|
Post by angra on Jan 30, 2013 10:49:25 GMT 10
“As for the Republicans -- how can one regard seriously a frightened, greedy, nostalgic huddle of tradesmen and lucky idlers who shut their eyes to history and science, steel their emotions against decent human sympathy, cling to sordid and provincial ideals exalting sheer acquisitiveness and condoning artificial hardship for the non-materially-shrewd, dwell smugly and sentimentally in a distorted dream-cosmos of outmoded phrases and principles and attitudes based on the bygone agricultural-handicraft world, and revel in (consciously or unconsciously) mendacious assumptions (such as the notion that real liberty is synonymous with the single detail of unrestricted economic license or that a rational planning of resource-distribution would contravene some vague and mystical 'American heritage'...) utterly contrary to fact and without the slightest foundation in human experience? Intellectually, the Republican idea deserves the tolerance and respect one gives to the dead.”
Now who said that all of 80 years ago?
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 30, 2013 17:09:26 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by jack on Jan 30, 2013 21:48:23 GMT 10
That 'Smearing Bernardi' post is time-stamped today 6.50PM, but the first readers' comment was apparently posted at 6.31AM.
But that's just absurd!
Because if Andy posted it prior to 6.31 this morning, his entirely non-partisan and spontaneous defence of Cory would now be wrapping down the bottom of the blog's front page.
Puzzling.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 31, 2013 6:58:04 GMT 10
I deleted that post about bernardi this morning when I woke up. I'd written it when I was in a bad mood, after a (very) frustrating day. I decided to just junk it, think about it during the day and maybe rewrite it tonight. I don't think it crossed any lines - I still think the other members of the senate are right, and that that bernardi's association with ALEC (which is basically a lobbying organisation that seeks to write and pass legislation) seems like the sort of thing that probably ought to be made known to voters - whatever cory's own politics, or fundraising abilities, south australians actually aren't all that right-wing. And I also think that heartland's response yesterday basically missed the point (and heartland is obviously pro-tobacco, or at least pro-the-interests-of-tobacco-sellers). So I did that from my ipad after waking up. Then I moseyed downstairs, did some things around the kitchen, hugged the cats and logged in to see this: UPDATE
Bernardi writes:
FYI - the article by Ms.Wright is now the subject of defamation action by me. It contains many inaccuracies which the SMH should have been aware of. Additionally, the line ‘my spokesman refused to comment’ was actually a phone call to my office on a public holiday where she left a message on an answering machine that said the office was closed. At no time did she call me or my media assistant. Well well well. Maybe it's best if I don't rewrite that post.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 31, 2013 7:01:11 GMT 10
"That 'Smearing Bernardi' post is time-stamped today 6.50PM, but the first readers' comment was apparently posted at 6.31AM"
From memory, the datestamp on a post gets updated if he makes an edit.
Something that used to frustrate us dedicated bolt-watchers (less dedicated these days) - he doesn't date-stamp updates, so we can't tell when he learned something, added something, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jack on Jan 31, 2013 9:01:05 GMT 10
"From memory, the datestamp on a post gets updated if he makes an edit."
Well yeah, but my understanding of the concept of a blog (i.e., a web log) is that posts are date-stamped so that readers can see when it was originally posted.
The blogger may then add an 'update' to note any further developments, afterthoughts, etc., on the topic of the original post.
I recall seeing bloggers taken to task by other bloggers for changing the time-stamp of a post. Reason being, the issue of who said what/when can sometimes be of critical importance.
But okay, I suppose I must be the only one for whom this is an issue. It wouldn't irritate so much if there was some indication somewhere of the original time of posting. I loathe dealing with anything where the temporal context is indeterminate.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 31, 2013 17:40:51 GMT 10
Most remarkable events today.
The accused is doing a very good impression of a man who believes he's innocent. One presumes that the police wouldn't be taking the action that they are without just cause. But if he IS found innocent ... wow, won't that make for some interesting viewing?
|
|
|
Post by jack on Jan 31, 2013 17:56:00 GMT 10
" But if he IS found innocent ..." I'd find that somewhat entertaining, but then I'm probably a barbarian. Couldn't have been more impeccably timed, right in the middle of Tonez's Q/A at the NPC... twitpic.com/bzooks
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 31, 2013 18:17:02 GMT 10
"I'd find that somewhat entertaining, but then I'm probably a barbarian"
You post here, so you're probably a barbarian, and almost certainly part of some sort of underclass.
"Couldn't have been more impeccably timed, right in the middle of Tonez's Q/A at the NPC..."
Or the day after the PM called an election.
My thinking is this:
(a) perhaps everyone's been right all along, and this guy really is as filthy and corrupt as the narrative has been making out.
(b) but if he ISN'T, then that's a HECK of a lot of people whose behaviour and testimony deserves to come under a microscope ... potentially including vicpol. I actually don't hope that's true, because the implications could be awesome - it would suggest (potentially) massive political interference and misuse of police powers. But on the other hand ... we've had a whole string of these "slam dunk" cases that were ultimately found to be baseless.
So I really don't know. I wouldn't even bet 10$ on the outcome of this one.
|
|
|
Post by jack on Jan 31, 2013 19:32:19 GMT 10
"Or the day after the PM called an election."
