That’s how Robert Vienneau described me after some of my stoushes last year.
It seems as if my luck is holding in that respect at any rate. While I’ve had plenty of supportive responses after being booted from the Fin, I’m sure not everyone is sorry to see me go. Most of those in the latter class, however, haven’t seen any need to gloat.
I would have been disappointed, however, if Andrew Bolt had not lived down to his usual form on this occasion. Sure enough, as his fans have advised me both by email and in comments here, he’s written a gloating column, expressing the hope that Laura Tingle (a far better journalist than Bolt could ever be, even if he was trying) will be next to go.
Bolt can’t even manage an original line of attack, dragging out the tired misrepresentation of a 2007 blog post that the Telegraph ran last week.
The great thing about having Bolt as an enemy is that you get his fans thrown in as part of the package. There’s something comforting in knowing that, if someone dislikes you, there’s a high probability that they are the kind of person who comments on Bolt’s blog.
Of course, it isn’t much of a distinction to be one of Bolt’s enemies. With the exception of the late Paddy McGuinness (who at least had some style to combine with the vitriol) I can’t think of anyone who is less discriminating in his hatreds.
John Quiggin 
@Fran Barlow
“That’s a rather sad admission, especially in this context … oh dear … I’ll leave that point.”
I’m familiar with the concept of the ruling class but I haven’t heard a coherent argument for anything called a “boss class”, altho I believe the term was used in a couple of the socialist rags I occasionally read while I lived in Melbourne. If you really mean ruling class, why not use that term?
@Patrickb
“On good on for supporting SL, Oxford legal scholar and defender of the secondary boycott.”
You’re not the most articulate of chaps, are you. Poor sausage.
@Alan
I think you’ll find PrQ respects the intellect of Jason Soon and probably SL as well. Back in the good ol’ days, before tribalism set in, even Mark Bahnisch linked to some of Soon’s Catallaxian articles complete with favourable reviews.
ps. Obviously Bolt is vile. I didn’t think I needed to spell that out.
@Mel
Ah yes the fallacy of false equivalence. You did not, in the post I referenced, speak of respecting their intellects which anyone with half a brain would do. Your words were:
The leftofcentreonmostissues flag is a sad and faded pink indeed if your blogosphere influences come mainly, ‘far more than all but a tiny handful’, from the right.
The reason I brought J.S. Mill up, in the context of Bolt, is that Bolt is deeply embedded in what Mill took for society; Mill’s driving ambition for “On Liberty” was to de-barb the tyranny of society. But just how would that work, when characters like Bolt are in fact the defining face of that society which threatens the liberty of the individual? Provisioning the liberty of individuals such as Bolt, is to provide society with the power to reign as tyrant over the individual. What a conundrum! One could say that Bolt is the prick that deflates Mill’s conception of liberty of the individual.
@Tom
Great to discover so many gullible still exist!! This caters for the consumerism that our current government depends on just as much as the capitalist system they pretend to dislike – because thet know very well that your type respond so readily to scapegoating
@Mel I’m-left-of-centre-on-most-issues said:
I doubt anyone who was left-of-centre-on-most-issues would call something “a socialist rag they occasionally read” but anyhoo …
I used to use the term “ruling class” but on reflection it seemed to me that the word “ruling” attributed rather too much coherence and solidarity to the group. They are of course united in a broad sense, but they are also rivals and at times sharply at odds with each other. Even within a given jurisdiction, they aren’t persistently on the same page. That’s why there are at least two major parties in most advanced industrial societies who periodically tussle over public policy through their political proxies.
It’s also clearly the case that some of their agents are not capitalists in their own right but mere fellow travellers acting at their behest.
Regardless of whether their faction or coalition is making policy (i.e. ‘ruling’) they are all bosses however.
