Let’s stop looking at Norway massacre through ideologically tinted glasses

Anders Behring Breivik's murderous rampage should not be used as a political football

Frank Furedi rightly notes that many on both sides of politics are seeking to use the recent Norway tragedy to score political points: 

Competing views about the tragic loss of lives in Norway are often informed by the speaker’s political interpretation of the problems facing European society. Those who regard radical Islam as the problem could often barely conceal disappointment that the perpetrator of this act of terror was not a hardened jihadist terrorist. In turn, advocates of multiculturalism went to great lengths to remind their audience that this was the deed of a blond, white right-wing Christian fundamentalist. In Europe, where one person’s fear of home-grown terrorism is dismissed by another as an expression of Islamophobia and where culture contact can be described as multiculturalism or an invasion of foreigners, the interpretation of Anders Behring Breivik’s murderous behaviour is often driven by concerns that have little to do with this episode.

Almost immediately, the blame game acquired grotesque proportions. Glenn Beck, a well-known right-wing shock jock, compared the Norwegian teenage victims of the massacre to members of Hitler Youth. On the opposite end of the political divide, bloggers were implying that conservative commentators such as Andrew Bolt, Keith Windschuttle and Melanie Phillips, who were cited with approval in Breivik’s 1500-page manifesto, were in some sense responsible for his violent behaviour. It is almost as if for some zealous moral entrepreneurs the massacre provided a wonderful opportunity for settling old scores.

The self-serving politicisation of the search for an explanation of this event can only promote the agenda of the perpetrator of this act of terror, which is to disorient the public.

Now contrary to the assertions of many right-wing commentators, it is clear that Breivik’s views can be accurately described as “extreme right” – in contrast to the disturbed young man in the United States who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

But on the other hand, it is absurd that those who are mentioned approvingly in Breivik’s manifesto cannot possibly be accused of having inspired Breivik’s rampage for that reason alone. Which is why Jeremy Sear’s spinning to that effect is so contemptible, intellectually dishonest and inappropriate for someone who wants to be seen as a serious commentator. On Howard, Costello and Pell, he writes that:

But it appears to be the case that their words, their actions, their preferred target, their rhetoric of destruction were apparently part of the inspiration for this psychopath’s actions.

According to Sear and his ilk, any criticism of Muslims or any other migrant groups should be discouraged as they might incite violence. Which of course ignores the fact that violence and extremism is only promoted by attempts to silence politically incorrect speech. And of course the influence of the right-wing blogosphere in creating individuals and political organisations capable of violence is at best grossly exaggerated.

What then are the political implications of Breivik’s crimes? Whilst there is some suggestion he was a member of an extreme right group, his actions have no more effect on the credibility of conservatives as they do on the left side of the political spectrum.  In fact, what they show is that like the extreme left and radical Muslims, the extreme right is also willing to employ violence as a means of terrorising people who disagree with them.

It would seem that the Norway massacre’s primary lesson is that security forces in Norway and some other countries should increasingly monitor activities of the ultra-right, so that such attacks can be prevented in the future. Another implication that might arise is the need to publicly address and refute the ideas of the various political extremes by ensuring that basic facts which are anathema to their explanations of the world are disseminated. Perhaps there are also lessons in terms of community integration and cohesion that should also be taken note of.   

But if we really do care for the victims of the Norway massacre, let us not use their untimely deaths at Breivik’s hands to score political points. Let’s instead look at the situations objectively and think about how similar incidents can be prevented.

Conservatives back the carbon tax

Abbott: "You bastard, Cameron".

Is this the beginning of the end for Abbott?
And an opportunity for Turnbull?

Iain hasn’t brought this up so I will: Conservative British Prime Minister David Cameron has backed Julia Gillard’s carbon tax plan, striking a major blow to Tony Abbott’s negative campaign that he has been conducting - endlessly - all over the bloody country.

JULIA Gillard’s bid to impose a carbon tax in Australia has won a glowing endorsement from British Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader David Cameron, undercutting a fierce campaign against the scheme by his conservative ally, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

Mr Cameron praised the Australian Prime Minister’s carbon plan as bold, ambitious, and a spur to other nations. In May his government approved a binding 50 per cent cut to carbon emissions by 2025, while Australia’s non-binding target is a 5 per cent cut by 2020.

In a letter obtained by The Sunday Age, Mr Cameron says Ms Gillard’s policy ”will add momentum to those, in both the developed and developing world, who are serious about dealing with this urgent threat”.

”I was delighted to hear of the ambitious package of climate change policy measures you announced on 10 July and wanted to congratulate you on taking this bold step,” he writes.

[...]

Mr Cameron’s letter came as a surprise to Ms Gillard and her inner circle. She had met Mr Cameron at the G20 leaders summit and during a visit to London for the royal wedding in April, but the pair do not have an especially close relationship.

Mr Abbott travelled to Britain last October for the Conservative Party conference. He had a 15-minute formal meeting with Mr Cameron and sat next to him during dinner one evening.

The Tories have championed themselves as a party of strong climate action. Mr Cameron has vowed his government would be the ”greenest ever”.

As I’ve made clear before, I am an ALP supporter, which only means I support them like I support my football team, St Kilda - i.e. through thick & thin. And, just like my team, I realise that the ALP are not always the best, can put in some pretty ordinary performances and can sometimes lack leadership. The Saints presently have great leadership in coach Ross Lyon and captain Nick Riewoldt but, unfortunately, my political footy side, the ALP, has a leader who embarrasses me. PM Julia Gillard seems incapable of selling her proposal to introduce a price on carbon next year. She can’t explain the benefits or sell the positives in a way that gives the majority of people any confidence that this new, carbon-free economy is the way of the future. And she’s so wooden and uninspiring. In footy terms, she’s the equivalent of Melbourne’s coach Dean Bailey, a coach who came into the job with little if not zero AFL credentials, who has put no runs on the board and whose popularity stocks are at an all time low, especially after yesterday’s humiliating, near-AFL record 186 points thrashing at the hands of that country hick team Geelong. 

Gillard has no real political future beyond this current term and it’s still no certainty she’ll lead the party to what seems like certain defeat at the 2013 election. She’s a goner and she doesn’t seem to care. I mean, anyone who is prepared to stand next to Christine Nixon & Jo Chandler to launch their disgraceful book this week, obviously has no intention of sticking around for the long haul.

