Copenhagen. A Failure?

The Climate Conference in Copenhagen appears to have been a failure in the eyes of many. Indeed it was, with this important disclaimer. For those who expected too much; or for those who willed it to fail: Copenhagen was a failure.

Firstly, to those who willed Copenhagen to fail. Any & all possible outcomes would have been picked over and degraded by this mob. That is a given. Dialogue/debate is next to worthless in this arena. Logic barely exists. An emotional outlook has been fabricated and rigidly adhered to. Oh, of course there is back-pocket logic. The only reason we have to care about these fools is due to their stultifying influence. For activists, the path is clear. Conversation with this mob is a waste of time. It can be crudely boiled down to a generational divide. Activists must simply wait until a large quantity of objectors curl up & die. Other paths could well be futile. I am reminded of the republican debate in Australia. Trench politics. The absolute opposite to the ideal of democratic practice (also one of it's major constants).

To those who expected too much. Diplomacy is a slow, pondering beast. Try getting 190 people in a room for a discussion on the same topic. Within, numerous environmental bigots will do their utomost to keep proceedings at a stillpoint. International diplomacy is no better. The minimal (and yes, non-binding) agreements set are all that could possibly be expected. Posturing and influence are far greater components than the actual content of speech. Politics is human. Again, another point that logic is secondary.

The greatest question to be asked (and answered) at any meeting of this kind is : 'What's in it for me?' A clear and obvious demonstration of the negative effects of climate change is sorely needed. In a nutshell, this impetus does not presently exist. International leaders, mindful of their own constituency, have little choice but to push the 'What's in it for me?' line to it's extreme. At the present stage of scientific uptake (minimal), it would be naive to expect anything better. It is a low-grade game of Simon Says. For one to act without the appearance of similar action by others is largely fruitless. I do not agree with this one bit from a personal level. However, at a different level it is a no-brainer.

Which brings me to the major point. Climate change action is the responsibility of the individual. To expect government (elected democratically, for this example's sake) to take collective action is a misnomer. The 'debate' in the US & Australia is truly woeful. A bunch of organisations with vested interests have a massive influence. Governments may try to make the right noisess. It barely matters in the crunch. Every single scheme I have seen proffered in the political environment is terrible. Permits to allow the large polluters to continue polluting etc. So flawed that I didn't care whether they were voted in or not.

There is a tougher part for people who have decided on individual action. How does one communicate one's deeds? This is crucial. A middle line must be taken. One must be wary of 'preaching'. This will quickly go nowhere. The movement needs to be led by action, not rhetoric. Rhetoric must play it's part. It has to be a substantially smaller part than many would like. Lead by action. Talk is cheap. Deniers are scum who cannot be converted by talk. They require a parental approach, without the requisite finger-wagging. An almost impossible line to take, I agree. I lose my patience very quickly on these matters. A religious figure, of sorts, is needed. Hey, I'm unaware of a religious figure who didn't continually shoot his mouth off. So, I am calling for a non-human to lead a very human problem. It could be safe to say that will never happen. All we can control is the individual level.

Self interest clearly trumps all other interests. Following this, I expect no meaningful action from government (en masse) until the situation is dire & obvious. Until that point, individual action is the key. The best hope I can offer is that a new stream of politicians may emerge from this movement. It will be at a very late stage in the 'debate'.

Ah, Piffle. I give up. Copenhagen was a failure.

The Problem with the Climate Change Debate

The Problem with the Climate Change Debate

Facts are the clearest problem in the Climate Change debate. Theories are almost impossible to prove without directly observable events. The point at which this direct observation occurs could be well into the future. However, I wish to largely ignore the (Earth-based) facts in this article. I would like to talk about the fatalistic mind-frame that accompanies such debate.

Fatalistic thinking is a massive bugbear for Climate Change activists. It matters not whether the fatalism is correct. In the eyes of deniers, the mind-frame itself is problematic. This area sorely needs addressing. The same thinking was prevalent with the Millenium Bug, in the year 2000. The Millenium Bug turned out to be a massive public scare with little or no basis. This is important. A precedent has been followed. A bunch of people spoke up, essentially proclaiming the end of the (digital) world. For people who are not involved heavily with computers - it was a bunch of crazy tech people speaking far out of their station. Their prophecies could be safely ignored.

The same is true with the Climate Change debate. The tendency to exaggerate (in whatever fashion) disastrous events is a well-established norm. The invariable winners are the people who ignored such fatalistic claims. The calculated end of civilisation by the Mayans, in 2012, is an oft-spoken of event. No-one (I know) would believe such an ancient prophecy directly. However, couple that with other things, such as Climate Change, and one can easily merge the two. One could easily ascribe to the Mayans a 'green' brain that was able to see the effects of Climate Change. This process is the problem that I am talking about.

