Is there something wrong with this world when one of our most gifted scientists is forced to resign from his work – work that could significantly benefit humanity – because he said something stupid and offensive?
Nobel laureate Tim Hunt is the next in a long list of scalps because he opened his mouth and said something stupid or contrary to politically correct orthodoxy.According to ‘the Guardian’: Tim Hunt has previously admitted his reputation for being a ‘chauvinist’. Furthermore, at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul on 9 June, he said: “Let me tell you about my trouble with girls… three things happen when they are in the lab… You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry.”
Like most scientists, I’ve never known medical specialists to be the most gifted in interpersonal relationships and social etiquette. But then again, that’s not what they specialise in, is it?
Of course, Professor Hunt’s immediate apology was not enough to hold back pressure that he fall on his sword.
The world is now worse off because one of its most gifted scientists cannot continue in his work, and how sad, that through trial by media, his offensive remarks carry more weight than his contributions to society in the field of biochemistry and cancer research.
Recently, my fellow contributor David Hiscox wrote about the link between the expansion of social services and increasing national debt.
As I read over his article linking paying for social services with deficit spending, and the deaths of boat people at sea, I found myself wondering if the implications of his opening question, “If the governments of third world countries can’t spend money on social services because they don’t have the money, how is it moral for the governments of first world countries to spend money they don’t have on social services?” – could be pushed a little further.
Travel with me for a moment into a prototypical world where there is a country-X who has borrowed money from a country-Y. Now country-X also has a several decades long history of borrowing money, and acquiring debts which they are failing to pay back.
How would we (as citizens of country-X, country-Y, or a third country-Z) feel about this? I imagine that we would have two main responses:
1) We would be concerned for country-Y’s long-term economy. We do not know the economic stability of country-Y, and it may well face hardship if country-X cannot meet their commitments.
2) We would be critical of country-X for making such an unrealistic offer, and keen to see them get their present debts in order (even if this is a long-term plan) instead of perpetually robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul.
An important point here, is that this argument holds whether or not country-X genuinely intends to pay the money back. The point stands either way: If a country has a history of not clearing their debts, then we would be rightly sceptical of them taking out more loans.
And, coming back to David’s point about the legitimacy of social security paid through deficit spending, here lies a valuable insight into why Labor & the Greens have continually been reminding us that our current level of debt is not a genuine concern – saying, “But we have a triple-A credit rating!”
The message here is that we are not like country-X, in short, it’s okay for Australia to keep borrowing money to fund unsustainable levels of public spending and social security (at least for a bit longer!) because our reputation is still good compared with other countries.
This is seductive language, and may sound initially sensible, but unfortunately for those of us in Gen-Y and younger who (if this approach continues) will be saddled with more debt than any generation before us, it’s also a category mistake.
One’s reputation regarding one’s actions compared to others’ actions, can only give you a relative and potentially unstable gauge on those actions, it is not a reliable guide to the ethics or sensibility of those actions. And (particularly relevant to our Australian context), if it is a reputation relative to the highly-questionable actions of others (Greece is a current case in point) – such a gauge will actually be highly misleading.
Put simply, just because there are other countries that are foolishly ‘borrowing from their future’ and choosing to cripple younger generations by unsustainable levels of spending in the present, does not mean that it is ethical or sensible for us to do the same. It is unpopular to state that current spending is unsustainable and it takes genuine self-discipline to reject unrealistic levels of governmental support. But young people must have the confidence to take the long-term view and speak up now – because it is not just the country-Y’s (countries to whom we owe money) that will suffer when we struggle to meet our commitments – but us because they are, quite literally, BORROWING FROM OUR FUTURE.
Wednesday’s Quote of the Day belongs to the Australian Treasurer, Joe Hockey. The XYZ is quoting his full response to two questions from a journalist yesterday, regarding housing affordability in Sydney, courtesy of Chris Kenny in The Australian.
“Question: Treasurer do you accept that housing in Sydney is unaffordable and the only way we’re going to make it affordable is if real house prices in real terms actually fall over the near term?
