A difference of opinion

Does pineapple belong on a pizza?

That’s a difference of opinion.

But if you try to tell me the attack on the US Capitol of January 6^th, 2021 was simply a peaceful protest which was reported misleadingly by the emessem, that is not a difference of opinion. That is to deny objective truth.

If you think Tucker Carlson’s bowdlerised recut of footage released exclusively to him by a new House Speaker who has already proven he cares more about his personal ambition than the good of both his country and his party, is just a different point of view, then your opinion is worthless.

Carlson himself has been outed by subpoenaed text messages as someone who would rather lie to his audience than lose that audience to even bigger psychopaths. Those of us who understand that objective truth is still a real thing knew this long ago but it’s something else to have it confirmed by the horse’s ass’s mouth. Even liars can tell the truth sometimes, but nobody should ever believe them without confirming sources.

There is an old adage that if one side says it’s raining and another side says it’s sunny, it’s not journalism’s role to report both statements equally; it’s journalisms role to open a bloody window and see who’s lying.

You can blather on about the hidden agenda of CNN, or The New York Times, or any outlet whose name doesn’t have an X at the end all you like. But if you choose to believe the one voice claiming it’s sunny outside, then why are you still dripping wet?

If you think pineapple is a valid pizza topping, then I respect your opinion. If you don’t, that’s okay too. We can all get along.

If you tell me the events at the US Capitol on January 6^th, 2021 were anything less than a coup attempt, egged on by the outgoing president himself, that is not a valid opinion. I am going to tell you you’re wrong and I’m going to tell you why.

This was not a peaceful protest

Your mileage may vary

The Rules: Keeping it real

Ben and Candy Carson terrific.     What about a real black President who can properly address the racial divide?  And much else.

— Rupert Murdoch  (@rupertmurdoch) October 8, 2015

Oh, for pity’s sake Rupert! Do you have to make it so bloody easy?

I would have thought that to be as rich and powerful as you are, one would have to have at least a modicum of sense. Oh well, you know what they say about assumptions. Or are you playing the ‘doddery old man who, despite a 60-year reputation for being a control freak, doesn’t know what’s going on in his own businesses’ shtick that you pulled in front of the Leveson inquiry?

For you, and anyone else who needs to be told, here are the rules:

If you renounced your citizenship in order to own a television network, you don’t get to talk about who is real.

If you took up citizenship of another country, not because you love the country or believe in its values, but to expand your personal empire, you don’t get to talk about who is real.

If you frequently use the word “we,” when referring to the concerns of Australia, and of Britain, and of the United States, you don’t get to talk about who it real. I’m all for internationalism but you have made your choice.

If you’re an old white man, you don’t get to decide what makes a “real” black man. I thought you might have learnt that from your minion at Southbank after he came unstuck doing something similar. Oh, but who am I kidding?

Finally – and this is for anyone – if you’ve found a black person you like, that doesn’t prove you’re not a racist. In fact, using the “Look, here’s a black person I agree with, so I’m totally not a racist,” angle is actually pretty racist. We might not have thought you were until you brought it up. You might as well tell us who some of your best friends are, and how much you liked The Cosby Show or Michael Jackson before he went all funny.

And one last thing, Rupert: Don’t ever call yourself Australian again. I know you like to claim to still be Australian when it’s convenient to you but you are not. You said so, under oath without purpose of evasion, on September 4th, 1985. So don’t talk to anyone else about being real.

  
 

The Rules: Booing

Dear Australia,

I can’t believe I have to tell you this, but booing is wrong, mmmkay?

What I know about football could fit on a postage stamp with plenty of room to spare but I know this much: booing is wrong.

I was taught this in primary school and I’m pretty sure you were too. I was not taught that there is a time and place when it’s acceptable to boo people, unless you call the time “never” and the place “nowhere.” I was not taught that it is acceptable to boo for this reason but not that reason. It’s just not acceptable. At all. Ever. Clear?

Booing a sportsman or a performer is rude, aggressive, boorish and has no place in a decent society. It is no more or less rude, aggressive, boorish or unacceptable according to your motive for booing. It doesn’t matter whether your reason is because someone scored against your team, plays a song you didn’t like, flubbed their lines, dropped a catch or fell over. It doesn’t matter if you disapprove of the team they play for, their hairstyle, their celebrations after scoring or even – and I’m just mentioning this for the sake of example – even if you’re just a little bit racist.

