An apology to poodles, preceded by a detour through DAB+, HCF, and the poodle Pyne ...

(Above: a flashback to an old First Dog, who is apparently back today, the bludger).

The pond notes that that little fucker Tim Blair is at it again.

What a fucker he is, what a raging ratbag fucker. In fact the pond can't think of any other word for the fucker, except maybe fuckwit.

What's that you say? That's a tad severe, perhaps even a little personal, and inclined to the offensive and the insulting.

Why you might even cop a king hit at some locations speaking in such ways - well at least in Sydney, where dumb fuckers roam wild and free and big Bazza fiddles and fumbles.

Absolutely not. In no way ... if anything it's a term of endearment, perhaps even of affection.

The pond invokes what henceforth will be known as "the Blair Defence":

Fairfax yesterday hit a full Hanson-Young level of shock and rage because an Australian navy member used a nasty word on Facebook. Apparently the chap left this message at a friend's Facebook page before his ship was deployed to pick up another batch of asylum seekers: ''I'm about to head out today to deal with these f…ers.'' 
This is common language, used in all manner of circumstances. Former prime minister Kevin Rudd, for example, possibly used similar words last year while building the numbers for his comeback. Australian cricketers could use it every time they play England. Why, even I said almost identical things before driving to Canberra for budget announcements. (Lack of moral compass on the Greens ship dramatically apparent)

Yes, it's such common language, used in all manner of circumstances, that the dumb fuckers at the Daily Terror don't seem to know how to spell it, and think it contains three dots, which is no better than thinking you can spell it using three asterisks ... dumb f***ers.

Okay, enough of dumb fuckery, that's the neocon comedy for the day. Blair is such a dumb fucker he voted for the British monarchy in a Flintian way, and with a bit of bad luck for the Queen, he'll have to endure the rabidly greenie Prince Chuck as his monarch.

Over at the lizard oz, the reptiles keep getting sillier and sillier with their clickbait, and today is no exception, with Christian and creationist photographer Ken Duncan leading the charge. Here you go:

No link - if people want to indulge in click bait, then the pond can't help, because it only eggs the reptiles on.

What does irritate the pond is the way ABC personnel keep on referring to the rag as the "national broadsheet", which is true on a superficial level - its humble, badly circulating tree killer edition is in broadsheet, and it does have a vaguely national release, though if you try to find it in some country towns, you'd have better luck locating the local tribe of killer koalas.

But in its heart, the rag long ago gave up any aspiration to being a balanced broadsheet rag for the informed reader, and it really should be referred to, especially in its digital edition, as the national tabloid, as a way of distinguishing it from all the regional Murdochian tabloids that play hosts to little fuckers like Tim Blair and the Bolter.

The ABC's radio ways help explain why over the seasonal break, the pond decided to get into digital radio. 

After all, if you want to listen to Vladimir Putin conflating homosexuality and paedophilia on the BBC, why listen to the ABC re-broadcasting the BBC, when you can just go listen to the BBC direct? (And vow not to watch a single moment of the Winter Olympics, not a hard ask for a pond absolutely not interested in winter snow and ice sports).

In much the same way, these days you may as well watch Al Jazeera as watch SBS News, and it seems Al Jazeera is now supplying quite a few gobbets to News 24.

Then came the reminder of the desolation that is digital radio hardware. 

All the pond wanted was a decent DAB+ receiver at a decently modest price, with internet radio, a decent number of pre-sets and a remote to trigger same - after all, at last count there were thousands of stations on the intertubes, streaming at a low enough rate not to cause trouble with the caps endured down under, and being able to easily select a few favourites would be a handy feature.

Silly pond, and then out of the fog of memory came the reminder that it was another Liberal government of long ago, and a Liberal minister Helen Coonan, who supervised the introduction of digital radio - a farce which will surely only be exceeded by the farcical roll out of the NBN under big Mal.

Now there's an argument that DAB+ is superior to old-fashioned DAB, but nobody gave a moment's thought to consumers, or to the supply of actual receivers to consumers, and as a result of Australia being one of the first horses out of the gate, very few manufacturers could be bothered building radios for such a small market, and very few consumers got excited at the thought and the cost of upgrading.

