod
As Gavin has been clearly stating, racists don’t fall into political lines. Their choice of political party would be diverse and as Gavin said, they probably do not vote because both political parties are against racism and appoint African Americans to very senior positions.
27 November, 2008 at 10:28 am
although I note that RadMatt disputes your interpretation of it as meaning something close to a one-to-one correspondence
I never said that Badbod. I was pointing out that if there was a correlation then Bush would have lost in 2004 as it only takes between 1-3% of the vote to decide an election. So given that those racist republican voters you refer to would have not voted and that probably would have handed Kerry the election.
Now remember Badbod before your go off on tangents… the magical number here is 1-3% of the vote to decide an election.
27 November, 2008 at 10:32 am
That’s not why I preferred Michael’s definition Gavin – it’s because it was far more precise and all-embracing. It covered all branches of what we’ve come to know as the Right of politics, whereas yours was more idiosyncratic and vague.
27 November, 2008 at 10:34 am
Nic, I’m not making any allegations about ordinary Republican voters, I’m just agreeing with Michael’s well-supported contention that the “racist scum”, as you call them, are more likely to be drawn from that side of politics than from any other.
27 November, 2008 at 10:37 am
As Gavin has been clearly stating, racists don’t fall into political lines.
Whilst there are racists on all sides of politics, they overwhelmingly do fall into political lines. Contemporary political parties which harbour racists (i.e. One Nation, BNP, National Front, etc) are very much on the far-right. Left and far-left parties and organisations (including Australia’s long-since forgotten communist party) have a long tradition of fighting against racism, dating back to Marx’s condemnation of US slavery and the French left’s involvement in the Dreyfuss affair.
So whilst it may be true that many (or even most) rightists are not racist, it is also true that most racists dance to a right-wing tune.
27 November, 2008 at 10:39 am
BadBob,
Michael’s definition is silly and reads like a bad Simpsons parody. It is the equivalent of saying that leftwing people hate things that currently exist, love foreign places more than local places, pass wind on the flag and want everyone to be gay.
27 November, 2008 at 10:41 am
RadMatt, get back in your dunce’s corner and shut up for a minute. Stop saying “I never said that”. When someone draws a logical inference from what you have said, it is intellectual cowardice for you to pretend it wasn’t part of your argument. And when a discussion gets too complicated and nuanced for you, have the humility to acknowledge the fact and back out quietly. You don’t enhance your already battered reputation by openly displaying your failure to understand the point of an argument.
27 November, 2008 at 10:45 am
THR, the economic policies of BNP, One Nation and others of their ilk are far to the left of any current Labour or Labor government. Just because it is convenient to label them as “far-right” because of their racist views, doesn’t place them on a continuum with conservative political parties.
The left are often no better on racism than the right. Look at the ALP and its historical support of the white-Australia policy.
Marx condemned US-slavery long after it had been abolished in the British Empire. At that point, both conservatives and liberals were united on that issue. You might note that it was Lincoln, a Republican, who had something to do with the abolition of slavery in the US.
The fact of the matter is that attitudes to racism have no place in separating standard left/right political parties in Australia, the UK or the US.
27 November, 2008 at 10:46 am
OK Nic, that’s a nice little parody, but can you pick apart Michael’s definition a little more analytically and tell us where you think it is deficient? I’d be genuinely interested to know, as I thought it was pretty fair and reasonable – if Rupert will allow me to use that phrase in a public forum without paying him royalties.
27 November, 2008 at 10:50 am
RadMatt, get back in your dunce’s corner and shut up for a minute. Stop saying “I never said that”. When someone draws a logical inference from what you have said, it is intellectual cowardice for you to pretend it wasn’t part of your argument
That’s really weak Badbod and you know it. You are the one who is displaying intellectual cowardice by trying to claim that your interpretation of what I was saying was logical. In fact it was bias and filled with a need to trash those that are ideologically different to you.
I think that Nic and Gavin have more than proven how flawed your logical inference is in relation to Michael’s posts.
27 November, 2008 at 10:53 am
“Just a quick question Michael, in what way was I being disingenuous in my comments about teenagers bashing other teens ? I was referring to the specifics of the article. – Gav
The article was highlighting the particular surge in racist incidents in just the past few weeks. Obviously that means the routine day to day stuff is there as always. So what we are discussing is the increase. Sure, there are incidents of teens bashing other teens, which can be explained in terms of plain old day-to-day racial thuggery.
But the increase? I don’t think so. It’s quite reasonable to view this specific increase as being related to the election – ie. it is policitally motivated.
Does anyone really think that a McCain victory would have to lead to a large increase of racially motivated attacks on whites???
27 November, 2008 at 10:54 am
THR, the economic policies of BNP, One Nation and others of their ilk are far to the left of any current Labour or Labor government.
These parties advocate a modicum of protectionism. That’s about it. Since the ALP and New Labour have much the same economic policies as the Tories (i.e. right wing neoliberal) virtually every minor party is ‘to the left’ of them.
The left are often no better on racism than the right.
No, the historical evidence is entirely to the contrary. As I said, there have been some racists on the left (in trade unions, within the ALP, etc), but it’s utter bullshit to say that racism is equally distributed across the political spectrum. The onus of proof should be on you to demonstrate this outlandish claim, since the past 150 years of history demonstrate the complete opposite.
27 November, 2008 at 11:01 am
Here’s an abstract of a paper correlating conservatism with racism:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3018891
I’m sure more studies could be found.
27 November, 2008 at 11:03 am
Does anyone really think that a McCain victory would have to lead to a large increase of racially motivated attacks on whites???
We will never have the answer to that question because McCain never won. Given the race riots in the 1990’s over Rodney King incident, there is a possibility that an Obama loss could have lead to race riots by black extremists. The rhetoric that came out of the black extreme churches like Jeremiah Wright were extremely racist, bigoted and anti-American.
This is where the left get it totally wrong, they only associate racism as a white thing. Racism comes in all shapes and forms and it is something perpetrated by all races and the targets are from all races, including whites.
27 November, 2008 at 11:06 am
THR,
Are we talking about mainstream politics, or can we include ultra-left and right. Stalin, for instance, was highly racist (against non-Russians, which is kind of amusing as he was a Georgian).
