Monday, October 05, 2009

Paul Sheehan, a loaf of bread, the perfidious French and Paddington poncery


The search for the perfectly feathered, exquisitely dressed, coiffed and manicured loon is never ending and surprisingly difficult.

You might think that with a world of loons it would be easy, and of course the common or garden loon is abundant. And sure, here at loon pond, our trained loons toil daily, tending to the scribblings of fair average loons with a bee in their bonnet.

The work is never done, it's soul destroying, it involves getting down in the mud and the dirt and the grime, into the kitchen or the engine room, and emerging with a mind that's inclined to be loony.

But the search for refined loons is a different more exalted quest. By necessity, as a quintessential matter of style, taste and refinement, taking pot shots at passing ducks isn't the point of the hunt.

No, it takes a certain class, a certain hutzpah to be an exceptional loon, and finding such a prize specimen is a bit like hunting for the perfect wattleseed icecream. Australia's very own contribution to the world.

But every so often, there comes a delicious moment, like that delicious tang when the raspberry sorbet first hits the tip of the tongue, then slides its way across the taste buds in a rapturous blossoming, exploding, cacophony of flavor, before ending its sensuous journey by settling on the stomach (let's not dwell on the rest of its journey).

If accompanied by a good chardonnay and perhaps a cafe latte, the moment can approach ecstasy.

Oops, I'm starting to sound like one of those hideous progressive, politically correct trendy inner west lefties with not a clue about the real world. Perhaps I was inspired by this:

When the new bakery opened near my home two weeks ago, there was just one product in the window: a row of large, round, dusty sourdough loaves. The miche loaf. They looked so alluring I bought one even though it was a hefty 1.7 kilograms and $13. As I carried it home the loaf was still warm, fresh from the oven.

It was immediately obvious this bread was exceptional, with a crunchy, almost caramelised crust. Tasting that loaf, especially the crust, was a spiritual experience. I resolved to do something I had never done before. I wanted to shake the hand of the person who made this possible.

Well there you go, there's someone who clearly harbors a deep affinity for the dilemmas of the outer western suburbs souls struggling in a world run by hideous progressives, greens and anal retentive bureaucrats.

Thirteen bucks for a loaf of bread!

Well the rest of you lot can just settle for cake, available in pre mix packets from Woollies for a couple of bucks. Yep, we Marie Antoinettes know how to deal with your common or garden Western Suburbs Leagues club members.

What, now you think I'm starting to sound like some kind of Paddington ponce? Because you know this fabulous new bakery is in Paddington?

Now, steady, this scribbler isn't me, nor even any foodies of my acquaintance, and I know a few, though most of them have been locked up in Adelaide for the safety of the rest of humanity.

This is actually the scribbling of an international jet setter, proud that we can even out ponce the Parisians on their home turf of du fromage et du paine:

Having marvelled in my 20s at the routine quality of the food in Paris people took for granted, it never occurred that, in my lifetime, the food within my life in Australia would, overall, become superior to the food I found in Paris. That I would have a better miche in my own urban village than the miche from Poilane was not an insignificant cultural marker.

Oh wondrous food snob, oh intrepid gourmet, oh elevator of the national cuisine above the perfidious French and their cheese eating surrender monkey ways, how you redeem the hideous banality of western suburbs life with this celebration of culture.

Perhaps you can even guide us to the perfect chardonnay and the most exquisite coffee.

Sorry, don't hold your breath, it's just Paul Sheehan taking a break from bashing the brains of dunderhead inner west trendy lefties in A flour blooms - and a family classic is toast of town.

Normal programming will resume shortly.

In the meantime, good luck to the bakery, who have got some nice publicity out of his intoxicating spiritual experience. Why I'm even thinking of dashing over to the eastern suburbs myself in the ongoing quest for the perfect bread.

But there's an even deeper pleasure contained in his lyrical foodie buffy incoherent ramble through the mysteries of bread.

The next time I read Sheehan, all I have to do is take a deep breath, have a slice of perfectly buttered toast with some exquisite home made blackberry jam, have a sip of coffee, and remember, whenever he gets stuck into the progressives and the politically correct, in his usual grumpy curmudgeonly way, that I'm reading the ramblings of a delusional Paddington ponce.

Which reminds me of a friend I have who lives in Woollahra and is incapable of going further west or south than Oxford street for fear of the dragons that live in the west.

Yep, she won't even come to Newtown to experience the taste treats to be found at Christopher The's (ex-Claude's) Black Star pastry shop. All the sweet young things are wildly excited, and while I'm not quite sure why it's important to preface The's status with a reference to Claude, I continually marvel how any single pastry purchased at the shop truly tastes better than anything I've ever tasted in any world famous pastry shop in the United States. Or France for that matter.

Oops, that sounded really poncy. Perhaps truth to tell Sheehan and I, or me and Sheehan, or is it Sheehan and me, are actually just two pretentious poncy gits without a clue about the real, hard world. There's just one nagging doubt I have about the matter of the bread ... Sheehan's previous taste for magic water.

Even so, I have hopes for the bread, and I plead guilty to the charge of snobbery and poncedom, and now I'm just waiting for Sheehan to write his next diatribe about dilettante progressives with their Twinings tea views of the world ...

Snobs, can't live without 'em, can't live with 'em. As Thackeray put it so nicely:

If, in looking at the lives of princes, courtiers, men of rank and fashion, we must perforce depict them as idle, profligate, and criminal, we must make allowances for the rich men's failings, and recollect that we, too, were very likely indolent and voluptuous, had we no motive for work, a mortal's natural taste for pleasure, and the daily temptation of a large income. What could a great peer, with a great castle and park, and a great fortune, do but be splendid and idle?

Thackeray also had something to say about French snobs, and if you substitute Australian for British in the following quote, perhaps you might note something of Sheehan in the text:

We are accustomed to laugh at the French for their braggadocio propensities, and intolerable vanity about la France, la gloire, l'Empereur, and the like; and yet I think in my heart that the British Snob, for conceit and self-sufficiency and braggartism in his way, is without a parallel. There is always something uneasy in a Frenchman's conceit. He brags with so much fury, shrieking, and gesticulation; yells out so loudly that the Francais is at the head of civilization, the centre of thought, etc., that one can't but see the poor fellow has a lurking doubt in his own mind that he is not the wonder he professes to be. About the British Snob, on the contrary, there is commonly no noise, no bluster, but the calmness of profound conviction. We are better than all the world; we don't question the opinion at all; it's an axiom.

(Below: self-portrait of William Makepeace Thackeray, author of - amongst other things - a book of snobs).


Mark Day, stick to knitting, Fairfax, the death of newspapers, and the dazzling future of the intertubes


Remember Mark Day only a little while ago?

Crikey has become a bore; a daily platform for fixated characters who appear to share an obsession with little more than the goings-on at The Australian and within the global media business of the Murdoch family.

