Open Forum March 13, 2010

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

657 Responses to Open Forum March 13, 2010

  1. Peter Patton

    jftsoon

    There is a very good argument to be made that the Human Rights Commission and its advocates are indulging in a form of treason for demanding the parliament respond, not to the citizenry, but not to a ‘foreign power’ – the UN ‘Human Rights’ committees.

  2. Michael Fisk

    Apparently the Irish government has criminalised or recriminalised blasphemy.

    http://www.atheist.ie/2010/01/25-blasphemous-quotations/comment-page-1/#comments

  3. C.L.

    ABC Online and other puiblications pulled the same trick, JC. Now, you could argue that the headline angle re Abbott was fair enough because – after all – Costello could be expected to disagree with and slam Labor, having been a Liberal Treasurer for years. I’m sure Grattan would argue that it was the intra-party disagreement that was truly newsworthy. However, if that’s true, how do the same journalists justify the wall-to-wall coverage they give the periodic anti-Liberal expectorations of Paul Keating – which are usually presented as straight, worthwhile news? The other day, Keating actually did criticise the Rudd government on super. So why – applying Grattanesque news values – was that not the headline story? To wit: ‘Keating slams Rudd over super.’

  4. THR

    Keating’s outbursts are a little more colourful and entertaining than Costello’s, and I say that as somebody who isn’t a particular fan of Keating.

  5. C.L.

    Entertaining for Labor supporters, yes.

    And the press gallery.

    But I repeat myself.

  6. C.L.

    Archibald finalists here. There seems to be a definite drift back to realism in portraiture – abstraction seems to have run its course. The one of Fraser is good, conveying who he is these days. But I’ll back Ruddy’s ‘Prince of Darkness.’ Literally iconic.

  7. THR

    I’m not such an ALP supporter. And with the benefit of hindsight, even you might have a couple of malicious chuckles at the expense of Hewson and Peacock if you ever re-read some of Keating’s vitriol.

  8. ken nielsen

    “colourful and entertaining” yes, that’s PK but Costello is more thoughtful and insightful.
    Personally, I wish all retired politicians would shut up. I guess it’s Gareth Evans’s “relevance deprivation syndrome”.

  9. C.L.

    THR, I don’t really rate Keating as a comic. He mostly just abuses people with the macho argot of a working class he never belonged to. Like all thugs, when someone returns fire he usually folds like a girl – as he did when Wilson Tuckey kneecapped him in parliament for abusing the families of conservative frontbenchers. His schtich undoubtedly appeals to the gentrified bourgeois left – who think it’s naughty. But as Alan Jones pointed out today, whenever Keating appears in order to abuse someone, it usually signifies that Labor has made massive blunders and is in deep trouble. The wider public hates him, which is only to the advantage of his targets. I think the really funny thing about Keating’s latest rehearsed performance is that a man who believes jumping on a trampoline prevents cancer called Tony Abbot a nutter.

  10. JC

    ..a man who believes jumping on a trampoline prevents cancer called Tony Abbot a nutter.

    Can you elaborate Please.

  11. C.L.

    Laurie Oakes revisited the Captain Wacky trampoline story recently when he launched Niki Savva’s political memoir: So Greek: confessions of a conservative leftie.

    John Edwards, a former Keating staffer, wrote Keating: The Inside Story, but that was a rather different situation from Niki’s. Keating employed Edwards as an adviser expressly so that he could gather material for the biography. Keating knew what Edwards was doing and paved the way for it. He was rather less happy when the book was published though. Edwards revealed that, as Treasurer, Keating set up a trampoline in the backyard of his Canberra house because he quite seriously believed “that the few moments of perfect stillness at the apex of a jump, those few moments when you had risen as high as you would but had not yet begun to fall, when your blood, bones and organs were suspended momentarily in space, were the moments when any cancer cells in your body would be annihilated.”

    Barking mad.

  12. JC

    I think Keating is a phony, but not in s shallow sense. I think he really masks what he believes in and he does so to continue favor with the side of politics he grew up with. In other words he’s a phony from a point of substance rather than shallowness.

    He’s stuck me time and time again in interviews that he’s about to jump over the cliff and then holds back what he really thinks to keep good with the tribe he no longer really believes in.

    I think Keating believes everything Michael Costa believes in terms of free markets but unlike Costa he hides his Hayek and Mises behind under the bed in a locked bag.

    He doesn’t seem to have the guts to come out of the proverbial closet and admit what he really believes.

    There no way in the world Keating doesn’t believe in free labor markets these days and most of the things the Libertarians support. The sad thing about him is that he just doesn’t have the guts to admit it.

    I saw an interview he did with O’Brien over Workchoices and it almost appeared then that he had to remind himself what he had to say to stay to keep good.

    No question he despises the liberals, however he despises them for his own petty reasons and also for the fact that they weren’t as reformist as he was was.

    As a said Keating is a phony.

  13. JC

    oops .. as reformist as he thinks he was.

  14. Infidel Tiger

    The sad thing about Keating’s vitriol is that it’s all rehearsed. He doesn’t have the wit to scythe an opponent on the spot with a verbal parry. His best line were either stolen or prepared earlier. Much earlier.

    The trampoline won’t cure cancer. Anyone of sound mind knows it’s the hula hoop.