Treasurer: No. Look, if housing were unaffordable in Sydney, no one would be buying it. People are purchasing housing in Sydney, it’s expensive. As a multiple of average weekly earnings it is expensive, it’s an expensive city to live in. It’s my home city, it’s an expensive city. But, having said that, you know a lot of people would much rather have their homes go up in value than fall in value. Why? Because when you take out a mortgage, the mortgage is against the assessed value of that particular point in time, whatever’s leftover is your equity in the property. If your equity builds in the property not only is that to your financial benefit, but it also gives you the opportunity to borrow against that if you choose to do so for a small business. A lot of small businesspeople are borrowing against the equity in their homes in order to start up their business or build their business. Now, to have increasing equity in a home is a good thing, that’s a very good thing. Interest rates are at record lows. So if property is proving unaffordable for people with interest rates at record lows, then they should think carefully about how much they really can borrow, because you should always plan on in this situation interest rates potentially going up over the long term. So, you’ve got to be careful, it is a big financial risk to buy your own home. We want to make it easier. There are a suite of initiatives we have in place in regard to that, but most obviously, the best way to address inflated house prices in Sydney is to build more properties, build more properties.
Question: You say that housing is affordable, but what about for first home buyers who can’t get on the property ladder, those people that don’t have access to equity in other properties?
Treasurer: Well there are a range of incentives that have been put in place by state governments and others in relation to first home buyers. The starting point for a first homebuyer is to get a good job that pays good money. If you’ve got a good job and it pays good money and you have security in relation to that job, then you can go to the bank and you can borrow money and that’s readily affordable. More affordable than ever to borrow money for a first home now than it has ever been. But, the response for first home buyers is to build more properties. I know, it’s a difficult concept for some to get their heads around, supply and demand, but it’s not that complicated. If you increase supply to meet the demand, then obviously you won’t get the growth in property prices that you may have thought if you have less supply.”
Chris Kenny’s article on the distortion of these comments can be found below.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/joe-hockeys-housing-comments-not-silly-enough-for-media-outrage/story-fn8qlm5e-1227391045809
Following the devastating 2004 Boxing Day tsunami which killed more than 170,000 alone in Aceh province, the Australian Government pledged $1 billion towards the recovery and rebuilding operation.
Since 2005, a radical form of Islam has spawned and taken root in Aceh, and Sharia law is rapidly being rolled out.
The question needs to be asked, ‘has Australian aid supported the radicalisation of Aceh and contributed to the oppression of women in the province’?
Today the ABC reported:
“the capital of Indonesia’s Aceh province has banned women from working or attending entertainment venues late at night, legally requiring them home by 11:00pm… unless they are accompanied by a husband or male family member.”
Furthermore, “Aceh is the only Indonesian province that implements Islamic law and makes homosexuality, gambling, and drinking alcohol punishable by caning. It also reprimands women for wearing form-fitting clothing.”
How sad indeed, that despite good intentions, Australia’s $1 billion aid package has supported the Aceh regime which is increasingly hostile to the West and is clamping down particular on the rights of women.
It is entirely right for the Australian government to be more discerning about where its foreign aid dollar goes, and utterly inappropriate for Australian funds to support oppressive regimes.
Furthermore, the Australian public needs to be more discerning about where tax payer funded foreign aid goes and the consequences of that funding. It is too much of a cop-out for Australians
to outsource their compassion to the government, expecting it to pick up the tab, whilst being uninformed and personally unresponsive to the needs around the world.
The situation in Aceh is not isolated, and it is not news to anyone that a great deal of government funded foreign aid goes to line the pockets of corrupt officials.
Australians ought to inform themselves, and take responsibility for their own giving, rather than continually demanding that the government do it for them. Especially when we end up with Australian dollars supporting corruption and oppression in places such as Aceh province.
Tuesday’s Quote of the Day comes from an avid poster:
“Capitalist parasite filth sit on their arses and do nothing.”
It is as though someone has looked deep in our hearts, and articulated exactly what we are like at our core.
Kudos.