But if Julia Gillard is the Dean Bailey of  politics, what about Tony Abbott? I think he’s like a yapping dog barking at the government’s heels because, well, because he can. So maybe he’s the Jason Akermanis of politics, you know, always in your face but not someone to take very seriously and lacking any real substance in what he says. And, just like the Bulldogs got sick & tired of Akers’ constant harping and sacked him last year, maybe the Liberals will finally see the light too and rid itself of Abbott’s very negative, opposition-for-opposition’s-sake and no-real-direction style of leadership. Well, in light of the above news, if they don’t get with the program and start putting forward some viable alternatives, they may well hand Gillard a giant free kick right in front of goals. And maybe, just maybe, another term? Who knows?

Which brings me to Malcolm Turnbull. As we all know, the former Liberal leader Turnbull is a strong – very strong – supporter of putting a price on carbon. He actually supports Julia Gillard’s proposal, although obviously he can’t come out and say so in so many, direct words. Nonetheless, he’s come very close to endorsing it, much to Abbott’s displeasure. And, as we all know too, Turnbull’s support for a carbon tax and an ETS cost him the opposition leadership position when he was surprisingly dumped in favour of Abbott-the-head-kicker … by just one vote!

Maybe the time is right for Malcolm Turnbull to return to the job he probably shouldn’t have been dumped from in the first place. I’m not saying that he would have won last year’s election if he’d stayed and, in fact, I think Abbott was probably the right person to bridge the huge gap that existed between the Liberals and the then Kevin Rudd led government when Abbott took over and started up his very negative, in-your-face campaign. I’ll give him that – he did serve the Liberals well in the short-term.

But I reckon Abbott is approaching his use by date and may have even exceeded it. He might be polling okay at the moment but can you seriously see the electorate putting up with his I-wanna-be-PM-and-I-want-it-now style for another two years? I can’t. Maybe this latest news, that Gillard’s carbon tax is strongly supported by Abbott’s British counterpart, may well mark the beginning of the end for the yapping dog of Oz politics, Tony Abbott?

And maybe this will see the return of Malcolm Turnbull to the job he still craves as Opposition leader and (in his eyes) Prime Minister in waiting. To again use a footy analogy, I see Turnbull as the Chris Judd of the competition, which is very apt, as Judd is the lead-by-example captain of the silvertailed Carlton club, which has had strong links to the Liberals having had both John Elliot & Dick Pratt as its Presidents. I dislike Carlton as much as I dislike the Liberals but there’s no doubt that since crossing from West Coast a few years ago, captain-courageous Judd has almost single-handedly raised the stocks of the whole club, so much so that it almost makes you forget Carlton’s reputation as the club that cheated its way to several Premierships by illegally buying up top players from other clubs outside the salary cap system. Almost, but not quite. Hmm, Carlton, cheats, Liberals – peas in a pod?

If Turnbull were to be given another chance by the Liberals then they’d have to (finally) accept that the party requires a change of direction by moving more in line with his vision for the country’s future. I like Turnbull. I think he’s brilliant and visionary. And if he somehow does become PM in 2013 it would, for me, make the ALP’s certain demise at that poll a lot easier to take. But are the Liberal Party MPs clever enough to realise that Abbott has run his race and they should be looking at Turnbull as someone who can better lead them back into government? I’m not sure they are.

.

If the ABC was Relevant (Part 44) (a John Clarke, Bryan Dawes skit)

Sax sent me this and I just happen to think that its brilliant in a way that John Clarke is so often brilliant:

(The  Customer)

[Scene: A car yard. BRYAN is perusing the stock.  He is approached by  JOHN]

John:  Morning! Looking for a new car?

Bryan:  Nope. Prime Minister, actually.

John:  You’re the third one this morning. Anything in  mind?

Bryan: You  know…….. nothing fancy, reliable, economical family model.  Something to get the country from A to B.

John: You  mean like a Howard?

Bryan:  Yeah….a little Johnny. Nothing flash, does the job. Low  maintenance, economical, sensible. Runs for years, no  troubles.

John:  So…. you used to have one?

Bryan:  Yeah. About 10 years. Great little model – don’t know why I got rid  of him - biggest mistake I’ve ever  made ….

John: What  happened?

Bryan:  Traded him in for a Kevin 07.

John: Big  mistake…

Bryan: Lot  of people bought it. Good political mileage.

John: How  was the Kevin 07?

Bryan:  Came with a $900 factory rebate – that was  good.

John:  Anything else?

Bryan: Not  much. Sounded nice but nothing under the bonnet. It was a  lemon.

John:  Didn’t stick around for long did it?

Bryan: Nah  – had a factory recall. Shipped overseas and was never seen  again.

John: What  was the problem?

Bryan:  Lots. But the final straw was the navigation system. Plug it in and it automatically loses its own way.

John:  Whatcha got now?

Bryan:  It’s a Gillard-Brown.

John: The  hybrid?

Bryan:  Yeah. The Eco-drive system – not a good idea. An engine that can’t deliver hooked up to a transmission stuck in permanent  reverse…

John:  Green paintwork with a red interior. And steering that always  lurches to the left for no apparent reason – that’s the  one?

Bryan: The Fustercluck model.

John: The only one they made, Bryan.  Not the vehicle of choice for the road to  recovery – but did they finish up fixing the navigation system?

Bryan:  Made it worse.  Turn it on and it does a press release, heads off in  all directions and goes nowhere.

John: So that’s why you’re here?

Bryan:  That’s right. I’m stuck with a government that’s wasteful,  expensive, ineffective and past its use by date.  I don’t suppose  you’ve heard of the “Cash for Clunkers” scheme?

John: Join  the queue brother.

Ah, the elegance of this satire just makes me thankful for the likes of John and Bryan, and terribly sad that they have such material to draw upon.
Cheers Comrades

Misandry – Intimacy

Watch, consider, discuss

Cheers Comrades

Nixon & Chandler – who’s worse?

Age senior writer and author of Nixon's book, Jo Chandler, claims she was abused on the Internet as "Nixon's lesbian lover". Click on image to enlarge, if you must.

Another day, another self-serving article in The Age pushing the controversial Christine Nixon book Fair Cop  ahead of its Prime Ministerial launch this coming Wednesday. Only this time the article is actually written by Age senior writer Jo Chandler herself, you know, the book’s author! Wow, talk about blatant commercialism; you could be forgiven for thinking that Chandler & Nixon were getting PR advice on how to maximise media exposure (and sales) in every possible medium. And it’s working a treat.

Think about it. The current furore surrounding Nixon & Chandler’s book started just a few days ago when The Age published an intentionally provocative article headed “News out to ruin me: Nixon” that I wrote about here. The self-serving Age article was clearly a puff piece, designed to gain widespread media attention with its controversial (and bizarre) allegations that Nixon’s downfall was all a conspiracy and the result of a vendetta by the Herald Sun, other News Ltd papers, the Police Association and even the Royal Commission, which she criticised as a “kangaroo court”.

