Visit Grodscorp to suggest a caption |
The federal election is absorping more than its share of attention in Ozblogistan, and is certain to do so for the next two months. For those who care, there is feast of psephology at Poll Bludger, Simon Jackman’s Blog, Peter Brent’s Mumble, and Bryan Palmer’s Oz Politics. Down the foodchain from the psephologists, the commentators await each poll result, ready to venture an interpretation. For example, like many otheres, Tim Dunlop wondered what Tuesday’s Newspoll would mean for the Liberal leadership. When the numbers came down, government supporters reported a resurgence, but John Quiggin insisted that it was all a beat-up:
…if you started with the view that the true position was 57-43, neither this poll nor the last one would lead you to change this view.
The real question, according to John, is whether the respondents will do as they say.
Borrowing a graph from Peter Brent, Mark Bahnisch separated the trend form the wiggles and ignited a good comment thread on election possibilties. This is a well that won’t run dry.
If on the other hand you don’t care about the election, you don’t need to tune out for the duration: try this reflection, again from Tim Dunlop, on vengeance, forgiveness, and Sister Helen Prejean.
ML has been a bit short staffed lately, so this edition is less representative than usual. Contributors were Peter Black, Amanda Rose and James Farrell — with a final, generous contribution from tardy gilmae.
1. News and Politics Stuff
In the domain of federal politics, Andrew Landeryou warns against writing off the Coalition, believing there is a "real fight just around the corner"; whileTim Blair recalls where he has heard the "New Leadership" slogan before.
On the other side of the spectrum, Ken Lovell wonders if the Treasurer knows the meaning of the word policy, Mr Speaker; while Shaun Cronin points out the ineptitude of the government’s attempt to ‘wedge Labor as soft on Internet child molesters’ by means of its Net Alert campaign.
The ‘Senate sausage machine’, is speeding up, and Senator Bartlett suspects this indicates an early election.
MK is unimpressed with Senator Fielding’s proposal that parents should receive $10,000 baby bonus for their third child. Arleeshar at Stoush sees the Family First proposal as an updated version of an older scheme to replenish the white genepool, while Kim at LP hears echoes of the same idea in Costello’s exhortations to breed.
Mark Bahnisch thinks that the ‘cultural’ and family ‘values’ attributed to Australians are a concoction of Howard and his cheersquad of conservative commentators. Jesus will vote for Rudd.
Ken Lovell peers into the parallel universe where Hewson won in ’93, and one or two others.
APEC is not quite forgotten. John Quiggin argues that the Sydney Declaration on climate change, while meaningless in its own right, offers Howard a chance to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without losing face. Meanwhile, Atticus at LP notes that the inquiry into the missing police badges was, as anticipated, a sham.
Shifting the focus to state politices, Helen explains her shock decison not to vote for either the DLP or the Family First candidate in the Williamstown by-election.
In the international domain, opinions remain polarised on the subject of Iraq. Duckpond man wmmbb doubts that the Americans have learned the lessons of the British ‘peace-keeping’ mission in Basra; but MK argues that General Petraeus and his troops are getting the job done and that we should just let them get on with it.
At Australian Politics Howard’s nursing policy was examined.
Ken Parish continues his series on Australian federalism.
saint has a look at a page offered by Google, aggregating information relating to the Australian election. ((Smells suspiciously like the results of some Australian googlers 20% Time.~gilmae)).
Niall Cook discusses the aspects of a smear campaign that Mssrs Akerman, Boswell and Joyce would all rather you didn’t think about.
Cam Riley summarises, and links to, a podcast interview with Julian Burnside of Liberty Victoria
2. Life and Other Serious Stuff
A blogger killed in a road accident has been identified by iPod. Very sad news, but think of what someone reading that sentence ten years ago would have made of it.
Dr John Ray discusses some recent research on IQ.
Pavlov’s Cat admits to being disconcerted by Veronica Sywak’s revelations about human trafficking in the sex industry. tigtog picks up the topic, asking why prostitution doesn’t provoke the same outrage as other forms of ‘voluntary’ slavery.
tigtog solicits expert help in debunking Evolutionary Psychology, especially as used to rationalise misogynistic practices.
Economist Jeremy Sear diagnoses the the asymmetric information problem in the real estate market. A potential convert to the Gruen Tender?
William Burroughs’ Baboon has a link to the disturbing – but no longer surprising – arrest of Lennox Yearwood on Youtube.
