« profile & posts archive

This author has written 618 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

19 responses to “Spotlight the Spin”

  1. GregA

    Not sure if this counts: shark appears in water after Abbott gets out.

    (Oh, I think I added spin to that one.)

  2. Curi-Oz

    Does that imply that not even sharks want to swim with him?

  3. jumpy
  4. Cuppa

    More Coalition boosting by Their ABC Radio National this morning. At the program’s outset, Breakfast‘s summer host, Jonathan Green, when pointering the upcoming ‘features’, said they would be looking at the Opposition’s claims about multiculturalism and Gambaro’s comments about immigrants and deodorant. Deodorant, FFS! It’s the ABC and Coalition that are on the nose!

  5. tssk

    FFS. On a hot summer’s day I smell worse than any immigrant and some of the smelliest men about are white guys in singlets turning red in the sun.

    What a transparent dog whistle by the Coalition. The Morning Shows were abuzz with it, pretty much laughing at the Coalition at raising this.

    As for the shark? Too soon for the ‘professional courtesy’ joke?

  6. Zabeel the Horse

    Sunce the topuc hez been raised, the smilliest underarm un Austreliyen hustory was Trivor Cheppill’s.

  7. Crass

    I listened to that interview with Gambaro, and Jonathan Green suggested that she was being ‘trivial’ regarding the controversial (?) deodorant issue, also saying that surely many Aussies are deodorant-challenged on public transport. She couldn’t back-pedal away from it fast enough.

  8. Fran Barlow

    Gambaro is just being candid. She thinks that apparent hygiene and actual hygiene are the same thing — a piece of reasoning that her party uses all the time, most obviously when using the Eau de Murdochracy to make their politics seem sweet, rather than an example of putrefaction.

  9. Brian62

    No doubt Teresa Gambaro will be “on the nose” with the Brisbane migrant community,”out of context” she pleads ?unadulterated “merda” typical would be heavyweight Liberal outlook, they all stink.

  10. Fran Barlow

    Listening to “Louise Saunders” this morning on ABC702. There flowed, predictably, the usual banter about gun control, with the ready-made copy and paste responses from the gun lobby — guns don’t gill people; middle easterners, imported guns, DGU; stiffer sentences for criminal usage & etc.

    One of the callers threw in another trope though.:

    Heroin’s illegal and yet you can buy it outside any state high school.

    I’m not sure why state high schools were singled out. Presumably, in this chap’s view, the prime market for heroin is amongst people attending state schools for one reason or another. Personally, were I a heroin dealer, I’d go where the cash was, and as far as I can tell, people visiting state schools aren’t especially cashed up. Also, presumably, people like him who think you can buy heroin outside state schools will be out spotting the said dealers with theirt fancy cars and bling and calling the police or at the very least bringing it to the attention of teachers, which would be a damned nuisance for your average heroin dealer. Sadly, I can report that in more than 20 years of teaching in state schools, I’ve never once spotted a heroin dealer outside a school I’ve been at, nor even heard of anyone who has reported seeing one. No children at any of the schools I’ve been at (including some in the S-W and West and N-W of Sydney) have ever been caught in possession. No welfare matters involving heroin have been raised. The closest thing to drugs near any school I’ve ever taught at was the bottle shop in Minto Mall.

    Regrettably, “Louise Saunders” let this one go unchallenged: #theirABC at work.

  11. Fran Barlow

    And this:

    Fat tax urged for airlines’ health

    OVERWEIGHT passengers should be forced to pay extra for air travel, a former airline economist says. The idea was floated by former Qantas chief economist Tony Webber in a column for Business Day online yesterday.

    ”People who weigh more should pay more to fly on planes – in the same way that people who exceed their baggage allowance must fork out extra,” Mr Webber wrote. {…}

    So clearly, not a proposal for the state to attach Pigouvian (sorry about the pun) impost on those going on flights. Mr Webber is saying that airline companies should charge heavier passengers more.

    How long can it be before some dimbulb rings up 2GB or similar and asks why this “big spending” government is looking for yet another excuse to “fleece the public” so as to “balance the budget” in the name of better health?

    Again, this simply underlines how debauched public discourse has become.

    FTR: As far as I know, there would be nothing to stop airlines imposing extra charges on heavier passengers. That would be a commercial decision.

  12. Crass

    Ah, but wouldn’t that be misandry (as men are usually bigger than women) and would therefore be far more likely to be slugged the extra charge. Perhaps the Men’s Rights Activists (don’t say that three times while looking in the mirror) should focus on that instead of carpet-bombing feminist blogs with their blather.

  13. Crass

    Gah – of course the first sentence should have a ?

    Grammar-challenged on a Thursday afternoon…

  14. Chris

    Fran @ 14 – might not anti discrimination laws kick in if an airline tried to do this?

    tigtog @ 11 – reading that tele article they’re not blaming Garrett for pool deaths, but suggesting he should add CPR to the national curriculum. I learnt CPR at school – was part of PE classes (as was basic first aid). Is that not something that happens at most schools anyway? I think it should.

  15. Fran Barlow

    What anti-discrimination laws would they be, Chris? While discrimination in employment on the basis of ethncitiy, sexuality, and a number of other categories is prohibited and public services must be provided on a non-discriminatory basis, private organisations have the right to refuse service to anyone. That would be poisonous marketing, so they tend not to act in this way, but there’s nothing I’ve heard of specific to statute law stopping them from doing so (though I think there are some restrictions on private landlords denying tenancies on the basis of ostensible ethnicity, sexuality etc …)

    They could in any event simply make the case that carriage of all people and goods was based on weight and service. I believe that some US airlines require those who can’t fit into single seats without impinging on adjacent seats to pay for an extra seat, unless the flight is not full.

  16. Chris

    Fran @ 18 – perhaps on the basis of disability since for at least some people their weight is clearly due to a medical condition? Restaurants (private organisations) for example must allow guide dogs onto their premises.