Key writers Bernard Keane (Australian politics) Guy Rundle (can anybody understand what he’s on about?) and Glenn Dyer (media and business) seem to spend most of their energies bad-mouthing The Oz, its editors and anyone named Murdoch, who they accuse (among other things) of using his media clout to further his business interests.

It’s “pot calling the kettle black” hypocrisy, evidenced by a constant
Crikey commentary on the imminent death of newspapers and the dazzling future of the web. (here).

Funny how after a dummy spit, the world can suddenly revolve, and the truth about the dazzling future of the web become apparent, especially if the chore at hand is writing about how Fairfax Media doesn't get it:

It is no longer good enough for media companies to stick to their old knitting. Research by PricewaterhouseCoopers recently predicted a contraction in growth for “old” media products - a compound annual rate between 2009 and 2013 of -0.7 per cent for newspapers and free-to-air television.

The PwC figures suggest a growth rate of 10.4 per cent for the internet, 9.1 per cent for subscription TV, 7.6 per cent for interactive games and 4.9 per cent for filmed entertainment. There are no prizes for guessing which segments new-media companies should aim for.

By golly, how that razzle dazzle of the intertubes does shine. But only for those in the know, like Chairman Rupert. Poor old Fairfax hasn't had a clue, doesn't have a clue, and now has employed a grocer!

Now that Ron Walker has seen the writing on the wall and folded his tent, a new question has arisen among shareholders of Fairfax Media: What does a grocer know about the media business?

It may be unfair to label Fairfax Media’s likely new chairman, Roger Corbett, a grocer. As the former boss of Woolworths it was his operational skills and business acumen, rather than his feel for fresh fruit, that made him so outstandingly successful.

But the question is legitimate. There are those inside and outside Fairfax who say the company’s greatest need is to replace yesterday’s men with smart, switched-on, media-savvy management. This includes the board, the chief executive, and senior divisional managers.

Gee, that sounds serious. A grocer appointed to run a company which needs to understand that the web is the dazzling future. Perhaps someone from Crikey, which keeps ranting on about this kind of nonsense in a way that can sicken a sensible media commentator like Mark Day, is needed?

Of course not silly billy. In times of trouble, who are you going to call? That's right, web busters:

If JB and Nick get their way, and an international search for a new chairman is undertaken, who are the possible starters?

Locally, two candidates spring to mind. Kim Williams, the CEO of Foxtel, is a smart operator, ahead of the curve on matters digital, steeped in media, a hard taskmaster when it’s needed, yet personable and persuasive with people.

Few people know more about the digital media future than Richard Freudenstein, a former chief operating officer of BSkyB in Britain and now head of News Digital Media in Australia (owned by News Corporation, publisher of The Australian). He is often mentioned as a future CEO of News in Australia, so he may be unwilling to consider taking on the Fairfax transformation.

Doug Flynn is another Australian who worked for News overseas. He was pursued by Fairfax as a possible CEO several years ago but was ultimately ruled out on salary demands. He is now living in Australia.


Among other names mentioned is Murdoch McLellan, currently CEO of London’s Daily Telegraph.


Notice a pattern? Foxtel, BSkyB, News Digital Media, News, the Daily Telegraph UK.

All good Chairman Rupert businesses, run by decent Chairman Rupert chaps, just standing by eager and willing to help out Fairfax Media in its transformation into an understanding that the intertubes has a dazzling future.

Why perhaps they might even develop a magnificent site like The Punch to show the others in Fairfax the way forward. Strangely however it seems even Mark Day recognizes they might not take on Mark Day's advice:

Oddly, JB and Nick Fairfax appear to be sanguine about the possibility of Corbett rising to the chairmanship. While they see him as part of the Walker old guard, they nevertheless recognise his abilities.

A bloody grocer as the chair? I say old sport that will never do. They need to get on board with News Corp, which latched on to the idea of the intertubes having a dazzling future ... in much the same way as after he stopped abusing Crikey, Mark Day seems to have realized they have a point. Still approaching this new fangled beast is tricky:

Identifying and pursuing new-media businesses may require an intimate knowledge of new media, a willingness to chance your arm on start-up ideas and a preparedness to fund initial losses - but they are still businesses.

Naturally the journalists at Fairfax are deeply worried:

That is not a view shared by all shareholders, but the installation of a Corbett-McCarthy team is unlikely to assuage the fears of journalists who worry that the key metropolitan mastheads of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald will go down the cheap-and-nasty path taken by their regional stablemates.

Well there's one thing to reassure those anxious, fearful journalists. Not even a grocer could manage to take down those mastheads to the cheap, sordid, pathetic level that the boys in News Corp have managed for online titles like the Daily Telegraph, and the Herald Sun, and worst of all, that cheap assed, half baked conceit The Punch, Australia's most irrelevant conversation.

As for the regional titles, go take a look at The Advertiser on line some day, and see how a once proud broadsheet now carries itself lower than the lowliest days of The News, before it was folded and offered up only its name to Chairman Rupert's empire.

And possibly there's another notion that will reassure Fairfax journalists. If the team does almost anything directly opposite to what Mark Day suggests, they'll be surely heading out on a more viable road. Here's his final prescription, after a check list of News Corp candidates to head Fairfax:

Whether any of these people would figure in a final selection in a Fairfax head-hunt is unknown. What we do know is that whoever gets the gig will need to see the future clearly and have the ability to deal with the people required to take the company there.

Um, like people who can foresee the imminent death of the newspaper and the dazzling future of the intertubes?

You can read all this and more in Yesterday's men unsuitable for Fairfax's tomorrow, but I'm not certain why you'd bother, unless it's to discover how poor old Mark Day still has trouble coming to terms with tomorrow, while writing today, from the perspective of yesterday ...

Why it was only in June he was writing this, while slagging off bloggers and praising John Hartigan to the skies for slagging off bloggers ... shortly before News Corp launched ... a blog ...

While others search for new forms of journalism, or dicker with the manner in which it is presented, I’d be sticking to my knitting, investing in journalists who actually break stories and uncover the most valuable resource in media companies—news.

When I was in New York recently I arranged a briefing from the people in The Wall Street Journal’s “skunk works”, the futurology department, where new concepts are developed and technological innovations tested. It was very interesting to hear of developments in micro-payment systems, to fiddle with products such as the Kindle e-reader and speculate on Apple’s whispered response—a device similar to the iPhone but with a screen four times the size.

But in the end we had defined lots of questions, isolated lots of puzzles and identified lots of connections, but we were no closer to definitive answers. I commented on this to my host, who grinned and replied: “Yes—exciting, isn’t it?” (here).

He'd be sticking to his knitting? Would that be the same knitting that Fairfax must immediately abandon?

The Fairfaxes believe that any revival must begin at board level. They want a new chairman unscarred by the Walker era, which was marked by a series of mergers and acquisitions that saw top dollars paid for old-tech properties such as the regional publishing business Rural Press and the AM radio talk station network including 3AW Melbourne and 2UE Sydney.

