A digest of the best of the blogosphere published each weekday and compiled by Ken Parish, gilmae, Gummo Trotsky, Amanda Rose, Tim Sterne, Jen McCulloch and Stephen Hill
Politics
Australian
Tim Lambert on the fallacy inherent in yesterday's umpteenth climate change denialist "global warming stopped 6 years ago" article by Michael Duffy:
|
In response to calls for buying kidneys rather than wait for donations, pommygranate believes it will only bring out druggies and cash-desperadoes.
Jeremy Sear argues that cutting stamp duty on real estate transactions (in Victoria) won't do a thing to reduce housing prices (and he's right - KP).
Things are getting really crook in New South Wales for Kim at LP to condemn nanny state madness.
International
For those wanting to keep up to date on developments re Iraq, Juan Cole has a useful news/links roundup.
Sarah gives the SMH's Paul Sheehan a well deserved spray for his idiotically odious piece on Obama.
Economics
Doing a latter day imitation of Jake the Peg, econobloggers span the gamut of opinion on inflation and interest rates. Fred Argy thinks the Reserve Bank has them too high, Harry Clarke thinks they're about right (acknowledging Fred's point that the RBA is right not to raise rates further if inflation is a result of price increases that are not necessarily the start of an inflationary process) and Stephen Kirchner agrees with Don Harding that they're too low:
The seven increases in the nominal cash rate over this period have just kept pace with inflation and do not represent a tightening of policy The danger is that if I am right and inflation accelerates because the RBAs approach is too soft, then the RBA will need to move aggressively and hike rates several times.
Law
Currency Lad senses double standards in the release and non-release of papers under the FOI act. Don't like the radio station your co-workers listen to in the office? Sue the bastardsblighters. Ted Frank won't get much opposition in suggesting that it's probably not a good idea for a lawyer to make "jerk-off" motions in court or send a death threat to opposing counsel by fax. Some of the other examples of actual lawyerly conduct are just as weird. Howard Wasserman meanwhile suggests that using the expression "Most respectfully, this is a concept that even a mentally-challenged monkey could grasp" in the plaintiff's pleadings in a suit seeking $40 billion dollars in damages for a T-shirt listing the names of US servicemen killed in Iraq may be a little unwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Issues analysis
Orin Kerr and Dale Carpenter both leap in bravely in defence of Burkean conservatism. Robert Merkel sees signs that the American love affair with trucks is waning, and looks at a better way of producing biofuels. Andrew Leigh extracts some well considered observations on the shortcomings of international aid and agriculture policies.
Arts
Chris Boyd provides some more details on the extraordinary life of John Cargher, the long-time host of Radio National's Singers of Reknown who sadly passed away this week at the age of 89.
Pavlov's Cat posts on Tim Winton's new novel Breathe, while also commenting upon the May issue of the Australian Book Review, which includes James Ley's review of the same book, a Coetzee essay on Frederic Jameson and a review of the new Helen Garner novel, The Spare Room.
Decomposing Trees considers folk singer Emmy the Great to be one of his "musical discoveries of the year."
Ben Peek recalls the ethereal pleasure of listening to Portishead, discovering the presence of a third studio album, aptly named Third.
Ben also reviews the new Robert Downey Jnr cartoon superhero-based movie Ironman (and is underwhelmed).
Amanda Rose recalls the heady twelve days she spent as co-editor of the school newspaper, considering whether it was her Iago-like tendencies that scuppered the chance of a career on Grub Street. ((Wouldn't Iago make the ideal byline chasing, compliant libertine that would produce the inane columns of snark that delight news executives these days? If Iago was alive today he's bound to have become a tabloid editor within a couple of years of riding the greasy pole.~SH))
In light of the horrific case out of Austria, The Happy Antipodean explores Nigel Cawthorne's Killers: The Most Barbaric Murderers of Our Times (which recounts the cases of some of the most famous serial killers, including a few well known local sadists.)
Snark, strangeness and charm
I'll (gilmae) add Tiger to the list of airlines I won't fly with.