  15. Infidel Tiger

    “Here’s our quote for the school. Don’t forget to add our 100% stimulus levy”:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/school-ber-costs-double-quoted-price/story-e6frgczf-1225842080073

    I imagine in Keynsiana this blow out doesn’t matter?

  16. C.L.

    Yeah. There was a story related (book or feature article I can’t remember) about Bill Clinton’s visit to Australia, the presidential briefing notes for which having apparently sketched Keating as a “noted orator.” It was said later that the US party was shocked when they finally got to listen to Keating’s wooden, daft and cliche-ridden utterances.

  17. JC

    Shiny appearing as himself in this You tube vid.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg&feature=player_embedded

    He really does terrific mock ups of how he appears.

  18. C.L.

    Well, they’re notoriousy violent events – what did they expect?

    Mum-to-be beaten and man shot in baby shower brawl.

    A HEAVILY pregnant woman was beaten with a stick and a man was shot after a brawl broke out a baby shower.

    Three people were arrested after the fight, which police described as a “baby shower gone bad”, Fox News reported.

    Police said the brawl started when one of the guests, Aristotle Garcia, became abusive towards a man who was dating his former girlfriend.

    The argument, over whether the woman had let their five-year-old daughter drink beer, escalated and drew in two other guests, Jazz Rivas and Juan Velazquez.

  19. C.L.

    Actually, I think the visiting president in the anecdote above was Bush 41.

  20. rog

    Non reading JC and his bro likes to take the side of Judy Curry when it suits them but she aint on their side

  21. JC

    Christ you’re a poisonous, sack of shit, Rog.

  22. jtfsoon

    Interesting – Shiite Islam uses temporary marriage contracts as a means of allowing casual sex

    http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/temporary-marriage-iran-islam

    I’m starting to form the view that of the two branches of Islam, the Shiites might be capable of greater modernisation mainly because they’re like the Muslim equivalent of Catholics. They place greater emphasis on interpretation of the Koran by their religious authorities and allow greater textual innovation whereas Sunnis are more like your down the line textual literalists (the Muslim Homers).

    So all it takes is for a particularly modern minded Mullah’s interpretation to catch on. Iran already has made a lot of innovations to accomodate stuff like allowing people to change sex.

  23. JC

    Judging from what has been going on Iranian youth will destroy Islam I reckon. They hate everything about the religion and would tear the mullahs limb from limb if they had a chance.

  24. dover_beach

    Non reading JC and his bro likes to take the side of Judy Curry when it suits them but she aint on their side

    Its not a matter of taking sides, rog, that is Curry’s point. It’s one of the reasons she’s gone out of her way to engage McIntyre, etc. in civil conversation. She, for instance, invited McIntyre to present a seminar at Georgia Tech in 2008:

    http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/06/off-to-georgia-tech/

    But you probably failed to notice.

  25. Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    Infidel tiger never heard what Churchill said about his ‘off the cuff’ witty remarks made in Parliament.

    If anything Costello’s remarks always looked rehearsed and so was the laughing.

    I have never heard of Keating ever been called any sort of orator.

    his speciality was always off the cuff remarks made to questions at functions where he talked.

  26. jtfsoon

    you really have to wonder at the IQ of the person guarding this monster.

    and the 2 and a half years he got for his first offence

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/child-sex-offender-raymond-warford-on-the-run/story-e6frf7jo-1225842066955

    A POLICE manhunt is being stepped up this morning for a child sex offender on the run after giving prison officers the slip.
    The notorious child sex offender is supposed to be held under strict supervision but is on the run after walking out the back door of a suburban cafe.

    Raymond Warford, 36, one of the state’s worst sex offenders, gave a prison escort the slip after telling him he needed to go to the toilet.

    It was the second time Warford, who has a shocking history of child sexual abuse, has escaped custody.

  27. BirdLab

    Watched Ep. 1 of ‘The Pacific’ last night. Not bad. Not bad at all.

  28. jtfsoon

    http://twitter.com/wingedmenace

    Birdism: a doctrine that is the precise synthesis of Rothbard, Pinochet, and David Icke.

  29. JC

    Dover:

    Rog is as thick as the bricks he’s now laying.

    Curry is now perhaps the most articulate, engaging climate scientists around. She shows what is best about science. Totally open, engaging and very smart.

  30. Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    Statman you cannot have a literalist in Islam as there are no original texts.

    I will leave you to find out why.

  31. jtfsoon

    great
    Now Homer has become the expert on Islam who apparently knows more than actual Muslims who believe in the primacy of the Koran.

  32. Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    err Statman you are wrong .Fancy that.

    guess what happened to all the original texts? no you can read about it. Well it might even be in Wikipedia or you might even find out at a dinner part in the Eastern Suburbs

  33. JC

    Now Homer has become the expert on Islam

    Let him, Jason. Let him become the Islamic expert. No question he’ll fuck it up good and proper offend the world’s population of Muslims and end up with a fatwa on his stupid head.

    Don’t stop him.

    Homes , I want loudly proclaiming your expetise in Islam.

  34. jtfsoon

    Statman you cannot have a literalist in Islam as there are no original texts.

    Hey Homer

    How about we send you over to the Middle East to set up a madrassa in Jeddah. After a few years I’m sure you’ll have reformed Islam and turned all those Wahhabis into boring Presbyterians.

