Tuesday, March 16, 2021

In which the pond does a Dame Slap listicle, and is content yet again with trial by media ...

 

Women of Australia, how good is it not to cop a bullet?

And how good was it to see bow-tied white western civilisation nationalist Tucker Carlson cop an extended, detailed serve from John Oliver?

And while on sundry topics, how good is beefy Angus and hydrogen from brown coal? As the issue runs along nicely in the comment section, for those who came in late, see Michael West Media's Hydrogen Hype: Angus Taylor's last throw of the dice for brown coal.

And what on earth was this all about?




 

Weird. And so to today's lizard Oz headlines, and a complete mischaracterisation of "trial" in the headlines, such that even the reptiles felt the need for inverted commas, though such ploys and feints do nothing to rectify the situation ...

 


 

It's not a rape trial, and it shouldn't be represented or construed as such, but then came this righteous posturing from the meretricious Merritt ...


 
 
 

But we've already had the trial, and the Oz readership has been the judge and jury ...

 


 

Judge for yourself, it's the reptile way ... and as Dame Slap was one of the authors, the pond thought it only right to turn to her new lot of solutions, offered up this day ...

 

 

A listicle?! A Dame Slap listicle will fix things? 



 

Never mind, on we go with the quick fix ...



 

Uh huh, but here's where the pond realised that Dame Slap had turned utopian idealist, by jumping the shark and nuking the little fridges (containing the cheap wine wheeled out for visitors) that are the pride and joy of ministerial offices ... 

Yes, Dame Slap went full prohibitionist, with guards patrolling the house to conduct breath-tests and drug tests. Please PM, just step over here and urinate into the bottle, what with you being an 'umble worker and all ...

No doubt she means well, and lives in hope and piety ...


 

On and on Dame Slap went, and the pond realised that she was in the grip of a dream, living a rich fantasy life, if she expected SloMo's trusty, largely male band of warriors to follow her nostrums and prescriptions ...

 



 

Lizard Oz journalists won't indulge in gossip? Why they won't even listen to a company telling them that they didn't do the research, before publishing that they did do the research ...

But no doubt brave, stout-hearted lads who have faced angry irrigators in the past will be ready to transform ... 



 

And sure enough one of those angry irrigators turned up to harass him, and didn't it go well ...

 





As for the rest this day, it was slim pickings ...

 


 

Well it's hard to mine comedy from slaughter, so the pond thought it should check out the lizard Oz editorialist, turning feminist for the day ...



 

Oh indeed, indeed... what tremendous support he offered ...



 

It's just so unfair, as noted by the infallible Pope ...

 


 

But do go on, and please make sure to quote other reptiles on the case ...



 

A dose of reality for the lynch mobs in the media?

Build a community culture in which complaints are heard and systems are in place to get to the truth?

But surely we have that already? Surely a trial by media, with readers invited to be the judge, is the way forward?

 


 

Judge for yourself the rampant hypocrisy currently doing the reptile rounds, while the pond signs off with a Rowe, with more Rowe here ...

 




13 comments:

  1. "how good is beefy Angus and hydrogen from brown coal?"

    Strewth, they want to transport bulk liquid hydrogen ? Completely absurd - they should read the pond and they'd know about (1) liquid ammonia (liquifies at -33.35C and stays that way) or (2) magnesia paste as expounded by Bef.

    Instead they want to spend bulk dollars on a liquified hydrogen tanker ? And heaps more on glaringly unsuccessful CCS ? And they can't even blame SloMo for that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Last throw of the dice for brown coal. First claim we are using fossil fuels to create a supply chain which will benefit renewables in the long run and then hope demand outstrips supply and we have to use fossil fuels forever.

      It won't work for any number of reasons but it can create chaos in the interim.

      PS: Isn't it sad how the likes of Brendan Murphy and Alan Finkel get sucked into the political clusterfvck?

      Delete
    2. Not entirely sure Finkel didn't just suck himself in. Willing to be shown otherwise, but I can't recall a single one that was, is, or will be, memorable. The list is:

      Cathy Foley (2021-present)
      Alan Finkel (2016-2020)
      Ian Chubb (2011-2015)
      Penny Sackett (2008-2011)
      Jim Peacock (2006-2008)
      Robin Batterham (1999-2005)
      John Stocker (1996-1999)
      Michael Pitman (1992-1996)
      Ralph Slatyer (1989-1992)

      Recognise any of 'em ? Other than Finkel, I sure don't.