I don’t think I can prove the claim as you formulate it. Equally, I don’t think you can prove that it is not equally distributed. I can show that there is racism on both sides of the spectrum – and have done above. The white-Australia policies, recent anti-semitism as in the article Gavin linked to above, southern democrat racism etc.
27 November, 2008 at 11:24 am
Equally, I don’t think you can prove that it is not equally distributed.
Well, virtually every far-right party in mainstream politics in the developed world has campaigned on a nationalist, anti-immigrant platform which has teetered into racism at various points (again, think One Nation, Le Pen, Haider, etc). I can’t think of any Greens, Trots or trade unions of whom this could be said. QED. Bigotry is not equally distributed, but these days is far more likely to be found on the right.
27 November, 2008 at 11:31 am
QED. Bigotry is not equally distributed, but these days is far more likely to be found on the right
Oh Please. The bigotry vented ant Palin during the US election was not vented back at any democratic candidates. Also all the Howard and Bush hating slander and name calling has not been directed towards Rudd or Obama.
27 November, 2008 at 11:31 am
The left own modern bigotry
27 November, 2008 at 11:32 am
Well, I agree with what you say, but provided the word – “extreme” before the final “right”. That said, I don’t think it gets us anywhere, because most of these parties are only classified as being right because they are racist. Le Pen and One Nation (at least in its original incarnation) are economically quite left wing (as I said above).
One Nation, for instance, came out of opposition to the free-market economic policies of the ALP and Keating in particular. That is hardly a right wing position. Note I am not suggesting that the left have anything to answer for over Pauline Hanson – but likewise the right don’t have anything to answer for over Haider’s racism.
27 November, 2008 at 11:35 am
The bigotry vented ant Palin during the US election was not vented back at any democratic candidates
Name-calling, criticism and even a few swear words don’t constitute bigotry, still less racism. I recall a number of rightist blogs accusing Obama of supporting Islam, terrorism, being anti-Semitic, and accusing Hillary of being a lesbian. Not that Obama or Hillary are of the left, I might add.
To use another example – where, today, does all the anti-Semitism come from? Whether it’s anti-Jewish or anti-Islamic sentiment, almost all of it comes from the right. I can’t think of any leftist people or groups who aver that ‘there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim’, yet this sort of thing is commonplace on the right.
27 November, 2008 at 11:35 am
Rad,
I interpreted THR’s comment about Bigotry to only refer to racist bigotry. Anti-conservative bigotry is of course prevalent on the left. Look at the hatred expressed to any right wing person from a minority background.
Likewise, I’m sure, if you look hard enough you could find anti-left bigotry – it never seems to be as prevalent as the stuff you get daily in the Age and other left-ish media sites.
27 November, 2008 at 11:43 am
THR,
Anti-semitism is exclusively anti-Jewish. Hatred of Islamic people isn’t anti-semitism. In simple terms, the vast majority of Islamic people are not semitic (e.g. Africans, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Europeans, Persians etc). Islam is a universalist religion, like Christianity and is not bound to a particular race.
Gavin’s article above clearly showed that the left are engaging in anti-semitic rhetoric. I myself was called a “Zionist” by a Socialist Worker, when I wondered why she had placards both supporting the president of Iran and Gay Marriage.
If Obama and Hilary are not of the left – then we clearly have different definitions of the term.
27 November, 2008 at 11:44 am
Bob,
Mine was a shortened definition of the principles of what I think make a “conservative”, until now I’d never really given much thought as to how I would define conservatism…I was trying to keep the post short…
When I saw you asking for a definition I decided to go looking for a site that best succinctly sums up how I would define a conservative — The one I found listed those 6 principles, which when I reflected on them fit precisely what my image of a conservative is.
If I had tried to elaborate on these principals myself, I’d still be typing, so I hope you will excuse a little plagiarism on my part.
Here is the link which also provides a more in-depth description of each principle:
http://www.conservative-resources.com/definition-of-conservative.html
It’s interesting that as one of his points re conservatives Michael noted opposition to gay-marriage — obviously then Obama is a conservative…He also claims conservatives are “fixated” on God…Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Obama a regular church goer ? Opposed to innovation ? Please remind me how many Left-wing Governments were in power during the Industrial Revolution…
I think Michael has actually defined not a conservative, but a far Right-winger.
As an aside…Where do the Neo-Nazi groups fit into this discussion, by definition they can’t be right-wing / conservative, because they are without exception anti-establishment, anti-government, and anti-the wealthy, all of which are fundamental tenents of conservatism.
Michael,
Please read the article…It states that racist attacks on Latinos in particular have been increasing since 2003. As Confessions noted, the article states that membership of the KKK has increased after the election, but who are these new members ? Are they more likely to be disgruntled average joe republican voters who have suddenly decided to join one of the most reviled organisations in the world, or are they perhaps racist nutcases who don’t vote for anyone but will not accept the idea of a black President ?
27 November, 2008 at 11:46 am
Well, I agree with what you say, but provided the word – “extreme” before the final “right”.
One Nation and friends are extreme, but they are (or were) very much part of ‘mainstream’ politics. One Nation got a million votes in 1998.
Le Pen and One Nation (at least in its original incarnation) are economically quite left wing (as I said above).
I think we can knock this one on the head. Being ‘economically quite left wing’ means something akin to today’s Greens, or the social democrats of old. Le Pen and Hanson were entirely pro-capitalist, with the proviso that they wanted some protections, subsidies and pork barrelling. Whilst this means they aren’t Hayekians, it doesn’t make them lefties either.
As it turns out, most right wing politicians in the developed world would be ‘economically quite left wing’ by your definitions. Even prior to the current orgy of bailouts, GWB did more wealth redistribution than China.
27 November, 2008 at 11:52 am
Anti-semitism is exclusively anti-Jewish.
Not true. Decades ago, scholars such as Edward Said had established anti-Semitism as a phenomenon that relates to Arabs as well as Jews. When the term ’semitic’ itself is applied to languages, for instance, it refers to Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic. Consequently, Jews don’t have a patent on anti-Semitic bigotry.
