An open thread where you can, at your weekend leisure, discuss whatever you like.
155 Responses to “Saturday Salon”
Leave a Reply
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
*Joke of the Day*
Recess finishes, and all the children go back to their classrooms for the afternoon.
The teacher asks Sarah: “What did you do at recess?”
Sarah says, “I played in the sand box.”
Teacher says “that’s good. Go to the blackboard, and if you can write ’sand’ correctly, I’ll give you a cookie.”
Sarah does, and she gets a cookie.
The teacher then asks Morris what he did at recess.
Morris says, “I played with Sarah in sand box.”
Teacher says, “Good. If you write ‘box’ correctly on the blackboard, I’ll give you a cookie.”
Morris does, and gets a cookie.
Teacher then asks Mustaffa Abdul Mahmoud what he did at recess.
He says, “I tried to play with Sarah and Morris, but they wouldn’t let me.”
Teacher says, “They wouldn’t let you play with them? That sounds like blatant racial discrimination. If you can go the blackboard and write ‘blatant racial discrimination’ I’ll give you a cookie.”
A theological point of view, please?
The bold is mine. I wonder how the evidence for miracles and saintly martyrdom can be reconciled with the latter?
That is interesting in light of the near-hysterical push to make JPII a saint.
It’s not blatant racial discrimination at all. It’s more probably religious discrimination. Only a Christian or Jew would find such a joke funny.
Hey silky, if I get myself a fish from the markets, can I have some of the chips off your shoulder?
I thought it was a brilliant punchline myself, and I’m not religious really at all. Didn’t Woody Allen say there was no comedy without a victim?
…
Old joke coming up:
The evil spirits that talk to me over the internet have indicated that the marvelous Edgar Meyer has a new record coming out. His CD of duets with banjo king Bela Fleck was a gem. Maybe this one will be a fine antidote to the uglies, too.
Liam, Benedict was a not too subtle critic of JP2’s flurry of saint making. He’s also a huge defender of rationality.
AND HE HAS PRADA SHOES!
No wonder lefty Catholics love Benedict!
So, the Pope wears the Ruby Red slippers, eh? I always suspected that Catholics knew the secret of how to get back home to Kansas. (Though, sadly, it would entail leaving the merrie olde land of Oz…)
Yep, those shoes are definitely funky, although they make me rather suspicious as well …
I wonder if he has a yellow handkerchief hanging out the back pocket of his vestments?
On Papal fashion:
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2006/02/house-of-benedict-full-summaries.html
“The Pope Wears Prada”
That is the catchiest headline of the month. Does this go against the whole rejection of earthly possessions thing, life of poverty?
Looking good, Ratzy.
Greg Sheridan reeeeeaaaaaaches in today’s Oz to make some derogatory ref to the ABC not respecting Australian soldiers, or some such bloatheaded delusion.
Must be why they devoted almost four hours to live coverage of the ANZAC Day marches, with vets and historians on board explaining what each division and batallion marching past actually did.
Sheridan actually quoted Margaret and Dave from the Movie Show (discussing the film Jarhead) as being indicative of the entire ABC’s attitude to soldiers and war in general.
I Shit You Not.
The only other ref he could dig up to hammer ABC For Hating Soldiers was Tony Jones ‘ganging up’ on that WA bloke who reckoned ‘Kokoda Wasn’t The Battle That Saved Australia’. Bizarrrrrrrre.
For these crimes, says Sheridan, the ABC shouldn’t get an increase in funding. At least, not until they chase out all those Lefties.
Are people in the media actually aware that 90% of Australia’s don’t view the country and what goes on solely through Left or Right brain filters? They hear and see and decide for themselves.
Two vague refs was all Sheridan could cite….And one of them was a Movie Show review?
Did he write this on a Blackberry riding up some escalators or something?
There’s whole websites dedicated to cataloguing the ‘crimes’ of the ABC, surely he could have found a dozen or two talking points there. But no….
Maybe the ABC doesn’t have much good to say about War because most VETERANS don’t have anything good to say about War, except that they miss their mates and/or made good mates for life.
Most young Australians wouldn’t know anything at all about the War in Vietnam, or Korea, if it wasn’t for the docos and 7.30 Report/Lateline stories on the vets who fought there. You sure don’t see it on the commerical networks.
I expect far better from Sheridan when he’s flogging the ABC. There’s just so much scope…he barely even tried. Pathetic.
IDEA! Maybe all ABC television and radio should be fed through a ten second delay, then an editorial/censorship/lefty-diluting board could filter all content before it goes to air. Anything they don’t like can replaced by a still image of John Howard laughing.
I recommend Sheridan, Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, Miranda ‘Moet’ Devine and Piers (H)Ackherman to staff the filtering posts in shifts, around the clock.
Then we will be safe from all that Lefty Brain Poison they call ABC News and Entertainment.
Darryl Mason: You laughably type as if the ABC has Australia’s best interests at heart.
Excellent satirical posting.
The AMAZING Kim: When I heard the joke it was a fatal car accident between a carload of aboriginals and whites.
St. Peter, told them all that there was no racial discrimination in heave, howver there was a test to get into heaven, today was a “spelling test”.
The whites came up one by one, were asked to spell “God” and let in.
The first aboriginal was asked to spell “chrysthanium”.. er.. “chrisanthynenum”.. er.. (punch line delivered)
Steve At The Pub,
ABC has Australa’s best interests at heart? Didn’t say that at all. Merely said Sheridan could have found more examples related to his theme if he dug around a bit.
You can’t deny the ABC provides solid coverage to Australian military issues, and more coverage of Australia’s role in the wars of the past hundred years than any other network or media outlet in the land. Some of it may be negative, but even the History Channel doesn’t Yah-Yah any war anymore.
There’s a round up of coverage of Jake Kovco stories from the media today over at my blog if you’re interested :
http://www.yournewreality.blogspot.com
Two bits from the blog that I found most extraordinary.
Howard actually saying “everybody should hold further comment” about Jake’s death and the body bungling. Why exactly? Public comment, media coverage, won’t affect the inquiry in the slightest. And it is the family itself demanding to know the truth and wanting the media to find out for them, if the government/Defence force doesn’t move fast to tell them the truth.
What happened to free speech?
The other story was the amazing cancellation of Defence Minister Nelson’s entire slate of Washington meetings with the big guns of Bush Co and the US Senate. Talk of Iraq War (and possibly getting Australia’s ‘yes’ on joining something to do with Iran, maybe) was on the schedule, but check out who he was lined up to meet with, and who he has now cancelled on :
Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice
Vice-President, Dick Cheney
Senator John Warner, Senate Armed Services Committe
Plus meetings with National Security officials and a big speech in Washington.
None of them exactly easy to get a meeting with in the first place.
But if Nelson can’t comment further, and if he isn’t being invited to the funeral, why does he need to be in country? Something bigger brewing?
Go here for the rest of the round up :
http://www.yournewreality.blogspot.com
The prayer from ‘Jake’s cousin’ is bloody heartbreaking.
Someone tell the Pope about the Freemantle shoe shop!