In the eyes of deniers, a fatalistic mind-frame is a problem in of itself. It smacks of depression and self-loathing. A person who is so unhappy with their own life, that they begin to ascribe their viewpoint to the wider world. Whether or not any of this is true is irrelevant. The overtones are clear. To a great degree, many deniers may feel like they are debating with children. Children who invoke the bogey monster from the closet. The Climate Change activists must address this issue. It is critical. It may take years to get this public relations point right.

I have 2 points I wish to directly address to sceptics. The first is the nature of the word sceptic. To be a sceptic is a completely natural turn of events, as highlighted above. Historically, sceptics have contributed much more than authority, one may safely surmise. The definition of the word sceptic (amongst others) is ' Philosopher who questions the possibility of knowledge.' A very powerful position. However, related to the Climate Change debate, it is clear that most knowledge talked about can never be proven. Or never be proven in sufficient time. Proof is an incredibly dicey area. One may continually reject proof for reasons other than the data. Wittled down, scepticism at it's extreme is also nihilistic. In the same fashion that Climate Change activists are (to the extreme). A perfectly acceptable line of scepticism (and not a new one) is to deny that anything could ever be known. In a philosophical sense, it is impossible to 'prove' this viewpoint incorrect. It is correct simply because one has taken the position. It must be noted that one can never move from such a position, if one's aim is to be 'right', once it is taken.

As a sceptic, having taken the position, it is one's duty to examine evidence. The sceptic must at all times keep an open mind. To do otherwise would be selective scepticism, ie everyday 'logic'. Taking of a position purely for personal reasons. A sceptic must not take this option, to continue to call themselves a sceptic. Clearly, most who label themselves so are not sceptics. They are merely deniers. Deniers are impossible to debate, on any topic. The pre-formed view is that which one is left with. This is not a Sceptic.

I urge all sceptics to examine the atmosphere of Venus. Venus has no possible man-made interference in relation to it's atmosphere. I believe this sidesteps another of the great problems with this debate - Fault, or lack of it. In discussing Venus, the debate will have much greater clarity. Please examine the current data on the atmosphere of Venus and make your own conclusion.

Thankyou for taking the time to read this article.

P.S. In speaking of deniers/sceptics/activists/(believers), I entirely acknowledge that no 1 person is 100% either way. The sceptic (in everyone) can, and should be appealed to directly to further this debate.

--------
In conclusion. 1 month after writing the article. The whole debate is far more stuffed than I imagined. This post has convinced no-one. At no stage did the discussion move on to Venus. Most just read the first few lines and teed off. They had no idea what the article was about.

Copenhagen. A Failure?

Sex & Anxiety : Keeping up with the Jones's

We have been very lucky (?) this year. A veritable cavalcade of stories has whirled around us. In quick succession. The private lives of the rich & famous are the particular area of public interest. Clearly, not enough information nor details may sate the public desire. Firstly, a few standard comments on gossip.

Gossip is an odd area of human interaction. It provides a means of social connection between people who may not have anything else to talk about. It offers a degree of character-building. One may elevate one's social rank by having multiple stories of gossip at one's disposal. The rarer, or dirtier, the better. Also, the greater degree of elevation at hand. Gossip is an integral part of the social nature of humans.

In saying this, it is clear that gossip is quite incompatible with many other social urges. For example, the desire to be accepted. One person's gossip may bring a social grouping to crash down. Usually at an individual's expense. The group may safely ostracise the individual. Irrespective of the factual worth of the gossip.

The most interesting gossip is that which cannot be proved. Enter the area of sexual dalliance. Again going back to sociological reasoning : Gossip about sex is the most frequent, perhaps most important, area of gossip. Confining the argument to one group (who freely interact with one another), it has clear methodology. To know that person A is involved with person B is invaluable information in this light. One may see favours being given where otherwise they would not be apparent. Within this group setting, one may undermine these machinations to one's favour. Extremely valuable.

The problem in the 'wider world' relates exactly to this idea. Celebrities fill the role of 'leaders'. We all know of them. With a brief idea of their basic outward motivations. In general, it will be a sports player or actor. People we watch in their professional life. Our social groups are so wide & diverse that the sweet carrot becomes even greater. The greatest dirge of human conversation is having to listen to people talk about people we neither know nor care about. As a method of compensation for this dirge, easily identifiable celebrities are the 'space-fillers'. We can talk about them, and other people will most likely have some degree of care. Simply by knowing who we are talking about. This point cannot be understated.

However, the

TO BE COMPLETED

2009 - Official Year of the Sex Scandal

So, I bought the newspaper for the first time in months. I haven't been following online. Page 3 - 'Barmaid talks of sex in car with Premier.' Ah, it's refreshing to know things haven't changed. Newspapers still rely on the lowest common denominator approach. I can only gather it continues to work.

"In her paid interview, Ms Chantelois says she had sex in Mr Rann's office and would collect him from Adelaide casino .. and drive to the nearby ..  golf club. 'He was calling the shots and I was his puppet' she said. 'I would just follow his instructions and there were secret meetings."

Well, I am very shocked already. How dare a man in power ever use that power for sex? It must be an abuse of power. Remember - 'He was calling the shots'. The victimhood of the woman is now established.

