The sheer, abject pointlessness of being a ranting, raving reptile came home to the pond yet again with this story ... (L'Age)
The pond can't begin to count the number of times that it read a ranting, raving reptile piece about dictator Dan, and for what?
To what avail? (as the pond once heard on American radio while doing a tour).
And yet on and on they blather, with the meretricious Merritt the latest to indulge in black bashing, and so copping a pond ban ...
The only affront to democracy here is the meretricious Merritt and the never-ending, unendurable reptile crusading ... what with News Corp as fine an example of foreign-owned intervention in Australia's domestic politics as could be put on daily parade ... and with an ample serve of democratic deficit ...
Meanwhile, this being Friday, our Henry was full of righteous indignation, and to vent his spleen, had to head back to the Gough days ... as if that was somehow the way to defend the liar from the Shire for his multitude of sins and lies ...
Oh FFS, still carrying on about Gough? How will that redeem the behaviour of the rogue liar from the Shire? Why bother to relitigate that ancient affair? Wouldn't our hole in the bucket man be better off back with Thucydides?
No, still he persists ...
Um, perhaps the latter-day leftist and socialist, then head prefect, thought that his own scandalous behaviour at the time, not to mention that of his perpetually drunk GG, might suggest that some matters be left under the rug, so that he could get on with being one of the most dismal and turgid PM's ever to hold the office?
Never mind, the pond doesn't have much interest in relitigating the past, and the entire point of Henry's outrage soon becomes clear ...
Oh come now, internet lynch mobs? What about Faux Noise and News Corp lynch mobs, doing a decent day's lynching each day?
Say what? Dictator Dan?
Oh right, so perhaps a last squeak from the hole in the bucket man, and whaddya know, instead of ancient Greek or Roman, he goes righteous biblical apocalyptical ... and we know where that ends ...
Yep, deviant hypocrisy, so naturally the hole in the bucket man must drive the point home ...
A righteous wrath?
More like an interminable bout of defending the indefensible.
Biblical tub-thumping, and rampant, devious hypocrisy was a big part of the problem ... the problem of a devious, secretive, furtive, self-aggrandising, narcissist and refusing to hold the hose incompetent ... here, have an immortal Rowe to celebrate ...
What else? Well another supremely irrelevant ancient warrior was also out and about, and naturally was given a run by the reptiles, but only at the very end did it pay off for the pond ...
The pond should have mentioned that it was the onion muncher in tub-thumping, war mongering mood, doing his leather armchair, dry sherry in hand, thing, but be honest, if the pond had mentioned that upfront, would you have bothered with the gobbet, or would you have sensibly turned to getting on with life and other matters?
Now all the pond can offer is a pay-off at the very end ... but it is a doozy ...
The pond was reminded of the bromancer in his hey-day, yet the bromancer has gone surprisingly quiet about the war with China by Xmas ... not so his bromanced best buddy, but wait, we will get to that pay-off ...
That reference to Edmund Burke is particularly rich as we finally get to that payoff ...
Budapest? Hungary? Really? Fellow-travelling as a lickspittle lackey to an autocrat?
Well it is the onion muncher way, but still be careful where you speak, and the awesome comedy of righteous stupidity and hypocrisy as ...The EU Watches as Hungary Kills Democracy (Atlantic, not so long ago)
The coronavirus has proved a great boon to the world’s authoritarians. From the imposition of border closures to the utilization of mass digital surveillance, moves that may have once been classed as dangerous expansions of state power are now being lauded as necessary steps in the global effort to curb a pandemic. Extraordinary times, it has been collectively agreed, call for extraordinary measures.
But there is a line between using emergency powers and outright authoritarianism—one that Hungary has undoubtedly crossed. With this week’s passage of a law effectively removing any oversight and silencing any criticism of the Hungarian government, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán can now rule by decree for an indefinite period of time. That such an erosion of democracy could happen openly in the heart of Europe has caused an uproar, with many questioning what, if anything, the European Union can do to stop one of its own from undermining the very values that underpin the bloc.
So far, the answer has been, well, nothing. For while the EU has long been regarded (particularly by its detractors) as an entity that has become all too powerful—able to set rules that national parliaments must accept, implementing bloc-wide standards that must be adhered to—this pandemic is proving the exact opposite: that, in the face of a global crisis in which nation-states are leading the response, a multinational force such as the EU is largely powerless. As norms have been overturned to contain the coronavirus, the EU, which is built on, and gains strength from, promoting and upholding a rules-based order, has demonstrated itself incapable of keeping up.
