MADE FOR EACH OTHER

Mark Latham submits to the ordeal of a Margo Kingston interview, made easier by the fact Margo hasn’t bothered to read his book:

One of the things that I found most interesting in the Introduction, and Mark that’s all I’ve read because I’ve been running around on my own thing but I’m definitely intending to read the whole thing …

The rest of the interview is notable mainly for highlights such as “End of Side 1 of Tape”. Until near the conclusion, when Mark and Margo launch into Sydney Morning Herald staff:

Mark: I’m after that bloody Debra Snow/Damien Murphy mob, all their bloody pretence about ethics and moralising about journalistic standards. I just think it’s all bunkum!

Margo: Well Mark, as I said, I haven’t read your actual diaries yet, but my memory is that it was The Sydney Morning Herald who first reported as fact that buck’s night thing.

Mark: Yeah, Louise Dobson.

Margo: Well, you know! That doesn’t make sense. Did she report that as fact without confirmation and without sourcing?

Mark: Yep, yep. Absolutely.

In fact, the Latham video rumour was first announced by Margo’s friends at Crikey.com.au, where Margo is these days running ads for her doomed site. (Note to Margo’s staff: Debra Snow is Deborah Snow. You’re running a quality online newspaper, for Christ’s sake; check names!) Meanwhile, Latham—who complains endlessly about intrusions on his private life—continues his campaign of bitter hypocrisy during a speech in Melbourne:

Two Saturdays ago in [The Australian], Matt Price wrote that, “Perhaps I move in the wrong circles but not once did I hear any scuttlebutt about Latham’s personal life from colleagues, opponents or anyone else”.

Have no doubt, one of the circles Matt Price has moved in for many years is Annabel Crabb’s – in fact, few journalists in Canberra are closer friends.

Oh, nice. And check this incredible Latham paranoia:

I want to thank the political and media establishment for the way in which they have received The Latham Diaries. When John Howard, the Australian Labor Party, the Canberra Press Gallery, and the Packer and Murdoch empires combine, as they have over the past fortnight, to tell people not to read this book, it sends a powerful message: the Canberra Club has a lot to worry about and a lot to hide.

What the hell is he talking about? The book’s been promoted like crazy. News Ltd paid $100,000 for extract rights; at The Bulletin, no end of positive publicity has been delivered. It’s the least we in the media establishment can do to help out a struggling stay-at-home dad. Not that Mark seems very grateful; here’s Tuesday night’s Lateline:

TONY JONES: Now, exposing public hypocrisy, political hypocrisy, and sending a sort of withering gale through public life, that’s one thing, but it seems you’ve actually engaged in casual destructiveness here. Let’s go on. You named one press gallery reporter as being a regular dope smoker, you’ve accused another prominent journalist of actually supplying drugs to the rest of the gallery. I mean, these are very serious allegations for professional people to have to deal with.

MARK LATHAM: Oh, Tony, I mean, this is on Triple J, joking around with comedians who appear on this network —the ‘Chaser Program’—you need to, you know, perhaps understand the context, but also what am I supposed to say about Tony, right? He turns up at my function in Lismore in early 2004 telling me that he’s stoned off his face, he’s been down to Nimbin and been on the hoochy coochy all day. What do you want me to say, Tony? What do you want me to say?

Latham didn’t say, as the transcript has it: “Tony, right?” He said “Tony Wright”, who is a friend and colleague at The Bulletin, and one of the finest reporters working in Australia. Latham can’t criticise him over inaccuracy or unfairness, so instead slurs him as a dope fiend.

Interestingly, Margo doesn’t appear in Latham’s book at all.

Posted by Tim B. on 09/28/2005 at 01:19 PM
    1. Because she’s not important enough to slam.

      Posted by Blue on 2005 09 28 at 05:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. I haven’t bothered picking up a copy of the Latham book, what with the David Hasselhoff autobiography just out and all.

      Stephen Mayne apparently admitted on his radio show that he “broke” the buck’s night party gossip, and he admitted it to Latham, so I am not sure why Ms Dobson is copping it.

      When I hear all this journo/politico stuff, I am reminded of a quote by P J O’Rourke: “Ideology, politics and journalism, which luxuriate in failure, are impotent in the face of hope and joy.”

      Posted by Major Anya on 2005 09 28 at 05:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. I’m not a journalist but i’d imagine reading the material your supposed to be interviewing on would be covered fairly early in any training. 

      I’m sure journo’s, like anyone, take short-cuts, but her amateurism seems to be underlined by her blithely proclaiming to Latham that she was too busy to read anything but the introduction. 

      The thing has an index, she could always have flicked to certain subjects etc to get more detail on what she wanted to ask avoided revealing her lack of research. Maybe real journo’s on the blog could enlighten us on what is standard research practice.

      Posted by Francis H on 2005 09 28 at 06:04 PM • permalink

 

    1. Margo is changing the world! She has no time for proletarian distractions like “work” or “research” or “proofreading.”

      Posted by Dave S. on 2005 09 28 at 06:27 PM • permalink

 

    1. They both have diaries, but Margo is a journalist as well.

      She’s daily twice, etymologically speaking.

      Posted by rhhardin on 2005 09 28 at 07:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. oh and by the way in #3 “avoided” should read “avoiding” PIMF

      Posted by Francis H on 2005 09 28 at 07:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. I can’t decide if this is off-topic but:
      Margo’s soul-sister, acolyte, kindred-obsessive is Marilyn Shepherd, of Kensington, SA. In the latest Sunday Age 25/9 the Letters Editor Bob Hawkins leads his page with her effusions about the evil Howard. Today is Thursday 29/9 and the weekday Age Letters editor, whose identity is kept a top secret from the public by The Age,
      today runs ANOTHER letter from Marilyn, attacking The Age from the Left (not easy to do) over the legendary Bakhtiyari family.
      As I previously asked, are these Age Letters Editors the purest embodiment of power without responsibility (ie using their huge power of letter-selection to push their ideological agenda)?
      Just how many letters, for example, from Marilyn have they published over the past, say, two years?
      Coupled with the Leunig cartoons representing the insane-left school of philosophy, a lot of The Age’s falling circulation could be due to this poisonous Letters page.
      Frank Devine, whom I hold in the highest regard, has done a piece in Quadrant in the past year or two on the mainstream media’s Letters pages. I am currently trying to locate it, i am sure it will be enlightening.

      Posted by percypup on 2005 09 28 at 07:07 PM • permalink

 

    1. What Latham means is that people aren’t reading the book the way he wants it to be read. Must be a big disapppointment to him that the only person who seems to buy into his delusions is Margo.

      Posted by PW on 2005 09 28 at 07:17 PM • permalink

 

    1. I agree with most of your analysis on this one Tim, but found your use of the phrase “for Christ’s sake” a problem. I don’t think its fitting language for your quality site. Doesn’t it breach your own membership code of conduct?

      I believe Jesus Christ is the ultimate arbitor on all Mark Latham’s actions and ours.

      Posted by AndrewM on 2005 09 28 at 07:21 PM • permalink

 

    1. One of the things that I found most interesting in the Introduction, and Mark that’s all I’ve read because I’ve been running around on my own thing but I’m definitely intending to read the whole thing …

      Thats the best quote, it should be enshrined. As regards to Latham, what might he have said about Margo? That she’s a ‘bush’ lover?

      Posted by Nic on 2005 09 28 at 07:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. Ok.  Who wrote the following post on Webdiary?  Funny as hell.

      Bonjour Jack H Smit. I am out of breath to hear you to speak about the climbing of Webdiary on the classifications of ladder of d’Internet.

      I introduced the form of Webdiary communication to my revolutionary friends the night before and they were mad of joy. We are agreed to form a committee to write an application to the Ministère de l’éducation nationale and Ministère de l’éducation nationale for a subvention to take up similar independent mass média in France. We have intention to use mass média to announce on fasciste alliance with the capitalist sociétés and the servicemen militaires. Perhaps our mass media will also be réputé as Webdiary one day.

      I thank your éditeur for permitting me taking the liberty of writing my hopes and for sharing my joy with you. I also thank the publisher for recreating my French accent markings. It must consommer much time. The most part of software is provided by anti-French corportations which try to destroy the language Française.

      Posted by: Pierre Pétain | 28/09/2005 4:10:02 PM

      Posted by wronwright on 2005 09 28 at 08:16 PM • permalink

 

    1. I agree with most of your analysis on this one Tim, but found your use of the phrase “for Christ’s sake” a problem. I don’t think its fitting language for your quality site. Doesn’t it breach your own membership code of conduct?

      Holy Christ, there’s a code of conduct?

      Posted by Dave S. on 2005 09 28 at 08:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. Stephen Mayne is reasonable about admitting when he has got it wrong. He may have already eaten some crow on the publishing of the video tape gossip.

      Stephen sees Latham’s book as an act of a whistle-blower. That might appeal to Latham.

      Crikey has unabashedly gone over to the left side. There was Stephen painting Latham as a welcomed whistle-blower and Christian Kerr pushing the view that Latham was wrong to pubish (maybe he is another who sees Latham as a traitor to the movement).