They see a desperate need for Fairfax Media to shape up to the digital future; to lessen its reliance on publishing; and to prepare for the opportunities that will open up with the advent of the national broadband network. These high-speed “pipes” into every home will kick-start the world of internet TV, demanding that news organisations not only report the news but show it on video as well.

It is no longer good enough for media companies to stick to their old knitting.

One of the exciting new games the intertubes allows is the 'then and now', gotcha game. Tim Blair loves to play it, but in the case of the contradictions of Mark Day (or News Corp in general) it's not so much razzle dazzle as same old knitting, same old mouldy sox ...

(Below: xkcd under the header 'steal this comic'. Can't work out why I put this here, not unless it's a thought bubble on Mark Day's grand ideas re charging for internet content. More xkcd here.)


Sunday, October 04, 2009

Silvano Tomasi, paedophilia in the Catholic church, and yet again Christopher Hitchen's thesis that religion poisons everything is proven


(Above: Archbishop Silvano Tomasi).

Following the arrival of the first pope of the un-united church of anti-theists in the antipodes - one Christopher Hitchens - it's surely not too late to illustrate the correctness of his thesis that religion poisons everything, by digging up the only recently interred bizarre Roman Catholic response to its ongoing paedophilia crisis.

You can read it here at The Guardian under the header Sex abuse rife in other religions, says Vatican, and while we're a week late to the scene of the crime, at least we can be content that certain kinds of loonacy are timeless. Here's the opener:

The Vatican has lashed out at criticism over its handling of its paedophilia crisis by saying the Catholic church was "busy cleaning its own house" and that the problems with clerical sex abuse in other churches were as big, if not bigger.

In a defiant and provocative statement, issued following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males.

Yep, not content with smearing other religions, the Catholics trot out an old smear against homosexuality, whereby homosexuals are almost by definition the real cause of paedophilia, and by performing the usual counting the angels on a pin trick by changing definitions (with law enforcement agencies generally using paedophilia as a term referring to child sexual abuse of prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the age of consent - wiki the term here).

Logically, I guess this means that heterosexuality is the cause of sex crimes against underage girls.

Damn, so that's the explanation for Roman Polanski's crime. He was a heterosexual, naturally attracted to sex with an adolescent girl, the use of drugs and alcohol just a damnable by-product of his perverted heterosexuality.

If it weren't so shamelessly vile, it'd be laughable. But hey ho, nonny no, on we go:

The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that "available research" showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.

Um, so you mean in a school with twenty Catholic clergy, one is likely to be getting amongst the youngsters? Or put it another way, if there's say 1.5 million Catholic clergy in the world and "only" 1.5% are involved in child sex abuse, then that means there's "only" 22,500 sex predators at work in the church.

Well that's a huge relief, for a moment there I thought it might be a serious problem requiring serious attention, and perhaps even serious reflection. How else can my mind be eased?

He also quoted statistics from the Christian Scientist Monitor newspaper to show that most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant and that sexual abuse within Jewish communities was common.

Why that's an even huger relief. You mean the Protestants and the Jews are just as bad? What a tremendously good result for religion all round then, knowing that they're all as bad, mad and dangerous as each other.

Can it get better than this? Of course it can:

He added that sexual abuse was far more likely to be committed by family members, babysitters, friends, relatives or neighbours, and male children were quite often guilty of sexual molestation of other children.

Yep, it's not the church, not when you can blame the family, baby sitters and anyone else passing the front of the family home.

Like the family priest? No, no, sure they might be setting an example on how to behave, but the church always makes clear you should practise what they preach, not do as they do. They prefer to lead by words, rather than example. And if none of that satisfies you, remember it's really all the fault of the poofters:

The statement said that rather than paedophilia, it would "be more correct" to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males.

"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17."


Well even if this vile misrepresentation were true, it rather begs the question as to why the church houses so many homosexuals, given their ostensible disdain for homosexuality. But that would be to dignify the vile nonsense on its own misrepresentational terms. Let's instead go back to blaming the other churches in their laxity:

The statement concluded: "As the Catholic church has been busy cleaning its own house, it would be good if other institutions and authorities, where the major part of abuses are reported, could do the same and inform the media about it."

Why am I reminded of childhood arguments about who had their hand in the cooky jar? Surely this is as childish as it gets, beyond the nah nah level to a kind of petulant defiance worthy of a ten year old. And what prompted this peculiar poking out of the clerical tongue?

The Holy See launched its counter–attack after an international representative of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, Keith Porteous Wood, accused it of covering up child abuse and being in breach of several articles under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Porteous Wood said the Holy See had not contradicted any of his accusations. "The many thousands of victims of abuse deserve the international community to hold the Vatican to account, something it has been unwilling to do, so far. Both states and children's organisations must unite to pressurise the Vatican to open its files, change its procedures worldwide, and report suspected abusers to civil authorities."

Funnily enough other churches weren't too impressed by the Vatican's attempts to drag them into sharing the guilt and the blame, perhaps not understanding that once you've been to confession, done your penance, had a wafer and cleansed yourself, you're free to go off and sin again:

Representatives from other religions were dismayed by the Holy See's attempts to distance itself from controversy by pointing the finger at other faiths.

Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, head of the New York Board of Rabbis, said: "Comparative tragedy is a dangerous path on which to travel. All of us need to look within our own communities. Child abuse is sinful and shameful and we must expel them immediately from our midst."

A spokesman for the US Episcopal Church said measures for the prevention of sexual misconduct and the safeguarding of children had been in place for years.

The reality is, the Roman Catholic church has been hardest hit by the paedophilia/sex abuse scandals of recent times, and attempts to palm off the blame on other churches, the family or homosexuals is beyond pathetic. According to The Guardian's report, the church has had to fork out more than $2bn (£1.25bn) in compensation to victims.

As for the Ryan Report, it's detailings of beatings and humiliations doled out by nuns and priests reminded me of my splendid days suffering under the yolk of embittered Dominicans, more than a few of whom had imported Irish ways to the antipodes.

You can read the Ryan Report by going here - but beware it's sombre depressing reading - and if you think The Guardian in its jolly leftie pinko pervert way is doing an April Fool's joke a little early, why not trot off to see the coverage within CathNews here.

My own suspicion? Somehow Christopher Hitchens has planted a mole in the Vatican, and he or she has been devising press releases, so that clowns like Tomasi can prove Hitchen's thesis - religion does indeed poison everything. QED.

And now an assortment of antique newspaper cartoons, from way back in 2003, proving that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Hey, nothing like a little light American anti-clerical humor for a quiet football fever Sunday.






Glenn Milne, Malcolm Turnbull, Wilson mad uncle Tuckey and bartender hit that loon with a bottle of Italian chianti


(Above: First Dog in the Moon back in July 2009 when Wilson Tuckey was already running around like a loon giving big Mal a hard time. And it took September for big Mal to respond firmly. Gee, he's got a long fuse).

