87 thoughts on “Monday Message Board

  1. Here are some interesting recent articles on the Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/israelpalestine-one-state_b_2568422.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ziad-j-asali-md/one-state-solution-israel_b_1638550.html

    http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/115269/peter-hains-one-state-solution-a-sobering-vision

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carlo-strenger/requiem-to-the-two-state-_b_1851731.html

    My own view is that I continue to think a two-state solution should be striven for, not because I am currently optimistic about its prospects nor because I’m unaware of the imperfections of such a solution, but because I believe – as I have done since 1983 – that in practice the alternative to a two-state solution will not be a good one-state solution but a situation in which, as the last linked article suggests, millions of Israeli Jews and Palestinians alike become so many numbered balls tossed around in the Lotto barrel of history, with as much hope as in ordinary Lotto of sharing the Division One prize.

  2. Wendy Harmer made a good (obvious) point on QandA – The Commission of Audit is deciding what kind of country Australia will be but the only ones with input are bean counters .Whats worse is that these bean counters are not somehow ideologically neutral as they would have us believe. It was good to see Billy Bragg say he is a Socialist ,odd to hear that said in public now that any kind of Socialism is so widely seen as tyranny .

    Looks like Alex Downer and the Howard admin and our spooks are finally going to be exposed over the Timor gap theft. Like everything else, it wont matter much as conservatives still have the balance of power to determine public opinion via old media . I feel we may have to wait for them to die off and for one more generation of young to come before real change happens -(providing nothing goes too badly wrong with the real world before then). Young people feel so ripped off .

  3. I am amazed that Malaysian Flight MH370 could disappear without a trace (so far) given modern technology. Twenty or even maybe ten years ago I could have accepted this as a fair possibility, but not now. Given all the technologies available and the clear knowledge that flight crew, either voluntarily or under duress, could turn off tracking technology, then further technology and protocols should have been in place.

    In particular, airliners should have a stand-alone, non-stop, auxillary tracking beacon which cannot be turned off or jettisoned by flight crew. This would be in a part of the aircraft inaccesible to all on board during flight. (IE only accessible to accredited ground crew.) A further protocol could be in place (codes from ground control) to turn this off only in extreme circumtances e.g. having strayed into the restricted airspace of an inimical state.

  4. After the ABC had issued an apology to Andrew Bolt, John Quiggin on Facebook asked the following question:-

    “Anyone want to defend free speech from Andrew Bolt? He can dish it out, but not take it, so it seems.”

    My response on Facebook was as follows:-

    “Some context. On 2GB after the Q&A saga a number of people called in to Andrew Bolt on the Steve Price show to support Bolt and recommend that he sue the ABC. He insisted, publicly on air, that he had no intention of taking legal action against the ABC. What he did do was ask Marcia Langton on to a subsequent 2GB show with him and Steve where they discussed what she said on Q&A, squabbled a lot, but reached some level of concensus that she had gone beyond what was reasonable and accurate in some of her remarks. He then wrote to the ABC pointing out that during the Q&A show Tony Jones had refered to Langtons remarks, now withdrawn, as “facts”. The ABC chose to apologise for the broadcast but not for that assertion of fact. Given that context I think he could still sue the ABC but I don’t personally support defamation law and Andrew Bolt said publicly, even before the apology, that he is not going to sue the ABC over this. Now what was the question about free speech? Because it seems to me that whilst this altercation has been robust it has been conducted consistent with principles of free speech. Squabbling included.”

  5. p.s. Chris Kenny did decide to sue the ABC over their graphic depicting him having sex with a dog. Andrew Bolt has been very critical of the ABC for producing and broadcasting that offensive graphic and for not apologising to Chris Kenny. But Andrew Bolt has also said on 2GB that in spite of these sympathies he thought Kenny should not have resorted to legal action even though he has an extremely strong case.

    p.p.s. Free speech does not mean the ABC should be free to ignore its charter.

  6. Citation. To hear Bolt say he isn’t going to sue the ABC listen from the 19 minute mark on this broadcast from the evening of Tuesday 11th March 2014.

    [audio src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/webstore.2gb.com/audio/nights-with-steve-price/201403/11-steve-price-and-andrew-bolt-11th.mp3" /]

  7. Brisbane and Qld locals will be astonished to learn that the previously not-bad brisbanetimes.com.au has definitely waterskied over the shark-pool with the arrival of Murdoch’s Madonna King to shower Rupert’s worldview upon people who obviously don’t want to be so showered.