      Posted by Madison on 2005 09 28 at 08:49 PM • permalink

 

    1. #11, wronwright, glad someone noticed! I believe he’s a distant relative of this guy 😉

      link

      Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 09 28 at 08:57 PM • permalink

 

    1. Hey, Tim, any chance of putting Margo on the blogroll? Maybe under “Crazy Lady” or something? I’d like to check for bogus comments and leave some of my own, but:

      A) My browser dumps my bookmarks every so often for no apparent reason, and

      B) I don’t want to waste a brain cell memorizing her addy.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2005 09 28 at 09:04 PM • permalink

 

    1. #11—That’e the best Webdiary comment ever. All those non-English characters must have taken a huge bite out of their bolding budget.

      Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 09 28 at 09:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. #9, who is this Mr Jesus and what does he do?
      I’ve heard the name but can’t recall.

      Posted by Honkie Hammer on 2005 09 28 at 09:08 PM • permalink

 

    1. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, you can’t be serious, AndrewM!

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 09 28 at 09:27 PM • permalink

 

    1. Tim, I get the impression that having to monitor Margo is causing you to lose your equanimity again. Fascinating as her Race to Oblivion is, maybe it’s time to declare another temporary Margo Moratorium.

      For the sake of your mental health, if nothing else.

      Posted by blandwagon on 2005 09 28 at 09:34 PM • permalink

 

    1. I’ve seen that section in the code of conduct, it specifically calls for the phrase “for fuck’s sake” to be used instead, in order to not offend…

      Posted by PW on 2005 09 28 at 09:53 PM • permalink

 

    1. I am serious and wanted to let Tim know that many Christians would be offended by his turn of phrase. I haven’t noticed him use it before.

      Who is Jesus Christ? He is the guy who has had a profound impact on our society and our values, whether you are aware of it or not.

      Interestingly Latham has been very derisive of Christianity in parliamentary debate and other contexts (no surprise there). He is a proud atheist. I think this might have something to do with his lack of understanding of forgiveness, reconciliation, community, hope, love and grace. These are all things that Jesus majored on.

      Our politicians aren’t simply left and right wing, their understanding of ultimate reality matters as well. We need more analysis of religious foundations of our society and its leaders. I don’t think we are very good at talking about these things in the media.

      Posted by AndrewM on 2005 09 28 at 09:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. #9 Jesus appeared to me and told me he hasn’t read Latham’s biography yet, but he quite likes getting a mention on Tims blog now and then.

      Posted by larrikin on 2005 09 28 at 10:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. I haven’t heard people complain about taking the Lord’s name in vain since I was six years old. (From my mother, who would then down a couple of beers and cuss like a muleskinner.)

      By the way, AndrewM, you must be new to this site if you think anyone here could be offended by the use of “Jesus Christ” in any context. I suggest you skim some past posts. Have holy water nearby. (Or your copy of The Purpose-Driven Life; whatever you think more effective.)

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 09 28 at 10:50 PM • permalink

 

    1. I am serious and wanted to let Tim know that many Christians would be offended by his turn of phrase. I haven’t noticed him use it before.

      Obviously AndrewM is a born-again type (or whatever they call themselves these days). AndrewM: In Australia, thankfully a largely godless, secular society, the names of members* of the Holy Trinity are regularly and frequently used as obscene epithets, in combination with rude 4-letter words. We love it.

      Incidentally, the impact of Jesus H. Christ on Australia is minimal. For the record, the first settlers of this land (yes, I know…) were godless criminals who detested the Anglican Church and all the rank hypocrisy it represented.  200+ years later nothing has changed.

      * Or is it ‘member’? An interesting conundrum for another time.

      Posted by walterplinge on 2005 09 28 at 11:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. Is Price getting it on with A-Belle then? I’m jealous.

      Posted by Tony.T.Teacher on 2005 09 28 at 11:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. #23 I’ve been reading and very much enjoying this site for some time.

      I can see you are not offended by Tim’s use of “for Christ sake”, but I think it is stretching it to say that no-one else is.

      I have a great deal of respect of Tim as a journalist and I thought it might be helpful for him to know the impact of his words on one sub-group of his readers.

      I can assure you that in my household as in your mother’s the timeless commandment still stands and if my kids spoke in this way they would quickly hear about it.

      Why are you so offended that I am offended?

      Posted by AndrewM on 2005 09 28 at 11:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. Why are you so offended that I am offended?

      I think everybody’s more offended that you tried to play us for fools by referring to some non-existent “code of conduct” that supported your complaint.

      Posted by PW on 2005 09 28 at 11:28 PM • permalink

 

    1. [ADMIN SMACKDOWN TIME] AndrewM, you are off-topic. It was amusing to let you blather on a bit, but you’ve continued to display cluelessness of a most impenetrable kind, and I’m out of patience. The subject of your offended delicate sensibilities is now closed. Kindly return to the subject at hand—which is Mark Latham—or be relegated to those who can read but not comment on this site. [/ADMIN SMACKDOWN TIME]

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 09 28 at 11:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. #24 I don’t think your assertions stand up to historical or statistical scrutiny.

      How do you think Mark Latham’s character has been influenced for the better by his godlessness? Do you approve of the way he speaks? Was his leadership more effective because he used “rude 4-letter words” that we supposedly love?

      Posted by AndrewM on 2005 09 28 at 11:34 PM • permalink

 

    1. PW, I think there’s some boilerplate that the software brings up when you first register, probably something about not using nasty words.

      AndrewM, #24 looks spot-on to me.

      How do you think Mark Latham’s character has been influenced for the better by his godlessness?

      Who said anything of the sort?

      I don’t think his “godlessness” has anything to do with his character.  The man is a bully; thuggish, thin-skinned, and stupid.

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 2005 09 28 at 11:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. 1) Latham is now revealed as a full-blown clinical paranoid. The shame and guilt is on the Labor Party and those in the media who tried to make him Prime Minister of Australia. True appreciation of the size of the bullet we dodged keeps growing.

      2) If people are offended by the use of the name “Jesus Christ” as an expletive, it is surely no more than good manners not to so use it. I hope the people on this site are ladies and gentlemen rather than leftists and respect the feelings of others on this site.

      Posted by Susan Norton on 2005 09 28 at 11:42 PM • permalink

 

    1. Look AndrewM, we appreciate your convictions but this isn’t freereublic where a bunch of nannyish Christians howl you down for questioning the existence of the supreme being this is a blog from Australia where ferchrissakes is regarded as a polite opener to conversation at dowager duchess’s tea parties.

      Posted by Harry Flashman on 2005 09 28 at 11:42 PM • permalink

 

    1. While not sharing Andrew’s offense at the word I’d have to disagree that Christianity has had little effect in Oz. Those criminals who were sent were largely Irish Catholics – hardly the most devout type I’ll grant you but their culture was certainly linked strongly to the Catholic church. The effects haven’t always been good, sectarianism was still alive and well in Oz until very recently, but the effects are definitely there.

      Still Andrew, with all due respect, as Walter suggested, if you get offended by this it must be hard to maintain a conversation with any reasonably diverse group.  Casual blasphemy such as most of us do is not making fun of your religion or denigrating your beliefs – it really just demonstrates how ingrained the characters of Christ and other christian motifs are ingrained in our psyche. You are within your rights to be offended but probably better to ignore it and concentrate on the substance of the issues.  Keep your powder dry for when a defense of your beliefs is really needed.

      Posted by Francis H on 2005 09 28 at 11:42 PM • permalink

 

    1. Wow those last posts came fast – sorry Andrea don’t hit us – we’ll all return to topic now

      Posted by Francis H on 2005 09 28 at 11:45 PM • permalink

 

    1. Thanks for the pointer, Pixy. I guess it’s this one (I’m not even sure if that was already there when all of us who came over from Spleenville registered):

      By registering at this site you agree not to post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, or that violate any laws.

      I guess Andrew’s of the school of thought where the most easily offended set the blog-wide standard for what’s “obscene” or “vulgar”. Yay. I’m also a bit nonplussed why he thinks the freakin’ blog owner should be subject to the same rules as the commenters, but anyway.

      Posted by PW on 2005 09 28 at 11:49 PM • permalink

 

    1. Last comment on this: I’d forgotten about the boilerplate—I didn’t write that, it came with Expression Engine’s setup. Of course, it never occurred to me that anyone would find the name “Jesus Christ” to be “obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, or… [in] violat[ion of] any laws.”

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 09 29 at 12:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. He is a proud atheist. I think this might have something to do with his lack of understanding of forgiveness, reconciliation, community, hope, love and grace.

      Uh-huh. ‘Cuz us heathens know nothing about those things.

      Sheesh.

      You do realize that the percentages of Christians and atheists in prison is the same as in the general population, yes? Religion – or lack of it – has no bearing on how good a person you are. None. You can argue that all you want, but facts (and history) say otherwise.

      As far as you or your co-religionists being offended – tough. I hear stuff every day that rubs me wrong (for instance, your quote above.)

      Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to toddle off to bed to join my compassionate, understanding, forgiving, kind, generous and graceful atheist wife.

      (And I won’t comment further, because it would be as productive and satisfying as playing handball against drapes.)

      Posted by Dave S. on 2005 09 29 at 12:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. Whoops! Sorry, Andrea! Was composing when you posted.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2005 09 29 at 12:11 AM • permalink

 

    1. Although this is slightly off topic (please go easy on the ADMIN SMACKDOWNS), it is in response to #7, percycup’s thoughts on the letters to the editor section in The Age.