A further point I would make is that the anti-Islamic hysteria or today’s right is not so very different to the anti-Jewish racism practised by rightists of yesteryear. It’s a continuum, just that the racism has been transferred to a more socially acceptable target.
27 November, 2008 at 11:57 am
THR,
Sorry, anti-semitism is exclusively historically refering to anti-Judaism. It cannot encompass bigotry against Islam, because most Islamic people are not semitic. That is why the term “islamophobia” is used.
No comment on the anti-semitism of the left in Gavin’s article?
27 November, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Sorry, anti-semitism is exclusively historically refering to anti-Judaism. It cannot encompass bigotry against Islam, because most Islamic people are not semitic.
Okay, but it can refer to anti-Arabism, sice Arabs are clearly Semites.
As for Gavin’s article, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Can you post the link again?
27 November, 2008 at 12:12 pm
From Gavin at 9:12 above
“I think you’ll find there plenty of racist Lefties around too. I know its a couple of years old, but you may find this article interesting :
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/an-unholy-alliance/2006/09/03/1157222010013.html
”
I remember reading it at the time – the context is the Israel/Hezbollah/Lebanon war.
27 November, 2008 at 12:13 pm
My comment reposting the link is awaiting moderation – so I’ll just point you to Gavin’s comment at 9:12am above.
Is the moderation triggered because the same link is posted twice?
27 November, 2008 at 12:23 pm
This is an interesting discussion (as long as RadMatt stays out of it) but it keeps degenerating into a dispute about definitions. We’ve had the discussion about “conservative” and I guess we’ve agreed to disagree, but now we’re onto the old Left/Right chestnut. None of this discussion makes any sense unless we are clear about what these terms mean. Does “the Left” embrace Stalin and Pol Pot? Does “the Right” embrace Hitler, Hanson, LePen and the Holocaust deniers? Or do we just get into endless hairsplitting about what is Left and what is Right? And if the extremes don’t fall under these umbrellas, where do they belong?
27 November, 2008 at 12:25 pm
“Please read the article…It states that racist attacks on Latinos in particular have been increasing since 2003.” – Gav
I’ve read it, but you seem to be focussing on a part of it unrelated to the current election-related increase in incidents.
This, to jog your memory,
“Hundreds of incidents of abuse or intimidation apparently motivated by racial hatred have been reported since the November 4 election……..“,
and the headline,
“Obama election provokes rise in hate crimes“
27 November, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“No comment on the anti-semitism of the left in Gavin’s article?” – Nic
Pissweak.
It’s engaged the convenient conflation of opposition to the policies of the state of Israel with anti-semitism, ie. racism.
I deeply oppose the policies of the US – am I an anti-American racist.
Rubbish.
A broad net has been cast to jumble togther anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. One is opposition to a political ideology, the other is opposition to a person based on their identity.
Those who continue to deliberately make this false argument are rapidly making the allegation of anti-semitism meaningless.
What’s even more bizzrre, is that those who do this actually commit the offence that they criticise. If I oppose Israeli actions and am labelled anti-semitic for doing so, the accuser is equating Israel with all Jewish people. Just what an anti-semitic person might do in holding a Jewish person responsible for the acts of the state of Israel.
Despite the long and deliberate campaign to equate opposition to Zionism with anti-semitism, it ain’t.
27 November, 2008 at 12:55 pm
The article fails to demonstrate any widespread racism on the part of leftists. I think we can all agree that yes, there are and have been racists on the left. However, this statement needs to be tempered with the fact that racism on the left has never been as prominent as it has on the right, whether we are looking at soft-right conservatives or radical right neo-Nazi types. There is no symmetry between right and left when it comes to racism.
27 November, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Bob,
This is where I think the shades of grey come into it, and hence my question about today’s Neo-Nazis as well…
Personally I wouldn’t categorise Hitler and the Nazis as Left or Right, he used both according to what best suited his political agenda, and was at the same time both anti the Left in his dislike of Communists and also anti Right as he held an equal dislike for the German upper classes and monarchy.
As to Stalin, Pol-Pot, LePen, Hansen et al..(not sure I’d put Hansen in the same league as the other 2)..I think they are examples of Left and Right wing extremes…Could probably throw Mugabe in as another one, although I’m not quite sure if he’s Left or Right either.
Michael,
From your own quote above
“…..apparently motivated by racial hatred….”
Once again, the article isn’t contending that these attacks are politically motivated, it is suggesting that they are being carried out by racists who are simply not happy with a black president.
27 November, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Michael: “If I oppose Israeli actions and am labelled anti-semitic for doing so, the accuser is equating Israel with all Jewish people. Just what an anti-semitic person might do in holding a Jewish person responsible for the acts of the state of Israel.”
In a roundabout way they’ve got that one covered too. If a Jewish person is anti-Zionist or opposes any act of the state of Israel, he/she is labelled a self-hating Jew. Therefore those who attack the behaviour of the Israeli state are either Jew-haters or self-haters.
27 November, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Instead of left or right, we could go back to traditional political categories. Namely, the 19th C gave us conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism, all with different sub-types. The 20th C gave us fascism, which should be distinguished from genuine conservatism.
27 November, 2008 at 1:25 pm
“From your own quote above
‘…..apparently motivated by racial hatred….’ – ABC
Once again, the article isn’t contending that these attacks are politically motivated, it is suggesting that they are being carried out by racists who are simply not happy with a black president.” – Gav
Well who’da thunk it!!!
Acts of racial hatred are motivated by……..racial hatred.
Thanks for clearing that up.
27 November, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Gavin, this still doesn’t make it clear if people like Pol Pot are “of the Left” or LePen et al “of the Right”. One way of resolving this is to look at ideologies. One of the points of difference between Right and Left historically has been that the Left has built itself around clearly-defined ideologies based around the writings and ideas of particular individuals (liberalism, Marxism, socialism, the “New Left” of the 1960s, etc.), whereas the Right has often prided itself on being non-ideological and even anti-ideological (Nazism, fascism, Menzies-style Liberalism, etc.). In fact the Right has often acknowledged this by attacking the Left’s “ideological correctness” or more recently “political correctness”, the implication being that the Right is pragmatic, flexible, responsive to changes in circumstances, while the Left is rigid and blinkered.