The Sydney Spy gives his take on the latest events on Big Brother, and also the elections at Sydney Uni (vote ZOR).
http://sydneyspy.blogspot.com/2006/04/big-bother-multi-million-dollar.html
Is the Stolen Generations myth, reality or something in between? I have no fixed view on this subject, but I do have my doubts as to whether it is an overblown example of white middle-class guilt. When I get the time I would like to look into this issue in more detail.
I read Andrew Bolt’s Herald Sun columns each week on the web. Usually this just aggravates my stomach ulcers, but occasionally he brings some information to light that the media usually ignores. And one of these is subjecting the Stolen Generations legend to the blowtorch. Bolt asserts there are only two clear cases of Aboriginal children being removed from their families that qualify for such a term. One of these cases dates back to 1903. Aborigines who claim to have been stolen have lost a number of court cases.
Aboriginal magistrate Sue Gordon says some Aboriginal communities are “toxic environments” and children should be removed from them. In Victoria welfare agencies are extremely reluctant to remove aboriginal children from abusive families since they fear being labeled perpetrators of the Stolen Generations.
Maybe one of the chief causes of Aboriginal dysfunctionality is that we have not had a Stolen Generation.
see http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18928969%5E25717,00.html
Steve at the pub — you talk about ‘Australia’s best interests’ as though we were all agreed on what they were. Sounds like the same reasoning as the proposed ‘Australian values’ test to me.
Did everybody notice that they snuck in ‘Australian values’ in small print (metaphorically and in some cases literally) under ‘English language’ when the tests were first proposed, as though those two things were so closely related that they hoped we wouldn’t notice the second one? Proficiency in English is more or less quantifiable and everyone more or less agrees what it is, and I don’t have too much of a problem with it up to a point, but ‘Australian values’ …?
Of course it’s really only government-speak for ‘no hijabs allowed’. And I’m sure they’ll come up with the equivalent of the Gaelic dictation test for Egon Kisch if they have to.
“Australian values” means “a willingness to be converted to Christianity”. When the detention centres came under the spotlight during the Cornelia Rau row, it emerged that the Dept of Immigration gave favourable treatment to Muslims who converted to Christianity. This is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and a clear violation of human rights – but the media let it slip, because the media itself conflates “Australian values” with Christianity.
I read on an American blog a few weeks ago that Howard commissioned the Cole enquiry under pressure from Washington. This puts a lie to Howard’s, Downer’s and Vaile’s constant bleatings about how they must be innocent, otherwise why would they have commissioned the enquiry?
Actually it’s a bit more complicated than that, Silkworm. DIMIA has to take into account the reasons people claim to have had to flee their countries, and religious persecution is a big one across the world. It’s right that people who’ve converted away from a state religion should have that taken into account in their application for refugee status. ‘Giving favourable treatment’ to apostates can also simply be a matter of accepting that ex-Muslims can’t return to their countries of origin: in particular where they’d converted before leaving their country.
But your point on conflation of ‘Australian values’ with Christianity is well made.
Great photo of the Pope! However it’s a bit hard to reconcile it with the Biblical edict of ridding yourself of all possessions so you can go forth and spread the ‘Divine Word’.
Then, of course, the camel and the eye of the needle story has been changed by the Christian Fundies too.
Christianity capitulates to Capitalism, eh?
P.S. Isn’t red the symbolic colour of Communism?
Darryl Mason:
==”What happened to free speech?”
It was murdered in a secret interrogation facility …. just after democracy was executed under the new “anti-sedition” laws.
Steve Munn:
==”Aborigines who claim to have been stolen have lost a number of court cases.”
Its the very old and very effective trick of setting up something to fail …. and it works every time ….. once a half a dozen or so cases have failed, nobody will come forward with another ….. it has everything to do with Law and absolutely nothing to do with Justice.
There’s only one downside of consistently winning glorious victories over those who have no power, no influence, no expertise themselves and no money …. they are forced to seek out, and sometimes find, alternative forms of redress. …..
The Stolen Generations are a reality. Andrew Bolt is not a reliable source of anything much other than bigotry, jingoism, hatred, and revisionism. Actually I don’t know if revisionism is the right word for it, since what he’s doing is contradicting the testimony of people whose lives are lived under the shadow of it.
I don’t know what else to say.
Paul, born in 1964:
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/stolen_children/stories/paul.html
Laura says: “Andrew Bolt is not a reliable source of anything much other than bigotry, jingoism, hatred, and revisionism.”
One of Bolt’s standard replies to this type of comment is that his best mate at school was Aboriginal. I’m not convinced one way or the other on the Stolen Generations.
Bolt doesn’t stroke me as an outright liar but I think he peddles half-truths quite a bit. I’ve been very disappointed with some of the stuff he has written on AGW but I’ve never caught him out with blatant falsehoods.
Laura’s quote, while touching, doesn’t deal with the issue in question- that is, why was the boy removed?
Some of the so-called historical revisionists point out that during the so-called Stolen Generations era it was dangerous for a half-caste child to remain in many Aboriginal communities as they faced systemic discrimination and abuse. There is considerable historical documenation that establishes this as fact.
Paul was obviously of mixed descent so it may be that he was removed with good reason. Based on the available information it is simply impossible to tell one way or the other.
The evidence of the claimed ’stolen children’ was not tested by HREOC. The late Sir Ronald Wilson in fact denied that it should be regarded as testimony, but stories recounted as part of the healing prcoess.
The true stolen generation are those that grew up under the current policy of self-determination, which exiled tribal aborigines (in the case of the NT) to remote desert communities. It denied them education and employment on the grounds that such were inimical to aboriginal traditions, denied them self-respect and autonomy through the provision of endless, uncontested welfare (’’sitdown money”), and permitted the development of wholly dysfunctional environments characterised by endemic and systemic substance abuse and horrific levels of violence and sexual abuse.
Rosemary Neil’s ‘Whiteout’ is both an excellent commentary on the ’stolen generations’ controversy and a harrowing account of life in the remot communities.
What Laura said.
Plus, Andrew Bolt is so determined to expose the “myth” that he’s prepared to reconstruct the facts – including the words of Federal Court judges – to do it. See http://tugboatpotemkin.blogspot.com/2005_09_25_tugboatpotemkin_archive.html#112789180042019453
NB – it’s not one of my more transparent posts – what you get is the full text of various sections of O’Loughlin J in Cubillo v Commonwealth, in the order Bolt presented them (which is not always the ordering in the judgement) and a lot of stuff that Bolt dropped to construct his own, very po-mo, version of the Cubillo story.
As an aside, I have travelled through central Australia up to Darwin. Some of the things I saw in Alice Springs in particular will never leave me. Much of the Aborigine community looked like something out of one of those Hieronymous Bosch pictures of hell. We would castigate the RSPCA if it allowed a pig to live in the conditions of many of the Aborigine children I saw.
I travelled in Vietnam in 1990 when people were starving in parts of the country, yet I saw nothing as undignified as the things I saw in outback Australia.
A propos steve’s comment, the HREOC report’s greatest failing was that it did not enquire into the reasons for the chidrens’ removal. It implies that virtually all removals were forced, yet evidence before Justice O’Loughlin in the Gunner-Cubillo case wsa that involuntary removal occurred only in extreme cases of abuse or neglect as a last resort, and implemented very reluctantly. It was a very rare occurrence. He also found that neither of the plaintiffs had been forcibly removed from their families, and that there had not been a deliberate government policy of separation.