It wasn't just Coonan, it was commercial radio and its peak industry body which also did its best to make a mess of the launch, but let's give credit to the Liberals for a comprehensive flop of the kind which makes the pond think when the Liberals get into power, they do their very best to demonstrate by ineptness why small government is a good argument ...

And while we're handing out credits, let's honour the enduring folly of the Hawke/Keating notion of a dual roll out of Optus and Telstra HCF cabling, on the basis that this would provide competition, and never mind that it would see duplicate cabling strung like confetti around the major cities, while elsewhere no one could be bothered because of the small size of the markets. 

This handy timeline celebrates that decision:

1990 
The Commonwealth Government, after considerable debate and consultation, announces further reforms of the structure and ownership of telecommunications networks. A phased approach is adopted to transition from a monopoly provider to open competition in basic services. Initially, a general carrier duopoly is established as an interim measure to foster competition. As part of the reform arrangements the second carrier will be given sufficient time and a relatively stable and predictable environment within which to establish itself in the marketplace before the advent of full competition from 1 July 1997.

Lo and behold and so it came to pass:

The 1995-1997 HFC rollout by Telstra and Optus, which only passed ~2.5M homes, twice, for $7B happened under both Keating and Howard governments.

Both Telstra and Optus wrote-off multi-billion dollar investments to the detriment of their owners/shareholders and instead of getting a viable Cable-TV business in Australia, we got a crippled, woefully inadequate network that didn't support viable content providers. (here)

And now the singularly useless, aging, already due to be replaced HFC networks turn out to be an integral part of the big Mal NBN vision.

It's enough to make the pond attempt to listen to internet radio using Apple TV!

Never mind, it seems everything is fucked and we have to thank little fuckers like Tim Blair routinely supporting the ruling elite, and never mind the quality of the decision making.

Speaking of which, who should be out and about stoking the flames and showing himself off again, as if he's doing prep work for the poodle exhibit at the Royal Easter Show?

You guessed it, poodle Pyne:

There's Orwellian nonsense, and then there's repeating something so many times you hope the deluded will join you in the delusional.

Pyne eradicated any hope of politics having no place in his review when he appointed the heads of the review.

Everything after that  became a kind of trolling and distraction and magician hand-waving, designed to make everyone forget how Pyne is intent on trashing every aspect of the Gonski legacy...

As usual, the little preening fucker - Blair defence - is full of misrepresentations and distortions:

First, let us be clear about one thing: this review was not a surprise sprung on an unsuspecting public. The Coalition promised to have a curriculum review before the 2010 election. This was repeated before the election last year. Far from being a secret, it was shouted from the rooftops before, and during, the election campaign. The Coalition has been consistent about the need for a review for several years. Doubters can check the record.

First let us be clear about this. The poodle gave no hint that he would be appointing Kevin Donnelly, a known and notorious ideologue, to do any kind of review, and so it was a surprise sprung on an unsuspecting public, and equally to the point, an unsuspecting education system.

Doubters can check the little fucker's - Blair defence - statements on the record ...

Next comes this sort of Jesuitical defence:

To suggest the review is a political ploy is disingenuous. Those who think so should have a close look at their own motives for articulating such a nonsense: partisan politics is at its worst when dressed up as public concern.

Yep, it's not about politics, except somehow I, the poodle Pyne, seem to have whipped up a distracting partisan politics fest, except that's the fault of others for noting my partisan politics, which indicate they have their own kind of partisan politics.

Or some such legalistic political double speak bullshit of the kind you routinely expect from fuckers like Pyne - Blair defence.

As for the people the poodle appointed, which would ensure partisan politics were placed front and centre?

So far, criticism of the inquiry has been almost entirely about its members. Whoever is appointed to lead an inquiry of this type is likely to attract criticism. The important point for those with strongly held views is to participate in the process, and then assess what the findings say, but to do so in terms of the evidence that underpins the recommendations. 
Petty personal attacks before we even get to the result of the review serve no purpose other than the political - the last thing we all need. 

