A Saturday tour around the sillier reaches of the pond ...

Phew, tbat's a relief. Once again Gillard asserts herself and the party buckles to her will.

Hang on, hang on, what's this?
The competition for any stray pond reader is to guess which newspaper headlined which bit of news which way ...

What's that you say? A two year old could pick it? One's from Pravda by the Harbour, and the other is from the Holt street Nationale Jungsturm?

That's most unkind, and might remind some of the parable of the six men of Indostan and the elephant in John Godfrey Saxe's tale of walls and spears and snakes, here.

Others might be reminded of a recent report on the minions of Murdoch reporting of climate change, as noted in News Limited papers 'campaigned' against carbon tax:

It found that News Limited papers were far more likely to run articles or opinion pieces against the tax than Fairfax, with 82% of News Limited’s articles deemed negative, compared to Fairfax’s 43%.

The Daily Telegraph was deemed the worst offender, with 58% of negative articles, 35% neutral and 7% positive. When the neutral stories were removed, the negative coverage was a whopping 89%. The Herald Sun was not far behind with its coverage, with 85% of its carbon tax stories deemed negative once the neutral stories were removed.

Yes, as one commenter noted, it's a statement of the bleeding obvious, but the bleeding obvious has its place in the world.

You get a nice set of tables here in Newspaper stables divided on carbon policy coverage, including the juiciest:

Naturally The Australian responded vigorously to this assault, but there's no reason to provide a link because you already know what it says ... along with a personal attack on the initiator of the study, Wendy Bacon.

And you can see why the lizard Oz got so upset, because the result's most disappointing for the rag. Fancy coming fourth behind the Terror, the Hun and the Courier Mail!

Time to lift those metaphorical socks. The rag is falling way behind, and it's been well over a week since Deltoid has been able to update his regular piece on The Australian's War on Science, and the total on the tape stands at a measly 74!

And there the pond was, hoping that the Australian cricket team, and the Australian denialists could score tons with gay abandon before the year is out.

Meanwhile, in a week when Iran and West Papua have added to the turbulence of the world, today The Punch comes up with this:

Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel? No link - why risk a stray reader's brain cells and mental health?

Here, have a read about what's happening in West Papua instead, in 'President' calls for recognition of West Papua, one of the greater shames of Australian foreign policy, right up there with the good old days of forelock-tugging with Indonesia on East Timor.

What was that they said in The Punch about Kim Kardashian? Yes, they scraped the bottom of that barrel too, but one of the scribblers reacted this way:

In the past week over 400 people have died in floods in Thailand, three Australian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan and the European economy teetered on the verge of collapse. But most devastating of all was the news that Kim Kardashian’s marriage was in disarray after just 72 days.

No silly, the biggest event in the world of The Punch was Kyle Sandilands. Up there at #21.

Climate change? Isn't that where it gets cool overnight and warms up during the day?

Meanwhile, for the highest of comedy readings, look no further than Ross Cameron getting agitated about the recent High Court decision in relation to wives giving evidence concerning their husbands, A decision to send shivers down our better halves.

His last line is most sage:

I don't presume to give my readers legal advice but, when your nearest and dearest next asks, over a glass of red, ''What's on your mind babe?'', it may be prudent to consult a solicitor.

Cameron knows whereof he speaks:

In August 2004, Cameron revealed in an interview in Good Weekend that he had an extramarital affair while his wife was pregnant with twins. Cameron "was a frequent overnight visitor to the house his mistress shared with a reporter". In Truth Overboard, Time Magazine journalist Tom Dusevic wrote that once Cameron's story was in the public domain "...reporters in Canberra immediately ran with further details of Cameron's private life, unleashing stories they'd been sitting on for years" which included accounts of numerous other affairs which he had failed to disclose. "Ross Cameron makes a mockery of Christianity and Christians... (more at Mr. Cameron's wiki here, with links).

Ah the shining wonder of Christian marriage, and never mind a glass of red wine to find out what your partner is doing and saying, and doing but not saying.

But it does bring us to the last highlight of the day, which is the splendid statement by the Pellist heretics and the Jensenist nepotics in relation to the matter of marriage:

''Marriage is the lifelong commitment and faithful union of one man and one woman,'' they wrote.

Lifelong commitment? Divorce? Ross Cameron? You there, stop rolling those Jaffas down the aisle. But do go on:

''As such, marriage is the natural basis of the family because it secures the relationship between biological parents and their children. The preservation of the unique meaning of marriage is not a special or limited interest but serves the common good, particularly the good of children.''

Permission to vary the statement m'lud?

''As such, marriage is the natural basis of the family because it secures the relationship between biological parents and their children, except in the matter of aboriginal marriage":

We may recognise a marriage in a civilized country but we can hardly do the same in the case of the marriages of these Aborigines, who have no laws of which we can take cognisance. We cannot recognise the customs of these Aborigines so as to aid us in the determination as to whether the relationship exists of husband and wife. (oh well said, Chief Justice Martin, cited here)

Sure they might be married in a traditional way, but who's to say that's legal or natural. They're black, you see. May we continue m'lud?

The preservation of the unique meaning of marriage is not a special or limited interest but serves the common good, particularly the good of children.''

Ah yes, that'd be the same unique meaning as attributed in the NSW De Facto Relationships Act of July 1985, and the Social Security Act, and so on:

... although for several years 'married person' has been defined as including a de facto spouse, definitions of 'de facto spouse' and 'married person' in the Social Security Act were replaced in early 1990 by a reference to a 'marriage-like relationship', and guidelines were introduced to determine whether such a relationship exists. (here).

It would seem m'lud that there is a unique meaning, and then a very unique meaning, but when it comes to social security and taxation and the like, many chose to live in a most peculiar married-like way.

Of course back in the day, the progenitors of the Pellists and the Jensenists would have nodded wisely at the wisdom of maintaining the unique meaning of marriage - by keeping Aborigines well away from it:

The Northern Territory Aboriginal Ordinance Act "ensured that Aboriginal people could not drink or possess or supply alcohol or methylated spirits, could not come within two chains of licensed premises, have firearms, marry non-Aboriginal people without permission or have sex across the colour line". (here)

Ah yes the unique, unredactable, unretractable, irreversible, utterly unique meaning of marriage across the centuries, as interpreted by the guardians of Christianity.


So there you go, another unique view on the uniqueness of marriage. Strange fruit indeed.