    Maybe the Rachel Nolan (ALP) union-bashing column last week was to soften us up?

    When Fairfax started that site about 9 years ago they flooded Brisbane with street advertising. The slogan was something like “think” and at the launch Beattie said it was great to be bringing an end to Murdoch’s mono-media stranglehold on Qld.

    Brisbane Times has become a joke and is now just like the ABC, an arm of News Ltd funded by other people.

  8. @Ikonoclast

    It seems strange that no mobile phone calls were made from MH370. There were calls from the 9/11 planes. If anyone on the flight realised something was wrong, they might have turned their phone on. I was under the impression that if a phone is on it will attempt to contact the nearest tower, whether its making a call or not. I imagine these contacts are logged, and could provide information on the location of the plane.

    Of course, I’m just surmising. Anyone with any actual mobile phone expertise out there?

  9. I love the internet!

    The unattributed PR puff-piece on brisbanetimes.com.au excitedly announcing the arrival of Rupert’s Madonna King has 42 comments at present – 4 of which could be taken as supportive of this appointment.

    The PR piece crows about how “adored” she is and what a great addition she is to the team (Jessica Rudd, Bill O’Chee [protect], Christine Jackman etc..) tellifying things to the BT ‘audience’.

  10. I’m curious at Paul Norton’s motives for raising Israel/ Palestine.
    What’s to report, when nothing has changed.

    Unless THAT’S the report.

    Not that I’m upset, the articles were worth a check and god knows this is one of dozens of issues current MSM refuses to cover very much and then not especially accurately.

    I remain offended that people buy the line that the Palestinians should have to pay for the West’s guilt over WW2 and the previous Euro pogroms. The West was happy to see Hitler in power; it was complicit therefore in what happened during that war.

    It was the West that needed to make amends, most of all the big bankers, industrialists and politicians that created the condition s for depression and then global war. Yet costs were dumped onto the Palestinians and since that occurred we have exclusively witnessed insult added to injury for this unfortunate People.

    But yes, I also thought a two state solution would have been the next best thing but who sabotaged this, from a position of strength?

    As we villify and persecute that small component of Third World misery that reaches here in boats; refugees who dare cross the moat, Israel humiliates its victims and America detains Mexicans in their tens of thousands in detention centres, while Europe has racial problems because of botched people-movement policy. In all locations, right-populists have exploited racial fear for the most base and selfish of reasons.

    Is it right? No. But any solution that involves public acceptance has been kneecapped by vested interests in all locations: the global system remains unkind to those outside the charmed circle.
    @Paul Norton

  11. In the true spirit of ‘fearless’ and forthright opinionating – Brisbane Times has now shoved the Madonna King blurt down the memory hole. It has disappeared from the front page but for the moment can still be found here (with the “Ws” in front):

    .brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/madonna-king-joins-brisbane-times-as-columnist-20140318-34zha.html

    The comments say it all: “Boo! Get this pointless Murdoch columnater off!”

  12. @TerjeP What this brouhaha demonstrates is that Bolt is consistently hypocritical. He has made an art out of carefully skirting around the imprecise definitions of racism, but reacts with exaggeratedly-injured feelings when called out. Of course, this only matters because his sanctimonious faux-liberal views are so widely promoted by his keepers, as though he were an objective, fair-minded, trustworthy commentator.

  13. Paul Walter @11:

    But yes, I also thought a two state solution would have been the next best thing but who sabotaged this, from a position of strength?

    Well, that’s the thing. Time is running out for a two-state solution and at the present time the policy of the current right-wing Israeli government (especially on settlements) is the main (although not the sole) contributing factor. However the situation is net helped by people who believe they are friends of the Palestinians treating this as an opportunity to revisit supposedly superior one-state options rather than as a catastrophe in the making. My heart resists the conclusion that Carlo Wenger has come to in the last linked article; my head finds it increasingly difficult to.

  14. @Paul Norton

    My heart resists the conclusion that Carlo Wenger {Strenger} has come to in the last linked article; my head finds it increasingly difficult to.

    Caution … The Huffpost site tends to crash browsers as it is very script-heavy. Don’t visit if you don’t have a very recent browser and a fair bit of RAM on your machine.