It’s your XYZ.
Controversy was sparked last week when Hillsong church announced that it was inviting the controversial American pastor Mark Driscoll to Australia to participate in their annual conference.
Pastor Mark Driscoll (Photograph from Mar’s Hill Church)
No sooner had the announcement been made than the progressive media went into overdrive, digging up the dirt on Driscoll, and dirt they found by the shovel load.
Many years ago, Driscoll had made some stupid and ridiculous comments, stating that “women were created to house a man’s penis”. And likewise, many years ago had apologised for making these outlandish and offensive remarks.
But no apology is ever enough for the unforgiving left.
The media swiftly relegated Driscoll into the same category of serial woman basher and American boxer Floyd Mayweather and the rather pathetic self proclaimed ‘professional’ pick-up artist, Julien Blanc.
Jenna Price, co-founder of the bizarrely named feminist organisation, ‘Destroy the Joint’, an organisation which apparently calls for “gender equality” demanded that Hillsong exclude Driscoll from the conference, and further contended:
“We would have to ask the Australian Government why it will allow a person who promotes this sort of inequality to come to Australia.”
In addition to this political blustering, a 3000 signature petition has been raised, protesting Driscoll’s planned visit to Australia.
It is bizarre that such a heavy handed approach is being taken to stop this foot-in-mouth preacher from entering Australia, when at the same time, leftists have been calling for ‘compassion’ and the acceptance of returned ISIS fighters.
Furthermore, feminist organisations such as ‘Destroy the Joint’ are conspicuously silent on the ongoing atrocities committed against women in the Middle East including the horrific human trafficking, sexual slavery and genital mutilation.
As Claire Lehmann also points out:
“Just last month the University of Western Sydney’s Muslim Students’ Association hosted an event, attended by Hizb ut-Tahrir representatives, in which women were asked to sit apart from men, at the back of a lecture hall. Yet a Google search for Destroy the Joint and ‘Hizb ut-Tahrir’ returns no results. Why the cherry picking?”One can only conclude with this level of inconsistency and sheer hypocrisy, many on the left including the aptly named ‘Destroy the Joint’ are not interested in the health and well being of our society, but really are intent on destroying the joint.
Yesterday I watched my beloved Dees battle hard against a quality Collingwood side. For most of the match it was a riveting contest, with frequent momentum shifts and a couple of stirring fight-backs from Melbourne. But Collingwood had too much class, broke too many Melbourne advances through sheer pressure, and won the key position contests.
Melbourne were under the pump from the word go, Collingwood kicking the first two goals of the match. But some brilliance from Jeremy Howe levelled the scores with two goals in swift succession, and more importantly, showed that Melbourne had come to play.
Jesse Hogan is a bloody legend, but Jack Frost did an excellent job.
The rest of the first quarter belonged to Collingwood. They lifted intensity, swarming all over Melbourne’s midfielders, outnumbering them at the contest and allowing them no space. There were moments where a few centimetres had 12 point consequences, like when Jack Watts got his fingertips to a floating ball in the goal square that lesser players would have struggled to reach, only for Collingwood to take it straight down the middle and kick a goal 15 seconds later.
So although Melbourne were down 3 goals to 7 at quarter time, they clearly went in feeling they were in the game. They levelled the scores ten minutes into the 2nd, and took the lead soon after. Twice, young gun Angus Brayshaw, who earned himself a Rising Star nomination, bombed the ball into the forward 50 for speedster Jeff Garlett to run onto and kick two thrilling goals. And a brilliant Max Gawn tap from a throw-in helped Bernie Vince to another. But again, Collingwood tightened the screws, and the match, building pressure on Melbourne minute by minute. This resulted in two Collingwood goals just before half time, and Melbourne were lucky to get the siren.
The Pies quickly kicked away at the start of the third, but again, Melbourne found a way to fight back from four goals down. Jack Watts showed tremendous poise, having been awarded a soft free kick, and with Pies fans’ boos reverberating around the entire stadium, to steer through a crucial goal, and Jeremy Howe kicked his third, helping Melbourne to level the scores once more.
