|
Cory
Feb 1, 2013 20:26:11 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 1, 2013 20:26:11 GMT 10
I'm going to try to slowly work my way through the claims made in this: The media's endless open season on conservativesIt's by cory. So there's a lot of it. I've only got so much energy, so this is going to be piecemeal. First snippet: My meeting with Dutch politician Geert Wilders was supposedly grounds for my sacking, but the embrace of Hugo Chavez by Labor and Greens politicians received little criticism from the media.The "embrace" that I think he's talking about is a letter that was posted online in 2007, signed by a bunch of people on the left of australian politics. It was a call for chavez to visit australia and share his wisdom (declaration: I'm no a chavez fan, so insert as much implied derision as you like). That was, what, nearly over 6 years ago. And chavez never showed up. So there's not a lot of media attention now, that's true. But at the time? Fawning invitation for troubleLeft's new saint no angelDictator in waiting, beloved of the LeftALP president behind Chavez visitThat's four examples, from across the media spectrum. Two of those articles are snapshotted by other sites - the original articles being long gone. I'll wager that there were others. One of the articles even refers to a (disparaging) comment peter costello made in parliament about the invitation and its signatories, which was broadcast on ABC news radio and reported by ABC online: Costello attacks Rudd over economic policy Heck - I even remember the story happening, and that's saying something. So no, I don't think we can say there was "little criticism". There was quite a bit of criticism. Andrew bolt's been banging on about it ever since, though. Maybe cory's a fan and he thinks that's all there is? So ... that's a response to 2 lines. This is going to take a few posts, I think. I think the senator has given me plenty to work with. It's tempting to just declare the quadrant article to be a load of rubbish - but I think it's worth putting in some time to explain why.
|
|
|
Cory
Feb 1, 2013 21:17:23 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 1, 2013 21:17:23 GMT 10
The Prime Minister’s Cabinet Secretary, Mark Dreyfus MP, writes an article that compares Tony Abbott to Nazi war criminal Joseph Goebbels and it is printed without criticism. What outcry would have occurred if a conservative politician had written something similar?What outcry INDEED? Not much, I suggest: Whether she likes it or nyet, Lee Rhiannon was a StalinistMichael DanbyNot conservative enough? Ok: One wing of the Greens are like water melons, green outside and red inside. A number were Stalinists, supporting Soviet oppression. George PellNot enough of a politician? Ok. The commonalities, the commonalities between contemporary Green politics and old-fashioned fascism and Nazism are chilling.George BrandisThis idea that they are some warm, nice midway house between the coalition and the Labor Party overlooks the fact that actually they are a home for people who in the 1950s would have joined the Communist Party ... They are watermelons. many of them - green on the outside and very, very, very red on the inside.John AndersonSecond, the Greens are Marxist in their philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous forms of Marxism as a political movement. By totalitarian, I mean the subordination of the individual in the impulse to rid society of all elements that, in the eyes of the adherent, mar its perfection.Kevin Andrews
|
|
|
Cory
Feb 1, 2013 21:36:35 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 1, 2013 21:36:35 GMT 10
My condemnation of Peter Singer’s abhorrent views becomes international news, but Singer receives a Companion Order of Australia and is repeatedly given a friendly platform by our national broadcaster.
You have condemned peter singer, but that's not what make international news. What made international news was your suggestion that marriage of people and animals was a hypothetical arbitrary future step if we "redefine marriage" now. You drew a line from marriage to bestiality, in other words.
The slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage is bogus, as has been explained many times here and on pure poison.
|
|
|
Cory
Feb 1, 2013 21:46:11 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 1, 2013 21:46:11 GMT 10
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.
Oh, please. If you provided some examples we could at least pull them apart, but generally speaking I think that most intelligent people can tell the difference between mad ravings and common sense. If something from the liberals is being reported as controversial or outrageous, that's probably because it doesn't stack up, or it's politically opportunistic, or because it's a transparent plea to the public's worst instincts.
I would be more than happy to see the liberal party actually engage in this "battle of ideas". The problem I see is that they too often haven't really thought through what they're proposing, and they have nowhere to run to when they meet disagreement. Maybe if there were some more real, genuine argument, we might see more robust proposals from the conservative side of politics, rather than just argument by repetition and/or shouting, followed by complaints about unfair coverage and a quiet resolution to just do it anyway when they next win government.
The other problem is that so much argument for the conservative cause is being run out of the murdoch press. The liberal party doesn't really do much of its own arguing these days.