Paul Kelly (hardly a RWDB) commented a few years ago that the HREOC enquiry’s methodology was so flawed as to invalidate its conclusions and recommendations.
steve, you have to remember that the human wrecks you see on the streets of Alice are the outcasts of the desert communities — people who are so damaged, physically or psychologically, that the communities reject them. They drift into Alice because there’s nowhere else to go.
After the sad wk we’ve had, I was looking on the yahoo message boards and came across this clever post. I hope you get a laugh out of it, like I did.
FROM: MANAGEMENT
TO: ALL EMPLOYEES
SUBJECT: SPECIAL HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING
In order to assure the highest levels of quality work and productivity from employees,
it will be our policy to keep all employees well trained through our programme of SPECIAL HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING (S.H.I.T.). We are trying to give employees more S.H.I.T. than anyone else.
If you feel you do not receive your share of S.H.I.T. on the job, please see your Manager. You will be immediately placed at the top of the S.H.I.T. list, and our Managers are especially skilled at seeing that you get all the S.H.I.T. you can handle.
Employees who don’t take their S.H.I.T. will be placed in DEPARTMENTAL EMPLOYEE EVALUATION PROGRAMS (D.E.E.P.S.H.I.T.). Those who fail to take D.E.E.P.S.H.I.T. seriously will have to go to EMPLOYEE ATTITUDE TRAINING (E.A.T.S.H.I.T.). Since our Managers took S.H.I.T. before they were promoted, they don’t have to do S.H.I.T. any more; they are full of S.H.I.T. already.
If you are full of S.H.I.T., you may be interested in a job training others. We can add your name to our BASIC UNDERSTANDING LECTURE LIST (B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.). Those who are full of B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T. will get all the S.H.I.T. jobs, and can apply for promotion to DIRECTOR OF INTENSITY PROGRAMMING (D.I.P.S.H.I.T.).
If you have further questions, please direct them to our HEAD OF TRAINING, SPECIAL HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING (H.O.T.S.H.I.T.).
Thankyou,
BOSS IN GENERAL
SPECIAL HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING
(B.I.G.S.H.I.T.)
Just to let people know: a phishing e-mail purportedly from paypal recently appeared in my inbox…
Also, a really funny one purportedly from Chase bank (Chase Manhattan bank?) appeared – it didn’t help that the authors misspelt “for” as “fore” and that they neglected to leave a space between a full-stop and the capital letter of the next sentence.
Thanks Gummo. Judge O’Loughlin says:
“I limit myself to rejecting the claim that it was a “myth” to think of a part Aboriginal child as an outcast in Aboriginal communities.”
“However, I am limited to making findings on that the evidence that was presented to this Court in these proceedings; that evidence does not support a finding that there was any policy of removal of part Aboriginal children such as that alleged by the applicants: and if, contrary to that finding, there was such a policy, the evidence in these proceedings would not justify a finding that it was ever implemented as a matter of course in respect of these applicants.”
I can see why Gummo would criticise Bolt for using quotes that paint a misleading picture, yet Justice O’Loughlin’s findings clearly give no cause for comfort for those who argue that the Stolen Generations is truth rather than myth.
Sagatious,
It amazes me when atheists like yourself and silkworm criticise Christians (which seems to be becoming a weekly event here), when you clearly don’t have a theological clue what you’re talking about, and, I have to tell you, from a Christian perspective, it shows.
Unfortunately you don’t stop there, because the next step you take is to moralise on behalf of those you think are misguided on how they should live their lives, by misinterpreting the very principles you think they’re misguided by.
From Cubillo v Commonwealth:
1. The applicants, Mrs Lorna Cubillo and Mr Peter Gunner, are said to be members of “the Stolen Generation”. Neither the evidence in this trial, nor the reasons for judgment, deny the existence of “the Stolen Generation”. Numerous writings tell tragically of a distressing past. But this trial has focussed primarily on the personal histories of two people: Lorna Cubillo and Peter Gunner. They have claimed that they, as young children, were forcibly removed from their families by employees of the Commonwealth Government.
Nice little Bolt effort of your own there Steve – how very neatly you used two selective quotes from two widely separated points of the judgement (1148 and 1160) to support your own view. Pity you overlooked the important caveat in 1160 – O’Loughlin’s remarks refer explicitly to the fact that his judgement has to be based only on what the evidence before him has to say. Oh, and you missed this bit which preceded your first excerpt from 1148:
The evidence was not investigated in sufficient depth to enable detailed findings to be made on the subject.
Nice try at the double veronica Steve but I gotta tell you, your bum looks enormous in that second hand suit of lights you’ve picked up.
([Reminder to self – stolen generation is a neat metaphor, used in the original report to encapsulate the historical facts and their impact).
Best thing since the Zil comrades! Marvel at the:
Daihatsu LATTE
A little chatter in the suspension but never mind. Comes in “banana shake” and “worker’s blood”.
Does it come with cake Anthony?
mmm, cake.
My car is (or was, until I picked off the relevant bits of writing) a Suzuki Swift “Cino”, which I shudderingly assume is somehow related to Babycinos and other crimes against humanity.
Facelift makes the statement that: “when you clearly don’t have a theological clue what you’re talking about, and, I have to tell you, from a Christian perspective, it shows.”
Facelift is given to making grand claims when someone says something that challenges his/her narrow views. For your information, Facelift, I was going to be a Minister at one stage of my life and, with respect, I would claim that I know more about theology and Christianity than you’ll ever know!
Enough to recognise gross hypocrisy when I see it!
sagacious: “I was going to be a Minister at one stage of my life ”
Hah! Zealous convert syndrome! Should have known. Hate to break it to you, sagacious, but most non-prat atheists/agnostics like myself never got suckered into the shell game in the first place, so we don’t go all apeshit about religion like you do …
Jason, perhaps you’d like to show everyone how brilliant you are by clearly explaining how you manage to be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time!
Sagacious
Reading comprehension problems too, eh? I was referring to the collective group of ‘atheists and agnostics’ to delineate the antithesis of theists. Agnostics are non-theists too, are they not? ‘Like myself’ because I obviously belong to this category.
If I’d said “liberal/conservative like myself” would you have the same problem and be asking me how I can both at the same time, or would you realise I was therefore counting myself as ‘non-socialist’?
Anyway, the point stands. Now we know why you get so hysterical about religion. It’s like Rob being an ex-Maoist getting hysterical about the Left (there, now I’ve offended everyone). Those of us who don’t get suckered in by any shell games stand above the fray.
What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all? – Richard Dawkins
Sagatious,
I have no pretentions about my theological abilities, but I know when someone is missing the point of what it means, and I have to tell you that your perspective on prosperity falls far short of the mark, especialy in the light of God saying he has pleasure in the prosperity of his servants, and gives them power to get wealth so he can establish his covenant promise to the patriarchs, and blessing he would bless and multplying he would multiply, and that allthe families of the earth would be blessed in Abraham, and that Jesus became poor so that we could be made rich, and that he came so that we might have life and life more abundant, and so that we might be in health and prosper even as our soul prospers, and that those who listen hear and do his commandments will be blessed when they go in and bless when they go out, blessed in the city and blessed in the field, blessed in the fruit of their body and in their livestock and in their produce, and that God would command the blessing on his people, and they would be blessed in all they put their hand to, and if they keep the word close to them they would prosper and have good success, and if they give it would be given back, pressed down shaken together and running over, and if they give to poor it is like lending to the Lord and he will repay them, and if they honour the Lord with their substance and with the first fruits of all their increase, so would their barns be filled with plenty, etc, etc etc.
