AusBC bias ...1942

Submitted on July 31, 2007 - 4:21pm.

 .. left, right - to be or not to be?

-=*=-

I challenged a certain contributor to back this assertion «... the compromise and corruption associated with their systematic, left-leaning agenda and bias»(!?) - which was made in reference to 'our' taxpayer-funded national broadcaster, the AusBC.

In a response titled "Don't be silly" (note boundary-pushing language) we see this: «I am not so silly, ..., as to commence providing substantiation for my view on ABC bias. The view is commonly held.[1] ... Joke City. I will substantiate nothing.»

Readers can make up their own minds vis-à-vis any and all such unsubstantiated claims. But it does raise the issue of who might come to WD and what for, i.e. just to vent or natter, say, or for something a little more constructive?

-=*=-

An associated term introduced by the same poster is 'agenda monkey.' The introduction of that term could be considered slightly perilous, as it may have been interpreted reflexively (in other words, it's a possible framing error. I can help, see?) In that spirit, please consider a paraphrasing of something that I previously had published about AusBC bias:

 Subtitle: The 'pushed paradigm' propaganda of asserting left-wing bias in 'our' AusBC.

One can give a much easier (i.e. even more brainless) way of rating the AusBC as being biased, a way I consider to be absolutely par for the right-whinger course! (It's just sooo simple, that even a [redacted derogatory descriptor] can do it! And lots do.)

First, assert an indelible, ineradicably left-wing-biased AusBC, then:

a) If the AusBC says something 'nice' about the ALP, shriek "See! Tol'ja! Left-wing bias!"

b) If the AusBC says something 'nasty' about the ALP, shriek "Probably only the half! Less, even! Left-wing bias, see?"

c) If the AusBC says something 'nasty' about the Libs, shriek "Oooh! Can't be true! Not! Nasty left-wing bias!"

d) If the AusBC says something 'nice' about the Libs, shriek "Must be doubly true! In spite of their left-wing bias!"

Comment: Funny, but I thought that propaganda had a bad name, at least from those darkest of days courtesy of Goebbels&Co. Propaganda is usually partly lies, and is pushed to manufacture consent for something otherwise undesirable. Also, in a properly functioning democracy, aren't the sheople® supposed to be sovereign? That would require that we the sheople should be completely and accurately informed, as opposed to propagandised? Sadly of course, not so. Boo! Hiss! (What ever happened to those high ideals, eh? aka the Enlightenment[2] ideas, say?)

Well, the right-whingers only smirk. After all, it's the pro-capitalists themselves that say a) "Greed is G*d!" and b) nobody (they mean no capitalist) works for nothing. Quite obviously then, they must be getting something (just that little bit extra, eh?) out'a the current system (and yes of course that's possibly corrupt, also par for the course) - so it actually pays [someone] to propagandise us. Just another way of cheating, another way of ripping-off; in one word: [reader-supplied derogatory term]!

-=*=-

Apart from the principle involved, there is a good reason why this post, this day, and that is an item this morning on the program one just loves to hate, namely RN/Breakfast. The item was about privatising suburban water. The intro said "Xxx has a solution(!?)" The interviewer was quiet and respectful, as she 'fed' questions to the proponent. The basic idea discussed was the flogging-off of another public utility, this time our drinking wardah® supply, with the bright(?) idea of increasing the price, presumably to such a painfully high level (up to three times was mentioned), so as to discourage use in times of scarcity. Not too much wrong with the idea (as with most propaganda; believable elements), referred to in the program as 'unleashing the power of the market,' except that our water supplies everywhere are already in a monopoly situation, the prices already readily controllable, and with the sources of water (i.e. dams, after clouds/rain) and the associated infrastructure being hardly amenable to being split-up to provide any sort'a competition. (Incidentally, the same argument applied to electricity supplies; we know how that privatisation's turning out.) The word 'competition' was repeatedly used, even once (in a fit of uncontrolled honesty?) prefaced by something like 'quasi' (actually, 'notional') in relation to the reticulation system (i.e. the indivisible existing system of wardah pipes.)

I've also said it before, it's not just what one says, but how one says it; in this case the AusBC person prompted the proponent in a cushy interview about privatising our wardah - the result of which, if it were to happen, would quite probably be yet another disaster for us, we the sheople. To the point, where the fat-cats would be allowed to water their lawns, fill their swimming pools, while the poor would be 'allowed' only a miserable dribble to drink; to use any more could send them in the direction of going broke. And the 'big end of town' would make another killing on executive salaries, while the network would be allowed to rot. Just as the electricity system is rotting while jobs have 'gone West;' the maintenance, say, having been turned from preventative to repair, thus guaranteeing more outages. Is this really in our, i.e. we the sheople's best interests?

Comment: the appeal of privatisation is quite clear - it would further advantage 'the big end of town.' People irked by restrictions (and with lots'a dough) could then buy their way past, and the poor be damned. Nowhere did I hear of this non-egalitarian nature, nor any disadvantages discussed, except to say that any disadvantaging of the poor would be handled politically, i.e. with some sort'a subsidy possible.