Laura is less than impressed by the essay writing efforts of her undergraduate students.
As Andrew puts it, that really was one of the best blog comments of all time.
He also has a great op-ed in today's fin (and on his site), which might be called 'HECS in everything', and another typically interesting and practical suggestion about the much-vexing baby bonus.
I'm not plugging him but his page is excellent reading this morning.
Sarah calls conservative blacks "Uncle Toms" and Sheehan is odious?
And this:
Sarah believes the idea that the CIA invented AIDS to kill black people is "fairly sound"?
Is it any wonder Obama is tanking given that so many of his admirers appear to be lunatics?
CL
I only scanned Sarah's post (as I am often forced to do given deadlines and the number of posts we have to review each day) and I didn't notice the two elements you mention. I agree they're just as odious as Sheehan's article (though as a callow youth she arguably has mor excuse for extreme opinions than Sheehan who purports to be a senior journalist).
Yes, Sarah's attempt to paint the thought processes of Paul Sheehan in such a manner is quite disgraceful.
Do you still think the Sheehan piece was odious and idiotic though, Ken?
Don't you?
I absolutely do think the Sheehan post was idiotically odious. My opinion of the Sheehan post was entirely unaffected by Sarah not condemning Wright's HIV remark and her use of the u-bomb.
I confess though, in the last half hour I have wavered back and forth between thinking CL is trying to undermine Sarah's whole point by calling her a hypocrite, or thinking I just think that is the case because I don't like CL.
"Sarah gives the SMHs Paul Sheehan a well deserved spray for his idiotically odious piece on Obama."
...and she calls black critics of Obama "Uncle Toms". What a bloody hypocrite.
"in the last half hour I have wavered back and forth between thinking CL is trying to undermine Sarahs whole point by calling her a hypocrite, or thinking I just think that is the case because I dont like CL."
Waver no longer gilmae. It's his only rhetorical maneuver.
what exactly is so odious about the Sheehand piece? that he mentioned the fact that Obama and Wright are black?
Good god, that never occured to me
the term 'stupid black men' is an obvious allusion to Fatty Moore's major work of literature 'stupid white men'. Lame joke perhaps but hardly odious.
On the other hand we have Sarah Whoever mocking the 'intellectual' claim of Shelby Steele and Thomas Sowell when these two have published more serious works in the last few years of their dotage than Sarah ever will in her lifetime (and the fact that Sowell now writes the occasional hack column doesn't diminish his past genuine intellectual achievements) - because they are black and strayed too far from the leftist plantation.
what exactly is so odious about the Sheehand piece?
When you get the answer, pass it on to the rest of us.
What I find odious and idiotic is that Sheehan created a hatchet job based on what I feel is a silly notion but didn't have the fortitude to even do the dirty work himself.
When I read it I initially thought that Sheehan was working with the premise that Obama was capable, viable and worthy candidate whose chances are being damaged by the more-controversial words and beliefs of an out-and-out idiot. But no, Sheehan then turns around and quotes extensively to show that he thinks Obama is an unviable candidate who is only in the race because of "white guilt", because white people can only support and vote for a black man out of some sense of deep-seated racial guilt. That's the idiotic part.
The odious bit was that he didn't have the courage to say it himself but he did the equivalent of a bad blog post - he quote-spammed. He hid behind the skirts of better thinkers than he to make his silly little point. Whatever else I think of Obama and Wright, that op-ed was the work of a coward.
YMMV.
The really odious part of Sheehan's article is that (by quote-spamming as Gilmae observes) he seeks to make the sly but unmistakable innuendo case for guilt by association, that Obama either:
(a) holds similar poisonous anti-American views to his (alleged) close associates like Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground, or the anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi, and has fooled the American public by pretending otherwise and masquerading as a moderate unifier; or
(b) is an ambitious charlatan with no real views beyond his raw ambition, and willing to associate with (and disassociate from) whoever is convenient, and to profess to whatever views and policies are necessary to further those personal ambitions.