Jason, Jason! You say, “Agnostics are non-theists too, are they not?” Are you asking me or telling me?
Before you rush to the keyboard and expose your ignorance yet again, why don’t you do a bit of research. Once you understand the terms, we can chat.
P.S. I like your fire, Jason.
That was a rhetorical question, sagacious. Yes of course they are. If you’re going to start calling agnostics theists then you’re going to start calling people like Bertrand Russell (and other Logical Positivists) who was one of the most powerful polemicists against religion a theist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism
An agnostic, by definition, views the question of God’s existence to be necessarily unanswered, but not necessarily irrelevant. A nontheist, by definition, views the question to be necessarily irrelevant, but not necessarily unanswerable. Thus, it is possible that an agnostic could consider the nature of God to be a fact of tremendous importance. It is also possible that he could consider the question unimportant. Provided that he remains convinced that the existence of God is unknowable, he remains an agnostic. Likewise, a nontheist may or may not believe the existence of God to be inherently unknowable; this has no bearing on his status as a nontheist. It is possible that one individual could be both an agnostic and a nontheist; indeed, most nontheists are agnostics, and vice versa.
Jason, my reading comprehension is pretty good. For example I noticed you sneaking in the word “nontheist” when you initially used the term “atheist”.
Jason, do you really think I’m going to fall for your pea and shell trick?
Facelift, thanks for the theo-babble. Perhaps you could provide a translation.
Sagacious
Both atheists and agnostics are non-theists i.e. people who are not theists.
When I referred to ‘atheists/agnostics like myself’ I was obviously not referring to myself alone and characterising my beliefs as atheist/agnostic but referring to the collective noun for people who share the same non-theist views as me (and hence I had to throw in both atheists and agnostics).
How much further do I have to dumb this down for you?
Of course, Sagacious, although I refute the suggestion it’s theobabble, since it is all scripture, quoted to refute your theological stance that Christians for some reason ain’t Christians unless they’re outrageously poor! Translated it means that God is for and has provided for his people to prosper, contrary to your claims.
Jason, when the school holidays are over check the meanings of atheist and agnostic with your teacher. I wish him or her well.
Sagacious
I’ve forgotten more epistemology than you’ll ever learn. If you insist on calling Bertrand Russell a theist, I’ll wish you luck.
I quoted from memory, Sagacious, but I’ve reset those verses with references for you, although being a theologian and all that I thought you’d know where to find them yourself, however:
God:
those who listen hear and do his commandments will be blessed when they go in and bless when they go out, blessed in the city and blessed in the field, blessed in the fruit of their body and in their livestock and in their produce, and that God would command the blessing on his people, and they would be blessed in all they put their hand to – Deuteronomy 28:1-14
1) has pleasure in the prosperity of his servants – Ps 35:27
2) gives them power to get wealth so he can establish his covenant promise to the patriarchs – Deuteronomy 8:18
3) blessing he would bless and multplying he would multiply – Genesis 22:17, Hebrews 6:14
4) all the families of the earth would be blessed in Abraham – Genesis 12:3, 22:18
5) Jesus became poor so that we could be made rich – 2 Corinthians 8:9 (context=finances!)
6) he came so that we might have life and life more abundant – John 10:10
7) so that we might be in health and prosper even as our soul prospers – 3 John 2
9) if they keep the word close to them they would prosper and have good success – Joshua 1:8
10) if they give it would be given back, pressed down shaken together and running over – Luke 6:38
11) give to poor it is like lending to the Lord and he will repay them Proverbs 19:17
12) if they honour the Lord with their substance and with the first fruits of all their increase, so would their barns be filled with plenty – Proverbs 3:9-10
Jesus became poor so that we could be made rich.
That’s not theobabble. That’s just babble.
I’m not making it up, silkworm! Full quote: ‘For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that you through his poverty might be rich.’ 2 Corinthians 8:9. Context: commending Macdonian believers after taking up a financial offering to help out Jerusalem Christians who were going through a famine.
What kind of God lets us live on a planet filled with resources and says ‘be poor, now, everyone!’ Nah! He says, ‘be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the earth!’ Not a bad slogan for the Greens actually!
BTW, Richard Dawkins seems to be a sour old fanatic these days whose only interest is condemnation of people’s beliefs. you need to watch yourself, silkworm, that kind of negativity and bitterness rubs off.
yes, yes. Jesus wants you to have nice things.
I’m bored with theological stoushes.
So I’m going out to see a band.
A question – does anyone know of a site suitable for file sharing that can handle a 30mb file and that doesn’t charge people to download it?
Jason, where in my posts did I say that I: “…insist on calling Bertrand Russell a theist, I’ll wish you luck.”? Did you forget to take your medication?
Facelift, I am sorry if I appear to be anti-Christian. I remember well how filled with conviction I once was, how wonderful the message of religion seemed to be. I respect you belief and would urge you to hold onto it if it makes you feel better about life, yourself, etc.
My task is, in my small way, to try stop the current struggle for religious (and economic and political) supremacy from eventually destroying our world.
I thought it was Peter Costello who said to be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth. That passage is about having babies, FaceLift — which is exactly what the Greens want us not to do.
Sagacious
There is no point in arguing with you any further. You’re either extremely intellectually dishonest and willfully misrepresenting my views or else just plain stupid and incapable of understanding what I read.
First you ridiculed me for calling myself an ‘atheist/agnostic’.
When I explained that I wasn’t referring to myself but grouping them together into a non-theist group, you then ridiculed that without providing a shred of evidence for whatever your own definitions are. I of course had to deduce that you objected to calling agnostics ‘non-theists’.
I offered an example of usage from Wikipedia. You ridicule that. I pointed out that Bertrand Russell was an agnostic. Just about the only sense I can get out of your interjections is that you think there is something wrong with my grouping of non-theists with agnostics, which by deduction means you think agnostics are theists. Ergo you think Russell is a theist.
So either apologise or bugger off.
CONTEST!!!
Oh and no one here appreciates your condescending tone, religious or irreligious. I’m sorry you’ve wasted your life studying theology and now feel the need to go the opposite extreme but that’s your own personal issue. You’re the one who’s evinced no understanding whatsoever of the terms ‘agnosticism’ and ‘atheism’. Oh and btw there is a philosophical position called agnostic atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
Jason, there are three possible careers for you: become a Liberal politician, a used-car salesperson, or an organ-grinder’s monkey!
Like Kim, I’m bored with all this. Good evening!
Finally got around to reading that Greg Sheridan piece in The Australian and can only concur with Darryl Mason (III)’s morning critique. How did such flimsy crap make it into print? A strange bird is Greg, swinging as he does from fairly calm and reasoned foreign policy analysis to this sort of ideological idiocy. Truly, my gob is smacked.