  35. JC

    Homer,

    if you end up with a bunch of really angrifed Muslims after your scalp rest assured I will be helping locate you if I’m asked.

    You know that right?

  36. Steve Edney

    Is Homer suggesting we have the original texts of the gospels?

  37. jtfsoon

    They’re under his bed, Steve.

  38. JC

    He’ll also be under the bed some some mullah in Saudi issues a beheading fatwa against the nimrod.

    The idiot is going get himself snuffed out as a result of his doofusness.

    Of course I will be appearing in front to the Sharia court as a witness for the prosecution on this one. I have no qualms in explaining how the moron offended the prophet.

  39. Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    sorry fellas even Muslims agree they do not have original texts.

    Can I suggest you examine what happened when Muhammad died!

    good to see the crackpots are up to speed on this subject as they are on other subjects

  40. Steve Edney

    No one is saying they have the original documents Homer. The point is no one has the original gospels, but that doesn’t stop christians being literalists.

  41. JC

    What happened when Muhammad died, Homer? Hit us with this one.

  42. jtfsoon

    yeah homer please tell us more.

    also feel free to share your thought about the sixth imam.

  43. C.L.

    Wasn’t Mark Latham the Hidden Iman?

  44. Infidel Tiger

    It thought it was Skank-ki Ho. Hell, maybe it was Super Mac.

  45. Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    really Steve ever heard of transmission in history.

    now when you learn what happened after the Big M went you will understand how it couldn’t occur under Islam.

  46. Infidel Tiger

    The Big M? Bwahahahahaha!

  47. Homer,
    Are you referring to the Qu’ran or to the Hadith? If it is the Qu’ran, then I suppose you could be called sort of correct, as it was not written down during Muhammad’s lifetime. Muslims, however, generally agree that there is little or no chance of transcription error as so many memorised it and crosschecked against both other Muslims and with Muhammed. It is (IMHO) much more likely that the Qu’ran is free from transcription error (factual or religious error being another matter) than any copy of the Bible. It is therefore (to me at least) much more logical to be a literalist if you believe in the word of Muhammed.
    The Hadith are much more uncertain, but, in any case, are recognised as being inferior to the Qu’ran.

  48. tal

    So THR what are you, sad smart person or a happy dummy? 🙂

  49. Peter Patton

    jtfsoon

    Shia Islam developed in the former Nestorian Christian lands of Persia, and was very heavily christian-inflected right from the start.

    Actually, there has always been a huge cultural chasm between the Sunni and Shia. But that chasm is not simple textual theological differences. It is the great difference between Persians and the rich civilization they had built, and the marauding soldiers of Muhammad galloping out of the desert, sword in one hand, bastardized/Arabized Judaism and Christianity in the other.

  50. BirdLab

    I see Lardiculous is off his meds again, Jason.

  51. Peter Patton

    THR

    Crowing over an average IQ of 103 is a bit tragic. 😉

  52. Peter,
    Perhaps a few very intelligent but also very arrogant lefties are skewing things. That believe themselves intelligent enough to understand everything and so fit to tell everyone else what to do.

  53. THR

    That believe themselves intelligent enough to understand everything and so fit to tell everyone else what to do.

    I believe this trait isn’t unique to the left.

  54. Peter Patton

    Andrew
    My experience is that it is the modern university system that overwhelmingly produces the left-wing mind. Until very recently, universities were small in number, and restricted to the more challenging disciplines; and mostly the VERY challenging disciplines.

    The modern university system that has has grown exponentially since the 1980s, has long grown beyond strict academic “disciplines” to focus on “Studies” attended by dumber and dumber people (mainly through the social science departments). These people never had a chance. They simply were neither born with, nor were exposed to at school, intellectual rigor and discipline. So they lack the skills required to stand above their “Studies” with a critical eye.

  55. THR,
    No, you are right. There are many conservatives that seek to tell others what to do with their lives. There is really only one mob that seeks to minimise this sort of thing, but the conservatives and the socialists keep managing to drown them out.

  56. THR,
    This is a good piece from the article “in historical terms, there is no example of a people becoming prosperous because strangers wanted them to be. … perhaps being a leftie is not such a clever idea after all.”

  57. Michael Fisk

    I bet those leftists who scored 105 on the IQ test will crow over their results one minute, denouncing IQ tests as totally unscientific and even racist the next.

  58. dover_beach

    There is really only one mob that seeks to minimise this sort of thing, but the conservatives and the socialists keep managing to drown them out.

    Yes, liberals haven’t been telling anyone how to live over the last two centuries?

  59. Pedro

    “Danner met his wife five years ago, when she was 17 years old and he was a church youth counsellor.”

    Hmmm, I wonder where that story could be heading
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/man-accused-of-using-craiglist-to-hire-wife-out-for-sex/story-e6frf7lf-1225842285018

  60. C.L.

    Yes folks, Tom Hanks is a grade A dickhead.

  61. C.L.

    Liebestraum Before Wicket.

  62. C.L.

    Sounds like Crazy Kev’s “ambush” of Tony Abbott in Question Time was something of an own goal. Abbott must really have the government rattled.

  63. Infidel Tiger

    To uses Barnaby terminolgy – Psycho Chook has had a spac attack.