Booing for ANY reason is just as crude and disgraceful as booing for any other reason. It’s not that hard to understand. Although I’ve admitted my ignorance of football, I would have thought this would be obvious at a game that tries to present itself as good, clean family fun.

If you think booing at a sporting event is acceptable providing the motivation behind the booing is correct, then you’re not part of the problem, you ARE the problem.

Grow up, set a better example for the younger generation, or go home.
 

This player didn't get booed. Just sayin’.

 

The rules: Debating

What a sad day for academic freedom when staff at a university silence a dissenting voice rather than test their ideas in debate #auspoI

— Christopher Pyne (@cpyne) May 8, 2015

We all know that simply saying, "You're an idiot! Shut up and go away!" is not the most ethical or effective argument but sometimes, it's the quickest and most accurate, so what it lacks in grace, it makes up for in efficiency.

Let's not pretend that the University of Western Australia's cancelling of its involvement with Bjorn Lomborg's so called "consensus centre" (sounds a bit like a "wellness clinic," doesn't it?) was any kind of blow to academic freedom or dissenting voices. On the same day as Minister Pyne's tweet, a loud and influential "dissenting voice" was published in The Australian, even though his premise was something you would more likely expect from David Icke or Alex Jones than from a serious government advisor, so it's not as though dissent is hard to find, or indeed underfunded.

Any university has its reputation and credibility to think of before associating itself with any kind of "contrarian." It would be like expecting a hospital to seriously research the possibility that every smoker it treats might have developed cancer anyway. It would be like NASA housing and funding the flat earth society. Anyone who would make such arguments are not mere dissenters - they are are cranks and do not deserve to have their opinions treated equally. With all the evidence already available, it would be a waste of time and effort to further debate the point with people who have already made it clear that are not swayed by science. They are idiots. They should shut up and go away.

Dissent is not a virtue in and of itself. It's a question of why you're dissenting and if you can back it up. Hell, if you want dissent for its own sake, I'll say that that Moon is a Russian spy satellite, fluoridation causes bunions and Grant Denyer is a Venusian lizard sent to suck out the intestines of all left handed people born on a Thursday. Give ME four million dollars!

It's perhaps also worth noting that as the Leader of the House, it's part of Christopher Pyne's job to silence debate in parliament by moving that the member no longer be heard or that the question be now put. It's well and good to support dissent and debate, but not only when it suits you.

The Rules: Respect

An old saying, bordering on cliché, states that respect is earned, not given.

Sadly, this has become an argument of convenience for those who want to justify being disrespectful.

It’s true that respect is earned, but that leaves us with two options. We can treat people with respect until they have shown they haven’t earned it, or we can treat people without respect until they’ve proven they have.

Anyone who chooses the latter gets no respect from me.
  
 

The Rules: Courage

I wrote last year about how to spot an adult: They're the ones who don't feel the need to brag that they're an adult.

Now, nearly six months into the job, Tony Abbott's next great claim is that his immigration minister is not a wimp. Really, Tony? After what can only be described as an utter balls-up, is that all you've got? Australians don't want a wimp?

To quote the classics, It's so easy to laugh, it's so easy to hate; It takes guts to be gentle and kind. Strength is self-evident. If you have to boast about it, then you ain't got it.

Show me someone who brags about being grown up and I'll show you a petulant child.

Show me a grown man in a position of great power who still feels the need to prove he's not a wimp, and I'll show you a pathetic little WIMP.

You protest too much, Tony. And so do all the gang behind you.

By the way, one Catholic to another, Jesus was a "wimp."
 

Bill’s all-purpose, do-it-yourself government inquiry

There are hundreds, if not thousands or scandals, crises and stuff-ups worthy of a government inquiry. The problem is that these inquiries are long, expensive and inevitably become politicised in one way or another.

Here’s a quick and easy way to streamline the process:
Simply round up anyone who has ever spoken on the crisis, scandal or stuff-up and uttered the words,

“Now is not the time to play the blame game.”

It’s probably their fault.

If they are not directly responsible, they are probably culpable in some way.