But yet again, Collingwood tightened the match, and then kicked away, so for all Melbourne’s effort in the 3rd, they only narrowed the half time gap by two points. In the last Quarter, Collingwood slowly strangled Melbourne, who finally cracked under the pressure, spraying chances which in previous quarters had allowed them to fight back.
Jesse Hogan. Because one amateur action shot just isn’t enough!
The final margin, 110 to 85, was a fair reflection of the match. Melbourne were very good, but Collingwood just had too much class, and applied tremendous pressure all over the ground. In the air across half back, Pie Adam Oxley was supreme, stifling many Melbourne attacks. Conversely, it was Melbourne’s inability to penetrate past the half forward line at crucial moments that prevented their chances of building a big lead in the second or third quarters, and of coming back in the last. This is still Melbourne’s biggest weakness and needs to be addressed in order to be successful.
The hard attack on the ball from Jack Watts as a follower was a fantastic boost for Nathan Jones and Bernie Vince, who both had 34 possessions, and it should keep the critics off his back for a few more weeks. For the Pies, the equally maligned Travis Cloke proved the ultimate difference between the two sides, kicking seven goals zip. His giant frame was too much for in-form Melbourne defender Tom MacDonald, and he provided a devastating presence all over the ground.
This was one the the great ironies of the match, with all the talk in the media being about how terrible Cloke has been, (which is rubbish,) about his not earning his million dollar paycheck, contrasted with the well deserved adulation for Melbourne full back Tom McDonald and Full Forward Jesse Hogan. Both Melbourne players competed desperately all day, but in the end were well beaten. Hogan could only manage one goal against Jack Frost, who was regularly helped out by his teammates to double team Hogan.
As a side note, Collinwood have continued their Ministry of Funny Names approach to recruitment, with Tim Broomhead joining the likes of Tyson Goldsack, Steele Sidebottom, and Jack Frost.. Jamie Elliott and Jarryd Blair were excellent foils for Cloke with 3 goals apiece, and Scott Pendlebury passed the number one rule of Football- if you are going to wear orange boots, you’d better bloody play well.
If I can say something about Melbourne; there is some real steel about this group. They have gained some star players from other clubs, some exciting new talent, and the long term Melbourne players who have survived the disasters of the last decade are battle-hardened, and they are hungry. Melbourne showed real courage today. Not just the ordinary physical courage that any mug can show -that is to be expected- but mental and spiritual courage. They displayed the courage to come back twice from deficits, and to hold on in the last when all was lost, and to prevent the blowouts that have plagued them in previous seasons.
There was the courage of Jack Fitzpatrick, who committed a humiliating clanger, scooping the ball through for an attempted rushed behind, only to give away a free directly in front for the throw, but then held his nerve to throw himself into several contests soon after and deliver the ball cleanly. There was the courage to hold on to the ball that fraction of a second longer and use one’s vision to pinpoint a target. Repeated courage to attack through the middle allowed Melbourne to score with a freedom and speed that has rarely been seen for over a decade. And the courage to just belt the ball forward, to bulldoze it forward, to run into brick walls of opposition players knowing that your teammates will back you up to keep bullocking the ball forward.
This is one of the things I love about football, seeing the development and application of character in the men who play it. By this I don’t just mean “character building” which will help young men to contribute to society and be positive role models for the young. Let’s face it, when we lose to Collingwood, we couldn’t give a stuff about such fluff for at least a week. What I am talking about is the character to achieve great tasks, under great pressure, in the heat of the moment when quick, accurate decision making means the difference between a win and a loss. Athletes are some of the most remarkable human beings on the planet, and the excitement they stir in, and the adulation they receive from, us mere mortals is healthy and completely legitimate.
I watched a team yesterday, and they played as a team. This wasn’t some fluke performance, running on emotion against the traditional enemy. Melbourne are back. They may not be Premiership material for a while, but they will soon earn the respect of the competition.
