The pond looked at today's offerings with a heavy heart, and knew in the end it would head back to the same old same old to fill in the day ...
What alternative did the pond have? There was Frank """ Brennan gushing about the Pellists, and yet the pond had deliberately ignored the Pellist homily offered up by the lizard Oz for Easter.
Why can't the lizard Oz just let the senile old goat go?
Must the pond revert to Tory, who since turning up at Crikey, (paywall), has gone all Adelaide secularist?
Well yes, but back in the day, you couldn't make the shit up that Tory peddled for The Punch, that woeful Murdochian attempt at a blog, long gone and links long dead so as to hide the shame of the guilty ...
The pond remembers one piece, still here, where she sought to absolve the onion muncher's climate science denialism...
...I hate to say this – Monbiot being somewhat of a journo crush of mine – but he has tunnel vision on this one.
In the context of deadly fires and (deadlier) heatwaves, you can’t start pointing fingers at individuals.
It’s not Mr Abbott’s fault we are so far from any sort of meaningful action on climate change that it’s unlikely we’ll be able to turn the ship around on time.
Monbiot also has a crack at News Ltd., publisher of The Punch, but as someone whose only experience of this company has been as a pro-science writer and anti-climate change columnist it’s hard to know how to respond to that without sounding like a Murdochbot, so I’ll leave it at that.
That last line lead the pond to wonder: Say what? She's an anti-climate change columnist? Does that mean she's anti-climate change, or she's anti- the notion of climate change and writes columns about it, or is she anti-anti-climate change columnists, or she's anti-anti-climate change? Or is she a pro-anti-climate change columnist?
Ah there's nothing like memories or anal retentiveness, or defensive love of onion muncher and Pellists to stir the soul.
Never mind, a change is as good as a holiday, and speaking of climate change, what a scalp News Corp claimed this week...
“Malcolm Turnbull severely misinterpreted his role as chair of the advisory board. Under no circumstances did this appointment provide him with a mandate to criticise the mining industry and as a result of his comments the NSW government has decided not to proceed with the appointment.
“As long as I am Deputy Premier and Minister for Mining, the mining sector has the full support of the NSW government and Mr Turnbull’s comments are obsolete.”
Meanwhile, Turnbull described his sacking as “thuggery” at the hands of the right-wing media. “They cracked the whip as bullies do, and got their way,” Turnbull said. “In actions like these, you have to ask, ‘Who’s in charge?’” (SMH here).
Poor old NIMBY Malware ... pronounced obsolete by coal-loving dinosaur Barilaro ...
What grim pleasure the old toff keeps offering up to the pond as we crash and burn, not least an infallible Pope ...
Ah yes, Rupert and his minions with their heads up a dinsosaur's arse ...
And now the pond supposes it must get on with its reptile chores.
Must the pond? Yes the pond must, because the pond must find out the IPA attitude to quotas, what with their token appointment of Dame Slap ... "chairman"! and "all round Superwoman" ... but please, be modest and realistic, not all round superchairwoman or even superchairperson ...
These days the pond could write an IPA piece in its sleep, and who can blame stray readers if they nod or sod off?
Phew that's handy, we know that the reptiles like to start off a piece with a chick snap ...
In 1994, when Paul Kelly was editor-in-chief of the Australian, she was told to take photographs of attractive women to increase female readership.
“During a news conference the editor Paul Kelly indicated to the news conference staff that the Australian wanted to increase female readership,” Rogers said in her submission. “His argument was that women buy women’s magazines and that they like to look at attractive women.”
In 2011, a picture editor at Queensland’s Sunday Mail ordered social photographers not to take any pictures of any “pigs in lipstick”, which was interpreted to mean any middle-aged women or those who may be overweight or not conventionally attractive. (Graudian here)
Good old "Ned", nattering on about women, more of progressive "Ned" anon, but now on with Dame Slap ...
Oh come on, do we have to go through this tedious charade? The IPA can't stand the notion of chairwomen or quotas or such like, and of course Dame Slap is going to throw the book at the notion of quotas, which is a dangerous left-wing, perhaps socialist idea, because who wants a female Stalinist for life when you can have a manly Vlad the impaler?