  64. dover_beach,
    “Liberals” as used in the US means democratic socialism anywhere else. I like to use the English (or the Australian English) meaning, not the American English one.

  65. JC

    They’re rattled because their own polling is telling them they’re in serious trouble and that people are starting to desert Rudd faster than F1 cars down the straight.

    He’s a politically dead man still walking.

  66. dover_beach

    AR, liberals of the English variety have also told people how they should live, Mill, being one of them.

  67. JC

    Obamacare is sure going to work. Lol

    Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16

    Walgreens will stop taking new Medicaid patients in Washington state as of April 16, saying it loses money filling their prescriptions.

    Effective April 16, Walgreens drugstores across the state won’t take any new Medicaid patients, saying that filling their prescriptions is a money-losing proposition — the latest development in an ongoing dispute over Medicaid reimbursement.

    The company, which operates 121 stores in the state, will continue filling Medicaid prescriptions for current patients.

    If and when he shows up here, Obama and Rudd could turn the meeting into a losers convention.

  68. dover_beach,
    I said “minimise”, not “eliminate”.

  69. John H.

    Wonderful stuff, an example of why I abandoned the “gene as instruction set” idea.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100317162000.htm

    Chemists Influence Stem-Cell Development With Geometry
    ….

    The cells are seeing the same soluble proteins. In both cases it’s the shape alone that’s dictating whether they turn into fat or bone, and that hasn’t been appreciated before,” said Milan Mrksich, Professor in Chemistry and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator, who led the study. “That’s exciting because stem-cell therapies are of enormous interest right now, and a significant effort is ongoing to identify the laboratory conditions that can take a stem cell and push it into a specific lineage.”

  70. dover_beach

    I said “minimise”, not “eliminate”.

    Well, the same could be said about conservatives then.

  71. JC

    JohnH

    That’s interesting, right? I have basic knowledge of this stuff and my understanding was that the code to cell telling them what to become was embedded inside them.

    This however suggests that it’s the shape that is doing that so it makes things much easier.

    I suppose it’s too soon to ask what tells the cells which shape to become.

  72. No, dover_beach – there is a clear difference between a liberal (properly so called) and a conservative, at least as practised in Australia. To me at least a conservative here is one with a culturally conservative approach to social issues – like drug policy, immigration, abortion policy and such. While they may have a similar approach to economics (although big government conservatives like Abbott and Howard seem to ignore this) they differ distinctly on the social policy issues.

  73. John H.

    JC,

    There are even studies showing that creating an electrical gradient across a wounds increasing healing. The study touches on another developmental variable: geometry. Genes are better thought of as “response sets” or “adaptation sets”, the idea that genes encode some “developmental program” is phooey, not possible. We tend to adopt a very gene centric view of developmental processes but over the last decade a great deal of research has begun to explore the real causal nexus: when Life confronts the environment.

    What we now understand of life processes may very well be very limited not because we have explored the chemical realm sufficiently but because we have ignored the causal relations arising from electrical gradients, geometry, EM fields(fascinating stuff there but largely unexplored), and god knows what else. It may even be the case that a fundamental problem with understanding the brain is because we have failed to appreciate the role of EM fields in neural function. I’m not sure about that but there is evidence out there that gives me headaches.

  74. BirdLab

    Funny. Hanks’ statements seem entirely unremarkable.

  75. jtfsoon

    BirdLab

    One comment not entirely repudiating the multiplier at Birdy’s place = 5 ‘gook’ or ‘wog’ comments. That seems to be the exchange rate

  76. C.L.

    The Allies were waging a gratuitous race war against the Japs, were they, BirdLab?

    And you criticise Bird for being stupid.

    Hanks is covering his arse with Hollywood liberals for making another series on war by arguing that both sides are somehow moral equivalents – both then and now vis-a-vis Islamic terrorists.

    “They were out to kill us because our way of living was different.

    “We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different.

    “Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”

    We didn’t want to “annihilate them because they were “different.” We responded to the war the Japanese started and to the hellish political system they and their Axis allies had imposed extensively already and were seeking to impose on humanity in general. For Hanks to suggest we were motivated by a desire to liquidate the yellow race because it was “different” is an obscenity.

    The man is an uneducated moron.

  77. So they lack the skills required to stand above their “Studies” with a critical eye.
    .
    As the holder of a PhD in Neo-Fuliginous Sub-practicom from Dept of Gastrobombastic Studies I find I must object. Is it too complicated for you to understand that the analysis of morassian vectors subliminating codes of phallo-ethnotrasitory discoursive conventions is vital for the structural integrity of post-logocentricity?
    .
    How can you not see that we need more of this in society?

  78. jtfsoon

    This is strange coming from Tom Hanks.

    Forrest Gump wasn’t exactly a pro-hippie movie. The antiwar protesters were by and large depicted as hypocrites and losers.

  79. We responded to the war the Japanese started and to the hellish political system they and their Axis allies had imposed extensively already and were seeking to impose on humanity in general.
    .
    1. The Japanese system was different to Fascism/Nazism. They all suck, but still.
    .
    2. the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour because the Americans were inhibiting their access to resources. In other words the causes of the Pacific Theatre were analogous to the causes of the Punic Wars. It was about money. It almost always is.