Apathetic Sarah reviews Brisbane’s Brewhouse in words and pictures.
Cam Riley casts a leary gaze over one of the less appealing characteristics of his – otherwise – political hero, Daniel Deniehy.
Vest notes the results of a study on the use of peanut butter in combating malnutrition. If Joh were around he’d be all smiles.
Jacques Chester talks about Club Troppo’s spam policy and points towards Larvatus Prodeo’s stated policy. ((I’m guessing LP has a stated policy to deflect accusations of censorship-masquerading-as-spam-killing.~gilmae))
barista recounts a (perhaps verging on unethical) experiment on nature vs nuture.
Roger Merkel on dealing with abundant atmospheric particular matter in photography.
Peter Martin considers the implications of the large number of $100 bills in circulation. Or rather, not in circulation.
Andrew Leigh performs what appears to be his niche function in the Australian blogosphere, pointing readers towards interesting academic studies. Look, he’s at it again in the comments to a Nicholas Gruen post on DIY prediction markets! In response to Gruen’s post, Niall Cook goes and set one up to predict the winner of a car race.
So that’s what you were doing this afternoon, James, when you had locked the wiki node while I was waiting to add my contributions. Publishing.
I’ll email you about this, gilmae.
Well done everyone, thanks for taking over so smoothy.
Thanks, comrades.
Helen, I listened to that LNL program. As soon as Adams said ‘chilling’ and ‘blood freeze’ I knew he was mixing you up with Anu Singh. I’ve heard him describing his interview with her in the same terms (and it’s a fair assessment). The confusion was confirmed when he made another reference to Singh at the end. It’s also ironic that in the same interview he talked about Manning Clarke’s false – but in Adams’ view genuine – belief that he’d witnessed Krislallnacht.
So maybe Adams was momentarily disoriented by the blend of themes – literary hoaxes (you and Khoury), manipulative charmers (Khoury and Singh), notorious young women in general – or maybe he has an illusory memory of interviewing you. In any case it’s a tad unfair to you, since to the best of my knowledge you haven’t murdered anyone.
Whether or not this theory is correct, obviously he should correct the mistake and apologise if he hasn’t already. I’ve written to him and I suppose others have, so he must know about it. If he ignores the whole thing I’ll be disgusted.
Someone made a similar suggestion over at Catallaxy. I don’t really know and – having had it done to me – I’m loathe to second guess another person’s motives. He does seem both vague and rambling, and doesn’t let his guests speak enough. Certainly not something I’d ever listen to by choice, that’s for sure.
I’ve had a chat to Media Watch (they even bothered to ring me in the UK!), and the woman I spoke to said she’d speak to him. Have to wait and see, I suppose.
Like James, I strongly suspect that Phillip Adams confused you with Anu Singh!!! I’m pleased to hear that James has written to Adams drawing the error to his attention. We’ll have to see whether he responds appropriately and apologises. I’ve got his private email address, and I think I’ll reinforce the message by using it to convey James’ above comment.
I though he was getting confused with Anu Singh, too – not that that is really much less of an appalling mistake than actually thinking he’d interviewed you when he hadn’t.
Frankly, I doubt if Adams would bother interviewing Blair, although Blair’s preferred interview mode would undoubtedly be remotely, by email, perhaps.
“As soon as Adams said chilling and blood freeze I knew he was mixing you up with Anu Singh.”
Joining the chorus here, but yes, that was my first thought also.
Thanks for your comments, everyone. Looks like this is what happened, which is really rather sad. I do appreciate your efforts, Ken and James. I will keep everyone posted as best I can, both over here and at Catallaxy.
Yep – count me in the chorus of the Anu Singh mixup. That interview really was chilling. Then again he was speaking to a murderer. Still he certainly owes you an apology and I hope you get it.
Shifting the focus to state politices, [another] Helen explains her shock decison not to vote for either the DLP or the Family First candidate in the Williamstown by-election.
Tee-hee. It is really writing the obvious, I suppose. But it was fun (don’t usually blog elections).
Media Watch vindicated my faith in them. Adams, on the other hand, was a big disappointment. My guess is that he himself realised the Anu Singh connection but didn’t want to admit the clear implication — that senility is encroaching. At the same time he couldn’t think of any other excuse, so he took the coward’s route and obfuscated. A shame: an unqualified apology wouldn’t have done him any harm at all.