"[We would go] just on the side of the road at the golf course. And I'm ashamed to say intimacy was involved."

Oh, that's a relief. I thought this was a sex scandal. It appears they parked by the side of the road and talked with 'intimacy'. In any case, the woman is not to blame.

"Ms Chantelois told Seven that Mr Rann should say sorry to those hurt by the affair, including her estranged husband, family, his wife and 'probably the public as well.'"

Absolutely Mr Rann should apologise to the estranged husband of the woman. I mean, he bears absolute  responsibility. It is the sheer radiating power from his penis that blinded the woman. If that were absent, Ms Chantelois would stay perfectly faithful to her marriage vows, for multiple lifetimes, if not eternity.

At least there is one refreshing constant. Newspapers are Garbage

How to Have Sex Without Being Locked Up (Lessons from Hofstra)

Lessons in Sexual Dalliance #1 - Always Carry & Use a Recording Device.

Daily life may be a quagmire of opportunities. It is one's duty to resist these mosquitoes of desire & press on. The next time you are offended by/offered a sexual opportunity - do make sure to record it. The recording will offer clear spiritual release in that you, at some point in the proceedings, uttered the magical word NO. That it was in response to the question "Should I stop?" is of mere consequence. The sheer magic of the word works even in retrospect. One need never have said it in fact.


There are a few important things to say about the Hofstra 5 case. The first point has been made. The Hofstra 5 looked headed straight for jail. For a probable maximum of 25 years. The video evidence that one of the men took was of crucial importance. Without it's existence, it is doubtful whether the woman would have ever recanted her story. Certainly, without the pressure it would have inevitably beared, her reason for doing so would be greatly diminished.

As with the Matthew Johns case , the reasons for the girl creating the tale of hype she did were twofold:
a) to address personal shame & guilt felt after the event. ie an immature girl's reaction
b) to address issues of reputation - the opinion of others. In this case, it appears the reaction of her boyfriend was a key motivator.

It can never be known when it will be felt. It may be the next day, maybe later. These petty emotions are sufficient to create a scandalous reaction that will motivate the hordes of brain-dead into action. By their own will & motive force, these hordes have the power to publicly convict. One must hold onto recorded evidence of the act for a period of 30+ years.

Lessons in Sexual Dalliance #2 - Always speak in the second person. NEVER use the word 'I'.

The important point is that first person information is not trusted by the public. The court of public opinion is the most puerile of all courts. The purveyors lack intellect, and respond only in an emotional manner. The Hofstra case immediately evaded the (clearly false) supposition of "Innocent until proven Guilty." The mere and obvious fact that all such testimony begins in the first person is irrelevant. The moment the policeman reported the 18 year old woman's claims in the second person - IT BECAME FACT. Please read the initial comments to the story. The men had immediately been tried. The key had already been thrown into the dark waters of the Hudson River. Farewell, and enjoy your 25 years in jail.

The comments made by the men (19-21 years old) were wrong not for the content of the message. The first person nature - the word I - has raised sufficient doubt in the minds of the lowly court of the public. "I know how to treat women." - That comment will end up spraypainted on his grave. The feeble minds are unable to grasp at a first person comment. They need to be spoon-fed. "The situation reached a point where the carriage of respect may have been somewhat shaky." That is a much better comment. The information content is much lower (perhaps very close to zero - that is what is needed - legal junk speak) than the first person version. Even if the speaker believes to his utmost that the issue of respect for women is not part of the equation - he must pander to the fools who invoke it at every opportunity. The men will never live down the comments they have made in the first person. They are effectively now branded (upon their forehead) by a vicious, malevolent mob.

Lessons in Sexual Dalliance #3 - NEVER Smile for the Camera


The above photo can be read in two ways. a) a bunch of thugs who have gotten away with a moral crime. b) a bunch of guys relieved that they had stared down a ridiculous jail term and been able to walk away & laugh at the stupidity of the situation. ALWAYS UNDERESTIMATE the value of public judgement. a) is the easiest & requires the least mental aptitude. a) is therefore superior - en masse.

Lessons in Sexual Dalliance #4 - Always Brag to Your Mates

This point has no direct relation to the above case. It is an expansion of the first two points. The first version of an event is the most powerful. Telling as many friends about any & all sexual encounters is the only way to harness this. Your version will be imprinted, and when a friend hears an alternate version - they will be inclined towards the first version (similar to Lesson #1). This is true of the public at large. However, the impracticalities of applying Lesson #4 to the public are twofold. Firstly, they will have no personal connection. Therefore, likelihood of belief in bragging story as pure fact is severely lessened. Secondly, there are far too many.

Friends will retell the story in the second person. The second key point is that body language & distance will clearly reveal 'truth' to simple listeners (as per police detective - also, I would say, why lawyers are worth so much). Having a personal involvement in the telling of a story immediately implies criminality to said simpletons. This is clearly ridiculous, and reinforces Lesson #2.