Over at the Daily Terror, the inimitable Glenn Milne thinks big Mal (grand Mal as some like to call him), and his recent alleged brain snap are possibly due to any one of the following in any combination you might like to imagine:

1. Italy.
2. A bottle of chianti (or several, no one was counting).
3. Lucy Turnbull.
4. A friend's wedding in Italy.
5. Silvio Berlusconi's Italy
6. A focus on divorce and enemies rather than wedding vows and friends.
7. Italy's - or perhaps Caesar's - tendency to cast the die. Or cross the Tiber.

Unfortunately Milne doesn't bother to provide any insights into Wilson 'Ironbar' Tuckey and what makes that particular loon run.

Instead in what is turning into a regular Sunday sorbet treat of ill-informed commentary, this week under the header Turnbull faces hostile climate, Milne quotes Tuckey favorably:

When a party leader, publicly calls his internal critics "smart-arses'', you have to ask: did it have to come to this?

The fact that it did goes to Turnbull's sometimes fundamental misunderstandings about politics - or what Wilson Tuckey has called his "judgment and inexperience''.

Well bugger me dead and stick my head on a pike in a public square, Wilson Tuckey being an astute judge of politics. The bumbling braying jackass from the west being held up as judge and jury on big Mal. Instead of calling the buzzing bumble bee from the west an indolent trouble-maker, Milne uses the noise from the nest to suggest big Mal lacks judgement and experience. Wilson Tuckey as an arbiter of judgment and experience. Why next we'll have Bill Heffernan wheeled out as an exemplary feminist.

With friends like Milne, let's hope big Mal has some kindly enemies

Instead of suggesting that the likes of Tuckey, Bishop and Ruddock immediately get their marching orders in the pre-selection stakes, Milne broods about how they're going to hang around like a bad smell:

Turnbull may prevail on this issue, but it will be at terrible cost. The minority within the party room opposed to him on climate change will harden in the face of his public denigration and become a permanent ginger group.

Ultimately, facing an almost inevitable loss at the next election, they will go for his leadership.

Ginger? Doesn't that imply red hair, intelligence, or at least a bottle of dye? Why not call them a bunch of dodos unaware of their impending extinction?

Because if Liberals think that following a mad uncle like Wilson Tuckey to the electoral grave yard is the way forward, they deserve to stay out of power for an eternity.

To compound that delusion, Milne suggests the following strategy:

Given all this, no one was in a better position, surely, to have declared, on behalf of the Opposition: "I believe in climate change, I hold to this issue utterly, and I believe in the need to fix it".

But he should have added: "Having said that, I do not believe that Kevin Rudd's job-destroying, environmentally untested Emissions Trading Scheme is the answer.

"As Prime Minister, I will give you an Emissions Trading Scheme, but not this one.''

Two outcomes would have flowed from this position: Turnbull's internal critics would have been silenced, and Turnbull would have been given full licence to attack the Rudd scheme.

Neither has eventuated. Instead, Turnbull has found himself in the always unenviable position of being half-pregnant.

As if the die hard loons would have stayed silent the moment that Turnbull declared he was a believer in climate change. Such crazed hardball deniers are true believers, fanatical members of a cult religion as firm in its hold on its members as creatonism is on its adherents. Without fail they attempt to dress up the debate as a religious issue, by constantly labeling scientists as quasi-religious folk in the grip of a serious delusion. They aren't interested in rational debate or scientific inquiry.

The relentless monomania of a Tim Blair is a closed book, and so is the mind, what there is of it, of Wilson Tuckey.

As a result, Turnbull has found himself in the always unenviable position of being half-Tuckeyed and half-Barnabyed.

He's now done the first sensible thing in recent times - attempted to put his own house in order by telling the smart arses he's supposed to be the one running the party.

Milne of course in his usual way finds any attempt at actual leadership alarming, disturbing, frightening, unfamiliar, and problematic.

According to him, big Mal will find himself boxed into a corner by the fiendishly clever Rudd, and when that happens it will all be big Mal's doing.

Well back in the days of ute-gate, it was all big Mal's doings. But when the debate on climate change and the ETS comes around, fair's fair.

The hard-core rump of persistently squawking loons on the right will help produce a piece of legislation - enacting a Liberal party election policy - which will do little for the environment and little for the economy.

And if Chairman Rudd can present that as a triumph to the electorate, the clowns like Wilson 'mad uncle ironbar' Tuckey will have only themselves to answer to for the result.

My conclusion? Turnbull should do a grand tour to Italy more often, indulge in chianti and a decent coffee (but the Italians also do the best hot chocolate in the world).

Sure it might be a mish-mash of Catholicism, socialism, nudity, regressive social values, rampant corruption, the Mafia, a famously perverted and hugely wealthy PM, sexism, chauvinism, and a lax Mediterranean lifestyle, but as an antipodean circuit breaker, it clearly has a lot to offer.

The mere fact that Turnbull has rattled the cages of Tim Blair, Piers Akerman, Glenn Milne and Miranda the Devine on the one weekend shows he's back on track.

Go grand Mal, have another seizure or three. What have you got to lose, except for the company of loons ....

(Below: the rest of First Dog on the Moon's cartoon. You can find more here, and below that is a cartoon by Bill Leake which takes us for a stroll down memory lane to when big Mal was Minister for the Environment and John Howard was a Wilson Tuckey true believer).



Saturday, October 03, 2009

Piers Akerman, big Mal Turnbull, climate change believers, and the need for sanctioned differentiation


(Above: go here to The Guardian, a liberal leftie pinko pervert rag for more details).

Dear lord, it's a miracle.

Suddenly Piers Akerman, beloved Akker Dakker, well known as the fat owl of the remove to the few regular readers of this site, has fallen into line with Malcolm Turnbull and his call to arms regarding climate change.

Unlike Miranda the Devine, Akker Dakker has bitten the bullet, sucked up the spit, swallowed the dummy, and pronounced all is safe, especially Malcolm Turnbull's job, as outlined in Jobs are key for coalition:

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull will not be quitting any time soon.

In the biggest test of his leadership yet he has managed to come through, though he should ponder why his and the parliamentary Liberal Party’s position on an emissions trading system became such a liability.

The position the shadow cabinet agreed to some four months ago has not changed and it does not present the Rudd Labor government with a victory.

Only in Greyfriars could there be a more comprehensive understanding of the truth than what you could find in The Magic Faraway Tree. There's only victory here, sweet victory.

It seems Malcolm is a hard man. It's not that he's taken Wilson 'Ironbar' Tuckey to the cleaners, he's taken the Rudd government to the car wash:

Shadow cabinet has taken the position that it will prepare serious amendments to the Rudd government’s ETS Bill but it will not approve the Bill if the Rudd government disallows its amendments or agrees to only minor changes.

As Turnbull has bluntly told MPs: if Rudd accepts some amendments but does not exclude the coal industry or agriculture from his scheme then he is whacking the nation with a more onerous tax than Barack Obama is prepared to introduce in the US.

