Here's a couple of posts I've submitted to a forum.
I've edited them for context only.
<->10 July->
On the 7.30 Report last night the versatile Ali Moore demonstrated a new standard for fair-but-ruthless journalism in her interview with Pell. IMO.
Too clever by half!
There's a saying to the effect that 'if you always tell the truth you can get away with having a bad memory.'
Pity George never learnt this (or has forgotten).
Here's an extract …
GEORGE PELL: Mr Murray is quite clear and he clarified that subsequently that Father Goodall always insisted it was consensual.
ALI MOORE: Because in fact in police phone taps that Lateline will reveal tonight, Father Goodall tells Anthony Jones that "I certainly did not say it was consensual. I don't know where they got that from." And he's referring to his interview with Howard Murray in January 2003.
GEORGE PELL: I am not aware of that. I was always told it was consensual. *
In a week when Helen Thomas deplored the standards of her journalist peers …
Toady reporters
… and during an era when Dorothy Dix sets the farcical benchmark for interviewing in Australia, Ali Moore and a handful of others offer a breath of fresh air.
The woman is a bloody legend. Watch this space.
*Neither the investigator, the victim or Goodall himself made this 'consensual' claim, so where did it come from?
My Dad, a reporter for 40+ years, often claimed that the passive voice was for cowards – most frequently used by politicians.
<->16 July->
More bastardry from Australia's senior catholic
(extract from previous poster:)
Mathew 18:6
‘But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.’
Great quote, Flednam, which should apply to everyone not just 'believers'.
As I mentioned earlier, watch this space.
These heart-breaking stories are the tip of the iceberg.
Celebrate all you like, catholics.
Enjoy your innocence.
Maybe, in-between the group hugs and jolly songs, you can spare a thought for the victims of your church.
While people piss and moan that 'art' equates to 'porn' (as a potential threat to kids), in Real Life children have been permanently damaged and families torn apart by 'spiritual guides' and trusted mentors.
Pell's 'solution' to these cases?
Hush it up, apologise in private and hide behind lawyers in public.
*Pontificate* on what's wrong with society!
Yep, just what our planet needs: more kids.
Showing posts with label hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hypocrisy. Show all posts
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
Saturday, 26 April 2008
shark fin soup 1
Background info here:
"ego, pride, exhibitionism, hubris..." a strong case for retrospective abortion.com
As always, never accept my word for it: Google is your friend.
The increasing demand for shark fin soup during an accelerating global food crisis serves, in many ways, to encapsulate the intellectual vacuum manifest between the tokenistic 'sustainability mantra' and a less-than-smug reality.
To supply the decadent demand for a bland and occasionally toxic product, whole dorsal fins are cut from live sharks before the animals are dumped back into the ocean to die slowly or to be torn apart by their cousins.
Now, I'm no fan of Japanese whaling 'research'. Everyone knows this 'research' nothing but a Big Lie.
Governments and diplomats would do well to call Japan's bluff, literally, by 'shirtfronting' the lying, hypocritical bastards and giving them a few smacks for fibbing.
In mitigation, however, at least the whales aren't being mutilated and thrown away. The entire whale is the product, not a tiny piece of it. It's killed; it's used.
Although the jury's still out, whale harvesting may even prove to be sustainable.
Given these two parallel realities, why do people get all warm, fuzzy and concerned about the latter but not the former?
Why are there quotas for whales and not for sharks?
How many sharks are being butchered alive for every whale killed and eaten?
How many tens of millions of dollars, tens of thousands of litres of fuel, thousands of hours of human resources, are invested in the annual Greenpeace Anti-Whaling stunt?*
Is it possible these resources might be invested more wisely?
Perhaps in one of dozens of third-world countries where people are literally starving?
Hmmm, the lying-hypocritical-bastard syndrome is catching on!
Boycott shark fin soup. Boycott restaurants that serve it. Boycott people who eat it.
*In the interests of balance re Greenpeace activities:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4495790a6031.html
(But who died and annointed them cops?! If I wanted another pack of interventionist bully-boys I'd become a US citizen.)
"ego, pride, exhibitionism, hubris..." a strong case for retrospective abortion.com
As always, never accept my word for it: Google is your friend.
The increasing demand for shark fin soup during an accelerating global food crisis serves, in many ways, to encapsulate the intellectual vacuum manifest between the tokenistic 'sustainability mantra' and a less-than-smug reality.
To supply the decadent demand for a bland and occasionally toxic product, whole dorsal fins are cut from live sharks before the animals are dumped back into the ocean to die slowly or to be torn apart by their cousins.
Now, I'm no fan of Japanese whaling 'research'. Everyone knows this 'research' nothing but a Big Lie.
Governments and diplomats would do well to call Japan's bluff, literally, by 'shirtfronting' the lying, hypocritical bastards and giving them a few smacks for fibbing.
In mitigation, however, at least the whales aren't being mutilated and thrown away. The entire whale is the product, not a tiny piece of it. It's killed; it's used.
Although the jury's still out, whale harvesting may even prove to be sustainable.
Given these two parallel realities, why do people get all warm, fuzzy and concerned about the latter but not the former?
Why are there quotas for whales and not for sharks?
How many sharks are being butchered alive for every whale killed and eaten?
How many tens of millions of dollars, tens of thousands of litres of fuel, thousands of hours of human resources, are invested in the annual Greenpeace Anti-Whaling stunt?*
Is it possible these resources might be invested more wisely?
Perhaps in one of dozens of third-world countries where people are literally starving?
Hmmm, the lying-hypocritical-bastard syndrome is catching on!
Boycott shark fin soup. Boycott restaurants that serve it. Boycott people who eat it.
*In the interests of balance re Greenpeace activities:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4495790a6031.html
(But who died and annointed them cops?! If I wanted another pack of interventionist bully-boys I'd become a US citizen.)
Labels:
Big Lie,
boycott,
decadence,
Greenpeace,
hypocrisy,
Japan,
shark fin,
soup,
sustainability,
whaling
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)