So. Big question: what sort'a bias (if any) has been demonstrated?

Get the 6:35 Water pricing broadcast here; no transcript; segment runs from about 19:15 to 24:55.

-=*end*=-

PS Moral outrage section: One does not need to be religious to be moral, see my attempted formalisation, the chezPhil morality. The 'basic crimes' are lying, cheating, theft and murder. I claim nothing more than self-interest need be involved; if I do not wish to be murdered (I don't), then I agree not to murder in return. Many of the undefined 'they,' including our very own PM, claim some sort'a Judaic/Christian heritage, when not actual belief. AFAIK, we all 'agree' on some sort'a analogue to my chezPhil morality. All the more galling, then, when this morality is flouted, as in B, B & H's lying us off to an illegal, murdering war predicated on eventual oil-theft.

'Our' AusBC's job is to report all 'truths of the matters,' and not soft-pedal on any of the pushed paradigm propaganda, as they so clearly do. Time to call the spade a bloody (lying, thieving, murdering) shovel, mateys.

Ref(s):

[1] This construction, "Everybody knows," is a fallacious form of argument, being a special case of the more general fallacy of false advertisement. As hinted at above, unsubstantiated assertions are effectively worthless, and are about as useful as a chocolate tea-pot - IMHO & haw!

As another example of unsubstantiated assertions, the following has come to my notice:

«..., with sectarian killings and suicide bombings the primary cause. There would be no deaths at the hands of the COW or the Iraqi army and police if they were not having to try and prevent this.

I think everyone has lost sight of that fact. Iraq had the best chance of peace and a better future after Saddam was toppled, and the people blew it.»

[source not cited]

Note the "no deaths" statement, effectively attributing all deaths ultimately to sectarian/suicide actions (Wha'da 'bout "Dying to Win?" Or CIA-style psyops, like the preparations for one actually documented and the (SAS?) operators gaoled, the subsequent 'rescue action' shown on our TVs all of which occurred in the UK's Basra area?)

Note the deployment of the 'everyone' gambit, see [1].

Note at the end, the blaming: "the [Iraqi] people blew it."

This last, the 'blame game,' cannot go unremarked. I doubt very strongly, that the Iraqi people - having been 'liberated,' by whatever (illegal?) "Shock'n whore" means, would have freely chosen to then be brutally occupied, as is Oh, so demonstrably the case. The Iraqi people were not asked (by Bremer, say) nor could they have answered when they democratically(?) voted - the US hand-picked the candidates, the US forced them to swear not to dismantle Bremer, the paucity of info sometimes bordering on none, now the attempted forcing of the puppet government to swallow the oil-law, etc. I recall a relatively quiet interval while the Iraqis evaluated the post-Saddam period, after which the violence began to escalate.

Exactly how, then, did the [Iraqi] people blow it?

As an aside, we cannot know how much strife in Iraq was pre-programmed, or how much has been instigated by US operations. What we do know is at least two: 1) the invader/occupiers are responsible for the resulting chaos (AFAIK by international law) and 2) the country belongs to the Iraqis. If (haw!) the US intends to steal Iraq's oil then the US has to stay. It's a circular argument: they have to stay to control the chaos but they cause the chaos just by being there. All 'perfectly' under US control; and if the chaos were to subside the US would just instigate more, to keep the circle going. Basta!

Excuse me if I try a projection: are we to assume then, that if the Iraqis were to accept the occupation, if they didn't try to eject the occupiers, if they simply accepted the coming theft of their birthright - all the while not competing amongst themselves (sectarian/suicide), aka giving up any and all claims, thus advantaging the current US selected sycophantic, snivelling power-elite - then everything in the Iraqi garden would be lovely? Is that it?

Just as in: "If rape is inevitable lie back and enjoy it?"

[2] The Enlightenment:

«Within the period of the Enlightenment, the question of what was the proper relationship of the citizen to the state continued to be explored. The idea that society is a contract between individual and some larger entity, whether society or state, was developed philosophically by a series of thinkers, including Rousseau, Montesquieu and Jefferson.»

[wiki/Age of Enlightenment]

RMNixon, November 17th, 1973 ...

.. "I am not a crook."[1]

-=*=-

There's no doubt about it, America bestrides the world; it dominates in thought, word and deed.

a) thought (Hollywood): the prism through which a lot'a mankind now regards the world is TV; from 'all the world's a stage' we have moved to 'all the world through a (flat-panel) TV.' Apart from 'news' (see next), Hollywood (via its so-called drama) over time presents all possible perversions; the sheople® 'select' (manufactured desire/consent) the bits they particularly like and incorporate these bits (along with a lot'a other unselected stuff) into their minds, however conscious - and most often, mainly not.

b) word (MSM): along with the dramas, we get so-called news, these days filtered through the process tellingly called full-spectrum dominance, in this case of information. One can see examples of this on the AusBC and/or SBS evening newscasts; reports sourced from the USA (in accents accursedly Ami: spit!) - reports largely lacking in both credibility and balance. The US military controls Iraq; no news reaches us that hasn't been sanitised. The day of the intrepid reporter is gone, these days no reporter works (for long, at least) unless embedded.

c) deed (Iraq). What's to say, other than 'murder for oil?'