Today’s Quote of the Day comes from an unnamed XYZ contributor:
“Watching ‘likes’ for The XYZ is like watching Michael Clarke accumulate runs when you’re following the test scores on your phone. We’ve cracked the double ton!”
Over many years, the argument has been put forward that progressives are more intelligent than conservatives. In fact, popular culture assumes that conservatives have conservative views because they are either one of two things: stupid, bad or both.This article [link to: Study links low intelligence with right-wing beliefs] is a classical example of the slap-dash research arguing that conservatives as not just ill-informed, but downright Dumb.
However, a 2012 survey of social psychologists in America found a fourteen-to-one ratio of Democrat to Republican voters.
Link to: Is social psychology biased against Republicans?
Given this stacking-of-the-deck it is difficult not to conclude that there is some kind of confirmation bias in these studies, which only serve to reinforce the views of the researchers, as well as reflecting the presently dominant view in popular culture and those constantly espoused in the progressive media.
What is rather interesting are studies recently carried out by researchers at Denmark’s Aarhus University and the University of California that found that men with “strong upper body strength are more likely to vote conservative while physically weaker males have a greater tendency towards left-leaning views.”
“The scientists say men’s upper body strength predicts and influences their political opinions and this link reflects psychological traits that evolved in response to our early ancestral environments and continue to influence behaviour today.”
It will be interesting to see if there is any truth to the conclusions found in this research, or whether it reflects the same kind of confirmation bias in other studies which ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
Until then, I’ll arm wrestle you for it.
Link to:
Strong men likely to have right-wing views
The government can save billions of dollars in subsidies, grants, awards, and let’s face it, welfare payments, by removing all funding for The Arts not directly linked to tertiary education. One, and only one, cheap, simple government initiative is needed to replace the feathering of artists’ ungrateful nests.
A few hundred thousand dollars can be invested to establish a two day training course, available all over the country, but only for artists or prospective artists, teaching them how to not procrastinate. There is no need for an in depth analysis of cost-benefits or outcomes. Every artist in Australia knows that this is the truth, if only they would look into the dark depths of their soul.
Artists will pay for this course out of their own pockets, and they will be encouraged to take refreshers every couple of years. It will also be available online. There will be no stupid shake-hands-with-the-person-next-to-you/ faux-networking ritual on the first morning of the course. No preamble about health and safety or anti-discrimination policy. They won’t even tell you where the toilets are. Just a simple, two day course, covering the following subjects:
1) Time management and task prioritisation.
2) Business basics.
3) Advertising.
One hour of the course will be devoted to those wishing to specialise in specific fields:
Music: Musicians will be taught that melody and harmony are the building blocks of music, and are the most important factors in determining the engagement of an audience, regardless of their background. All theories to the contrary were devised by people who, in their own words, deliberately wanted to remove any pleasure from the musical experience, believing this was a “bourgeois” concept. Therefore it is no wonder that, if you write a piece for orchestra devoid of melody and harmony, nobody will like it.
Drama: Actors, directors, and screenwriters will be taught the remarkable fact that Aussies love sport, and it may be worth telling positive stories about Australian sporting history and sporting culture once in a while. Also, Aussies are eager to watch simple and honest portrayals of Australia’s involvement in war.
Artists: Messages about the life-sustaining value of a healthy eco-system, racism, or subverting the patriarchy can be transmitted without explicit depictions of intimate parts of the human body, graphic portrayals of rape, or the use of human effluence. 90% of what you do is porn.
Dance: People love to dance. You’re doing a great job. Keep it up.
Writers: Nobody likes your work. Because you are depressed. You are the only person that can do anything about this.
Artists are some of the most energetic, brilliant people on the face of the planet. The biggest impediments to our success are our own lethargy, apathy, and the devastating and incapacitating effect of ridiculous and irrelevant academic theories devised by stupid wankers who hate themselves and hate life. With a simple grounding in productive personal habits, the fundamentals of business and economics, the definition of Art, and an understanding of what attracts people to it, Australia will have a pioneering arts industry which thrives off the hard work of its creative people.
And it will have this without the need for government assistance, which more than anything else, sustains the very aspects of Art which turns so many people away from it.