Be that as it may, it is probably fair to say that the Left has always adhered more strictly to ideology than the Right, and the ideologies driving it have always been concerned with equal rights, promotion of public services, and opposition to discrimination of all kinds, among other things. Of course these principles have often been honoured in the breach, but they remain the core principles of the Left.
The core principles of the Right are less easy to define, but they have often been “flexible” enough to accommodate racism of varying degrees, and they still are. At the very least, the Right has been far more willing than the Left to exploit racist sentiment for political gain, as we saw so vividly in the last days of the last Federal election campaign.
27 November, 2008 at 1:26 pm
And with correct html,
“From your own quote above
‘…..apparently motivated by racial hatred….’ – ABC
Once again, the article isn’t contending that these attacks are politically motivated, it is suggesting that they are being carried out by racists who are simply not happy with a black president.” – Gav
Well who’da thunk it!!!
Acts of racial hatred are motivated by……..racial hatred.
Thanks for clearing that up.
27 November, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Michael, some anti-semites disguise their anti-semitism as opposition to zionism.
Not all anti-zionism is anti-semitic. But you do have to wonder about people who base their political views around challenging the very existence of the one State in the world that is Jewish.
I would suggest, at a minimum, anyone who compares zionists to the nazis is clearly anti-semitic.
27 November, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Michael..
” Well who’da thunk it!!!
Acts of racial hatred are motivated by……..racial hatred.”
Good to see you are finally agreeing with me on what the article is saying….It’s only taken about 50 posts to make you see the bleeding obvious.
27 November, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Badbob,
I’m sorry – but the white Australia policy puts the lie to the claim that the left have historically been
opposed to discrimination of all kinds. At best, that has been an invention of the post-war years. I’m not saying that the Right have been perfect.
As a modern example, Obama is an archetypical left winger – but he opposes gay marriage.
27 November, 2008 at 1:37 pm
“I would suggest, at a minimum, anyone who compares zionists to the nazis is clearly anti-semitic.”
Forced removal of Palestinians from their lands.
Locking Palestinians in ghettos that are basically oversized prisons?
The siege of Jenin, where the IDF ripped up the sewerage system, claiming it was ‘terrorist infrastructure’.
Before you tell me that’s because of terrorist attacks I contend that the state of Israel, particularly the IDF practices collective punishment, hence comparisons with Nazi’s are not that far – fetched.
I am anti zionist, I am NOT anti semetic! A good friend of mine is a Jewish Israeli (born and brought up in Israel – son of a Zionist actually) He makes such comparisons, he’s a very compassionate and friendly guy, are you seriously contending that he is anti semetic?
27 November, 2008 at 1:41 pm
FWIW Nic, I’m with you on the left/right thing, I maintain that bigotry is a result of ignorance and idiocy.
We’d have to find out whether Lefty’s were stupider than Righties and vice versa before we could claim that one end of the spectrum has more racists than others.
I’m from working class Old South Wales where everybody votes Labour, plenty of racists among them. I wonder if I would have experienced as many bigots if I grew up in a middle class Conservative voting part of England?
27 November, 2008 at 1:44 pm
RobJ
Anyone who compares the Nazis to Zionists is anti-semitic. Even your friend. Their really is no comparison and it is quite offensive to do so – considering that the Nazis killed 6 million plus Jewish people (and the same again for Gypsys, Freemasons, Seventh Day Adventists, Gays etc).
It is possible to criticise any one of the policies that you have brought up without needing to make any analogy with the Nazis. To do so trivilises the horrors of WWII and is deeply insensitive to the sufferring of the Jewish people at that time.
27 November, 2008 at 1:47 pm
RobJ – probably not. If you are on top of the heap, (or at least the middle) you don’t need to be as vocally racist. If you are on the bottom of the heap, it is easy to lash out at people a little bit below you on the ladder.
By the way – I’m not calling you anti-semitic, no one on this thread has been.
27 November, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Bob,
Yes, you’re right…I think its almost impossible to really categorise leaders like Stalin, Hitler, PolPot, Mao etc as Left or Right, simply I reckon because usually their regimes either borrow bits and pieces of ideology from both sides to suit their agenda, or are so extreme as to go beyond the boundaries of what we call Left and Right wing.
I’m not sure if the Right tend to use the racism card politically more than the Left or not, (is Mugabe Left or Right ?), but certainly you’re right about what we saw in both the US campaign and here too with Howard’s “children overboard” one.
Nic,
I’m not sure that Michael really understands what Zionism is…Reminds me a little bit of a poster on Jeremy’s thread a long time back who accused me of being both a Nazi and a Zionist because I was in the Foreign Legion.
27 November, 2008 at 2:05 pm
“Anyone who compares the Nazis to Zionists is anti-semitic.”
So you’re cool with collective punishment? You don’t see any parallels with Nazis ghettoizing people and collectively punishing communities? These things to me are analogous with Nazi behavoir.
“By the way – I’m not calling you anti-semitic, no one on this thread has been.”
But I am anti Semitic by your definition (I personally know I’m not anti Semitic) because I do equate some of the Zionist behavior with the behavior of the Nazis, I equate what the US did to Fallujah as collective punishment so it’s not just the Zionists I detest, but anyone who acts like a fucking Nazi bastard!
27 November, 2008 at 2:05 pm
“Good to see you are finally agreeing with me on what the article is saying….It’s only taken about 50 posts to make you see the bleeding obvious.” – Gav
As I said, deliberate stupidity………..
27 November, 2008 at 2:14 pm
“Michael, some anti-semites disguise their anti-semitism as opposition to zionism.” -Nic
Of course this is possible, but it does delve into the realm of mind-reading.
“Not all anti-zionism is anti-semitic. But you do have to wonder about people who base their political views around challenging the very existence of the one State in the world that is Jewish”
Well actually, anti-zionism is anti-zionism and anti-semitism is anti-semitism.
And I’m not sure what you mean by “people who base their political views around challenging the very existence of the one State that is Jewish”
Which only makes sense as long as you ignore the 20% who aren’t Jewish.
But, ‘base their political views’ ?? You’ll need to elaborate. ATM this doesn’t make any sense.
27 November, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Michael
“As I said, deliberate stupidity………..”