Come on then – where’s your argument that agnostics are not non-theists? (oh, and introduction to the logic – there are either non-theists or theists. this is called the law of the excluded middle) or where’s your evidence that Russell was an atheist rather than an agnostic? Or was I correct?
Obviously you can’t come up with the goods and have been shown up and are now walking away with your tail between your legs.
Good night,clown, I won’t be taking your arguments seriously from now on.
For the lefty that has everything:
Jase, he’s not worth it. At long last we’ve found the left-wing obby and he’s just as tendentious.
Hang on, sagacious, you can’t go out and have fun when you’ve got work to as you stop the current struggle for religious (and economic and political) supremacy from eventually destroying our world. It’s a full time job, you know.
Uhoh! Too late, Sagacious’s gone out for a brulee, and we’re left behind to face the music. Maybe a little Leo Kotke…
I’m still trying to get a handle on Leo’s arrangement of ‘Jesu’, FL. Lovely piece of music. Open G rules.
Re Kim’s question on sharing you have Rapidshare or You Send It as possible options.
And the Beloved and I just enjoyed a lovely meal of lamb (with homemade tandoori spices) with a Banks Thargo 2001 Coonawarra Merlot. Excellent match. The merlot was lovley with the oak restrained letting fruity goodness rule with beautiful, smooth palate. Lamb didn’t cook as well as expected on the barby but I managed to recover and still tasted great.
Enjoy your saturday evening all!
Rob, Steve Munn and Gummo Trotsky:
Who thinks abduction of kids seldom happened? And how come nobody mentions kids removed by …. t r i c k e r y ?
The Cubillo and Gunner case was yet another fantastic victory for Australia’s great legal minds, wasn’t it? Such a pity none of these brilliant gentlemen had the wits to think, for even an instant, about the internal security and international political implications of what they were doing. Bloody idiots!!!! I can smell the burning rubber and hear the smashing of glass already. Hands up all nong-nongs who still think that case is dead and forgotten.
AJ
Thanks a lot. Roared laughing. Was that document an attachment to the new I.R. laws?
Shaun: “…the Beloved and I just enjoyed a lovely meal of lamb…”
Hats off to a man who knows how to live. You’ve mastered the mysterious essentials, mate. Keep on truckin’. The rest is just commentary.
(Sorry has been said.)
Hamlet!
Prince of Paddington.
Cast:
Hamlet: Comrade Graeme.
Ophelia: Miss Pavlov.
King Claud: The Markus.
Polonius: Silkworm.
Waiter: D. Heidelberg.
-And with *Miss Laura as Osric!
HAMLET: Tis now the very witching time of night, when churchyards yawn, and hell itself breathes out contagion to this world: now I could drink hot blood!
KING CLAUD: Well you won’t get it here old boy, but I’m trying a Sauvignon. How about you Ophelia?
OPHELIA: Sauvignon? Humph. Well, I don’t know….
KING CLAUD: Polonius?
POLONIUS: ‘Fore God, my lord, I wouldst!
YORICK: Oh what a feeling Toyota.
HAMLET: Eh? Zounds! How do you shut this thing up!
POLONIUS: Thing? What thing, my lord?
HAMLET: This fucking Yorick thing!
KING CLAUD: (chuckles) It always amuses me that the Cala-thumpians were the most sociologically astute people of their time, and yet 67.5 percent of them believed bones could talk. I mean, imagine that, bones!- chattering away in cemetaries all night!
YORICK: Rush into Kmart for thirty percent off.
HAMLET: Kmart, thou sayest?
OPHELIA: Pardon, my lord?
YORICK: Good voice, but that dress makes you look overweight.
HAMLET: Dress?
KING CLAUD: What’s going on here?
POLONIUS: Do you know me, my lord?
HAMLET: Excellent well, you are mayor of Footscray.
POLONIUS: Not I, my lord.
HAMLET: Then I would you were so drag a queen.
POLONIUS: Drag queen, my lord?
HAMLET: Ay, sir; for to be a drag queen in this world is to be one floosie in ten thousand.
KING CLAUD: Waiter, I’ve decided, Sauvignon blanc for us three, and a Pepsi for Hamlet.
HAMLET: Well thanks very much, you dirty cockeyed cantaloupe sucking-
POLONIUS: Wooh!
HAMLET: (aside to waiter) I’ll be having fruity lexia, but give this note to the wine steward; it reminds him of our arrangement.
WAITER: Very well, sir.
(Osric, a courtier, enters)
OSRIC: Welcome your lordship, back to Paddington.
HAMLET: Thanks. (aside to Claud) Who’s this bird?
KING CLAUD: She hath a cat called Baz, lord of beasts, and an estate called Latrobe, spacious in its possession of professors; one to each square metre.
OSRIC: I have tidings from my vice chancellor.
HAMLET: Vice? Uh-huh.
OSRIC: And from the Valve.
HAMLET: Shit – not the bloody Valve!
OSRIC: Wouldst please thou lordship to hear it.
HAMLET: No.
KING CLAUD: Come now Hamlet, we shall hear this….Proceed, fair maid.
OSRIC: Thank you, sire. (Sings):
Timothy Blair, isn’t all there,
His intertextuality,
Be far from reality.
Some say he’s a weasal,
But if truth be tellin’
He looks far more like
Woody Allen!
KING CLAUD: Marvellous!
OPHELIA: Superb!
YORICK: You’re into the finals.
POLONIUS: I did perform at university once.
KING CLAUD: Really?
POLONIUS: Ay. I played Julius Caesar, and the audience was much moved when Brutus killed me.
KING CLAUD: What – and I suppose they gasped?
POLONIUS: No sire, they cheered.
KING CLAUD: (aside) And so would I. You’re just lucky they waited for Brutus!
To be continued….
———-
Whoa!
How’s that!
Just when you thought things couldn’t get worse.
Well, in all the uncertainty of life, that’s one thing you can be sure about!
*Miss Laura appears courtesy of Baz the cat.
(Indeed. And so does Miss Pavlov!)
Bravo, RH, bravo! That song about Tim Blair was Gershwin-standard …
Thank you, Mr Soon; Gershwin is precisely what I was attempting.
I liked the bit about Baz, lord of beasts. How true.
Kudos, R.H.!! Hilarity: how it is always loved!
Los hermanos Gershwin send their fondest…
– j_p_z, who’s been know to ‘channel’ every now and again…
So, I saw ‘Kokoda’ the flim tonight. Not bad for a low budget effort; script seemed a little forced at first, but I got right into it after 20 mintutes or so.
Not being much of a follower of military history, I didnt realise the AIF didnt get there till later in 1942, and that some 2000 odd poorly trained Australian militia, outnumbdered 5-1, resisted so fiercely that the Japanese thought they were facing 6000.
That’s awesome! What the hell is Barton on about. I think the real question for these wannabe revisionist military historians is this: Name another battle or campaign involving Australians that meant nearly as much to the nation, its security, and wellbeing. It sure wont be Gallipoli, the Boer War, or the various Asian civil wars we’ve been embroiled in.
Here’s Wikpiedia’s take- section at the end of page on “significance”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoda_Track_campaign
Rics is too small a venue to see a band when people actually want to see the band and the inside bar space is crowded. I had to defend myself with my PROSTHETIC LEG OF EVIL HARD METAL against dudes who wanted to “get past me” and seemingly couldn’t do so without touching my boobs.
Just sayin…
NB: Illustration is of generic C-Leg. My actual non C-Leg is much cuter and more shapely.
Just imagine:
Man sitting on toilet in pub, sucking in great drafts of air, saying in tones of agonised wonder: Jeeeeesus…. I’ve just been kicked in the nuts by a one legged woman..
knowing he would never be believed.
Can we rewind the tape of life to the point where we all agreed that we didn’t fight about religion? God Wins law?
Heh!
His mates might not believe it, but he had better!
Oi! Hammy!
And don’t get me started on my fine hand-rolled collection of James Joyce jokes.
Excellent work RH. Much laughter here. I am especially delighted with the size of my Part.
Wooh!
Laura!
Atlas Shrugged may finally be making it into the big screen. Brad Pitt has expressed an interest in playing John Galt
http://www.variety.com/VR1117942127.html
I must say – though I regard Rand as a bit of a crank, I did enjoy reading Atlas Shrugged. It’s a roaring great read and her novels make great trashy, pulp fiction-ey cinema. It’s “Good Bad Fiction”. In fact it’s ‘Excellent Bad”. I’m quite looking forward to this.
OH – MY – GOD:
Keith Richards falls from coconut tree head injury shock!
Who would have thought?
David Tiley:
Boggle, boggle …. that’s the mind turning somersaults when aforementioned groper does try to tell his mates what happened.
Kim:
Be careful, balance on your prostheric one and use the other one for striking the blow. Okay, you might loose a bit of striking force doing it that way ….. but that’s better than having the groper come back with a mob of coppers and a gaggle of learned SCs to have you arrested and sued for grievous assault with a metal-and-fibreglass (or whatever)weapon. (Don’t blame me, lady, I didn’t invent this crazy justice system!)
Thanks Graham.
Actually I was leaning up against a table
Though I’ve done self defence classes and have good balance…
Go get’em Kim!!!
The other two Tasmanian miners have been found alive.
Don’t have a link, saw it on the news.
Thanks PC. Bloody wonderful news.
SMH story http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/trapped-miners-found-alive/2006/04/29/1146198389856.html
Although it says “indications are” and “believed to be” [they are] alive so still a nervy wait.
ABC reporting as definite
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1627094.htm
ABC now reporting that they are both conscious and talking, in communication with rescuers. But rescue will take a while, apparently. There could still be a live cross happening on ABC TV.
Brilliant. Best news I’ve heard all week.
Just saw the reports on TV myself. Fantastic!
Great news about the miners.
But sadly, vale Galbraith. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1627068.htm
If you want a definition of Australian values, just look at the community effort involved in the rescue of these miners.
And the shameless self-promotion exercise Channel Nine has run all night under the guise of “Special News Reports”.
For shameless try the campaigning on the back of this tragedy by Bill Shorten, a man who has never done a days productive work in his life. (Something he would have in common with the current Prime Minister)
Facelift:
Prefer your definition of Australian Values at 11.19pm to The Official Party Line and the Franchised Subsidized Tax-free Commercial Brand ….. the one that gets shoved down our throats – or other orifices – whether we want it or not.
Hamlet (BCO):
((applauding loudly)) Encore!
(Good heavens)
Hamlet!
Prince of Paddington.
Concludes….
HAMLET: To brulee or not brulee, that is the question.
KING CLAUD: And here’s the answer: ricotta cake. Just for a change.
OPHELIA: Shouldn’t we wait for the wine first, and why is it taking so long!
KING CLAUD: (chuckles) Not to worry, my dear, I think they’re just letting it ferment a while longer, ho ho ho.
POLONIUS: Very good, sire, ho ho ho.
KING CLAUD: Now then, Ophelia, one doesn’t like to pry, and you can tell me to mind my own business, but I’m curious about the Earl of Salisbury. I understand he was vastly keen for your hand, so why did you reject him?
OPHELIA: He made a fool of himself.
KING CLAUD: Really? Not the Earl, surely! But how?
OPHELIA: At the Florentino restaurant.
KING CLAUD: Yes? And what did he do?
OPHELIA: Picked up a fish fork to eat his duck confit.
POLONIUS: Cad!
OPHELIA: After seeing him do that, I knew I could never love him.
KING CLAUD: Absolutely!
YORICK: You’re straining at the higher notes. And who did your hair, the Poodle Parlour? Smooch Smooch, nice tiles. Things go better with Coke.
HAMLET: What? Once more sirrah, and you are done!
POLONIUS: Done?
YORICK: Okay, let’s go to our next contestant….
HAMLET: Go to this! (Swipes skull from table)
KING CLAUD: Forsooth!
OPHELIA: Where’d it go?
HAMLET: Bounced!
POLONIUS: (aside) Ay! Bounced under the table. Alas, poor Yorick, I’ll retrieve him! (Disappears beneath table cloth)
OPHELIA: Ho! And what is that!
KING CLAUD: What?
OPHELIA: Something moving, ‘neath the table cloth.
HAMLET: How now! A rat? (stabs through cloth) Dead, for a ducat, dead!
POLONIUS: O, I am slain.
KING CLAUD: (Lifts cloth) Good heavens, it’s Polonius.
WAITER: Your wine, sir. Two bottles.
KING CLAUD: What? Well now, talk about deux ex machina! Savignon, to save the day! Just pull the cork, waiter!
WAITER: I have, sir. This bottle first.
KING CLAUD: Here, fair Ophelia, allow me to fill your glass. Ah….and now mine. Hamlet, are you drinking?
HAMLET: Not that muck.
KING CLAUD: (Chuckles) Well according to Durkheim, Savignon promotes enormous caring among rural communities, even more so than does Chabris. And I must say, I was surprised to learn that, but statistics appear to support it.
HAMLET: Ay. How amazing. And so are you gonna drink that slops, or just keep sniffing around it like you’re gonna pee in it?
KING CLAUD: I didn’t hear that. Cheers, Ophelia.
OPHELIA: Cheers….Although I don’t really like that expression very much. Rather vulgar.
(They drink)
KING CLAUD: Hmm. Tastes a bit odd…
OPHELIA: Indeed.
HAMLET: (Laughs) Odd, I’ll say! You’ve just drunk fruity lexia!
KING CLAUD: What!
HAMLET: I had it transferred into that bottle!
KING CLAUD: O, I am poisoned!
OPHELIA: O, I am poisoned!
WAITER: Everything all right, sir?
HAMLET: Excellent well, they have lowered their heads to the table – for a rest, a little after-dinner nap. Ay, and there be one more beneath, for the sweeper to find in the morning. Zounds, and no surprise, this weather being unseasonably warm. And thirsy. Ah, and this new bottle, fruity lexia true, out with the cork, and in with you! Ha! Ha! (Drinks, then clutches throat)
WAITER: Sir?
HAMLET: O, I am poisoned!
WAITER: (Examines bottle) O’ for mercy, the deed’s done wrong, this bottle contains, true Savignon!
HAMLET: This potent poison quite o’er-crows me. I cannot live to hear more news from Kings Cross. But no matter, I have been true. Honest to myself, and therefore to all.
