White Man Bullies Indigenous Woman And For Once…

Now I need to be careful here because I know that while…

Restoring a democracy that the Neo-Cons butchered

I was of the view that Newspoll was going out of the…

Punishing Whistleblowers at the United Nations

The United Nations prides itself on exposing, monitoring and noting the travails…

Going Global with NATO

Regional alliances should, for the most part, remain regional. Areas of the…

Whatever it takes

By 2353NM Some years ago, a plumber was telling me when they came…

Australian War Memorial needs to own Australian frontier…

By David Stephens Proper recognition and commemoration of the Australian Frontier Wars at…

Chegg, Cheating and Australian Universities

The note on Radio National’s Background Briefing on the morning of July…

By the People and for the People: a…

By Max Ogden and John Lord One of Australia's most vexing questions is…

«
»
Facebook

Category Archives: Rossleigh

White Man Bullies Indigenous Woman And For Once It’s News..

Now I need to be careful here because I know that while a lot of people think that everything is political correctness gone mad, there are still even more people that think that it’s wrong to be racist and sexist…

That doesn’t mean that they don’t spend their day doing racist and sexist things because they do them without thinking. It just means that when someone else does it, they jump on them to demonstrate that their heart’s in the right place.

So, like I said, I want to be careful here because I don’t want to offend anyone and when we talk about matters like race, sexism, bullying and privilege a lot of people do get offended and I’m trying for clarity because, well, it seems to me that there’s a lot of confusion about things and if I can be clear, at least, I won’t offend anyone unintentionally

Recently, the ubiquitous Hollie Hughes told us: “A wealthy white man from the North Shore of Sydney is condemning an Indigenous woman from the Northern Territory and calling her basically a racist for not being with his point of view,”

I should add “allegedly” because I didn’t actually hear her say it but it was on social media and someone was quoting a newspaper article and I know how the media sometimes get things wrong. I mean, even social media gets things wrong occasionally. For example, I just discovered that it wasn’t true that 173% of all Covid deaths were actually from vaccinated people?

Yes, the word, “allegedly” is very important when telling people about something a Liberal politicians may or may not have done. We still need to remember the presumption of innocence because that’s the way things work, so one shouldn’t go around accusing Hollie Hughes of saying anything without actual proof that she said it because she, like everyone else in her party, is entitled.

Not so much Peter FitzSimons, who apparently bullied Jacinta Price. The Murdoch media don’t seem to be using the word “allegedly” in quite the same way that we’ve grown used to. And the left aren’t outraged enough about his bullying because apparently – according to one newspaper article – the left only “like minorities who know their place.”

Which suggests to me that the article thinks that there is a place for minorities and that’s definitely progress when it comes to the Murdoch media because they general argue that minorities don’t have a right to be anywhere at all.

Now let me backtrack a little here and make the point that if it’s true that FitzSimons was bullying Price then he should be condemned and told that bullying is wrong. However, as so often happens when those on the alleged conservative side of politics get involved, bullying consists of putting forward an opposing point of view. What actually happened with FitzSimons and Price is not something I feel in a position to comment on because I haven’t seen all the facts and I’ve only read about it in and there’s a whole range of possibilities.

But whatever the case in that particular incident, the whole concept of bullying and pile-ons has become a little bit silly over the past few years. While it’s good and proper that we reject bullying and make efforts to stamp it out, we’ve now reached the point where it’s those who are used to being the bullies who are complaining because someone objects to their bullying. When a student threatens another student with what will happen to him or her if they come to school, that’s bullying, but if a teacher threatens a student that they won’t pass the unit unless they start handing in work that’s simply a statement of fact unless it’s accompanied by shouting or threats of violence.

Similarly, if I write that I think when Sussan Ley added an extra “s” to her name, it was an unnatural act and she should have stayed with the name she was born with because anything else is against the will of God, I can’t call it bullying when someone points out that Sussan was given the name “Susan” after she was born and her parents decided that she should be called that and God had nothing to do with it even if She exists, then I can’t complain that I’m being bullied just becuas someone has a different point of view. If on the other hand, someone threatens to arrange a meeting between myself and Ms Ley so we can sort out our differences that is not only bullying but a contravention of the UN charter which bans cruel and unusual punishments.

But it’s not this one incident that made start thinking about things today.

It’s not even Hollie Hughes confused syntax.

I just find it fascinating that people who’ve ignored Indigenous voices for years, are now saying that we need to listen to one Indigenous voice because she happens to agree with them. It’s rather strange really. Apparently, all those involved in the Uluruu Statement from the Heart who were arguing for a Voice to Parliament can be ignored because it’s practical solutions that are needed and clearly if they think they want a Voice then they’re wrong and we’re not going to take any notice of them, but if you’re someone who disagrees with Jacinta Price then you only listen to “minorities who know their place” like the ones agitating for a Voice, which seems rather contradictory to me.

But then we also have certain people commenting on the FitzSimons/Price situation who are the same people who told us that we couldn’t presume to know all the facts about certain MPs because there was an inquiry into the things that they did.

Allegedly.

 266 total views,  266 views today

We Are In Total Agreement With The 43% Or Rather 43% Of Us Are…

Good morning, today we have a representative from the government-in-exile, Shadow Minister for Anything Starting With E, Senator Hamingburn, Good morning, Senator.

A pleasure to be here.

First up, your party is voting against the 43% reduction target. Why?

Because it’s just not necessary.

You don’t think that the target is necessary?

No, we don’t think that the legislation is necessary. Chris Bowen has said on a number of occasions, that they could have a target without legislation so, if it’s good enough for Mr Bowen, then…

So you think that the target is fine, but you have a problem with the legislation?

That’s right. If the legislation was necessary, I’d be voting for it like a shot, but because it’s not necessary, we’re voting against it.

But doesn’t that send a rather confusing message?

On the contrary, our message is quite clear. We’re quite prepared to do what’s necessary, but because the legislation isn’t necessary, we’re not prepared to mandate a target when all a target will do is give people something to aim at and we already agree that we’re aiming at winning the next election so we can put into place meaningful action rather than legislation which just takes up valuable time in parliament where we should doing what’s necessary instead of this divisive legislation which…

Hang on, but isn’t it only divisive because you won’t agree with it?

No, it’s divisive because it drives a wedge between us and the parties supporting it. and it’s their support which is causing that wedge.

But…

It’s simple really. If it wasn’t for the legislation, we’d have nothing to oppose because we agree with the target, just not the legislation.

Didn’t you go into the election saying that the target was too much and that it would lead to job losses and higher energy prices?

And we were right. Mr Morrison, Mr Frydenberg and a whole range of MPs lost their jobs because of the 43% target and now energy prices are skyrocketing.

You’re not suggesting it’s because of Labor that world-wide gas and fuel prices are going up, surely…

We said that they’d go up before the election and we were right. We knew they’d go up under Labor and…

Didn’t you only know that they’d go up because you were sitting on the report that told you?

I reject the suggestion that we were skiing on the reports. We were merely waiting for an appropriate time to release it.

Such as after the election?

Well, it was Labor who did that. It was Labor who released it after the election so you can’t blame us for that.

Mr Dutton is putting forward the idea of nuclear power. When all the studies show that nuclear power is a more expensive option, why would your party be suggesting this?

Look, I think you’ll find that the studies you’re talking about are old studies and not the ones that we intend to undertake which will show that a lot has changed.

How do you know what your study will show?

Because we know that a lot has changed.

If you think that nuclear is a good option, why didn’t you do something about it when you were in government?

Well, like I said, a lot has changed and that’s one of the things that’s changed. We’re not in government so we can suggest things without having to worry about implementing them.

But you didn’t worry about implementing them in government either.

You’re not meant to say that. You’re only meant to ask questions which I can ignore.

I’m not from the ABC. I don’t have to be balanced.

Obviously. If you were from the ABC, you’d be interviewing Hollow Hughes or Matt Coalavan. I think it’s a great example of their left wing agenda.

What do you mean?

Well, they just interview those two instead of some of our more intelligent MPs so that they can pretend to be balanced but they’re making us look silly by giving those two air time.

So who would you suggest they interview to show your intellectual depth.

Mm, I’ll get back to you.

Thank you, that’s all we have time for.

Thanks, A pleasure.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 3,778 total views,  18 views today

This Has Nothing To Do With The NSW Or Victorian Liberals…

To Whom It May Concern,

I’d just like to let everyone know that this is about me and recent resignations in NSW and Victoria are not influencing my decision in any way. I”m making my own decision and I’ve just decided that it’s time that I quit my job to spend more time with my family. Not much more time because they’re working and I only see them when I get up to go to work and when they come home, but I’ll be able to spend more time with them if they even have a day off or if they too, hand in their resignations over nothing at all.

I’d just like to make it absolutely clear that I’ve done nothing wrong and I’m still highly respected and the only reason that I’m resigning is because I have very high integrity standards and these standards mean that I had to hand in my resignation even though I have, in no way, done anything that requires anyone to sack me.

In particular, I didn’t sign any contracts or take any money or interfere with any selection processes. Neither was I intoxicated when I didn’t drive into a fence. However, I must point out that had I driven into a fence it wouldn’t be because I was over the legal limit, it would be because I was crying and my tears blurred my vision causing me to swerve to avoid what appeared to me, a large dragon in the middle of the road.

The money I didn’t request from a donor wasn’t an attempt to circumvent the political donation laws. If such money had existed, it would have been for promoting business interests, but not the business interests of the person who wasn’t giving me any money. It would have been – but wasn’t because no money changed hands – for business interests generally and not for any particular developer.

Similarly, there was no political interference in a recent job appointment and I was at no time aware of this lack of interference.

It’s clear to anyone who looks at the facts here that I had nothing to do with any of them and if anyone were to suggest that I had, then they’re just a Labor stooge trying to deflect from the corruption on all sides of politics.

I look forward to the lack of an investigation which will undoubtedly exonerate me of all the things that I’m not accused of, and I would ask you all to respect my privacy at such a time, which isn’t difficult in any way, because I haven’t done anything wrong.

Yours sincerely,

Rossleigh

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 4,510 total views,  16 views today

Pauline Storms Out Declaring She Doesn’t Accept Reality And She Never Will…

Yes, I’m sure you’re all aware that Publicity-Seeking Pauline, fresh from re-election stormed out of the Acknowledgement of Country declaring that she didn’t acknowledge that there was such a thing and she never would.

Of course, this has led many to wonder why she’s never done it before, but we need to be fair here. Until the other day, it’s highly likely that she hadn’t been listening. Pauline, you understand, was that girl at school who – after being in the previous two classes where the material was being revised – screams that the teacher never told the class that there was a test coming up and she hasn’t studied and it’s all the teacher’s fault and why are all the rest of you sucking up and pretending that you knew about this.

Pauline’s world view is quite simple. If you’re an immigrant, you’ve got to accept that we were here first and just go along with our customs and traditions. Of course, if you’re white, you don’t need to worry that Indigenous people were here before the British because they didn’t have a flag so they weren’t really a country and now that there is an aboriginal flag, it shouldn’t be hung anywhere because if we start doing that then, next thing you know, we’ll be asked to pretend that they have customs from before white people came along and taught them about the whole idea of tradition.

Yes, I’ve noticed some people suggesting that the Welcome to Country was devised just a few short years ago and doesn’t have a tradition going back generations.

Now, I’m not an expert here, so I’m not going to go out on a limb and say conclusively that they’re just racist idiots who probably don’t even have their vote counted because they usually get the numbers wrong. However, I will say that the fact that most white people weren’t aware of it until a few years ago doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist.

I know, I know, next I’ll be saying that First Nations people existed before white people came along and discovered them.

But, of course, if they’re right and Welcome to Country is only something that started in the 20th Century than maybe – in the interests of not being divisive – we could scrap it.

And, in the interests of not being divisive, perhaps Australia Day could be scrapped because it’s something that only started being celebrated in the last few decades and it certainly doesn’t have a history going back to before the arrival of white settlement.

Whatever, the very least we could do, is stop bogans running around with Australian flags on January 26th. After all, it was the Union Jack that was raised on January 25th or 27th or whichever day the boats actually landed at Port Jackson, so they shouldn’t be introducing this recent flag that’s been in everyday use less than a hundred years* to celebrate an event from so long ago.

 

Image from sbs.com.au (Photo by AAP)

 

Still, now that Pauline has set the precedent, I look forward to all sorts of people walking out of such Parliamentary traditions as the Lord’s Prayer, Oaths to the Queen, votes, Speaker’s rulings, etc. It should certainly liven up the place and lay the groundwork for a QANON take-over when Scotty gets back from his victory lap of… Oh, that’s right, he lost, I keep forgetting because I listen to the news.

By the way, has anyone seen Barnaby or should we start putting his photo up on telegraph poles? Yes, I know we don’t want to find him but we should possibly warn international travellers to ignore him when he tells them it’s a long-standing tradition that they buy him a drink.

*If you want to argue that the flag is older than that. fine. But we only started using the Blue Ensign while Menzies was PM. The Red Ensign was the more common flag prior to that.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 6,132 total views

Why An Emissions Target Is The Work Of Satan…

Now when someone posted a comment about Scott Morrison saying that anxiety was the work of Satan, I misread it and thought that he’d said Santa, which given all those anxious moments I’d spent on Christmas Eve trying to assemble something on Santa’s behalf when all I really wanted to do was sample some Christmas cheer and go to bed, the idea had a certain appeal to me.

At this point, I am wondering how many people are arguing that Santa doesn’t exist and whether they are greater in number than those who argue that Satan doesn’t exist. Both Satan and Santa can cause a lot of disagreement and it’s hard to argue that this does cause more anxiety than Santana.

Whatever, I’m actually writing about the 43% emissions target and how it’s going to cause an enormous amount of anxiety and there will be people who believe that Labor is Satan, while there are others who’ll argue that The Greens are Santa, and then you’ll have various Liberals who’ll argue that none of them should exist at all.

That’s Labor, The Greens and emissions target. They have no problem with Satan having elected one of his chief disciples in the creation of anxiety as the leader… which one? Well, the fact that you need to ask that says something in itself.

Anyway, now that the Liberals have largely announced that they feel that the reason they lost the election was because they’d strayed from their core principles of having only one core principle and that is, if it’s profitable, it should be privatised and if it’s not then it shouldn’t exist, and if it does exist and is necessary then we should still privatise it and pay someone to run it even if that costs more than when the government used to be in charge…

I mean, remember when Qantas was an inefficient government-owned enterprise which charged too much for getting you and your bags on the one flight.

But back to the emissions target and the looming showdown between Labor and The Greens. I must say that I’m in two minds about this because I can certainly see both sides of the argument.

  1. The first argument: We’re better off doing something rather than nothing and 43% is better than nothing.
  2. The second argument: 43% is not enough because this is an emergency and we’ve already left it too late so we really need to start taking it seriously.

There is some appeal to the idea of legislating a target because the very fact that you’ve set a target gives industry some direction, as well as ensuring the government has to actually take some action on things like modernising the grid and ruining the weekend by getting us all to drive electric cars. And it’s true that if you set any target, then you don’t have to stop at that. If a government decides that it’s going to introduce measures to cut the road toll such as more speed cameras in dangerous areas, it doesn’t decide to switch them off because they’ve hit their target and we can afford to lose a few more this month.

On the other hand, 43% may not drive the sort of changes we should be making and it may not lead to any significant action. Various projections have suggested that we’ll hit that target with action already being taken, so we could easily do more.

Whatever happens over the next few weeks, I think it’s important to remember a number of points:

  • However the media choose to emphasise the disagreements between Labor, The Greens and the so-called Teal MPs, it’s worth remembering that they’re all in some sort of agreement about taking action to save the planet because unlike Hollie Hughes and Matt Canavan, they’re all still on it.
  • Setting a target is all well and good, but it’s the path to get that target and the action that one actually takes that matters. I could set a target to lose five kilos by 2023, but unless I have an action plan to go with it, nothing will change. And while my action plan of going to the nearby gym twice a week may seem like a good start, the fact that they won’t let me in because I’m not a member may mean that I don’t get anywhere near my goal.
  • It’s wrong to compare Rupert Murdoch to Satan because there’s no evidence that he’s responsible for all the evil that exists in the world and in fact, even many religious people don’t even accept that Satan exists at all.
  • Unemployment is now so low that even Josh Frydenberg was able to get a job.
  • Numbers can be manipulated to make anything appear true. In particular, political polling is always suspect. However, most people want some sort of action on climate change. This has been clear from both the polling and the recent election where seats that normally be a walkover for Liberals went to independents because the electors got sick of voting for people who sounded stupider than Uncle Barry after too many glasses of port.

Finally, I’d just like everyone to remember the basic strategy that the Coalition will adopt over the next few weeks. If Labor and The Greens reach any sort of compromise, then it’ll be because they’re a coalition and if you vote for one it’s the same as voting for the other, but if they can’t agree, then Peter Dutton will move a motion of no confidence in the government because they can’t get their legislation through the Senate.

Ok, an Opposition leader would have to be pretty stupid to do that. So how long do you think it will be before he does?

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 5,940 total views

Improving Productivity OR “Thanks And Would You Like A Survey With That?”

Perhaps I’ve just become a grumpy old man but I’m starting to become really annoyed by follow-up surveys every time I do something. Maybe with the removal of Morrison and Frydenberg, I have less to be annoyed about so I’m finding surveys more irritating or maybe it’s just the fact that – rather than a simple tick, awesome service, five stars – so many of them ask me if could spare five minutes of my time…

Five minutes of my time, eh? Look, even if I were on the minimum wage that’s about $2 worth. I don’t want to spend five whole minutes talking about a transaction that didn’t last that long as the experience they’re asking about. While that may be reminiscent of my early sexual experiences, but it gives me no sense of nostalgia.

Of course, the probability that nobody actually reads the surveys and that it’s simple a way of crunching numbers to beat the employees over the head with, doesn’t improve my mood. Is the girl who was so helpful going to lose her job because I only gave her a nine for knowledge of the product? Or is the fact that I didn’t do the survey going to result in the guy who carried the heavy box all the way to car going to lead his pay being docked?

I think that I particularly resent the box that some surveys have where you’re asked the reason you gave that score. It may be because I’m a teacher and that means I AM obliged to have reasons for why I gave Justin an “Excellent” but only gave Eugene “Barely Acceptable”. It’s simple, Eugene, Justin got an Excellent because he wrote in complete sentences on the topic and he managed more than two hundred words and didn’t feel the need to draw a penis on his essay!

So when I’ve given a score on a survey without too much thought, I don’t like the idea that I have to find some reason and because I resent having to think of one after explaining to Eugene that just writing words, even complicated words like ‘juxtapose”, isn’t enough if they aren’t on the topic, so I’ve resorted to writing things such as:

  • “I gave this score because the person who served me reminded me of a nurse who once saved my life.”
  • “This score was the result of balancing the time I spent waiting against the fact that this store is clearly understaffed as a result of the greedy capitalists who are going to be the first lined up and shot when the revolution comes. I tried to interest the girl in attending a meeting of the revolutionaries but she’d been brainwashed by her parents.”
  • “I have no idea why I gave this score but I couldn’t move on to the next page until I did and I find that I have a compulsive need to finish things otherwise I would have stopped doing this ridiculous survey ages ago.”
  • “I gave this score because the shop assistant has my address and he looked like he was a vindictive sort of person, so I didn’t want to cross him by not giving him a ten.”
  • “Do you get paid to create these surveys and, if so, are you paid by the number of questions you create? That would seem to be the only explanation for the pointlessness of this whole exercise.”
  • “Help I’m being held captive by a group that forces people to do surveys in order to inflate the numbers. Please call A Current Affair and get them to investigate. I think Harvey Norman is behind it. They’re coming. I may not finish this survey but if I don’t it’s bec…”
  • “I’m appalled and unless someone contacts me, I’ll never buy your products again!”

Yes, it’s true I could just not do the survey, but then some places just keep sending you reminders saying that you’ve forgotten to do the survey and there doesn’t seem a way I can reply and say that the tennis balls I bought were just fine and that I didn’t have any problem and it doesn’t seem worth me filling out fifteen pages of my experience in order for you to improve because I doubt that anybody reads things based on my lack of a response no matter what I write, do or say!

My biggest fear is that the surveys won’t be enough and some corporate genius will get the idea of doing something like this:

Thank you for completing a survey on your recent purchase at Acme INC. In order to improve your survey experience, we’d like to ask you a few simple questions.

  1. Was the survey everything you hoped it would be?
  2. Did it ask the right questions?
  3. Were the spelling, grammar and other language conventions all correct?
  4. On a scale of one to eleven how would you rate the length of the survey?
  5. In no more than nine hundred words explain the reason for that score.
  6. Have you nothing better to do with your life and is that why you shop non-stop?
  7. Did you find the font easy to read?
  8. Would you be interested in doing followup surveys?
  9. Could you give a reason for your previous answer?
  10. If you said no to the previous question, would it help if we rephrased it?
  11. May we contact you about your lack of cooperation?
  12. Do you have as much trouble justifying your existence or is it just us?

Perhaps, I should be careful. I might give them ideas.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 3,314 total views,  2 views today

The Invaluable Contribution Of Tim Smith, Matt Canavan And Peter Dutton To The Conservative Movement…

Ok, now I know that some of you are going to presume that I’m just going to play with words and point out that the prefix “In” usually means “not”, so an invaluable contribution should be one that’s not very valuable. Sort of like when someone says something is “priceless”. I mean, if it’s worthless it also has no price but that’s not what they mean.

Anyway, I’ve been reading poor Timmy’s tweets and I must say that if ever I’ve seen someone suffering from Relevance Deprivation Syndrome, it’s me. I mean, I was going to suggest that it was young Timmy but why should I give him the attention he so richly craves. After all, it must be hard to go from someone who was considered a future leader of the party to your Jaguar when you’ve had to walk there without any help from your parents.

In case you haven’t been reading his pronouncements, Mr Smith, MLA, has been complaining about everything from the weather to being verballed by a 14-year-old to the wokeness of AFL football because we don’t have any masculine biffo anymore. His tweet was something along the lines of go Rugby because it’s a real man’s sport and AFL is just too easy…

Tim, I should remind you, was a rower and there’s nothing more masculine than a group of men all facing the one direction and moving together when somebody says “Stroke”… Ok, I guess line dancing could also be described in similar terms but if you can think of anything else, I don’t think you should add it in the comments in case you are giving away the reason that the Australia Club won’t allow female members.

I hope that didn’t sound homophobic… I mean, I have a lot of faults but I’m always striving to be more politically correct than the next guy… or woman… or non-gender specific.

Oh fuck, it’s just impossible for an old, white male these days… Ask Jeff Kennett who’ll surely tell you his opinion even after the whole state made it clear that nobody wants it…

Anyway, after Timmy’s tweet, he was all the rage on Twitter for a while and it was almost like he was back to the good old days when he could text journalists and they asked his questions to Dan Andrews at press conferences. He replied to one tweet with “Sorry petal if I offended you…”

It’s good to see Timmy mending fences instead of driving into them.

However, I digress…

Which is sort of the point of Tim Smith and Matt Canavan and Peter Dutton, isn’t it?

They’re just so bad.

Somebody commented that, about the worst of Peter Dutton being not much better than the best of him and I had to seriously think about the question: Is there a best of Peter Dutton?

I mean, some Canberra journalists will tell you that – in person – he’s the life of the party and his public persona is not the man that he actually is… And yes, when I say that Hitler used to love his dogs, there’s sure to be some arsehole who invokes Godwin’s Law even though I never tried to draw any link between Dutton and Nazis. As far as, He Who Should Not Be Named goes, well, I didn’t name him either. Whatever, Dutton is not as bad as the most evil people in the last century and he certainly isn’t as bad as J.K. Rowling who said something that I disagree with.

And that’s surely the point of Matt and Tim and Peter. They make the rest of them look so much more reasonable. I remember when we laughed at the “Joh for PM” campaign in the late 1980s. I was at Billy Bragg’s concert where he made jokes about it, but then left us with a warning that the problem was that after Joh someone would come along and – by comparison – they’d seem okay.

And thanks to Matt and Tim and Peter, then the moderates like Hollie Hughes and Dan Tehan and Angus Taylor and Alan Tudge and Alex Hawke…

Oh, I see…

Yeah, the days of looking good compared to the previous front bench may be over for the federal Coalition.

But at least, down here in Victoria, Tim Smith is making a concerted effort to make his leader look good by comparison with his praise of Rugby League over AFL.

If that doesn’t get him expelled from the Victorian Liberal Party then they might as well disband now.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 5,574 total views,  2 views today

Boris: “We Have A Plan!” Scott: “We Had One Too…” Donald: “Nobody Can Prove I Was Behind My Plan!”

There’s something strange about the conservative side of politics. Ok, there’s something strange about all sides of politics, but I’ve noticed a certain pattern from Tony, Scott, Boris and the rest.

I haven’t included Malcolm because we all know that – in spite of living in Point Piper – he’s a communist.

Anyway, when I heard Boris say that the difference between his government and the other side was that his government “had a plan”, I was reminded of the number of times our very own Liberals announced that they had a plan without giving much in the way of details.

“We have a plan for jobs and growth,” Tony told us without elaborating on exactly what it was, beyond telling us that economic growth will lead to jobs and growth which will lead to economic growth and it was terrible of the Labor Party to be in power when the GFC hit because they didn’t have the sort of growth we wanted even though it was better than anyone predicted.

“We have a plan for getting re-elected,” Scotty told us. I think I may be mistaken because I’m not sure he was ever that articulate and that his whole time in office relied on boring people with what he said and showing us the sort of photos that make Uncle Fred’s holiday slides from his trip to Corryong look interesting. This was meant to bore people to the point that they stopped paying attention and just presumed he must know what he was talking about because, well, we voted for him, didn’t we, and how can we be so stupid as to vote for someone who’s as bad as he appears.

Anyway, I find it strange that nobody ever seems to ask what exactly the plan is, when politicians assert that they have one.

I mean, most people have one. The question is: Is it a GOOD plan? Is it a REALISTIC plan?

Actually, that’s two questions, which is why one should always think about one’s plan before releasing it publicly.

The point being that if you plan to ignore your financial problems until Tattslotto is drawn, I suspect that you should be working on Plan B. Or if your plan is to marry Taylor Swift, it’s probably not going to work, but certainly just hoping she’ll call because she saw your Tinder profile is even less likely to be effective than writing to her and expressing your undying love.

Let’s be real – none of those plans are going to work.

Ok, never say never, but…

I mean, I’ve had a number of job interviews over the years and I’ve never thought that this would be a good strategy:

“So, Mr Brisbane, what do you see as the challenges of the position and how would you deal with them?”

“Well, there are significant challenges and I’d like to say that I have a plan to deal with them.”

“Go on.”

“It’s a plan and I think it would be a good idea to give the job to someone like me who has a plan.”

“Yes, but could you elaborate on your plan?

“I certainly could.”

“Well?”

“The plan, which is something I regard as my main priority, is to implement my plan in order to deal with the challenges.”

“And how would you deal with these challenges?”

“By implementing the plan, of course.”

“And how would it work?”

“Beautifully. It would be exactly what was needed!”

“We need something more specific.”

“Ok, my plan would be to take each challenge and make it disappear.”

“Let’s talk about a specific problem. How would you deal with lack of motivation?”

“Oh, I’m very motivated.”

“How would you deal with other people’s lack of motivation?”

“Glad you asked that because my plan is to get them to be motivated.”

“And how would you do that?”

“By implementing the plan!”

“Thank you, we’ll be in touch.”

Obviously, I wouldn’t get the job…

Although, depending who’s reading this, I may be offered the next leadership of a Liberal Party somewhere.

Oh, I just heard that the British PM job is up for grabs! Do I need to be British or just unable to comb my hair?

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 

 4,684 total views

Let’s Stop This Woke Agenda In Our Schools…

Woke:

adjective

INFORMALUS
  1. alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
    “we need to stay angry, and stay woke

So there you have it!

When certain people talk about their hostility to woke folk, then what they’re actually saying is that they don’t want people to be alert to injustice in society, especially when it comes to racism.

Now, I’m often conscious of the fact that I’m an older, white male who takes his privilege for granted, so it’s good to know that I shouldn’t be woke and that I can get some sleep at last because I’ve reached an age where I like to take naps in the afternoon… Actually, I think I was always at that stage but during my twenties, it was due to the fact that I’d missed sleep owing to having a somewhat more interesting time of things in the evening, but I digress.

As someone who’s spent a large part of my life in classrooms, I’m always intrigued when I hear politicians like Hollie Hughes talk about how teachers are indoctrinating kids and that there’s a Marxist agenda in schools. I guess it makes a change from the Trotskyist agenda that we had when I was growing up, but Hughes overlooks two important facts:

  1. It’s almost impossible to indoctrinate a teenager. They naturally resist most things adults tell them.
  2. Most of my time has been spent trying to indoctrinate kids. Not with any little red books, but rather into doing things like wearing a uniform, turning up on time, completing work and being civil to the people they don’t like. Even if I had time to alert them to inequality, I’d have about as much success as I have in trying to stop Jackson from telling Cedric that he’s a loser.

Don’t get me wrong here. I do tell Jackson (not his real name) not to pick on Cedric (unfortunately his real name) and while I can stop him from doing it in class, as far as indoctrinating him into being an all-round decent guy who leaves the less fortunate alone, well, let’s just say that if teachers could do that, then nobody would be voting for Hollie Hughes and everyone would be leaving Matt Canavan alone.

Some things kids will naturally believe their teachers about things that don’t matter like Maths and Science, but when it comes to matters political, they generally either follow what their parents have told them or else they have thought for themselves and neither group are just going to abandon their position just because I tell them that I disagree. I remember many years ago one of my nieces told me that the Bay City Rollers were so much better than The Beatles and argued her position passionately. These days, she has a slightly different perspective but that didn’t come about through my well-reasoned points about how the sixties were greatly influenced by the Fab Four who were bigger than Jesus… Well, it stands to reason. There were four of them so naturally, they’d be bigger.

Anyway, it’s like that in class. Even if I had a mind to enlighten students about the politically correct way of doing things, it doesn’t change the minds of those who’ve been brought up to be racist or sexist.

English classes look at how language is used to frame arguments and it’s not easy to get teenagers to divorce themselves from the issue at hand and just look at how the article is presenting it.

“Yes,” I tell them, “you may believe that the person in the article is worse than Hitler, but put that to one side and look at how the choice of words is leading people to that conclusion. It doesn’t matter at this point whether that conclusion is true or not, we’re just looking at the way the media uses words and does things like writing some of the letters in a different type to make them stand out. For example, ‘nEVILle’ isn’t the normal way his name is written…”

“But sir, he is evil so what’s the problem?”

“There’s no problem. We’re not judging him. His guilt or innocence is something we need to leave alone for the moment…”

“I think he should be left alone in a cell with someone who’ll give him what he deserves...”

“That’s ok, but we’re just looking at the language here.”

“I’d like to be in the cell when it happens so I can give him a couple of extra kicks.”

“Ok, can you see how the way the paper is presenting things is feeding into that perception.”

“Nah, my dad said that they knew how to deal with people like that when he was a kid. They used to put them in stocks and let people throw things at them.”

“Is your dad two hundred or something?”

“What d’ya mean?”

“Never mind.”

Of course, when Hollie Hughes told us that the kids were being taught Marxism by teachers, I did have to check that “Mad As Hell” wasn’t back on and that she wasn’t a promo for it. It would be nice if a journalist could ask her to define Marxism because, in my experience, all the teachers I know are more concerned with their mortgages and their bills than plotting the armed revolutionary overthrow of the system…

Actually, I don’t think Marx advocated armed rebellion either. I think he was a bit more bookish and merely argued that the dictatorship of the proletariat was inevitable. Perhaps I should look things up so that I know a bit about what I’m talking about before I pontificate… Although that doesn’t stop a lot of people in the media.

Ah, here’s what I found online:
To define Marxism in simple terms, it’s a political and economic theory where a society has no classes. Every person within the society works for a common good, and class struggle is theoretically gone.
Mm, as if teachers would want a society with no classes. We’d all be unemployed!

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 5,584 total views

Why You’re Never Entitled To A Wage Rise OR Economics For Dummies

Economics is quite simple really, if you think about it like a game of basketball. Your aim is to get as many baskets through the ring as possible while trying to ensure that your opponent doesn’t get more through.

Of course, like all analogies related to economic matters, this one breaks down if somebody points out that basketball games are played under a set of rules which means that it only lasts for a limited time and that the aim of economics is surely to work with people to score as many baskets as possible so surely we’re all on the same team and it’s silly if people are trying to restrict their opponent scoring when if we all shot for the same basket we’d be socialist and that would never do because how would we know who’s winning if everyone is driving a Tesla?

So, I’ve decided that I need to avoid analogies entirely and describe what’s happening in such simple terms that even Tim Smith can understand it…assuming that he has the patience to read past the first paragraph.

For a number of years, the prevailing economic theories were based on the ideas of people like Milton Friedman and the idea was that if governments just balanced their budgets and kept out of everyone’s way then market forces would create prosperity and the rising tide would lift all boats and for a number of years this worked really well for everyone except those who weren’t fortunate enough to own a yacht or even a lifeboat. Economists were fond of using data which backed up their ideas apart from the odd year or ten when it contracted their theories.

Then came the Global Financial Crisis which – if I were still using analogies – was the equivalent of the iceberg hitting “The Titanic” and lots of boat owners looked to the government because as someone said, “We’re all Keynesians now!”

Keynes was popular before Friedman and he argued that governments should stimulate the economy when it was weak and pull back spending when things were booming. In other words, build more infrastructure when there was less private demand and only do what’s necessary when private demand took off.

Rich people generally didn’t like this idea because it sometimes meant that governments had deficits and this meant that taxes would need to go up to balance the budget which Keynes argued didn’t always need to happen, but once people got their way and stopped listening to Keynes then governments didn’t run deficits even in times of recession… Or at least didn’t deliberately run deficits.

Of course, the GFC changed things because lots of companies were at risk of going broke so the idea that governments couldn’t intervene to save them was so last century and surely everyone could see that if all the big companies failed then there’d be nobody to hire workers and we’d all go to hell so the best thing to do would be to take public money and give it to private people in return for them saying, “Great, now we can go back to the business of making money and scoring baskets and stopping anyone else from getting too many because when we score baskets everyone wins.”

Things were pretty much back to normal and we were just about to say how good it is when governments don’t do terrible things like force firms to take their money in return for them complaining about government debt, when along came Covid. This prompted one of the great rethinks. Once again, the government would need to give everyone lots of money to keep the economy going.

This brings us to our current place. Before we go any further we need to remember what money is. It’s basically an IOU from the government and if you think about it, IOUs are potentially only worth the paper that they’re written on. However, if you had an IOU from John Lennon or Elvis, then it would be worth considerably more than the paper it was written on, even though there’s no chance that they’ll make good. In the case of the IOU from Elvis, it’s worth money because it’s rare. If Elvis had written several million IOUs then it wouldn’t be worth as much.

And that’s pretty much what happens when the government pours money into the economy. I’m not going to try to explain quantitative easing or money printing at this point beyond saying that the government has pretty much made the value of money worth a little bit less by its actions during the Covid crisis. (Yes, I know Covid is still around, but the crisis part of it is over, as far as the government is concerned.)

When you couple this with all the things that are pushing prices up, such as gas and oil shortages, which in turn pushes up transport costs, food shortages from the Ukraine and the floods and lots and lots of other things, you have a sudden breakout of inflation which is better than deflation but it does have the effect of pushing interest rates up.

Now, I probably should point out that interest rates are so low that they need to go up and it’s actually a sign that the economy is recovering but, at the moment, it only has the effect of making the stock market go, “Oh no, things are improving this will push up interest rates so we better get out of the market before it crashes…”

I know what you’re thinking. “Things are improving. Surely that’s good for companies and they should be making more money, so why is there so much panic?” Well, that’s a very good question. The fear is that attempts to control inflation will lead to a recession. It’s rather like when the car in front of you stops suddenly and you hit the brakes. You may have avoided the first accident but when the car behind you keeps going, you end up at the panel beaters anyway. Sorry, that was another analogy.

Today, when some of the data suggested that things weren’t all going swimmingly in the USA, the market rallied a bit because the fact that things are that good means that interest rates are less likely to go up, so the fact that things aren’t going quite as well means that the market is happy…

If it sounds crazy, that’s because it partly is. Some very astute investors make money by doing the exact opposite of what everyone else is doing. That’s because everyone else is working on the theory that they need to do what everyone else is about to do, but by the time they do it, so has everyone else.

So basically, if you get a pay rise now, it’ll add to inflation. But you haven’t been able to get one for the past few years because your employer couldn’t afford it because…

Actually, I don’t know why your employer couldn’t afford it. You’ll have to ask someone else to explain that one.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 5,436 total views

Qantas Blues (With apologies to Peter Allen)

To tune of “I Still Call Australia Home”

I’ve waited for airplanes that refuse to take off

From morning till night-time and then the next day

But no matter the future

I’m sick of that gnome.

I still want that Irishman home.

I’m always in airports

Awaiting the call

That my flight is leavin’ but my hope is small

I booked with Qantas now I’m still in Rome.

I still want that Irishman home

All the sons and daughters stuck ’round the world

Away from their families and friends

Ah, but as the borders were opened and the flights were restarted

It was nice to think that the waiting might end.

And someday we’ll all be together again

Me and my luggage but they can’t tell me when

Then I realize something I’ve always known

We should send that Irishman home.

No matter how far

Or how wide I roam

I still want that Irishman home.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 9,428 total views

Lacking Energy? It’s Labor’s Fault, Apparently…

Sometimes I wonder why something that I see as a simple idea isn’t being suggested by people in public office. You know, simple things like – given the shortage of workers in some industries – why don’t we double the amount that the unemployed could earn before they lose any of their benefits? It would enable them to take on some of the casual jobs in things like hospitality without the fear that they could suddenly be left high and dry if it didn’t work out. And when I think of ideas like this it worries me that I”m just another Matt “The Black Knight” Canavan who recently tweeted wondering what we’ll do in the future when we don’t have coal-fired power stations to bring back online to save the day, completely overlooking the fact that it’s the coal-fired power stations that aren’t working to capacity owing to the fact that they need maintenance.

Yes, some people are always asking what’s the plan when the sun doesn’t blow and the wind doesn’t shine, but nobody ever asks them what their plan is when coal runs out. It’s a finite resource after all, and sooner or later, it’s going to be all gone and what’s their plan then, eh? Ok, it’s too far in the future and we know their response will be something like: “Well, the sun won’t last forever either and if mankind is using solar, it’ll be in trouble when that happens…”

Lately, as I listen to the news bulletins, one thought repeatedly strikes me:

Couldn’t someone design a system where all the energy providers worked to provide as much energy as cheaply as possible?

Admittedly, it’d have to be centrally coordinated and there’d have to be regulations to stop generators from price-gouging and it would be big and bureaucratic and… there’s the problem. It’s starting to sound all socialist and full of red tape and we all know that privatisation is the way to go because, hey, hasn’t privatisation worked a treat with all the areas where governments have privatised.

I’m trying to think of a specific example here, but I guess my trouble must be that there are so many of them, that I’m finding it hard to focus.

Ah, Qantas. Once it used to be government-owned but now that it’s in private hands, they find your lost luggage much more efficiently because they’ve had so much experience at it…

All right, the Commonwealth Bank… Um, public transport?

Anyway, we know that it must be better because why else would governments keep selling off public assets to their mates?

Whatever the reasons behind the current crisis, I think we can all agree that it’s Labor’s problem and as Karen Andrews said, “And quite frankly, the Labor Government has had nine years in Opposition to prepare for the day that they’d be in government so there’s no excuse!” It’s hard to argue with that. After all, the Liberals have spent the last nine years preparing for the day that they’d be in Opposition by doing nothing but attacking Labor and the Greens, so now that they’ve found the role that Abbott moulded them for, they’re showing that they’re prepared to find a bipartisan solution for just about anything as long as Labor agree to do what they say.

Take nuclear power, for example, which is suddenly the answer. Way back in 2019 when someone mentioned it, the Coalition told everyone that it was just a scare campaign and that they had no intention of doing any such thing. But instead of treating that as a campaign promise and breaking it immediately, it’s now the solution to the energy emergency we face. I can see how it’s meant to work. We use the Scott Morrison strategy of announcing the solution to an immediate problem by telling the public about something that will happen a long time into the future and then brush off all questions about the present with: “We’ve dealt with that and the answer is at the end of the yellow brick road where Jen and I will meet the Wizard and if you just keep following all the words I’m saying which seem to be about what you asked but have absolutely nothing of substance in them and no to the follow-up question because I’ve already dealt with that…”

So I’m waiting for He Who Must Not Be Named to come out and tell us that the Liberals warned us that energy prices would go up under Labor and he warned us that they’d try to avoid a war with China and that the media would start reporting boat arrivals even when they don’t arrive, so we can’t say that we weren’t warned and it’s about time that Labor took some responsibility and realised that they’re the government and that they have to fix up the mess that they’ve created in the three weeks since they were sworn in.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 4,991 total views

A Break From The Election: Florence Nightingale And Why No Women Ever Achieve Anything Much…

From Santa Filomena by Henry Wadsworth Longellow

“Lo! in that house of misery
A lady with a lamp I see
Pass through the glimmering of gloom
And flit from room to room.

“And slow, as in a dream of bliss,
The speechless sufferer turns to kiss
Her shadow, as it falls
Upon the darkening walls”

Then later

“A lady with a lamp shall stand
In the great history of the land,
A noble type of good,
Heroic womanhood.”

Now that the Labor government has – according to the Liberals – snuck over the line and we have to start worrying about the boats that we were turning back and telling nobody about, as well as debt and deficit and Labor raising taxes, I thought that I should leave all that election stuff behind and just write about Florence Nightingale who some of you will have heard of.

Florence Nightingale, for those of you who don’t know, was a nurse, and not just any nurse. She was the sort of nurse who gave nursing a good name.

All right, there’s something about the poem that’s a bit non-PC, and I don’t just mean the poet’s name. I mean, “Wadsworth Longfellow” does sound like a porn star, but I’m actually referring to the bit about soldiers kissing her shadow as she walks past. However, I only mention the poem to demonstrate the sort of picture that the people in my childhood painted of Florence.

If I take out all the facts – which I must say were few and far between – the impression I got was that Ms. Nightingale was the first nurse to actually care about the people she was nursing and that she whipped all the others into shape and hey presto, we have the wonderful nurses we have today…

Or something like that.

It’s only over the past few years that I’ve noticed her name come up in books about using data to change minds and how, Florence Nightingale’s main achievements were as an administrator and a political activist. Her time as a nurse in the Crimea was under two years, but it was the reason for her pushing for reforms in a number of areas. She worked out that many of the deaths were from bad sanitation, a lack of supplies and poor nutrition.

Now, I think it’s probably worth pointing out that Florence was well-connected. Her family weren’t poor. She had a few contacts in what we’d call “The Establishment” if we were children of the sixties… this is not to diminish her because an awful lot of people from that part of society do nothing. Not all. But the awful lot.

The point is that Florence knew that tending to wounds and being a good girl wasn’t enough. She used statistics to push for a better way of doing things. She fought for change. She designed a better system and fought for it to be implemented.

But that’s not how I was taught to remember her. I was taught that she was a “ministering angel”. A good girl. One who looked after the men. And as a reward, they kissed her shadow.

Women – and other minorities – are always forced to fight two battles. The battle to be accepted at the table and the battle to get things done. Sometimes the surrender to be accepted at the table means that they have no energy to get things done. Perhaps they didn’t want to get anything done in some cases. Once they were there they could just thumb their noses and say, “See, it can be done, losers!”. Whatever…

I always forget that women aren’t a minority just because they’re almost always in the minority when it comes to ministerial positions.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 3,444 total views

Peter Dutton, Sussan Ley And Their Bold New Plan For Australia…

Interviewer – Today we have someone who’s recently been elevated from the back bench of government to the front bench of opposition. Congratulations on your promotion…

Shadowy figure – Good afternoon, yes, it’s a thrill to be here. I can’t tell you how happy we all are after our recent showing at the election. It’s quite clear that Labor don’t have a mandate to do anything and it’s a great thrill that I’m now in the sort of seat that means that when Prime Minister in exile, Peter Dutton asks a question, I’ll be right there behind him, nodding and appearing on camera so that the people in my electorate actually know who I am.

Interviewer – So what plans do you have, now that you’ve won opposition?

SF – Well, apart from winning government, we don’t really have much on our agenda. But I think that it would be remiss of me if I didn’t take this opportunity to point out that Labor have been in government for nearly three weeks now and they don’t have a solution to…

Interviewer – They’ve been in power less than…

SF – If I could just finish. They’ve been in power quite often and it’s only when they’re power that we get a real chance to show what we can do, which is make an excellent opposition because nobody can oppose like us. Oh… But it’s not up to us to solve their problems for them and let’s be quite clear here. What are they going to do about… What are they going to do about…

Interviewer – The energy problem?

SF – Yes, sorry, I lost my notes there for a second. Yes, the energy problem. I mean, we’ve the last… fill in the blank… oh, I don’t think I was meant to read that bit out… anyway, we’ve spent the last few years trying to get emissions down and we haven’t worried about making sure that energy was affordable and reliable.

Interviewer – And that’s Labor’s fault?

SF – Of course it is. Why are you challenging me like this?

Interviewer – Ok, let me put it like this. And that’s Labor’s fault, how?

SF – Um, well they joined with the Greens to demand action on climate change and we could all live in trees and it wouldn’t be enough for them.

Interviewer – Just to be clear, you’re against people living in trees? I think you should make your position clear in case some left wing media gets hold of what you’ve said and tries to make it sound like you support people living in trees…

SF – Sorry, this wasn’t on the talking points. Am I meant to be against it? I mean if people are living in trees because there aren’t houses because they got washed away in the floods…

Interviewer – We’ll cut that bit out later…Let’s go back to how the current energy problem is Labor’s fault.

SF – Um, yeah, they shouldn’t have… Look, I don’t like these gotcha questions. How about if you just ask me to talk about our plans for the country now that nearly seventy percent of the people didn’t vote for Labor which means that most people want us even though it’s never stopped us from claiming a mandate even when we don’t get fifty percent of the vote…

Interviewer – You never get… Oh, never mind… What are your plans for the country?

SF – Well, in Sussan Ley, we have one of the most… the most… people who have a woman-type view because our leader supports women more than women do because… sorry, these notes are too hard to read…Anyway, you know how she changed her name by adding an “s” because it would give her a more interesting life? Anyway, now that she’s deputy PM…

Interviewer – Deputy leader. You didn’t win the election…

SF – Are you sure? I’m pretty sure that the even when we lose, the Deputy PM is the Deputy leader of the Liberal Party just like when the Nationals get to pick someone to be Deputy PM when they lose because… I’m actually not sure why. Shouldn’t Dutton be the Deputy PM on the basis that he got more seats than the Nationals… Anyway, what was the question?

Interviewer – Your plans for the country now that you’ve won opposition?

SF – Oh yes, apparently, Sussan assures us that if we just add an extra “S” and an extra “L”, Ausstrallia will solve all its problems…

Interviewer – Right…

SF – Well, it’s hard to argue with her because she’s now Deputy leader even though she got sacked from a ministry where nobody ever got sacked unless they were a woman…

Interviewer – Glad this wasn’t live…

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 5,036 total views

Peter Dutton On Education And Re-education…

Now, let me be quite clear here: I’m not being overly sensitive to Peter Dutton’s recent comments because I’ve spent a large part of my professional life in schools. Ok, I’m a teacher and, according to our new leader, I’m an extremist…

Wait, that’s right. Peter Dutton isn’t our new leader. The Liberals didn’t win the election. Sorry, it’s easy to forget that when the media have spent more time talking about the Coalition and how poorly Labor went than talking about Labor. Well, I’m sure with the crisis in the cost of energy, we’ll be hearing all about Labor’s poor planning and their lack of any solution to this problem which they should have fixed when they were last in office…

Anyway, I was talking about Mr Dutton’s latest attempt to demonstrate his softer side by telling all the viewers on Sky that teachers were extremists and that this would be a focus for the next election. It’s entirely possible that this was a throwaway line, like his joke about water lapping at the door. After all, he was on the Andrew Bolt show and there were likely to be less people listening live than when he shared the joke with Tony and Scott.

Just in case you’re one of the millions who don’t listen to “The Bolt Report”, the substance of He Who Must Not Be Blamed, Shamed or Named’s comments was that he was going to talk to parents about what teachers were doing and get them all onside and put a stop to this lefty bias that teachers seem to have.

As Pleasant Pete said: “…If it was limited to just environmental issues or just to climate change, it would be bad enough… extremism is some of the teachers and the language they use, the approach that they take, it’s across a broad range of public policy areas and I think the national curriculum, the values argument is going to be one of the big debates over this parliament and I think you will see a big difference between the policies we take to the next election compared to what Labor will. Labor is completely and utterly dominated by the union movement as you know and the teachers’ union is one of the strongest voices in the ALP and not in a good way!”

That’s the actual quote so if it seems to be a little disjointed that may be because he had to stop and remember that he’s a nice man now that he doesn’t have any of those nasty portfolios that demand you drag families out of their beds in the middle of the night or tell rape victims that they can’t have an abortion because we will decide who comes into this country and the circumstances, etc.

But it was his comments on history that demonstrated exactly how much he’s changed. He said that he didn’t want teachers “teaching a different view of history”. Teachers should stick to the actual facts of what happened.

Now, this is a perfectly reasonable demand for a leader to make. After all, that’s the idea that Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and various other strong leaders had. There are certain facts and you stick to them and if you seem to think that there aren’t we can educate you at the re-education camp.

Yes, not teaching a different view of history begs the question: “Different view from who or what?”

Now, I realise a question like “Was Australia settled or invaded?” does raise the temperature at some family get-togethers, but the idea that history is all neatly settled some time ago and all that teachers do is present a series of orderly facts isn’t teaching history any more than saying that science has discovered everything that we need to know and there’s no room for an alternative hypothesis about the nature of the universe or a fresh look at the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum physics and let’s just ignore Einstein’s objections…

Sorry, I got distracted there. There’s probably several physicists upset by me suggesting that there’s something wrong with the Copenhagen interpretation, and Dutton would be on their side for sure. Or mine, on the grounds that they know too much about the subject and we’re better off sticking with someone like me who’s done his own research.

There’s nothing wrong with the idea that teachers “should stick to the actual facts of what happened”, except for the fact that – as a discipline – history is about using various sources to try to determine what DID actually happen. If the government version of history, for example, says that asylum seekers threw their children overboard and there’s video evidence, a historian also needs to investigate the eye-witness accounts that say it never happened, as well as trying to view the video evidence which seems to have be unavailable owing to the fact that it got wet, when the government ordered that it be thrown in the water in order to save their credibility.

Yes, it seems that Mr Dutton has a very settled view of the world. This must be what that columnist who said that Pete had the worldview of a Queensland cop meant when she said that we should give him a go. Once you decide who’s guilty, you don’t have to think about it any more.

Actually, I’m not even sure that Queensland police think that way…

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 20,192 total views