-=*=-

Too much of a good(?) thing: there are other factors; too many people, greed and CO2.

d) people; currently 6.6Bio, heading for 9bio. Too late to ask why didn't 'we' (i.e. our leaders) do something effective when it might'a done some real good. Quite possibly, the desire for 'growth' over-ruled good sense. On the 'never too late' principle, a controlled population 'crash' could now be a better way to go. We may still get one, but without any control at all. Q: call that leadership?

e) greed; capitalism is said to be triumphant, along with its current stable-mates globalisation and economic rationalism. 'Bigger cake,' we hear; 'jobs, jobs, jobs' - but not too many careers. It used to be 'trickle-down' but that's drying up; competition for resources is hotting up to ever more wars. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" has been over-ruled by "Greed is good," but this can only ever work for the 'haves.'

f) CO2; the 'biggie.' If the wars don't get us, the climate-crash will.

-=*=-

While 'the iron is hot,' anything else? Yep!

g) Mining; rip-offs, soon to be big holes either empty or filling with radioactive waste,

h) Off-shoring; of both jobs and pollution,

i) Terrorism; ignoring "Dying to Win," CIA secret black-ops, refer only to Hermann Göring: "the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders."

There's still more; health, education, housing...

-=*=-

Well, so what? "The sky is falling" is a continuous refrain; what's different now? The argument "Most people know..." or "Most people will agree..." is an appeal to the good sense - of the sheople. But wha'da they know? It is after all exactly why we have leaders; they're supposed to know better.

Time they showed us some evidence. Hmmm?

-=*end*=-

PS Don't think things are getting worse, eh? Recall that Nixon eventually was 'brought to justice;' the forces for good had a win, however temporary. The forces for evil, however, took notice; many of GWBush's henchmen come to us via the 'learning processes' stimulated by Nixon's 'failure.' Q: is the MSM ever likely to repeat its 'Watergate' success? Q: Will B, B & H get away with murder? Q: Does the US plan to exit Iraq? Q: Is anyone doing anything effective to halt CO2 global warming?

A: All 'silly questions,' unless no more of the same.

Ref(s):

[1] If I were asked to name the three worst US presidents, I would ask in return: why only three? The first three worst (from my perspective, and that imperfectly through the venal MSM) are undoubtedly Nixon, Reagan & Bush (the lesser), but I can't say that any impressed with even a balance of known good deeds.

Richard Nixon:

«And so, that is where the money came from. Let me just say this, and I want to say this to the television audience: I made my mistakes, but in all of my years of public life, I have never profited, never profited from public service--I have earned every cent. And in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice. And I think, too, that I could say that in my years of public life, that I welcome this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I am not a crook. I have earned everything I have got.»

[broadcast live on nationwide radio and television]

I find it interesting, that he inserted a 'never obstructed justice' claim into his disclaimer denying any questionable money aspect. These days, the whole paragraph would be considered a failure of framing, so while the circumstances are comparable, we'll never hear the same from Howard.

As we all know, Nixon was driven from office in toadal® disgrace. In short, he was a crook. It may well be, that he didn't fiscally profit (in itself almost impossible to believe, think 'Prime-ministerial wine cellar,' say) - but the pro-capitalists tell us that no-one does anything for nothing; he must'a been a crook precisely because he saw some personal advantage in being so. Hardly as an aside, Nixon (as Howard, think 'AWB scandal,' say) has obstructed justice, not just a little bit but in spades, so that bit from Nixon is an outright lie. But as for Nixon, one supposes, so for the all the other crooks wherever they are. Personal advantage, for crooks, overpowers all morality - the evidence shows this cannot be otherwise.

Q: is this sort'a hypocritical chicanery a) typical or b) non-typical human, or just c) typical or b) non-typical American?

This discussion is about crooks; wha'da 'bout B, B & H? IMHO they lied us into an illegal invasion now followed by a brutal occupation with the eventual aim being the theft of some part when not all of Iraq's oil, this process neatly summarised as 'murder for oil.' This claim is not new, but the murdering continues - in our name.

Q: For how much bloody longer?

PPS The term 'sheople' could be questioned. But surely, sheople is as sheople does; in a democracy the voters are responsible for whom they elect; Howard himself has said something like he'll be held responsible at the ballot-box. Sooo, is it the considered opinion of the majority of voters that we (Ors-tray-lee-ah) partake in murder for oil? Seems like it up till now, but again Q: For how much bloody longer?

been there, done that ... 1936

Submitted on July 17, 2007 - 11:27am.

.. and occasionally bought the T-shirt.

-=*=-

There are more than just a few 'black-hats' in here; I'll not afford them even the faintest whiff of frisson by stooping to name them.

I have presented my attempt at a formalised morality (no link; search for it yourself if you wish, try "chezphil morality"), the 'essential' crimes being lying, cheating, theft and murder.