Ah, I see, that’s your excuse…
27 November, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“I’m not sure that Michael really understands what Zionism is” – Gav
Did you mean that you don’t know what you think I think it is, or are you having an ESP moment?
27 November, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I love html.
Why isn’t there a preview button?
27 November, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Michael,
“I’m not sure that Michael really understands what Zionism is” – Gav
Did you mean that you don’t know what you think I think it is, or are you having an ESP moment?”
I owe you an apology for that one..I actually meant Rob, for his comment comparing Zionism to Nazism.
27 November, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Nic, I was trying to move the debate from an empirical one to a philosophical one. Of course there have been parties of the Left that have embraced discriminatory policies. I was merely arguing that this does not conform with the ideologies and philosophies that have animated the Left historically. The same cannot be said of the Right.
27 November, 2008 at 2:29 pm
“I’m not sure that Michael really understands what Zionism is…Reminds me a little bit of a poster on Jeremy’s thread a long time back who accused me of being both a Nazi and a Zionist because I was in the Foreign Legion.”
I’d just call you a mercenary, which isn’t complimentary.
““I’m not sure that Michael really understands what Zionism is” – ”
I’m not sure I care. I really couldn’t give a toss what a mercenary (or former mercenary) thinks.
27 November, 2008 at 2:34 pm
That’s pretty rough Rob. RadMatt might deserve ad hominem attacks, but Gavin doesn’t.
27 November, 2008 at 2:38 pm
“That’s pretty rough Rob. RadMatt might deserve ad hominem attacks, but Gavin doesn’t.”
Well, he thinks I don’t understand what Zionism is. A member of the French Foreign Legion is after all a mercenary, I make no apology, I don’t like people who fight wars for money. (unless of course he’s a French Citizen, then I apologise unreservedly)
If it’s an ad hom it’s a response to an ad hom. Of course I know what a Zionist is!
27 November, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I’m not comfortable with the mercenary thing either, but let’s not judge a bloke on that basis alone.
27 November, 2008 at 2:58 pm
French Foreign Legion like Gurhkas are not mercenaries Rob, they are foreign volunteers because they are under control of their respective French and English armies and subject to the same rules of war. Mercenaries have played important roles such as fighting against the Japanese on the Chinese side before the U.S. became involved in WWII and the Spanish civil war.
Rob I agree with you that many mercenaries who have fought for gold rather than ideals are disgusting, there are exceptions to the rule.
27 November, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Evidently Rob, you also don’t know what a mercenary is, nor what the role of the Foreign Legion is…
As to fighting wars for money “unless he’s a French citizen…As a result of my serving in the Legion for 15 years, a fair part of which involved serving in UN peace-keeping forces, I do now hold a French passport as well as my Australian one…
I’m actually quite proud of the service I performed…I at least have the certain knowledge that I saved many peoples’ lives in many different countries…How many have you saved from the safety of your keyboard Rob ?
27 November, 2008 at 3:03 pm
The Gurkha’s are from an impoverished third world nation, I can understand that the British Army is a good prospect. I doubt Gavin is Nepalese, why couldn’t he join his own nations army?
“Mercenaries have played important roles”
Sierra Leonne, I understand this but a merc is a merc, a soldier of fortune, they’re fighting for money, they may otherwise be good blokes, hell there cause may be justifiable, lets face it though, they’re soldiers and they do as they’re told, right or wrong.
“here are exceptions to the rule.”
There are exceptions that prove every rule. I don’t know what that has to do with anything.
27 November, 2008 at 3:04 pm
OK guys, truce.
27 November, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Save the venom for RadMatt.
27 November, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Brief background,
I had the good fortune of my parents taking me on a holiday to Europe at the end of my HSC studies in 1980 a couple of months before my 18th birthday, while we were in Marseilles, I happened to see a recruiting office for the Legion…I told my parents that I’d like to have a go at joining it — naturally enough they were mortified, but I insisted so they reluctantly said OK…
FYI Rob, the difference between a mercenary and the Legion is that a mercenary will fight for whoever pays…The Legion only fights for the French Government.
The reason I wanted to join the Legion rather than the Australian army, was because at the time the ADF was nothing more than a parade ground force…No overseas postings, spent their whole time training, parading and polishing their gear…As a wide-eyed fresh out of school 17 year old I wanted to see a bit more adventure than that.
27 November, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I WAS WRONG:
Nic, I just saw your comment on another thread that you “quite like” Bolt. And I always thought you were ever so slightly more reasonable than most Righties. I’ve changed my mind. You can’t “quite like” vile narcissistic pigs and still be OK. Now I know why you defend RadMatt.
27 November, 2008 at 3:26 pm
By the way, the Legion of today is a far different organisation to the pre-WW2 Legion, it doesn’t allow just anyone to join, the only thing they weren’t strict on with me was my age, (I was in fact initially rejected because of it, but was told to come back in 30 minutes and tell them I was 18)….about 1 in 12 applicants are accepted, with about 1 in 5 of those actually making it through boot camp.
Once you’re accepted along with the usual army type basic training there is also schooling and exams that have to be passed before you can graduate from boot camp.
27 November, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Gavin,
That is very interesting, but I can’t help wondering why the desire “to see a bit more adventure” would lead one to the French Foreign Legion rather than a back-packing trip or Volunteers Abroad etc.
Was it a childhood encounter with Beau Geste?
27 November, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I must admit I did wonder the same thing myself. But God help him….he was only 17….
27 November, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I’m a bit surprised that only Toby Ziegler picked up the obvious parody that was Lisa’s post.
It was such a perfect representation of something written by one of the winged monkeys, on Bolt’s shameful site, that it could only be parody.
Couldn’t it?
27 November, 2008 at 3:48 pm
One would suppose that the amount of ready cash a legionnaire would have would be far greater than a back packer, but probably at the expense of the freedom to do as he please when he please.
27 November, 2008 at 3:50 pm
In todays warming article on Bolt’s site I asked if concurred that warming is happening.
I got this reply:
Read very slowly what I’ve written many times before, so that this time, perhaps, you may at last comprehend.