Ay, or how easy to grovel. Ha!- and a parrot be. But nay, forsooth, that was never me! I did what I must. And met the cost….I have been true.
The rest is silence.
Curtain.
Darlings, this thing ran for three weeks at Williamstown little theatre, with Mr Brian Banisch as Hamlet. And then for twelve years at Fitzroy arts centre, with Comrade Graeme re-instated. Which seems to indicate that naughtiness is more interesting than virtue. And it is. Because virtue is admired, but not very entertaining. No. How unfortunate. Yes. Well virtue needs to fight dirty. That’s right. Or it will never get a big audience. Not in a dirty world. And in the end, that’s what matters. A big audience is what matters.
Thanks to you all.
-Your Chairman.
Hamlet!:
((wild thunderous applause)). Good-oh !!!
Anyway …. who’s this Virtue shiela you mentioned?
What Gummo!
You shut down the thread just as I ask you a very good and pertenant question about the Hillsong website, which you haven’t directly commented on, just side-stepped! My next comment, had you had the fortitude to continue is this:
‘Evasive, Gummo, since I’ve already stated that I’ve read M. Hickey’s book on generation curses, and therefore familiar with the teaching. I didn’t say that I hadn’t previously visited Hillsong site, either. I tried earlier on in the peice and had the same result. I just didn’t follow it up until today, when I did more thorough search of the site out of personal interest and quite easily, without actually looking for it, happened on the reference to the health-care page, which, by the way you haven’t bothered to comment on.
What do you say about their health-care vision in the light of what I’ve shown you today? And why didn’t you locate and check out that page, which literally leaps out on their flash-driven site?’
For those who haven’t been following this latest revelation, you could check this link: 2 May 2006 at 11:02 am
Sorry, this link http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/04/30/my-name-aint-legion-mark-59-got-that/#comment-71887
Gummo,
I posted this at Andrew Bartlett’s:
http://www.andrewbartlett.com/blog/?p=208#comment-6044
Andrew, I’m sorry you’ve had to go through depression. I hope some day you’ll get through it.
I’m disturbed by the implications being constantly made about Hillsong, though. Whatever you say about Hillsong, or M.Hickey, is fine, since they’re out in the public domain and criticism goes with the territory, as you’’ll know.
I’ve read her book on generational curses, and have to say I don’t hold with all it says, although I can’t see a major problem theologically, but since it is taken from a Christian perspective, not a psychological perspective, and mainly addresses Christians, any criticism really goes into the Biblical arena, not the medical area, and there is no evidence that Hillsong exclusively uses this teaching in any counselling service they provide, which you clearly imply, but isn’t evidenced by the information on the very website you cite.
I can’t see how your theory that people will become even more depressed if they should by happenstance stumble to the wrong conclusion that their depression means they have a demon, which will in turn bring something like shame or guilt into their lives, or that Hillsong staff would be amateur enough to allow that to happen. In fact your post has probably done more to foster this misinformed conclusion than anything Hillsong or M. Hickey says!
As for Hillsong, you need to check their vision for health care. You’ll see that it is in line with general practice, uses health professionals, and has endorsement from Medicare. http://www2.hillsong.com/emerge/default.asp?pid=556&hidetitle=yes
Their vision:
‘Hillsong Health Centres have been established with an aim to provide quality health care to our community. We currently have one centre running in Castle Hill, with vision for growth throughout Sydney. At Hillsong Health Centres, we believe in caring for the whole person by providing care through a team of highly qualified and professional medical practitioners, psychologists and counsellors.’
You may have a negative view of this, but no one is forcing you or anyone else to go there for help. In fact the majority of their clients, I imagine will come from the Christian community.
Some of the guff recorded on this thread is pure gossip and innuendo. CL needs to wash his mouth out. These Christian brothers and sisters.
If anyone bothers to check the Hillsong site with a positive attitude you’ll see that they are doing a great job in their community. They even answer the criticisms being levelled at them by the media.
Hillsong is a great Australian success story. Maybe not totally perfect, but who is?
Facelift,
gummo is conditioned by his experience of a Presbyterian minister whilst at school so bear this in mind.
to my mind hillsong is weak on doctrine and as for Hickey I believe Saint has as usual said it better than I could.
Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger on the causes of impotence and infertility. Their views are now widely regarded as discredited, thanks to advances in our understanding of human physiology and neurology. Hickey’s views on depression don’t deserve any more credence – Good on Hillsong for taking the page down.
Homer, I’m sick and tired of your continual repetition of this “Gummo’s mum was frightened by a Presbyterian minister while he was in the womb” crap.
That said, I don’t see any point in any further discussion of a closed comment thread here. Knock yourselves out bitching about me to each other.
GUMM-O! GUMM-O!
Trotsky all I’ve ever copped from you are catty little comments.
Depression is an ‘Affective Disorder’, a neurosis. Some schizophrenics get depressed – and so would you hearing abusive hallucinatory voices day and night. So don’t fuck about on mental illness with me, google is no help to you. Just keep on with your dumbo kiddie games of “Where’s your evidence for that!” Okay? Miss Precious!
OK, Gummo, since you don’t want to comment on the real policy Hillsong has on Health Care administration, I’ll leave it at this:
I have no beef with BBEP on this occassion, or really with you personally, but when any blogger, or a number of bloggers, regardless of their emotional or physical condition, puts up unresearched, critical blogs, they put themselves in line for counter-criticism, and as far as I’m concerned this is a beat-up on an organisation which is becoming a target for tall-poppy crunchers.
Hillsong is successful and influential, and will probably continue to grow, and with that comes the darts of criticism, but the kind of snidey sniping I’ve seen on these posts is disappointing when Hillsong has done so much to present a bright, friendly image of Australian Christianity to the world.
And cs, put the other boot in your mouth.
Make it a pair!
Alles over het komende wereldkampioenschap Voetbal 2006 in Duitsland.
Am very happy as my abstract to give a 20 min talk at the International Congress of Mathematicians in Madrid in August was accepted! Hooray! It’s the premier mathematicians’ congress in the world.
Congratulations, Sacha! Well done.
wk2006:
You wouldn’t get me within a bull’s roar of Germany when that’s on …. been watching tv news about German and Polish football hooligans (move over the English) and they probably won’t even make it to the quarter-finals when the real “fans” turn up …. the ones who make the Orcs in “Lord of the Rings” look quite genteel.
Yep, Sacha, that’s excellent.
We are not worthy.
Congratulations Sacha!
Thanks everyone
Now I have to keep on editing a paper from my thesis (I finished a Lemma earlier on) – and then go to bed in 10 minutes so I feel reasonable for work tomorrow!
Up till this fortnight I’ve been working full-time, but now I’m working 90% of full-time; I’m taking one day off a fortnight to do study/research/seminars/writing papeers. First day off is this Friday
I had a dream that Iemma lost the NSW election. Why am I having dreams about such things?
Ask Freud, Mark.
))
I dream that Iemma loses the NSW election, but I have nightmares about who might win it!
I wonder if the only thing keeping Iemma in the race is that the Opposition is even worse? Although Andrew Stoner, the leader of the National Party, has actually said a few sensible things in the last few years – I was almost shocked.