Likewise very disappointed. The link is here. I don’t think the mix-up suggests senility at all. I can see how it would be easy to make. And easy to correct.
The gratuitous reference to “Helen in her latest incarnation” is, in addition to being cowardly, dehumanising.
Is she owed an apology or not?
Only just catching up with this now – I think I’ll have to do a round-up post or something, I’ll see what I can do.
Somehow, I don’t think Adams is a particularly humane person, Nick. I’m politically different from him, so therefore denied the usual courtesies.
Because Ken’s been forced to close the dedicated thread, may I just offer my thanks to him for such a fine post, and may I also point out that David Rubie is the sort of leftie who allows Ken to make the ‘latte leftie’ snip.
Never made a mistake in your life, David? Never done anything wrong? Never ever?
Made plenty, never lied about ’em.
That was stupid and harsh (sorry). Made another one.
“Media Watch vindicated my faith in them.”
mine too, james. That they would better off the air and we taxpayers get a refund by clawing back all their backpay for impersonating honorable scribes.
Apology accepted, David.
Now if we could all go back to evincing the good manners for which Troppo is renowned, Blogdom – if not the world – would be a better place.
So, did anyone click on the link to the Savill gallery and check out the Ray Crooke paintings? I think they’re wonderful. Elements of Gauguin and Rousseau, but very individual nonetheless.
Fari suck of the sauce, SL. There’s time for a decent stoush. Think of it like Ultimate Fighting without the blood and ripped flesh.
From a non-blogger point of view, this Media Watch episode drew heavily on ‘blogs’ – one in particular, but from MSM point of view, that was a big deal. Among other things, that stood out, to me. Tim Blair’s blog gets a ripping from time to time, but never previously from what I’ve seen has a blog been such a lengthy source of content for MSM than with Catallaxy on this.
I know it’s a parallel issue.
Running with that is what we expect from our mainstream media. To contribute in some way to a blog is, in part at least, a signal to MSM that it’s lacking. To contribute to a blog is not just a sign of solidarity (quite an issue amongst actual bloggers, and goes to this point) but a powerful statement that, given MSM lack, the onus will be taken on board to seek to provide qualities missing. Of course this is not to be definitive of the ‘sphere. But it speaks of the power of blogs. May I emphasise there the word and the power of will.
In other countries, the power of blogs is well known.
In Australia, it is less so, due to our small and rather insular MSM not wishing to embrace it. This episode of MW effected one more step towards a better acceptance. There is some food for thought in this.
And if you wish to exercise some thoughts, imagine the environment MW broadcasts into. Blog criticisms of MW are good and clear, yet this clarity I’d guess would be pretty much at the sole domain of the Australian ‘sphere. How often has our ‘blog community’ criticised, correctly, the MSM? In fact it’s an ongoing narrative in the blog community to do so, with good grounds – reasons for which are ignored or otherwise ridiculed or,rarely, begrudgingly acknowledged by MSM, let alone the sheer act of doing so given the chorus of this valid national voice.
MW broadcasts, still, into the land of mini-culture. That’s the way our MSM has grown. MW serves that particular populated island: the mainstream media’s audience. It does so, from that island’s perspective, entertainingly and with courage and insight. Ah, to reveal the secrets of the island inhabitants!
So this (parallel) discussion in the ‘sphere is heightened in regard to another MW failing, to yet again beseech of the MSM to reach into and accept the ‘sphere’s claiming of ground well- trodden by the blogosphere, while I hope also seeing that another wall between the two has come crashing down.
That further breaking of the walls, that redefinition forced upon MSM by the power of blogs, in this country, is a valuable positive all parties can take from all of this.
James,
Fwiw – (nm) – I’m a bit of a non-fan of Ray Crooke. He’s been painting pictures that looked like the last batch he’s painted for about thirty years. They’re nice, but we need something a little more to keep our attention.
I hadn’t gone through to look at the paintings for that reason, but I did note when I first saw it, how much of a change – for the better – the painting that was put up was. On clicking through, I can see the guy has pulled his finger out.
So good on him – not an easy thing to do – ever. So doing it a few times in his life is better than most of us.
Great comment , Robert.
I’m going to see the exhibition tomorrow, Nicholas. Let me know which one you want and I’ll put a deposit on it for you.
I’ll follow your advice on this James. Just put the money down. As you know, I don’t care for grubby calculations about how much.