    Subjectively, I’d much prefer the “one-state solution” if far better circumstances obtained, but I don’t see this as practicable as things stand. Accordingly, I see a two-state solution allowing contiguous territory for a Palestinian state on the lands seized by Israel (apart from the Golan Heights which ought to be returned to Syria as soon as that state’s internal conflict is resolved) with East Jerusalem granted as a capital, the evacuation of the illegal settlements and right-of-return as the best basis for normalising relations. If Israel wants a wall, let them build it entirely on their own territory.

    Given that the bloodshed has extended over more than two generations, it’s hard to see an early easing of tensions, but OTOH, everyone loses if no progress is made.

    Interestingly, there was, about a week ago on RN’s Big Ideas, a quite interesting piece by Dr Jeff Halper, Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions on the drivers of international support for Israel. It stepped outside the usual rationales, and adopted a more Wallersteinian framework. I’m not sure I found it entirely persuasive but it did raise some interesting points about the role of Israel in supplying repression to large parts of the world outside of its borders.

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/israel-as-a-military-power/5201538

  15. Hopefully this won’t get sin-binned as an idee fixe, because it is a new development; the Bank of England has put out a couple of papers endorsing the post-Keynesian (and MMT) interpretation of money as endogenously created, and a number of explanatory videos as well (filmed in their gold vaults!), in the process (apparently) of trying to explain to the UK public what they are doing with Quantitative Easing.
    Since the incorrect standard story of money multiplier creation is about the only thing that Niall Fergusson and Paul Krugman have ever agreed on, I am hoping for some interesting reactions from various sides of the economics debate. Steve Keen has already got a (somewhat vindictive) shot in.

  16. Terje Dorothy Parker at the Loonpond blog asks a great question.

    “What earthly use is the Bolter? How does his contribution to climate science advance the world or an understanding of climate science? How does his tedious, repetitive blather about “race” and “racial” matters and his bizarre and preposterous use of “” in talking of such matters advance the community?”

    And since everyone is talking about people taking responsibility for themselves how about this question,

    “The Bolter routinely acts like a loudmouth and a bully. That’s how he exercises his rights.

    Now how does News Corp exercise its responsibilities?

    Why by routinely finding large amounts of space for loudmouths and bullies who want to be outside and above a law which attempts to provide some modest disincentive to their loud-mouthed bullying.

    If News Corp wanted to exercise its responsibilities, it would simply cut the Bolter’s blog free from its masthead.

    Let it slip into the wide world of the full to overflowing intertubes where the Bolter could join hundreds of other ranters.”

  17. Yes , enough of Bolts nonsenses and shame on Terje for trying to whitewash the psychopath.

  18. Productivity Commission draft report Vol 1 on public infrastructure throws up some interesting points;

    *private financing is not a ‘magic pudding’, ultimately users and/or taxpayers must foot the bill

    *governments will have to at least partly fund some infrastructure projects and address equity issues

    *because government debt is fungible it is technically equivalent to the government using the privatisation proceeds to reduce government debt and financing the new infrastructure project through debt issuance.

    *A government wishing to borrow to raise finance for an infrastructure project can do so through general purpose government borrowing, or issuing specific purpose infrastructure bonds.

    *Many stakeholders have a perception that costs are high

    *The purchase costs of land have also been identified by others as a significant driver of infrastructure construction costs

    *For comparable countries, it is not evident that Australia is more costly

    *There is no conclusive evidence that Australian levels of productivity in construction are higher or lower than comparable countries

  19. Let’s get the Bolt case straight.

    – Bolt says something that could easily be construed as being racist

    – Langton calls him out

    – Bolt takes offence at being called out, demands apology

    – Langton and the ABC both concede that they might have been too hasty to pass judgement and retract their statements

    – Bolt still not happy after the retraction as things aren’t 100% to his semantic satisfaction

    The worst part is the usual nutbars who reflexively lash out in defence of their mouthpieces. Being that personal responsibility and insight is inimical to the right-wing they do the only thing they know and go on the offensive. “Now we see what the tolerance of the left is really like LOL!” “Let’s charge Langton with a racial abuse crime under s18C LOL!” Give it a freaking rest.

  20. The ABC should have stood firm. If we had the previous government maybe there would have been no cringeing apology.

    It was not Langton who introduced the issue of Bolts racism but a pre-organised audience member’s contribution.

