Archive for the ‘put downs/rants’ Category
I am now very wary of lobby-groups and political parties etc which put “Family” in their name. Because it is usually code for “Tory Bible-Bashing Wanker”.
When I saw that an op-ed proclaiming the net filter as “a great tool to help parents in their difficult vigil” against the Mean Nasty Ninternet was written by a researcher with the Australian Family Association, I snapped over to Google quick-smart.
Their Wikipedia entry probably requires a “neutrality warning” or whatnot, but it totes justified my prejudgment (and I also felt comforted knowing that the AFA probably hearts prejudgment, too!):
According to its stated objectives, the AFA aims “to cultivate within society an appreciation that the integrity and wellbeing of the family is essential to the stability, morale, security and prosperity of the Australian nation”.
In other words, the AFA comprises a bunch of ignorant wowsers, killjoys, and prurient perverts who really ought to keep their pathetic narrow-mindedness to themselves. The cloak of respectability called “family values” is made of transparent fabric, and barely conceals the stench of hypocrisy. (emphasis added)
But, aside from that amusing description, an old news story in the Google results drew my eye, too.
Apparently, Teh AFA once thought that “a ban on smacking children is going too far” and believed:
… to introduce laws which mean the Government has a role to play in deciding who and who isn’t a good parent, we think that’s going too far.
Um. I’m sorry. WHAT?!
So…………… firstly: those laws about, like, taking kids away from abusive parents and stuff goes “too far”? Because isn’t it the whole point of those that the government goes, “dude, you are a horrible, bogan parent — Step. Away. From the bebbeh”?
Welp. Might as well give them back their crack-pipes with their kiddies, no? Good idea, team. That’s a GREAT way to ensure the “stability, morale, security and prosperity of the Australian nation”.
And, secondly: but NOW they think the government should totally step in and decide that all parents (and, oh yeah, everyone else in the fricking country) totes have to have a filter even if they might prefer another method for educating their kids, like, you know, talking to them and stuff?
Urgh. How do morons manage to gather themselves into “Associations”? We seriously need a vetting agency to stop Idiot Collectives putting out media releases.
The pro-filter article, on how “claims of mandatory ‘censorship’ have been unfair and misleading”, totally misses the point of logic in several ways, and this is my fave:
Should we dismiss the effectiveness of the filters due to the fact that they are not perfect? Most would realise that an automated filtering system will never be 100 per cent accurate. However, having almost 90 per cent of unwanted material blocked is certainly a lot better than none.
Uhhh. Don’t be fooled by the apparently reasonable point. Read between the patronising bullshit and look at what they’re saying.
I don’t think we’re complaining about the 10% of nudie pics that are going to get through, love. We’re complaining about the ridiculous and preposterous proposition about this being an “attempt at making the internet safer for Australians”.
For God’s sake (you “Family” peeps usually like God, don’t you? Cool, so you won’t mind me appealing to his Infinite Reason and Wisdom, right? Awesome), get out of our wombs, our bedrooms and our effing computers.
For more deets on the technical issues with the author’s arguments, see the comments, and for more on the net filter proposal itself, see: http://www.nocleanfeed.com/learn.html (which actually includes like, facts and sources and stuff. Gasp).
Ok super quick rant but this just cannot go without mention.
We all know Teh West is the torchbearer for shit, sensationalist journalism, but TWAT “Chief Of Staff” Liam Phillips seems to have decided to step up to make a challenge to that title. Maybe it’s all the post-Tour de France, pre-Olympic competitive spirit coming out.
Young Phillips has posted a gem of a “opinion” piece highlighting the ignorance and just unbelievabe stupidness that makes this charming state well-known for being red-neck hicks who just love spouting their visceral knee-jerk affrontedness at the drop of a hat. (Lots of adjectives = Sunili is pissed off.)
On the coronial inquest into the suicide of Simon Rochford, the prisoner who topped himself after it was revealed he was the suspect in a 1994 murder (for which Andrew Mallard was wrongfully convicted and jailed), Phillips essentially wonders why we should cry for Rochford, when, frankly, he was just a roach:
… the most surprising aspect of the inquest’s coverage is the victimised way in which Rochford has often been presented.
Sure he committed suicide – a sad act. But let’s not forget, this man was no altar boy. He was a convicted killer serving a life jail term for the brutal murder of his girlfriend Brigitta Dickens in July 1994.
He became involved in the Pamela Lawrence case because he was suspected of bludgeoning her to death – a reasonable assumption, you would think, given his track record.
