More Brain Meltdowns from the ABC Drum – Feb 2014 ed.
More Brain Meltdowns from the ABC Drum – Feb 2014 ed.
It is March 2nd 2014 and time one again to go to read the government paid website known as The Drum. Once more do look upon how my hard earned taxes are being spent by a tiny clique of self-indulgent opinions and group-think that read more like manifestoes and propaganda than analysis of current events. If only there was a point to it all I would understand and accept that millions of dollars are not being wasted. Instead there is no solace in the belief that is a parody website satirizing political correctness. No solace at all. Unfortunately the endless raving and rants are deadly serious and made worse by the fact that many love to flaunt their academic qualifications in the footnotes.
So once again I present the weird and wonderful world of existential bong sucking that we know as the ABC Drum.
Send a Message
“Dr Gordon Menzies is Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Technology in Sydney, and a Fellow of the Centre for Public Christianity,” reads the profile of person whose online opinion has this brilliant sarcastic heading:
But this is sarcasm design to make a moral point (or is it a sanctimonious point?) The underlying theme of his post is an attack upon “consequentialism” and related concept of the “ends justifying the means”. Fair enough, I am no fan of either of those concepts. However Gordon Menzies links the current border policies with the accusation that it is all about consequentialism, thus trying to be good by being mean.
If the overriding ‘good’ of the current policy regarding those seeking asylum is to, once and for all, prevent people from risking the journey across the Indian ocean, drastic action is necessary. Suppose that the Navy simply sank every illegal vessel that entered Australian waters. This policy would provide the strongest possible deterrent for all future boat people. Probably a single boat, a mere few hundred souls, would achieve the goal.
Not satisfied with sarcasm Dr Menzies makes this accusation:
The recent death of one man in detention will have its own invaluable deterrent effect.
Again I say: Okaaay… But who on either side of politics is using this recent death as deterrent to people smugglers?
Small governments are more dangerous than big ones
Away from the hubbub of people smuggling comes Tim Dunlop, author of “The New Front Page: New Media and the Rise of the Audience.”
Tim argues in favor of big government as opposed to the dangerous alternative of small government. Why? Because small government is closer to totalitarianism than a big government is.
In Small government can equal big problems he says:
The less commented-on aspect of this process is that it often goes hand-in-hand with an authoritarianism in the way government – and not necessarily just the Abbott Government – behaves in other areas.
The grand examples of authoritarianism are:
So there are the insane anti-bikie laws in Queensland (and before that, in South Australia). There are the attempts to hobble democratic participation by introducing voter ID laws. There are the anti-protest laws that have just gone through the lower house in Victoria. There are the Federal Government’s politically motivated royal commissions into unions and pink batts, where they are going so far as to violate Cabinet confidentiality in pursuit of political blood.
One may wonder whether Tim has ever considered that criminal bikie thugs should be challenge at all.
Steve Conroy apologist
Michael Brissenden is the ABC’s defence correspondent based in Canberra. Therefore he should have some idea about why falsely accusing a serving military officer of engaging in a political cover up is so insulting.
Steven Conroy is front bench shadow minister for defence in the opposition Australian Labour Party who should know better than to falsely accuse Lieutenant General Angus Campbell of political cover ups.
Yet Conroy made this false accusation in the midst of Senate Hearing:
“You’re engaged in a political cover-up.”
Lt Gen. Angus rightly asked that it be recorded that he took extreme offence at Conroy’s accusations.
To date Steven Conroy has refused to apologize.
But it all about how the government is benefiting from Conroy making a fool of himself.
…it is clear that in this case the Senate estimates process, designed to solicit information from government and bureaucracy, has failed.
And this zinger:
And although he now says he has no criticism whatsoever of service personnel carrying out government orders, by accusing the military of being part of a “political cover-up”, the politics has become stuck in a chest-beating argument about patriotism and Senator Conroy has given the Government the distraction it needed.
However a more accurate version of events is that Senator Conroy tried a sleazy and stupid political stunt by falsely accusing Lt Gen Angus. Unfortunately the stunt blew up in Sen. Conroy’s face. As a result he only has himself to blame. But I just get the impression that Michael Brissenden wants us to believe that Conroy is the hero of this story.
And the Prize for PC goes to…
It was a tough field of nominees by the prize for political correctness goes to Peter Lewis and Jackie Woods with there article titled: Playing the ‘wimp’ card a tactical move
Peter and Jackie’s article was inspired by a throwaway comment by the Prime Minister Tony Abbott where in response to criticism of his Immigration Minister Scott Morrison he said this:
You don’t want a wimp running border protection, you want someone who is strong, who is decent and Scott Morrison is both strong and decent
Hardly headline news but our two intrepid PC hounds it was enough for them to scour the archives for opinion poll results to make the point that throwaway lines hide deep dark meanings.
But Abbott’s “wimp” comments suggests this is about something more than just border protection policy, it is actually about a new(ish) government struggling to define itself
Is it? I wonder how long they workshopped the word “wimp”?
Yet we are asked to consider the random advice of a little known linguist George Lakoff and apply it to the use of one word.
Lakoff argues the dominance of conservatives in recent decades is at least partly explained by their success in framing major political issues around their preferred metaphor.
Who is this Lakoff and why should we care? He obviously does not like conservatives and is unwilling to apply his ‘metaphor theory’ to ‘liberals’. As a result of our PC hounds we have this startling epiphany:
When the challenge is “border protection” rather than “international human rights obligations”, of course there is no place for wimps.
Existential Bong sucking has just found its new dynamic duo: Peter Lewis and Jackie Woods.
Till next time and remember, just because you pay taxes it does not mean that you have a say in how wisely they are spent it. Certainly not at the ABC Drum