Such a leaden hammer to crack a nut, but the pond would expect no less from the chairman ... and so to a final gobbet of negativity, and the extraordinarily fanciful notion that Dame Slap is somehow liberal ...
How long to get to that punchline that quotas aren't just lazy, they're dangerous, when any loon could have seen it coming a mile away from the chairman?
What's the point of having a token chairman if they won't argue for IPA tokenism? By the way, if you care to substitute 'black' for 'woman' in that whole tedious discussion, you can discover why and how white Australians have kept the lid on pesky, difficult blacks this past century or more ... because when it comes to a power imbalance, the IPA philosophy is simple. Let's keep it that way ...
And now as nattering "Ned" has already been mentioned in despatches this day, the pond should finish off its other chore ...
Relax, for a "Ned" outing, it's relatively short, and it's just a way of exploring "Ned's" fears and phobias when it comes to Joe Biden.
Poor old "Ned", who clearly spends far too much time each week imbibing the thought bubbles in the WSJ, reckons there's a progressive revolution on the way, and each week it seems to send "Ned" into a hand-wringing, Chicken Little tizz ...
Yes, there it is, the WSJ obsession, reminding us that these days "Ned" doesn't like to think too much, and prefers to get his ideas from elsewhere. But when he started off his piece, wasn't there was all this talk of the middle class and confronting an autocratic China? Didn't that gobbet just end with talk of the middle class?
What's so dangerously left-wing and revolutionary about the middle class? Or noting that Xi is an autocrat for life, much like previous emperors of the Mao kind, and in much the same school as Stalinist for life, Vlad the impaler?
Yet somehow "Ned" seems tremendously alarmed by this talk of the middle class. Would he prefer talk of the Donald doing his own version of a corrupt emperor, an aspirational Caligula with suitably Roman nepotic tendencies?
Heaven forfend that the United States have decent roads. The pond can remember driving along route 375, in the hope of finding a stray alien, and wondering if the car was going to make it to the end of the drive ... and that was years ago, and the pond knows it hasn't got any better, what with bridges falling down on a whim.
Never mind, it's good of Republicans to always talk about infrastructure, and then resolutely do nothing about it, providing the road to the gated community is up to scratch when you need to take the limo to the private jet ...
And now the final gobbet, and as promised it's short ... but please, a fainting fit, because electric vehicles and a green economy, because climate science, what on earth is that?
Progressive steel? The pond can imagine "Ned" lying awake at night, staring into the darkness, and occasionally sitting bolt upright, to let out an oath of fear: "Progressive steel!"
Only a WSJ editorial, applied as lip balm, will let the poor lad settle, and sleep ... and perhaps dream that he was wrong about the Donald and someday the saviour will return, and then we'll truly see the American dream in all its glory ...
And speaking of dreaming, Rowe yesterday seemed to have a different dreaming in mind, with more Rowe dreaming here ... yes, even the pond can enjoy a rugger bugger joke in memory of jolly Joe Hockey and the onion muncher and Barners ...
Show 'em Barners, show how the Waratahs do it ...
Led, Dorothy, led!
ReplyDeleteYou can lead a led to water, but be wary if the lead you've been led to is in the drink ...
DeleteHmmm, Tory reckons that "Pell believes that 'there were no bones in the tomb after the resurrection'."
ReplyDeleteWell, I wouldn't doubt it. Of all the many thousands of 'crucifixions' that the Romans supposedly performed, there's basically no bones around from any of them: except a maybe case with a nail hole (or so it appears) in the skeleton of a foot and a couple of others that might vaguely have been nailed to a cross.
Strange that, isn't it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2015/12/08/this-bone-provides-the-only-skeletal-evidence-for-crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world/?sh=489e5d7c476d
Interesting article at that link GB. Reading all this crucifixion stuff made me remember a question which first popped into my head when I was about eight years old. If Jesus rose from the dead after being crucified then why didn’t he just stay around forever? That would have convinced everyone that he was immortal - not just those women who went to his tomb on Easter Sunday.
DeleteA large crowd saw him die according to the gospels, so then to see him returned to life would have massively increased his cred as the son of that creator bloke. Furthermore he’d still be here today (like some kind of benevolent vampire) and the whole world would want to be christian I expect.