Valiant warrior Turnbull is in fact Obama in drag, fighting for the coal industry and the innocent farmer, unlike the fiendish Chairman Rudd:

Turnbull says he would fight the ETS if Rudd refuses to do what Obama has pledged to do to protect US jobs.

Taking such a position would win the Liberals third-party endorsements from the important rural and mining sectors and even from parts of the trade union movement that are more focused on the realities of the workplace than Rudd and his elitist supporters in the ALP’s inner-urban branches and the totally detached Greens who fantasise that job creation is all about building bicycle paths and counselling the unemployed.

Most importantly, taking this position to party members should keep most thinking Liberals happy and keep the National Party in the Coalition.

Hallelujah, take me to the river and wash the blood away so that I can reach the promised land. The coalition is safe, and Barnaby Joyce a whole-hearted supporter of big Mal.

By golly, there was Tim Blair suggesting that Malcolm Turnbull had joined the Labor party, but Akker Dakker has seen the coming of the lord, and understands the evils he must battle, in particular the satanic Chairman Rudd, and his desire to sell out Australia, so he can remain a media slut

Rudd has numerous reasons for wanting to sell Australia out before December’s meeting on global climate change in Copenhagen. He has pandered to those for whom climate change has become a religion, he has posed internationally as a world leader on the issue and would happily sacrifice the economic well-being of the nation to remain the country’s supreme media tart.

Oh Australia, that ever you should have elected a hooker to run the country. Only too happy to portray those nattering nabobs of negativity as naysayers and nonpareil numchucks. Well perhaps if climate change has become a religion and pandering to these delusional folk is the way to power, maybe Liberals have to become panderers to the delusional just like Chairman Rudd. Because otherwise the outlook is grim:

A blanket refusal to negotiate with the Government would permit the Rudd spin machine and its enormous media chorus to depict the Liberals as negativists with nothing to contribute.

That was the position of the Labor Opposition when it rejected all of the previous government’s far-sighted economic reforms - the very reforms that permitted Rudd to inherit the soundest economy in the Western world when the US sub-prime crisis send the global economy into a tailspin.


But what of Miranda the Devine's contention only yesterday that Malcolm Turnbull had created a win-win situation for himself, by setting up a situation where he could walk away from the leadership if things got ugly, or he could roll over a helpless hapless back bench like a steamroller without consideration for the truth, the reality of global warming. The ugly hideous truth. It's all a big fat lie!

Well never you mind that. Big Mal's got the right angle, and Piers has got his back. Oh sure there might have been a hiccup, a glitch or three, but all's well that ends well:

Turnbull was probably unwise to have raised the stakes of the current debate by placing his leadership in the equation but some might think it will help steel him for the far greater test of the election campaign.

Putting his job in play briefly achieved little or nothing, particularly as his leadership is fragile at best.

Preservation of the unity of the Coalition is the most important task, second only to that of unity within the Liberals.

But what about this nonsense of the coalition going to the last election with an actual climate change policy in place? After all, Senator Ron Boswell had never heard of such a thing. It was all news to him. And what about big Mal and his inclination towards heresy. How say you Akker Dakker?

In his heart, Turnbull is more supportive of the climate change argument ...

Oh no, say it ain't so, not big Mal. No way he could be one of those zealots, those fundamentalist creationist religionist loons who believe in global warming without a shred of scientific evidence.

What on earth can we do to save him, and thus save Australia, and in the process perhaps even save the world. Is there some expert we can turn to in our hour of direst need?

... despite a growing number of distinguished sceptics coming forward on an almost daily basis. Among the latest has been Lord Christopher Monckton, a former policy adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Monckton told a conference in Calgary on Thursday that the science linking rising CO2 levels to calamitous environmental consequences is fatally flawed.

Thank the lord. A Lord. And a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher! Would that be the very same person who suggested anyone who had AIDS should be shipped off somewhere and placed in permanent isolation?

But actually Monckton hasn't come forward lately on this matter, nor indeed he is the latest. He's been banging on about it like an old drum for years, as Akerman well knows, without even consulting the record by looking up the wiki on Monckton here.

Monckton's actual scientific qualifications? Well let's not go there, nor should we bother to recount tawdry criticisms of the kind peddled by the ratbags who've labeled his views as cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation, and pseudo-scientific gibberish.

No, for proper scientific information, we can instead turn to that pillar of science, Akker Dakker himself, who's got a handle on the very latest science:

The latest studies - based on direct measurements in the atmosphere rather than frequently cited, notoriously misleading computer modelling - say the expected warming from the doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) between now and 150 years hence is going to be one-sixth of previous UN Climate Panel estimates.

But if that's the case, why have we wandered down the wrong path with big Mal, whose got a soft spot for the heretics, and as Environment Minister in the Howard government was even known to talk a bit of heresy himself. After all, if there's no panic and nothing to worry about, why has big Mal sold out, and decided to do a deal with that Satanic hooker Chairman Rudd?

What happens to all the true believers celebrated by Akker Dakker these past few months?

The Nationals’ Senator Barnaby Joyce and the more outspoken Liberals, led by MP Wilson Tuckey, are not as entirely illogical on this as their critics claim and there must be some sanctioned differentiation within the Coalition to permit them to legitimately express their views.

Oh that's nice. There has to some sanctioned differentiation - don't you just love the phrasing - for the Moncktons of the Liberal and National parties. Can you just imagine the chortling if Akker Dakker had managed to find a phrase like that coming from the lips of the evil satanic Rudd? Sanctioned differentiation?

So it's a broad church, and just like the current Pope, there's room for a bunch of right wing anti-semitic ratbags like the SSPX.

Phew, thank heavens that's sorted. Chairman Rudd is talking nonsense about climate change and so is Malcolm Turnbull - Lord Monckton tells us so - but we must rally behind the fearless leader, and with a flurry of sanctioned differentiation, all will be well. Surely we can now spend a bit of time explaining just how bad Labor has been these past few weeks?

Anything otherwise assists Labor in its drive to paint the Coalition as chaotic and dysfunctional and distract from the extraordinary positions Rudd Labor has taken in recent weeks.

Its very public gloating over the failure of economist Henry Ergas’ company is a case in point, as is the glee with which Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese greeted the shotgun approach to dismantling Telstra with a subsequent loss to millions of small shareholders.
Both provided very public examples of Labor’s desire to hold government for the power it delivers, but not necessarily for the greater national good.

Oh the evil heartless bastards.

But what about climate change? I'm still not sure. After all, Rudd grand-standed his way through that waste of space called Kyoto. Doesn't it stick in the craw just a little to put the tail between the legs and walk away? Can't we keep banging away that the basic lie perpetuated by these craven creationist religionists who believe in the totally unscientific nonsense known as climate change science? Steady, take it easy, at ease valiant warrior soldiers. Take the soft tissue from the cranium, harden your heads:

Hard heads within the Liberals must acknowledge that as wrong as Kyoto was initially and remains, the previous government’s blanket opposition at the last election probably cost it more votes than WorkChoices because many younger voters have been comprehensively brainwashed to toe an extremist environmentalist line by their teachers.

