|
2013
Jan 24, 2013 22:36:08 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 24, 2013 22:36:08 GMT 10
Oh dear. You just can't keep a man down. Turns out that a biography has mentioned that nova peris has some filipino and danish ancestry. And somebody found it. I wonder if I need to give any clues as to who wrote this: That biographical item may be correct or Nova’s ancestry may have a different mix. That’s not the point. The real point is that what was once a perfectly innocent biographical item, republished in several editions, is now too explosive to discuss in Salem Australia Yep. It's like the witch trials here. Except that the witches don't actually hang (witches weren't burned at salem - that's a myth), they're dragged into court, their company picks up the tab, they're told not to do it again, forced to add a notice to online copies of their articles and then they go make gobs of money telling people how they were wronged. I think it's probably safest not to say too much about this either. What I'd like to say probably isn't smart. I do notice, though, that one day ago, somebody (and I'm obviously, and honestly, not suggesting for a moment that it was bolta - no, really) posted this question: answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130122194155AAX4Pf0
What percentage ancestry is Nova Peris aboriginal?
Who does not appear to have an aboriginal husband It's a whole new form of prejudice. I wonder if we'll be seeing more of it. Somebody or something seems to have cast sufficient doubt on the achievements of aboriginal australians that some people appear to think "yeah, but is he/she 100% aboriginal?" when a black person achieves something on their own merit. I think that's something new, or at least re-emergent. And that's all I think I'll say about that. Meanwhile, in the "bolt curse strikes!" category, I see this: Human and Neanderthal interbreeding questionedWell, how about that. It seems that dicky dawkins might have been right all along! UPDATE
A point is given against Pell by an Age reporter too inclined to jeer at reasoned challenges to his own prejudices and assumptions:Pell’s argument during an exchange over evolution was downright baffling. He started by saying he “probably” accepts that humans descended from Neanderthals.
“Neanderthals?” piped up Dawkins, jumping disdainfully on the slip. ”They were our cousins. We can’t be descended from our cousins.” Well, we can, actually:WHEN the first modern humans left Africa they were ill-equipped to cope with unfamiliar diseases. But by interbreeding with the local hominins, it seems they picked up genes that protected them and helped them eventually spread across the planet.
The publication of the Neanderthal genome last year offered proof that Homo sapiens bred with Neanderthals after leaving Africa. There is also evidence that suggests they enjoyed intimate relations with other hominins including the Denisovans, a species identified last year from a Siberian fossil. But, whoops, are we now legally allowed to note that some people are part-Neanderthal, when they identify solely as Homo sapiens I've left the amazon bombing link out of that last line. I was also surprised to learn that scientists thought there had been interbreeding between humans and ug. But I hadn't counted on the bolt effect. Now it seems less likely - I should have known. I'm not saying it's deliberate, I just think he's unlucky.
|
|
|
2013
Jan 25, 2013 3:12:02 GMT 10
Post by angra on Jan 25, 2013 3:12:02 GMT 10
MoC - I note that he wants "one year free of legal worries". If so, he's not going about things in a particularly intelligent manner.
And of course (No comments).
|
|
|
2013
Jan 26, 2013 19:21:08 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 26, 2013 19:21:08 GMT 10
I've been watching bits of hillary's "benghazi" testimony today. Then I've been going to look at criticism of said testimony at such esteemed places that have blocked my IP addresses from posting, such as PJM.
They don't think she did very well. That she ducked and weaved.
I think hillary kicked some butt.
|
|
|
2013
Jan 26, 2013 19:21:33 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 26, 2013 19:21:33 GMT 10
rand paul made a right goose of himself.
|
|
|
2013
Jan 27, 2013 9:37:30 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 27, 2013 9:37:30 GMT 10
Bit of a wild storm here yesterday afternoon. Nothing compared with QLD, obviously, but a very definite squall cam through around 5PM.
I was safely inside - we watched it through the balcony doors - the road outside became a big puddle in about 10 minutes.