“The world seems to have warmed until a decade ago. It seems not clear at all that this was caused predominantly by humans, especially since the world then stopped warming. But that warming we had didn’t seem to hurt, and the evidence is that future warming may also not hurt. Certainly, the evidence seems to be that trying to “stop” warming may hurt us more than would simply coping with the consequences.
Other readers might now advise me whether I’m made this so clear that even Dam Buster has no excuse now for misunderstanding or misrepresenting.”
Pity about his mistake in the last paragraph. The mistake in the first sentence of the article he linked and the fact that the article he linked states that warming will continue when Bolt says it wont.
27 November, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Vile narcissistic pig.
27 November, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Dam Buster,
His post on the Mitchell River and whether it should be dammed or not…
Have you an opinion on that? Of all the people I have seen with an opinion on Victoria’s water crisis, yours have made the most sense.
Apologies if you have answered this question at an earlier time..
Thanks,
Gezza
27 November, 2008 at 4:03 pm
That’s a good question…I’ll admit I’d never heard of Volunteers Abroad at that stage of my life, and I’m not sure that back-packing trips were a common thing in those days either, so I don’t think the thought of that crossed my mind..
I think it was probably because I’d had an interest in the military, brought on by a family friend who was an ex Welsh Guardsman and who had started me off with my collection of military insignia, by giving me a badge from each of the English Guards regiments when I was about 10 years old– that kind of got me interested in all things military.
Joining up was almost a spur of the moment thing when I saw the recruiting office, I certainly hadn’t planned it before leaving Australia.
I will say I’ve never regretted joining, there were of course many assignments that weren’t pleasant and with which, on a personal level I didn’t agree, (being sent to the Congo in support of the Mobutu regime being just one example), I also disliked the stints at Mururoa Atoll, I wasn’t any keener on nukes being tested than anybody else, but on the positive side I got to see a lot of very interesting and unusual places and got to meet many really interesting people.
The other, more selfish reason I have for not regretting joining is that I have a pension from the French Government equal to the current pay of the rank I was when I left for the rest of my life (Sous-Chef = Sergeant in our army), and once I retire, if I wish I can go and live in the Legion’s own retirement village which is just outside of Aubagne, (near Marseilles), overlooking the French Riviera. That’s a prospect that seems more inviting every day….
27 November, 2008 at 4:10 pm
BB – No shit hey?
He has a go at a council for a spelling mistake, yet he makes one himself, the article has one..
Secondly the article he links states warming will continue. Bolt says it isn’t. Which one is is Andy???? I have updated my blog with the reply.
27 November, 2008 at 4:13 pm
gezzam – I am putting together a post on my blog about that one and hope to get it up tomorrow.
In simple terms the Mitchell River has had 4 months out of the last 24 with above average flows. Only one of them has been above 125% of average (when it flooded in June 2007). To counter this in the last two years there have been 4 months with flows below 5% and 15 months with flows 50% below average.
27 November, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Re: Bolt Vs Bolt
Andrew is hedging his bets. One minute he says it is cooling then he says the warming has stopped now he is saying more warming wouldn’t hurt. All outcome are covered and he can say “I was always right!!”
Check out the current CO2 level being the highest in 650000 years. It wont go away tomorrow.
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#CarbonDioxide
27 November, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Hello Daics
You lost me at “I mean, come on who says ‘ Could you recite some lines of the ‘Aeneid’ for me?’”
Yes because demonstrating that someone who wants the classics taught has absolutely no knowledge of the classics is absolutely worthless isn’t it?
Then you wrote “Don’t blame only parents for the lack of teaching classics in schools. It is a result of the declining standards of parents, children and (yes, amazingly) teachers. It is a problem of society. It is a shared responsibility.”
I couldn’t agree more. I was just arguing that many times parents who have made similar demands don’t actually know what is involved. They want things like the classics taught & they want practical subjects which will improve the job prospects for their son or daughter. But there are only so many hours in a school day. Something has to be sacrificed if another subject is introduced. Hence the reaction from parents.
Then you wrote “But of course, certain teachers can in the same breath state that Australia is in the top 3 of ‘educational outcomes’ (whatever that may mean)”
Try asking becfore commenting.
Finally you wrote “I’ve vomited more coherent arguments.”
I’m sure you have. I’m sure that someone who confuses emotional reactions with rational thought often confuses vomiting with coherent arguments. I say blame your teachers. They should have taught you the difference between the two.
27 November, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Magnificent shirtfront Chris. He’ll never kick one of the flukey dribble goals again.
27 November, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Chris,
I concede teachers like yourself face a steep uphill climb teaching children the basics, let alone the classics. Bravo for having the determination and intelligence to teach them. Your students should count themselves lucky.
Lisa’s point was a fair one, however. You lashed out at her by suggesting she was unable to comment on such things because (you presumed) she hadn’t read the classics. Not really the issue at hand, I would have thought. Besides, literature defined as “classic” is quite wide. Asking someone to quote a line from the “Aeneid” to prove their wares is a smug and pretentious response. The response of a wanker. I stand by that word. Ask them to name just ten, perhaps.
That said, your response was a very fair one. Teachers face a very different world than the ones a generation or two ago. Children are more savvy and less accepting of authority. Parents are more interventionist. The law treats teachers as lepers. The pay is so-so. Yet the influence of a teacher, good or bad, can last a lifetime. Just today I wrote a letter to a retiring former teacher of mine. The man made a significant difference to my life, and i was moved to write. I hadn’t seen him in ten years.
So teach on Chris, and teach the classics with all your heart. Try to drag everyone else along with you.
And BadBob, I kicked 549 flukey goals? I don’t think so pal. Even Bolta would see the statistical impossibility.
27 November, 2008 at 9:49 pm
@ daics
Fair cop. And a very gracious reply. Thank you for the compliment.
As to the effects of teachers on students I hope I have even half the effect on my students that that teacher you mentioned had on you.
27 November, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Dam buster: my take on bolt is his posts are definately down lately. here’s a suggestions for those with dissenting views: for one week don’t post there, because the dissenting views are the ones that draw the posts. starve the bastard where it hurts and don’t post at his site.
and i know that the bolt blogger ‘Strange Days Indeed’ reads here because she/he has picked up my ThinkProgress links and posted at bolts.
in short, do not post at bolts with dissenting views. let’s see what happens when no lefties post there.