Someone else, preferably of 'sound moral character' (all this statement means is that they have not been caught or that few would care anyway) re-telling a story is pivotal.

Lesson #5 - Being on the Run is of Benefit.


The 5th chap has pretty much escaped visual media attention. He was also the one who had the video footage. These two points have combined to give him the brightest future of the five. Take footage and run. This has been demonstrated to be the most superior approach. Futher suggesting what a bunch of fools the court of public opinion is.


Lesson #0 - The Rules of Gentlemanly Conduct Have Been Thrown Out. To protect oneself, one must act as a complete dingbat during & after any sexual encounter.

2009 - Official Year of the Sex Scandal

How to Have Sex Without Being Locked Up



Yet Another Sex Scandal. This Time the Navy

This is Not Consent (Woman Beds 200)

Most Explosive Piece of News Rubbish

Sex Scandal - NRL - Matthew Johns

Group Sex

Group Sex

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sex - more issues

It turns out I do have something to say in response to Insight, SBS 5/8/09. I will conveniently skip the first half hour of the program. Jenny Brockie did an excellent job hosting the show. However, a panel (or group) chat show can only be as good as it's panel.

Unwanted sex. This was the issue that occupied the second half of the show. I was laughing quite often during this segment. To clear up, we are talking about sex under regular coercion. It was agreed on the show that alcohol had a factor in reducing consent. (Amazing insight, hey?) The male gender studies representative actually said that if a guy was drunk, he should sleep it off & try for sex in the morning. Hell, I'd probably still be a virgin if I followed that advice. It was a very distant comment. The kind of advice you'd hear from your parents - they mean well, but just don't get it.

The program entered the boring blame game. Who is to blame for unwanted sex? Yawn. A poor approach that will never answer any substantial questions. Not interested in that angle. I will say this. It is the most common outcome to entirely blame the 'victim'. However, the 2nd most common outcome is to entirely blame the 'offender'. Clearly, something is missing.

The most entertaining part of the show was listening to the stories of unwanted sex. It was an amazing trigger point. Jenny could have asked any female in the audience & got a similar answer. It was an Oprah moment. Stories came out in a confessional manner. 'I didn't want to seem like a prude. I didn't say no, but I didn't say yes.' 'The next day he acted all normal. He had no idea anything was wrong.' Jenny- 'So when did you tell him?' 'Never'. Spare me. I would have had more compassion if she was talking about the time she removed a splinter from her finger.

The topic of 'If one doesn't say no, does that mean yes?' was raised. My short answer to this question is YES. Sex is not a verbal contract. The less one has to say, the better. This really sounds like a US Christian University. I've soiled myself laughing at propaganda material that has been released in the past. 'Is it OK for me to touch your hair? Your leg? May I kiss you? Can I fondle your breast?' A common thread runs through here. If I followed these rules, I would also be a virgin. Cannot be even remotely good advice if that is the case.

Back to unwanted sex. I put it to you that every female over the age of 20 has 'indulged' in this activity. (yes, yes, discount virgins etc ye technical objectors.) Some stats were pulled out. Can't remember exactly, but something like 25%-50% of year 12 girls have had unwanted sex. Mostly, we would be talking about a 'relationship' ie boyfriend & girlfriend. I have no problem with the stats. Sounds about right. I have a big problem with the interpretation. Feminists are the poorest interpreters of statistics in the world. Everything is pumped towards a desired objective.

To a feminist, the unwanted sex issue leads straight to a patriarchal society etc blah blah. I have a very interesting article in the pipeline re: Patriarchy vs Matriarchy. Stay tuned. If you are a blind feminist, rest assured that you will not like the article. No more of this to be said directly in this article. Needless to say, I have no empathy for this angle. It is bogus.

Unwanted sex is a day-to-day part of life. Join a nunnery if you would like to get away from it. Bettina Arndt has offered some excellent points on this topic. Naturally, she was crucified for doing so. An entirely familiar pattern has been followed time & time again. Plain, vanilla common sense replaced with some wacky, dire ideology. At least it gives me something to write about.

Frank Sinatra Throws "Two-Bit Hooker" Insult

Historically, this incident is often looked at as a sure sign of Australia's backward nature. It is often talked about as something that could never happen again. And pigs might fly.

History never repeats. I tell myself before I go to sleep

This is from a press release for the ABC TV series 'The Way We Were' in 2002:

"The media had a big part to play in many of Sinatra's tours, and much is made of his "bums and hookers" jibe in 1974.

Sinatra's insult came after a series of mishaps no doubt deeply wounding to his ego. At Tullamarine no one met his plane, he was driven into town in the wrong car, and at Festival Hall the singer had to push his way through the media throng to bash on the stage door before he was allowed inside.