@maurie
It will be helpful if you point me out in what way I’m gullible. If you did read hc’s point, I’m agreeing with what he said about people with difference in perspectives should not demonise the opposite side (although I must admit, my comment might look a bit confusing, and I might have misrepresented myself). It’s only natural to dislike a journalist whom holds such a strong biased viewpoint, present biased and poor standard quality of evidence, and do not attempt to engage in debates fairly (e.g. the debate about stolen generation of Bolt with Robert Manne) when you’re someone tried to evaluate issues fairly. In this aspect I give my respect to Professor Quiggin, although he admits he holds a biased viewpoint, he does back his statement with evidence and sometimes the critism behind the evidence and the contrary argument. Even as such I do not always agree with Professor Quiggin’s stance on some issues e.g. Coal Seam Gas.
@Tom
I’m also a bit puzzled at what Maurie is on about. Clarification would be nice.
@Mel
Fran Barlow is correct pointing out that there are a lot of factors that should be considered when one evaluates the popularity of different side of politics. Just one of the factors, have you ever seen a center left newspaper, television news, broadcast radio etc nowdays?
With intellectuals from both sides, no one comment yet in this thread has said Andrew Bolt is stupid or dumb. You’ll have supreme intellectuals from both side and as pointed out in your comment, there are blind followers and there are those whom do not know much about the opposite side in the right and the left. But when one engage in unfair debates or journalism it does not immediately mean that he/she is stupid. In fact, the way that Andrew Bolt is about to attract so much readership is already some kind of indication that he knows how to persuade others; which maybe through the use of styles of language, the use of biased evidence and attempts to engage in unfair debates.
Also, a person can be a supreme intellectual but refuse to accept evidence. You can’t look past the the Christian’s viewpoint at theory of evolution, e.g. a proposed law allowing the teaching of creationism in schools is already passed the state’s legislature and the Governor has until next Tuesday to veto it. That is the SECOND state after Louisana to allow creationism in the classroom.
My reflection after that tussle with Mel over Iraq is that (s)he is not particularly left-of-centre at all but certainly willing on that occasion to not just swallow but ardently defend the neoliberal PR.
To see off further aspersions, here’s John Ralston Saul: ‘The US-Iraq war a few years ago was all about trade and oil.’
Just to clarify, the last paragraph of my #6 comment is about the Tennessee in the US.
@Fran Barlow
Do you feel more smug and righteous attacking Andrew Bolt by deliberately misrepresenting his surname? How childish !
All these denigratory comments miss the point that Andrew Bolt has many many long term readers, all of whom you self satisfied commenters here are branding by association with relish out of YOUR prejudices!
Are you jealous of his success or angry at his reach?
@Jazza
Jealous, no. It’s a Faustian pact and I don’t know how the man sleeps at night.
Angry? Somewhat. He’s certainly bad for the quality of public debate in this country. Bad for progressives, and bad for conservatives.
@Jazza
I think we are angry at his reach, given his history of misrepresenting and distorting the evidence to his readers. We can get into his examples of his history of mis-reporting if you wish. We are not branding anyone by association. If you read a columnist expecting him to write in good faith I can understand that you are persuaded by his stuff and angry when his good faith is questioned. However, anger is not an argument.
I don’t think it would be all that long a debate to establish that Bolt frequently misleads his readers.
@Jazza
Both Hitler and Stalin had many devoted and passionate supporters too. Having a strong and passionate supporter base doesn’t by itself distinguish that person as being righteous or credible or objective with their opinions.
@Jazza
Blot persistently encourages his flying monkeys to defame others by misrepresenting their surnames. The Golden Rule applies. I assume that this is how he would have others deal with him. I am doing no more than he invites. That the term “blot” is an apt descriptor of his contribution is happy coincidence.
are subject to the Golden Rule. They are proud of their misanthropy, their angst, their ignorance and hatred for those of us who side with humanity’s interests. They defame as part of their war on reason and equity and therefore waive all claims to respect.