28 November, 2008 at 6:26 am
That’s an interesting/good call confessions but during this ‘research’ period I think you’ll find the Barry Bones posts will gain momentum.
Moderators’ statistical analysis =
Panic! =
‘Send in da Bones’…
28 November, 2008 at 6:43 am
“FYI Rob, the difference between a mercenary and the Legion is that a mercenary will fight for whoever pays…”
Really, according tori the MacQuarie dictionary:
” 1. working or acting merely for gain.
2. hired (now only of soldiers serving in a foreign army).
–noun (plural mercenaries)
3. a professional soldier serving in a foreign army.
4. any hireling. [Latin mercēnārius hired for pay]
–mercenarily, adverb
–mercenariness, noun”
I contend that you fall under categories 2 & 3. Someone who’s worked their entire career for Blackwater could claim not to be a mercenary merely because they ‘fight for whoever pays’
So according to you earlier I didn’t understand what ‘Zionism’ is and now I don’t know what the word ‘Mercenary’ means? Glad the dictionary agrees with my interpretation of the word.
“OK guys, truce.”
Sorry Badbob, I have opinions and I like to share them, hence my participation on this Blog, I’m just not into shutting up when there’s a debate/argument to be had.
“Save the venom for RadMatt.”
Again, I’m in it for the debate/argument, my ‘venom’ will be served up to whoever I disagree with. Otherwise what’s the point?
I consider myself honest and consistent, that’s not to say that my mind can’t be changed, it’s just most of the opinions I hold I’ve thought hard about so change is unlikely though not out of the question.
28 November, 2008 at 6:57 am
“here’s a suggestions for those with dissenting views: for one week don’t post there,”
Here’s a better suggestion, never post there, let the Boltards revel in their circle jerk, come over here and post about Bolt, that way he won’t benefit from the mouse clicks..
Amendment to my previous post:
“. Someone who’s worked their entire career for Blackwater could claim not to be a mercenary merely because they will not ‘fight for whoever pays’
28 November, 2008 at 8:02 am
RobJ – I don’t think that you are using the definition “a professional soldier serving in a foreign army” correctly.
In any case, what is wrong with foreigners working in different countries? I thought people on the left were open to the employment of migrants? Or do you think that there are certain jobs that should be reserved for local born people only?
If so, where do you draw the line?
28 November, 2008 at 8:18 am
Don’t be silly Nic, you know it’s not just employment in foreign countries Rob is talking about.
And Rob, I agree wholeheartedly about not posting at Bolt’s blog.
28 November, 2008 at 8:24 am
Andrew is hedging his bets. One minute he says it is cooling then he says the warming has stopped now he is saying more warming wouldn’t hurt. All outcome are covered and he can say “I was always right!!”
Your comprehension skills must be very low windbreaker if you cannot understand how ridiculous your comment is.
Saying that it’s not warming while also saying warming wouldn’t hurt is not hedging a bet each way. If he said it’s not warming and then said it was warming then that is hedging a bet each way.
BTW – Bolt’s position on AGW has been very clear from the beginning. He disputes AGW, states that the planet has not warmed since 1998 and also accepts they there is a possibility* that we could be cooling given 2007/2008 temperatures being the coldest in years.
If you think that this is hedging his bets each way then there is no hope for you.
* possibility does not mean certainty.
Check out the current CO2 level being the highest in 650000 years. It wont go away tomorrow.
Also check out the global temperatures for the past 10 years, including the last 2. CO2 levels are accelerating while temperatures are not.
28 November, 2008 at 8:31 am
“Here’s a better suggestion, never post there,”
yep, i never post there but others do especially when they rightly feel they need to correct bolt’s lies and distortions. but it’s the sane people who draw lots of posts so if those people didn’t post there i reckon he wouldn’t even come close to his 1million hits. btw what’s happening with that, suddenly he isn’t broadcasting his monthly hit counts?
28 November, 2008 at 8:41 am
“In any case, what is wrong with foreigners working in different countries?
It’s not necessarily wrong but they are mercenaries.
“I thought people on the left were open to the employment of migrants?”
What the fuck are you trolling about? I called him a merc, I was right. Where did I say that migrants shouldn’t be allowed to work elsewhere? You are trying to put words in my mouth because you are a troll!
I’ve answered you, now you answer what I asked you yesterday, are you cool with collective punishment?
Are you cool with collective punishment?
28 November, 2008 at 8:52 am
Here’s a better suggestion, never post there
LOL you just have to love the delusion of some.
I think it’s a great idea that some of you wont post at Bolt’s blog. Hey, I haven’t posted there since earlier this year. But I don’t think that a few dozen people deciding not to post there is really going to make much of a difference. Especially when you consider that you will still all read his site and that’s really what counts.
The more people that read the site, the more brownie points Bolt gets from his employer as the revenue from the sponsor’s ads on the pages goes up.
28 November, 2008 at 8:59 am
“Especially when you consider that you will still all read his site and that’s really what counts. ”
I get most of it from here.
I don’t watch Today Tonight, I don’t need to, I watch Media watch and the Chaser. For the best part I don’t need to read Bolt’s blog, I can read his stupid column in the newspaper, (we get it free at work) and I can see him spout his stupidity every other Sunday on the insiders. I can see him get owned in a debate on Q&A.
28 November, 2008 at 9:04 am
Nic?
28 November, 2008 at 9:06 am
a sad and infuriating read that shows just how gutless the bush administration was:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/opinion/27cohen.html?_r=1
dickheads like bolt and blair defend bush’s presidency. bolt recently posted that history will come to define him as a true leader, he compares him to batman. yesterday or the day before bolt was carrying on about iran’s growing nuclear capacity, glad that this is a security problem “the left can own”, so “let’s see how perfection and harmony are achieved without anyone being hurtful.”
in defending bush and how he bungled the war on terror, the flowerpot men are giving a huge tick to the abuse of power that led to abuses at guantanamo, even to those released as innocent. have a read of the slip of paper they get as they leave the prison – as the article points out, this equated to totalitarianism, something you’d expect from china.
but because the flowerpot men see bush as a cultural icon for them to worship (just like with palin) instead of thinking critically and being prepared to admit bush’s faults, they are in fact defending such totalitarianism. it’s hilarious. maybe if bolt had more experience his opinions might be better informed. lol!
i live in hope that never again americans will elect an idealogocially driven, brainless imbecile as their president.