Uuuuuhhhh. Gee, well, um, I only did a law degree and now work at the Court and stuff, but I have a strange feeling that you’re not really supposed to make “reasonable assumptions” based on prior convictions, unless it’s in a very narrow set of circumstances. Or something. Heck, correct me if I’m wrong, eh?
For me, it’s all a bit of a moot point anyway. The ultimate aim of this exercise is to establish who killed Pamela Lawrence.
And committing suicide the day you have been named as a suspect is not the typical action of an innocent man.
Not only is that just totally effing offensive to anyone who knows the slightest thing about the principles of criminal justice (establishing who killed her kinda needs a trial and stuff, which we can’t have since the guy’s dead, but hey, I could be wrong again) … I have a feeling it takes the vitriole of “law and order” ranting in this state down to new lows.
Or maybe I’m just lucky to not have read anything worse in recent memory.
But what’s worse besides, that’s just the kinda moron attitude that gets the wrong person locked up for 12 years, isn’t it?
I bloody hope my idol Patti Chong has a go at this knob on Thursday.
PS: Today’s iGoogle quote of the day is amusingly appropriate:
People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news.
– AJ Liebling
I cannot believe these douchebags get away with publishing and justifying it as “opinion”. How the hell do people get these gigs? Why are they not made to write “I will not tell lies” on the back of their hands with magical mean-quills? Fucktards. Sorry. This really irks me.
I wonder if the title will increase my hit count at all?
For those fair readers who don’t have time to read all the comments there, it is with pleasure that I summarize the story thus far…
Yesterday Howard Sattler posted yet another outdated diatribe, this time bemoaning the fact the Government are holding police and nurses at ransom over pay because Carps et al know they won’t strike:
Were they to do the unthinkable, society as we know it would collapse.
Crime would proliferate and hospital patients would die in their thousands.
Leaving aside those amazingly statistically-accurate predictions for now, it was essentially laughable that the post was entitled “Government takes advantage of honest coppers“. (No, I won’t link to it, you poor readers suffer enough reading this blog, I do not wish any further harm upon your intellect.)
A TWOP regular, Sir Skink, as I now like to call him, posted a comment asking Mr Sattler why he only referred to the “honest” boys in blue and failed to mention the ratty ones who stuffed up the Mallard, Mickelburg and such cases and are stuffing up the Rayney investigation (as previously noted on this blog).
Surprisingly, Howard responded:
or should I call you skank?
Oh, ouch, what a clever witty comeback. This guy is not to messed with, children. Also, don’t be mean to him on the “honest copper” comment. Because it was all the sub-editor’s fault — Howard Sattler would never have deigned to draft his own title, unlike the rest of us plebs.
The above quote has been taken from memory — specifically, my memory — and it may not be completely accurate, because Skink’s comment and Howard’s response have since been deleted by Roy Fleming, the Managing Editor of WAToday. Skink reproduces correspondence with Mr Fleming in a comment on TWOP.
I too have had corresponded with Mr Fleming in previous weeks (I wanted to know if they happened to have plans for their site to actually be any good), but sadly, all he did was invite me out to coffee. I wish I was important enough to be banned.
Apparently Sir Skink only ever intends to be “malicious in tone and content”, unlike Howard Sattler, a prominent and respected citizen of this bright State who has never racially vilified indigenous people and breached the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) or anything. Not.
So until he’s sacked, I am just going to keep an eye on the happenings at http://howardsattlerisanidiot.wordpress.com/
Note: Sorry I’ve been out of the blogging loop for a while, it was due to the post-exam blob-out and being too busy in the real-world and then writing about slightly more interesting things elsewhere–I have even avoided looking the news up online–and please forgive that this response to my second favourite Tory Lady Janet Albrechtsen is a little tardy and may have been covered elsewhere. I promise I’ll be getting back into the swing of things again shortly. Oh, and yeah, I get really ticked off here, so you have hereby been given a
Anti-feminist women perplex me. Conservative anti-feminist women (though I’m hard pressed to name any progressive anti-feminist women) more so. Let’s face it, if a woman it so brainwashed by her context to think her place is in the home and she should never be able to achieve or do anything because she wants to, then I can’t blame her. Heck, if a woman sits down and has a good think about all the issues and decides, for. her. self, that’s what she wants to do, then kudos to her. But how can an educated, apparently intelligent woman of the world think so? I suppose “an intelligent Conservative” is an oxymoron. But, in my humble opinion, so is Tory Anti-Feminism.
And rightly so, because Tories like the Luddite “picket-fence, mother-at-home model” of women’s policy in preference to the “oh, shit; quick, put a woman on the High Court even if it’s solely to save us from international humiliation (even though we probably can’t be more humiliated and looked down upon…)” model.