  80. Infidel Tiger

    The only thing funny about Hanks statement is that HBO spent $250 million producing Pacific and unless there’s a dramatic ratings increase it’s not going to end well. He’s just another Ho’wood fuqtard.

  81. jtfsoon

    liberal whiteys who think the US soliders were anti-Jap should meet some of the older generation of my family who lived through the Japanese occupation of what was then Malaya.

    I recall one family member not too long ago refering to the Japs as ‘poison dwarves’.

  82. dover_beach

    No, dover_beach – there is a clear difference between a liberal (properly so called) and a conservative, at least as practised in Australia. To me at least a conservative here is one with a culturally conservative approach to social issues – like drug policy, immigration, abortion policy and such. While they may have a similar approach to economics (although big government conservatives like Abbott and Howard seem to ignore this) they differ distinctly on the social policy issues.

    And what of a conservative properly so-called or big government liberals? It seems to me you like to qualify the use of liberal but you’re happy to generalize about conservatives. The hypocrisy that I intimated at with my initial off-the-cuff remark was precisely the one in which liberals pretend they do not tell others how to live and yet liberals are at the forefront of promoting social policies that promote or neutralize activities of which we previously disapproved.

  83. Peter – I think you’d benefit from reading my latest submission to the The Journal of Cultural Exhudation, ‘Neo-Effluent Expulsions and the Relevancy Sub-Codes of Passport Application Design Practices where I show beyond the shadow of a doubt that ‘intelligence’ is a purely conventional function of Phallo-Industrialisationary Hegemony.
    .
    It’s a real page turner.

  84. JC

    Why do people always want to read political shit in movies. Just enjoy the shit for what it is or don’t. If you want history read a history book, or watch the Hitler Channel (history channel).

    Hanks isn’t a historian. He’s a FAG member, in the Parker and Stone sense….. a member of the Film Actors Guild.

    Anyone see that shitty hair style he presented in Da Vinci Code.

    All of America was laughing at him.
    http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3476265728/tt0382625

    This FAG member appeared on Love Boat FFS and we’re debating his knowledge of what happened in the Pacific war?

    Give me a break.

  85. liberal whiteys who think the US soliders were anti-Jap should meet some of the older generation of my family who lived through the Japanese occupation of what was then Malaya.
    .
    Jason you’re obviously a self-hating Asian. Buy a crystal pyramid, smoke some safron, chant and make offerings to Isis. And maybe some Group Hug Therapy Workshops. 🙂

  86. He’s a FAG member, in the Parker and Stone sense….. a member of the Film Actors Guild.
    .
    Are you intentionally being funny? It’s SAG.

  87. dover_beach,
    As I said – a “big-government liberal” (a US term again) would IMHO properly be called a social-democrat in Australia. I would suggest that, while you are commenting on an Australian site you try to use Australian terms. Mixing up the US meaning of liberal with the Australian meaning of liberal is not going to contribute to clarity.
    .
    On the substance of the matter, though, I see a big difference between telling someone that they must not do something (say take recreational drugs) or they will go to jail and telling someone that, if they choose to, they make take recreational drugs but also telling them that there may be adverse effects on their health and that, should they commit crimes while under the influence it will be no excuse to blame the drugs for it.
    One is telling people how to live their lives. The other is letting them choose how to live their lives. You seem to be confusing the two.

  88. JC

    Are you intentionally being funny? It’s SAG.

    Really? 🙂 According Parker and Stone’s Team America it’s FAG, not SAG.

  89. John H.

    I recall one family member not too long ago refering to the Japs as ‘poison dwarves’.

    It was the great error of the Japanese. They were originally seen as liberators from Western oppression and turned out to be much much worse than we could ever hope to be. Another example of why I get annoyed with some people who think we are so bloody evil.

    Even veterans from the Pacific hold onto enmity towards the Japanese and I don’t blame them for that. My father wasn’t in the Pacific but he did tell me stories of how Japanese soldiers would tie Australian nuns in the compound, staked out on the ground, and raped until dead. The Japanese were the most brutal in World War 2 and we had very good reason to hate them and want them dead. People like Hanks needs to distinguish between hatred and racism. If racism was such an issue would he care to explain the massive rebuilding of Japan by the USA and how McArthur came to be highly regarded in Japan? (I think it was him who led the rebuilding campaign.)

    Today, hey I love their cars and I don’t give a damn.

  90. JC

    … the Japs as ‘poison dwarves’.

    Nonsense, there’s only one poison dwarf I know of.

  91. BirdLab

    I think your over-egging it a bit CL. I may be reading Hanks’ comments a bit differently, but I interpret them to mean that racism was a strong element in the Pacific War on both sides, which it undoubtedly was, partly because of the nature of the battlefield.

    Adrien’s right of course. No disputing the economic causes of the war.

  92. Michael Fisk

    Implying moral equivalency between the Allies and Japan is worse than offensive – it’s flat out wrong. Hanks said that the Allies wanted to “wanted to annihilate them because they were different.” This is a disgraceful, ahistorical falsehood for which Hanks should apologise. It was the Japanese who exterminated large numbers of their “fellow Asians” as a matter of policy.