Just treat the matter like it was primary school:

“Bobby, did you steal Jennifer’s pencil?”

 - Look Miss, we’re all sorry Jennifer’s pencil is missing, but now is not the time to play the blame game or indulge in some kind of witch hunt. What needs to happen now is that we all need to pull together to help Jennifer write again and ensure others’ pencils don’t go missing in the future.

“Bobby, DETENTION!”

Simples!
  
 

The Rules: Clickbait

To anyone who writes, posts or shares articles that contain the words,  
You won't believe...

Whenever I see these links, I simply take your word for it and I don't bother clicking.
  
 

The rules: Causing offence

Anyone who has spent more than a little time in online discussion will probably have come across this little nugget:

You don’t have the right to not be offended.

It’s true; you don’t.

Saying something that you know is going to upset people can be a powerful way of getting your point across and making people think.

It can be.

However, using the ‘you don’t have the right to not be offended’ argument is usually the last (if not the first) refuge of a jerk.

  

 

The Rules: evidence and trends

Alright Internet, let’s clear a few things up:

Any given thing that happened is not necessarily evidence of that thing you’ve said is happening. Not necessarily.

So no, one bushfire is not necessarily evidence of dangerous climate change – but it may be, and that’s a discussion worth having. It just has to be had in a sensitive and rational way, not in the language of political soundbytes. The moment you start acting like your opponent is the moment you stop being any better than them.

However, if the only counter-argument you have is, “Oh, you shouldn’t politicise that,” then you don’t have much of a counter argument.

Yes, fire is a part of the Australian experience. In summer. New South Wales RFS standards for fuel reduction burns published in 2006 state that while southern NSW, south of the Illawarra should conduct controlled burns in autumn...

In northern NSW (generally Sydney north, and more particularly north of the Hunter district) bush fire hazard reduction burning is generally conducted in early spring, when fuels have dried out during the usual dry winter. http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/file_system/attachments/State/Attachment_20060131_C4C3FB83.pdf (page 8)

If you can see massive and catastrophic bushfires occurring a good two months before peak fire season and not at least think to yourself, “Bugger me, self! That’s a bit different,” then how thick are you?

Finally, if you need to look up Wikipedia to learn what the “rest of the world” thinks, then YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG and should immediately stop talking about anything.

For a start, Wikipedia is not Reddit. It’s intended for facts, not opinions, and the moderators of Wikipedia do a pretty good job of flagging articles that are questionable in their objectivity. Secondly, the entire point of Wikipedia is that it is crowd-sourced so there’s a strong likelihood that the article Minister Hunt is referencing in the interview above was written by an Australian. Thirdly, although Wikipedia is pretty good about weeding out non-objective content and general vandalism, that still takes time and if the page Greg Hunt mentioned has not already been edited to blame bushfires on Liberal politicians and bunyips by now, then the spirit of Aussie larrikinism is not what I remember.

Speaking of larrikinism, I can only assume the BBC bleeped out the word ‘crap’ to spare the sensibilities of international listeners, but if you’re an Australian who gets an attack of the vapours about “swearing” on the radio when someone quotes Prime Minister Tony “shit happens” Abbott to you, then you really, really need to get a grip.
 

You are 10 days into your trial of No More Big Government®

Dear Subscriber,

We hope you have enjoyed the first ten days of your trial version of No More Big Government®.

We would like to remind you that you can continue to enjoy the benefits you’ve had over the last ten days by taking out a permanent subscription to No More Big Government®.

Yours Sincerely,
Liberty, Inc.


In other words, if you’re one of those people who thinks the US federal government should only be responsible for national defence and deciding who can and can’t get married, and that everything else should be handled by the states or the private sector, then you should probably reflect on the fact that if you got your way, this is how things would be ALL THE TIME!

So if you’re still of that view and you, or anyone you care about, has been in any way inconvenienced by the government shutdown, then either quit whining and OWN THIS, or admit that your premise is fundamentally flawed.
  
 

The Rules of Attraction

This piece is partly prompted by Rhys Muldoon’s lovely column today, and partly something I have been thinking for quite a while on the subject of whether or not we choose our sexual orientation and who to love.