Not at all. I understand that this is the way of the world. There is much that is repulsive and antithetic to human wellbeing, but I grasp how it has come to be. Blot is simply another manifestation of humanity’s unfinished business — a festering carbuncle* on the backside of humanity as the famous comedian Rowan Atkinson had it. As unsightly as he is, humanity must deal with the underlying pathology if it is to see the last such ugly excresence.
* Sidebar: the etymology of this epithet {“little coal”} is especially apt in Blot’s case
@Tom
Syntax note:
Whom is the accusative or dative case pronoun. In the following fragment:
there are those whom do not know much the nominative case pronoun {who} is required as they are the subjects of the verb to know.
Fran Barlow
“I doubt anyone who was left-of-centre-on-most-issues would call something “a socialist rag they occasionally read” but anyhoo …”
What an odd comment. Very few left of centre persons in this day and age subscribe to the philosophy of any of the tiny Marxist sects that are currently extant or define themselves as socialist. How many ALP or Green parliamentarians call themselves socialist? Having said that, I find some Marxian (not Marxist) analysis interesting, for example the Marshall-Crosland thesis.
Is the ALP a left of centre party or are they agents of the “boss class” according to your philosophy?
@Alan:
Characters like Soon and SL are right libertarians and side with the broader left on issues like gay marriage. On the other hand, some conservative Catholic elements in the ALP cross the floor and vote with the conservatives on gay marriage and similar issues.
What pisses me off about right-libertarians is that most of them attach more importance to the low tax and property rights aspect of libertarianism than they do to civil liberty issues and hence they think nothing of hopping into bed with the conservatives.
@Dan
I agreed with Hitchens. Sue me.
oops delete prior PrQ. I forgot about multiple links.
@Jazza
Blot persistently encourages his flying monkeys to defame others by misrepresenting their surnames. The Golden Rule applies. I assume that this is how he would have others deal with him. I am doing no more than he invites. That the term “blot” is an apt descriptor of his contribution is happy coincidence.
are subject to the Golden Rule. They are proud of their misanthropy, their angst, their ignorance and hatred for those of us who side with humanity’s interests. They defame as part of their war on reason and equity and therefore waive all claims to respect.
Are you jealous of his success or angry at his reach?
Not at all. I understand that this is the way of the world. There is much that is repulsive and antithetic to human wellbeing, but I grasp how it has come to be. Blot is simply another manifestation of humanity’s unfinished business — a festering carbuncle* on the backside of humanity as the famous comedian Rowan Atkinson had it. As unsightly as he is, humanity must deal with the underlying pathology if it is to see the last such ugly excresence.
* Sidebar: the etymology of this epithet {“little coal”} is especially apt in Blot’s case
@Tom
Syntax note:
Whom is the accusative or dative case pronoun. In the following fragment:
there are those whom do not know much the nominative case pronoun {who} is required as they are the subjects of the verb to know.
@Mel
Agreed? Or agree?
I disagreed and disagree.
@Mel I’m-left-of-centre-on-most-issues said:
That’s beside the point. Left-of-centre folk are generally respectful of ‘socialism’ as an ideal. Calling something ‘a rag’ because it has a socialist character is something that those marking themselves out as on the right tend to do. I did suspect your left-of-centre-on-most-issues claim was code for being a catallaxy type wanting to preserve the right to hector a left-of-centre audience about their mores. That’s usually how it works when people say that.
“albeit with a perspective since that time that has historically been more focused on local manufacturing and the non-tradeables than the LNP”
*MAYBE* up until the early 80s. Since then, it was the ALP that took a dagger to local manufacturing and the LNP were just content to keep the (on life support) status quo. Unless I’ve misunderstood.
@Troy Prideaux
That’s true. The change in perspective reflected both an underlying structural change — the growing strength of manufacturing in South East Asia in particular — and a political change — the decomposition of the ALP’s political base in industrial unions as local manufacturing began to fragment. During the 1980s the ALP made itself the agent of the financial sector, and hoped that a combination of nostalgia within the base, perceptions within the boss class that they were the best agency for the rule of finance capital, a perspective of open markets within the region, and the recruitment of tertiary-educated professionals would offer up a coherent boss-class coalition.