Kudos for sticking your neck out and actually writing an opinion piece, though - more in your party should do the same. But I'm still going to point out what's wrong with it and why I think it's unfounded. Bit by bit.
|
|
|
Cory
Feb 1, 2013 21:50:30 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 1, 2013 21:50:30 GMT 10
Flagship programs like Q&A have a left-wing host and, typically, a preponderance of left-wing guests flanking the solitary sacrificial conservative, whose blood is lusted after by both host and audience.
I don't watch QandA all that much - it bores me. But the episodes I have seen do seem to shake the audience up pretty well. I've seen some episodes where the audience seemed to be stacked to the rafters with young liberals (or christian apologists, in the case of the last dawkins episode).
QandA is a live show. It's not edited. It's generally pretty civilised, and tony jones can be pushed around. Compared with question time, it's a walk in the park. If an advocate can't make their case on that format, regardless of the other guests, then maybe they should be in a different line of work.
|
|
|
Cory
Feb 2, 2013 8:31:52 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 2, 2013 8:31:52 GMT 10
|
|
|
Cory
Feb 2, 2013 8:32:51 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 2, 2013 8:32:51 GMT 10
I could go on...and on...and on. Whether it be about climate change, illegal boats, the right to life or Islamic extremism, the media love to expose conservatives to derision and ridicule.
What happens is that some of those in the media simply disagree with your positions on those issues.
|
|
|
Cory
Feb 2, 2013 8:36:57 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 2, 2013 8:36:57 GMT 10
Without the Andrew Bolts, the Piers Akermans, the Miranda Devines and the Gerard Hendersons, we would have very few advocates in the media.
Other than the entirety of the murdoch press, a few people at fairfax and most of talk radio ...
|
|
|
Cory
Feb 2, 2013 8:49:34 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 2, 2013 8:49:34 GMT 10
Sunday morning’s Insiders features more groupthink with an occasional conservative tosed into the mix as the subject of a three-on-one battle.
When pressed about this clear bias in Senate Estimates, ABC boss Mark Scott said it was difficult to identify who was left and who was right. Difficult for him maybe, but not so tough for the rest of the country.What Mark Scott said: Senate Estimates, May 23 2012Senator BIRMINGHAM: There was a question on notice in respect to Insiders panellists.
Mr Scott : Which question was that?
Senator BIRMINGHAM: No. 68. There were 25 people listed who have appeared on Insiders since 2010.
Mr Scott : Yes, we have that.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: By my reckoning and that of a few others there is maybe a handful, or maybe one more than a handful, of what would be deemed conservative commentators.
Senator Conroy: Good grief, you have to get out more!
Mr Scott : This comes up from time to time and I am glad to engage on it.
Senator Conroy: You have to get off your own blog and get out there and meet people.
Mr Scott : It all depends on who is doing the counting, in my view.
CHAIR: Me, I think they are all conservative.
Mr Scott : Senator Cameron believes they are all conservative. I think there are some—we can talk about Andrew Bolt because he no longer appears. He was lured away by commercial dollars I suspect. Andrew Bolt clearly would have identified himself as a conservative commentator and I do not think there would be a whole lot of dispute around that. And I suppose there are one or two who are clearly of the left. But there are a whole lot of names here: Misha Schubert, Annabel Crabb, Phil Coorey, Karen Middleton, Kerrie Anne Walsh, Niki Savva, Marc Kenny, Chris Uhlmann—we could debate all day about where you are going to put them on the spectrum. So the suggestion—and it is not you but other commentators have said it—that unless you are a strongly branded, heavily identified member of the commentariat of the right you are automatically one of the left. I just do not think that is how the show works.
Senator BERNARDI: But some of the names you have mentioned do have a political leaning. There can be no doubt about that.
Mr Scott : You can say that, Senator, but we could run down the clock debating it. It is very interesting. Can I give you another example? I do often think some of these things are in the eye of the beholder. I remember when Kerry O'Brien would do interviews—a contentious interview with the Prime Minister of the day—at times we would have 100 phone calls, 50 per cent of people saying 'How dare he viciously attack the Prime Minister?' and the other half saying 'Why did he go so soft on the Prime Minister?'
Senator Conroy: It is hard. When you let Piers Akerman off, everyone else does look left wing.
Mr Scott : So some of this is in the eye of the beholder. But I must say I have never really ascribed to the view that all of these people carry labels. I think a lot of the gallery journalists who come are just commentating on the events of the day as they see them. Every now and then you will have a Piers Akerman on or you will have someone who is strongly—
Senator BERNARDI: Every now and again—I am delighted that they get on every now and again.