      This letter appeared in today’s Age and for the benefit of everyone not fortunate enough to have already seen it, I reproduce it here;

      “John Winston Howard’s parents should have named him John Stalin Howard” – Pamela Dempster, South Yarra.

      Can you beleive they actually deemed this crap worthy of publication? Speaks volumes as to the prevailing attitudes at that commie rag. Just screams out “quality broadsheet” doesn’t it??? Clearly they have never heard of the term “balanced coverage” and the letters section is a constant reminder of this fact. If we were to use the Letters section in The Age as any sort of guide you would swear blind that we live in a country dominated by sad lefties. These same sad lefties are the very ones who refuse point blank to accept that they reside in a terribly small minority – as the last election result confirms. Sad deluded bastards they are.

      Posted by TruthHandler on 2005 09 29 at 12:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. #37 I wasn’t saying that all atheists lack good character. I like and love some athiests too.

      However, Mark Latham is a big reminder that what matters in leadership it is not so much competencies but character and I believe a persons world view influences and moulds their character.

      e.g. The person who takes the Koran seriously will value different things to the person who takes the bible seriously.

      Part of the mix when examining leadership must be an enquiry as to what the leader believes about the world.

      Again I say this is a very important issue that is not effectively dealt with in the likes of the SMH because of its prevailing secularist and post-modern mood, where truth in the religious sphere cannot be apprehended or debated and where all religions are equally bad.

      Posted by AndrewM on 2005 09 29 at 12:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. Mark Latham is a big reminder that what matters in leadership it is not so much competencies but character

      How so?  Latham has never shown any competency in anything.  (Anything useful, anyway.)

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 2005 09 29 at 12:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. So according to the monkeys with typewriters in Margolia, it was Louise Dobson who spread the dirt about Mark Latham’s alleged buck’s night video?

      Funny, I always thought that Louise Dobson was a champion Australian hockey player (and a babe to boot):

      Link

      Posted by yarraside on 2005 09 29 at 01:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. Why cant people just drop the Christian blasphemy thing and say ‘Allah be buggered’ instead?

      Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 09 29 at 01:29 AM • permalink

 

    1. I am the odd one out here. I’ve nearly finished the book and found it interesting.

      I’d agree with Mayne and say Latham is more a whistleblower than a paranoid hater. 

      Latham is funny in parts as is Keating. His view of the Labor show is hysterical (catman). I just hope they never get into power that’s all.
      I’m not saying he would’ve made a good P.M. either on the contrary he would’ve been a disaster as most utopians are.

      I hope he realizes that most people are happy with their lot and if they aren’t, well nobody is stopping them from climbing a ladder of opportunity.

      The characters in the Labor /Media show came alive. The sign of a good read.

      Maybe I’m being a bit to voyeuristic in enjoying reading his take on so many familiar characters.

      No one seemed to mind when Paul Sheehan did the same with The Electronic Whorehouse.

      I put this book in the same category.

      Did anyone notice Gillard has a new hairstyle?

      She looks good, better than Beazley.

      Posted by gubba on 2005 09 29 at 02:02 AM • permalink

 

    1. #44 – Did anyone notice Gillard has a new hairstyle? She looks good, better than Beazley.

      Amanda Vanstone looks better than Beazley.

      Posted by walterplinge on 2005 09 29 at 02:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. I can see where you are coming from Andrew, but getting a touch evangelical about the use of blaspemy is just going to open you up to howls of laughter on this site.

      How a person perceives the world and their place in it can have a relationship with what sort of a leader they would be. That’s well and good, but there are also people who consider themselves as ‘christian’ yet still beat their wives and kids, go out and get drunk or blow their paycheques on the pokies. The joy of free will, if you please.

      As stated earlier, Latham is a bully and a thug. Personally I just thought he was repulsive, and wouldn’t have voted for him if he came with the Pope’s blessing. His relationship with God is just that. His.

      As for blaspheming in the blogosphere, I’d be more worried if Tim started praising the Vic Government and their policy of housing paedophiles on parole in prepubescent precincts.

      And with regards to Tim’s use of ‘for Christ’s sake’, I wouldn’t lose sleep over that, because ultimately, he will have to answer for that to the Man himself. There are far more important issues at hand.

      Like what should I have for dinner… macaroni and cheese or pizza?

      Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 09 29 at 02:33 AM • permalink

 

    1. Does anyone truly believe that an omnipotent divine entity is so insecure that it (he?) gets upset if you use their name as an expression of disbelief?

      Really, I’m an atheist, but even if I thought God existed, I’d very much doubt he’d get that worked up about it.

      Posted by Quentin George on 2005 09 29 at 02:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. “John Winston Howard’s parents should have named him John Stalin Howard” – Pamela Dempster, South Yarra.

      But, hey, that comment’s from a lefty….she probably means that as a term of endearment!

      Posted by MrMarcus on 2005 09 29 at 02:59 AM • permalink

 

    1. #47 I agree, Quentin. If God wanted to be worshipped, he shoulda made himself more bloody believable.

      Posted by larrikin on 2005 09 29 at 03:07 AM • permalink

 

    1. “John Winston Howard’s parents should have named him John Stalin Howard” – Pamela Dempster, South Yarra.

      I really hope someone points out to Ms Dempster that Stalin wasn’t the guy’s actual name – it was in fact Josef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvilli, which might be quite a mouthful to shove in between “John” and “Howard”.

      Posted by Quentin George on 2005 09 29 at 03:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. I might have my psycho 20th century dictators mixed up, but wasnt “Stalin” actualy “steel” in russian?? It was either steel or hammer im not sure.
      In which case the hag writing the letter has just bestowed the same compliment GWB paid him a year or so ago.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2005 09 29 at 03:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. Correct. Stalin = Man of Steel.

      Posted by Quentin George on 2005 09 29 at 05:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. In a beautiful display of Alan Ramsay journalism, Margonaut Marilyn Shepherd has posted (over at Senator Bartlett’s site) a list of documents she wants examined at the Migration Act Senate Committee hearings NOW. Funnily enough, she’s included her phone number and address.

      Link here. The beast speaks.

      Posted by Jaems on 2005 09 29 at 05:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. I think you’re all off topic. The topic is this: Was Tim’s mate ripped or not when he met Latham?

      I don’t know as I’d like to face Latham whilst whacked. Talk about asking for The Fear.

      It sort of reminds me of a review I read (alas too late as it turned out)of Butthole Surfers concert which ended thusly: First timers seeing this band live are advised against taking acid.

      Posted by James Hamilton on 2005 09 29 at 06:11 AM • permalink

 

    1. #53 I say we forward her number to Sandy Gutman for a conference call with her and Dreamboat.

      Posted by captain on 2005 09 29 at 06:31 AM • permalink

 

    1. Heh.

      Labor facing $200,000 IR legal bill

      That’ll learn em….

      Posted by Quentin George on 2005 09 29 at 06:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. #7 – percypup – if you do find that piece by Frank Devine, in old Quadrant, I don’t suppose it would be in electronic format?  I’d be very interested in you could find some way to share the article. Thx.

      Posted by Ck on 2005 09 29 at 08:02 AM • permalink

 

    1. #52 I think GW Bush already reached the conclusion that Howard = Man of Steel. He and the correspondent in The Age omnibus are in (sort of) agreement. They might disagree about what to do next – i.e. which demographic to liquidate.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2005 09 29 at 08:11 AM • permalink

 

    1. AndrewM – if your convictions are genuine I respect that. Might be a case of wrong fight, wrong forum. I count many of my nearest and dearest in the real christian ranks, and they would react the same way. But they don’t read this somewhat irreverent but nevertheless good-hearted bunch of belligerents.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2005 09 29 at 08:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. I only made it halfway through the transcript.  Even so, by my rough count Margo tried 137 gajillion times (my rough count) to get Mark Latham to endorse Webdiary.  Some early examples, loosely transcribed:

      Margo:  So you’re really going, okay, the only way to achieve social democracy in Australia is bottom-up….
      Latham:  yes – people need to work on local social issues locally

      Margo: … it seems to me that the only way to achieve social democracy is to engage in politics at some level. So I was just wondering if you really meant [this book marks your exit from] ‘organised politics’?
      Latham:  Yep

      Margo:  …is another form of politics and it’s really important that you get involved at its community level – and then what? I mean how do you bring that together?
      Latham:  yes – people need to work on local social issues locally

      Margo seems to be getting impatient here at Latham’s denseness.  She tries a more direct tack:

      Margo:  ….Would you think there’s any chance for a mass political organisation that actually wasn’t part of the major parties, that was, I don’t know , a movement which could take in a lot of Australians who are disillusioned with mainstream politics however they vote? I suppose I’m getting to this thing that you did, that Internet Democracy experiment, and I’m just looking for what – can you imagine possibilities utilising the net as a means for Australians to rescue the system so that they have got a real alternative again, to get the debate moving?
      Latham: Nope

      Margo:  Next question is from…. 

      Posted by debo.v2 on 2005 09 29 at 09:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. #60 Debo,
      lol
      Margo:  ….Would you think there’s any chance for say, a leftist group run by a person whose name starts with an M?Latho: Umm

      Margo: Would you think there’s any chance for say a web forum organised by a disgruntled, hard working, talented, senior journalist who would like to meet your ex wife?

