Home > Regular Features > Weekend reflections

Weekend reflections

September 10th, 2005

Weekend Reflections is on again. Please comment on any topic of interest (civilised discussion and no coarse language, please). Feel free to put in contributions more lengthy than for the Monday Message Board or standard commnets.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. September 10th, 2005 at 10:48 | #1

    Senator Joyce is “consuting” with his Nationals council this weekend. I think it’s very strange that such a little council has so much sway over a Senator. I bet they are rubbing their hands with glee at their fortune: “A vote in federal parliament for us!”. Giving the national stage to agrarian socialists is problematic, methinks.

  2. joe2
    September 10th, 2005 at 11:53 | #2

    Have been listening to Radio Nationals “Music Show”,this morning and repeated tonight at 10.00. A special tribute to New Orleans music. Many of the artists interviewed ,when Andrew Ford visited 4 years ago, have lost houses and an amazing ‘gumbo’ of community.

    Professor Longhair is featured, giving the show strong academic cred. Well worth a listen if folks are interested in another aspect of this tragedy.

  3. September 10th, 2005 at 12:52 | #3

    James H: Agrarian socialists are at least an asset to the nation. Unlike most socialists, agrarian socialsts actually do some WORK, & productive work at that.

  4. September 10th, 2005 at 14:38 | #4

    For those following the ongoing attempts by Jewish Federal MP Michael Danby to censor my forthcoming book on Israel/Palestine, read on. Also, I’m now receiving abusive calls from Jewish “comedian” Austen Tayshus. Truly.

    http://antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com/2005/09/truth-is-out.html

  5. joe2
    September 10th, 2005 at 16:18 | #5

    James H,can you enlighten me as to the position of the newly elected Family First member on the sale of Telstra? Presumably he would be needed to block the bill.

  6. joe2
    September 10th, 2005 at 18:26 | #6

    Antony, I have much sympathy with your position and the possible ban of your book. Sadly, I have found it ,almost impossible to post a comment on your site. Understand that you are under siege, but ………….

  7. Ian Gould
    September 10th, 2005 at 20:29 | #7

    “Austen” is one of the most painfully unfunny individuals ever to have made a living from comdey – if that’s the general calibre of the people who are criticising you I wouldn’t be overly worried.

  8. September 10th, 2005 at 23:20 | #8

    joe2, to be honest, I’m not sure whether Fielding or FFP have made a final decision about Telstra. I know that he/they (FFP) had doubts about the sale of Telstra, but to my knowledge has not yet made a decision. He/they better make one fast!

    I have the feeling that they’ll vote “no” purely because it’s come through too fast without enough time to analyse the details. That is, of course, unless Senator Joyce votes “no” and the Coalition have to do some serious courting. Because he is their only hope! Lucky for his sake that he has an MBA, they can’t skirt around business details.

  9. Steve
    September 10th, 2005 at 23:23 | #9

    Joe 2 I am astounded that you would even question the way that Family First would vote in the Telstra debate. No man can serve two masters and they will vote for Mammon and the chance to be head-patted by their conservative masters. This will be done quietly so as not to frighten the sheep.

    There will be no pressure from the flock when their leaders meekly follow Howard into the most anti – family deal of the decade. After all, blind obedience to the law is one of their traits no matter how offensive the proposed law might happen to be.

    If Jesus Christ came back tomorrow he would lead the charge into Family First to turn their tables over and he’d have a good long whip in his right hand.

  10. observa
    September 11th, 2005 at 02:04 | #10

    Streuth! It’s that time of year when a bloke’s fancy suddenly turns to cricket and he finds that’s washed out too. Could be worse I suppose. Could be Dean Laidley wondering if the Crows really are 28 goals better than his precious shinboners.

  11. dave
    September 11th, 2005 at 03:12 | #11

    Still a couple of weeks to go in the footy, Observa!

  12. observa
    September 11th, 2005 at 10:10 | #12

    I have a strong feeling that unless there’s a bird flu or terrorist attack down at West Lakes now dave, 3 state’s fans are gunna be disappointed like the O was last night, over the next fortnight. We were virtually playing knockout finals for 4 weeks leading up to last night when this season’s performance chickens finally came home to roost. After the emphatic win over the Kangas last week we Port fans were dreaming the dream of last year briefly. Truth is, the Crows loss to the Saints was a hiccup after 10 or 11 straight wins and probably wouldn’t have happened if their all Australian captain wasn’t a spectator that night. The Crows have been men on a mission all year, a bit like Port last year. They’ve got the best defence in the comp and when their very competent midfield got on top last night, the second half became a training drill. That’s typical in highly skilled AFL nowadays. Fun watching it when you’re team’s midfield’s on top and playing keepy off, but boring for the rest of the viewers.

    We’ve played 2 weeks of finals now and in typical fashion we’re back to the starting top 4 teams(4 states represented and 3 different finalists from last year which is a credit to the AFL’s designers) playing their crossover finals next week, to determine which of the season’s top 4 finishers, are worthy of the ultimate test this year. I said last week, that with little finals experience(Saints?), I have a hunch the rest week won’t be that much of a benefit this year and expect the ultimate premier to play through. If the week-offers have slow, nervous starts in their prelims, they may never recover against their match hardened opponents. If that comes to pass then it’s a likely Crows/Swans GF. Also, the Crows as minor premiers, now know that they comprehensively beat last years experienced premiers who were looming dangerously. That must give them tremendous belief to go with their season’s achievement. IMO they are now raging favourites for the flag. The head says Crows, but for this Port supporter it’s now a case of- Go Swannies!