Mr Scott : But I am saying that a lot of the time if you look at that panel I do not think there is this kind of branding going on that you talk about. I just think there are three journalists who are putting a perspective on the program. Every now and then you will have a strongly identifiable left-winger or a strongly identifiable right-winger but a lot of the time there is none.
CHAIR: Thanks, Mr Scott. I think you have made your point. I am waiting for the first left-winger.
|
|
|
Cory
Feb 2, 2013 19:17:34 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 2, 2013 19:17:34 GMT 10
“Do you love yourself?” This was the first question I was asked in an interview by lefty journalist Sally Neighbour.
I knew then that the end result wasn't going to be pretty. What prompted the question was a quip from my wife that “the success of our marriage is that we are both in love with the same man.” It was a line I have used on many occasions and has always brought a laugh. After all, we need to be able to laugh at ourselves.So, it's a joke, and it's important to be able to laugh at yourself. But when somebody asks you about it, that's a portent of doom? In the case of Ms Neighbour, her poisonous profile of me for The Monthly magazine translated my reading of fiction novels for entertainment as being “shallow”.I've just re-read sally neighbour's piece. I don't think it's poisonous. Not if it's accurate, anyway. It's a very mixed selection, and does seem to be trying quite hard to present both sides of each question. I'm sure that if sally neighbour just removed all the stuff that seemed critical, cory would think it was a most balanced and excellent description. But then it would probably be incomplete, right? What neighbour actually wrote (in relation to the "shallow") was: While he seems to be sincere in his convictions, the foundations of Bernardi’s ‘philosophy’ appear shallow. He claims to be widely read but admits his favourite fare is airport novels, especially the late Dick Francis’ formulaic thrillers. His recommended reading list includes a book called Confrontational Politics by a retired US senator, HL Richardson, published by the Gun Owners Foundation. The author’s credo is “pro-life, pro-gun, pro-God” and he was once voted ‘Chauvinist of the Year’ by the National Organization for Women. His book is a crude polemic that rails against homosexuals, tree-huggers, humanists, pagans and abortionists, whom he likens to Hitler. It calls evolution a “scientific justification” for rejecting God, and argues for “the necessity to limit the power of man and government” as the Holy Bible should be the basis for human law (a proposition starkly similar to that advanced by the Islamists Bernardi condemns). Bernardi liked the book so much he bought 100 copies to hand out. She's not just referring to the reading of fiction. She's also referring to the other stuff. At least, that's how it seems to me. She also notes a few other things to support that thesis: Many of his ideas are borrowed from others ... (many illustrations supplied) and A frequent commentator on the ‘dangers’ of Islam, Bernardi has the Koran on his iPad but acknowledges he hasn’t read it, except for the passages he quotes to advance his arguments. He doesn’t know the ‘five pillars’, or basic tenets, of the Islamic faith. And that's not a problem? (incidentally, honestly without looking anything up, I'm guessing they're prayer, fasting in ramadan, the hajj, charity and ... hmm ... I think the last one _might_ be believing the saying about there is no god but god etc - I'll go check after posting this) And, of course, Ms Neighbour was aided and abetted in her caustic assessment by more than one anonymous ‘senior Liberal’ providing the quotes that legitimise the agenda of the journalist.Does cory suggest that the author made those up? Or are we to believe that a party that stabbed its leader in the back over a single issue is all sweetness and light, and singing entirely from one hymn sheet? Please. Take it up with your colleagues. In the words once quoted by Niki Savva, ‘in this town you’re either a source – or a target’.Apparently, cory does not like being a target. So ... ?
|
|
|
Cory
Feb 2, 2013 19:18:00 GMT 10
Post by jack on Feb 2, 2013 19:18:00 GMT 10
Oh, this is interesting... The Voters Legislative Transparency Project, Inc. announced this week they had uncovered documents demonstrating that 17 representatives of seven foreign nations have been secretly involved in creating legislative bills and policies meant to become laws of policy in the U.S.
This includes the writing of proposed “model bills,” resolutions sent to Congress and the President in support of key policies they wish the U.S. to adopt. All of this is allegedly being done outside the protocols and provision of the U.S. State Department – and possibly without that Department’s knowledge or approval.
Sixteen of these officials are Members of the European Parliament or foreign governments including: the United Kingdom, Poland, Australia, Belgium, Brussels, Punjab, and the Czech Republic. The 17th is the former U.K. Minister of Defense, Liam Fox, who resigned earlier this year following a scandal involving the Atlantic Bridge Charity and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
Journalists did not discover this US/UK scandal involved foreign officials holding full membership in ALEC – and helping craft and develop laws for our states and policies at the federal level. These foreign officials all hold seats upon ALEC’s International Relations Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF has been responsible for creating model legislation that has become law in Utah, South Carolina (as reported in August 2012) including the Sound Money Act recently passed in those states.