Sob, that's right, the young have been brainwashed. Why they've even brainwashed Malcolm Turnbull. It's costing votes, it's costing government, what to do? Surely we can't be talking about selling out, about acting like quislings up against the Hitlerite climate changistas?

With that lesson, they must acknowledge that political gain can be made by accommodating those who think they need to do something about the environment, but in doing so insist that whatever action is legislated does not cost one Australian job.

Accommodation, negotiation, big Mal still the leader ... oh no, say it ain't so, it's a sell out, it's a disaster. The best we can do is hold the Brisbane line, and ensure not one Australian job is lost. Even the job of that quisling Malcolm Turnbull ...

Arguing strongly from the national interest point of view and against Rudd Labor’s disastrous plan to damage Australia is the way forward for the Liberals and the Coalition.

Well as you can expect, there was some consternation in the ranks at the prospect of this craven, cowardly way forward. The comments section frothed and foamed at chairman Rudd, and a few even questioned Akker Dakker's own logic, his own betrayal of the truth.

But Akker Dakker was firm regarding the need to sell out, or to put it another way to be realistic:

Matt my point of view is distorted by commonsense. The Liberals cannot dump a policy they went to the last election with. The position I outlined is, i believe, the most realistic path to follow.

By golly, hits on this site slump whenever we take a look at Akker Dakker. He has his own loon following, but most people don't seem to have much time for his ideological ranting. But seeing him writhe on the spit, swing in the breeze, hang from the hook, dangle in the dismal swamp, as he shifts from a fierce hatred of the religious zealots of climate change to a solid endorsement of a climate change believer, in the shape of Malcolm Turnbull, is something to relish, something to see, something to enjoy. It even rivals Luke Skywalker's discovery that Darth Vader is his dad.

Oh sweet sanctioned differentiation. Once again, the fat owl of the remove proves himself the most exceptional of the commentariat columnists ... a misunderstood treasure, designed to provide valuable material for students of propaganda, including a willingness to celebrate a change of tack not seen since the grand days of Lord Haw Haw.

Oops, I see I've broken Godwin's Law once again. Never mind, I'll throw another dollar in the swear jar ... cheap at half the price ...

Postscript: this morning through momentary folly caught Tony Abbott being confronted by Laurie Oakes with a direct quote that climate change was utter crap, yet he supported big Mal and a modified ETS. Proving that like Akerman, Abbott would find it hard to lie straight in bed. How he reconciles his deviousness as a politician with his religious beliefs, we'll leave to him.

(Below: part of our xkcd weekend, more here).


(Eek, a lolcat, deduct one million points).


Tim Dick, the study of ethics, militant atheism, intolerance, and blather for the love of blather


Tim Dick displays a marvelous fundamental level of incoherence - while writing about intolerant militant atheists - that should see a gig opening up for him should ever Christopher Pearson decide to retired from The Australian.


Take this week's row over forcing school kids who opt out of religious education to do nothing. It makes organised religion seem at once stupid and scared, petrified no one will go to scripture if they can do something other than watch a DVD. That a pilot program to teach ethics can't get up in NSW shows the miraculous continuing political power of the Anglican and Catholic churches.

Not since the Bill Henson art-porn debate has the Herald letters editor been so deluged in correspondence, and many held this view: how can anyone object to kids thinking about ethics rather than nothing at all? Hard to answer.

Well it almost goes without saying that Tim has the answer. Somehow this is profound evidence that it's hard line militant atheists that are the real problem:

Those who are not believers live in a time of unprecedented freedom, beyond mere tolerance. We should extend the same to those who are. And for god's sake, give those kids something better to do.

Yep, we've gone beyond mere tolerance into a time of unprecedented freedom, unless of course you happen to want to study ethics or perhaps indulge in gay marriage. Perhaps the worst thing about it all was the way the irrational militant atheists inundated the SMH with outraged correspondence. Haven't they got anything better to do with their time?

Oh I'm sorry, you're still trying to reconcile this magical new era of unprecedented freedom beyond tolerance, with the banal stupidity of kids not being able to study ethics in school, as a simple, easy way of making practical use of this new era of unprecedented freedom.

Well that means most likely you're just an irritating bloody militant atheist:

Atheists are beginning to display the worst trait we hate in religious fundamentalists - intolerance. Militant atheism's end game is a world without believers. Do we really want that?

Faith may well be a delusion but, in Australia, at least, it usually works for good rather than bad, despite the mad views of some clergy and followers who twist religious tenets for their own warped purposes.

Um Tim, protesting by writing letters to the editor about the stupidity of not being able to study ethics in school - thereby commenting on the continuing power of the Catholics and Anglicans in the education system - hardly constitutes intolerance. Unless of course you think it's intolerant to protest about intolerance. Or you think Christian intolerance is somehow goody two shoes while militant atheist intolerance is fiendish and horrible.

As for a world without believers, perhaps we can settle for a world without fruitloop terrorists who think after blowing themselves and others up, that'll give them a pass to paradise, and as well as passing go, they'll collect a couple of hundred bucks and 72 virgins. Or perhaps we might get rid of theocracies like Iran, or mad clergy who twist their religious tenets for their own mad purposes. If you want to believe in pie in the sky by and by, feel free, but why persecute a minority - militant atheists - while a bunch of militant religionists, still way in the majority - if they tell the truth to the census takers - are still running the show.

Um, Tim, I'm coming to think the column was actually just blather for the sake of blather. It isn't a good look, especially in the week Christopher Hitchens is in town seeking to challenge the best minds of the antipodes. 

When the militant atheists manage to get religion out of the state school system (and get all the religionistas funded by John Howard kicked out as well), maybe then it'll be the time to write about the persecution of the Christians. Meantime wasn't the lesson of the day the persecution of wanna be ethics learners?

Perhaps your real problem isn't militant atheists so much as a desire to generate copy based on monumental perversity, and it almost goes without saying, a profound indifference to logic 101. Gee churning out stuff for this new brand, the National Times, is a tough gig.

Sharpen up Tim. I'd send you off to ethics school for a little intensive contemplation, only bugger it, the militant Christians seem to have nobbled them ...

(Below: xkcd, more xkcd here).



Miranda Devine, factional Liberal brawls, climate change, and poor old Malcolm still in the middle


Ain't it grand to play the 'then and now' game so beloved of Tim Blair.

Of course, it's absurd and unfair, and based on the unseemly proposition that someone can't change their opinions in the face of convincing evidence.

Still, the temptations it offers are irresistible. Here's Miranda the Devine under the header Planet doomsayers need a cold shower back in April when she was celebrating dissident scientist Ian Plimer:

Such independent scientific dissenters have been demonised, their evidence marginalised, as climate change has become a quasi-religious belief. But you cannot stop one side from debating what is the biggest policy decision of our era.

Back then, she was keen to establish that not one Australian had been killed by climate change, and that anything we did would be futile and wouldn't change anything anyway, so why do it.