    That said, there certainly was an element of racism on our side. The ALP government ran a hateful propaganda campaign against Japanese people, which Robert Menzies courageously opposed. As Menzies said:

    Is it thought that Australian civilians are so lacking in the true spirit of citizenship that they need to be filled artificially with a spirit of hatred before they will do their duty to themselves and to those who are fighting for them? It is an offence to an honest citizen to imagine that the cold, evil and repulsive spirit of racial hatred must be substituted for honest and brave indignation if his greatest effort is to be obtained.

    A very enlightened and progressive statement at the time. It is unfortunate that 30 years after John Curtin’s discredited hate campaign the ALP was back to denouncing “fucking Vietnamese balts” while employing holocaust denying envoys to procure loans from Saddam Hussein.

  93. BirdLab

    I mad just add that I do agree that the Japanese leadership was in fact stone-cold barking, fucking, mad.

  94. C.L.

    1. The Japanese system was different to Fascism/Nazism.

    You don’t say. Whose side were the Japenese on? What were Japan’s allies doing in Europe and elsewhere? What were the Japanese doing to the peoples and polities they encountered? As I said, we responded to the war the Japanese started and to the hell they and their Axis allies had imposed or sought to impose on humanity in general. We didn’t go after them because of their race – because, as FAG maestro Hanks would have it, they were “different” – nor did we fight them any differently to ‘our’ fellow whities in places like Dresden.

    Hanks is worried that his serial artistic revisitation of the ultimate Good War will see him labelled a lioniser of Allied heroism in the old John Ford sense. So he’s heading that off at the pass with some traditional Hollywood left-wing moral equivalency.

    Victor Davis Hanson deals with the idiot here and here.

    Excerpt:

    …Hanks did not back away from his theses that the Pacific war was predicated on racism (I wonder whether our WWII alliances with China and the Philippines, or our prior alliance in WWI with Japan, were as well?), and thus similar to our attitudes in the current war on terror. (Racism apparently explains the American effort to foster democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, and save Muslims in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Somalia.)

  95. C.L.

    YouTube: Anatomy of a Cable News Story:

    Very funny:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4Ha9HQvMo

    Via Ace.

  96. C.L.

    Thank heavens dumb Sarah Palin was kept well away from Number One Observatory Circle.

    Biden mistakenly blesses Irish leader’s mother.

    WASHINGTON — Vice President Joe Biden asked for God’s blessing for the late mother of Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen during a White House celebration of St. Patrick’s Day — except the elderly lady is very much alive.

    “God rest her soul,” Biden said Wednesday night as he introduced Cowen and President Barack Obama.

  97. JC

    Hey, if it was just a race based on who knows more economics Rudd would receive 5 votes- his wife and perhaps a few of their kids.

    Here’s hoping John becomes the new Maxine Mckew figuratively speaking of course.

  98. JC

    CL,

    You’re up there. You ought to do some work for John and try and dislodge Chuckie from his seat.

  99. dover_beach

    As I said – a “big-government liberal” (a US term again) would IMHO properly be called a social-democrat in Australia. I would suggest that, while you are commenting on an Australian site you try to use Australian terms. Mixing up the US meaning of liberal with the Australian meaning of liberal is not going to contribute to clarity.

    AR, small-l liberals in Australia or England are no different from their American counterparts since on the social issues you mention they are like to have the same or similar opinions. And for that matter small-government liberals are likely to be ‘conservative’ in Australia rather than anything else. It seems to me your quite conservative in your use of ‘liberal’ but your quite liberal in your use of ‘conservative’.

    On the substance of the matter, though, I see a big difference between telling someone that they must not do something (say take recreational drugs) or they will go to jail and telling someone that, if they choose to, they make take recreational drugs but also telling them that there may be adverse effects on their health and that, should they commit crimes while under the influence it will be no excuse to blame the drugs for it.
    One is telling people how to live their lives. The other is letting them choose how to live their lives. You seem to be confusing the two.

    Not at all. Even where the use of recreational drugs is illegal no one is telling them how to live their lives, and the law is here no more restrictive than warning these same people of its ill-effects, effects that might themselves be borne by their immediate family or the public, or its absence as a defence in case of the commission of a crime.

    Anyway, this wasn’t the substance of our dispute; the substance of the dispute was your presumption that liberals had preferable opinions on social issues in comparison to conservatives, which isn’t true. We are likely to find the same range of views on these issues, but conservatives will prefer not to burden the taxpayer with the costs of liberalisation.

  100. IMO on global warming policy:

    “AGW is a cinch – 100% tax exemptions for 30 years for firms and individuals for all taxes for the extent that you are carbon neutral.

    (A nuclear power plant with 95% carbon offsets and a $10 mln tax bill would pay $500 000 tax).

    A farmer who offsets 100% by practising carbon sequestering sustainable agriculture would pay no tax.

    A no regrets policy like this would be far better than a cap and trade or another tax.

    If Penny Wong doesn’t exaggerate sea level rises, we’re sweet.”

  101. Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    a much better explanation of the policy is here

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11044/02-23-ARRA.pdf

  102. Results, not some “estimated” balderdash from Prof. Poindexter is what matters.

  103. C.L.

    On health care “reform,” Democrats have voted to abolish voting in the House of Representatives. Marxist el presidente, Barry Obama, will sign a bill ‘passed’ through the Slaughter House.

    Even some lefties have had enough:

    “The Dems Are Communists” – Howard Stern.