Sacha, Andrew Stoner made himself unpopular recently for trying to punch Joe Tripodi in the face on the floor of the Lower House—not for trying, but for jumping the queue.
[boom tish]
Seriously though, it’ll be very difficult for the NSW Opposition to pick up enough seats for a Lower House majority. Not only do they have to get a huge swing, they’ve got to take back National seats lost to right-wing independents who have no reason to support a Coalition minority Government. It’s in Labor’s interest to throw money at country electorates with independents, and in the Coalition’s interest to starve them.
That’s not to say a change won’t happen, it’s just a huge ask.
If as many people in other electorates are as pissed off with their local ALP member as they are in my home area, then Iemma has a dilemma!
Yes, it’s happened. Birdman has got his own blog
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/
I’m assuming you live in the state electorate of Blue Mountains, Ron, from the details on your site.
Bob Debus in 2003 won 45.60% of the primary vote to the opposition’s pretty piss-poor 27.35% and the Greens’ 17.9% (whose votes went overwhelmingly to Labor when McInnes was excluded).
Consider also that Blue Mountains isn’t even one of the most safe seats on the pendulum.
NB: the critical thing to look at on the pendulum are the six ‘Independents’ at the bottom, who as I said before are pretty much bound to support Labor in a minority situation.
Oh, just been reading through this thread – congrats, Sacha!
Thanks Jason – it’s great for the self-confidence!
Liam, that was Andrew Fraser (Coffs Harbour). Agree with you that one of the big problems for the coalition is that a fair number of independents hold what would otherwise be certain coalition seats (nth tablelands, dubbo, port macquarie, tamworth, pittwater).
It’ll be interesting to see how Clover Moore goes – I think that she time she’s not a certain bet, although she’ll benefit from the anti-labor feeling.
In recent opinion polls, the NSW coalition have been on 52% of the two-party-preferred vote. I wonder which voters make up this 52% – have a lot of people in former Lib seats (strathfield, ryde, the shire) switched back to the coalition?
Sacha—you’re right, it was indeed Fraser.
But the punchline remains.
My money this far out from the actual election is on Labor to take an absolute pounding in a few seats, but for the Liberals not to capitalise enough on the anti-Labor feeling to get over the line. Independents like Clover Moore,* and people like McTaggart in Pittwater, are in a perfect position to win seats in conservative areas, especially with the civil-war atmosphere in the Liberal Party.
*Despite the rolling sweaty clusterfuck that is the Sydney City Council
Oh yeah, and obviously a lot of safe Liberal seats are going to get *really* safe.
Like Lane Cove & Hornsby etc etc
The thing about Clover is that now she has to deliver, she can’t just be a local advocate, and I don’t think she’s succeeding. I’ve heard that planning people in the City of Sydney can’t stand her ’cause she knows nothing but wants to put her hand into it.
Yes, Debus’ history is interesting, Liam. He held the seat 1981-88, lost it and regained it in 1995.
The highway and public transport are big issues here so it’s always an interesting campaign.
Liam – you’ve been a bad boy. Get yourself back on Miss Piss’ Xmas card list.
Darlings, last night I dreamt this:
ROLLERCOASTER.
Senor Valquez,
On the way to his execution,
Paused to admire the beautiful view.
For he was an artist,
More than a living man.
An artist,
To no end.
Well I think it’s to do with when my daddy took me on the Big Dipper at Luna Park, and I was terrified – especially on the slow climb.
-Your Chairman.
(No comments, by request)
What can I say Sacha, except that your days are obviously numbered. Seriously, well done old chap.
Also, if I was the kind of evilminded bitch that so seems to haunt the blogosphere these days, I would suggest that this news could inspire a competition to see who gets banned first from Birdy’s Blog.
But I’m not so I won’t.
Nah, you are, so you have, bless your furry balls. Being a somewhat evilminded BBAISQ*, I had the same thought meself, Nabsy. Care to make it interesting?
I’m going to pretend that I need an incentive to get in La Cage aux Fowl and ruffle a few white feathers. And it would be more sporting if there were some manner of objective prize at stake, rather than my baser urges. Suggestions?
*Bully Boy Advocate of the Intellectual Status Quo, 2nd Class, Keynesian Macromancy Division.
I’m still in love.
Just sayin…
Fydrich, you and Nabs dont stand a chance. I’m odds on, in a canter. Its quite possible I’ve already been banned, before visiting.
Still unrequited Kim? I seem to recall that was the first comment on that thread, that ought not be named.
I saw that older bloke from the SBS Movie Show (Mark??) buying DVDs at JB Hi Fi the other day, and moreover, last night I saw Artie from the Biggest Loser on Liverpool St. So Sydney is still teh celebrity capital of Oz it seems. Suck it, Melbourne.
Yes….. seething with jealousy down here, Amanda.
But cheer up, Melbourne, for here’s happy news: Doyle walks the plank.
No more irrelevant, pointless policy mumblings, and leadership challenge denials.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1630407.htm
Yep. Still unrequited.
Well we’ve convinced Graeme to fulfil his destiny.
Now for our next task, to embloggen someone who’s obviously in need of one:
While we’re on the subject.
Just James is back. Rebadged as Mac.
Hey JPZ, if you’re around, you might get a giggle out of this one: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/47978
Effetist, your ego’s writing cheques your blogging can’t cash.
I got censored on my second post. Top that.
*tips hat*
Not bad Fydrich. You know, I’d back myself to cash in with one good shot in the charted achillae; but I think I’ll let the Birdman do the stalking in our relationship.
Why, that’s positively gay!
Ill have you know Graeme and I are just good friends
Lefty E — yeah, I saw that. I’d laugh, except it’ll probably be true in another 10 years. (Hell, it’s practically true right now…) Next thing will be for all the jobs to get sent even further south, to Antarctica. Bet those penguins’ll never unionize…
Cool, Fyodor is back guns a blazin’.
Well OK M. Fyodor, I’ll grudgingly give you this round.
But remember it’s not over until the fat bully boy of the status quo gets debaunched.
Naomi, and get rid of Laurie Ferguson as well. He’s a toad.
Actually Naomi, it’s not a matter of preselection, it was the ALP’s submission (warning: big-arse PDF file, 3.2MB) to the 2006 NSW electoral redistribution that involved the abolition of Reid, the squashed frog’s lilypad.
That’s about as unsubtle a hint to retirement as you can get, I think.
I’d forgotten that description of Mr Ferguson. It’s apt. I remember being completely disgusted with a sound-bite from him a year ago on ABC radio, sent off an appropriate e-mail, and received a response that said, effectively, “what would people in your suburb know about these things, people in my area really know what it’s like.”
I wrote back saying that I thought that this sort of rubbish had no place in politics and that I actively try to downplay “suburb snobbery” amongst my friends. There was no response.
I had a look at the submission, Liam – it was a bit strange. Tortured boundaries around the eastern suburbs (obviously to make Wentworth much more marginal or even Labor), and the proposal to abolish a rural seat (Riverina I think) was perhaps not completely defensible. It looked as if they wanted to effectively transfer a labor seat from mid-sydney to western sydney, push Macarthur (I think) down south (it stays Lib but is now probably unwinnable for Lab) and abolish a rural seat.