Even further back, in November 2008, under the header Beware the church of climate alarm, she was doing her level best to defend the honor of Vaclav Klaus:

... the real fear driving climate alarmists wild is that a more rational approach to the fundamentalist religion of global warming may be in the ascendancy - whether in the parliamentary offices of the world's largest trading bloc or in the living rooms of Blacktown.

Back then, creationists and climate alarmists were birds of a feather, full of religious zeal, inclined to become quite vicious and irrational (or so said Ian Plimer with her full approval), determined to peddle their shrill lies, even as ordinary folk began to suspect the zealotry and one-sidedness of the debate, and took noble steps to discover the real truth about creationists and climate alarmists.

So what's new? Well it's October, spring has sprung, Malcolm Turnbull is still the hapless man in the middle of an ongoing ETS climate change war within his party, and in Fine feathered factional friends, Miranda the Devine is chiding him for being a bit of a curmudgeon, inclined to create a false dichotomy on which his future now rests:

... the fact is that you can articulate a position on climate change that does not dispute man's contribution without buying into a complicated ETS, which benefits global financiers but has doubtful value for the environment. You don't have to be a climate sceptic to oppose a new stealth tax on Australians before we even know what the rest of the world plans.

Come again? You can articulate a position on climate change that doesn't dispute the zealotry and religous zeal of climate change fundamentalists, when climate change is completely unproven, hasn't killed a single Australian, and about which we've wasted endless hours of needless debate, about what we should do, when it's patently clear we should do nothing at all?

Surely she can't mean there's no point disputing man's contribution (as usual women are too feeble to contribute anything)?

Poor old Malcolm in the middle, with Miranda the Devine and Wilson Tuckey as bedfellows. No wonder he spat the dummy, trying to stop the Liberal party from disappearing up its own fundamentalism in the manner of American Republicans.

Devine is of course in the ratbag right camp, and by that we might take as a key example, David Clarke, whose shenanigans in the state Liberal party of NSW have routinely helped the state Libs snatch defeat from victory, as an incompetent NSW Labor government goes about the business of ruining the state.

About the only reason the Liberals haven't got back in has been the festering feuding, and the desire on the part of the extreme right to take the state Liberals further to the right, when they just needed to convince enough voters that what they really cared about was being a centrist party intent on managing the state better than the hopeless Labor tribe.

Naturally the Devine is in favour of David Clarke, contrasting him to federal MP Alex Hawke:

Hawke, 32, was once a protege of the upper house Liberal MP David Clarke, the putative leader of the traditional right faction. Clarke is unfairly maligned as a sinister religious extremist because he is socially conservative, a fan of John Howard, goes to Mass on Sundays and is married to a member of the Catholic organisation, Opus Dei. He and Hawke had surfed the wave of Howard conservatism, sweeping away two decades of control by the soft left wing of the party, and in 2007 he helped Hawke win the safe north-west Sydney seat of Mitchell.

Opus Dei? That'll do me for sinister, and no, I'm not abusing left handers. Now read on:

But with Clarke and his supporters unpalatable to the federal and state Liberal leadership, Hawke must have seen his political future as brighter without the baggage of his former boss. So he has embarked since October on a systematic power grab to oust Clarke at his next pre-selection, say Clarke's allies.


Well as we used to like to say in the Catholic church, thank the lord for that. The sooner that Clarke is ousted, and the sooner that Miranda the Devine and what she calls the John Howard conservatives or 'traditional right' are disappointed, the sooner state Liberals will have a go at running NSW, and the better Malcolm Turnbull's chances will be in the federal sphere.

You don't win the game by appearing to head off to the loony left (Mark Latham) or the loony right. You head towards the centre, and talk about stability and unity and moving forward into the future (as if we had a choice, time working the way it does), and then once in power you can go as loony as you like.

The factional brawling going on at the moment might be ugly, but it's necessary if the Liberals want to reclaim the centre and the swinging voter from Chairman Rudd, who got to power by pretending he was John Howard with a nerdish soft core caramel centre.

The more the Devine moans about the corrosive Hawke faction, and berates Turnbull, and talks about the outbreaks of undemocratic behaviour in the supposed party of freedom, you have to think that a little brawl at a Young Liberals party meeting is a promising sign.

Because the current situation for Malcolm Turnbull is that he can't articulate a coherent, sensible position on climate change, which doesn't dispute man's contribution, without buying into the whacky world of the zealots, fundamentalists and true believers, as exemplified by Miranda the Devine, and Wilson 'Iron Bar' Tuckey.

When you can have a gherkin like Nationals Senator Ron Boswell denying the coalition took a carbon trading scheme to the electorate as part of the last election campaign, you can imagine the difficulties poor old Malcolm and shadow minister Macfarlane face rounding up the truculent sceptics and hostile unbelievers and deniers.

This is Alice in wonderland territory, a bit like trying to decipher the runes on what Miranda the Devine actually thinks about the matter of climate change. 

Well you don't have to worry about the recalcitrant Tim Blair, who in Malcolm seizes muddle ground, continues his holy war with a fine example of zealotry dressed up as satire:

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull this week stood up to rebels within the Liberal Party and demanded they demonstrate their complete and unconditional support.

For the Labor Government.


Poor Malcolm. With friends like Tim and Miranda, you never have to worry about running short of enemies ...

(Below: a couple of cartoons from the NMA's pick of the best cartoons of 2008, here. Lord knows the NMA building and physical exhibitions are a mess, perhaps they'll do better as an online repository, as first proposed in the Keating years before John Howard decided to leave his appalling architectural taste to history. The first is by John Spooner, the second by David Pope).



Keysar Trad, polygamy, polyandry, dangerous ideas and the fix is still in for men


Anxious punters eager to save a buck or three but still anxious to be confronted by dangerous ideas will be relieved to learn that Keysar Trad has gazumped his Sunday talk on why Polygamy and other Islamic values are good for Australia by publishing a column in today's SMH asking Why should polygamy be a crime?

They'll even more pleased to know you can learn a lot more useful information about polygamy by heading off to the wiki with that name here.

For free. 

Because of course Trad is mainly interest in a specious, dissembling form of special pleading than he is in providing information or a balanced view on the subject.

Let's cut to the chase because it's too tedious to follow Trad down the labyrthnine paths of his thinking. What about the notion that - if men can have more than one wife - what about women having more than one husband? After all, fair's fair, goose for the gander, and vice versa, and so forth and etcetera:

While Islam sanctions polygyny, it does not condone threesomes. Islam also does not permit polyandry, a form of relationship in which a wife takes more than one husband. There are many reasons for this. Some are medical, some relate to paternity. Others pertain to the sexual proclivities of the different genders. The sex therapist Bettina Arndt, promoting her book Sex Diaries, outlined the merits of women saying "yes" more often to sex with their husbands. If Arndt's research is reflective of a greater portion of the population, a monogamous relationship leads to reduced interest in sex among women and a perpetual state of conjugal frustration among men.