My central theme has been 'murder for oil,' ever since first hearing of the gruesome "shock and awe" then being planned - and the filthy lies deployed as smoke-screen, through the illegal invasion phase and now in the post-implementation brutal, jackboot on Iraq's neck occupation stage. As soon as possible (i.e. when enough Iraqis are slaughtered), the oil theft stage will begin; SUV/4WDs will feature prominently in the lines at the pumps.

On the way, I realised that another sham has been imposed, that relating to the modern state of Israel. 'Born' of questionable legality, it has extended its borders from the beginning by the use of deadly force. Combining Israel with the Israel Lobby which infests the US we get USrael, and putting it all together we arrive at the succinct wannabe hegemon along with its illegal sprog and the poodle with dag all 'happily' mass-murdering for spoil.

Anyone not struck breathless by the proceeding statement is - well, y'c'n work that one out for yourselves, eh?

My way has never been smooth; running into more or less strenuous flack for my presentations. Why that? Surely, if I champion honesty, truth, justice and the good old Aussie 'fair go' - as I most assuredly do, then I might'a expected a bit more support, a bit less resistance?

Pigs might fly. I've challenged a few to 'substantiate or withdraw,' others to dis/prove some aspect or other. None ever did; too bad. Anyone ever wonder just what's in it for such detractors?

The only conclusion possible is that those who do not resist the current paradigm with as much strength as they can possibly muster either simply do not realise what's really going on (aka pig-higorant), or they actually accept that criminal status quo; such people can only be said to (un/consciously) support the blackest immorality. But nevertheless, support it they all do.

And by the impeccable logic of "With us or against us," any and all non-resistors make themselves accessories either before, during and/or after the fact; but mostly all three.

According to my understanding, accessories 'enjoy' just about equal guilt with actual perpetrators.

Pretty-well all of the preceding, at least in main substance, was said in my post to HYS 'truth, justice and the American way' 38487 on Monday, 28 April 2003 and quite possibly earlier, not just by me but also by others.

Sooo, just like in my title, BTDT. Not too many listened back then, even fewer now. But the murder continues as does the lying, the oil-theft stands before the door. As in that old TV quiz-show, "Happy motoring, customers!"

DNP - show cause? - Mk2 1936

Submitted on July 8, 2007 - 1:23pm.

More WD censorship!

G'day WD Ed(s).

If you would prefer me to go away, just say so.

With a signature, so I know who is behind it.

thanks in advance, Phil.

DNP - show cause?1936

Submitted on July 8, 2007 - 1:17pm.

More WD censorship!

G'day WD Ed(s).

Can you possibly - please - explain, just why it is, that you delay my posts, whilst allowing the like of those from Pаul Mоrrella through?

I mean, I'd just like a fair suck on the sauce-bottle.

thanks in advance, Phil.

non sequiturs ...1936

Submitted on July 8, 2007 - 10:59am

(After 24hrs not visible, one must assume: DNPed - i.e. censored.)

.. don't count for much, if anything at all[1].

-=*=-

G'day David Davis.

Me: "or whatever his alias this week is."

From David: an entire post (Names and ethics), including "mad lefties have tried to attack me about all this" and "Which dastardly secret and manipulative alias will I use today?"

Me: on such a tiny whiff of suspicion from me, David built quite a fantastic response. Q: do we get a whiff of paranoia[2]? There, there; calming down.

Me: "exactly what's in it for you?"

David: from his 'Back in the court of lefties,' such gems as "Howard hating at its best. ... Why am I evil and why do I support a vicious proxy mass-murderer?", "When I read bile like this" and "The Germans and the French certainly believed they existed.".

-=*=-

On the principle that 'the 1st shall be last,' I will start with David's 'xx certainly believed they existed.' Q: How do you know, what the Germans and the French or any others might'a believed, David? Possibly, "Leave it to Blix!" became a mantra (31 times in my 'input' archive) - basically, because those invoking it thought that it would'a worked. On the other hand, we had the (filthy, lying) propaganda, one'a the 'best' examples being Conned'a Sleazer's 'mushroom cloud.' Not to mention Colin Powell's PowerPoint; how many times did we hear "We know," when they quite clearly didn't, and not just from Powell. Many were bludgeoned into self-defensively allowing that they couldn't afford the risk of not assenting to the Ami's assertions, i.e. they reluctantly acquiesced (if they acquiesced at all, many didn't; i.e. no UNSC resolution) in the face of unfair pressure, aka lies. IMHO, Bush&Co had no case, knew that they had no case, and manufactured one. See the 'Downing St. Memos' say, everyone else has.

One cannot employ hindsight on the "Leave it to Blix!" discussion, but we can see the outcomes; namely illegal invasion, NO WMDs, brutal occupation, murder to enable oil-theft in the process of being implemented. We the anti-wars (lefties or not) forecast the lot. Just about the only positive is that yes, a thug-tyrant has been removed (then lynched), but the old tyrant has been replaced by a new and arguably far worse mass-murdering oil-theft tyrant.

