Differences in Opinion

Andrew Bolt has done it again.

On the one hand he claims that the bombing of Hiroshima was necessary to save further bloodshed, but then he condemns Penti Linkola a Finnish green thinker for believing the world needs less people in order to save the planet.

I'm really confused by this, because I see these as the exact same kind of thinking.

I'm not sure if my comment is too long, but Bolt has said he's writing a larger article tomorrow, so I might re-post it in those comments. I really hope I get a response, because I'm legitimately worried that I'm the stupid one for not seeing a difference, and hoping he can clear it up for me...

Here's what I wrote:

Andrew, didn't you just today say that the bombing of Hiroshima was required to stop a greater catastrophe?

I'm pretty sure you did:

"In making such judgements, the utilitarian is driven above all by the moral imperative to preserve as many people as possible from harm. Given that, the utilitarian would also seek in war to avoid any needless deaths, especially of civilians."

Unlike many of your blog posts, these are completely your own words. [LINK]

So you agree that those Japanese killed in the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima needed to be sacrificed to save the planet from the greater threat of Nazi and Japanese Imperialism.

Is that correct?

So how can you condemn these people - you were saying the EXACT SAME THING in that people need to be sacrificed for the greater good??

I really can't see what the difference is here.

One the one hand you had the annihilation of everything we hold dear by the Nazis and Japanese, and on the other hand we have the annihilation of everything we hold dear by environmental breakdown.

Either way it's still total Annihilation.

BUT WAIT - I know what you're going to say "Environmental Annihilation isn't certain."

Well mate, neither was cultural annihilation by the Nazis.

If you look at history, you'll see that the Romans tried to do the exact same thing as the Nazis, and they succeeded, and then the Saxons, and then the Christians, and so on and so on, but traditions thousands of years old that we hold dear still exist.

The world took a different course, but many traditions people held dear and fought for were preserved despite them losing to another culture.

So, can you please explain what the difference between Linkola's position and your position is, because I can't see one.

The Advertiser Editors have some bloody nerve!

I had to laugh at the editorial entitled “Free people must be allowed a free press” that was on the AdelaideNow website on April 28, 2007.

The gall of the Advertiser editors to claim that they are some kind of bastion of democracy is phenomenal. If they actually think that they need to stop smoking the crack they are obviously are on and come down from their ivory tower and actually participate in the local community, because it's obvious they have an over inflated perception of them selves and their newspaper.

I couldn't help myself - I had to write in:

You claim that “A free media, the freedom of speech and expression of opinion, is the heartland of any democracy”.

The moment News.Corp appropriated all of Adelaide's papers into one was the moment the “press” ceased to resemble anything remotely associated with the word “free”. Murdoch's constant and consistent meddling in political affairs in Australia, the UK and USA stripped his media of any claim to the democratic process. Add to that the Federal Government's recent relaxing of media ownership laws to allow Murdoch more control and your entire diatribe at the government and lawmakers becomes fallacious at best, diabolical at worse.

You claim that parliaments are “the epitome of half-truth and obfuscation” yet in the last few months the Advertiser has shown itself to be more than equal to that task.

You claim that we are “fed a diet of misleading and shrewdly crafted press releases” but who publishes these releases? Who constantly publishes unresearched feeds from PR people and foreign newspapers?

The story about Knut the polar bear still has not been corrected in ANY news corporation publications, although the ABC's mediawatch showed that elements of the story were completely false and the animal rights activists involved now fear for their life because you “copy and pasted” the article from AP's news feed.

Examples of this sloppy journalism on corrections has increased phenomenally in recent years and yet your responses to such places as mediawatch when queried on it are unapologetic in most cases, and downright rude in others.

I have a challenge for you – you research and report the truth properly according to the MEAA's code of ethics, and when you do screw up the truth of the story you print a prominently positioned apology, and we, the public, will help to fight to stop your freedoms being eroded.

But until that time to ask that we support you would be laughable if it wasn't such a disturbing and disingenuous use of the Advertiser's editorial.