But, surely, if a Conservative woman was all gung-ho for that personal-best-self-interest realist crap, she would be promoting the need to support women though affirmative action mechanisms because it’d be the best way for her to win?
Which I SO do not get. Doesn’t Jan realise that maybe one day she could be swinging her sensible shoes off the edge of highest park-bench in the country if only she supported giving women a so-called ‘free ride’?
No, she’s too busy pointing out that 30% is a victory.
According to Jan, ‘real women’ (of which I am apparently not one) should be celebrating (and that does not just mean being pleased with the current progress, but actually congratulating ourselves on this is be-all and end-all achievement) the following:
Women hold 33 per cent of Australian government board spots, well beyond the 8.6 per cent of seats they had on Australia’s top 200 listed companies as at June 2003. For the same period, women held more than 30 per cent of positions at the senior executive service level in the Australian public service. In the private sector the figure is 8.8 per cent. Women fill more than one quarter of Coalition seats and as Howard noted in his post-election press conference, there are more women in cabinet than at any time since Federation.
First of all… 103 years is a LONG FUCKING TIME SINCE FEDERATION, but, more bizarrely… we’re supposed to be proud of THIRTY FUCKING PERCENT?????????????
Oh, pardon me. That’s thirty-three percent of government board spots.
Fuck the fuck off, Jan. Not happy, even.
Apparently we’re not allowed to be ‘angry’ that only SIX women head government departments. That’s SIX out of EIGHTEEN departments. Good things obviously come in thirds, because this fact, according to Auntie Jan, is the. Best. Thing. Ever.
I appear to be repeating myself. But I just can’t help it. I am livid. FUCK THE FUCK OFF, JANET!!!!
On the issue that affirmative action is a ‘free ride’, Auntie Jan argues that:
… merit must come first. Short cuts based on gender will hardly advance the status of women. When you appoint a woman on sex, not talent, you risk appointing the talentless — or at least promoting that perception. And that can only encourage a view that women are not quite up to the job.
What complete and utter bullshit. On first glance, Jan’s point appears relatively rational. (Heaven forbid!)
But let’s have a think about this, shall we? (Phew. Order is once again restored to the world.)
First of all, while we may like to think we live in a meritocracy, oh no we fucking don’t. What’s the difference between appointing a woman to the High Court because she’s a woman and appointing a conservative to the High Court because he (let’s face it, he) happens to be a conservative, for fuckssakes? Because that’s what fucking happens in the fucking real world, as much as it pains me almost to the point of tears.
Second of all, we “risk appointing the talentless”??? Give me a freaking break, woman. Why don’t you just SAY “there are no talented, qualified, quite-up-to-the-job women available to fill these positions”, COUGHBULLSHITCOUGH, and just admit your redicularity (is that a word? I mean it in the same way one says ‘hilarity’). Giving women a chance to enter a male-dominated profession is shitloads more progress than THIRTY FUCKING PERCENT. Can someone please explain to me how the fuck she ever passed highschool (heck, even kindergarten) thinking THIRTY PERCENT was good enough? That concept is just spinning me out right now.
And on the issue of choice… The feminazi version of choice apparently has “a nasty tendency to transmute into the dictatorial and doctrinaire“. WANKWANKWANKWANKWANK. Your point, sweetie? (By the by, what a nice way of appealing to the masses; you go, Jan.) There is so a fucking choice when you support women. When I have children, I will stay at home with them because I’m the clucky type and I want to watch the cute little monkeys grow up. But I also want to do something with my life other than get sprogged up. That’s called choice. It’s only when we have opportunities do we have a bloody choice. It’s only when women are educated, supported and given the chance to excel do we have a fucking choice.
Finally, if it’s not too much to ask, Auntie Jan, would you care to explain and/or give an example of what you mean by “objective policy making based upon impartial research of women’s needs and wants”? I would be most appreciative. Because if that isn’t what the Office of Status of Women is about, well, then, I’m stumped.
So now I’m back to being confused. Confused as to why a woman thinks it’s fine for women to only be 30% of the decision making process which affects 50% of the population, confused as to why she’s not riding the affirmative action train to Success Station herself, since it’s in her go-get-em Tory nature anyway, and confused as to how in blazes she gets stuff published in national newspapers. (No, wait, I so know the answer to that last one: Tinkerbell.) Oh jeez, how is her existence even rational? Is she some sort of über Conservabot sent here from the future to destroy our souls or something? If so, is she from the same lab from which Ann Coulter spawned?