Well it's a relief to know that Islam doesn't condone threesomes. That's a huge step forward from those dark, evil hippie days with all that talk about free love, and loving the one you're with if you can't be with the one you live. All that murky Tantra nonsense.

But what's this nonsense about polyandry? What on earth are the medical reasons that mean it's not a goer? And what does the notion of paternity have to do with anything if we're heading to the original state of the world, a matriarchal society? (I keed, I keed).

But the capper is the nonsense about how if you're in a monogamous relationship, and the frail, genteel woman isn't up to the job of the huge male appetite for sex, then you should shop around for extra wives to ease your state of conjugal frustration.

Yep, it's the old myth about men having giant insatiable pricks which lead to too much fainting amongst women, who simply can't handle sex, and the funniest thing is that it puts Trad in bed with Bettina Arndt. What a pair of odd bedfellows, but the level of crocodile tears from Trad gets even more startling:

If men in monogamous relations are not satiated, by its very nature polyandry creates an overwhelming burden for a woman in long-term relationships.

How quaint. I don't think I've heard the word 'satiated' in this context since I read my last piece of soft porn or a nice bodice ripper. Satiated, he rested against her heaving bosom. Oh yes, a satiated bosom.

But isn't it wonderful for Trad to worry so about the overwhelming burden for women in long term relationships created by that dangerous concept, polyandry.

Why next he'll be telling us all how the face and form of deviant, perverted women - when exposed to the helpless, lustful gaze of the male eye - can only lead to rampant sex, and must of course lead the cloaking of all that unwholesome uncovered meat by clothing best suited to a desert climate in a sand storm.

Who someone marries first is an accident of history. If a man who has an affair had met his mistress before his wife, he may have married her. Why maintain the facade that is the Justinian doctrine of monogamy knowing it has failed as a social experiment?

A man can have multiple girlfriends. Why not formalise that into a commitment for life? Why should “bigamy” be a crime?

Um, where were we again? A woman can have multiple boyfriends? Why not formalise that into a commitment for life? Why should women be penalized by the hopelessly outdated retarded phallocentric thinking of males, dressed up in the form of a religious ordinance?

Apparently - so Trad claims - the last time he spoke on this subject, he was misrepresented by the media, misquoted, abused and mocked, in much the same way as Christ was once tormented by the unbelievers.

Well just as Trad is worried about the fate of bigamists, let's hope he's worried about the fate of homosexuals, and sees a way forward for gay marriage. Why am I reminded of Christopher Hitchens on the ABC's Q & A (here)?

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: But that's what secular means. But in that case I think it behoves the religious to say what they genuinely mean. Now, Frank just talked about homosexuality as if the church had never condemned it as a mortal sin.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes. Yes. Yes.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: I mean, it's extraordinary. I would not know that you were a member of the Society of Jesus, except that it was a very Jesuitical point you were making and concealed your main one.

TONY JONES: I'd like to...

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: And I'm sorry, Waleed, it's the same. Islam says the same. You cannot be a good Muslim and publicly be a homosexual. Why don't you...

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Absolutely.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: ...given the wonderful freedom of a secular conversation, when no one is going to say anything about your right to say it, why don't you say what you actually think? How about that?


Well because in Trad's case, the hidden agenda is the ongoing oppression of women, dressed up in the guise of their liberation, which naturally is the liberation to serve and service men.

Let's hope that what went around once for Trad comes around again, as he mounts his case for polygamy mainly by attacking monogamy, which would be a bit like me attacking polygamy because (a) by Trad's own admission, even permissive towards polygamy Islamic societies tend to monogamy and (b) recent experiments, such as those conducted by wild cat Mormons, have proven to be disastrous, and are usually designed by men to exploit women socially, sexually and economically.

Meantime, Trad seems intent on cultivating a culture of civil disobedience:

When a couple marry in a Christian church, it indicates they want their marriage to be governed by the rules of that church. The same applies for unions conducted under Muslim rules. For a marriage to be valid under Islam, it requires the consent of both parties, at least two witnesses and a dowry paid by the groom to the bride as a gift for her to use as she pleases.

There is no requirement for such a union to be "legally" registered with a secular body that does not recognise the clauses in a Muslim union. Plural relations of this nature that take place in Australia are treated like de facto relationships and are not registered. This keeps them outside the ambit of the nation's criminal and marriage laws. Such unions are not considered adulterous because they follow the rules of an Islamic union. They are not secret and they carry no stigma under God.

Uh huh, and just in cause you were thinking that polygamy might now be all the go (or plural relations as we now must call them), let's retreat a little in the dance:

This is not to say that people are actively encouraged to enter such unions. Islam stipulates very strict equality in the treatment of wives. If a man cannot treat his wives equally, the Koran says he should have only one. Monogamy is the norm in Muslim communities. However, men who are capable of supporting more than one partner equally are advised to be open, honest and accountable in their relationships and to treat their wives fairly.

Yep, and shove her in a sack of black cloth made out of chaff  bags. Well I guess there's equality and then there's equality, Wahhabism style.

Yes, polygyny may lead to jealousy. We are all human. But in a caring and sharing world where we become euphoric when we give to those in need, sponsor orphans and provide foster care, the ultimate in giving is for a woman to give a fraction of her husband's time and affection to another woman who is willing to share with her. It is a spiritually rewarding experience that allows women to grow while the husband toils to provide for more than one partner.

Spiritually rewarding? 

Spare me while I go out into the back yard and heave a little bilious bile on the plants, in the hope that it helps them grow, before I have to read another line of sanctimonious claptrap about the rewarding spiritual experience facing women who allow their men to rut like rancid camels, while they - poor dears - are too tired and frail to do the same.

There's a lot wrong with monogamy and a lot wrong with western institutions like marriage (serial monogamy seems to be the current best practice) but reverting to Islamic notions of polygamy - themselves a frail and threadbare imitation of much older societal ideas - ain't the solution, no more than reverting to the ideas of the Torah, or thinking that maybe it's about time the notion of concubines made a come back (though I am excited by the thought that the festival of dangerous ideas might pick up on my idea of reviving slavery, and shipping poor Chinese to Australia so we can have a decent supply of butlers, maids, cooks and gardeners. Seems like maybe I should add concubines to the list to take care of male needs, because after all it'll be a spiritual experience for the dears).

There you go Bettina Arndt. In your folly, you are fodder for the likes of Trad. Can I propose a wide ranging polygamy that sees this lot married off and then despatched to a giant polygamous commune based on Islamic principles, perhaps somewhere near Antarctica?

Truly, as Christopher Hitchins will argue tonight in the Opera House, religion poisons everything. The only question is why the likes of Trad seem to feel the need to be even more offensive and poisonous than the likes of Pell when it comes to the role of women in the world ...

Hey ho, on we go, what a splendid idea this festival of dangerous ideas is turning out to be, with more fodder for loon pond in a weekend than some might dream of finding in a life time ...



(Below: now stop all that, we don't believe in threesomes, at least not when the men are at the top of the food chain).