  104. BirdLab

    Dear god, Andrew and dover. Is Catallaxy doing nuance now?

  105. dover_beach

    We’ve always done nuance, birdlab.

  106. BirdLab

    You might have dover. Otherwiswe it’s mainly just a massive pissing-contest.

  107. Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    the Libs must be disappointed with Tasmania.

    The government should have been toppled last election and they have performed poorly since then.

    I would have thought the libs should be in a winning position despite the silly system they have there.

    Tasmania needs a change of government.

    SA appears to be on a knife edge. Again a change of government is needed but it appears the ALP will scrape back in.

    Again this is a shame.

    of course it is no coincidence since howard lost changes of State government look more likely.

  108. C.L.

    Interesting article on Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, the Jap who refused to accept the war was over for 30 years after the conclusion of WWII. Amazing dude, still alive.

  109. C.L.

    Lord, what a nation of bed-wetters we’re becoming.

    He’s a copper. Relax, you sissies.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/19/2850425.htm

  110. C.L.

    Bronwyn Bishop is right. Darling of the sheltered workshop media, Julia Gillard, is “a socialist who has taken to wearing pearls.” She’s also being given a lefty lady’s pass for the BER disaster.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/19/2850553.htm?section=justin

  111. According Parker and Stone’s Team America it’s FAG, not SAG.
    .
    I’ve seen it. Forgot that bit. Those guys are really infantile but they always make me laugh. I thought the dicks, arseholes and pussies thing was a bit too naff.

  112. C.L.

    Adrien, I belatedly got back to you re Once Upon A Time In The West way up thread.

  113. Ken Nielsen

    I’m worried – seems someone has stolen Homer’s identity..
    “Tasmania needs a change of government.”

  114. Michael Fisk

    Leftist comedienne incites violence against…Bindi Irwin. Does anyone think these people could possibly get any more PATHETIC?

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/tv/comedian-fiona-oloughlin-says-bindi-irwin-creepy-needs-slap-in-face/story-e6frf9ho-1225842542438

  115. C.L.

    Nah, Ken. Traditionally, when Homer believes Labor will win, he declares that it was important that they lose.

  116. Peter Patton

    MF

    To be fair, FO’L is an alcoholic and comedian (but funny, unlike that Deveney woman) whose shtick is being brutal about being an Alice Springs Catholic breeder with the standard Catholic 123,678,234 children, and what a pain they are. If you know anything about Alice Springs, you will know it is not known for producing Australia’s most PC citizens. 😉

    The comments about the Irwin brat are more restrained than she says about her own kids. And yes, the little Irwin brat is a pain in the arse.

  117. Peter Patton

    Socialist in Pearls!!! Priceless. 🙂

  118. C.L.

    Rudd government dunce, Anthony Albanese, takes responsibility for yesterday Question Time bungle.

    Albanese’s previous contribution to parliamentary tactics was The Friday Sitting – a probably illegal debacle I blogged about in 2008.

    Arguably, the dopiest Leader of the House in a generation.

  119. Peter Patton

    Adrien

    Come on. Jesus Tittie Fucking Christ in Nobel material! 🙂

  120. dover_beach,
    Same “on social issues” or not, they are not the same on economic issues. That is where the difference is that I pointed out at the beginning. That is the point I was making. Did you get it this time?
    A conservative viewpoint (at least as I understand it) is that you are reasonably liberal (i.e. small government) in economic issues, but believe in using the power of the State to enforce certain moral issues. A liberal (as it should be used) is someone who believes that the power of the State should be used as little as possible in both the social and economic spheres.
    .
    I found this section priceless:

    conservatives will prefer not to burden the taxpayer with the costs of liberalisation

    The reason I found it funny is simple – you have an inbuilt presumption that the costs of letting people live their own lives is higher than the costs of interfering in them. If you have some evidence for this I would be interested. Perhaps, for example, you can show that the costs of allowing choice in drugs is going to be higher than the costs of all the police time, the time spent by customs officers, the costs of the court system, the costs of the prison system, the health costs of users that are sold bad junk, and the costs to society of having a police force (and all the rest) that are spending time on drugs rather than actually stopping or punishing crimes where people are really hurt by others.

  121. Pedro

    You just have to love Scott Sumner:

    “My claim is that in 40 years most economists will agree with Krugman. I mean the good Krugman. The guy who wrote Pop Internationalism. Not the guy who says we’re “stuck” in a liquidity trap and who ends his NYT editorial with the crude populist slogan “It’s time to take a stand.””

    http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=4422

    “So we have to adopt suboptimal financial system bailouts, auto bailouts, and massive deficits that will hurt our efficiency down the road, all because monetary policy isn’t doing its job. It like when you are at the zero bound all the laws of economics go out the window. We can justify all sorts of bailouts because we have to worry about declines in velocity (even though a forward-looking monetary policy can deal with falling velocity.) And we have to have big deficits because we’re told Bernanke won’t consider a 3% inflation target. And now we are being told we must risk a trade war. All because in the General Theory Keynes showed that in a liquidity trap mercantilist policies might actually “work” as beggar-thy-neighbor policies. ”

    http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=4441

  122. Peter Patton

    Andrew Reynolds

    You have got things the wrong way around. Issues such as taking drugs and libertine sex are issues about individual’s rights. They are “civil rights” issues, not “social policy.”