Hungary was hardly a beacon of democracy before this pandemic started. Since resuming the premiership a decade ago (his first stint was from 1998 to 2002), Orbán has overseen the steady dismantling of the country’s democratic institutions, eroding its press freedoms, undermining its education system, and limiting the power of its judiciary. As an open advocate of “illiberal democracy”—his country is the first and only EU member state to be considered just “partly free” by the think tank Freedom House—Orbán has never tried to sugarcoat his autocratic aims, and has justified them by invoking national sovereignty and national security.
And so on ... here, have an infallible Pope to celebrate the onion muncher and freedumb to criticise ...
And so to a bonus. The pond wouldn't normally bother with the WSJ ... even though its paywall means nothing to the pond, the pond never bothers to go there, but when one of its reptiles strays into the lizard Oz to remind the pond that they're kissing cousins, why not have a little fun?
Why is this vastly amusing for the pond, and perhaps its American correspondent? Take it away Alex Barker at the FT with Rupert Murdoch's tricky dilemma over Trump ... (in full here, possible paywall)
Meanwhile, poor old Bill at the WSJ seems entirely unaware of chairman Rupert's Faux Noise dilemma, righteously railing at the GOP, without asking the question, where's Hannity and Laura and Tuckyo and the like - all the parrots in the birdcage singing the same song - when they're needed?
Still, it's not just Mr Joyce who can't break with the mango Mussolini. Where's Faux Noise when it's needed?
There was a little sting in the tail at the end of that Alex Barker piece in the FT ...
More worrying for Murdoch long term is the way Trump has divided his audience. Since 2020, “trust” in Fox News among right-leaning voters has dropped from 73 per cent to 56 per cent, according to surveys by the Reuters Institute at Oxford university.
This is alarming for a Murdoch media machine that prizes one mantra above all: give people what they want. Can Murdoch deliver in 2024? Fox News might find a saviour from the Trump choice in the Florida governor Ron DeSantis, or it might just hedge its bets and bank on cosying up to the former president if required. But this election, the dilemmas will be sharper, and the stakes higher — even for Rupert Murdoch.
Well, yes ... we all know the reason for the WSJ navel-gazing and fluff-gathering and heartburn.
Suddenly they're in the company of a loser, suddenly they're on the wrong horse ... so does Faux Noise stay on the wrong horse, or do they somehow manage a massive U-turn?
Here, have a cartoon to celebrate ...
Did someone just mention mention Kari Lake?
Yeah, nah, genuine accomplishments? Pull the other WSJ leg ... or better still, tell it to Faux Noise, put in a call to Hannity, see how it goes ...
Can he turn on a dime, and forsake his orange Jeebus? Perhaps, but you'll need a lot more than 30 pieces of silver for him to wear that overcooked egg on his face... and we all know how tight the chairman is with his silver ...
Here, have a few more cartoons to celebrate and to close the day's proceedings ...
German speakers, or perhaps Bart Simpson devotees, will realise he's only saying The, constitution, the!
"The sheer, abject pointlessness of being a ranting, raving reptile came home to the pond yet again" - yep, even more seats that the last time (well, at least one more) and the new leader only just barely won back his seat against a 'teal'.
ReplyDeleteSo, how long then before the Libs dump Pesutto and recall "That Guy" one more time ?
"the latest to indulge in black bashing, and so copping a pond ban ..."
ReplyDeleteBravo, DP. Please keep on banning.
But just who to ban and why, that is the question:
DeleteAnyway, here's an informative read:
https://jabberwocking.com/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-facebook/
Abbott and dry sherry? I think he is more of a grain alcohol man: "Mandrake. Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water or rainwater? And only pure grain alcohol?"
ReplyDeleteI certainly don’t want to think about Abbott’s “vital bodily fluids”….
DeleteI realise this smacks a little of 'whataboutism', so - with your permission DP - the Henry happily sprinkles a tincture of Burke and Madison on his musings, but seems not to have had space for the earlier precedent from the parliament of Australia, now known as the 'Browne–Fitzpatrick privilege case, 1955'. That title will take you to a succinct account in the 'Wiki', showing you what was done, with no regard whatever for 'due process', on motion of that outstanding legal scholar - Robert Menzies - but could easily have been a 'Monty Python' script.