      Latho: ummm

      Margo: Look lacker! Do you think that MY web-conglomerate will replace all printed media in 50 years?

      Posted by Nic on 2005 09 29 at 09:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. o/t Sickened by Moaning Jones Lateline tonight as the puffer fish gloatingly displayed a video obtained from Time mag.
      Showcased the last moments of a “HIGHLY PAID” Australian security guard in Iraq on the highway to the airport.
      Enter the shabby hack Paul McGeough, who blames his death on the others in the patrol.Footage and audio repeated over and over just to rub it in .After all, if he was a lowly,unpaid or non western security guard maybe the dead man could be brushed aside. Because he was HIGHLY PAID and an ex military Australian he must be made an
      example of.
      Moaning then moves on to blacken U.S. troops for the killing of journalists especially those not embedded.”66 have been killed many by U.S. troops,illegally detained or abused by American troops in Iraq.” David Schlessinger has written to the U.S. Congress.

      Posted by crash on 2005 09 29 at 10:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. Meanwhile at crikey,Denton and Steven Feneley spat over the Latham interviews,enuff rope and Hateline’s priorities.
      Feneley “As someone who spent 6 years at the abc I have no great fondness for people doing news/current affairs.
      It would be like loving the A.L.P. RIGHT….”(WING).
      hmm he wouldn’t be biased against the Libs would he?

      Posted by crash on 2005 09 29 at 11:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. I think Andrew M raises a good point (about Mark Latham that is).

      Does anyone remember the interview with him on ‘Compass’*. Even those without a firm religious perspective can usually come up with a vague spiritual ‘something-or-other’, but not comrade Mark. He was utterly atheistic – as if he didn’t even understand the questions. The best he could come up with was a few platitudes about ‘fairness’.

      I thought then ‘the man has no soul’.

      I was by then already appalled, but that interview by itself would have convinced me not to vote for him. I’d go further and say that while I don’t expect those I vote for to share my religion (although I suspect they do more or less) – eg. I would have no problem voting for a Jew, Buddhist or even agnostic, I would never again vote for a hard-line atheist.

      For the record, some of Howard’s ministers are very thoughtful gentlemen. Anderson (since retired) gave an exceptional series of answers, worthy of a deep spiritual thinker.

      (*A soft-left religious-affairs TV show for Tim’s American readers)

      (And by the way guys, take it easy on the Christians, anyone would think you were a bunch of Libertarians!)

      Posted by kipwatson on 2005 09 29 at 11:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. percy pup what is even more scary is the practice by aunty of reading out sms messages supposedly from anonymous or first name listeners.
      Most are extremely negative to JWH and the Feds and if any positives are sent we don’t generally hear them.What a rort.

      Posted by crash on 2005 09 29 at 11:18 AM • permalink

 

    1. (And by the way guys, take it easy on the Christians, anyone would think you were a bunch of Libertarians!)

      I am a libertarian.

      You say it like it’s a bad thing.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2005 09 29 at 11:56 AM • permalink

 

    1. ArtVandelay, brilliant. 

      Some of the stuff the commenters here come up with is nothing less than brilliant.  Witty.  Satirical.  Funny as hell.  And of course the best begins with Tim Blair’s posts.  It’s fun to come to this blog.

      I even include McEnroe.  Now if he would only become nicer.

      Posted by wronwright on 2005 09 29 at 12:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. 2) If people are offended by the use of the name “Jesus Christ” as an expletive, it is surely no more than good manners not to so use it. I hope the people on this site are ladies and gentlemen rather than leftists and respect the feelings of others on this site.

      Sorry, but that kind of talk kicked off the PC culture that most of us disdain.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2005 09 29 at 12:51 PM • permalink

 

    1. Exactly. I self-censor enough. I draw the line at “blasphemy.” Besides, if I start replacing “Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket!” with “Holy cow!”, I’ll probably hear it from a Hindu.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2005 09 29 at 01:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. I’m thinking that Margo has left us a big clue, here, about the cause of her minuscule learning: that, all through j-school, whatever-school, whatever venue, she only read the introduction. Can’t you just see her, in class, explaining her failed efforts with, “I only read the introduction, because. . . .”? Busy, busy Margo.

      Posted by m on 2005 09 29 at 01:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. ArtVandelay-

      How in ONE paragraph do you get everything annoying about the French?  How do you know these ways of the preposition?  Slip ‘em a litle French tongue and that fascist stuff marches right past them.

      I don’t know why Latham did not include Margo in his book-perhaps the “contest” continues, but that expains why Margo isn’t interested in reading it.

      Art-tell her it’s a roman a clef-and she needs to “find” herself…

      Posted by madawaskan on 2005 09 29 at 05:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. The latest from Pierre at Webdiary:

      Jenny Stirling, as I sit here in café Internet de Paris dans 5ème Arrondissements and I read your words, I am nodding my head in sign of agreement. In Europe we have a fondamental importance on the community. Whether it be the humble artisan, the unassuming mime of the street, the café Internet, the cheese farmer or the future Webdiary de la France (much joie!!), our government is giving much finance and moral support to ensure that the séparation and disaffectation caused by the ogre de capitalisme in the US do not arrive in our glorieuse République démocratique.

      We in all Europe heard crimes of Australien government against humanités. We heard how the innocent citizens are locked up in the public dumps of radioactive wastes and how protest is crushed by the complex industrialist-militaires Halliburton. The tentacles of warmongers capitaliste, the monks and globalising néo-fasciste totalitarians stretch in the government, mass-média and everywhere in the so-called système capitaliste.

      That is why I admire Margo and the courage of the compatriote on Webdiary and your will to be heard in such a répression and frightening climat. I hope the tentacles of the néo-fasciste do not stretch in online democracy which is Webdiary and silent your protest. Bravo!

      Posted by: Pierre Pétain | 29/09/2005 5:02:53 PM

      Pierre Petain.  I love that name.

      Posted by wronwright on 2005 09 29 at 06:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. Dave S,

      Libertarian?

      Really?

      It’s hard to tell over the web of course, not being able to spot the wild goo-goo eyes thing – y’know, the sign of the quasi-religious fanatic.

      😉

      Posted by kipwatson on 2005 09 29 at 06:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. Ironically, I think Pierre’s spelling and grammar is better than Margo’s.

      Posted by wronwright on 2005 09 29 at 06:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. # Re 57 ckhart and our scrofulous Letters to Editor pages in the Fairfax MSM —
      well blow me down, i didnt think Quadrant was e-quadrant but the frank devine piece
      is at http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=240
      titled “Yobbo Letters Pages” or similar.
      you can google a lot of the Quadrant archives, btw Quadrant monthly is the BEST intellectual reading Australia has to offer.

      Posted by percypup on 2005 09 29 at 06:55 PM • permalink

 

    1. ”… btw Quadrant monthly is the BEST intellectual reading Australia has to offer.”

      In great admiration and deepest respect to our Aussie friends, I will not make a joke about that.

      Posted by wronwright on 2005 09 29 at 07:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. #46 “As stated earlier, Latham is a bully and a thug. Personally I just thought he was repulsive, and wouldn’t have voted for him if he came with the Pope’s blessing. His relationship with God is just that. His.”

      I don’t think a leader’s understanding of ultimate reality is simply a personal matter and neither does Latham.  (Nor did Stalin incidentally)

      Here is Latham speaking in stem cell debate back in 2002. His speech was primarily an attack on Abbott and Anderson for drawing on their Christian ethical foundation in opposing embryonic stem cell research.

      My question is where did Latham derive ethical foundation?

      I heard him interject at one point in the debate saying “Keep your God out of our parliament!”

      Its interesting to contrast the speeches of Abbot, Anderson and Latham and well worth the read. It gives real incite into all of them.

      http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr210802.pdf

      “Ultimately, they are engaged in the politics of futility. This is not logic. This is not reason. This is not rationality. The only reason I can see for opposing the bill is religious fundamentalism. The politics of futility is taking a position irrespective of argument, logic, reason, debate or the sort of discussion that we normally have in a debating chamber such as this. In effect, the impotent are pure. Whether or not this bill is passed, the embryos will still be destroyed. It is a totally illogical proposition to oppose this part of the legislation. Unhappily, it reflects the rise of religious fundamentalism on the coalition side of the parliament. It is a politics that dispenses with facts, dispenses with logic, dispenses with argument and puts fundamentalism at the core of this parliament’s work.”

      Some of you might think Latham’s not such a bad bloke after all.

      Posted by AndrewM on 2005 09 29 at 08:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. I agree with others that unreflective, rusted-on atheists are usually very dangerous if entrusted with power [voted for].

      Lord Gough avoids all conflict with God because he considers himself God, and no-one else comes even close. 
      Lord Latham is very conflicted because he knows he’s not self-confident enough to be God like Gough, but must he assume the role for life anyway.
      Bob Hawke had a Christian minister father, so his rejection of God is a sort of family scrap, complicated by his regular moral deviances.
      Bob has not even perfected the role of playing Lord Bob, since he is a terrible ham actor.