There were branches down all over the place. One of my fave possum-watching trees by my back fence in the park outside has lost a branch. That's a pity - my fence used to be a possum highway, but it's less accessible to critters these days after some trees were removed, and that was the last fence-access branch.
|
|
|
2013
Jan 27, 2013 13:20:14 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 27, 2013 13:20:14 GMT 10
Just listened to this, while doing the week's ironing: Anthropocene (BBC Frontiers)Humanity's impact on the Earth is so profound that we're creating a new geological time period. Geologists have named the age we're making the Anthropocene. The subject matter itself isn't at all doom and gloom, although the producers have chucked in a bit of phillip-glassy music in a minor key. Ignore that stuff. It's about the scale of the human chemical and physical impact on the earth. Little take-away tidbits abound, like - we now produce more nitrogen compounds than all of the bacteria on the earth and in the oceans (that sounds pretty significant, to me). Also - about 90% of all the mass of mammals currently living on the planet consist of us, or the animals we raise for food. Also, pointing out that any hypothetical alien that passed by the dark side of the planet on any given night would be left in no doubt that something big is living down here, just from our visible light emissions. They compare what we're doing now to previous epoch moments measured in the geological record. It's interesting. I wasn't actually podding in for anything miserable - it's just one of a couple of programmes I hadn't spotted before and I thought I'd have a listen to a couple of episodes. I honestly can't understand people who believe that humans are too puny to have a lasting impact on the planet. Sure, maybe not overnight, but over a period of hundreds of years, I don't think there's any doubt - we really can.
|
|
|
2013
Jan 28, 2013 8:30:19 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 28, 2013 8:30:19 GMT 10
What a horror: Brazil night club fire kills 232 in Santa MariaWow. That's terrible. Some might not think this the most appropriate response, but I'm short on time this morning: We should remember events like that the next time somebody complains about the nanny state, and overbearing regulations making life hard for business. The next time we hear about a dodgy dam collapsing in vietnam and wiping out a village, or a yet another bridge collapsing in china, or an overloaded bus going off the road in india. This is why we have mandated fire exits, and building codes, and engineers' reports, inspections, etc.
|
|
|
2013
Jan 28, 2013 19:26:31 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 28, 2013 19:26:31 GMT 10
If it's such a great organisation, cory, and if it's _really_ not a conflict of interest ... then why not tell parliament that you're a member? www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/bernardi-not-fit-to-monitor-interests-say-labor-greens-20130127-2df0u.html
Liberal senator Cory Bernardi faces calls to stand down as chairman of a committee that polices politicians' declarations, after failing to disclose his links to a right-wing, pro-tobacco group fighting gun controls. Here's a site that criticizes (at length) the organisation that they're talking about: www.alecexposed.org/It's a lobby group masquerading as a non-profit to avoid transparency requirements. It's apparently funded, almost entirely, by industry interests, and the goodies flow towards legislators who're encouraged to take on and pass "model laws" proposed by ALEC (which, apparently, they do). That alone (I think) represents a conflict of interest for a member of any legislature. The organisation's objective is to influence legislation, and our cory is, according to fairfax, a member. Just looking over their gun and crime/prison policy section ... these don't seem to be very nice people. Whatever their "small government" credentials, their attitude to law enforcement seems to be to privatise the prisons, then find ways to fill them, then build more, all on the public dime. I wonder if somebody should ask cory benardi what sort of australia he really wants to see. Let australians decided up-front if a fair-right, dog-eat-dog, monocultural dreamscape is what they really want.
|
|
|
2013
Jan 28, 2013 20:04:09 GMT 10
Post by angra on Jan 28, 2013 20:04:09 GMT 10
You realise that Cory Bernadi is an anagram for...
Deary Bi Corn
And Boy Crier
Take your pick (and forget the shovel. He has his own).
|
|
|
2013
Jan 28, 2013 20:15:09 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 28, 2013 20:15:09 GMT 10
I'm keen to see how bolter spins it.
I'm sure his recent post decrying the left's use of the expression "mcarthyism" won't hold him back.
|
|
|
2013
Jan 29, 2013 20:10:47 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 29, 2013 20:10:47 GMT 10
|
|
|
2013
Feb 1, 2013 16:06:48 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 1, 2013 16:06:48 GMT 10
Oh, god. In the "you gotta be kidding me" category, we have this: Cory Bernardi on why the left are winning the media warswww.blogotariat.com/node/842563 For too long conservatives have relied on the righteousness of our arguments, not being overly bothered by the misrepresentations of the left. Alas, that is why the left is winning the media war.