ReplyDeleteAnd our Henry refers to Fraser having won the largest majority in Australian history, so Henry could praise what Fraser did NOT do with that majority. That is a good line to take because the steady characteristic of Fraser's administration was that he did remarkably little about anything. About the first administrative act he authorised was a complicated dismantling of the department responsible for the Northern Territory, purely to pay out the then Permanent Head for an imagined slight from back when Fraser was minister of defence. Yep - the nation was (allegedly) in parlous economic peril, which supposedly justified ruthless decisions - but it was more important to settle old personal scores, and, whaddya know - turns out we were not in parlous economic peril (we had no net debt at the time of the Dimissal of the Whtilam government) so - no need to do much, actually.
Nicely balanced history, as always, Henry. Do I need to go to my Thucydides because I cannot recall what he had to say about Privileges Committees?
Fraser "did remarkably little about anything." No, no Chad, Fraser killed the first Medibank, and that was surely something, wasn't it?
DeleteSince Burke is being quoted, what about this:
ReplyDelete"The most obvious Division of Society is into Rich and Poor; and it is no less obvious, that the Number of the former bear a great Disproportion those of the latter. The whole Business of the Poor is to administer to the Idleness, Folly, and Luxury of the Rich; and that of the Rich, in return, is to find the best Methods of confirming the Slavery and increasing the Burthens of the Poor. In a State of Nature, it is an invariable Law, that a Man's Acquisition are in proportion to his Labours. In a State of Artificial Society, it is a Law constant and as invariable, that those who labour most, enjoy the fewest Things; and that those who labour not at all, have the greatest Number of Enjoyments..."
Edmund Burke (1729-97), A Vindication of Natural Society, 1756
(from Keith Thomas: The Oxford Book of Work)
Except that there hasn't actually been much of a "State of Nature" for humans basically ever since the very first two of us. Besides, does this 'state of nature' extend to one's children ? Should we labour not and let the children fend for themselves from day one ?
DeleteThe Henchman in Chief, provider of the mottes and baileys, entertains the lynch mob.
ReplyDeleteDP said: "What about Faux Noise and News Corp lynch mobs, doing a decent day's lynching each day?"
Amanda Meade says;
"The global head of News Corp, Robert Thomson, was among the guests at the shindig ... former prime minister Tony Abbott.
[DP: "The pond should have mentioned that it was the onion muncher in tub-thumping, war mongering mood, doing his leather armchair, dry sherry in hand, thing,:
so apt. Ed.]
"Editor Michelle Gunn, who is in the running for editor-in-chief, arrived accompanied by the paper’s foreign editor, Greg Sheridan.
"His [Lachlan's] barrister, Sue Chrysanthou, was among the guests at Le Manoir, mingling with News Corp Australia CEO Michael Miller, and Sky News presenters Peter Stefanovic, Sharri Markson, Laura Jayes, Rita Panahi, Paul Murray and Andrew Bolt.
"We couldn’t help but notice the shadow minister for communications, Sarah Henderson, scored an invitation, which is not surprising given she is making a career of attacking the ABC.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/commentisfree/2022/dec/09/lachlan-murdochs-whirlwind-week-from-us-court-testimony-to-sydney-christmas-party-as-elites-rub-shoulders
Reading that report, Anony 1, I was thankful that Lachlan’s shindig was indeed “exclusive”; can you imagine the horror of actually being invited to attend? Surely the only logical action to take if you found yourself surrounded by such a collection of unmentionables would be to head straight to the bar and do a “Christopher Dore”.
DeleteVarious sources claim Lachlan is paid around $20 million a year to do - whatever. I think I would want something like that amount if I had to host gatherings that included Sharri, Rita Panahi, Paul Murray and Bolt all in the same room - and with drinks.
ReplyDeleteYes, good point if you're more like us than them, Chad. But Lachy is truly just another one of them, isn't he ? Unlike brother James.
DeleteI think it’s valid to say that Trump had some genuine accomplishments. It’s just that they were absolutely terrible. After all, how many previous Presidents managed to mount an armed insurrection?
ReplyDeleteGood trick isn't it: just call them 'genuine accomplishments' and let the interlocutor decide what that means: good things if you're a MAGA, really bad things if you're a human being.
Delete