Right, back to being angry. Jeez Louise, I am so pissed off right now. I’m just going to stop before I say something which could get me sued. If I haven’t already.
The US military has begun an investigation into possible war crimes after a television pool report by US network NBC showed a Marine shooting dead a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque.
If I may offer a suggestion for Dubya’s banner makers: Misson Fucked.*
The Power of the Media
I did a unit this semester called Setting the Agenda: Politics and the Media.** Taking it was half of the inspiration for starting up this blog (the other half came from Rob Corr, who, after the last couple of weeks, is officially my blogging idol). The unit really made me question that grand old idea of the Fourth Estate as ‘an independent and impartial watch dog of government and other powerful interests.’ When looking at the mainstream media’s response to 9/11 and hearing about the antics of the Murdochs and Alan Joneses of the world, most of the time the mass media just comes across as a lap dog (excellent, from now on I will only refer to Murdoch as Tinkerbell**).
When things like this show up, though, it gives you just a little bit of hope. Hope that maybe the megamedia has realised they spent immediate post 9/11 period and the lead up to Iraq 03-?? acting as the US Government Stenography Service and now understand the crucial role they have to play in protecting us from the tyranny of the majority. Another entry on hope/faith later (not).
* As pointed out by GT, my most appropriate typo ever! 🙂
** Therefore this entry counts as exam study, woo.
*** Paris Hilton’s chihuahua.
Last night I read a post on Ann Coulter, written by an anonymous (hah) Big AC Fan, detailing an apparent example of the ‘hypocrisy’ of the left. The logic of the ‘column’, what little I can garner from it, goes something like this: Ann Coulter is a woman who says some stuff. People (aka Those Mean Lefties) criticise her, but they only point out things about her appearance. Therefore what she says is valid.
Ann (can I call her Ann? I like to keep things a little less formal over here, unless it’s completely necessary) has every right so say whatever she wants to say. It’s in that old Constitution thingy those Americans are so proud of (right after that apparently inconsequential part about separation of church and state, y’know, the First Amendment). And I totally agree that people who just sit in front of their laptops and say “She’s a whore” are not helping anyone.
The thing that confuses me is this: how can people actually read or listen to what dear Ann has to say honestly be able to defend what she says (rather than her right to say it)?
The purveyor of Defend Ann 2004 listed down a bunch of quotes berating dear Annie on the basis of her gender, appearance and sexuality as proof of why the Left Wing is sexist.
If that was the point, then I’d have to agree that that’s just not on. But, kids, let’s not forget context. Maybe we should be able to see if those Ann-haters had something meaningful to say as well? (Subtitles: what are your sources?)
But what about looking at Ann’s work itself and telling us why she should be so admired and revered? What about defending her instead of bashing her critics? “People say mean stuff about her so she should be given a medal” just doesn’t cut it for me.
So, in my dedication to rational debate, and in flagrant violation of context (because these things should not be said no matter what the context), I pulled up another random Coulter-bashing page off Google and I will reproduce some little Annie pearls of diplomacy, wit and wisdom which were reproduced in it…
“God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.'”—Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01
The “backbone of the Democratic Party” is a “typical fat, implacable welfare recipient”—syndicated column 10/29/99
To a disabled Vietnam vet: “People like you caused us to lose that war.”—MSNBC
“I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don’t need any more.” Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, “Well, before the New Deal… [The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start.”—Politically Incorrect 5/7/97
“The presumption of innocence only means you don’t go right to jail.”—Hannity & Colmes 8/24/01
“I have to say I’m all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the ‘hood to be flogged publicly.”—MSNBC 3/22/97
And as for gender, appearance and sexuality…
“Anorexics never have boyfriends. … That’s one way to know you don’t have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend.”—Politically Incorrect 7/21/97
“Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let’s just call it for what it is. They’re whores.”—Salon.com 11/16/00
“I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote.”—Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01
“Clinton is in love with the erect penis.”—This Evening with Judith Regan, Fox News Channel 2/6/00
“[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks.”—Rivera Live 8/2/99
And, my favourite Ann quote of all time, detailing her anti-terrorism policy at her old job on National Review Online* on 13 September 2001:
“we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”
You go, girlfriend.
‘[L]ogic in Miss Coulter’s arguments’ indeed. That’s all I have to say, I’m supposed to be learning about Breach of Trust. But, the moral of the story:
*Sorry, I’m not including hyper-links because those Right-Wing Arses get enough hits, but here’s Google to give you a headstart. Or better yet, go read The Nation. The blogs there are quite excellent. I highly recommend The Daily Outrage and Editor’s Cut.