I can’t approach being anywhere near as eloquent as Mr Muldoon on the subject of love so I will be writing about the mechanics of sexual attraction. I am writing from the male perspective because that’s the only perspective I have, but I would love to hear from women on the topic too.

The question of whether people choose who they are attracted to can be answered in one very blunt sentence of five simple words:

You can’t fake an erection.

It’s that simple. You can’t.
Of course, there are many things that can cause an erection that have nothing in particular to do with sexual attraction, especially if you’re a teenager. It could be a whiff of perfume, a cool breeze, a particular underwear fabric, the way the train jiggles, or even something as simple as waking up. This doesn’t mean you want to marry your bed sheets.
I’ll say that again just in case Cory Bernardi is reading:
This. Does. Not. Mean. You. Want. To. Marry. Your. Bed. Sheets. Is that clear?

An erection is by no means an infallible sign of overt sexual attraction but it is the body saying Mmm, I like that! You can’t just make it happen, it’s completely involuntary. The only way to make an erection happen in a situation that you don’t find arousing is to think of something that you do find arousing – whatever that may be.

You also can’t stop an erection. There’s no saying ‘Down boy, we don’t choose to be turned on by that kind of thing.’ If it’s going to happen, then it’s going to happen and you have no choice in the matter whatsoever. You might – and I stress might – be able to control it a little bit by thinking unattractive thoughts but your chances aren’t good. Arousal is like blinking or getting goose bumps. You don’t do it because you choose to, but because it is (pardon the pun) hardwired.

Every man knows this is true. Almost every woman knows this is true of men. I can’t speak for women (and again, I would welcome women to comment), but given that female arousal is generally a more complex process than in males, I strongly suspect it would support my premise that you can’t make it happen if it isn’t happening and you can’t stop it happening if it is. Women are fortunate that they can still be a bit mysterious and dignified in their arousal, but the penis never lies.

So why on earth is anyone still suggesting that a person’s attraction to another person is some kind of lifestyle choice and not basic programming? Is it because it’s a barely plausible excuse to treat people differently?
And why are some who have finally come to accept the fact that it’s simply how someone is built suggesting that it’s okay if they’re built that way so long as they don’t act on it. That’s like saying it’s okay to be hungry so long as you don’t eat.

If you’re still not convinced, do the experiment yourself. Pick something that doesn’t attract or stimulate you, and try to get off on it. You will not be able to do it. If you can, then it only means that it really does attract and stimulate you. And that’s perfectly alright too.
  
 

The Rules: Charity

If you contribute a lot to charity, either through work or money, that's wonderful.
Well done! We applaud you. Carry on.

However,
If you ever feel the need to boast about it, then it's no longer charity - it's PR.
  
 

Rock and Roll is dead

I've always been slightly bemused by the way every rebellious, revolutionary generation whose parents just don't get it, looks at subsequent generations and says their fashion, music and culture is all rubbish.  Just accept that whatever you listened to between the ages of 13 and 30 is always going to feel more important to you than anything else, regardless of artistic merit. I am as guilty as anyone else. I find a lot of modern music offensive, purely on a creative level, but since I'm on the wrong side of 40 now, I'm sure that's the point. 

So when your favourite bands - formerly edgy and dangerous bands like the Rolling Stones, The Ramones and Guns 'n' Roses - are the new feature of a Fathers Day sale at one of the more downmarket chains of affordable apparel and cheap undies, it's time to admit you're just not cool any more.

Any boost to Best & Less's street cred by having a range of rock shirts is surely outweighed by the blow to the street cred of the bands by being sold at Best & Less.

Hope I die before I get old.
 
 

The Rules: Glass Houses of Representatives

The world barely blinked when we changed prime ministers late last June.  But now that there's an election campaign on, the world outside Australia has started to notice things are happening here.

So far, the moments that have been the most noticed internationally have been...

Some poor muppet who didn't know what his own party's policies were even though he was holding them in his hand.

A candidate for the loony right One Nation party being compared to Sarah Palin.  This is most unfair.  Even Sarah Palin isn't so stupid as to think Islam is a country or that Jews follow Jesus.

And Tony Abbott's suppository.


Many may point out that this is nothing by trivia and a distraction from the real issues.  And they would be absolutely right.  But a trivial and distracted world is watching.

Australia, it's time to stop laughing at the United States.

Back around the time the offensive menu story broke, one of my US correspondents remarked to me that Australian politics had become even uglier than the US.  He was right.  Now we're pulling ahead of them in the idiot stakes as well.

I know Australia likes to punch above its weight and beat the rest of the world, but could we let somebody else win this one?  Please?
 

Get out of the bloody way!

Barely a day goes by without Tony Abbott pulling some kind of stunt at a photo opportunity.  So instead of constructive policy announcements, a tame media receives a steady stream of vision of Tony Abbott pulling on a hi-vis jacket, hard hat or hair net and proceeding to make a goose of himself trying to drive a forklift, use a nail gun, gut a fish or whatever they happen to do at the latest workplace that has allowed him to darken their doorstep.

If the businesses he visits are prepared to wear the loss of productivity involved in hosting Abbott’s media circus, then that’s their own lookout.  It becomes something else entirely when the scene of Abbott’s posing is a disaster area.

Photo: The Courier-Mail

The most recent and talked-about of Abbott’s publicity stunts have involved Abbott fighting bushfires and yesterday, filling sandbags for the Queensland floods.  I am even prepared to give Abbott a pass on the fire fighting.  He is, after all, a volunteer RFS fire fighter so for once, he would actually have had some training in what he was being filmed doing.  There have been accusations that Abbott left as soon as they were finished filming but I won’t comment on that until it’s been debunked or confirmed.  What I will say is that if you’re going to volunteer to help out in an emergency, that’s wonderful.  If you bring a camera crew with you, then I begin to question your motives.  When Abbott’s cronies start talking about what a top bloke he is for fighting bushfires while Julia Gillard was off… I don’t know, being the prime minister or something, I would take that as confirmation of my initial suspicions.

The sandbagging though has to rank as the worst of Abbott’s stunts.  As with all his other photo ops, he didn’t just show up on his own.  There was his entourage and the ever-present camera crews.  Getting Abbott and all his photographers in there would have meant getting in the way of several other people who were actually there to do a job.  That is indefensible when there are rapidly rising flood waters and time is clearly of the essence.  He was also wearing a business shirt and dress shoes which doesn’t imply he was there for a hard day’s work.

Sometimes, the most helpful thing you can do is keep out of the way while people do their job.  There were dozens of people there doing some pretty urgent work.  The last thing they needed was to have a politician getting underfoot saying, “Ooh! Ooh! Let me have a go!”  It makes me despair that there will actually be people who think this was Abbott chipping in when he was clearly more hindrance than help.  By pushing in and holding things up, Tony Abbott showed that he cares more about his own political vanity than he does about helping in a time of crisis.

The next time you want to help out, Tony, get out of the bloody way and let people get on with their work.
 

The Rules: Merry Christmas

If you ever say “Merry Christmas” as an act of belligerence, and not a message of good cheer, then you don’t get Christmas.

   

  

 

The Rules: Lying

If Side A accuses Side B of lying – especially when the accusations are specified, the best thing that Side B can do is show that they’re not lying.

I know that this isn’t usually how the onus of proof works.  It’s not incumbent upon the accused to prove their innocence, but if the truth is on your side, why not use it?  What better way to make the accuser look utterly foolish?

If Side B won’t do that, then they look like liars.  If they can’t do it, then they are liars.  If all they can do is complain about how unsporting it is that someone said they lied, it really doesn’t look good.
 
 

Dear Randians,

If you really believe in social Darwinism and absolute individualism, then isn’t it time you admitted that if you’re not happy with your lot, then it’s nobody’s fault but your own?

By your own logic, blaming the government for your situation, or hoping another government will make it all better for you, is a complete cop-out.

   

  

The Rules: Respect

I know we should be well past being shocked or even surprised by the amount of self-absorbed stupidity that passes for analysis on Q and A, but sometimes some derp comes along that still has the power to make you think, “Wow, did they really just say that?”

From this week's Q and A transcript.  Highlighting is mine.

A tip:

When the attitude of the commentariat is,

“How dare Julia Gillard speak to a senior journalist like that?”

and not,

“How dare Paul Kelly put such sleazy gossip to the prime minister of Australia?” 

then it’s a sign that we have our reverence for institutions arse-about.