It shouldn't be necessary to point out why this sort of guilt by association slur (especially point (a)) is repugnant/odious.
Here's Sowell, quoted in Magic Water Man's column: "He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground, or the anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi."
Obama sought out and joined the Weatherman? I don't think so. Sowell is not being honest.
Magic Water presents his quotes as if the represent outrage from the African-American community, when they are just the Republican talking points delivered by right-wing commenters.
Point (a) may be made in an odious fashion in this case, but it seems a serious question to me - after all, he did 'hang out' with Wright for a long time, which puts point (b) seriously in play. I certainly would have walked out of his church and stayed out, for example. I know most people on this site are agnostic or atheist, but normally when you go to church you agree with the priest. And then there is his wife who called it 'the first time I have been really proud of America' when Obama won a major primary or some such, which strikes someone like me as a really weird thing to say and indicative of a funny way of seeing the world, and one which is perhaps more compatible with the views of his associates than the views of his public professions.
As it is I don't believe he is guilty of either point, but I do so only partly on the basis of the basis of the facts that I am aware of and partly of my purely subjective assessment. In other words I don't think the facts preclude raising those questions, even if Sheehan has done so in a cowardly, 'junior-hack' and odious manner.
Maybe this is not actually disagreeing with anyone here (although it certainly is disagreeing with Sarah).
And more dishonesty from Sowell: "Voting records analysed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate."
What the National Journal actually found:
I know most people on this site are agnostic or atheist, but normally when you go to church you agree with the priest.
Yeah, because condoms and the pill aren't common among practising Catholics. Likewise, sex before marriage and adultery aren't common between religious people.
Or maybe, most people take what they want from their religion and ignore the stuff which they disagree with.
Tim:
The votes count isn't necessarily an indication on their basic differences all the time. There are numerous procedural votes in the senate that really don't matter.
Come back and tell us what is they voted differently on..
Is obama futher left than Hillary? His tax policies certainly indicate he is. He now wants to impose a special tax on the oil companies.
Are you now accusing Sowell of not being an honest man? Are you? Seriously?
Err, even if thew differences are miniscule how is Sowell's claim different from the NJ's saying
('liberal' is of course in US politics just another word for left')
I should add that I dislike The Warmonger and Lady Macbeth even more than Obama and would like to see an Obama victory, regardless of his past voting record.
The NJ article certainly indicates that it equates "more liberal" with "more left", but there are liberal commentators in the U.S. that would object to that, as no liberal would support an authoritarian socialist state, whereas leftists might. Most U.S. liberals seem roughly equivalent to Australian moderate/centrist social-democrats.
tit-for-tat, he said, she said......fascinating that the 'right' in the sphere pick & choose what's odious when it suits their preferred stance. Perhaps the innuendo which Ken speaks of simply escapes their intellect.
Quiet Niall, the adults are talking. Go back to your nude Wiccan rituals.
NPOV I take your point but we are not in political philosophy class. It is perfectly clear that when Sowell wrote that Obama was the 'farthest left' senator based on the National Journal article his readers knew exactly what he meant. He did not misrepresent the findings of the NJ and is no different from how the NJ itself reported in once you realise that in US political discourse left equates to liberal and right to conservative. This is not terminology I'm happy with either but that's how they talk over there.
My blog got at least a hundred hits more than usual today and it was from ML, naturally. It would appear people really want to read someone losing her rag because her students submitted an unusually large number of unusually horrible essays. I'm sorry that's not quite what I delivered - just a feeble and generalised whine about bad grammar. But look. I could REALLY tell stories about essays that would make ML readers' hair curl, if only there was some way of making sure no student would ever, ever, ever find out.
The NJ did not find that Obama was the furthest left of anyone in the Senate. They ranked him at 16th, 10th, and 1st in his three years there. I think Sowell is smart enough to know the difference. Hence his article was dishonest.
So the more recent ranking put Obama at the top of the ladder - 1st - and it's dishonest to suggest that he is 1st? Come on. That straw isn't going to keep the argument afloat.