    ANNA EGERTON: Senator Brandis, the Abbott Government has plans to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which they claim is a form of censorship of free speech. Do you really think that overtly racist remarks, such as those of Andrew Bolt regarding light-skinned Aborigines, are not only socially acceptable but necessary to political discourse in the 21st Century.

  21. JQ,

    Thanks for the link to the Richard Ackland article. I have now read it. It repeats the assertion that Bolt is of a mind to sue or is using the law to suppress free expression of opinion. Specifically the article says:-

    It would not be surprising if the ABC applied for a judge-alone trial or a jury of 12 in the Kenny case.

    But back to fair-skinned Bolt. He is unhappy with Jones’ apology on behalf of the ABC. He wants it to extend to things for which Langton hadn’t apologised. It’s all too precious for words.
    For journalists to be demanding apologies and suing for defamation is undignified and embarrassing. The licence to dish it out has the associated responsibility of being able to take it.

    But this is completely contrary to Andrew Bolts on air words at 2GB. Prior to the Langton and then ABC apology he said he would not be taking legal action.

    After the ABC apology in a later show Bolt was asked by Steve Price what he thought of the apology. Bolt went through the ways in which he thought the apology was inadequate. He said that given it was the ABC (in a disparaging tone) the apology was about as much as he could probably expect and he wasn’t going to pursue it further. And he dismissed any suggestion that he was going to pursue the matter through law.

    However he did mention that post apology he had been invited on QandA to talk about his legal case and said he would do so if Mark Scott (ABC chairman) would indemnify him against any costs arising from legal action taken against him in association with discussing on the ABC his unlawful views. He also indicated he had invited Mark Scott to be interviewed on his own show.

    So it seems to me that any suggestion that Andrew Bolt is wielding the law to silence others is simply wrong. That laws such as defamation can by their very existence have a chilling effect on vigorous and open public debate is a separate matter. Perhaps it is the law and that effect you should take issue with. Does the existence of defamation law have more costs than benefits?

  22. Ivor – Langton did not introduce the topic. But she was responsible for what she subsequently said. As was Tony Jones for what he said. Langton made several false claims and carried on like a pork chop. She has done this before. She wrote a few years ago that Andrew Bolt believes in a master race and NAZI style racial purification. A view she later revoked and apologised for privately to Andrew Bolt and then again publicly in the last week. Add this to her rant on QandA and a pattern arises of somebody who knows who they are against but really can’t coherently articulate the issues. If she wants to speak out against Andrew Bolts views and actions she ought to be a bit more logical in her attack and tone down the strawman stuff. To date she has sounded more like one of Jerry Springers emotionally charged guests than a professor.

  23. If she wants to speak out against Andrew Bolts views and actions she ought to be a bit more logical in her attack and tone down the strawman stuff. To date she has sounded more like one of Jerry Springers emotionally charged guests than a professor.

    You seem to be applying a much more exacting standard to Langton than you do to Bolt, Terje. Why the double standard?

  24. Tim I’m hypothesising that it is ‘motivated cognition’ that drives Terje to continue to argue that Bolt is a good bloke who is acting with decency and integrity and good character.

    Terje has backed Bolt and admired him for his ‘challenging’ ideas for a long time. I remember asking Terje why he admired Bolt a couple of years ago and he said it was because he found his ideas ‘challenging’. I’m still pretty sure that Terje was mistaking what he really felt which was ‘comforted’ and ‘confirmed’ as ‘challenging’.

    Or maybe what he meant was that he liked Bolt because people on the left find his ideas ‘challenging’.

    This bit is interesting as Terje is revealing the way he ‘sees’ the world when he describes Langton in this way;

    “Add this to her rant on QandA and a pattern arises of somebody who knows who they are against but really can’t coherently articulate the issues. If she wants to speak out against Andrew Bolts views and actions she ought to be a bit more logical in her attack and tone down the strawman stuff. To date she has sounded more like one of Jerry Springers emotionally charged guests than a professor.”

    This describes just what Bolt does.

    Terje is motivated by his ‘tribal’ identification to understand and identify with Bolt’s rants and therefore they are not rants but understandable responses to the problems that Bolt and Terje see in the world. Terje is willing to excuse Bolt for his incoherence and irrationality and emotionally charged behaviour but cannot see that Langton has even more reasons to be emotional and incoherent about the issue.