    OTOH, policies removing anti-market restrictions are social policies, precisely because of the alleged ‘freer the market, freer the society.’

  123. I like the way the ABC News website is currently using the worst looking photo ever of Bronwyn Bishop for a link. Don’t show the children. Forgive the link to myself, but ‘cos it may disappear from ABC site soon, I took a screen shot to preserve it forever:

    http://opiniondominion.blogspot.com/2010/03/evil-in-pearls.html

  124. Peter Patton

    The Devil Wears Pearls! 🙂

  125. C.L.

    Andrew Bolt destroys atheism cult leader Richard Dawkins.

  126. C.L.

    Oh yeah. That’s a car.

  127. C.L.

    I saw last week that Simon Cowell has bought himself a Bugatti Veyron. Price tag: £810,000.

    Jeremy Clarkson’s review:

    “Utterly, stunningly, jaw droppingly brilliant.”

  128. JC

    If one had the money the Bugatti is actually an amazing deal, CL. It cost Audi around $3.5 million per car and they’re selling them for around $1.5ish. I don’t know why but they just happened to do a really bad deal in terms of figuring out the cost structure and stopped making them.

    There are only 60 or so if I recall correctly so once most if them get into strong hands the price ought to take off and settle above the cost of production as a result of scarcity value as well I think.

  129. C.L.

    Basically, super-expensive cars like the Bugatti are subsidised by the buyers of lesser luxury marques – which is pretty amusing. It’s like the rationale for having a cash-hungry F1 team: it’s a price the top makers consider worthwhile for brand supremacy and R&D spin-offs.

  130. C.L.

    Column of the month:

    Paul Kelly on the true Tony Abbott and the media’s – especially the ABC’s – disgraceful prejudice and deceit by omission:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/looking-for-the-real-abbott/story-e6frg6zo-1225843015862

  131. tal

    Bloody hell smell the testosterone here tonight boys 🙂

  132. C.L.

    More like wishful thinking. 😉

  133. tal

    Yeah you’re right CL I was a little harsh X

  134. C.L.

    Not at all. It was testosterone-driven wishful thinking. 🙂

  135. dover_beach

    Same “on social issues” or not, they are not the same on economic issues. That is where the difference is that I pointed out at the beginning. That is the point I was making. Did you get it this time?

    AR, you certainly weren’t making that point when you said:

    There is really only one mob that seeks to minimise this sort of thing, but the conservatives and the socialists keep managing to drown them out.

    or when you said

    To me at least a conservative here is one with a culturally conservative approach to social issues – like drug policy, immigration, abortion policy and such. While they may have a similar approach to economics (although big government conservatives like Abbott and Howard seem to ignore this) they differ distinctly on the social policy issues.

    So you see, I couldn’t “get it” the first time or the second time because “it” wasn’t ever the point you were making.

    Now you go on to say (emphasis mine):

    A conservative viewpoint (at least as I understand it) is that you are reasonably liberal (i.e. small government) in economic issues, but believe in using the power of the State to enforce certain moral issues. A liberal (as it should be used) is someone who believes that the power of the State should be used as little as possible in both the social and economic spheres.

    Firstly, this simply confirms what I’ve repeatedly said, you understand the word conservative liberally but you understand the word liberal conservatively. Secondly, almost every important conservative political philosopher of the last two hundred years would satisfy your description of a ‘liberal’ so I dare say there is a problem with your definition. And thirdly, its not quite clear that there is any difference between “but believe in using the power of the State to enforce certain moral issues” and “the power of the State should be used as little as possible in both the social and economic spheres” since the use of ‘certain’ qualifies the extent to which the state’s authority can be employed in such matters while “as little as possible” still leaves some room for laws regarding certain moral issues, and a great many liberals would have no problem with either.

    The reason I found it funny is simple – you have an inbuilt presumption that the costs of letting people live their own lives is higher than the costs of interfering in them. If you have some evidence for this I would be interested.

    Its not a presumption, the evidence is all around you. It appears in the great extension of welfare beyond that provided for temporary emergencies. The counterpart of almost every liberalisation is more often then not the proliferation of this or that government program.

    Perhaps, for example, you can show that the costs of allowing choice in drugs is going to be higher than the costs of all the police time, the time spent by customs officers, the costs of the court system, the costs of the prison system, the health costs of users that are sold bad junk, and the costs to society of having a police force (and all the rest) that are spending time on drugs rather than actually stopping or punishing crimes where people are really hurt by others.

    This is a rather difficult area because I’m torn between a variety of approaches, but let me say, the idea that legalisation would lower costs seems far-fetched. Firstly, even if we were to legalise the use of recreational drugs it will still be unavailable to minors and therefore you are going to have drug crimes involving the manufacture, distribution and supply of drugs to minors. And these same groups will target those over-age since many regular drug users will want drugs above whatever quota is legally available to them. Secondly, who is going to pay for the drugs that are going to be made legally available? Thirdly, legalising their use will likely increase the size of the pool of current drug users and this will have its own social consequences. Fourthly, the health consequences will be borne largely by the tax payer. This is the rationale for treating drug use as a health problem rather than a legal problem. All those resources you see tied up in law and order won’t be liquidated and returned to the taxpayer, they’ll simply be transferred from one department to another.

Comments are closed.