These claims, complete with large slabs of excerpts from Chandler’s book, were always going to be picked up right across the spectrum of mainstream media, and they were. That was the intention, the aim. Not only that, this pair of ‘buddies’ (Nixon & Chandler) then went on the airwaves with Nixon appearing on TV and being interviewed on radio, while Chandler got her two bob’s worth in as well.

Sure, ABC interviewers Leigh Sales and Jon Faine were both sort of on the attack against Nixon, but what did it matter? It was publicity for the book. Free publicity. Even the Prime Minister was forced to make a statement distancing herself from the book’s controversial content, although (amazingly) Julia Gillard says she’ll still go ahead with the book launch.

The time has come, I think, to reiterate my warning to PM Gillard. The one I mentioned in the post Don’t do it Julia!!! :

If Julia Gillard thinks it’s okay to stand next to Christine Nixon this Wednesday to launch her book, maybe she should also think again about standing next to the book’s co-author, Jo Chandler, who will probably be there too. You know, the one who wrote today that she was subject to online Internet stalking, defamation & abuse. Wow!:

I would gain a confronting sense of the ugliness inspired by all this when word of our book spread, and the anti-Nixon brigade got me in their sights. A colleague tipped me off that according to one thread of internet discussion I was her new lesbian lover. This came as something of a surprise to my bloke. And my kids.

Then there were characters like ”Call Me Wal”, who kindly phoned to inquire whether I was looking forward to my reputation going down the gurgler, just like that of my disgraceful mate. ”Are you threatening me Wal?” I wondered out loud. ”No mate – never.”

Hmmm, I wonder if Chandler thinks “Wal” has any connection to this site? Let me make this clear – he doesn’t. And I haven’t seen that “lesbian lover” claim on these pages either, so it must have been on some other blog.

But, well … okay, it’s no secret by now that Iain and I do not hold Ms Chandler in very high regard. Trust me, there are very good reasons for that. Exactly what they are I obviously can’t say. But it does go beyond what you read and see of her in the mainstream media.

.

Disability pension eligibility to be finally tightened

It’s not often that I am impressed with what the current federal government is doing:

 

AN estimated four out of every 10 people currently eligible for the Disability Support Pension would fail to qualify for the payment under sweeping reforms to the welfare benefit to be unveiled by the Gillard government today.

In the biggest ever crackdown on the burgeoning DSP, the government will today publish proposed new “impairment tables” used to judge who is eligible to claim the benefit, worth $729.30 a fortnight for singles.

Under the first changes to the disability eligibility rules since 1993, people with a hearing impairment would now be assessed when their hearing aid was in to decide their capacity for work.

Previously it had been a requirement to be tested without a hearing aid. By contrast, those being tested for sight impairment were required to wear glasses.

Issues such as obesity or chronic pain would no longer be considered grounds in themselves for DSP eligibility. Rather, they would be considered based on how they affect a person’s capacity to function and work.

Bad backs would no longer be assessed by how much movement and mobility has been lost, but rather on what the back condition prevents the person from doing — such as sitting for a long period of time, or bending over to pick up objects. Such an assessment may still allow for certain types of work to be undertaken.

And there would be new guidelines on mental health, the fastest-growing category of new DSP recipients. People who suffer from episodic mental health conditions would now be treated with a focus on rehabilitation.

“The new (tables) will make sure that people applying for the Disability Support Pension will be assessed on what they can do and not what they can’t do,” Community Services Minister Jenny Macklin said yesterday.

“I want to see people who have some capacity to work doing so.

“I believe we can do better than a lifetime spent on income support, for Australians who have some capacity to work.

“Of course the Disability Support Pension is, and will remain, an essential part of our social safety net for those who are unable to work.”

The bad part is that the new rules will only apply to new applicants for the DSP, which means that we will continue to have people who are capable of work and who should be looking for it continuing on the DSP. The benefits will only start to be felt in 15-20 years.

Granted, this minority government does have enough fights on its hands (carbon tax, boat people gaming licenses etc) that it does not need another one at this stage. But it must also be said that the few reforms it has made have been also been inadequate, such as means testing the baby bonus and family tax payments, and its “award modernisation” process, which has failed to adequately simply minimum standards for workers.

 

It will be interesting to see however if the Greens support such a measure. In the eyes of the ultra-left, any moves to turn disabled people in job seekers are attacks on the disadvantaged.

Imagine all three at once? We can

One of my interests is the way that advertising works , which has a certain irony because I also resent the intrusion of advertising into our lives as well. In fact I detest the practice of commercial TV to break into the narrative of their programs with batches of ads. However my real fascination lays with the way that advertising can in flame the passions of the political activists. Especially those of the feminist persuasion. Up here in Brisbane they have succeeded in having a billboard removed from public view:

click for source

You see I can’t help but think that there is very little wrong with this ad, sure its cheeky and the caption does have a certain amount of the old double entendre but I find it rather hard to believe that in doing so that it demeans women, especially as we live in the age of “raunch culture” when popular music tells young women that they are “hoes” or “bitches” and that they are validated by imitation of “singers” who are famous for going commando in public.  Frankly as the father of a daughter I find the images of women in this ad far more positive than any number of images of Brittany Spears or Paris Hilton.

Sure the women in this ad look very attractive but they also look strong and self assured  and they might well feature in the imagination of the tradies who are the target audience however I can’t for the life of me see that this “demeans” women.

Some how I expect that the PC brigade will be more than happy to explain why they think other wise.

Cheers Comrades

Contrition,Christine Nixon, Jo Chandler and their part in the inept response to the disaster on that very black Saturday.

This post is really a sort of post facto amusing aside to Ray’s excellent piece yesterday  and anyone who watches it would have to be rather horrified that this woman ever held a position of authority in Victoria. Frankly I have never seen such delusional thinking and convoluted self justification for ineptitude and bad management in a time of crisis. Please watch the video at my link below and if at the end of it you don’t wonder just how lucky Victorians are that this woman has been sacked I will be very surprised indeed.

click for source

The really scary thing about Nixon is that now that she has been shown to be in possession of such grossly poor judgement that she abandoned her post in the worst civil crisis in living memory and now  she is trying to peddle the spurious notion that what she did was nothing of consequence, that no fewer people would have died if she was not having a chat with Jo Chandler instead of being at her post. To my mind there is a big difference between being truly sorry and contrite for one’s errors and mistakes and trying to muddy the waters with pathetic excuse making and blame shifting was Nixon is trying to do in interviews like this one and the book she has written Jo Chandler (according to the published extracts that I have read) Blaming the messenger in the form of a rightly critical media for her own lapses of judgement is more than  just horribly offensive, as is the spurious notion that she has been treated harshly because she is an overweight woman. Heads up Christine, its not the size of your bum or the contents of your panties that people are angry about its your fatal lack of good sense when it really mattered.

Frankly I think that no one should buy the book that is to be launched and no sensible person should attend the launch either and if anyone is tempted to buy the book perhaps they should instead sent the purchase price to one of the families that lost someone on that fateful day as an act of personal contrition for even contemplating rewarding a woman like Christine Nixon (or Jo Chandler) for their part in the inept response to the disaster on that very black Saturday.

Cheers Comrades

Zane Trow puts foot very firmly in mouth

This post is entirely frivolous and is really about  just how silly some lefties become when they post under assumed names and its about Shardenfraude as well , my own on this occasion because it seems that good old Zane Trow (posting under the name of Eric Sykes ) erstwhile commentator here at the Sandpit has even succeeded in up setting his fellow minions over at Pure Play school  where he makes a grossly stupid comment and is soundly denounced for it.

Now all that I can suggest to our rather bitter friend is that he should get help, sooner rather than later because snide and bitter comments are no substitute for actaully engaging on the topic in comment threads both elsewhere and here.

Cheers Comrades

 

 

 

Nixon, Chandler & The Age go for ‘The Triple Banger’

If you want to rewrite history then hire a fiction writer.

Why does it come as no surprise that on the eve of the launch of ex-Victorian Chief Police Commissioner Christine Nixon‘s controversial book Fair Cop, The Age newspaper in Melbourne is running an article under the heading News out to ruin me: Nixon ?

Why? Well, to start with, the whole article is clearly plugging the book’s release. It’s a promotional (or puff) piece of ‘advertorialising’ dressed up as a serious news story that is clearly designed to draw attention and bolster interest (and sales) of the book … which just happens to be authored by Age senior writer Jo Chandler.

But there’s more to this self-serving and intellectually dishonest article. It’s a three-pronged attack that:

1. Blatantly plugs Nixon’s & Chandler’s book.
2. Deflects blame for Nixon’s failures by shooting the messenger.
3. Takes a free swipe at The Age’s only real opposition in the print media, News Ltd.

It’s the old ‘triple-banger’. Why settle for one piece of shite journalism when you can go the whole hog and score a few more free hits? In for a penny, in for a pound and let good, unbiased reporting be damned. This is rubbish.

The article starts out with claims by Nixon that News Ltd papers were “instrumental in bringing down her successor in the job, Simon Overland”. As if she’d know. Nixon claims that News Ltd “turned on Mr Overland after he criticised The Australian for publishing leaked information that he said could have compromised a major terrorism raid”. That’s utter crap. The truth is that the new Baillieu government wanted Overland out because he was a Brumby appointment and they felt he was not ‘their man’. All those stories on Overland’s so-called bias & bungles run by the Herald Sun – that, yes, were damning - were actually fed to the media by the State Government, who were the real drivers of Overland’s unfair demise. And they were run in The Age, on the ABC and in most other media outlets too. News Ltd was just a messenger and, while they may have only been too pleased to run with the story and then some, there is no doubt whatsoever that Overland was dead-man-walking from the moment Ted Baillieu surprisingly won office late last year. Even if News Ltd had played the leaks down, Baillieu would have got rid of him one way or the other. Talk about shooting the messenger.

Nixon then goes on (or, more correctly, the Age writer directs her on) to use the treatment of Overland as some kind of parallel to the very damning news articles that were run by the Herald Sun after Nixon’s amazing mea culpa at the Black Saturday bushfires Royal Commission. She accuses them of conducting “a relentless campaign … to force her from public life”:

”In the 2½ years since retiring, they have run a vendetta against me. They have published articles and beat up stories saying I am not supposed to teach courses, shouldn’t be allowed to sit on boards, not allowed to do leadership lectures, should have quit my job as chair of the Bushfire Recovery Authority, should not mentor people, and the final one is I am not allowed to write a book.

But Nixon (and The Age) conveniently overlook the fact that what the Herald Sun was running – albeit with great vigour and enthusiasm – was exactly what the great majority of the general public believed in too.

Look, despite what *some* people seem to believe, the general public is not that stupid as to be swayed by the Herald Sun’s so-called campaign to ‘oust’ Ms Nixon. We all know that they put a slant on many of their lead stories but we all sat through those live streams of Christine Nixon giving evidence and being cross-examined (twice) quite brilliantly at the Royal Commission, or at least we saw large excerpts of them on our TVs. And boy, did that speak for itself or what?

And, exactly what political agenda does Ms Nixon (and The Age) think News Ltd had in wanting her out? How was that in any way political or biased? Wasn’t the real problem that John Brumby, in a rather bizarre move, chose not to sack Ms Nixon following her self-inflicted downfall and, instead, appointed her to another highly paid position ($380,000 per year, I believe) to head up the bushfire recovery task force? Of course it was. The public was rightfully outraged by this slap in the face. To think that Nixon should be further rewarded, despite her obvious shortcomings, was too much for most fair-minded people to bear, and the hard-hitting Herald Sun articles certainly reflected that.

Sure, according to many bushfire victims, Nixon did a good job in the recovery (although according to just as many others, she didn’t) but that was not, and is not, the point. The point is that most people believed she should not have been given that job in the first place and, instead, cut off from the public purse to make her own way in the private world (with a bloody big payout of course).

But it doesn’t stop there. No, The Age somehow manages to relate all this back to what is taking place in the UK:

Ms Nixon said what had emerged overseas following the News of the World hacking scandal was that News Ltd tries to intimidate people who get in its way. ”They make people fearful of saying anything in case they have the [News Ltd] guns targeted at them. Against me they used vehicles like the Police Association to fire the bullets. The person who loads the gun is the Herald Sun and The Australian.”

Oh, yeah, drag in the entirely unrelated British hacking scandal to suggest the Evil Empire was after her too. Maybe they hacked her mobile phone that she switched off for three hours when she went out to dinner while the State burned and people died? And hasn’t she got something wrong in that statement above? Is she seriously suggesting that News Ltd tells the Police Association what to do and say in public? Wouldn’t it be more the other way around? Wouldn’t it be the self-serving Police Association (a sort of union and a most unimpressive body, I agree) that would feed stories to the media and let them run with it to suit their own ends? I think so.

And then, to top it all off, the article attempts to back up Nixon’s claims of News Ltd’s so-called campaign against her by quoting whole slabs of excerpts from Chandler’s book, such as below, which sounds like they’re appealing to their own authority:

In her book she reflects how Herald Sun editor Simon Pristel rang her media person one night at 6 o’clock during the Bushfires Royal Commission and asked if it was true that on the night of Black Saturday she had held a party at home to celebrate her departure from Victoria Police. The spokeswoman told him it was not true, but that Ms Nixon had gone to a local hotel for a quick meal with her husband, her father and a friend.

”It was a fishing exercise. Pristel was still quite new to the job, and one of the trademarks of his editorship would be to bring to the Herald Sun – once distinguished by its concise, straight-bat coverage of issues – more of the shrill Fleet Street ‘red top’ tabloid formula of ‘name and shame’ campaigning,” she wrote.

”It would cast itself as moral arbiter. Such a culture can have little regard for fairness, or for nuance, and a lot to do with selling newspapers and, sometimes, with pursuing its own agendas.

Or maybe Pristel was onto something. At her first appearance at the Royal Commission Nixon failed to disclose that she had left her post early and ‘gone to a pub’ for dinner, so obviously Pristel’s call was made after that first appearance. If he was fishing then that’s exactly what he should have been doing as a professional and thorough journalist – looking for the truth. So what if he asked if she held a party at home and got that bit wrong? He was onto something and it came out … in her ‘media person’s’ response AND under further cross-examination. The HeraldSun had every right (and indeed a duty) to pursue the question of Nixon’s exact whereabouts on Black Saturday after she failed to disclose it the first time .. under oath!

And this excerpt from Chandler’s book is so self-pitying and self-aggrandizing that it’s almost sickening:

”In the wake of the royal commission, I was informed by sources that the Herald Sun had told them unequivocally that they would see me brought down, the attacks would continue until I quit or was sacked. By now, the paper was heavily invested in demonising me to its audience, and so my pursuit also became a matter of editorial ego. The prize would be my scalp.”

Yes, I too wanted to see Nixon “brought down”. She certainly should have quit before she did and I reckon the great majority of the Victorian population felt the same way … and they certainly didn’t need the Herald Sun to spell it out for them. Nixon demonised herself while the paper simply gave its ‘audience’ what they wanted to hear. What nearly everyone wanted to hear.

But this excerpt from Chandler’s book takes the cake. Here Nixon and Chandler attempt to paint the Royal Commission as “failing” in its outcomes, the implication (of course) being that their findings about her leadership were also wrong:

In the book, Ms Nixon says she believed the Bushfires Royal Commission had failed to achieve its aim of producing better leadership. Instead, it was likely to lead to risk-averse management, with leaders constantly on the lookout to ”cover their arse” during a disaster. ”This is dangerous. Such thinking might dissuade leaders, whether at the political level, in the crisis room, or out at the fire front, from bold and brave decisions in the moment.”

So it wasn’t her fault? She made “bold & brave decisions” on the day? What, like getting her hair done, keeping a private appointment and, of course … dinner.

Well, at least the Royal Commission (and The Age) finally got something right. The article finishes with this telling paragraph. I guess even The Age did not have the audacity to leave this out and, besides, they’d already achieved their objectives of flogging the book, whitewashing Nixon’s record and sticking it to the opposition. The truth doesn’t get in the way of this story because it only appears at the very end:

The commission found that Ms Nixon’s approach to emergency co-ordination during Black Saturday ”left much to be desired” and condemned her performance as ”hands off”. It said she should not have left emergency headquarters at dinner time, particularly when she had no deputy acting in her place.

And that speaks for itself. Not even a senior writer could bend that truth.

I am no fan of News Ltd and I agree that the Herald Sun in particular does run agendas. I just disagree with others on their impact on the public at large and especially the impact they have on things like election results. We ALWAYS get the government we want and deserve – that’s our history. But give me a break: For Nixon, Chandler and The Age to suggest that News Ltd were almost solely responsible for Ms Nixon’s so-called woes (and I bet she’s doing it real tough) is nothing more than one media outlet taking a free swipe at its major opposition. It’s self-serving crap - in more ways than one.

Oh, the article also carries a readers’ poll that says: Was Christine Nixon given a fair go by the media? Please select an answer. Yes/No

But I’d like to add a few more:

1. Has Christine Nixon’s book (that was written by an Age journalist) been given one almighty leg up and a great big free plug by The Age?
   Please select an answer. Yes/No
2. Do you think News Ltd’s reports on Nixon in the aftermath of the Black Saturday Royal Commission where she admitted failing her duties were a reasonable reflection of general community sentiment?
   Please select an answer. Yes/No
3. Is The Age trying to stick it to its opposition News Ltd with this self-serving article?
   Please select an answer. Yes/No
4. Is Christine Nixon a screaming hypocrite to blame the media for her poor image while using another paper to enhance it?
   Please select an answer. Yes/No
5. Are Christine Nixon, Jo Chandler & The Age ’shooting the messenger’ by claiming that News Ltd “ruined her”?
   Please select an answer. Yes/No
6. Would you buy Christine Nixon’s/Jo Chandler’s self-serving book Fair Cop?
   Please select an answer. Yes/No
7. If “yes”, how much would you pay for it?
   Please select an answer. $40, $30, $20, $10, $5, $1, Nothing – you’d have to pay me to read it.
8. Has the author of Nixon’s book, Age journalist Jo Chandler, ever written anything worth reading?
   Please select an answer. Yes/No/Jo who?

.

Oz History For Dumbies (not “Dummies”)

(Sic)

So I’m listening to Jon Faine on ABC Radio the other day (I only ever listen to the ABC) and he’s interviewing a bloke called Alex McDermott, who was written a book called – wait for it – Australian History For Dummies.

Now this really pisses me off, firstly because “Dummies” is spelt incorrectly (sic) and he’s just jumping on the bandwagon of all those other wrongly spelt books like Computers For Dummies. I reckon it won’t be long before someone brings out a book for wannabe terrorists called Bomb-making For Dummies too. Oh, wait, someone in Norway has already done that.

Look, I understand that McDermott’s book is aimed at “dumb” people but, if you want to give a collective noun to that group, why drop the “B” and turn it into “Dummies”? Dummies are what babies have in their mouths and are what some people spit when they crack the shits around here (including me). The correct term for a group of dumb people is “Dumbies” – got it?

Secondly, I decide to look the book up on Google to see what McDermott reckons us plebs don’t know about the history of Oz, whereupon I find this little overview he has written:

Overview Of Australian History For Dummies

Exciting and informative history of the land down under Australian History For Dummies is your tour guide through the important events of Australia’s past, introducing you to the people and events that have shaped modern Australia.

Be there as British colonists explore Australia’s harsh terrain with varying degrees of success. In this informative guide you’ll:

* Find out about Australia’s infamous bushrangers
* Learn how the discovery of gold caused a tidal wave of immigration from all over the world
* Understand how Australia took two steps forward to become a nation in its own right in 1901, and two steps back when the government was dismissed by the Crown in 1975

Discover the fascinating details that made Australia the country it is today!

Yeah, right. I reckon I could do all that in just one blog post. Here. Now.

Look, why buy a bloody book for $39.95 when you can get everything you need to know about our history right here for absolutely nothing!?! (although gold coin donations would be gratefully accepted)

Here is all you need to know about Oz history. These are the ONLY relevant facts.

Well, and please note, I have placed a greater emphasis on our post WWII history because that’s about as far back as I can remember:

Oz History For Dumbies (copyright)

1770 : Captain Cook discovers the East Coast of Oz but picks the shallow and windswept Botany Bay as the place to be and misses Port Jackson (just a few miles north) altogether. Cook’s descendants have never forgiven him for not claiming all the waterfront properties on Sydney Harbour, now worth $billions.

1788 : Captain Arthur Philip arrives with the First Fleet of convicts, checks out Botany Bay but decides it’s a piece of shit. He discovers Sydney Cove in Port Jackson and decides to settle there because he reckons it’s a good place to build an Opera House and a bloody big bridge.

1801 – 1803 : Matthew Flinders sails around Oz in a tiny boat and declares, “It’s a f*cking huge continent, not an island”. More than 150 years later he opens the Matthew Flinders Hotel in Warrigal Road, Chadstone and turns it into a 60s & 70s Mecca before some idiot lets the pokies in.

1813 : Explorers Blaxland, Lawson & Wentworth get sick & tired of being confined to the small area around Sydney Cove so they cross the Blue Mountains but return empty handed, reporting to the Governor, “There’s f*ck all beyond those mountains worth discovering”.

1835 : John Batman sails over from Tassie to claim Port Philip Bay and the Yarra River where he buys up all the real estate from the aborigines for a few trinkets and then tells them to “piss off, I want to build the MCG here.” 

1850 : Gold is discovered all over the friggin’ place but especially in Victoria. This brings the Irish out here in droves, our first big mistake. We fix it by importing Chinese ‘Coolies’ as slaves but they revolt and start up their own goldfields in the Buckland Valley near Bright. The Irish get sick of this so in 1857 they massacre nearly all 3,000 of the Chinese in the Buckland but some escape, return to China to start the Communist Party eventually leading to China becoming the dominant economic power and buying up all our mining and farming interests. Thanks a lot, you Irish.

1860 : Some jokers named Burke & Wills leave Melbourne (on camels!) in a vain attempt to travel all the bloody way to Darwin. They never make it back and the newspapers of the day ponder the obvious question: “Why on earth the pair didn’t just take The Ghan Train via Adelaide & Alice Springs is beyond human comprehension”.

1880 : Infamous bushranger Ned Kelly (yeah, of bloody Irish descent) is hanged at Old Melbourne Gaol for merely defending himself against 3 coppers who ambushed him. Kelly was our equivalent of Robin Hood – he stole from the rich and gave to himself. A great guy wrongly maligned in history.

1901 : By now the land of Oz is broken up into separate colonies (even in God forsaken places like Perth & Adelaide) so we decide to federate and become One Nation. We even invite New Zealand to join in and become our 7th State but they decline on the grounds that they don’t want us Aussies to get our hands on their sheep – NZ lives to regret this decision. Later in the same century a redheaded fish & chip shop owner takes up the One Nation mantle and tries to turn Oz into the united (and whites only) land it was always meant to be.

1915 : We suck up to England by going to fight their war over in some place called Turkey. The Poms send us to the wrong beach and tens of thousands of innocent young Aussies & Kiwis get killed while the Poms go for a leisurely swim in the ocean a few miles up from Gallipoli. The Anzac legend is born but down the track it gets hijacked by the AFL teams Collingwood & Essendon.

1930 : The Great Depression hits Australia too but there’s nothing “Great” about it so we fight back with Don Bradman & PharLap kicking off a sports-led economic recovery. The Poms and the Yanks don’t like this so England invents Bodyline to kill our cricket players while the USA invites PharLap to race over there … where they poison him.

1939 : The recovery is still going fine though until some jerk named Hitler invades Poland and, once again, we go off to fight England’s bloody wars over in Europe and even in Africa! Then the bloody Japs start a war in our region and start heading our way. They even bomb Darwin and send two-man subs into Sydney Harbour. We try to pull back our troops back from Europe & Africa but Winston Churchill says,“get stuffed, you sold them the pig iron to make the bombs so you can just suffer”. This costs Pig Iron Bob Menzies his job as PM and brings Labor’s wartime hero PM John Curtin into office. Curtin mobilises a Dad’s Army to stop the Japs dead in their tracks on the Kokoda Trail in New Guinea, because he wants it to be a tourist attraction for future Babyboomers and Gen X wannabes.

1945 : WW II with Japan comes to an abrupt end when someone in Hiroshima is heard to utter the famous last words, “what the f*ck was that?” The war had actually ended earlier in the Coral Sea when the last of the Japanese boats were sent to the bottom of the ocean off the coast of Queensland thereby forming the world-famous Great Barrier Reef for future Japanese tourists to visit in droves. The reef was later destroyed by all the CO2 produced by the Chinese who escaped the Buckland massacre of 1857.

1946 – 1963 : Absolutely nothing happened in the land of Oz for nearly two decades, although we did manage to fill the place with Ten-Pound-Poms & Wogs.

1964 : The Beatles invade Oz spawning our own rock music industry leading to the rise of Oz rock legends like Johnny Young, Kamahl, Dennis Walter and The Seekers.Yes, this was the start of ‘The Swinging Sixties’ in Oz. Thankfully, some second-rate acts like Billy Thorpe, The Easybeats, Max Merrit, Madder Lake and Chain came along to salvage a bit of pride for us.

1965 : Pig Iron Bob Menzies (who somehow was re-elected in 1949) decides that, since he was not allowed to run Oz and save us from the Japs in WW II, he’ll redeem himself by starting a war with Vietnam. Actually he joined us with the US in trying to stop North Vietnam from rightfully kicking out the Imperialist French & US from its own country. Bob’s brilliant idea was to draft 20 year olds into the Army for two years and send them off to do his fighting because, according to him, we had to stop the Yellow Peril from spreading to Oz just like the Japs tried to do in the 1940s. And, besides, 20 year olds couldn’t vote then so what’s the problem?

1966 : St Kilda wins its first ever VFL/AFL Grand Final. Coach Allan Jeans and captain Darrel Baldock are made Knights of the Realm. In 2011, following their deaths, Jeans and the Doc go on to be declared real Saints by the Vatican, courtesy of our Ambassador to the Se, Tim ‘Akubra’ Fischer.