      What are the odds that Lord Latham will be venerated by the ALP like the other two?
      Oh, I forgot, he didn’t win for them…

      Posted by Barrie on 2005 09 29 at 08:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. I think the essential thing that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc., even agnostics have (or at least strive for), that hard-core atheists, communists, fascists and Mark Latham lack, is humility…

      Quite rightly observed, without humility, these dangerous individuals often consider themselves to be ‘god and saviour’.

      Ironic that militant atheists often consider themselves to be ‘realists’, when any sensible person—particularly a Christian—would consider a humble sense of our own flawed and imperfect nature to be the first requirement of a realist.

      Posted by kipwatson on 2005 09 29 at 08:38 PM • permalink

 

    1. #75 – thanks percypup; much appreciated.

      Posted by Ck on 2005 09 29 at 09:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. Has Fairfax created a replacement for Webdiary yet? I seem to recall the editor saying they would look to develop other blogs…

      Posted by CraigS on 2005 09 29 at 09:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. Many thanks wronwright, madawaskan. All I was trying to do was to get ‘tentacles’ mentioned on webdiary. Pierre has a thing for tentacles 😉

      Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 09 29 at 09:29 PM • permalink

 

    1. #81 – yes Craig, a new guy started the Monday after Marg0 scampered with the database.  Quite bland, and just another blog to add to the list of minor blogs available via MSM web sites. Their heart isn’t really in it, and it shows.

      http://blogs.smh.com.au/inkslinger/

      He looks a lot like Quentin Tarantino’s long lost brother.

      Posted by Ck on 2005 09 29 at 10:26 PM • permalink

 

    1. He looks a lot like Quentin Tarantino’s long lost brother.

      LOL – ain’t that the truth!

      It looked pretty bland – and I get more comments on my personal blog. SMH haven’t even provided a link from their home page (that I could see).

      Dear me, perhaps there is only one Margo Kingston…

      Posted by CraigS on 2005 09 29 at 10:47 PM • permalink

 

    1. I just noticed all the buttons across the top of the comments box – bold, ital, line…

      Andrea, you are putting people out of work with this new-fangled automation!

      For me, there is something special about bold tags crafted the old-fashioned way, by hand…

      Posted by CraigS on 2005 09 29 at 10:51 PM • permalink

 

    1. Craig – SMH have about five blogs, I think, but I have never looked at them.  They are on the main page, but like other MSM sites, you have to scroll to the bottom and look really, really, carefully amongst all the other dross and little boxes of trivial stuff.  They don’t promote anything on the web; very token gesture stuff.

      Yes – I expect I get more comments even on my blog than this guy (and my blog isn’t what you would call an interactive forum; just a garden variety rant blog), and isn’t that a sad little fact.  But then again, he gets paid for his crap, and you and I don’t!  Bugger it – how WRONG is that!?

      Posted by Ck on 2005 09 29 at 10:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. But then again, he gets paid for his crap, and you and I don’t!

      Yeah, I doubt he gets paid much though. Probably only slightly more than a grade 1 bold tagger…

      Posted by CraigS on 2005 09 29 at 11:04 PM • permalink

 

    1. I found the list of SMH blogs you indicated (after a bit of searching). Not much happening there. What’s missing from them, do you think? Are great bloggers born, not made???

      Posted by CraigS on 2005 09 29 at 11:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. #88 – Craig.  Passion, regardless of how misguided or asinine, would surely be a prerequisite?  Passion and a belief in the medium and a belief in the audience?  Something along those lines, I think, all of which is lacking in the MSM blogs.  They are just going through the motions, and it shows, so they show no faith or respect for the audience.  Blogs aren’t meant to be bland or bipartisan – we already have enough bland everywhere else we look.

      Posted by Ck on 2005 09 29 at 11:43 PM • permalink

 

    1. Yes, lack of passion was my first thought as well. MSM would be better off finding a working “real” blog and then sponsoring it.

      How about it Tim? How much to sell your soul to Fairfax?

      Posted by CraigS on 2005 09 29 at 11:49 PM • permalink

 

    1. Not being an official Aussie, sounds like dueling dingo dildos to me.

      Posted by duh on 2005 09 29 at 11:50 PM • permalink

 

    1. Not entirely off topic – a new chuckle – someone has set up a site just for Marilyn, possibly to replace the “real” Margo blog spot. 

      See the Marilyn comment on the most recent post on the Margo blog, scroll to bottom, and click on the profile for Marilyn.

      http://margokingston.blogspot.com/

      Posted by Ck on 2005 09 29 at 11:50 PM • permalink

 

    1. Kip, who are “militant atheists”?

      I agree Latham is an arsehole, but I think it’s a long bow to pin this down to atheism.

      I’ve met plenty of believers, and plenty of atheists. And each group seemed to have a similar distribution of decent folk, as well as wankers.

      I can only speak for my own personal experience, but I’ve simply never noticed the correlation you seem to be suggesting.

      Posted by ekb87 on 2005 09 30 at 12:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. #91 – Not being an official Aussie, sounds like dueling dingo dildos to me.

      I’m not going to be able to sleep with that bizarre image in my head!

      Posted by ekb87 on 2005 09 30 at 12:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. Kip, I dont think your assertion at all holds water. I’ve encountered both arrogant and humble people in just about every ideology going…

      Posted by CraigS on 2005 09 30 at 12:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. #90.  Not so fast! Tim’s soul is already owned by PBL, but he is allowed limited access under a complicated lease-back deal.

      Posted by slammer on 2005 09 30 at 12:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. Yep, ain’t nobody here but us chickens…

      Posted by kipwatson on 2005 09 30 at 12:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. I agree with ekb87. Trying to pin Latham on atheism is not much different from trying to pin guys like Jerry Falwell on Christianity. You just end up looking like you have an axe to grind.

      Posted by PW on 2005 09 30 at 12:42 AM • permalink

 

    1. #96, I wonder if we could form a syndication? I’m sure Rupert would like a piece…

      BTW – hilarious hotmail handle..!

      Posted by CraigS on 2005 09 30 at 12:44 AM • permalink

 

    1. I agree with others that unreflective, rusted-on atheists are usually very dangerous if entrusted with power [voted for].

      As are unreflective, rusted-on religious zealots.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2005 09 30 at 01:04 AM • permalink

 

    1. Gnargh. Can we drop the religious debate guys? There are other forums for that, and I just dont think we are shedding much light on the issues here…

      Posted by CraigS on 2005 09 30 at 01:07 AM • permalink

 

    1. Dave S,

      Libertarian?

      Really?

      It’s hard to tell over the web of course, not being able to spot the wild goo-goo eyes thing – y’know, the sign of the quasi-religious fanatic.

      Huh?

      Are libertarians fanatics? I always thought that social, political, and economic laissez-faire was about the least fanatical position imaginable.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2005 09 30 at 01:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. Dave S,

      Spoken like a true fanatic Libertarian.

      😉

      Posted by kipwatson on 2005 09 30 at 01:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. Bullwinkle and Rocky; fractured fairy tales

      Posted by duh on 2005 09 30 at 01:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. Legions of libertarians resent that remark, zealot.

      Posted by duh on 2005 09 30 at 01:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. ps- i’m jealous as i don’t know how to use the strike feature….or i woulda used it for zealot and replaced it with psuedo conservative/

      Posted by duh on 2005 09 30 at 01:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. Don’t be sad, Libertarians.

      The conservative movement is a big tent. There’s always room for a couple of goo-goo eyed loonies starry-eyed ideologuesrain-man style coud-nine dwellers Libertarians down the back.

      We true conservatives will always tolerate you, so long as your popularity rating stays smaller than the statistical margin of error…

      😉

      Posted by kipwatson on 2005 09 30 at 01:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. Don’t be offended, Libertarians,

      As far as ideologies go—that consider human beings and society (respectively) to be like so much Agar in a Petri Dish—why, I’d go so far as to say you’re almost always not really quite as bad as the Socialists!

      😉

      Posted by kipwatson on 2005 09 30 at 01:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. Yeah well I’m an atheist and I’m a hell of a nice bloke – just ask me.

      hmmm might have dudded out on the humility thing though.

      And Kip, when the libertarians take power you’ll be the first one we come for – mind you we won’t have any particular laws we’ll be able to charge you with.

      Posted by Francis H on 2005 09 30 at 03:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. How bout lord phil,who bores us witless prosing on and on about how he is an atheist and why he doesn’t believe in god etc. Who in the world gives a rats what he does or does not think or believe in. I can’t believe he gets paid to fantasize about his own ego.

      Posted by crash on 2005 09 30 at 05:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. In a desperate attempt to slip these thoughts past Andrea the gatekeeper, I would make one more observation about atheism (as opposed to agnosticism). That (apart from being illogical, since scientists know you can’t prove a negative, therefore you can never prove there is no God), it requires the adherent to declare,

      ‘I know better than some of the greatest artistic, philosophical, literary and musical minds of Western civilisation.’

      …which, when you come to think of it (apart from being unlikely), is downright unconservative.

      Posted by kipwatson on 2005 09 30 at 05:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. #111 – oh, puleeeaze, this is just stupid.

      Many of the greatest artists, philosphers, writers, musicians, engineers, scientists, and so on, and so forth, have also been atheists.

      Posted by Ck on 2005 09 30 at 05:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. #112 – it’s also a false definition of atheism.  Atheism is simply the lack of belief in [a/any] God(s).