The policy perforce has a limited life. Once the ALP had delivered all that was wanted, the boss class started walking away from it — and one can see that in the 1989 NSW result and the 1990 Federal election result where the ALP did everything but lose. Had there not been significant misgivings within the class over consumption taxes (and also amongst plebeians on the urban fringe and in rural areas), they would certainly have lost in 1993. Having committed to neoliberal policy, having turned on their support base they were stuck with their course and were soundly beaten in 1996. Howard, in that election, challenged Keating in exactly the way Rudd later challenged Howard — as a better manager of the rule of financial and resource capital.
Bolt and all his imperialist supporters of endless growth capitalism destroying the environment for “wealth” will very soon be proven wrong. Unfortunately, it will be a phyrric victory for those of us who are intelligent, humane and empirically realistic.
Cant spell! 🙂 It’s “pyrrhic”.
If all opinions are, per se, valid and entitled to consideration prior to acceptance or dismissal on relevance, how is it that mass-circulation msm only runs rightist claptrap?
If msm is a market place for a free exchange of ideas, why does the mass circulation press overwhelming run rightists and not very good ones either?
If Bolt, Milne, Devine and the rest are given bully pulpits from which to harangue the world, where is the column space offered for far better informed people people like Fran Barlow, or dare I say it, Prof John Quiggin, dismissed apparently for not being willing to lie about privatisation.
The last couple of people boned from mass circulation press have been moderates like John Quiggin and Jill Singer- you’d have thunk for even a modicum of “balance”, they would have kept the moderates and slung some of the cranks?
I’d have to say, I get more sense from the people on the street contributing in a single thread here, than an Encyclopaedia sized compilation drawn from Bolt, Albrechtsen, Henderson and the ilk, over decades.
@ Fran Barlow:
“That’s beside the point. Left-of-centre folk are generally respectful of ‘socialism’ as an ideal. Calling something ‘a rag’ because it has a socialist character is something that those marking themselves out as on the right tend to do. ”
My wife escaped from a communist country and I’ve seen the torture marks on her uncle. But I must admit that even before we met, I never had any time for the useful idiots who belonged to socialist movements. I’m a social democrat, not a totalitarian. I was reading George Orwell when you were running around handing out pamphlets for the Spartacists.
“I did suspect your left-of-centre-on-most-issues claim was code for being a catallaxy type wanting to preserve the right to hector a left-of-centre audience about their mores. That’s usually how it works when people say that.”
Lol. You must be paranoid. I was at one stage an active Greens member, as most bloggers/commenters from the early days (2005/20006) are aware. I left because, among other things, I wasn’t prepared to be in an organisation that had an old pro-Soviet clinch-pig like Lee Rhiannon as a member. I’ve also avoided Catallaxy since Soon left as I find absolutely nothing of value in its current guise as a stalking horse for the IPA.
ps. Spartz Meanz Fartz. It did back then and it still does today 😉
What you get in the news media very much reflects the preferences of suppliers.
As you may have noticed. News media moguls are a disreputable lot. Maxwell, Black, Packer, Hearst, Murdoch. …
Part of owning news media is to obtain benefits from the politicians of the day. That is why billionaires suddenly become inspired to buy media or to bolt on the Bolts of this world.
As Im am clearly a stupid man, please provide me with the science, or proof, that Human made CO2 has caused the climate to change. I havent been able to find this proof anywhere. I have seen a lot of maybe, possible and coulds, but still no fact. We know the computor models were all wrong, as common sense would expect as computors dont give you new information, so if the calculations are wrong, so are the computor predictions. We humans now know as fact that the feedback is not happening as it was thought it should, so again no proof of Human caused climate change.