You have to hand it to him - the little fucker - Blair defence - is utterly shameless.

This nation's curriculum policy must not be captured by any fad, by any vested interest group, or by those pursuing political or narrow agendas. 

And so he appointed Kevin Donnelly, who by his own many words, is a man with a narrow political agenda and with a vested interest in the private education system and a decent Judeo-Christian education, whatever that might mean now that we no longer live in colonial Victorian England:

It was largely described as a political stunt, a point of view seemingly justified by the appointment of business academic Ken Wiltshire and education consultant Kevin Donnelly as reviewers. Both are regarded as outspoken conservative culture warriors with links to the Liberal party and Donnelly has had educational connections with the tobacco company Philip Morris. Donnelly has also published education articles for News Corp’s The Australian newspaper, the most revealing of which was a muddled tirade entitled Conservative values need championing. (here)

Follow that link and you cop this sort of muddled tirade:

The history curriculum undervalues Western civilisation and the significance of Judeo-Christian values to our way of life. 
The English curriculum adopts a definition of literature where classic works jostle for attention alongside SMS messages. 
Another factor explaining the cultural-left's success is the fact that education in Australia is controlled by a handful of educrats whose disposition appears unsympathetic to the conservative cause.

Oh go build a handsome tribute to Christ, preferably deep in the outback.

As for Pyne and his curriculum ideas? Perhaps you were hoping for less blather about the history wars and Judeo-Christian values, and a full scale assault on fundie private schools being allowed to teach the likes of creationism alongside real science?

In your dreams, it's just blather:

It must be balanced, ensuring students are exposed to a full array of ideas; up-to-date, relevant and help students develop the appropriate critical skills so they can make their own choices about what they want to believe or support.

Which is as sublime an argument for "teach the controversy" of the subjective post-modern kind as you could wish for from an education minister. Never mind the hard facts of science or maths, make your own choices about what you want to believe or support.

The national curriculum is a work in progress. It is new. Before it is fully rolled out, let us make sure we have got it right. We are not there yet. That is the reason for the review. Not a diversion, rather part of the main game of developing a quality education system.

Well the pond can easily decode the real meaning of thatsort of blather from the keyboard of the little fucker - Blair defence.

You see,  the nation's curriculum policy has now been captured by a vested interest group, by those pursuing political and narrow Judaeo-Christian agendas of a nonsensical mythical kind, and they make no bones about it:

Education Minister Christopher Pyne argues in favour of direct instruction and has criticised the national history curriculum for embracing a cultural-left bias. 
It looks as if the educrats are about to be challenged, and Australian schools freed from ideological interference and unnecessary centralised and bureaucratic control. 
Time will tell.

Time has told, and tolled as well. God help the students of Australia, because She certainly didn't help with digital radio and the NBN ...

And now the pond reluctantly must join with Mike Carlton in apologising to poodles, as he did back in September 2010:

In this column last week I referred to the opposition's manager of business in the House of Representatives, the South Australian Liberal Christopher Pyne, as "that yapping poodle". I confess the analogy wasn't original; Julia Gillard called him a mincing poodle in the Old Paradigm Parliament last year. 
On reflection, I would like to withdraw the remark. It was a cheap and thoughtless shot that offended a number of Herald readers. Quite a few emailed me to protest that poodles did not deserve it. 
Andrew Smith wrote: "In calling Christopher Pyne a yapping poodle you do the poodle an injustice. The poodle is a very smart and intelligent dog and is not known to be a yapper. I admit that some of their owners make them look silly but that is a reflection on the owner, not the dog. There are some yappy dogs that you could use, but I think it best to leave the dogs out of it and just use 'yapping fool'." And Alison Palmer from Albury: "Poodles are gorgeous, intelligent, sporty, clean and good-humoured dogs. As a proud owner of a poodle I simply request - stop vilifying this breed!" My apologies to poodle lovers everywhere. (here)

Indeed. The pond is mortified, but unapologetic about its use of the Blair defence ...

As for that business about aid, the pond is too angry to treat it as a subject for comedy, but the excellent David Rowe - one of the few reasons to support Fairfaxians - does it well: