iPillory

Every global village has one. Sometimes two.

Recently iPilloried:

Alfred Hrdlicka

Michael Coutts-Trotter

The Ferrett

Aliza Shvarts

Amanda Marcotte & Seal Press

Guillermo Vargas

Will It Make Media Watch?

News Limited loyalist, Bernard Slattery, has joined a certain nursery-rhyme cow, thanks to reports in The National Rupert that journalists at The Age are in open revolt against the sale of the newspaper's soul to commercial interests (reports here and here). According to Bernard:

A common but wrong accusation from lefties is that News Corp editors and journalists are commanded from the top to publish the company line. Such a claim is never directed at the luvvies’ preferred news outlets. Thus, there was a certain smugness in News offices this week when the left-preferred opposition was caught disseminating propaganda.

Bernard's first sentence is incorrect - the standard "leftie" accusation against News Limited editors and journalists is that they're a bunch of ignorant, group-thinking sheep whose faith in the company line is so deep-seated that no command from the top is needed to keep their toes where they should be.

The ructions at The Age have been caused, in part, by Fairfax's participation in the promotion of Earth Hour, and the way “Reporters were pressured not to write negative stories and story topics followed a schedule drafted by Earth Hour organisers.” Bernard looks to that other favourite news outlet of "the luvvies" and asks:

Will it make Media Watch, though?

It already has, Bernie. Us "luvvies" knew about it by Tuesday night at the latest. And The Age journalists' grievances about the treatment given to published correspondence from a certain R Walker of Melbourne didn't come as a complete surprise either.

Germs in the Soil?

(An exercise in meta-pointlessness)

For goodness sake, I was kind of hoping, with the end of Howard would be the end of the minority bash. The germs must have been left in the soil. (comment from joe2 on that thread
at LP)

It shouldn't be any surprise that the germs were left in the soil - they were already there before Howard was first elected. Howard's political success was based on cultivating them, and spreading them. It's a little disheartening to discover that they've become so widespread. That discovery has wiped away the last of the cosy post-electoral tristesse I've been feeling since the Rudd victory. In its place there's just a weary relief - things are crook in this country, but nowhere near as crook as they'd be under three more years of Howard, or one and a half years of Howard followed by another one and a half of his anointed successor, now mentoring up-and-coming Liberal talent from the Opposition backbench.

I'm not in the habit of explaining how, or why, I write posts or offering justifications for my choice of topics and the way I treat them. "Wait, I can explain" isn't a particularly inspiring personal or family motto. However today I'm at the arse-end of one unwanted stoush too bloody many, so I've decided to indulge in a little personal reflection and contemplation of how the latest happened. If that results in "fightin' words" then so be it.

You Know You're Too PC Dependent When ...

... you take a break from working on a complex tonal drawing and your first thought is that it's time to hit "File → Save".

Harry Nails It.

It being his own metatarsus:

Howard closes in on the riff-raff.

Everything that's wrong with, and wrong about, conservative commentary on this election and the conservative attitude generally in just seven words.

There's more too, but nothing that you couldn't find elsewhere, no less ill-considered, and no less shitty-livered.

Thanks for the "Cheerful Friday thought" Harry - it's brightened my day up a lot. Which it needed.

A Dried Out Leaf

Partly it's the season and partly it's the prospect that the Howard years really are ending on November the 24th that has me in a good mood today. The seasonal part is that whole

Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyn in swich licour
Of which virtu engendered is the flour;

thing. I don't think my attitude to the election needs much explanation - once again, we've been given the chance to get rid of Australia's worst Prime Minister this century - probably the worst since Federation, for the meiosis challenged - and this time it looks like the electorate is finally going to take the opportunity.

There's one other major contributor to my good mood - I've found a new skill to learn. This time it's drawing. Looking back now, I realise that I was doomed to start teaching myself - or re-teaching myself - how to draw from the very first time I used The GIMP to doctor a photograph. Another major steps along the road to this new perdition was producing that first picture of The Indefatigable Wingnut (Episode 6 currently in production).

So now, every day starts with me running up the blinds in my study/den/home office and sitting down at the desk for a drawimg warm up. Today's warm up was drawing a dried out leaf I found in the back yard - the one in the picture (my HP OfficeJet LX lost a lot of the pencilled shading, so I've colorised it to bring out some of the contrast that was lost).

Drawing the leaf was a two stage process (just in case anyone's thinking of trying it at home). The first stage was to draw the leaf with the desk set up so that I couldn't see the drawing paper (a portable file holder works quite well for this if you're using A4 paper). The second was to draw it with the paper visible, but with my attention on the leaf, not the drawing. The only times I look at the drawing are when I've lost my way a bit, and need to reposition the pencil.

One interesting side effect of this new avocation is that I'm looking at the world around me with a new set of interests. A similar thing happened in my shutterbugging days - I would spend a lot of time thinking about how ordinary everyday scenes would look through a camera viewfinder and a lot more alert to the part light and shade play in our visual perception of our everyday world.

A second interesting side effect is that when I'm writing things in my head, they're more likely to be about the imaged world - the world as depicted in photographs, drawings and paintings - and how that imaged world can be manipulated. One form of digital image manipulation I serendipitously discovered yesterday gives me the willies - it's a dangerous little genie indeed and one day I'd like to thoroughly anethematise the idiots who decided to open its bottle.

But not today. I'd rather sit and look at the original drawing behind that scan and mentally rehearse the process of converting it to a line drawing in ink. I reckon the first stage will be to copy it with a 2H pencil to reduce it to a set of pen strokes that can be produced quickly and smoothly, with neither hand tremor or smudging from supporting the pen on the paper. Then a couple of rehearsals on scrap paper before I tackle it on 110 gsm cartridge.

To finish, I'll just throw out a couple of quick remarks that would otherwise nag at me, demanding to be written about, so that I can keep my head clear for what's important to me right now.

First, at the end of the nineteenth century, the French Third Republic was riven by The Dreyfus Affair. it divided the nation into two bitterly opposed factions - Dreyfussards and anti-Dreyfussards. According to the Wikipedia article cited (which prima facie is not to be trusted):

... The right-wing Vichy Regime was composed to some extent of old anti-Dreyfusards and their descendants. The Vichy Regime would later deport Dreyfus' grand-daughter to her death at Nazi extermination camps.

Any historians out there looking for a topic for a blog post? A quick compare and contrast might while away an otherwise boring afternoon.

I'll conclude this not so quick remark by noting that since the turn of the century this government has managed to produce quite a few scandals of its own: the Tampa incident, the Habib case, the cases of Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon, the Haneef Affair and Kevin Andrew's stupid remarks on Sudanese immigrants. Any would-be Zolas out there? Hello?

That wasn't so quick, really, was it? Let's see if I can get number two out of the way with a little more dispatch.

It's pretty bloody ludicrous when a soi-dissant iconoclast derides an artist for producing works with obvious iconoclastic intent as his (said blogger's) Lameass of the Month. Still, the blog's name is apt.

Yep, that did it. Just the right balance of pith and vinegar.

Giving 'Em the Wrong End of the Stick

Nothing sets the blogosphere on fire like a good rant - like this splendid example of the genre from pommygranate.

Moved by recent events in Burnley, Lancs*, where Matthew Carter, a binman, has been forbidden to wear a St George Cross over his dreadlocks, pommygranate takes the angry stick to anyone who might approve of the ban:

I despise you for dreaming up and enforcing rules such as these. Rules that make people shake with anger and seek solace in the arms of truly unsavoury folk.

I despise you for making this man feel guilty about taking pride in his own country. (original emphasis)

The rant's being quoted, and linked, by such luminaries of the right as Bernard Slattery, who says:

This letter should be so widely read that whole floors of federal, state and local government offices are squirming with terminal embarrassment.

Rolling on the floor laughing their arses off is more likely, unless there's actually a secret Federal State or even local council Department of the Old Dart somewhere, that's actually been running the UK for years. A hidden politically correct leftist enclave of the bureaucracy, paying back the Mother Country for Gallipoli, Singapore and other assorted past wrongs, by making life for the English as silly as possible. And there's poor old Gordon Brown thinking he's running the country.

Elsewhere Harry Clarke's giving good rant on the Haneef farce:

The press and the infantile, leftwing blogosphere are having a field day making conjectures that foster views of the innocence or guilt of Mohammed Haneef...

Australia is fast becoming a nation of hysterics who rant over perceived injustices and perceived moves toward totalitarianism even when faced with a possible investigation of a threat of terrorism to our citizens. To the know-all peanuts who pursue this line: Let the AFP and the courts do their job. Have a non-adolescent level of patience and keep a sense of proportion.

Denigrating the AFP, indulging in conspiracy theories and, most importantly, trivialising the pursuit of terrorist saboteurs in Western democracies is irresponsible behaviour. (original emphasis)

Well, I have to agree with Harry on that first point - maybe we are becoming a nation of hysterics. The evidence of pommygranate's post and Harry's post certainly support that view. Read them and you might find yourself in hysterics too.

* - an English town not far from Manchester but the best part of 13,000 miles from Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra or any of Australia's provincial cities - such as Perth.

More Discredited Documentary Links than You Can Possibly Stomach

Via the Oz Politics Blog Feed, and other sources, here's a quick round up of the responses from bloggers who're having a bit of trouble with getting their heads around the idea that Martin Durkin's mockumentary The Great Global Warming Swindle was just that - a swindle:

At The Daily Telegraph, Tim Blair reminds us that it's not just cold today in Wagga-Wagga, it's been a cold month across the whole of Australia:

Not that June should be presented as evidence that global warming isn't happening, or that we're causing it. Relying on such a tiny sample would be unscientific and wrong, even if it involves an entire freakin' continent's weather patterns throughout the course of a whole month, for Christ's sake.

No such foolishness will be indulged in here.

Sadly, those who believe in global warming - and who would compel us also to believe - aren't similarly constrained...

The rest of the column, predictably, is exactly the sort of foolishness Tim says he'll avoid.

Pommygranate is incensed that the ABC put so much effort into subverting Durkin's documentary and goes the out-of-context quote to suggest that his displeasure is shared by Carl Wunsch, the scientist who accused Durkin of misrepresenting his opinion:

He was furious with the ABC's decision to run the program, saying

"Anybody who tells you they know what is going to happen 20 years from now, 100 years from now, is not a good scientist. The science can only say, at this stage, that there are certain possibilities that we are aware of."

Well, err, quite, Carl. But isn't this the precise point the program was making?

Here's what Wunsch actually said, according to the ABC:

"Anybody who tells you they know what is going to happen 20 years from now, 100 years from now, is not a good scientist," he said.

"The science can only say, at this stage, that there are certain possibilities that we are aware of."

"They are possibilities that we think society should take very seriously and try and decide how it is going to deal with them if they come out."

Mr Wunsch has also criticised media organisations including the ABC for broadcasting the documentary.

"TV companies around the world are treating it as though it were a science documentary. It's not," he said.

"It's a contentious political propaganda piece, it's not a science film at all, it's a political statement." (emphasis added)

Finally, Steven Lloyd is angry that Tony Jones dared to challenge Durkin's claim that it's the sun stupid:

Tony Jones spent a lot of time hammering the filmmaker over leaving out the last 20 years on what was otherwise a compelling graph correlating global temperatures with solar activity. The 20 years left off of the graph, diverged completely, making it look bad for the filmmaker that he left it off.

The thing is, even with the last 20 years added in, the graph was still compelling. You don’t disregard the first 80% of a graph which correlates to a high percentage, just because the last 20% didn’t. Tony Jones would have us think exactly that.

No, Kevin - in science, when you find new data that doesn't fit your theory (or in this case Dorkin's belief) you don't ignore the new data - you look for a better theory. At least that's the kind of science they were teaching when I went through secondary school and university - if there's another kind of science where you throw away awkward data, I haven't heard of it. Unless it's economics, maybe.

The solar activity theory doesn't fit the new data - it's a dead theory. It is no more. It has ceased to be.

Well, that's enough of that - I've wasted enough time on irrelevancies for today. And in the long run, the opinions of Tim Blair, PommyGranate and Steven Lloyd aren't going to have any influence. The way things are looking they'll all be voting "1 - Loser" at the coming election.

It's about time John Howard read the writing on the wall and made that visit to the Governor-General, don't you think? Sure, he'd go down in history as the Prime Minister who led the Liberal Party into oblivion but, as a Burkean Conservative, you'd expect him to look to the interests of the nation and exercise his sovereign conscience accordingly.

Update: in the most ineffectual response to date, Diogenes Lamp fisks today's Age Letters and reminds us that global warming is also currently occuring on Mars and other planets. This also gives him the opportunity for a completely gratuitous demonstration that he's not afraid to be politically incorrect.

Hiatus Time

"Swindle" - too Little, too Late?

David Tiley at Barista raises an interesting question in a post on The Great Global Warming Swindle:

I’ve been told by loyal ABC staff that “the debate is over” about Holocaust denial and no-one seriously supports it. So how do we decide when the climate debate is over? When I began to suggest that there is no trained consensus against Global Warming any more, I was told the Prime Minister didn’t believe in it.

Hmmm … that reflects his bob-each-way duplicity, in which he is dragged reluctantly to accept it but his government has actively funded anti GW programs for at least five years. He supports a Greenhouse Office, for crying out loud. (my emphasis)

One obvious thought that has a brief moment to cross your mind in the short pause between the two paragraphs is that John Howard is no climate scientist. It's unlikely that he believes that the Earth is flat, but if he did, his opinion wouldn't count for much if you were looking for a trained consensus on the shape of the Earth, its place in the solar system and all that jazz. So why should it matter to the ABC that the Prime Minister doesn't believe in global warming if his opinion is flat-out wrong?

From all the reading I've done on the subject, it appears that the debate over global warming in the scientific community is over - there's just too much evidence that global warming is happening and that the major cause is all the carbon dioxide we've put back into the atmosphere through a couple of centuries of burning fossil fuels while, at the same time, removing large parts of the ecosystem that take the stuff back out of the atmosphere. The existence of an Australian Greenhouse Office, the fact that John Howard finally shifted from "it ain't happening", via "we aren't going to stuff up the economy for a theory" to "clean coal and nuclear energy is the answer" are indications that the debate is over in politics.

The only place the debate does survive is in Newstralia, the parallel world inhabited by the punditariat of News Limited, News Limited bloggers and their fans in the blogosphere What are we hearing from that quarter?

Tim Blair is so burnt out on the subject global warming that he's writing complete nonsense, like this article in the Daily Terror (hat tip to John Surname at Grodscorp and this post, where Tim declares that he prefers the theory that global warming is caused by extra-terrestrials microwaving the Earth to anything Al Gore has to say on American politics. Does Tim actually believe that global warming is caused by a giant space alien who can balance a microwave oven on one hand and the Earth on another? Well, the theory gets us off the hook, so it must be worth taking a look at.

The prolific Andrew Bolt got a column and a later post out of the ABC's decision to screen The Great Global Warming Swindle before he got swept up by the deluge of bile that News pumped out on Therese Rein. His last post on Global Warming for the weekend was this weak effort - no new facts, no argument, just a quick snark at Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US Congress for flying to Europe to discuss, among other things, global warming.

Some debate, eh? Seems to me that it really is over and science won. It's not exactly a victory for the Left though - there are still a few Leftists around who think global warming is a vast, global conspiracy against the working class. Even Tim and Andrew will recognise that for a delusion - how can an anti-capitalist conspiracy be a conspiracy atgainst the working class at the same time.

Whoops - maybe I shouldn't have said that. The buggers might get together and come to some bi-partisan agreement on the subject. That could be a real bugger to deal with.