      Delete
    3. GB - I think each was well known within their initial research area. Ralph Slatyer was significant for several reasons, not just for being the first with this appointment. He and an interesting American, Joe Connell, developed some of the fundamental principles of modern ecology, substantiated by solid field research. I knew Connell (who died only last year, at age 96) from his time on our Great Barrier Reef. Over many years, if he was travelling anywhere near Queensland, he would get himself to a site on Heron Island and photograph a particular site, with his (film) camera carefully aligned into the same position, over the same coral pool, each time. This was done essentially on a hunch, but over about 40 years he had acquired a remarkable 'time lapse', which showed that those corals were quite dynamic - some species expanded for a time, while others contracted, then the roles reversed, then another species came in from left field. A simple observation - but challenging to those who thought corals sort of reached a mature size and then, just - maintained it. I know it did stimulate the thinking of many subsequent coral researchers. But it did not make it any easier for such researchers to get funding guarantees for similar studies over a period like 50 years. We still do not do sufficient long-term monitoring of GBR.

      Delete
    4. I wouldn't doubt that they have scientific achievements, Chad, but then we have (or at least once had) a CSIRO full of people like that. And we once had a CSL too.

      I'm just wondering what actual function a 'Chief Scientist' fills: surely that's political rather than scientific. Science, even in Australia, covers a vast range of knowledge - far too much for any one person to be genuinely knowledgeable, much less expert, about.

      And just maybe that's why I haven't heard anything much, or at all, by or about them.

      Delete
  2. The Ballad Of Scaredy Scott

    On becoming PM, I was cocksure and able
    Now the girls are revolting, I’m saying my prayers
    And that’s why you’ll find me crouched under the table
    Just keep me away from those witches out there

    But how good’s our country, how liberal and vibrant?
    We’re free to build chicken coops in our backyard
    No citizen massacres ordered by tyrants
    Be glad you’re not protesting in Myanmar

    Now pack up your placards and get off my grass
    The subject is closed, there’s no more to be said
    Except this fucked statement I pulled from my arse
    “Be thankful you’re Aussies – or else you’d be dead!”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, right on with that little gem, Kez.

      Delete
    2. Oh yeah, I'm hearing a lot of chatter from those witches. Seems to have struck a chord.

      Delete
    3. Morrison should be grateful that the mob didn't storm the Parliament calling for the lynching of the Deputy Prime Minister. Similar things have happened in other "liberal democracies:.

      Delete
    4. Why lynch the Deputy Prime Minister? He hasn't done anything. Or is the thought in line with Voltaire's 'pour encourager les autres'? And, yes, in this case, the French does make it a little more genteel.

      Delete
    5. I thought that the idea was to lynch the Dep. PM precisely because he hasn't done anything. But if that would also "motivate" the PM, then so much the better.

      Although, given the current PM, it might really turn out to be so much the worse.

      Delete
  3. They have said, or at least so I have been told, that "all things come to he who waits". Well, I waited and I waited and I waited ... and finally, Dame Slap has actually written something I can basically agree with: "It was on a par with the Prime Minister claiming he doesn't hold the hose when there are bushfires, and he's not a police commissioner when it comes to rape allegations. He misses the point every time about what is required of him."

    Wau. Slappy, are you sure it was you who wrote that ? It wasn't the IPA office intern doing some serious experience gaining ?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The worrying sign is that many people now calling for redress are quite prepared to bypass the foundation principles of justice, including the presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial, and thereby compromise the rule of law."

    The really worrying sign is that the reptiles have no understanding of logic and no appreciation for reality. If you are a true believer, then perhaps "the law" equates to the word of God and it is heretical to disobey or bypass it. But to most of us simple folks, "the law" is just a bunch of words written by, and voted in, by governments comprised of some very ordinary people.

    So there's no point waving words such as "presumption of innocence" at us when there is no such thing. What there is, is a presumption of 'not found guilty' in a court case conducted by very ordinary and fallible human beings. Which is precisely why the Scots, bless them, have a 'not proven' verdict that doesn't even remotely mention "innocence" or "guilt".

    So how, exactly, in the cases of Brittany Higgins or of Porter's school contemporary, could innocence or guilt be realistically established ? By some kind of subjective assessment of who is more truthful based on live, in court testimony ? And in the absence of any possibility of that, is Porter to be unconditionally "presumed innocent" ?

    Or can we just make a standalone assessment of Porter and declare him self-justifying, and, on the balance of probability, a liar. In the absence of witnesses and of 'objective' evidence, would that be enough to preserve the "rule of law" ?

    ReplyDelete

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