It is hard to imagine today the outrage that followed Sinatra's so called attack on the press. Film from the time details what became a national incident with a union blackban on Sinatra's plane, and phone calls from then prime minister Gough Whitlam."
----

This is from a press release for the film 'The night we called it a day' in 2003:
----

"He may have been rude, sexist and stuck in his ways on his bumpy tour of Australia in 1974 but, film-maker Paul Goldman tells Tom Ryan, that doesn't mean Frank Sinatra was all to blame.

Paul Goldman's new film is about a pig-headed man who refuses to say sorry. The time is 1974, the man is Frank Sinatra (played by old easy rider himself, Dennis Hopper), and he's made himself a tad unpopular on his tour of Australia with a throwaway remark that's likened a pushy female journalist (Portia De Rossi) to a hooker. The newspapers are all over the story, the unions have turned bolshie and he's stuck in his hotel suite with his entourage , including wife-to-be Barbara Marx (Melanie Griffith), but with no room service and no way out.

But he (Paul Goldman) is also struck by the irony that he was being offered such a story after the controversy surrounding his previous film, 'Australian Rules'. An adaptation of 'Deadly, Unna?' - the novel by his friend Phillip Gwyne about football and racism in a small Australian township - it created a storm of protest that left him emotionally bruised.

"I'd just spent three months saying sorry myself," Goldman explains. "Australian Rules was a very traumatic experience for me and a lot of other people associated with it. Quite a few of us were scarred by that film. I spent so much time in front of the press and at Q&As being attacked by the indigenous community and by the white community for making that film that I felt I was being hounded.

"One minute I was being accused of being racist; the next minute I was being accused of being assimilationist. I found myself genuinely wanting to say sorry but I was also wanting to say, 'I'm sorry you misunderstood me'. So there was also some resonance for me personally in what was happening. I thought to myself, 'I know how Frank feels'."

Yet another Sex Scandal. This time the Navy.

Sex Scandal - modern dictionary definition - a sex scandal is an incident involving anyone who is not yourself. One need only have some vague knowledge of the people involved. Any acts undertaken may be happily classed as a sex scandal. ie if your parents do it one lonely night - it is a sex scandal.


Read Navy Sex Scandal news article

Well, seems like regulation lad's behaviour here. The dumbos offended by this have perhaps a little bit of eye-opening to do. To use the vernacular, they need to be educated.

men can only be highly civilised while other men, inevitably less civilised, are there to guard and feed them George Orwell

Issues - seperate boats for men & women? Possible, but I think the greater problem would then be getting enough naive chicks to sign up for the navy. Most would not want to be sailing on a 'dyke boat'. So, in lieu of recruitment, the most obvious ways of avoiding a 'scandal' are to be ignored. Being in the presence of these 'sexist brutes' is actually a selling point for recruitment.

Instead, we must pretend that such behaviour is abnormal. The usual dial-a-quote:

I don't believe these men should be able to serve at sea anymore because they're not reliable, they can't be trusted, they don't respect women and these are not the kind of men that we need defending us.

Just piss off Women's Forum. I actively hate your banal spokespeople. As usual, judgement on sexual behaviour followed by a dive into the soft & squishy realm of their dire sensibilities.

Wait for the PM to weigh in. Predictable fool.

What the hell, I may as well espouse some of my sexist views. The life of a female sailor/soldier etc is worth more than the life of a male sailor/soldier etc. This is not a complaint, it is a belief of mine. I am open to discussion on this point, however I accept it as fact.

Witness the Jessica Lynch scenario from some years ago. A female soldier was captured, and it was the most urgent business to rescue her. She was held far above other captive soldiers, from the same capture or not. There are some clear & obvious differences between male/female captives. I needn't bother going into the reasons. I am saying I agree that she should be held higher. (there are some facinating revelations out of this event - much of which has only been vaguely glimpsed. In a few years we will hear more)

However, acceptance of this argument leads down some other paths as well. It reminds me of 'Saving Private Ryan'. The movie exposed brilliantly the folly of rescue operations during war. Several lives were sacrificed in the name of one. The family was on the verge of losing all of their sons from the war. It was therefore deemed an important mission. It was Spielberg. The point was overstated in the movie, perhaps sappily so. However, it was still a good point.

Another side issue is women in the front line of war. Something I disagree with. Hypothetically, if the 'dyke boat' existed, it would be strictly back line. eg communications from 100's of kilometres back. Brings to mind another great war movie 'Glory' about a black American garrison in the civil war. They became victims of their own tokenism. The commander (white, forward thinking) volunteered them for the most frontal division in an attack. They were massacred in the name of 'Glory', their own & that of others. (fantastic movie, even better than SPR)

Which leads to the presence of women in the armed forces whatsoever.
-------------------------

Kruddster couldn't resist. However, he shows amazing restraint by his standards.

"These alleged behaviours are disturbing but it's important to get to the facts of it all," he said.

"We'll await the investigations by the chief of Navy to establish all those facts."



THE Royal Australian Navy is paying for women sailors to have breast enlargements for purely cosmetic reasons, at a cost to taxpayers of $10,000 an operation.

Defence officials claim the surgery is justified because some servicewomen need bigger breasts to address "psychological issues".