I am not a sceptic, just looking for proof.
@Joe
You are quite right! No proof whatsoever! You can go to your grave confident in that one.
I just want proof! That’s what I told them when they said there was no Santa. Until you prove that I’m going to good right on believinh. And I still do; showed them!
@Freelander
My (could be naive) impression of Packer is that he was good man all said and done. Tough, uncompromisingly ruthless business man, but proudly Aussie, did his bit for charity, held reasonable ethical standards and was an economic irrationalist. Media was a passion for him. I certainly wouldn’t tar him with the same brush as Maxwell or Black.
@Joe
You clearly haven’t made the slightest effort to understand the issue at all. Trying reading some of the scientific publications on the subject. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (google it) is a good place to start. There is a section of the report entitled “The Physical Science Basis”. Start with that.
BTW, I’m going out on a limb taking your comment seriously, as in my experience most climate change ‘skeptics’ are disingenuous and immune to rational discussion. But I’m taking a punt that your ignorance is genuine and your claim to want to learn more is made in good faith.
@Freelander
So rather than provide some proof, you just mock me?
I would expect that answer from a church, those who follow faith, but those talking science should be more than happy to discuss things and provide proof.
Your example also seems weird. Where is your proof that there was a Santa in the first place.
@Troy Prideaux
Packer :
Didn’t pay tax; interfered in elections.
That there were bounds on his malevolence makes him look positively saintly beside some others one might be wary of naming.
@Joe
You’Re denying three existence of Santa!!?
Say it isn’t so, Joe?!!
@Tim Macknay
Thanks Tim. and I made my post in good faith.
I am concerned that the IPCC is a group of very young, un-elected people. Have you had those concerns too?
I read that there has been zero warming in 12 to 15 years, who do I beleive?
I have read, and seen, no change to the rate of sea level rise. again, who do I beleive?
Living in, and loving Australia, I have seen no change to our weather yet? when will it change, as all the computor models are unable to tell me?
If there was just one place to get facts it would make the process easier, I think some of the things I read are written by those who either believe or dont believe in this climate change, so its hard to take anything on face value.
And then there is this Agenda 21 issue? Thats just scary.
@Mel
Well that didn’t take long did it Alan? Mel went from left-of-centre to angts-ridden redbaiter in a very short space of time. FTR Mel, Orwell finished his life acting as a redbaiter. I did however read his writing in high school well before joining any organisation.
I’m not sure what a “clinch pig” is but I’m sure you did the right thing. I’m glad you’ve left. We are better off without your kind in our ranks. Don’t come back. Warn others who share your attitude not to join. You can still be useful.
@Joe
Taking you at your word I see no value in such an exercise. The science and proof requires a modicum of intelligence and the willingness to reflect on often quite abstruse ideas. On your admission, this is well outside your skillset.
A word of advice. While your candour is noted with approval, it’s generally better not to advertise your cognitive deficits. We are pretty tolerant here, but out there in the real world there exist large numbers of people who are intolerant of the stupid, or even worse, inclined to make them the butt of unkind pranks or exploitation. As a humanist, I feel obligated to warn you about that.
You should stay away from those denier websites. Repeating their tosh can give the game away.
Oh that’s obvious. Skeptics understand what they are skeptical of, what they’d need to be convinced and where they might find it. You by your own admission are a “clearly stupid man” who quite reasonably one supposes, hasn’t bothered to read the basic material on this, and so can’t possibly be a skeptic.
What you are is utterly ignorant and proud of it. There’s another term for that, but I’ll let you work out what it is.
@Fran Barlow
Thanks for your reply Fran.
This is what I have found when asking the same question of others, rather than provide me with any form of fact, it’s just the eye rolling and laughter.
Feels like more of a climate change club than a movement based on science.
Hopefully someone else can help.
@Joe
Joe you should learn about the difficult concept of ‘fact’ and the related concept of ‘nonsense’. That might be your first on the path to enlightenment.