  25. @Tim Macknay

    You seem to be applying a much more exacting standard to Langton than you do to Bolt, Terje.

    That seems fair as Bolt has no intellectual standards of any substance, and doesn’t pretend that he has. He’s not a Professor but merely a clickbait opinionator.

    That said, I’m no fan of Langton, I’m not persuaded that what Langton said on QANDA merited an apology, and certainly the ABC didn’t need to offer Bolt one. They are not responsible for offences given by guests in live broadcasts and if they are going to be held to that standard, then everything is going to have to be vetted before going to air — which would be a standard notionally at odds with the bluster of Bolt on free speech.

  26. Certainly, Terje, you seem to have been much more favorable to Bolt on the numerous occasions when I’ve pointed out his lies about all manner of people, including me.

    More relevantly on this occasion, he was found in the famous racial vilification case to have lied about various activists whom he falsely claimed to be non-Aboriginal. Even if you think he should not have faced legal sanctions for these lies, that doesn’t exempt him from moral judgement. And, that applies to all those who continue to defend and justify him, as opposed to arguing that, however repellent his views, he should be allowed to publish them.

  27. @TerjeP
    The Blot’s obsession with skin colour, racial ancestry, often expressed beliefs that crime reports should highlight the race of suspects, largely fact free rants about crimes committed by Africans, etc would probably make him a liberal moderate in Nazi Germany, but certainly wouldn’t be out of place in Apartheid South Africa.

    I sometimes wonder if Bolt is a refugee from a parallel universe in which his ancestors migrated to SA with the rest of the Boers. If so, I’d advise him to go back where he came from.

  28. JQ – I don’t think he lied in those articles. But he did make mistakes. And they were indicative of sloppy work. And he should have corrected the record and apologised for those mistakes. And as I understand things he did. Although I’m not entirely clear on the timing. Happy to be corrected is somebody has a clear picture of the timeline.

  29. Julie – I’m not entirely sure what I said to you a few years ago. However it is true to say that part of what I like about Bolt is that he challenges the left on aspects of it’s false morality. He is clearly a partisan player and something of an activist but his arguments have a coherence and logic that I find insightful. Even though I disagree with him on conclusions when it comes to issues like drug prohibition, same sex marriage, immigration etc, I find his dissenting arguments well put. I like the questions he raises and the way he raises them.

    I don’t say this to persuade you all to like Bolt. But perhaps it is useful for those on the left to try and understand his popularity on the right. And I find it useful to try and articulate the logic behind my sympathies.

  30. Terje, it is not dislike that I feel for Bolt. I think it is disgust. And I don’t think this disgust comes from my ‘leftie’ values. I think it is because Bolt behaves ‘badly’ by the rules of behaviour that I was raised to admire and aspire to.

    He is not a man of his word, he does not apologise or admit to faults, he is a ‘snob’ and a ‘social-climber’ and a ‘money-grubber’ and so many other things that once were evidence of bad character and are so old-fashioned or found only in the ‘working class’ and these attitudes are now stumbling blocks and reasons why some people fail to climb those ladders.

    I don’t think that you understand ‘what’ you like about him – but understanding people is perhaps a variety of intelligence that we don’t all have in equal amounts – and you never will understand yourself if you continue to think that you or any of us can be understand ourselves using logic alone; you need some understanding of how the brain works or an understanding of philosophy, the original psychology and probably someone to argue with you.

    Logic also won’t give you the insight that would allow you to understand why I don’t like him, but you have no interest in that?

  31. Julie – you don’t have to like him. Although the reasons you give, whilst for the most part good reasons to dislike a person, don’t align with my view of him. For instance in private correspondence with him I recall an occasion where he passionately disagreed with a view that I put. Sometime later he wrote and said he was wrong. I’ve also seen him retreat publicly when he has been wrong. Likewise I’ve also seen him dig in when he is wrong but that is not the same as refusing to admit a mistake but a failure to see the mistake. Most people do that from time to time. And as per my comment about Langton above Bolt can sometimes be a pork cop and make strawman arguments. Just not as glaringly as Langton.

    In any case I’m not expecting to change your view. As you indicated human psychology can be complex. People don’t readily relinquish strongly held beliefs about others.