"Just as there are in civilian life, there are some females who feel their breasts are too small and if their breasts were bigger, they might be more of a 'normal' woman," Mr James said.

"If they were lacking in self-confidence, this might provide the measure of self-confidence that would help them tackle their wider job. "

Would fake breasts be worth more or less in the ledger? ............ less
-----------------------------------

How many of these women actually slept with the bounty hunters?

None, I’d bet. In which case, why all this fuss?

Or is the answer “plenty”? And then we must ask: why haven’t those women been sent home, too?

Doesn’t this just confirm what rugby league star Matthew Johns found after the ABC outed him as a beast for having had group sex with a willing fan - that a woman’s yes no longer means yes?

In the Andrew Bolt blog, the main comment by nay-sayers is such:

The sailors were not kicked off for having sex. They were kicked off for betting on it. The issue is not sex.

What if the bet was to make someone pick their nose? A detailed ledger on this activity would not result in suspension. So, sex is a major part of the 'crime'.

It wouldn't matter whether or not sex was undertaken. It is about the crude act of betting on it.

Yes, some may regard this as juvenile behaviour. It doesn't change the fact that a moral argument is being used, yet bloody again, to justify termination of employment etc. I cannot respect that line of argument.

Please don't tell me that if there was proof of sex that extra punishment would not be delivered. We are forced to dance the dull dance - it was the male sailors who coerced & tricked the female sailors into it (choose your own desired level of consent here - already we've heard that 19 year olds are minors, where does it stop?). Grow up. (acceptance of the dance also leads to the false conclusion that females only offer sex for a relationship - and end up getting cheated out of the relationship after. Grow up immediately!!)
--------

What happens to women in the military should convince us & them that equality is no substitute for liberation. Armies are crazy places, where masculinity contorts itself into conscientious inhumanity ... Unofficially, senior officers have enjoyed the right to subject their male inferiors to ritual sexual abuse and humiliation. The recruits had the choice of enduring the traditional unofficial ordeals in silence or get out ... Soldiers are not supposed to treat each other in atavistic and cruel ways, any more than they are supposed to rape enemy womenfolk, but they do.

In 1997 a Pentagon panel recommended that men & women should be trained separately, live apart & serve in different units. How often, when and where women-only units would see active service is anybody's guess Germaine Greer

Equality - I spoke their word - as if a wedding vow - Ah, but I was so much older then - I'm younger than that now Bob Dylan
-------

Poll result:

Should the Navy have mixed gender upon it's sailing vessels?

Yes - 4, No - 0

Thankyou for voting.

2009 - Official Year of the Sex Scandal

How to Have Sex Without Being Locked Up

This is Not Consent (Woman Beds 200)

Most Explosive Piece of News Rubbish

Sex Scandal - NRL - Matthew Johns

Newspapers need a Quick Death

Newspapers have been downsizing for months. In response to falling sales, whole departments have been pared back. Seemingly to the bare minimum. For the last month or so, the end results of this strategy have been clearly revealed. Gutter journalism. The rise & rise of the utter moron.
I would rather get my news from someone who is being paid and is therefore presumably accountable. My attitude appears to be almost irrelevant. On the whole, what I have seen from (traditional) paid journalism is irredeemably amateurish. I no longer care for it.

Death to the newspapers. The sooner the better. 2015-2020 is the estimate I agree with as to the date of death. Boycott, boycott & may the date be brought forward.

Many people, including myself, read the newspaper online. I will never pay a cent to do so. There are enough ads online that this should pay for itself. Bloggers earn their money from traffic etc. The new model will seamlessly replace the old model. There is ample room for professional journalism in this new model.

Newspapers can easily survive as a digital hub. Articles, photos etc can be accessed & backlinked. This is their present online purpose. Don't buy the broadsheet, read it online. They will be forced to give us individually tailored front page news. A massive win if you ask me. The garbage we do not consider as news can lie in My Back Pages
.

Previously, I was concerned about the end of traditional media. Now I await the death knell.
---------------

To protect from financial collapse, a hilarious proposal has been considered. Newspapers are non-profit organisations. This would also mean that newspapers would be unable to run political advertising (including editorials). Just gets funnier.
----------

Good 'ole Rupert is planning to charge online user's of his newspaper. "News Corp is going to make online customers pay to access its websites some time before the end of financial year 2010."

What a dufus. Talk about an old crony out of touch with reality. The moment that happens, any links of theirs I use will be deleted. This would be representative of bloggers worldwide.

Protecting photos is stupid. My desire is to link photos, not upload them. When I find a site that does not allow me access to its photos (for free, obviously) I download the photo then upload it manually. I figure the lack of access is the dumbest move possible on the internet. It defeats the purpose. Secondly, all obvious ownership is lost the moment a photo is not properly linked (as described). The photo owner has shot themselves in the foot. Can't protect one from their own stupidity. My primary desire is not to rob people of their work - becomes meaningless very quickly. None of the photos on this site are, or ever will be 'mine'.