Hell, there's even a general Lefting trend. I suppose you could bank on the scoring system being so badly written that the trending sends him so far to the Left that he clocks it and ends up to the Right of Cheney. And then the Senate kernel panics and everything goes blue.
It is dishonest to say that the NJ found that he was the most liberal Senator when the NJ found that he wasn't: 16th, 10th and 1st rankings do not make him the most liberal Senator.
Oh and who was the most Liberal senator? Being honest of course.
Tim:
Can you please provide a link to the Sowell piece for good order sake?
National Journal:
S
Sowell:
So if Sowell had said 2007 that wouldnt have made him "dishonest", is that right Tim?
And since when did you begin using the national Journal as a source. Last time you mentioned NJ you were trashing them.
When did you have amazing epiphany or this moment of sudden understanding or revelation about the NJ? LOL.
Should we add Sowell to the list of apologies?
But it will reduce the cost.
Gilmae spent 30 minutes today thinking of me.
What Ken considers "odious":
That Obama:
(a) holds similar poisonous anti-American views to his (alleged) close associates like Jeremiah Wright.
His WHOLE CAMPAIGN is named after a Wright sermon. As was his best-selling book.
Hello?
(b) is an ambitious charlatan with no real views beyond his raw ambition, and willing to associate with (and disassociate from) whoever is convenient, and to profess to whatever views and policies are necessary to further those personal ambitions.
Yes, he's a POLITICIAN and that's just what politicians do.
Obviously, Sheehan's article is essentially being called "odious" because it doesn't proceed from the hagiographical fantasy that Obama is the saintly exemplar of a new, post-racial, post-partisan politics. Turns out he's just another huckster in Washington. What a surprise.
The only odious thing I see is calling black people who leave the Democrat Party's plantation "Uncle Toms." Even though the Democrats' most senior representative in Congress is a former Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan, that's too lunar a notion even for them. To admit to, that is. For there's little doubt that American liberals believe they politically "own" the country's nigras.
A quick google for "former Kleagle" shows up dozens of obviously anti-Democrat sites with statements along the lines of "The Democrat party is racist - their most senior Senator is a former Kleagle of the KKK". What none of them point out is this (from wikipedia):
Further, he does make some admission of being racist in the past:
Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
(FWIW, reading the rest of the article, I wouldn't vote for him in a pink fit, and it's not particularly obvious why he'd want to be in the Democrat party at all).
Laura
My locks could do with a good curling. PLEASE regale us with said stories: we all PROMISE not to tell any of your students!
I don't know, JG. Tell us your cut 'n' paste story again, that one certainly did it for me.
Ouch, Haiku. I call excessive pwnage. Yo sound the bell, et cetera.
Concerning Mr Obama,
His ex-friend the minister is quite liberal in theological standards. Indeed I would say he is not Christian. He also operates a very successful welfare arm.
My observations of the US primary campaign is that Mr Obama's campaign is almost the complete opposite of what the Minister has said.
This being the case then it follows the Minister's philosphy has had little if any impact on Mr Obama.
What then is the big deal?
In yr threads r3m3mb3r1ng yr f00ls
Is there anyone here, left or right, who likes Greenfield? Raise your hand? ...
....
Hey 'Preacher' Paxton - when are you coming back under your own name?
"Is there anyone here, left or right, who likes Greenfield? Raise your hand?"
I was saying Boo-urns.
Liam
Sure. What would you like to know? Though to be honest I think I've told you all there is to it. I was mortified and learned an invaluable lesson about researching and writing.
"Is there anyone here, left or right, who likes Greenfield? Raise your hand?"
Have you ever met JG? I haven't. If you haven't either, I don't really follow how you could have formed a view on whether you like him or not. Presumably you mean that you find his expressed online opinions and the way he expresses them irritating. I often do too, but that isn't the same thing as "not liking" someone at all. Although I ocasionally transgress, I still maintain the position that we should always stick with attacking bloggers' or commenters' arguments rather than their personalities, not only because doing the latter unnecessarily raises the heat of debate but because you can't in fact IMO form any meaningful view about personality from the fragment of it that's revealed online .