Here is a brief article on the nature of modern art, and an attempt at an explanation as to how it manages not to die. The first thing which needs to be understood about modern art is that it does not flow organically from the soul of the artist onto the canvass, the page or the screen, but passes through an ideological filter.
This article hints at this, and points out that, far from signalling one’s Philistinism, a “spontaneous, visceral hatred of atonal music is a sign of health.”
This article from firstthings.com is an introduction to what will be a series of Weekend Arts essays exploring the source of modern art’s malaise, and what can be done to restore its health and its popularity.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2015/06/ideological-art
Last year, the Australian National University attracted headlines with its plan to divest from companies deriving income from the sale of fossil fuels. This decision by the university attracted both applause and criticism from politicians, commentators and the media.
Since then, superannuation funds, and even the Church of England have followed suit.
But is fossil fuel diverstment just tokenistic window dressing?
The decision to divest from companies that derive revenue from the sale of fossil fuels is not only tokenistic and window dressing, it may actually be counter-productive to the development and rolling out of renewable energy.
Who are some of the major investors in renewal energy? You got it – energy companies that make money out of fossil fuels.
BP has been a world leader in the development of solar technology. They were until recently the world’s largest manufacturer of photovoltaic cells. Chevron and many other ‘fossil fuel’ energy suppliers are involved in the development of renewable technologies and the roll out of renewable energy projects.
But these decisions to divest from fossil fuel companies cuts them out.
What overlook are the unintended consequences of their decisions, and decisions including fossil fuel divestment. This decision which seeks to reduce the use of fossil fuels could actually have the opposite impact by disempowering the greatest investors in renewables and slow down the rolling out of new technology.
In the end, fossil fuel divestment is not much more than lazy window dressing and moral preening.
What would make a difference is if people insisted that their energy companies provided renewable options.
What would make a difference is if consumers actually changed their behaviours rather than making feel good statements that demand little of themselves, and what’s more, could actually be counter-productive to their intended consequence.
The numbers are in on the first XYZ viewers poll, which examined the best way to deal once and for all with the Islamic State, with the result that a strong majority of The XYZ’s readers favour a full scale invasion.
When asked “How should we deal with ISIS?” 67% of XYZ viewers voted for “The Iraq Approach: Full scale conventional invasion.” 22% voted for “The Afghanistan Approach: Special forces leading indigenous fighters for fast and flexible campaign,” while surprisingly, 11% “welcome our totalitarian overlords.” It must be noted that because of the small survey sample, we cannot be certain whether this 11% is genuine, had a slip of the finger, or is just taking the piss.
From a discussion initiated by The XYZ editors in a transparent attempt to drum up views and likes, it appears that although there is disagreement over what created the power vacuum which ISIS has been able to fill, there is consensus on two main points:
1) Any new invasion will need to involve much greater numbers, so that order and the safety of Iraq’s citizens can be protected from the outset, stifling the momentum of any insurgency.
2) For this force to remain for decades, much like in Germany and South Korea, to maintain stability and allow the fledgling Iraqi democracy to flourish.
In short, there needs to be as much focus on winning the peace as there is on winning the war.
Come visit us at The XYZ to have your say on The XYZ’s new viewer poll, “Will the world come to an end if the ABC is privatised?”
In sensational scenes at the MCG today, former Carlton Football Club star, Eddie Betts, was booed by his former supporters, in Carlton’s heartbreaking narrow loss to Adelaide. Betts was lining up for goal at a crucial period of the final quarter, when Carlton supporters started booing, apparently in an attempt to put him off his game. However, as a professional footballer, Betts was too good to be distracted by these predictable tactics, and steered the goal through undaunted. He then celebrated with his teammates as they kept their focus on winning the tight contest.
This did not stop the Carlton fans from attempting the same trick again, booing Taylor Walker as he attempted another goal minutes later. He was then jeered by the same Carlton fans after he missed. It has not been settled whether these tactics caused Walker to miss, but what is certain is that they were not enough to get their beleaguered team over the line.