As full members, the foreign representatives have full rights of voting and discussion on ALEC’s proposed legislative bills and resolutions.
Member Ayesha Javed, Punjab Provincial Assembly, Pakistan, sponsored a resolution calling for a reduction in the tariff rate for textiles exported to the U.S.. The bill, called “Resolution Calling for the Establishment of Reconstruction Opportunity Zones in Pakistan and the Elimination of US Tariffs on Pakistani Textiles,” was adopted by ALEC’s full membership in August 2010 along with several other important model bills.
Besides Former UK Minister Fox and Ayesha Javed, other foreign ALEC members include, MEP Richard Ashworth (UK), MEP Ivo Strejcek (Czech Republic), Senator Cory Bernardi (Australia), MEP Adam Bielan (Poland), MEP Syed Kamall (UK), MEP Chris Heaton-Harris (UK), MEP Roger Helmer, and MEP Richard Ashworth (UK).
A VLTP director stated, “Obviously, interference with our legislative processes from foreign government officials is far beyond troubling. The fact that it involves ALEC was not surprising, given their continued involvement in corrupting our laws and lawmakers."
“We are awaiting responses from the UK, European Union and the US State Department about activities involving foreign official’s hidden participation in influencing US laws and policies. As soon as those agencies respond, we will update readers on official government responses and positions.”
Last month, VLTP filed a formal Whistleblower complaint/claim with the Internal Revenue Service against ALEC, claiming the organization has been secretly funding the travel, lodging and expenses of public officials (including the international members) related to ALEC events without reporting those expenditures as required.
[my emph]
www.policymic.com/articles/14783/alec-is-secretly-collaborating-with-foreign-countries-to-promote-bills-in-congress Oops! Not quite sure what to make of this. Anyone? Note the above is from September last year.
|
|
|
Cory
Feb 2, 2013 19:26:19 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 2, 2013 19:26:19 GMT 10
Yep. Got 'em. According to wiki: - the shahada (Islamic creed)
- daily prayers (salah)
- almsgiving (zakāt)
- fasting during the month of Ramadan (sawm)
- the pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj) at least once in a lifetime.
I'm quite chuffed. There was a survey done a couple of years back, about bible literacy in the US. The results were astonishing. Atheists actually outscored all categories of traditional christians (overall - jews and mormons were close behind the atheists). Here it is ... www.pewforum.org/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey-who-knows-what-about-religion.aspx
|
|
|
Cory
Feb 2, 2013 19:39:04 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 2, 2013 19:39:04 GMT 10
jack - from what I've read, he's been a member since 2009. He's listed on the wiki page and on the ALEC page. I don't think it's a secret. I've even got a video of him doing a presentation at a heartland do in 2010 (according to the web page).
I suggest caution - I don't know (and can't quite figure out) what it is about the SMH's article that has left them exposed to a defamation suit. They haven't come out swinging, so I'm inclined to think that they think there's something in it. I'm therefore carefully avoiding making or quoting anything that resembles an allegation, particularly of wrongdoing, and I suggest that others follow the same approach. If you think it might provoke a nasty response, don't even quote it.
I hope that it turns out in the SMH's favor, naturally. I do think that this IS the sort of thing that voters should be told about. But I'm very curious to know what the specific claims are - I think I'd find that educational.
|
|
|
Cory
Feb 2, 2013 19:41:37 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 2, 2013 19:41:37 GMT 10
I think there are three parliamentary sitting days next week - senate and house. Let's hope that this gets discussed.
|
|
|
Cory
Feb 2, 2013 20:17:21 GMT 10
Post by jack on Feb 2, 2013 20:17:21 GMT 10
"he's been a member since 2009. He's listed on the wiki page and on the ALEC page. I don't think it's a secret."
Oh sure. Whatever Cory's activities or non-activities as the case may be are just a side issue with regard to the material I posted.
I'm just wondering what the ramifications may be of "foreign officials" being "secretly involved in creating legislative bills and policies meant to become laws in the U.S."
Does that put certain US legislation in some constitutional grey area?
Are any kind of legal sanctions possible against ALEC for facilitating "foreign official’s hidden participation in influencing US laws and policies"?
Interesting, but I don't know enough about the US system. I'll report back if I can ferret anything out.
As for the supposed case against the SMH, I have some thoughts that are probably best kept to myself at this time. But yeah, certainly Cory's activities or non-activities as the case may be ought to be of eminent public interest.
|
|