Wednesday, July 03, 2013

Speaking of singular peanuts ...

(Above: what's that? He's been attracting cartoonist attention since 2009 for putting his foot in it? More Nicholson here).

And, leaving Barners aside for a moment, there you have it in a nutshell.

A singularly appalling, quite singular peanut.

Which is to say Daily Terror opinion editor and infiltrator of the ABC with wretched programs, Joe Hildebrand explaining to mUmBRELLA why journalists and opinion piece writers shouldn't be paid, why in fact they should learn to live and love the joy of not being paid by the Daily Terror ...

... so the Terror can pay Peter Costello:

“I can’t even afford to commission a full article a week for the entire op-ed pages or the features section. 
“We used to have Bill Woods who was a very good and very popular columnist who was a huge hit with readers and we could only afford to have him fortnightly. And we had Kellie Connolly the other week, she’s also very popular, very good. We had to slash what we paid them because we couldn’t afford him. I was only able to persuade the bean counters above me to keep them under that.” Hildebrand said the coup of former politician Peter Costello moving from Fairfax Media to News Limited added to the pressure. He said: “Obviously we’re paying him. He left the (Sydney Morning) Herald. We’re managing to share the cost with (News Corp’s Melbourne paper) the Herald Sun – it’s the only way we can afford that. 
“And as a result of that we’ve had to cut Bill Woods and use him as a pinch hitter. So we couldn’t even afford to keep our own columnists.” (Daily Tele opinion editor Hildebrand: We can't even afford to pay our own columnists)

As if Peter Costello needs the money.

As if getting a political hack to shift from Fairfax to News Corp was any sort of coup.

As if anyone with half a brain would break through the Daily Terror's paywall, slavering and foaming at the mouth in joy just to fork over the readies, for the pure and adulterated pleasure of reading Peter Costello, the man who couldn't, the man without the ticker...

Truly if there was any single reason why the Daily Terror, and the rest of the Murdochians, locked in their fetid, squalid, poverty-stricken ideological and political castle are struggling with readership and budgets, that's it in a nutshell. A most peculiar, quite singular peanut ...

No wonder Hildebrand moonlights for the ABC, though it's a wonder the ABC will have him ... as for that shitty tabloid shock horror Shitsville Express, who at the ABC thinks that Hildebrand is a hot tabloid expression of the unholy gutter-based shock horror demographic that they're apparently targeting on ABC22? There, the pond has said it, shit, shit, shit. Oh we'll say it again, so bold and brave we are, shit.

Oh huzzah, how naughty, brave and bold, and above all, so insightful ...

Meanwhile, the pond was delighted to learn the depths of negativity that still infest the federal opposition leader, which now sees the man urging that people vote no, if they're unclear (and so clearly haven't been cleared by their nearest scientological cult).

TONY ABBOTT: If you don't understand it, don't vote for it. If you're not fully persuaded, don't vote for it. (Tony Abbott urges no vote on referendum if unclear).

Yes, if I personally have completely failed to explain my own personal position, or why I personally voted in favour of the proposition, or why all of my colleagues, why heck initially all of parliament save for two very lonely voices, voted in favour of it, you must certainly join me in convoluted back-flipping and nattering negativity and vote no.

Along the way, please make sure you blame the federal government for mishandling the matter, and in no way attribute any of the confusion and chaos to my own back-flipping nattering negativity.

And to prove my sincerity, I will send out from the trenches "Poodle" Pyne and Barners to explain that it really is all the government's fault, and has absolutely nothing to do with my cheap desire to create confusion and policy chaos wherever I go.

Take it away Barners, and while you're at it, introduce some of your legendary comedy lines and Vegas routines:

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: So you're saying because it's a different minister, that the Labor Party is no longer fully committed to the referendum, and that's not true. 
BARNABY JOYCE: If I'm committed to our relationship with you, I don't have, I'm not one of three husbands. I just try and stick with the first one. 

This line reminded the pond with a shudder that thanks to Tony Windsor stepping down, Barners now looks like he has a lock on the seat representing Tamworth, centre of the known universe, with the aim in due course of becoming leader of the Nationals and deputy prime monster of Australia.