While we claim virtuousness as an asset, they use it as our greatest weakness, knowing that many of their misrepresentations will mostly go unchallenged.
And yet, despite the plethora of left-biased media, the Australian people seem to have it sussed. Many Australians don’t buy most of what is peddled through the leftist press. Instinctively, they knew the alarmist global-warming rhetoric to be a con. They know that redefining marriage is, at best, a fifth- rate issue and nothing like a priority, and they know that the growing challenges to our culture are grounds for concern.
Of course, little of this is reflected in much of the mainstream media and, regrettably, it is too rarely reflected by our political class. Too many are so captured by the desire for media approval that they neglect to actually engage in the battle of ideas. Instead, they prefer to reflect the prevailing orthodoxy in an attempt to gain some minuscule personal advantage.
It is a weakness that the leftist media repeatedly take advantage of. The mad ravings of the Greens are deemed sacraments of the new religion of political correctness whilst the common sense of the conservative is reported as controversial and outrageous.
One could excuse commercial media for pursuing such an agenda; after all, success will ultimately be defined by audience and profitability. However, when the greatest bias is so often demonstrated by the $1 billion-per-year taxpayer-funded ABC, we should be very concerned. … For conservatives, it can be frustrating and dispiriting to be faced with a seemingly endless barrage of hostility. It goes some way to explain why so few conservatives are prepared to stick their head above the parapet for fear of having it shot off. But it also illustrates why it is so important that we all support those who do.
Without the Andrew Bolts, the Piers Akermans, the Miranda Devines and the Gerard Hendersons, we would have very few advocates in the media.
Regrettably, in political life there are a limited number prepared to advocate what the media deem unfashionable. I can understand why; conservative advocacy comes without a personal cost. However, without the few that are prepared to stand for conservative principle and values in a hostile environment we would simply be abandoning the political field to the populist left.
I've seen cory's arguments, and I'm too often not convinced that they're even factual, let alone righteous. And I hate to imagine what sort of mind sees the majority of australian press as "leftist".
|
|
|
2013
Feb 1, 2013 19:33:28 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 1, 2013 19:33:28 GMT 10
Wow, way to be specific there, scott. Multiculturalism means 'join us', not 'change us'by Scott MorrisonHave a read. It's all pretty standard stuff, talking about how multiculturalism is good, acknowledging that it's a fluid concept, that we need to strive for inclusion over division etc ... And then, just in case you thought that the article could have been written by anyone, from either side of politics, completely out of the blue, with no leading justification or illustration of why ... It surely cannot be the purpose of multicultural policy that Australians elect to disengage from our society for religious, cultural or ethnic reasons.
This sounds a warning about the need to take a more bespoke approach to these issues and restore some balance by ensuring that we are more focused on promoting what we have in common rather than how different we all are.
We must also send a strong message that cultural tolerance is not a license for cultural practices that are offensive to the cultural values, and laws, of Australia and that our respect for diversity does not provide license for closed communities. Nowhere does he explain what he means by any of that. But it's there, alright. Of course, by not actually explaining exactly what he means, there's nothing to focus on by way of critique. It's the perfect "I'm just saying ..." I could write an article about how important conservative politics is as a balance against unbridled change, a bulwark against idle fashions of the day, the importance of paying our way, etc etc ... and then chuck in something like "but it's important that we not indulge in violence, or treat children in unconscionable ways". I mean, I'm not saying that's what conservatives do ... am I? I haven't really spelled out what I mean by that. I'm just saying ...