There is, IMHO, a generalisation that can be made here: at a certain point, I realised that the MSM were not just transmitting B, B & H's lies, they were amplifying them. NYT's Judith Miller and theAge's Tony Parkinson come to mind as 'stand-outs,' ignoring any of Murdoch's stable - for quite obvious reasons. So here comes David's "average Joe;" the smarter the Joe, the quicker the realisation that we, the sheople® were being propaganda-bulls**tted. Once one comes to the realisation that deliberate, premeditated and filthy lies were in play, and the truly awful consequences that "Shock and awe" promised, one begins to suspect everything, and most if not all of those suspicions have now been confirmed.

Facit: absolutely nothing that B, B & H or their servants, slaves or other proxies including trolls say should ever be believed in the absence of obvious and convincing proof. In particular, the central plank of their 'terrorism' argument is Muslim extremism (plus the risible caliphate corollary); we do not know, and probably can not ever know how much trouble 'belongs' to bona fide Muslims (extremists or not) vs. trouble caused by US-sponsored psy-ops or outright black-ops. The suspicion must be on the latter dominating, it's the same-old same-old; Q: who benefits? Clearly not us, we the sheople, nor the Muslims, but the US m/i-plex, that's who. Every bloody indicator points to 'perfect' perfidy.

-=*=-

Since I'm working backwards, David: "When I read bile like this..."

Me: bile[3], eh? David exercises his right to a value-judgement, but it's hardly 'civil discourse' - one might'a thunk. Oh, well: no matter, I get a bit emotional m'self. My own value-judgement: over the top.

-=*=-

Last bit, David: "Howard hating at its best. ... Why am I evil and why do I support a vicious proxy mass-murderer?" I suppose it's somehow fair, for David to allege that I called him evil, but I'm not so sure. David, what I actually wrote is "you champion Howard - the most evil, [his evil deeds and] support the same"; whether that's actually calling David evil I leave as a value-judgement for the reader to make. But I don't much care for David's allegations, nor do I care for his "Chuckle" and "Now the Howard haters simply amuse me. They're funny." I suppose such tactics have their place, but WTF is that place?

Again though, there's a generalisation that can be made here: I don't 'get' the argument that lefties (or any other minority) might be out of it, nor that the majority (of sheople) get anything right. In a perfect world things would work as they should; my 'democratic covenant,' i.e. the responsibility of all representatives towards their constituents; that they should represent the will of the majority, while protecting the interests of any minority. To which is added "And don't do anything I wouldn't do!" - all of that would function; people would act morally, and we wouldn't have lies, cheating, theft or murder. But we do, and so we come to the crux.

It so happens, that the current Anglo-Christian CoW® leaders are mainly of the right, Bliar® notwithstanding, and so are the main supporters. But I don't care for the detail here (nor for what's left or right); what we have - in addition to my summary of "mainstream Australian politics" (see my "if 'lefties' are funny,") is the sad fact that our democracy simply doesn't work: the Lib/Lab pug-ugly twins hardly differ, the corrupt and venal MSM reports lies as if true, and the sheople are basically scared s**tless and/or otherwise not interested. So-called pragmatism rears its ugly head, if and when forced, the sheople choose - well, do they fairly choose anything? If propagandised (they are), then no, they just can't. But if they could, do they have a valid choice? Take the example Latham; also not. But not because he imploded - lack of internal support whilst withering MSM attacks would be hard enough to resist - no, it was Latham's sell-out to the US alliance which - for me, I can and do speak only for myself - but Latham's cop-out in the direction of the suck-hole conga-line showed that there was no real choice. (So-called bipartisanship is deeply undemocratic, it allows for no choice.)

Sooo, and anyway: it's not a question of left vs. right, it's a question of who and what is right, and IMHO the governing regimes and their rhetoric, what I call the kleptocracy and their pushed paradigm, is simply not. What exists is not just not perfect, it's so far from perfect - not to mention criminal - as to be existence-threatening dangerous, and must be abandoned; i.e. NOMOREOFTHESAME! (See? I did say that I sometimes get emotional. Then, there's the coming greedastrophe®...)

-=*=-

Intermezzo. I can't be everywhere, read everything. In particular, as it takes time to prepare a piece such as this, the world may 'move on' somewhat in the interregnum (especially if it's weekend). But I can notice a few things, like the recent contributions of JH and IM. I followed Ian's link to 1315 but couldn't (quickly) find his target text; no matter. If I may make another generalisation, what disturbs me most about a common theme emerging here, is that both JH and IM 'champion' bits'a the 'pushed paradigm,' as does DD. This is a worry, exactly because the pushed paradigm contains lying murder for oil, i.e. that the CoW may, on their (Trojan-horse?) way to combating terrorism in general, Saddam in particular or the nebulous Islamist-caliphate extremism, they tell us filthy lies and perform mass-murdering theft, basically just to fill SUVs and 4WDs (and their own gas-guzzling military, a bit circular, that, as is this missive. Looping. Again.) Bits'a the pushed paradigm are waved to distract us, while filthy, murdering theft goes on under the propaganda blanket.