Read a bit of the article (I got very bored) & the talk turns to 'value-added content'. Whatever, numbskulls. Stop treating us as fools. In my puny internet experience, these blogs I write are next to useless. A way more profitable model is to display a single page of bikini pics. 5 or so. Doing so is far more sensible in the pursuit of profit. I have learnt this in a manner of weeks. One need not be a blogger to understand this most basic internet reality.

Turn the above paragraph around to News Corp's experience. They are fully aware that quality journalism (not trying to insinuate that my content is quality, but I obviously believe it anyway) doesn't sell. They would be fully aware that consumers would not pay for regular news online. So, they will try to 'tailor' it. I have no problem with this approach, it is a positive for the consumer. However, I wager that most of this tailoring will be surface. Let's say, for example's sake, that I am a paid consumer of News' websites. Knowing my age, sex & country would be sufficent. Front page article would have to be a bikini pic or something similar. How else would they target my demographic. Paris Hilton's latest sex video? They would have to do something pretty bloody special to keep me (no choice but to resort to garbage journalism). It just won't work. I don't pay for 'added' content as it stands. As much as I like internet porn, not a cent has ever, or will ever leave my wallet for it. News, well that's much lesser content - payment would never enter the equation. Treat us like idiots and watch your 'fabulous' newspaper drown quickly. I have never gone near anything requiring payment on the internet. To do so would mean one has poor searching skills. It can always be found for free elsewhere.

Still on the article, it went into TAB vs Betfair. A legitimate issue from a business sense. Betfair pays less taxes, and is therefore more competitive than TABs. The problem here is state law, as alluded to. However, from a punter's view, all the arguments outlined are crap. All a punter should care about is the payoff on their bet. TAB typically pinches 7.5%, Betfair 4%. Both of these figures are way too high. It is a product of what business would call the 'competition of choice'. All bogus. Much better for the punter would be if one of these entities bought out all the others. A lower house % could be offered. (Ideally, a 50% bet should be $1.99. Yes, I can dream.)
As an example pushing News Corp's selling of online media, it was very poor. Using the same argument I have just used, it would be better if News Corp was swallowed by a larger company. What idiots the spokesmen are.

Rupert, retire now. Or die now. You are a greedy pig. Yes, one may argue this is not necessarily to line his own pockets. It is to protect his dwindling News Corp empire. Let your son, Lachlan, take over immediately. I have no idea, but I would place another wager that he would abandon his father's foolish plans immediately. Rupert is doing a massive disservice to his son, perhaps unknowingly. The only possible exception is the Wall Street Journal, as the article says. I consider this different, as it is business news. I think people would be willing to pay bucketloads for it. (You are welcome to pick apart the obvious contradictions in this stance on 'business news' - what is it? how is it different? etc, but it still seems like plain vanilla to me after thinking about it. Paying other people in the hope money will be mysteriously made from this transaction is a long established con/reality.)

By all means, set up the News Corp portal to be individually tailored. This results in better targeted ads etc - more revenue. The mere fact that they have not done so already (for free) shows how far behind the ball they really are. Literally, a bunch of amateurs in the new world of the internet. Goodbye & good riddance old fuddie duddies. The Australian (News Corp's national paper) is by far the worst online portal of all the major newspapers in Melbourne.

Never, ever pay to get sensationalist crap delivered though your web browser. The idea is disgusting in almost every point.
--------

Paragons of Virtue they are. The mighty fine chaps from News Corp. James & Rupert. Stellar Champions of the free market. Just imagine for one moment, they conjure. You - yes, you - through sheer determination & talent could deign to enter the media jungle. Strike it Rich if the cards are played right.

Most interestingly, the debate was never framed in this manner. That would have been my spin. The backward cowboys from News Corp failed to see beyond their own interests.

Father & Son (as a minor correction, he is equally as keen) called for the dismantling of State Media to allow them to compete. More Fox News Anyone?

Furthermore, the buffoons will attempt to stop anyone using their material online. They claim to seek to remove their newspapers from public search engines. If this is not a dying man babbling, please inform me what it is.

The greatest problem with the course that News Corp has charted is this:
As they inevitably crash & burn, News Corp will devote some of it's diving assets toward dismantling State media. (This will be done at the expense of it's own survival.)

Goodbye News Corp. Your majority owners have declared your death years in advance. In the poorest act of public business management in 2009. The history books will have an absolute field day with this story.

ALSO READ:

Facebook is Fallen

Sore Reality of the Blogosphere

Further reading:

Ted Turner predicts the death of newspapers. In 1981! Kind of undermines my stance.

A blog piece with much greater research.

This is not consent (Woman beds 200)

Consent - modern dictionary definition - consent is explaining to your grandmother why you ate the fruitcake. The fruitcake never said yes, but it didn't say no. Looked so delicious that the urge was irresistible. An invariably complex issue for gran. To her, the fruitcake must present itself upon the table . Tea must be set. Grace perhaps to be uttered. Only then may a delicate deflowering occur. Verbal excess should accompany.