  32. Well good for you and your loyalty to a team mate. He might need it soon as I do believe that he is losing a lot of the support from his typical listeners like the man up the road who gets his knickers in a knot every so often – when he reads Bolt – and writes incoherent angry letters to the editor furious because halal meat is being sold in the local Aldi or something like that.

    I had a chat to him the other day and he’s not that impressed any more with Mr Bolt’s attitude toward the Aborigines – still unfortunately happy that the boat people are being stopped. But now we have something in common, we both think Bolt is mean and unfair to Aborigines.

  33. So is the Bolt+terje line is really against Marcia Langton?

    If Bolt was really concerned abt. defamatioin etc, why did it not scream in agony over Anna Egerton’s comments?

    So Bolt and terje are looking for another theatre for the Culture wars.

  34. Julie Thomas :
    ‘snob’ and a ‘social-climber’ and a ‘money-grubber’ and so many other things that once were evidence of bad character

    and still are… and one might add “toady”, “schmuck” and “organ-grinder’s monkey”.

  35. JQ – I don’t think he lied in those articles

    The courts, of course, disagreed.

    Why do you think the judge — who has no dog in the fight — decided that your position was demonstrably incorrect?

  36. @TerjeP

    Deja Vu:

    …inflammatory…selective misrepresentation…distorting the truth…cynical…intimidatory…not acting in objective good faith…being gratuitous…derisive…grossly careless…dishonest…factual errors…misleading…lacking care…

    All terms used by Courts to describe Bolt in various judgments (as usual, h/t Micallef – I linked to the youtube in the “Abbott Fact-Checked & FOI’d” comments thread from June last year).

    We’ve done this several times before, but I don’t mind doing it again. JQ says Bolt tells “lies”. You deny that and say Bolt “made mistakes”. It is quite true that the words “lie”, “lies”, “liar”, “lying” and “lied” do not feature in the above selection.

    But by any definition Bolt has been found by courts to have lied.

  37. Only minutes ago, the ‘Hacking Trial’ in the UK heard evidence that Murdoch’s Andy Coulson told Murdoch’s hacker Clive Goodmane that if he stayed ‘silent’ and took the rap for his hacking he would have a job for life at Murdoch’s News of The World.

    Lying is institutionalised in the Murdoch empire.

    And lying about the lying is also institutionalised.

    It beggars belief that anyone who draws an income from Murdoch is not a habitual liar.

  38. the problem with andrew bolt is australian defamation law which is used by the powerful to stifle robust candid discourse about power & influence in this country. they control the boundaries of “acceptable” knowledge for discourse & criticism in good part by threat of writ. who now from within australia will venture to essay the subject of andrew bolt’s “racism” fearlessly? -a.v.

  39. @alfred venison

    For the time being it is still a double-edged sword (doubtlessly soon to be rectified) because of Howard’s ‘News Ltd’ changes to defamation law.

    In most cases, in the olden days you could publish something defamatory of someone and only claim as a defence “truth AND public benefit”, but Howard changed that to simply “truth”.

    Therefore I can call Bolt a “Liar” and, thanks to Howard and Murdoch, have a pretty unassailable defence.

    I’m guessing that Murdoch’s LNP is going to fix this error while they’re ‘fixing’ the Racial Discrimination laws.

  40. Alfred – as I said earlier defamation law like all laws that impinge on free speech have a chilling effect on robust public discourse. If people think Bolt is a racist I would much prefer that they can articulate their argument free from any concern that he might litigate. We should repeal the likes of 18C as well as defamation law. Let the people speak. Let public discourse be robust. Let social convention and personal credibility define the limits on what people have to say about each other.

  41. @TerjeP
    Your opinion on Bolt is baffling. It’s as if there is a whole series of Andrew Bolt articles that no-one except you gets to read. “Logical” and “coherent” arguments?

    Let me put it this way: Can you name a single other Australian journalist or commentator who has been caught out in illogical arguments or bare faced lies with the same frequency as Andrew Bolt?

  42. I thought that one of the fundamental beliefs of libertarians was “freedom” to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t harm or damage others.

    I would think advocating freedom to defame runs up against that belief.

    I want redress if someone lies about me and thereby destroys my ‘good fame’ and trashes my character. And I especially want them to personally suffer to make good my economic damages from that defamation.

  43. It’s as if there is a whole series of Andrew Bolt articles that no-one except you gets to read.

    I suspect most people here read very few of his articles. So in a sense you’re probably right.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s