Example: "Our worst nightmare!" - That terrorists may get WMDs. See Howards's latest: "WMD aspirations, energy demand..."

Example: See any mention (Murdoch press, say) of the utterly horrible Islamist extremist aim (or so goes the claim) of forcing a caliphate on us poor Christian sheople. Another reiteration, I term this claim 'risible.'

Example: "If it saves just one life!" - as a justification for torture, or "If you've nothing to hide!" - as a justification for wire-taps.

I'm not saying that JH, DD and/or IM retail or believe any of the above lies, but it's all part-and-parcel of the pushed paradigm, and whereas 'good' propaganda should have some grain of truth upon which to hang the lies, people who pick any such bits'a the (contaminated) truth and use them as the hook to hang their own arguments on is - Oh, only IMHO! - more than just a bit suspicious. All the more so, when those pushing such bits are arguing for some part of the status quo. Going circular again...

-=*=-

David, you support the status quo, the pushed paradigm, most if not all of the current system - with its myriad failures. Up to and including murder for oil. You say you supported the invasion, and that the sheople back you up (claim to 'higher' authority?) All, IMHO, non sequiturs, which is where I started. David, you are free to answer - or, by your many examples, duck - any of my questions; I'm beyond caring - about you.

I wish to acknowledge here, some work done by Roger Fedyk (g'day). Roger has spent time pointing out that (my paraphrase) it's not "Is murder for oil happening?" but "How do we live with our murdering for oil?" I have myself said, that it is past the time to argue such stuff. But we should not duck any of the issues; just acknowledge what's happening in our name, and admit to how we're gunna deal with it.

In the plainest of text (also for Charles J Camilleri), I base my life on the chezPhil morality, and as a single operating principle, MYOB, from "And Then There Were None" by Eric Frank Russell. I think that all the sheople, the flock and the leaders both, should simply leave each other in peace, and eliminate all lies, cheating, theft and murder. Yeah sure, pigs may fly - but the alternative is to accept crime as the dominant way of living, something which I simply do not wish to do.

So the real question is not: "Is David Davis evil?"

The real question is: "Is David Davis moral to support evil?"

In the light of Roger's work, just how does David Davis a) live with lies, cheating and specifically murder to enable oil-theft, and b) justify that living-with?

And no more distractions, diversions or non sequiturs please.

-=*end*=-

PS (Yet another reiteration), DD said words to the effect that lefties claim the high moral ground. Fact: I stand for no more of the same, in general no more lies, cheating, theft or murder; and in particular stop the killing, no oil theft; NO WAR!

I'm interested to know what bit of high moral ground could be found for any opponent of these aspirations to stand on.

There is the possibility, I suppose, that I could be wrong. But also as before, if someone were to allege so, saying it just ain't enough; proper proof must supplied. Good luck.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] non sequitur n. conclusion that does not logically follow from the premisses. [Latin, = it does not follow] [POD]

[2] paranoia n. 1 mental disorder with delusions of persecution and self-importance. 2 abnormal suspicion and mistrust. [ibid.]

[3] bile n. 1 bitter digestive fluid secreted by the liver. 2 bad temper; peevish anger. [Latin bilis] [ibid.]

liar - a lying troll, even_1927

Submitted on July 4, 2007 - 1:51pm.

(After 24hrs not visible, one must assume: DNPed - i.e. censored.)

 Subtitle: Yep. Admittedly strong; kindly allow me to explain.

-=*=-

1. Troll. Not the Old Norse[1], but the Internet one[2]. Possibly the best description is the "deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt" one[3].

Pаul Mоrrella: "No, the current cycle began, when you so rudely attempted to pick on people, whose only crime was to express their freedom, and write something you did not agree 100% with. That the 'facts' used where less than obvious (mostly just plain wrong), only showed you up, for the bully you are."

Me (1): this is an opinion forum, in an alleged democracy. Neither rudeness nor bullying comes into it; I report and/or give opinion based on cited references, let the cards fall as they may and the reader is free to decide. However, when it comes to unprovoked and utter rudeness, Pаul Mоrrella 'takes the cake' - Oh, always only IMHO!

Me (2): like a lot'a Pаul's stuff, the quote from him above is all unadorned, unjustified - and IMHO unjustifiable - assertion ("'facts' used where less than obvious", "mostly just plain wrong"). In fact, he makes many'o this sort'a unsubstantiated allegations (like his attempted disputation of murder for oil), but when challenged, he simply squibs it.

Well, saying something just doesn't make it so, see [3] again.

What Pаul's statement proves, though, is that he was a lurker[4]. The above statement from Pаul was made on June 28, fully 39 days (we are now up to day 45) after his 1st appearance. And that 1st appearance was a full-frontal assault directed at me. No such thing as a 'pardon me,' just guns blazing. In other words: demonstrated malice aforethought.

That ort'a be enough to prove 'troll,' but just in case, I intimated exactly as much not once but twice; no objection (I'm talking about valid objection) has been raised. Sooo, QED, I'd say.