Sex. The word sells. The morality of a woman sleeping with 200 AFL players over 10 years is not interesting for mine. News piece is no big deal. It began as a standard reporting of facts. Until this is added to the equation -

...further proof players had not shown enough respect towards women.

"It highlights again that even with apparent consent there is a need for more integrity towards women"


WTF? I don't want to hear from some member of the Women's Forum chime in with their silly comments. How is anything she says on this relevant? Clearly, if we were talking about a bloke rooting 200, the issue would still be about respect to women. Humourous that the Player's Association is footing the bill for the counselling.

I can't believe we are playing the same game about consent we have been playing since the re-opening of this crap - Four Corners on NRL. I am just going to bloody re-quote myself. I have covered this particular issue in depth already.

Now, either my decoder is way off-kilter, or perhaps my comments on (this) morality being a series of flimsy excuses has some merit.... I am hearing a woman (presumably a feminist) say - that in certain circumstances - a woman is a second class citizen whose word has no meaning. Please correct me.

Having slept on it, it is clear to me that the Women's Forum fool is still pushing a wheelbarrow against Matthew Johns. She'd probably love to see him jailed & castrated. Her comments have nothing to do with the story presented. If this is the near future (ie more predictable quotes from Johns-haters totally out of context) - those who have argued that the Christchurch event was an opportunity to move forward are idiots.

We are stuck in this mire.

Just remember - consent is not consent. Use that information to make yourself a better person.


Been doing a bit more digging into this. An article with much greater information. The 'girl' (as she is constantly referred to) is not moralising - I would say that indicates a second incredulous use of the term 'girl'. The Matthew Johns incident is directly raised. She claims to have indulged in many similar activities, freely.

Another crappy quote has been appended from another turgid member of the femo-nazis. Of course it is implied that the 'girl' could not have properly consented to these situations. The bloody issue wasn't about group sex to begin with. The black hole of recent numbskull politics cannot be ignored by these parasites. Women with free will & the ability to act upon it are out of their realm. Their logic is so monstered & bashed into shape that it suits no woman.

2009 - Official Year of the Sex Scandal

 

How to Have Sex Without Being Locked Up

 
Yet Another Sex Scandal. This Time the Navy

Most Explosive Piece of News Rubbish

Sex Scandal - NRL - Matthew Johns

Kyle Sandilands is a Known Idiot. And?

Kyle Sandilands is an arrogant, stupid boofhead. This is hardly breaking news. These are also the most desirable qualities on commercial FM radio. It is a medium that appeals to listeners of the same calibre. The listeners to such shows deserve the crap they get. It has been created with them in mind.

To my meagre knowledge, the lie detector episode that created the recent scandal was a regular segment. Starting from that fact alone, it is ridiculous that he & his co-host, Jackie O (whatever the hell her real name is?) have had their crappy show cancelled (or 'in recess' if you prefer newspeak). It is one of the highest rating morning radio shows in Sydney. A reasonable assumption would be that the listeners have lapped up the segment in the past. Of course, in making these points, I have conveniently ignored groupthink.

So, yeah, I've heard the segment multiple times now. Who to blame? Kyle? Mother? Jackie? Radio management? The blame appears to have been apportioned in that order. Kyle's follow up to the girl's revelation was extremely poor: "So, is that the only experience you've had?" I genuinely believe he is stupid. I reckon he actually had no idea what else to say. All he could muster was his pre-determined line of interrogation.

The mother definitely appeared to know of the events her daughter was talking about. 2 tickets to a Pink concert was the payoff. The mother essentially sold her daughter for a bargain price. Maybe back stage passes were thrown into the deal.


Jackie is a pathetic wallflower in general. She has no personality & is a Paula Abdul clone in the American Idol mould. At least she is attractive. Plaudits (quite seriously) to whoever teamed the two of them up. Alone, they would be as bland as stale bread. Together, they are (by ratings) massive.

Anyway, I didn't want to bother entering into any great detail on this. It is a convenient opportunity for me to highlight a few key points that I have been making over several pieces. Removing a person from their job is a very poor response to controversy. It constantly disappoints me. That is the key point of interest for me.


Kyle Sandilands is a shock jock. His job is to offend some people in order to make a larger bunch of people laugh. (Many call this system the greatest form of politics.) As far as I can tell, he does his job very well on a seemingly regular basis. Jackie O's job is to go along with Kyle & perhaps feign a note of caution or resistance. (Sounds like the recipe for a teenage soap.) Neither of the two have failed their job description. The relevant advertisers must withdraw their backing, temporarily. A childish game must be played with the public at large. The offence is noted, and has been responded to. All the while, the bean counters know their product is ready to burst when it hits the sheves again. Ho hum.

--------
I will happily don 2 of the 3 mantles I have crowned upon Kyle in the first paragraph. (KingKyle is his self-formed management company. Also the record label for his wife.) I am a mere arrogant boofhead.