Of course, I stopped believing the bible as none of it made any sense to me even as an eight year old and still doesn’t. Anyway I really hope it’s not true because I don’t want to go to hell for obvious reasons and I don’t want to go to heaven because nothing ever happens there.
Along the same vein this is quite an interesting short read GB.
Deletehttps://theconversation.com/the-case-for-christ-whats-the-evidence-for-the-resurrection-75530
Pretty much par for the course, Kez: if you believe it then everything proves it is true, and if you don't ... well.
DeleteBut the bit I found most interesting was this: "There is significant evidence that the Romans did not typically remove victims from crosses after death." Oh ? What "evidence" and what did they do with the bodies, anything at all ? Clearly if the Romans had left the bodies hanging on the crosses, there would have been places which had many crucified skeletons just waiting for archaeologists to unearth, but so far none and nothing.
So how exactly do we know that the Romans performed many thousands of crucifixions - with or without anybody called Iesus Christos.
PS: at age 8 you started a couple of years earlier than I did. But I got there.
Since Dorothy allows 'liberties' I will offer this exemplar of a conservative talent (read the comments)
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/CraigKellyMP/status/1379037819407110149
The Dunning-Kruger effect was questioned recently - but, but - - - what are we to make of this effort?
Thanks for that link Bef. The comments are very entertaining and say it all really. All I can say is that in Craig Kelly MP's case the MP stands for Mental Pygmy.
DeleteYes, BF and Kez, the pond went straight to the comments, asking important, compelling, scientifically demanding questions ...
DeleteCraig, I need a new lounge. What do you reckon, leather or fabric?
So, like, whatever Craig says, do the opposite ?
DeleteDame Groan does love to endlessly repeat her favourite memes, themes, motifs and tropes, doesn't she. And here's one of them: "If women are different from men, perhaps fewer women are interested in a career in politics." And perhaps women are just less interested in "a career in politics" if it means being hounded by The Big Swinging Dicks Club. Perhaps Groany could consult Julie Bishop about that (since I expect she wouldn't want to expose herself to Julia).
ReplyDeleteBut then we get to her nub: "Maybe more women than men prefer to stay home and care for children rather than spend weeks away in Canberra." And maybe more women would be ok with spending weeks "away" in Canberra if the BSD Club men hadn't made it so insufferable. But the main thing is: ok, let's postulate that women are, in fact, interested in politics and that they begin to show that from their late teens and early twenties.
Then let's assume that the BSD of their dreams proposes, they marry and want to have kids. Let's also assume that their BSD is one of the relatively few who can afford for them to stay home instead of having to go out to work too, kids or not. Let us also assume that these women don't have their first kid until age 30, and their second, and last, at age 32. Then let us assume that these highly privileged women stay home being mummy until their youngest is 18 and is attending Uni.
Then the woman would be 50yo with a further life expectancy of about 35 years; so they have at least 25 good years in which to actually have a political career - and not starting from scratch either, since even mums can spend some time every week being part of the political scene and building up contacts and supporters and being good party members and so forth.
So what's Groany saying: that a woman can only ever bear, mother and raise kids in her life and not do anything else ? Is that the way that Groany has lived ?
And apart from that, Groany, no, "Mother" Teresa wasn't anything special. she was just another Catholic r-soul.
Hi Dorothy,
ReplyDelete“Women are “usually more empathetic and more giving”, “less motivated by profit and more motivated by passion, genuinely caring about people, our community, the environment and its effect on health and wellbeing”, wrote Talacko. If that is true, Mother Teresa wasn’t anything special. Turns out every female in Australia, all 12.5 million of them, could give Calcutta’s little saint a run for her money.”
Reading Dame Slap I was reminded of someone else not feeling that they didn’t matched up to the four virtues;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5j1wduFWl0
But what to make of this:
“On that score, Liberals will need a stronger list of reasons to support quotas than ones so easily demolished by a Year Eight school debating team.”
‘Debating Teams’? Really! Considering the current scandal, is this Trolling or a genuine Freudian Slip from the Slapper.
DiddyWrote
Setting Marcus Aurelius aside for the moment DW, surely it has to be trolling. The polling admits that Freudian revelations are strong in this one, but the trolling force is even stronger ...:)
Delete