Me (3): if I've said it once, I've said it a squillion times (poetic licence); this from my 'core- and non-core lies_1927:' I try to substantiate anything that I think may be regarded as contentious with reputable, checkable quotes and/or links. Anybody is free, at any time, to contest whatever I say. Just so long as they front with reputable, checkable quotes of their own - since if someone wished to doubt my words, they'd better be ready to back-up that doubt in quite a serious way. Anything less, daaarlings, is rubbishy 'troll.'

Before we move on to 'lies,' this: as in [3], unsubstantiated assertions just don't 'cut it.' Pаul cited a link to some old, superseded stuff, and when I pointed that out - silence (what's about sham links, eh Pаul?) He then proceeded to muddy the waters with his three bites of the M3 cherry. Anyone seeking an alternative to Pаul's M3 obscuration could try this professional-level explanation, a 'snip:'

«And even worse, if the money supply grows fast enough, it provides the liquidity required for the runaway growth of asset bubbles, like the stock market in 2000. And, some would argue, like the U.S. real-estate or credit markets now.»

[moneycentral.msn/Jubak's Journal/Fed kills a key inflation gauge]

And, I would argue - have argued - that too much 'easy money' could lie at the heart of local house- and stock-price bubbles, with the notable exception of Costello's 'helping hand' contribution to the appr. 150% house-price rises recently experienced here in Aus.

-=*=-

2. Liar. Yep, a bit more serious. My back-up follows:

Let's take Pаul's "A tax cut is the equivalent of a pay rise." Apart from offering this little 'gem' as part-argument coupled to this toadally® contradictory statement: "Thus this allows the gearing to operate at higher monetary levels," (even further muddying the waters), Pаul later had the hide to write: "A tax cut is equivalent to a pay rise. If you understood economics, you would know this" - after I had shown that the wages share is falling, just as the tax-take is rising. (Q: How does this illustrate a tax-cut? A: It doesn't, rather the reverse.) But don't take my word for this, see John Pratt on May 17, 2007 - 6:53am:

«According to the national accounts, between 1996 and 2006 the wages share of gross domestic product fell from 56 per cent to 54 per cent, while corporate profits rose from 23 per cent to 28 per cent. That is equal to about $40 a week if wages had maintained their mid-1990s share of national income.

But, worse for the battlers, the federal tax burden has increased from 23.3 to 25 per cent of GDP in the same period.»

[Kenneth Davidson Smoke and mirrors hide funding facts]

Facit: if the wages-share is going down, while the tax-share is going up, there is no effective 'tax-cut,' and certainly not during the previous period of house-price inflation, as the Davidson quote shows. Some may have the tax-bite lessened from what was planned (i.e. from 1/1/'07); that lessening is fiddling at the margins. But much more importantly, any cut to the tax-rate would work exactly opposite to increasing any negative gearing advantage. (Negative gearing means writing-off losses against taxable income; lowering the tax-rate lowers the tax write-off). Even if a tax-cut some-when may be a pay rise somewhere, it is not applicable to this dialogue. IMHO, Pаul's 'argument' is economic gibberish.

Pаul's insisting on his "A tax cut is equivalent to a pay rise" is not just wrong, not just part of the pushed paradigm propaganda, but is (IMHO!) deliberately misleading. See lie[5].

-=*end*=-

PS From Pаul's 'headless horseman' post: "Nice to see you have the courage of your convictions. Asked to put something forward apart from criticism, and......"

Pаul, given that you yourself have been asked to supply explanations/substantiations, not just by me but also by Craig Rowley ('PSA deals and democracy,') & Bob Wall ('Details?', 'Reminder') - note that Bob felt he had to repeat his requests, and that your meagre responses (when any at all) were anything but fulsome, you are hardly in any position to demand some response from me, let alone sneer at me for not kowtowing to you.

In particular, Pаul, you have singularly failed to justify your attempted, alleged negation of 'murder for oil.' Never heard of "Put up or shut up?"

Perhaps now, you will get something useful to do, eh?

PPS WD's 'moderation' role in this saga is also to be questioned, especially in the light of MK's banning me from a thread(!?) - merely for seeking to defend myself from this disgusting and predatory, lying troll. Hardly an edifying sight, hmmm? As if PM was the only 'can of worms?' Not; there's the CP/ER one as well - so much then, for 'civil discourse.' And the greedastrophe® grows ever closer, ever more unavoidable...

Ref(s):

[1] troll1 n. (in Scandinavian folklore) fabulous being, esp. a giant or dwarf dwelling in a cave. [Old Norse] [POD]

[2] Troll (Internet)
In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.

[3] Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt [someone]. Trolling is deliberate violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces. It necessarily involves a value judgement made by one user about the value of another's contribution. (Because of this it is considered not to be any more useful than the judgement 'I don't agree with you' by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed intent.)

[4] lurk verb [no obj., with adverbial of place] (of a person or animal) be or remain hidden so as to wait in ambush for someone or something: a ruthless killer still lurked in the darkness. n (of an unpleasant quality) be present in a latent or barely discernible state, although still presenting a threat: fear lurks beneath the surface | [as adj.] (lurking) he lives with a lurking fear of exposure as a fraud.
n [no obj.] read communications on an electronic network without making one's presence known.

noun Austral. informal a profitable stratagem; a dodge or scheme: you'll soon learn the lurks and perks. from British English slang lurk method of fraud.
DERIVATIVES
lurker noun.

ORIGIN Middle English: perhaps from lour + the frequentative suffix -k (as in talk). [Oxford Pop-up]

[5] lie2 —n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. —v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive.  give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [POD]

foot, shoe, other_1932

Submitted on July 2, 2007 - 9:21pm.

 Subtitle: all your nightmares rolled ind'a one.

-=*=-

I suppose it might fit the squataucracy's 'mindset' - in a vacuous-viciously back-handed sort'a way - that what is denied them, should also be denied the boongs. Doubly so, in fact.

-=*=-

I refer, of course, to mineral rights.

-=*=-

It must'a been a work of genius - to have included mineral rights into Mabo - or whatever/wherever, but now, see Johnny run...

-=*=-

If the above is simply too cryptic, this: we the sheople are already being toadally® ripped-off by the so-called 'guardians' of our mineral rights, now we're about to experience 'equality under the law' with our dark brothers - martial law, as enforced by Howard's (suffer the little children) mineral-thief protection mafia.

-=*=-

«MAL BROUGH: Kerry, ... We are talking about compulsorily acquiring land, ...»

[7.30/Mal Brough talks ... about the intervention plan]

credibility ...1927

Submitted on July 2, 2007 - 12:54pm.

 .. some have it, others don't.

-=*=-

Pаul Mоrrella is only the latest in a series of posters who say that they don't agree with 'murder for oil,' but when challenged to disprove it, they toadally® squib it:

«Phil, you ask me to "exclude oil theft" as a motivation. It is not possible for me to comply with this request; at this time.»

Q: Why won't anyone disprove murder for oil?

A: Because (IMHO) it's a fact.

I reiterate, that the time for arguing any of this is over. I have spent a big bit'a the last four-plus years documenting the evil progression starting with the filthy, premeditated WMD lies, through the illegal US/UK/Aus invasion of Iraq, then turned brutal occupation, and ending (for the moment) with the greedy rip-off plans embodied in the attempt to force US-prepared legislation (the 'oil law') onto the puppet Iraqi government - however successful this foul attempt may eventually be. (Hopefully, not.)

Another reiteration; that unsubstantiated statements dis/prove nothing; any person is free to try to disprove 'murder for oil' at any time, so far nobody successfully has - and I never expect anyone to do so, on the simple grounds that (IMHO) it's just not possible. Mr Mоrrella, in objecting without providing substance, is doing nothing more than deploying a time-wasting distraction.

Not content with that distraction, Pаul starts another over M3. His three consecutive bites at the M3 cherry can be seen above; almost nothing but more confusion. (Oh! Only IMHO, of course!) Pаul's mangling of M3 could be compared to an unlamented other's toadal® failure to justify his otherwise unfounded objections to the "Economic Hit Man."

As far as hiding inflation goes, it's not being hidden (see SMH Jun30/Jul1, here: "There have been four consecutive years of 20 per cent-plus returns" and here: "During the great boom housing prices went up by an average of 150 per cent", say.) It's the possible US' printing money contribution that's being obscured by dropping M3 reporting. Any flippant mention of any difference between headline, and core inflation is only more futile distraction; what we see are rampant price increases (houses, stocks), the exact definition of inflation[1].

Pаul Mоrrella: "What exactly am I lying about?"

Well, Pаul, it's like this: the kleptocracy immerse us in lies. "All politicians lie!" - is the MSM 'excuse,' say, for Howard's seeming inability to tell us the 'truth of any matter.' The MSM itself lies, both by omission and commission, in their daily reporting. Attributing almost all violence in Iraq to sectarian or Al Qaida cannot be true, but that's what they do. I call the collective bumf that the kleptocracy wants us to know (as distinct from and opposed to the truth), the pushed paradigm propaganda.

When someone tells us "A tax cut is the equivalent of a pay rise," then they are simply parroting the pushed paradigm propaganda. The fact of the matter here is that a) the tax cuts in Aus at the moment are nothing of the sort, being merely the government taking less than what they had planned to take, and b) worse and conclusive, the tax-share of GDP is rising while the wages-share is falling, and that by so-called increasing employment. Y'can probably work that one out for yourselves!

Sooo, were one to parrot the pushed paradigm propaganda, one would possibly be retailing (admittedly others') lies. The only question then is Q: consciously (aka with malice aforethought), or not?

-=*end*=-

PS We now know exactly why you are 'chatting' with me Pаul; you told us so, on June 28. Nice. And for how much longer?

Ref(s):

[1] inflation n. 1 inflating. 2 Econ. a general increase in prices. b increase in the supply of money regarded as causing this.  inflationary adj. [POD]