1972 : The people of Oz decide It’s Time and insert Gough Whitlam into The Lodge bringing an immediate end to conscription and our involvement in Vietnam. Oh, and 23 years of the do-nothing Menzies era tyranny final comes to an end. We buy Blue Poles and Jack Thompson flops it out in Cleo. The Opera House is finally finished whereupon Captain Arthur Phillip says, “see, I bloody told you that was the spot for it”.

1975 : The Liberal Party under Malcolm Fraser says “Time’s Up, Gough” and gets the Governor General (the very pompous ex-judge Sir John WanKerr) so pissed that he sacks Gough and makes Malcy the PM. We decline into stagnation for most of the next decade after Fraser (a wealthy farmer) declares, “Life wasn’t meant to be easy, except for people like me. I know there are no jobs but that’s no excuse for you lazy bastards to get the dole”.

1980 : A dingo kills a baby named Azaria at Ayers Rock, later named Ularu in honour of the occasion.

1983 : Ex-union boss and commie Bob Hawke somehow wrangles his way into government as Prime Minister but, much to the dislike of his socialist followers, ditches his working class origins and jumps into bed with rich and honest business people like Alan Bond. We win the Americas Cup with Oz II and Hawkey gets so pissed he attempts to call a public holiday. Treasurer Keating floats the dollar and lets overseas banks into Oz flooding the country with money and we go on a near decade-long party until the whole thing falls in an almighty hole when someone finally says, “Hey, you know what? I can’t really afford to pay 20% interest rates”.

1991 : Following The recession we had to have, Paul Keating decides Bob Hawke has got to go and takes over as PM. He leads the ALP to an improbable and historic 5th term in government in 1993 when he declares Hewson’s 15% GST idea Ballot Box Poison – it was. Keating is eventually dumped at the next election but not before he’s accumulated a lot of real estate, a piggery in Indonesia and the world’s biggest collection of antique clocks (and Zegna suits). Hawke doesn’t care, as he’s too busy rooting women to even notice he’s been outed.

1996 : Veteran Liberal MP John Howard rejects the old age pension and is swept into power as the world’s smallest Prime Minister. Howard holds on to the job for a remarkable 11 years despite being officially declared non compus mentis half way through his reign. He receives great support from a redheaded woman in Queensland who rightfully divides Oz along racial lines adding much support to Howard’s agenda.

2000 : The Olympics comes to Oz but, as it’s in Sydney, only gays turn up.

2001 : A bloody big boat called The Tampa attempts to drop its load of illegal, asylum-seeking terrorists on our shores but John Howard rejects them and saves us from a September 11 type event. The terrorists throw their children overboard proving Howard was right and he then gains another unlikely term in office.

2007 : Ex-office clerk and Chinese-speaking diplomat Kevin Rudd nerds himself into office as the first ALP Prime Minister since Keating, denying John Howard his cherised aim of exceeding his hero Bob Menzies as our longest-serving PM. Rudd apologises to the aborigines for stealing them and is riding high until he burns down thousands of homes and kills a few tradespeople by putting faulty insulation in their houses, which he was doing as a part-time job in an attempt to match the earnings of his wealthy wife. This proves to be his downfall.

2010 : Oz gets its first female PM when Julia Gillard spikes Kevin Rudd’s coffee with LSD and in a haze of psychedelic madness Rudd steps down and lets the Ranga take the reins. Oz is bedazzled with the unmarried, childless but not gay Gillard long enough for her to scrape home at the election in the same year, but only after she agrees to have sex with a handful of independents and the entire Greens Party in return for their support of her minority government. By early the following year though, the electorate wakes up and realises that this woman could not even run a kindergarten let alone an entire country. Oz descends into political chaos and an impasse as neither the government, the opposition or the Greens are seen as credible leaders.

Oh, and a glimpse of the future ….

2013 : The ALP under the surprise leadership of Malcolm Turnbull, who ‘jumped ship’ from the Liberal Party in 2012 when Julia Gillard’s popularity plunged to a world record low of minus 10%, wins an unlikely 3rd term of office even though by now the Carbon Tax introduced the previous year has led to catastrophic price rises in electricity causing thousands of old age pensioners to freeze to death in the previous winter. Turnbull immediately declares Australia a republic and appoints Paul Keating as our first President. Gillard retires and announces she is gay after all and plans to marry her long-term partner, Penny Wong. Opposition leader Tony Abbott quits politics and vows to train really hard in his attempt to win the 2014 Le Tour de France. Cadel Evans, winner of the past three Le Tours, is so pissed off that (as we are now a Republic, he cannot get the knighthood he truly deserves) he denounces his Oz citizenship, becomes an Italian and is made a Saint.

……………………………..

SO, if you can memorize all the above FACTS, then you will be able to hold your own in any conversation you have with any wankers (and/or your o-so-educated family members & friends) who try to show you up as a “dumbie”.

I also recommend you bookmark this post as a handy reference for debates you might have here with the know-all JM – it’s as good as Wikipedia.

And Leon might want to use it next time he debates a University Professor on Twitter.

(Apologies to our idigenous people for overlooking their 40,000 year prior occupancy of Oz, however, McDermott [and no other author] has included it either. And, as I know nothing much about it, all I can do is acknowledge that it existed ….)

.

Malcolm’s dance card

I must admit to a certain amount of schadenfreude  at the woes of the Labor/Green government. After having such a jolly time mocking the follies of the once and future king (Brother Number One) and then having an even jollier time since Juliar decided to emulate Brutus  the depths to which they have fallen has actaully made me feel some sympathy  for Labor supporters who now face the twin woes of defending the evident incompetence and coming to terms with a very long time for their party in the political wilderness.  I very clearly remember the feeling of political despair when, as a Labor voter myself (at the time) I got through the Fraser years one day at a time. In fact the only way that I and many other true believers  managed to cope was to hide political allegiances rather like it being “a love that dare not speak its name”.  However I think that the current government has purchased a ticket that will  take Labor so much deeper into the wilderness than Gough’s veterans ever visited. It may well be the case that the next Labor Prime Minister is still in primary school and as yet unaware of politics…

The thing is as things get more and more desperate pundits from the left are grasping at more distant and more scanty straws like the suggestion that Labor could possibly poach Malcolm Turnbull to repalce Juliar thus saving the party’s fortunes:

Click for source

There are lots of reasons to just laugh at this piece of nonsense published in today’s Fairfax press  not the least of which is that Malcolm is not silly enough to entertain it for longer than it takes to have a good belly laugh.

Lets just assume that Turnbull were to go for this madness the reality that he would face would be a party mired with incompetence and an unsaleable Carbon tax dog’s breakfast. The party faithful are hardly likely to warm to Turnbull and its careerists would be resentful of an outsider circumventing  their ambitions. The public are hardly likely to think that a man who has betrayed the party he has once led is worthy of their support either. More importantly Labor’s woes won’t be cured by such a strategy  and under even the best case scenario (in Labor terms) this would be a way for Labor to lose “less badly” which would hardly be an incentive for a man as politically ambitious as Turnbull. Lets hold the options in each hand and see how they balance out shall we?

In our left hand we hold the prospect of a short and ignoble period leading a doomed government which earns as much loathing from former friends and collogues as that enjoyed by Sir John Kerr, Vs the right hand  prospect of being a senior minister in a multi-term Coalition government with a (slim) chance of fulfilling his leadership ambitions at some time in the future….

So do you really  think he would choose to   dance with such an unattractive partner?

I don’t…

Cheers Comrades

Leftist hopes and memories fade on carbon tax

Just last month, Dr Jason Wilson was optimistic that Julia Gillard and Labor would eventually be able to turn things around in the polls and win the 2013 election. Asked whether he though Julia Gillard had a made a mistake in introducing the carbon tax she said she never would, his reply was quite short:

When I asked him more recently, Dr Wilson was clearly a lot less optimistic, admitting that the prospects of Gillard surviving until and winning in 2013 were ‘unlikely’:

No, he wasn’t consistent. At first, he was not describing Gillard’s chances as unlikely. A series of polls that have confirmed that most voters have made up their minds has changed his view.

In my view Dr Wilson is a perfect example of how leftists all around Australia are overcoming their denial and coming to terms with the fact that both their beloved carbon tax and Labor-Greens alliance is doomed.

The trauma that will inevitably occur when Tony Abbott eventually becomes Prime Minister will be more bearable.

Andrew Lovett found NOT guilty, his accuser still anonymous but should she now be named?

According to the law of the land now that jury has found Andrew Lovett “not guilty”  he is entitled to get on with his life as if the accusation that has put his life into a terrible tailspin for the last year and a half had never happened. But with his sporting career essentially over is that a realistic expectation?

click for source

Of course Ray is more of an expert upon sporting talent than I am but I can’t help wonder just how hard it will be for the man to get himself fit enough to play let alone trying to lose the odium of having been accused, charged and tried for rape.  Of course his accuser somehow manges to remain anonymous. Hmm does that seem just or fair to you dear readers? She has ruined a man’s life and she can now carry on with hers with out the slightest bit of public scrutiny.

Cheers Comrades

Mad Mary goes shopping …

… and ‘forgets’ to pay!

Dancin’ in the Senate.

I guess that if you’re an ex-barrister who has given up the lucrative field of the law and, instead, you have decided to make your name (and easier money) in public life by getting on the gravy train to Canberra but then, after two terms as a Senator, you’re still a nobody and have failed to grab a higher profile and higher paid position – like as a Minister or at least a Shadow Minister – then you might decide to draw a bit of public attention to yourself … just to let the-powers-that-be know that you still exist.

Like Liberal Party Senator (Mad) Mary Jo Fisher did earlier this year with her bizarre – but intriguing – Hokey Pokey & Time Warp renditions in the Senate as a parody of Julia Gillard and her Carbon Tax proposal. It was bloody hilarious stuff, although a bit, err, concerning as to the mental state of the good Senator. At least that’s how I saw it.

But now we learn that prior to that event Mary Jo was already trying to draw attention to herself in a, um, different way, but also in the public arena. At a shopping centre in Frewville, Sth Australia, of all places:

A LIBERAL politician best known for dancing the hokey-pokey in the Senate has been charged with stealing groceries and assaulting a security guard who tried to detain her.

Mary Jo Fisher, a barrister turned two-term South Australian senator, was charged with stealing and assault following the incident at Foodland supermarket in Frewville on December 15 last year.

Senator Fisher, 48, was charged on summons on May 5. If convicted, she could lose her parliamentary position.

… Police allege Senator Fisher took groceries valued at $92.92 from the supermarket without paying. A female security guard who tried to stop her leaving the suburban car park was also allegedly assaulted.

Senator Fisher is charged with one count of dishonestly taking property without the owner’s consent and one count of assault.

She is due to face a one-day trial in the Adelaide Magistrates Court on September 1. In a statement released last night, Senator Fisher said she rejected the charges ”and will vigorously defend them”.

Geebus, I did not know that Senators were paid so little that they can’t afford $90 for groceries. Poor things. Actually, I should not be making fun of Mad Mary because, as Liberal MP Andrew Robb claims, Senator Fisher is apparently suffering from depression but was, um, off her meds at the time(s) or something like that.

But even if that’s true, well … well, it’s still not good enough in my book. Anyway, I will not hang it on her any more until the case is decided in September. However, I have asked our good friend SockPuppet (you remember him, don’t you?) if he wouldn’t mind coming out of retirement for a moment and giving us his take on the Senator’s behaviour.

SP reckons that all public figures (and especially politicians) are fair game, even if they are loopy. He also reckons that, as Mary Jo likes a bit of a song and a jig, the best way to comment on her is via a tune. So he has composed this little ditty to the tune of Credence Clearwater’s Proud Mary, as a dedication to Mad Mary Jo Fisher:

Mad Mary

(Lyrics by ‘SockPuppet’ with apologies to John Fogerty)

Left a good job in the law firm,
To bludge off the people ev’ry night and day,
And I never lost one minute of sleepin’,
Worryin’ ’bout the way that I might be seen.

Hokey Pokey’s just like prancin’,
Mad Mary keeps on dancin’,
Dancin’, dancin’, dancin’ in the Senate.

Ate a lot of free food in Canberra,
Pumped a great Time Warp in front of the Greens,
Yeah I never saw the high life that I longed for,
‘Til I hitched a ride on the Liberal Party team.

Carbon Tax gonna be burnin’,
While Mad Mary keep on turnin’,
Freakin’, freakin’, freakin’ out in Canberra.

You should come down to Frewville,
Where the supermarket helps poor people live.
You don’t have to worry ’cause you have no money,
People at the Foodland are happy to give.

Check-outs keep on reelin’,
But Mad Mary keeps on stealin’,
Stealin’, stealin’, stealin’ food from Foodland.
Punchin’, punchin’, punchin’ up a female.
Freakin’, freakin’, freakin’ out in Canberra.
Dancin’, dancin’, dancin’ in the Senate.

.

As the last line of Hokey Pokey says: That’s what it’s all about.

.