  13. observa
    September 11th, 2005 at 10:16 | #13

    I’d also add that if the Crows make the GF, they, unlike the other protagonists have experienced GF players like Risciutto, Mcleod, Hart, Goodwin and Edwards to explain to the new chums what to expect. That will be invaluable.

  14. September 11th, 2005 at 11:41 | #14

    Joe2, you can’t comment on my site? Why so? Because you have to be a registered user? It takes a few seconds and is an attempt to reduce spam and anonymous abusive comments.
    Come back!

  15. September 11th, 2005 at 19:09 | #15

    Have tried, yet again, Antony.
    Suspect, this one will get through to J.Q.

    It maybe, that we have a computer prob.

    Or probs with “word verification” that seems to have been made by very nasty individuals who enjoy others pain. A word for it in german ,but cannot spell it,without looking up dictionary.

    It is possible that some some sites are missing out on positive feedback, by worrying too much about the creeps.

  16. Andrew C
    September 11th, 2005 at 22:30 | #16

    On the topic of Sept 11.

    News Lts papers reported on Sept 2 and Sept 3 about a “scary� muslim conference planned for Sept 11.

    On Sept 3 the journalist Nick Butterly told us:

    � MUSLIMS not invited to a prime ministerial terrorism summit last month will hold their own gathering – on September 11.

    Prime Minister John Howard’s office yesterday described the timing as “unfortunateâ€?.”

    And Mr Butterly also reported that Kim Beazley thought the seminar date was � confronting� and � unwise�.

    http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16472947%255E953,00.html

    Oops – maybe someone forgot to warn the US embassy about this seminar which was held today at Sydney Uni’s Seymour Centre.

    One of the first speakers was a guy called Michael Belgrade – from the US embassy’s Sydney consulate. He is some type of political and economic attache.

    More interesting was that Mr Belgrade it seems is a modern Orthodox Jew speaking at this Muslim seminar with his black kippa firmly on top of his head.

    I asked him afterwards about these reported Oz concerns. He certainly didn’t think there was anything to be concernd about this seminar organised in the main by the Turkish Muslim community.

    Certainly he made it clear that he didn’s see Muslims as one big monolith – but as a range of different communities, with different traditions and values.

    In my humble opinion the worst speaker there was Keysar Trad – the sometime mate of the controversial Imam of the Lakemba Mosque.

    But then Kayser Trad is also quoted in the News Ltd papers as saying the September 11 seminar was “quite corny and in bad taste�.

    Oh and none of the extremist muslim groups – such as Wassim Doureihi, head of controversial Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir – which News Ltd warned would attend actually turned up.

    See this slightly different News Ltd story on the same topic:

    http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16472926%255E421,00.html

    The truth is the guy from the US consulate was spot on.

    This wasn’t actually a meeting of � a range of Australian Islamic community and ethnic groups� as reported by News Ltd.

    It was a meeting – largely – of one specific community which is just one part of the variegated and different communities within Islamic Australia.

  17. Terje Petersen
    September 11th, 2005 at 23:32 | #17

    It is not nice to kill or to lie.

    If I murder Joe Blogs then the law demands that I be regarded as innocent of murder until it is proven that I have murdered Joe Blogs.

    If I say publicly that Joe Blogs likes to look at young boys naked then the law demands that I am guilty of defamation until it is proven that I have not lied.

    In the first case my guilt must be proven. In the second case my innocents must be proven.

    Why is it that somebody that attacks a person physically is given greater legal protection than somebody that attacks a persons character?

    Regards,
    Terje.

    P.S. All characters in this article are fictional. Any resemblance to any person living or dead is purely coincidental.

  18. Andrew Reynolds
    September 11th, 2005 at 23:49 | #18

    TP,
    In the second case, as it would be a civil matter, the proof would not be that of innocence, as that is a criminal law concept, but ‘on the balance of probability’, which is the civil standard of proof.
    Essentially, your accusation stands until proven incorrect on that balance of probability – Joe Blogs has to accuse you of lying by bringing action against you. As it is then simply of one of you saying one thing and the other saying the opposite it is felt that the balance of probability is the correct test.
    Of course, if what you had done amounted to criminal defamation then the criminal standard of proof applies and you would be considered innocent until proven guilty. This is, thankfully, quite rare these days and would have to be more than an allegation of liking to look at naked young boys – not a crime under many circumstances. The allegation would have to be of pederasty or something of this order – and probably widely published.

  19. abb1
    September 11th, 2005 at 23:50 | #19

    It’s the same thing: if you publically kill Joe Blogs, then you’ll have to prove that it was an accident or that you were temporarily insane or something. And if you secretly spread rumors about Joe Blogs, then you’ll be regarded as innocent of defamation until proven guilty. Same thing.

Comments are closed.