Oh yeah, that!
Oh, I’m going to be a boring hold-out for the presumption of innocence. If only as a quixotic counter-balance to the “he’s guilty” throng. Part of me would be happy enough to let it all go off the radar while the cogs of the justice process grind slowly on, except...
"it would suggest (potentially) massive political interference and misuse of police powers."
Oh yeah, that! So perhaps the process requires some reasonable critical scrutiny after all, whatever the truth of the matter.
Also interesting was how the Thomson developments seemed to take the wind out of the odd question from journo(s) regarding the Ashby/Brough Gate thingy. (I didn’t see the whole thing, but I caught one pitched by Lenore Taylor, if memory serves.)
A pity, because that’s by far the bigger story, in so far as it relates allegedly to an attempt to gain political advantage by engineering the actual numbers in the House.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Feb 1, 2013 23:59:30 GMT 10
There's so much Boltist nonsense today I don't know where to begin. "Roxon's back down not good enough - does she hate me so much?" What an egocentric self-centered maniac. So it's all about Andrew is it? He shows he can't read graphs or understand basic science yet again, and gets stuck into to Dr Karl. A bit like kicking Santa Claus. Andrew - try actually reading something other than your usual denialists. Here's one to start with... www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/jan/09/global-warming-met-office-pausedAnd Obama can't do anything right, even to his choice for defence secretary (a Republican btw). And he roots for the Pellists "The Gillard Government’s royal commission into child sexual abuse in institutions seems too focused on rehashing abuses committed decades ago, often by men now dead or jailed, and seems set to ignore the worst abuse of children right now" and compounds this by giving ample coverage to the hateful views of Rabbi Manis Friedman with a link to his Youtude video in which he likens the impact of child molestation to the “embarrassment” of diarrhoea and insists victims are “not that damaged”. He says the Rabbi has a kernel of sense in what he says which he quotes at length. Right. So what are you REALLY saying about child abuse, Andrew? It's a minor thing if committed by Catholics or Jews, but is a major scandal if committed by black people? Imagine his outrage if an Islamic cleric had said such things as Freidman.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 2, 2013 8:11:41 GMT 10
"There's so much Boltist nonsense today I don't know where to begin"Yet, sadly, we feel compelled anyway ... "Roxon's back down not good enough - does she hate me so much?" What an egocentric self-centered maniac. So it's all about Andrew is it?What a load of crap. The ALP proposed a draft bill, there was a debate and criticism, and so they changed it. For all we know, that was the plan all along. Welcome to democracy. Totalitarians don't float ideas for discussion - they just go ahead and shove critics in the slammer. You know, like putin does. As for the temperature thing, time will tell. That whole line of argument collapses the moment we get another big el nino. I see what you mean about not reading a graph. His UPDATE about the Professor Ole Humlum graph is a nice try - that graph does not (from what I can see) support the assertion of "more than a decade of no warming". I also have to chuckle that he had to correct for referring to a graph that showed ... slight warming! "And Obama can't do anything right, even to his choice for defence secretary (a Republican btw)" A republican who was john mccain's campaign manager in the 2000 election, and whom john mccain once declared would make a good defence secretary. The vitriol between some reps and hagel is (apparently) over the iraq war. Hagel criticised bush, criticised the surge and had a falling out with mccain over it - hagel didn't endorse mccain for the 2008 election. Hagel was right about iraq - and some reps can't ever forgive him for that. McCain seems to have a particular bee in his bonnet, but the two of them used to be (I understand) quite good friends. And of course there's the usual purity-testing about israel. Anyone who dares to suggest that israel might ever engage in the slightest provocation or self-interested behavior at the long-term expense of palestinians, or acts even slightly disingenuously in its dealings with a country that underwrites its security with money, arms and an open-ended iron-clad guarantee of military and diplomatic support ... is "anti-israel". And "legitimate" has a peculiar meaning in the context of international affairs. If the rest of the world recognises it, if it is recognised by (and joins) international bodies, if it signs binding treaties and exerts internal and external sovereignty then it is, by definition, legitimate. That's not a controversial statement. That doesn't mean we have to LIKE them, though. Hagel will be confirmed. That's all that ultimately matters. And I don't know how bolta justifies his claim that susan rice was obama's "first pick". She wasn't nominated, obama never discussed her nomination, her name didn't appear on any lists - at least not made public. What actually happened was public speculation and rumor. Rice formally asked to not be considered in order to end that speculation ... but that doesn't mean she would have been nominated.
|
|
|
Post by jack on Feb 2, 2013 9:49:56 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by angra on Feb 2, 2013 10:08:15 GMT 10
Thanks for that link Jack. I especially liked the comment about Bolt suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect "a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes."
That about sums it up for Bolt and statistics (or just about anything).
|
|
|
Post by angra on Feb 2, 2013 14:18:03 GMT 10
Well why your at it why not go the whole hog - "An increase in the frequency of high temperature days in the relatively short Australian records is not evidence of world-wide (and man-made warming). In fact, there has been no statistically significant global warming for 16 years...there is no evidence of an increase in natural hazard events in Australia. " See how tricky and misleading this answer is.
|
|