Knut the cute polar bear

Remember that story about those horrible animal activists who wanted to have that mega cute little polar bear called Knut put down?

For example THIS STORY



The cute little fella was even in the Colbert (or should that be Colbear?) Report!

Well, the whole story is a fiction. A lie*.

There's a bear called Knut, and that's about the extent of the "truth" behind this story.

Thank the world for mediawatch!


But I just wanted to bring this up to say that journalists never do their jobs correctly. I know the reasons for this - lack of funds, lack of time, publishing deadlines - but I don't CARE about them.

In any other industry, if something similar happened, the people who took this story as truth and reported it from the AP feed would all be sacked.

Yet I'm betting in 90% of newspapers and websites you won't even see a correction, let alone an apology to all involved.

It's utterly disgusting that these people go about their lives, after ruining the lives of others, without any feelings of guilt or remorse after reporting a story so badly. The media has totally screwed this up, and are unapologetic about it, and it makes me so angry!

Please, to all my readers, all 3 of you, can you link to this post, to the mediawatch page, blog about it, email about it, just spread the word about this, and get the media to admit their mistake and apologise to the men whose lives have been threatened with violence because of this poorly researched story.




*I'd go further and say it's a dirty smear campaign against Animal Rights and those who support them, and then by extension the Leftist and Green movements, but that would make me seem paranoid...

I'm TIME's Person of the Year!

Time Magazine's Person of the Year is You!



Yes, You. And me, and everyone who has published online.

I think it's a fantastic idea, although the idea of putting a mirror on the cover is strangely reminiscent of the Dude from the Great Lebowski film.



However, in Crikey, Christian Kerr, a media journalist, hits out at them.

He claims that TIME is running scared of 'new media', which crikey counts themselves as, and this is a way to get people to buy the magazine.

He says the idea of having a mirror on the cover was stolen from some 1970s band's record cover - and fair enough, it's not a new idea, but come on, can he be a little more 'new media' and use a popular culture reference most of us will know, like for instance, the Big Labowski?

Anyway, I sent them a letter, and it got published. Here it is:

Re. "Old media needs to take a look in the mirror" (yesterday, item 17).

OK, I know it was a Monday, but why is Christian 'need to change my first name to Wayne' Kerr so cranky about the Time article?

Sure, the "traditional" media is under threat, but they also do have a point, although technically they're 3-5 years too late.

As someone who has been involved with the Net since its fairly early days in the early 90s, I have noticed that the utopia of a free media and information promised in early scholarly articles hasn't come from wanker academics or journalists like Kerr, but from ordinary slobs like myself.

I was the one responsible for leaking the Ratbag sellout of Midway* to the major news sources via my blog. I was the one who got the Hilltop Hoods recognised by Melanie Safka (my review is on her website).

Sure, it may not be uncovering Howard's illicit liaison with Bob Hawke's wife or anything mindblowing like that, but it DID get international attention, something impossible ten years ago.

And that's Time magazine's point.

If Kerr is too up himself to accept this, maybe he should write his own blog in his own time and with his own money like the rest of us, instead of riding the coat-tails of an organisation that has to beg for subscriptions to a newsletter full of pompous asses and half truths!

* sellout as in buying us out then closing us down

So Bolt doesn't Like Borat

So, Andrew Bolt and some wanky socialist don't like Borat?

Here's my response:

I confess I haven't seen the movie, but I have seen enough of Cohen's Shows to realise what this movie will be.

If people are too ignorant to get the joke, to know about Cohen and Borat because they can't be bothered thinking about anything outside their own little window, sucks to be them.

His act simply wouldn't work on people who weren't ignorant. But there's so many people in the world who are so shallow and close minded that his act will continue to work for many, many years.

Maybe if we had a better education system, better global outlook, and a better society overall, Cohen's humour would be what you claim it is - cruel and manipulative.