A member of the Carlton cheer squad, who wished to remain anonymous, possibly because he is a figment of the author’s imagination, said he and his fellow fanatics were booing him because they thought it would help their club. “He had done nothing all match, and we wanted him to know about it. We thought if we could dent his confidence, we could help our boys. But I guess we have to face the fact that if we’re not actually out on the field, there is bugger all we can do to alter the course of the match.”
He also commented that the umpires, whom he described as “maggots,” may as well have been wearing Adelaide jumpers. When asked to comment on recent turmoil in their coaching position, he said he hoped Carlton could find an experienced coach, preferably with Premiership experience, who could help develop their young list and get the most out of every player.
Great news everybody! The XYZ has received its first nasty private message. We believe it is only fitting that this lovely correspondence makes our inaugural “Quote of the Day.” Enjoy.
“With crackpots allowed to set up garbage like this page on social media, is it any wonder we have veen (sic) lumped wuth (sic) this dope as PM? Seems you wombats will do anything possible to aid Limited News Corp (sic) in their dumbing down of the nation.”
Despite all the excitement about marriage over the last few days, I am discovering why people don’t get married anymore.
There is a massive disincentive to making permanent commitments with anyone other than the State. The State is indeed a jealous lover.
Last year my wife and I got married. As we discovered, after her coming ‘under the care’ of a man (rather than the government), she lost all her Austudy and her healthcare card. Over the year, we were down nearly $20,000 for having tied the knot. We were fine, but had to tighten our financial belt. Many other couples would suffer considerably more difficulty.
Our experience shows a significant disincentive to get married, and perhaps is a key reason why many poorer people do not get married these days.
If I was cynical I might conclude that the government’s goal is subsidize poverty, create dependance and produce social alienation, rather than supporting strong, resilient and independent families.
We often hear it claimed that it is because of the West’s intervention in the Middle East that terrorism and instability has escalated, and that West’s intervention has fueled a general hatred towards Western culture. One of the main reasons I don’t accept this particular line which is trawled out by certain politicians and media outlets on a daily basis is because it is frankly racist, and reinforces the worst of colonialism.
Underlying this belief is the presumption that non-Western people cannot be held to the same level of accountability for their actions as Western people can. Like children, non-Westerners are unable to bear ‘adult responsibility’ which can only carried by the strong and moral shoulders of well educated, middle class white people.
These well educated, middle class white people overestimate their importance in this particular regard, but what they should carry on their broad shoulders is the responsibility for the increase in home grown sympathisers and the number of ‘converts’ to Islamic terrorism whom we have seen emerging from Australia and Canada.
Australia and Canada are perhaps the most multicultural nations in the world, and for the last couple of generations, successive governments at all levels have sought to celebrate diversity and to foster a culture of inclusivity. Both countries are amongst the world’s wealthiest nations with some of the best opportunities for education and employment. And both countries also have generous social welfare programs to provide for the needs of life if someone is unable to work, or should someone simply choose not to.
You might think that having amongst the highest life expectancies, lowest infant mortalities, and richest qualities of life would be a cause for celebration. Apparently, these and the many other achievements of the West are not. The three overarching themes in Australia’s National School Curriculum are ‘Australia’s place in Asia’, ‘Indigenous Australia’ and ‘Sustainability’. Ignoring for a moment that these themes are silent on the learning of basic literacy and numeracy (surely the foundation of just about all education), the lack of any focus on Australia’s legacy and place in Western culture is quite remarkable. In fact, the three themes in Australia’s National Curriculum arguably undermine any possibility of celebrating Australia’s Western culture, let alone the teaching of it, with the notable exception of where Australian culture is regarded as threatening to one of the three overarching themes. Then the children will hear a lot about the West, and will be taught to become extremely cognisant and contrite for its manifold sins.
When our educators and media refuse to impart Australia’s Western culture, preach a boring and futile cultural relativism, and then when Australian culture is identified, it is only to be condemned on the grounds of some kind of ‘ism’, it is not surprising that radical and violent ideologies that make bold and exclusive claims of truth, meaning and purpose become so appealing to the young.