      Also, some of the greatest artistic, philosophical, literary and musical minds of Western civilisation were complete idiots.  That particular argument won’t get anyone anywhere.

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 2005 09 30 at 05:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. Pixy – I didn’t provide a definition of atheism, but thanks for that, I would never have known.

      Posted by Ck on 2005 09 30 at 06:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. quote]I didn’t provide a definition of atheism

      Yes you did.

      That (apart from being illogical, since scientists know you can’t prove a negative, therefore you can never prove there is no God)

      You are saying that atheists believe there is no God.  That is not correct.  All that is required is the lack of a belief.

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 2005 09 30 at 06:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. Pixy – that was kipwatson – I was responding to their comment. </end>

      Posted by Ck on 2005 09 30 at 07:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. Yep, I should have been clearer on that.  I was following on to your reply to kipwatson there.

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 2005 09 30 at 07:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. Just for the record Atheism according to the Oxford dictionary is “disbelief in the existence of God” an Agnostic is “One who holds that nothing is or is likely to be know of a God or of anything but material phenomenon.”

      Now the point I am wanting to make is that the world view of politicians matters. It will impact their policy decisions and their character.

      This is obvious when you look at a Hitler or a Stalin but is actually no less so in Australian politics. Sadly we are not good at analysis or debate at this level because of the prevailing post-modern secularist context.

      This question will also affect the culture of a political party. Do you think the politics of hate, fear and revenge in the Labor party is being driven by the Christians in the party? Who are the primary exponents?

      There are other key areas where religion cannot be ignored. There is no way we will be able to defeat Islamic terrorism until we are able to understand the ideology driving it and be able to show why it is floored. This I believe will require us demonstrating that the teaching of the Koran is wrong (not a very PC statement). Again few are willing to address these questions head on in the media. Even on this blog there are some who think a politicians religion/world view is irrelevant or is a no go area for debate.

      Some seem to have the position “say anything you like here but don’t talk religion”.

      Posted by AndrewM on 2005 09 30 at 08:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. Art, I think the jig is up for Pierre.

      I wonder what their first clue was?

      Hmm, I think Margo has one of her assistant bolderers keep a permanent watch on Tim’s site.

      Watch out for the shady guy in the trenchcoat…

      Nora

      Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 09 30 at 08:07 AM • permalink

 

    1. Pierre was doing such an admirable job – I’ll miss him.

      AndrewM – and you are the arbiter of the deciding which, if any, of the multitude of man made religions is the “one true religion”?  You see no irony in that?  At all?

      Posted by Ck on 2005 09 30 at 08:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. #120 Just because there are many views doesn’t mean they can’t be critiqued. Do you think Marx got it right? If the Koran is prompting people to blow themselves up and others to, that that is OK?

      If we can’t debate the validity of ideologies its a big problem.

      Latham was quite clear that he could be an arbiter on the ideologies of others as is demonstrated by the quote above.

      Why can’t we critique his?

      Posted by AndrewM on 2005 09 30 at 08:32 AM • permalink

 

    1. 77 PP

      The tentacles of warmongers capitaliste, the monks and globalising néo-fasciste totalitarians stretch in the government, mass-média and everywhere in the so-called système capitaliste.

      ooooo he said “tentacles” … ‘scuse me, I uh I uh I have to go take care of something.

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 09 30 at 08:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. OK, I think I’ve ruffled enough feathers, but I agree with AndrewM—you guys need to learn the difference between agnostic and atheist. Atheism is a belief—in the non-existance of God or anything God-like (pure materialism usually – yuck). Agnosticism is a statement of doubt, uncertainty or indifference.

      …and for the record, I can’t think of any really great philosophers or musicians who were atheists*. Not if you take the lo-o-ong view of Western Culture—as a true conservative should.

      I also doubt a true conservative (even an agnostic) would be generally** hostile to Judeo-Christian thought. That would tend to indicate a Libertarian.

      (*which is not suggest they were all Christians or Jews)
      (** as opposed to feeling hostile to the specific follies of specific people or groups – a completely different proposition)

      Posted by kipwatson on 2005 09 30 at 09:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. Atheism is a belief—in the non-existance of God or anything God-like

      Sorry, you’re wrong.

      Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God or gods.  Check the Oxford (or any other decent dictionary) and that will be listed as one of the definitions.  (There are obviously other, less precise usages listed, but they are wrong.)

      Now, an atheist may also believe that God (or gods) does not (do not) exist, but that is secondary.  The mere lack of belief is sometimes referred to as “weak atheism”, and actual disbelief as “strong atheism”.  But lack of belief alone is quite sufficient.

      Agnosticism is a position on knowledge, not on belief.  An agnostic believes that the truth of God’s (or gods’) existence is not, or cannot be, known.

      The word “atheism” is simply the prefix “a”, without, plus theos, God.  Agnosticism is without “gnosis”, knowledge.

      Theism/Atheism and Gnosticism/Agnosticism are orthogonal axes. One may therefore by a gnostic atheist (a strong atheist), an agnostic atheist (a weak atheist), a gnostic theist, even an agnostic theist.  (Blaise Pascal, for example.)

      (pure materialism usually – yuck).

      Your brilliant rebuttal of the only epistemology to ever have proved itself in any way useful will surely send shockwaves through the world of metaphysical philosophy.

      I also doubt a true conservative (even an agnostic) would be generally** hostile to Judeo-Christian thought. That would tend to indicate a Libertarian.

      What is this “Judeo-Christian thought” and where do I get some?  And what are these “true conservatives”?  And why should I care what they may or may not be hostile to?

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 2005 09 30 at 09:50 AM • permalink

 

    1. Pixy

      Here’s the Oxford dictionary definition

      atheism
      /aythi-iz’m/

      • noun the belief that God does not exist.

      — DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.

      — ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

      http://www.askoxford.com

      But I agree lots of people who call themselves atheists aren’t really.

      But back to Mark Latham, I think he is and he knows for sure that the Christians have got it wrong.

      Posted by AndrewM on 2005 09 30 at 10:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. That (apart from being illogical, since scientists know you can’t prove a negative, therefore you can never prove there is no God)

      Your brilliance is astounding, kip.

      My suggestion, since you think it is illogical to disbelieve in the existence of something supernatural whose existence you cannot disprove, is to publish a monograph explaining the logic of believing in something supernatural whose existence you cannot prove. Or better yet, providing actual proof of the existence of God, which would make you perhaps the most famous person in history.

      Personally, I’m thrilled that Santa Claus might be bringing me presents this year, since nobody can prove to me that he doesn’t exist. You’ve totally turned me around on that one. Easter Bunny, too!

      Oh, and I’m going to give up libertarianism, since you’ve proven to me it’s a fanatical philosophy by the brilliant rhetorical device of repeating the word “fanatic.”

      Posted by Dave S. on 2005 09 30 at 11:18 AM • permalink

 

    1. AndrewM:

      That Oxford definition is wrong.  The full Oxford would have a better definition, of course, but I don’t have access to one right now.

      Try this:

      atheism

      n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

      The first is inaccurate, but matches common usage.  The second is the more precise and correct definition.

      But I agree lots of people who call themselves atheists aren’t really.

      They are atheists, and your definition is wrong.

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 2005 09 30 at 11:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. #9

      I believe Jesus Christ is the ultimate arbitor on all Mark Latham’s actions and ours.

      Fine, so if he has any insights into M.L.’s antics, or has any complaints about anybody’s language, then he can post them here, too.
      #21

      Latham … is a proud atheist. I think this might have something to do with his lack of understanding of forgiveness, reconciliation, community, hope, love and grace.
      AndrewM is a proud Christian.  I think this might have something to do with his quickness to lay out a big ol’ ad hominem smear job on nonChristians.

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 09 30 at 11:53 AM • permalink

 

  • #70

    I don’t think a leader’s understanding of ultimate reality is simply a personal matter and neither does Latham.  (Nor did Stalin incidentally)


    Lovely invocation of Comrade Stalin, in support of your point that you’re NOT making an anti-atheist ad-hominem smear, here, AndrewM.  Yeah, that flies.

    My question is where did Latham derive ethical foundation?


    Latham doesn’t seem to HAVE much of an ethical foundation.  Which is OF COURSE why you’re so anxious to make him the poster-boy for all folks whose ethics are founded on anything other than supernatural commandments.

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 09 30 at 12:05 PM • permalink

 

  • 79

    I think the essential thing that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc., even agnostics have (or at least strive for), that hard-core atheists, communists, fascists and Mark Latham lack, is humility…

    Ah.  Here to boast of your humility, are you?

    Quite rightly observed, without humility, these dangerous individuals often consider themselves to be ‘god and saviour’.

    Oh of course.  Down at the atheist’s club, I’m constantly hearing the militant atheists congratulating themselves and blathering on about what gods and saviours they are.  Constantly.  Hardly hear talk of anything else, really.

    Ironic that militant atheists often consider themselves to be ‘realists’, when any sensible person—particularly a Christian—would consider a humble sense of our own flawed and imperfect nature to be the first requirement of a realist.

    Yes well thanks terribly for condescending to address our lack of humility, Kip.  I’m feeling more ‘realistic’ already.

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 09 30 at 12:29 PM • permalink

 

  • 82

    All I was trying to do was to get ‘tentacles’ mentioned on webdiary. Pierre has a thing for tentacles 😉

    Well who doesn’t?  And when’s McEnroe gonna link us to his paysite, huh huh huh?

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 09 30 at 12:31 PM • permalink

 

  • 118

    There is no way we will be able to defeat Islamic terrorism until we are able to understand the ideology driving it and be able to show why it is floored.

    Oh is that the problem?  Well Islamist ideology is grounded in supernaturalistic thinking, same as yours, so yeah, it’s a problem.  Yours.

    This I believe will require us demonstrating that the teaching of the Koran is wrong (not a very PC statement).

    Your problem is to demonstrate that a competing brand of authoritarian magical thinking is wrong, but that yours is okay.  Good luck.

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 09 30 at 12:49 PM • permalink

 

  • 123

    Atheism is a belief

    Yeah, and “bald” is a hair color.

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 09 30 at 12:52 PM • permalink

 

  • I’ve reconsidered my comment #98. Trying to pin Latham on atheism is like trying to pin kipwatson on Christianity, in fact. Geez, talk about confirming every single stereotype about the smug smarminess of certain religious people. You ain’t doing yourself (or your religion) any favours here, kip.

    Posted by PW on 2005 09 30 at 01:04 PM • permalink

 

  • #132 Your problem is to demonstrate that a competing brand of authoritarian magical thinking is wrong, but that yours is okay.  Good luck.

    You seem to think ideologies are beyond critique and not worth discussing. Even if you don’t agree with someone else doesn’t mean its not worth understanding their point of view and seeing its implications for the way they live and the policies they promote.
    What people believe or don’t believe makes a difference (obviously I would have thought).
    Islamist ideology is based in the Koran and yes it is does promote different values to the Bible, a completely different concept of Martyrdom for a start.

    Another area where ideology matters in politics is in the analysis of Greens. The Philosopher Peter Singer has been a major driving force in that movement. He’s an atheist too, who is thoroughly consistent in his thinking.

    Posted by AndrewM on 2005 09 30 at 07:06 PM • permalink

 

  • Well, I’ll concede the point on ‘Oxford Atheists’. I was going to say I didn’t believe you, and then argue that wasn’t the same as saying I believed you not, but if you say that’s what goes in in your head, who am I to argue. However, I suspect Oxford Atheists are about as small a minority as Libertarians!

    And on the subject of Libertarians! You fellows certainly aren’t conservatives. I’ve been coming around to the feeling in recent years that Libertarians are a bit like Tweedledum to the Socialists’ Tweedledee—and that we tolerate them simply because they are ‘our SOBs’. (note earlier comment on Agar and Petri dishes)

    The Libertarian idea of ‘Freedom(tm)’, seems to me like the Socialist idea of ‘Fairness(tm)’. Neither one stands up under scrutiny, evidently—see above.

    By the way, I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that differing viewpoints are a sign of someone trying to ‘suppress your dissent’*. Note frequent use above of the ‘winking smiley face symbol’ meant to indicate light hearted leg-pulling. (Note also the absence of that symbol here.)

    (*Oh, I’m sorry, that’s Tweedledee’s expression – how do you express it, again? ‘Impose your invisible friend’, wasn’t it?)

    Posted by kipwatson on 2005 09 30 at 07:11 PM • permalink

 

  • Not commenting on anyone’s points above, but we all know one atheist whose lack of humility (and common sense) rose to comical heights last year. It’s well worth quoting (guess whooo-ooo?) in full, if only to give fellow Blairites a little thrill of memory:

    “Dear Americans,

    Don’t be so ashamed of your president: the majority of you didn’t vote for him. If Bush is finally elected properly, that will be the time for Americans travelling abroad to simulate a Canadian accent. Please don’t let it come to that. Vote against Bin Laden’s dream candidate. Vote to send Bush packing.

    Before 9/11 gave him his big break – the neo-cons’ Pearl Harbor – Bush was written off as an amiable idiot, certain to serve only one term. An idiot he may be, but he is also sly, mendacious and vindictive; and the thuggish ideologues who surround him are dangerous. 9/11 gave America a free gift of goodwill, and it poured in from all around the world. Bush took it as a free gift to the warmongers of his party, a licence to attack an irrelevant country which, however nasty its dictator, had no connection with 9/11. The consequence is that all the worldwide goodwill has vanished. Bush’s America is on the way to becoming a pariah state. And Bush’s Iraq has become a beacon for terrorists.

    In the service of his long-planned war (with its catastrophically unplanned aftermath), Bush not only lied about Iraq being the “enemy” who had attacked the twin towers. With the connivance of the toadying Tony Blair and the spineless Colin Powell, he lied to Congress and the world about weapons of mass destruction. He is now brazenly lying to the American electorate about how “well” things are going under the puppet government. By comparison with this cynical mendacity, the worst that can be said about John Kerry is that he sometimes changes his mind. Well, wouldn’t you change your mind if you discovered that the major premise on which you had been persuaded to vote for war was a big fat lie?

    Now that all other justifications for the war are known to be lies, the warmongers are thrown back on one, endlessly repeated: the world is a better place without Saddam. No doubt it is. But that’s the Tony Martin school of foreign policy [Martin was a householder who shot dead a burglar who had broken into his house in 1999]. It’s not how civilised countries, who follow the rule of law, behave. The world would be a better place without George Bush, but that doesn’t justify an assassination attempt. The proper way to get rid of that smirking gunslinger is to vote him out.

    As the bumper stickers put it, “Re-defeat Bush”. But, this time, do it so overwhelmingly that neither his brother’s friends in Florida nor his father’s friends on the Supreme Court will be able to rig the count. Decent Americans – there are absolutely more intelligent, educated, civilised, cultivated, compassionate people in America than in any other country in the western world – please show your electoral muscle this time around. We in the rest of the world, who sadly cannot vote in the one election that really affects our future, are depending on you. Please don’t let us down.”

    Posted by jgm on 2005 09 30 at 08:26 PM • permalink

 

 

  • And on the subject of Libertarians! You fellows certainly aren’t conservatives.

    Well, if you’re the personification of a “conservative” (and you must be, since you insist you’re the only one here who knows what one must be like for that), then I’m happy not to be one.

    Seriously, you’re proof positive that lefties aren’t the only ones who enjoy pointless faction fights and pissing off those who are generally on their side just because the Ideological Litmus Test hasn’t been passed 100%. If only you could hear yourself talk…just as bad as the KosKidz when they go off on the DLC.

    By the way, I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that differing viewpoints are a sign of someone trying to ‘suppress your dissent’*. Note frequent use above of the ‘winking smiley face symbol’ meant to indicate light hearted leg-pulling.

    There are few things on the Internet that are worse than people who condescend to others with reckless abandon and then try to weasal out of the consequences by adding tons of “aww, didn’t really mean it!” smilies.

    Posted by PW on 2005 09 30 at 09:45 PM • permalink

 

  • Pixy – I gather you have offered your services to write the next volume of the Oxford Dictionary, and indeed, you will be doing the same for all other dictionaries.  (They must have employed idiots up until now; good thing you came along to set them straight.) I have placed all my dictionaries in the recycle bin, and anxiously await your new, unabridged, versions.  (Gosh, I can’t wait to see your definition of “humility”.)

    AndrewM – you really don’t see the irony.  At all.

    You think that religion and ideologies are one and the same.  You see no absurdity in your critique and analysis of man made religions and the man made interpretations of the scriptures attached to each man made religion.  You seem to believe that those who adhere to a religious faith, regardless of which flavour, all interpret and implement their faith in a neutral and ‘correct’ manner.

    You also see no irony or absurdity in your statement that “Latham” did it, so why can’t we.  Well, yeah, he’s a poster boy for all sorts of things; so, by all means follow his example.

    Religion and ideologies (quite separate beasts) continue to be debated every day, including entire books being churned out, some of which thoroughly analyze martyrdom and Islam, for example.  Perhaps you should have a good look around, and do a lot of reading, before you start thinking that you are proposing or saying anything that isn’t already being publicly addressed, and very vigorously debated, just not in the ignorant, trite and undisciplined manner you have attempted.

    Posted by Ck on 2005 09 30 at 10:08 PM • permalink

 

  • CkHart:

    You see no absurdity in your critique and analysis of man made religions and the man made interpretations of the scriptures attached to each man made religion.

    Correct I don’t see the critique and analysis of religion or of a specific person’s religion i.e. Latham’s, as absurd.

    Nor do you apparently

    Religion and ideologies (quite separate beasts) continue to be debated every day, including entire books being churned out, some of which thoroughly analyze martyrdom and Islam, for example.

    Is all this human endeavour you refer me to, absurd? Or is it simply atheistic positions that can’t be questioned because they are self evidently right?

    I was simply asking how you think Latham’s very public atheism has influenced his character, his party and his politics?
    A question that you appear to find offensive or invalid?

    Would it be wrong to ask how Abbott’s politics is influenced by his Catholicism? I don’t think so and if you asked him he would tell how it has been.

    As I said it’s a shame we have so much difficulty debating these issues.

    Anyway this is my final post on this thread. I’ll read any further responses.

    Posted by AndrewM on 2005 09 30 at 11:00 PM • permalink

 

  • I think it was Jay Nordlinger who, in reference to the term ‘conservative’ being applied to the Nazis (ridiculous, huh), made the comment, “What exactly was it they wanted to conserve?”

    Now I don’t suggest Libertarians are in any way like the Nazis, but one might well ask—after you have flooded our society with drugs and sleaze, and dismantled institutions like marriage and the family—if you consider yourselves conservatives, what precisely was it you wanted to conserve?

    While we’re ‘fellow travellers’ for now, modern Libertarians (and to be fair, the term Libertarian is rather vaguely used, so excuse me while I tar you all with this nice broad brush) just seem like another (albeit less harmful) form of 20th Century revolutionary claptrap thought to me (cf. Agar and Petri Dish)

    So it’s true, conservatives and Libertarians have many things in common*—such as the belief that Gov’t is too big (it is) and too intrusive (it is) and that we all pay too much tax (we sure do) etc.—but these are coincidental, in my opinion, and aren’t really the result of our philosophies being compatible in the long term.

    In other words: we’re right and you’re nuts**.

    😉

    (*And Libertarianism in fact seems to be a strange mutation of classic liberalism, which is just one important part of conservatism)
    (**Please note winking smiley face)

    Posted by kipwatson on 2005 10 01 at 12:03 AM • permalink

 

  • I’m a Christian who thinks this whole anti-Christian thread is pretty disturbing. What’s with all the animosity?
    If I didnt know better I’d think that some commenters here are having some kind of existentialist crisis. Relax! As a rule Christians dont want to kill you ok?

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 10 01 at 03:22 AM • permalink

 

  • CkHart –

    Pixy – I gather you have offered your services to write the next volume of the Oxford Dictionary, and indeed, you will be doing the same for all other dictionaries.

    Other dictionaries get it right.  I’m sure the complete Oxford gets it right.  The Concise Oxford, from which that definition was taken, gets it wrong.

    (They must have employed idiots up until now; good thing you came along to set them straight.)

    No worries.

    I have placed all my dictionaries in the recycle bin, and anxiously await your new, unabridged, versions.

    Try Google.

    (Gosh, I can’t wait to see your definition of “humility”.)

    humility, n.  The quality or condition of being humble.

    HTH. HAND.

    Posted by Pixy Misa on 2005 10 01 at 06:36 AM • permalink

 

  • kipwatson –

    You fellows certainly aren’t conservatives.

    Thanks!

    We’re not, for the most part, big-L libertarians either.  Certainly the Libertarian party (of America) is nuts.  Or at least its policies are.  Completely and utterly unworkable.

    Remember that Tim’s an Aussie.  So am I.  We tend more to pragmatism than ideology, but what ideology we have does lean towards small-l libertarianism.

    Posted by Pixy Misa on 2005 10 01 at 06:44 AM • permalink

 

  • I’m a Christian who thinks this whole anti-Christian thread is pretty disturbing.

    What anti-Christian thread?

    Posted by Pixy Misa on 2005 10 01 at 06:45 AM • permalink

 

  • Ha ha!

    Pixy, if I was spouting off on the folly of Libertarians, and you aren’t one – it’s a safe bet I wasn’t talking about you!

    😉

    Actually, I don’t think there are many Libertarians here in Aus, or anywhere else for that matter, except on Blogs!

    Still, it’s a seductive ideology, especially for neo-cons who haven’t yet been fully weaned off the beautifully contructed intellectual illusions of Socialism.

    Posted by kipwatson on 2005 10 01 at 09:46 AM • permalink

 

  • AndrewM 135

    You seem to think ideologies are beyond critique and not worth discussing. Even if you don’t agree with someone else doesn’t mean its not worth understanding their point of view and seeing its implications for the way they live and the policies they promote.
    What people believe or don’t believe makes a difference (obviously I would have thought).

    Yeah?  Well, if I think what you say “I seem to think,” then why am I already on record as willingly critiquing your authoritario-supernaturalist ideology, eh?  It’s because you’re wrong, is why.  I’m more than happy to critique idologies.

    Islamist ideology is based in the Koran and yes it is does promote different values to the Bible, a completely different concept of Martyrdom for a start.

    Islamist ideology and your Christian ideology both serve to validate the concept of “Martyrdom,” so if you’re got some hair-splitting differentiation to make about that, … just a second here … know what?  Until you brought it up just now, nobody here was arguing about “Martyrdom.” So I think you’re either throwing down a red herring on purpose, or have just carelessly wandered onto the wrong thread from some other argument.

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 10 01 at 11:34 AM • permalink

 

  • Deo 143

    I’m a Christian who thinks this whole anti-Christian thread is pretty disturbing. What’s with all the animosity?

    Some censorious horse’s ass took it upon himself to get all huffy about the colorful language being used on this blog, and got quite rightly talked back to, and since then, he’s been complaining about a whole host of tacked-on issues that he dragged in with him, and he’s getting some back-talk about THAT too.  Add that in with half a dozen fatuous scoldings about folks here “lacking humility,” and yeah, animosity is pretty much a sure-fire outcome.  So if you’re done acting surprised about that, good.

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 10 01 at 11:48 AM • permalink

 

  • Are socialist illusions “beautifully constructed”? Or even “intellectual”?

    I think not.

    Posted by James Waterton on 2005 10 01 at 02:11 PM • permalink

 

  • I’d say yes.  They’re illusions, sure enough, but they are beautiful and intellectual illusions.

    And Libertarianism (big-L) shares the same fault. “If we just explain our ideas to people, everyone will agree and it will all be apple pie and ice cream.” Both ideologies depend on people not acting like people, which is why they will never work.

    Posted by Pixy Misa on 2005 10 01 at 07:03 PM • permalink

 

  • Stoop Dave,

    AndrewM has behaved with perfect dignity on this thread.

    I was the one who called you a goo-goo-eyed cloud-nine dwelling fanatic (and the rest). It was intended in jest at the time—although of course ‘every joke is half the truth’ (perhaps more like 95% in this case).

    Unfortunately, while to the Libertarian, hard core kiddie sim-porn counts as ‘freedom of speech’, the winking-smiley-face symbol is off limits.

    I think you’ve proved more clearly than anything I could say, that Libertarianism has as much to with freedom as Communism has to do with fairness. The Tweedledum and Tweedledee remark stands (no smiley face this time).

    And one more thing. While there are innumerable things I could have said in defence of the vast corpus of wisdom that is Christian thought, I’ve tried to maintain the discipline to keep things within the topic of political wise-crackery, as firmly requested by the moderator. Stoop Dave and co., you are the ones who dragged out every woeful under-grad stereotype about Christians, without even attempting to stay on topic. This makes you bad writers as well as bad thinkers (as well as blubbering crybabies).

    Posted by kipwatson on 2005 10 01 at 08:20 PM • permalink

 

  • AndrewM has behaved with perfect dignity on this thread.

    His huffity hauteur was a thing of wonder, to be sure.  I especially like the way his pinkies remained extended the whole time he was running the “Since you say X I assume you mean W” riff, and the aplomb with which he splashed around all that “Atheism therefore Latham” ad-hominem crapola.

    I was the one who called you a goo-goo-eyed cloud-nine dwelling fanatic (and the rest). It was intended in jest at the time—although of course ‘every joke is half the truth’ (perhaps more like 95% in this case).

    Actually, just for the record, you were addressing those dignified remarks to Dave S, who despite the remarkable coincidence of he and I both being atheistic libertarians with “Dave” and an “S” in our names, ain’t the same fellows.  But close enough, I’ll happily take up cudgels on behalf of Dave-dom, atheism-dom, or libertarianism, in the face of any such unprovoked attack as this little outburst of yours.

    Unfortunately, while to the Libertarian, hard core kiddie sim-porn counts as ‘freedom of speech’, the winking-smiley-face symbol is off limits.

    I couldn’t say.  If somebody’s been repressing your winky-smiley-symboly prerogatives, you need to take it up with them.

    I think you’ve proved more clearly than anything I could say, that Libertarianism has as much to with freedom as Communism has to do with fairness. The Tweedledum and Tweedledee remark stands (no smiley face this time).

    Yeah, whatever…

    And one more thing. While there are innumerable things I could have said in defence of the vast corpus of wisdom that is Christian thought, I’ve tried to maintain the discipline to keep things within the topic of political wise-crackery, as firmly requested by the moderator. Stoop Dave and co., you are the ones who dragged out every woeful under-grad stereotype about Christians, without even attempting to stay on topic.

    You’ve received direct retorts to your individually-placed insults, on a one-to-one basis.  My obligation to remain on topic vanished right after yours did.  Doubt it?  Scroll on up the page, sportycakes, the record shows what it shows.  So stop your snivelling.
    Also, there are hundreds of u-g stereotypes here in the quiver that I haven’t even bothered to deploy.

    This makes you bad writers as well as bad thinkers (as well as blubbering crybabies).

    <crybaby> WWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHH!!
    AM NOT!  AM NOT!  Anyway he started it!  I’m telling! WWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNHHH
    HHHHHH!!</crybaby>

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 10 03 at 10:54 AM • permalink

 

 

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the “pending” list and you won’t be able to log in. All accounts that are “pending” for more than one week will be deleted.