28 November, 2008 at 9:06 am
Rad – Are you serious?
He did in one day post two articles. One states that it is cooling (well it has for 2 years). And yet links a comment from Canada saying they know it has been warming and they expect it to continue.
28 November, 2008 at 9:09 am
Nic, collective punishment, the siege of Jenin, your thoughts? Why aren’t these actions analogous to those of the Nazi’s? Ghettoisation too? (if that’s a word, but you know what I mean)
28 November, 2008 at 9:10 am
I get most of it from here
The problem is that this site is like a big billboard for Bolt’s blog.
RobJ you just better not click on the links to Bolt’s post on this site. It will get counted on Bolt’s blog.
28 November, 2008 at 9:12 am
“RobJ you just better not click on the links to Bolt’s post on this site. It will get counted on Bolt’s blog.”
Really – what a revelation!
Got anything to contribute today Rad or are you just here to troll?
28 November, 2008 at 9:12 am
He did in one day post two articles. One states that it is cooling (well it has for 2 years). And yet links a comment from Canada saying they know it has been warming and they expect it to continue.
It’s not about what was said in a link from his blog, it is what he states personally. You seriously cannot be saying that because he links to a site, then everything contained and said on that site represents his opinion?!
28 November, 2008 at 9:12 am
Ooops forgot the sarcasm tag for my first sentence in the last post (/Sarcasm)
28 November, 2008 at 9:16 am
Really – what a revelation!
So what exactly is the purpose of this We wont post on Bolt’s Blog campaign?
Seriously I am curious. I just want to know what you are trying to achieve.
28 November, 2008 at 9:18 am
Sorry, I was off doing something else. I don’t think that the analogy stands in anything but a superficial way. For a start, the Nazi’s created or took over ghettos as the first step to genocide. That is not the intent of the Israelis. The seige of Jenin was highly inaccurately reported by the world’s media.
The Soviets behaved in highly similar ways – transporting whole ethnic populations and creating many forms of ghettos.
Secondly, many governments around the world have created borders to protect their inhabits from attacks and respond harshly to terror attacks. Look at the situation in Gaza, the Israelis have completely abandoned any claims to the territory and are still being attacked on an almost daily basis.
Thirdly, I’m not sure what actions you construe as collective punishment.
Lastly, any analogy between the Nazis and Israel is on the nose, for the obvious reasons. I don’t think you are being anti-semitic in doing so. I just think that you are using the Nazis as an analogy for evil. It is always better to argue on the merits of the case, rather than make inapt comparisons.
FWIW, I think that’s a word.
28 November, 2008 at 9:20 am
“Seriously I am curious. I just want to know what you are trying to achieve”
You’re not serious, you’re trolling, I wrote my suggestion in PLAIN ENGLISH:
“Here’s a better suggestion, never post there, let the Boltards revel in their circle jerk, come over here and post about Bolt, that way he won’t benefit from the mouse clicks..”
I ssuppose I could have added that it would be wise to visit his blog as little as possible so the simpletons among us needn’t join the dots.
28 November, 2008 at 9:24 am
RobJ – if people don’t go to Blair or Bolt’s site – wouldn’t that destroy the purposes of this blog? Otherwise you would have to arrange to change the title to of the blog to “The Blair/Bolt Don’t Watch Project”?
28 November, 2008 at 9:26 am
Just a note that I asked Andrew why he was linking a post that stated that warming was going to continue and why he did not point out the spelling mistake as he had done so previsouly. No abuse in the post but of course it was snipped.
RadP – try again. He links the post to make an argument. He cannot cherry pick like that.
28 November, 2008 at 9:26 am
“The seige of Jenin was highly inaccurately reported by the world’s media.”
So the sewers weren’t ripped up then?
“The Soviets behaved in highly similar ways – transporting whole ethnic populations and creating many forms of ghettos.”
And this has to do with what?
“Thirdly, I’m not sure what actions you construe as collective punishment.”
Ripping up the sewers in Jenin, locking people in the Gaza strip.
“Lastly, any analogy between the Nazis and Israel is on the nose, for the obvious reasons.”
To you, I class reprehensible behavior by governments and soldiers directed against civilians as repulsive, therefore analogous to Nazi actions. It seems to me you’re happy to excuse the IDF for their atrocities because they are Israeli Jews?
“I don’t think you are being anti-semitic in doing so. I just think that you are using the Nazis as an analogy for evil.”
OK – So you agree that the state of Israel acts in an evil manner towards Palestinian civilians? If you do I’ll start describing the IDF and Nation State of Israel as evil entities, rather than, nasty like the Nazis. Deal?
“It is always better to argue on the merits of the case, rather than make inapt comparisons.”
Fair enough, I argue that the state of Israel is evil in it’s approach to the Palestinian problem.
28 November, 2008 at 9:42 am
RadP – try again. He links the post to make an argument. He cannot cherry pick like that
But that doesn’t mean that he accepts everything in that link. So if the link mentions AGW, it doesn’t mean that he agrees with that. Bolt links to sites that are pro AGW regularly as a way of deconstructing their argument. For example, he has link on numerous occasions to comments made by Flanner and Gore.
Can you provide the link and quote Bolt quoted from the link that you are referring to. Normally when Bolt links to another site, he provides a quote from that site.
28 November, 2008 at 9:43 am
Don’t listen to Nic, she quite likes Andrew Bolt. Don’t listen to RadMatt, he’s too dumb to know how dumb he is.
28 November, 2008 at 9:47 am
Don’t listen to Nic, she quite likes Andrew Bolt. Don’t listen to RadMatt, he’s too dumb to know how dumb he is.
And you are too ideologically bias to engage in rational debate.
28 November, 2008 at 9:48 am
You mean biased?
28 November, 2008 at 9:53 am
You mean biased?
No I mean Bias because I am not just referring to one action as it is an on going tendency for you.
28 November, 2008 at 9:55 am
‘Lil Pip:
rational debate
chuckle…