Now ” the IPCC is a group of very young, un-elected people” is not what we call a ‘fact’.
If you like saying silly things feel free to come here and be mocked anytime.
@Freelander
Thanks Freeloader.
So they are not young, all over 35 with life experiance?
Who elected them?
Thanks to reader Tim who tried to provide info, no thanks goes to Fran and Freeloader who were just rude. This blog thing feels like an old boys club.
@Joe
What rate of sea level rise have you seen, Joe?
How does the present rate of sea level rise compare with that of the last century?
Xmas tides (king) are always a good indicator.
@Joe
Now I think you might find it helpful if you get yourself something we call a dictionary. You can use the dictionary to find out the meanings of the words you use. Start by looking up ‘elected’.
Young is another word you should check out.
It does not mean any group of people who are not “all over 35 with life experience”.
Sorry. You are a bumpkin and I tire of educating you. I also see little prospect for success.
Joe on the search for the real ‘truth’ about climate change. Kinda reminds me of OJ’s search for the ‘real’ murderer!
What’s the collective noun for Bolties?
Ppl please don’t give the person joe what he wants which is attention, pure and simple. He’ll post the same old denialist drivel for weeks and wet himself at his keyboard over his triumph in making people look things up.
@ Fran:
“I’m not sure what a “clinch pig” is but I’m sure you did the right thing. I’m glad you’ve left. We are better off without your kind in our ranks. Don’t come back. Warn others who share your attitude not to join. You can still be useful.”
Lol. The Victorian Branch of the Greens very sensibly expelled a red clique that joined the party in the late 1990s. One hopes NSW will eventually come to its senses and do the same to the Rhiannon reds. Then I might rejoin. I think we can also infer from this that you are an entrist 😉
Say you didn’t go, Joe!
@Alan
I think it’s “a bin”.
@Joe
Hi Joe. I’m not sure where you got the idea that the IPCC is a group of very young people – its assessment reports are written and reviewed by a large number of leading scientific researchers.
I am not at all concerned that it is an unelected group. It is a group designed to provide technical expertise on a particular subject, and as such it is appropriate that it be staffed by suitably qualified experts, like other expert advisory bodies. Democratically elected bodies serve an entirely different purpose. The lists of the IPCC authors are available on its web site, and you can follow up their credentials easilty enough if you choose to.
All such bodies can be, and sometimes are, accused of bias of various kinds. The only way to form an independent view of such accusations is to familiarise yourself with the work of such bodies, and compare the work with the accusations of their critics.
No doubt you have read much criticism of the IPCC organisation, and its report. The only way to form your own view of the information contained in the IPCC Report, and the organisation itself, is to read the report, look at its references, and form your own view on whether the information contained in it is robust.
I don’t know if it will change your opinion or not. All I can say is that, since you have said you are genuine in your quest for information on this subject, you should read the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, regardless of your misgivings about the IPCC itself. After you have read it, you will be better informed about the issue of climate change, whether you change your opinion or not.
There is another useful thing you can do if you read the report – back in 2009 several errors were identified in the report by various critics, and were reported somewhat breathlessly in the media as if they had destroyed its credibility. If you read the report, you can locate the errors, see where they fit in the report as a whole, and form your own view on whether they have any effect on its credibility.
@Joe
While I am sure they are, in general and in terms of the median, over 35, who gives a toss? Surely a better metric is whether they do robust work or not. But perhaps you are unable to make an assessment on this.
Mmm, report written by aged wise ones. Me no understand, but me convinced.
Joe seems rather confused.
The IPCC is made up of a tiny group of people (permanent staff is around a dozen IIRC). On the other hand there are hundreds of scientists who are involved in reviewing the science writing the reports.
And their age? WTF!?
How old was Einstein when he came up with relativity? Let’s reject it on the basis of his lack of ‘life experience’.
Bonkers.