Well educated, middle class white people: you (and your countrymen) are not to blame for the terrorist uprisings in the Middle East. But you are to blame for those who have turned to these violent ideologies at home. You have denied and shamed our culture and refused to impart it to them. You have denied children of their own identity, and the possibility of being a member of a truly meaningful and cohesive culture and society. You have given hungry children stones to eat instead of bread. Most just starve, but some prowl around like hungry lions, looking for something or someone to devour. Well educated, middle class white people: it is you who are responsible for creating and grooming hate and treachery in our midst.
As the nation pauses around its water coolers to discuss the implications of The XYZ’s brilliant challenge to the ABC’s hegemony over public broadcasting, conversation will generally move, Godwin’s Law-like, through three predictable stages:
Stage 1: “The ABC is not biased to the left.”
Stage 2: “Okay, the ABC is biased to the left but we need it to balance the right wing bias on the commercial networks.”
Stage 3: “So, yeah, The Project. But my niece will be devastated if we lose Peppa the Pig.”
You see, if the government transfers half of the ABC’s budget over to The XYZ in order to restore balance to government funded media, Peppa the Pig will be taken out and shot.
Obviously, this is nonsense.
Peppa the Pig will not be taken out and shot. Peppa will get new clothes, a hot new sports car, three houses on the Mediterranean and a makeover. Peppa is big business. Billion dollar big. There is even a stage show coming out. If the ABC lost Peppa the Pig, it would be unleashed, not binned. Children all over Australia would have even more access to Peppa the Pig, more than they could possibly imagine, and they can imagine quite a bit. It could be the best thing that ever happened to Peppa in this country.
So it is curious that this defence is even employed, when the simplest Google search, which is all the research I did for this article, can debunk it in about fifteen seconds. In truth, it is an emotive tactic which attempts to override the self evident fact that the ABC is massively biased, and something needs to be done about it.
And it is not a new tactic. During the Howard years, whenever there was but a whiff of a budget cut, Aunty’s supporters would march, holding up Big Ted, Little Ted, and Gemima front and centre. That these well known cultural icons could be used to create big bucks apparently never occurred to them.
May I suggest that Play School do a segment, in between building a rocket ship out of used toilet rolls, and songs about tying shoe laces, that explores the idea that if you bake a little pie, you can’t share it with many people. But if you bake a bigger pie, hell bake lots of big pies, and cupcakes and fairy bread, there is plenty for everybody.
The Peppa the Pig Defence is not a legitimate argument for letting the ABC keep both halves of its budget. It is not a legitimate argument for keeping it in public hands. It is deliberate misdirection, cried Helen Lovejoy style, as cover for the fact that the ABC is biased, it is biased at our expense, and to Australia’s loss.
We all know that progressive are hip and cool and are with the times, and that conservatives, well, suck.
But why do conservatives suck so much?
The great thinkers down the ages have pondered this very question:
“Why do conservatives suck?”
Bill Whittle gives you the in depth analysis and explains why conservatives suck so much.
According to ‘the Guardian’: Tim Hunt has previously admitted his reputation for being a ‘chauvinist’. Furthermore, at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul on 9 June, he said: “Let me tell you about my trouble with girls… three things happen when they are in the lab… You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry.”
Like most scientists, I’ve never known medical specialists to be the most gifted in interpersonal relationships and social etiquette. But then again, that’s not what they specialise in, is it?
Of course, Professor Hunt’s immediate apology was not enough to hold back pressure that he fall on his sword.
The world is now worse off because one of its most gifted scientists cannot continue in his work, and how sad, that through trial by media, his offensive remarks carry more weight than his contributions to society in the field of biochemistry and cancer research. 
hat it is because of the West’s intervention in the Middle East that terrorism and instability has escalated, and that West’s intervention has fueled a general hatred towards Western culture. One of the main reasons I don’t accept this particular line which is trawled out by certain politicians and media outlets on a daily basis is because it is frankly racist, and reinforces the worst of colonialism.