It truly is a remarkable, some would say terrifying prospect. But do go on Barners:

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: But isn't it actually more damaging that Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, the potential prime minister, is saying the people should vote no? 
BARNABY JOYCE: What he's saying is that the local governments, if they believe that it's not going to be successful, should, should say no... 
SAMANTHA HAWLEY: And he said if anyone has any doubts about this that they should vote no for it. 
BARNABY JOYCE: Well if people have any doubts about anything in life, when in doubt, they knock out, but I... 
SAMANTHA HAWLEY: But most voters would have doubts, wouldn't they, because they wouldn't be across the in and out details of this? 
BARNABY JOYCE: Most voters would have doubts because the Labor Party, who actually are supposed to be the Government - I know it's unlikely, but they're actually supposed to be the Government - have been unable to hitch this issue up to one person.

Remarkably Samantha Hawley couldn't lay a glove on Barners or the inherent stupidity of what he was saying, or the huge contradictions involved in Abbott's position and dog-whistling, but to her credit, she kept trying:

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: But isn't the greatest confusion actually coming from the Coalition, because originally the Coalition said it supported it and now Tony Abbott's saying that people should vote against it? BARNABY JOYCE: Well I do support it, and the issue has been through the Parliament. We've managed to get it through both Houses of Parliament and then, after spending a lot of political capital - and I did the worst thing, I trusted the Labor Party in this relationship. I trusted that they'd actually take it seriously. They haven't. 

Yes, remarkably and amazingly, it's all the fault of the serial adulterers in the ALP that Tony Abbott has decided to have a fling with a bunch of floozies ...

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: But what's your proof that they haven't taken it seriously when they're still fully committed to the actual policy? 
BARNABY JOYCE: Oh. Well, how many ministers do you think they can go through before we decide that they're not taking it seriously? 
BARNABY JOYCE: Maybe if they go through, may if they go through 20. Would that say that they weren't serious about it? 

Which is a wondrous, truly amazing distraction, because clearly Tony Abbott himself isn't very serious about it, having urged anyone, anyone at all, who is "unclear", who has failed to be "cleared" by Uncle Tone's E-meter, to vote no. But still valiant Samantha kept trying:

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: Do you think it should be withdrawn now that it will not get the support it needs, and that it should actually not be on the agenda? 
BARNABY JOYCE: I want a government that's diligent, that actually puts their shoulder to the wheel... 
SAMANTHA HAWLEY: That's about the Government though but what do you... BARNABY JOYCE: They are the Government. No, they are the Government. We're not the Government. 

It was about this point that the pond wanted Samantha to pull out a baseball bat and start whacking Barners about the head, saying what about the bloody bipartisan, cross-party lines support, what about everybody, except for some dissidents and abstainers in the Senate saying it was a fine thing, what about Abbott deciding that the way to sort out his rogue colleagues was for himself to go charging through the china shop like a bull ... But still she kept trying:

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: That's fine, but what do you think should happen? I mean, should a vote proceed on this or do you think that it would not have the support now to get up? 
BARNABY JOYCE: Well it's for the Australian people to decide. 

Actually in a bipartisan world, Barners would also have to decide, and actually attempt to make a coherent statement, either of support or nattering negativity.

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: Right, so if this fails, do you envisage any time in the future that this question could be put again? 
BARNABY JOYCE: Nope. If this fails, that's it. 
PETER LLOYD: That's the Nationals Senator, Barnaby Joyce, with Samantha Hawley.

It surely was Mr. Lloyd and truth to tell, it's much richer in the listening than the reading - it was the best comedy routine that the pond has heard in yonks, way better than "Poodle" Pyne, who has been going around urging anyone who'll listen that the government should "pull" the referendum because it has set it up to fail, and never mind how the opposition has set it up to fail.

Forget about it, there's no chance Pyne will pull himself to a quiet spot and give himself a quiet "pull" (Pyne wants Rudd to 'pull' doomed referendum).

And now in passing, the pond feels the need to draw your attention to the latest conspiracy theorist to grace the pages of the lizard Oz.

Oh dear sweet long absent lord, it's bloody old """, aka Maurice Newman, at it again in Climate change science has become an expensive smokescreen.