|
|
|
2013
Feb 3, 2013 11:33:49 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 3, 2013 11:33:49 GMT 10
Last week I posted a comment on the something wonky page about how we don't really know what happened in the "hello kitty bubble gun" story. And it seems that we never will. The 5 year old's media-savvy lawyer has enticed the school district into expunging the girl's suspension from her record, and has not seen fit to allow the school to tell its side of the story. So we're to believe that the kid was expelled for talking about a bubble gun ... which I'm not personally inclined to believe at all. I've had a look this morning at a few of the suddenly-popular "schools being silly about guns" stories. In all cases, the schools are legally constrained from saying anything at all about the cases, which means that we pretty much only hear the version that the parents want to tell to the media. But a few details still leak out anyway. This one first: Elementary School Girl Threatened With Arrest Over ‘Paper Gun’ "Hysteria in aftermath of Sandy Hook reaches new heights"This story wants us to believe that a child was berated, threatened with arrest, searched and patted-down for having a little bit of gun-shaped paper in her bag. That's the story that went national. Search a bit harder and you'll eventually find the school's version: According to Gallard, on Jan. 14 Melody told several students she had a handgun in her backpack, prompting a student to inform the substitute teacher. The two were taken to the dean's office, where she said she had a gun. Only later, Gallard said, did Melody indicate it was a piece of paper she had thrown away.
He said the dean and two school police officers came into her class the next day, conducted a presentation on false allegations, and warned students not to exaggerate. Then, Melody was taken into the hallway and police searched her backpack. He said she was not patted down by police.
"We're not going to make any excuses for taking the situation seriously," Gallard said. "The school did the right thing."
Administrators followed all the correct procedures for this type of incident, according to Gallard, one that he said the district is all too familiar with.
"We have had kids of that age unfortunately bring weapons to school, so it's not like this is something that has never happened before," he said. "We are taking these things about handguns and school shootings seriously. Thank goodness that this was just a hoax and there was no weapon." And another one: [url=http://www.infowars.com/six-year-old-girl-expelled-for-bringing-plastic-toy-gun-to-show-tell/ ] Six-Year-Old Girl Expelled For Bringing Plastic Toy Gun To Show & Tell[/url] The deadly rise of extremism in America continues as yet another child has been expelled from school for wielding a toy gun.
WLTX news reports that six-year-old Naomi McKinney brought a small transparent plastic toy gun to school for a show and tell, causing her teachers to freak out.
The kindergartner’s father told reporters that he was called to Alice Drive Elementary in Sumter, South Carolina, because his daughter “was fixing to be expelled.”
“I got in the car and rushed down there and when I got in there the principal told me that she had a gun at school and she pulls it out and it is a little clear plastic gun.” Hank McKinney said. Other versions claim it was a water pistol Actually, it was a plastic Airsoft BB gun, containing pellets. Now, I agree that expulsion would probably be an overreaction, but there's nothing funny about a BB gun. Plenty of people have lost their sight after being shot with BB guns, the school would be responsible for that, and it's a staggeringly inappropriate thing to take to school. They are regulated in some US cities, and there are places were they're illegal to use in urban areas. I wouldn't have dreamed of taking a thing like that to school as a kid - even somebody as thick as I was would realise that was a one-way trip to the headmaster's office. So maybe a bit harsh, but a reaction (maybe including a suspension) was appropriate, IMHO. One more. Prison planet declares "Earlier this month a 6-year-old boy was suspended from his elementary school in Maryland for making a gun gesture with his hand and saying “pow”.Actually, the kid was fairly obviously suspended for part of a day for being disruptive and not doing as he was told: Local student suspended for gun gesture In a letter to Lynch's parents, the vice principal of Roscoe R. Nix Elementary School said their son had been sent to the principal's office three times on Dec. 20 for pretending his fingers were scissors and then a gun. After the third incident, he was suspended, according to the letter, obtained by WJLA.
"Yet, after meeting with the counselor and assistant principal," the letter says, "Rodney chose to point his finger at a female classmate and say 'Pow.'" Incidentally, that kid's lawyer is one Robin Ficker - the same guy who defended the hello kitty "terrorist". He gets around, it seems. He got this kid's school record cleared as well.
|
|
|
2013
Feb 3, 2013 18:47:00 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 3, 2013 18:47:00 GMT 10
In the "you gotta be kidding me" category ... Jewish Labor MP questions PM's election dateIt's worth pointing out that not only a jewish ALP MPs has raised the issue - josh frydenberg has as well. Apart from the fact that every single election, like, for ever, has been on a saturday ... australia actually has mechanisms for people who CAN'T make it to the poll that day. It's not that hard. And hey - it's not like there's no time to make arrangements. Talk about trying to find a problem where there isn't one. Sheesh.
|
|