Totally disagree, Ken, and I don't believe you really believe it either. You might have a point regarding individual comments, but consistent and prolific commenters like Mr G here you get to know too well, unfortunately.
The question is clearly to be read with the unspoken qualifier "from what we know of him" - if JG in the real world is a witty, pleasant, thoughtful person then he won't be offended, and if not then Fyodor's right - we know him all too well.
I'll freely admit that Gummo has correctly devined that I am pertinacious and pedantic :)
But I think Ken is right that even if you can ascertain characteristics, they don't give you enough of a picture to tell you if you would 'like' the person, except in extreme cases. If nothing else, they might be quite different in 'real' life. Also, I certainly don't base my friendships on any more than the broadest ideological compatibility (ie, if you believe in communism or satanism, I probably won't even pretend to be polite to you), and I wouldn't think this was very common outside of the extremes.
Patrick, I can understand objecting to people that think communism should be forced on to everyone, but what's wrong with with people that just believe that they'd personally like to work and live in a communist organisation?
Chill out Ken, it was a playful snark engaging with Fyodor's and Liam's ganging up on him and his complaint to me that i like to 'gang up' on him here.
Nothing, NPOV, if you mean just a kibbutzim or similar. But I don't think I have heard anyone speak of communism in that way. In practice, and in the manner I have heard it used (even amongst my further-left friends from school/uni) it refers to a rather one-in all-in system.
Even more specifically, the point generally seems to be the involvement (co-option, voir slavery) of the most successful people in society.
Maybe your experience is different.
I guess the less I say about last night's sacrifice of a virgin goat to the Dark Lord Josef, the better. Otherwise we're never going to get along.
Patrick, you could google "voluntary communism". I admit to having something of a soft spot for the concept, though I wouldn't go so far as to say I "believe" in it.
Done. I confess to not having any sympathy for the idea and the intellectual delusions on which it appears to be based at all!
Oh Jason, it wasn't a "complaint." I already knew/know the answer. I was just curious to ascertain whether YOU knew why. You don't. ;)
Wanting to work or live in a Communist organisation is no more or no less objectionable than wanting to work or live in a Nazi or Fascist organisation. They are all travelling down the same evil path.
That's ok Patrick - I don't have any sympathy for the idea that it's based on "intellectual delusions". If it's something that a group of people volunteer to take part in, because they enjoy the result, then what's to argue against?
Have you read any of the first 10 hits from that google???
I scanned through some of them, but the point of the google suggestion was just to demonstrate that there are people who have promoted the idea of "voluntary communism". I don't personally see why it needs intellectual justification, anymore than any voluntary group-based lifestyle that doesn't violate basic human rights. Anyway, it's not something that interests me greatly - I was just wondering why you found "people that believe in communism" so objectionable.
Wassamadda Jason? Strike a nerve, did I :) You're transparent, you lot. Oh, what gives you the idea I follow a wiccan treatise? You oughtn't to make claims you can't substantiate, y'know
"I still maintain the position that we should always stick with attacking bloggers or commenters arguments "
Oh I fully agree. Except in the case of Homer Punxton.
But whatcha going do in the case of someone who has no arguments? Only a pathological hatred of "luvvies" combined with a totally luvvie attitude.
A good blog is like a good pub. And no one likes their local invaded by that little attention-seeking dork with the emotional intelligence of a yabby that turned up on his own to the school school with a half a bottle of creme de menthe, spent the night in a corner sneering at everyone else, then threw up on his rented frilly tux, got cleaned up by a teacher and then tried to pass it off for the rest of the term as a "statement".
Someone once said that everyone you meet in life is basically a variation on the 30 or so archetypes you encountered at school. I remember the likes of John Luvviefield from way back then. The kinda of wannabe teacher's pet that even the teachers didn't want as a pet.
"the school school"
should read
"the school social"
As the eternal refrain of my school reports put it "...more attention to detail needed...should not blog drunk, etc, etc"