Yes, the lizard Oz's war on climate science continues.

What a shame Tim Lambert turned to other things after reaching war item number 81 ... and how predictable you need to head off here to read about the latest in actual science ...

No doubt you'd appreciate a quote so you can take the text and google up the article, in order to give yourself a good free laugh at Jonathan Holmes' notion that you should subscribe to any rag, any rag at all, in order to maintain quality journalism.

As if Maurice Newman writing on climate science, without any discernible qualifications, except an enormous lump of paranoia sitting on his shoulder, is worth a brass farthing. So here's your google quote:

This is the world of climate change. The science has become an expensive smokescreen behind which vested interests hide. 
Sooner or later, though, the laws of economics, which are more certain than the laws of anthropogenic global warming, will prevail and determine the sustainability of these gestures. Once upon a time legislators could justify the need to enforce reductions in CO2 emissions. Today we know these policies are based on back-to-the-drawing-board science and we have firsthand knowledge of their growth-slowing, economy-distorting, job-destroying impact. 
In the meantime, the UN is claiming damages for "climate injustice with a human rights dimension" inflicted by wicked Western "polluters" on poor developing countries. It wants huge financial compensation. 
Legitimate or not, any such claim of injustice pales in comparison to the ongoing harm and callous indifference shown by wealthy governments towards their own people. 
 This, is the greatest moral challenge of our time.

Sorry, the pond didn't see that spot of spittle landing on your brand new suit. Here, wipe it off with a dose of bile and righteous paranoid indignation.

But what set Maurice off, in the way that a passing rabbit will get the hounds sounding the alarm?

Signing off as "Mr FOIA", the person who leaked the emails from East Anglia University that came to be known as "Climategate" and that drew a line in the snow at the Copenhagen Climate Summit recently released to a select few the password to the files containing 220,000 emails. 
 He didn't expect the remaining emails to hold big surprises and observed, "Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had a good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far." 
Indeed it is.

Oh indeed, indeedy deedy do, and by recently, Maurice means back in March, but he does give us a terribly good clue as to the rat-bag company he keeps (as you can discover here) because truth to tell, nothing at all has arisen from the matter with which he leads off his piece.

And Jonathan Holmes thinks the pond should be supporting the reptiles at the lizard Oz for bringing us the paranoid hysteria of Maurice Newman as part of its ongoing war on climate science ... why that's almost as funny as Barners.

Which brings us to a very grave matter, also relating to paywalls. As of today, or maybe yesterday, the average punter is reduced to 30 free reads a month at Fairfax, and so the pond has stopped linking to the rag, except when very important comedy items are on display.

Perhaps it will emerge that it is a cookie based thing, and so - as the pond runs three browsers, Safari, Chrome and Firefox - 30 will actually mean 90.

But we don't want to encourage readers to click on a link reporting the mere news of the day, when this might mean that right on the end of the month they might end up missing out on Paul Sheehan explaining the joys of magic water ...

Now this might mean that occasionally all the pond can do is mention things like Fairfax's recent discovery of the intrigue and ongoing hints of dirty smelly laundry in the New South Wales Labor party, this time involving John Robertson, who sat on a company for four years which received large sums of money from a mysterious company based in the British Virgin Islands ... without at any point ever bothering to discover who might have been involved in said company ... and there's more dirt about the Currawong sale on view ...

Ah well, all it's telling the world is that NSW Labor is full of murk which hardly counts as news these days, more like saying it's the business of garbage collectors to deal in garbage ...

So it goes, and all the pond can say is that the pond is sworn to no master or mistress, of no sect am I ...

And to make sense of that, you'll have to travel past the ABC below, to a blast from memory lane, the Sydney Morning Herald announcing major changes on 23rd May 1977, and to read it, you'll need to click on it to enlarge.

So it always bloody seems to go, to borrow a notion from shitty Joe Hildebrand.


  1. The SMH is running more anti-ALP stories today.

    Will Conroy's NBN survive?

    Has Kevin Rudd really changed his ways?

    And the easy way to clear cookies from your browser is with the neat little free app called CCleaner.

  2. And to echo the SMH from 1977: Most excellent, Dorothy, most excellent!


Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.