But the fact so many don't question him, don't challenge him when he's being racist, sexist and homophobic - enough people to get a successful series and movie made - is the really sad part of his act.

If you have trouble recoginsing the predudices of people in the film, maybe it's because it's your own predudices coming into play.

You claim it is 'courteous people' being made fools - no it isn't.

These people go along with him - for whatever reason - and never once do they say "hey, you're out of line" or "stop doing that" or "I don't give a fudge where you come from, stop insulting those people". Never once do they challenge him, and many go along with him. That's worse than fooling people in the first place. Who is more fool?

The Nazi's killed millions because people refused to speak up against what they knew was wrong, and Cohen is pointing out even many years later people are just as ignorant, even with our internet and globalization.

Hopefully Borat will make people more aware of what they do and how they act. Then Cohen has done what he wants to achieve, and that's a damn better outcome than feeling warm and fuzzy because of portaloos.

Oh, and those "Frat Boys" aren't the innocent fools you make them out to be...

"While Cohen and his production team certainly have a knack for finding and taking advantage of the, shall we say, socially questionable citizens of the "U.S. and A," it's hard to imagine that this suit has much merit. First off, a quick look at Seay's Myspace pictures suggest that "gettin' drunk and havin' a good time," are pastimes he regularly engages in -- not behaviors that the producers likely duped him into. Second, he, along with everyone else in the film, signed an agreement relinquishing any rights to take action. Third, the scene in question is so despicable (even though Seay appears less awful than his two frat brothers) that it's hard to imagine any judge or jury feeling sympathetic to his cause." (link)

Another day, another wanker... This time it's Piers Ackerman

What is it with these so-called journalists? When I can do a quick two minute google search that basically tears their stories and opinion to shreds, it really makes you question how the fuck they got employed in the first place...

I DO like the fact that they are willing to have their albeit idiotic thoughts opened up to people to comment on, and wish more would partake in the fun.

Piers Ackerman has yet another jab at the ABC over of all things Playschool. Maybe they should have a Playschool for fat, old journalists.

Here's my reply to him... a bit more vehement than my response to Bolt, so less likely to be published.

It says on your blog page that you're one of Australia's best journalists. If this is the case then God help the media!

You're simply an idiot. This has got nothing to do with the ABC and everything to do with your pathetic and on going ABC bashing. When will you stop beating a dead horse?

This change has been happening in ALL children's programs, and isn't just a leftist change. Take a look at how Sesame Street has changed.

A simple search on google will find that it's being used to spread pro-American propaganda through Muslim countries (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3200699.stm) to the changing of cookie monster to promote healthier eating by singing "Cookies is a sometimes food" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4432415.stm)

But then a simple google search is probably beyond your capabilities.

Andrew Bolt's brilliant journalistic mind...

Andrew Bolt on the Herald Sun is bashing the 'left wing bias' in today's media.

Very admirable, but he totally misses the point.

On his second post about the Lebanese taxi apparently bombed by Isreal being a hoax (and talk about beating a dead horse) He says "Well, we know now beyond doubt, thanks to Zombietime, that the story was completely false".

I had to post a comment, and I'll be interested to see if it's published. Here's what I wrote:

Um, no we don't.

Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the real truth. Mr Bolt is a lazy, inept journalist.

Here we see his absolutely brilliant journalistic mind at work: Take one source and treat it gospel truth.

The Zombietime people just look at photos and surmise the outcome. It is hardly irrefutable proof that what occurred is a hoax.

To really tell if this occurred, you'd need to travel to Lebanon and interview people from both sides of the conflict, interview observers and witnesses, analyse the metal around the hole looking for burn residue.

But if you are happy to report a biased, unfounded and quite possibly false piece of photographic comparative analysis as truth and demand an apology from other sources who report a different truth, then that's your problem, not mine.

However, you're the one being paid as a 'journalist'.

Then again, you're not really a journalist, are you Mr Bolt?

Just like owning a guitar is not enough to make you a rockstar, you're just being paid by a newspaper to put your words on a page...