Auspol August: Half-baked enraged drivel

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol August: Half-baked enraged drivel

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Right! Stronger meat needed?

Bludger finder:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-08/social-security-welfare-payments-by-electorate/5657288

AR Trees, AR Freedom:

http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/general/opinion/native-veg-act-its-time/2707851.aspx

http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/stuck-in-the-native-veg-mire/2707847.aspx

If we can't gently caress up the planet NOBODY can!

Farmers not about to roll over on Russian sanctions!

http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/sheep/general-news/mh17-fallout-may-hurt-australian-lamb/2706882.aspx

http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/agribusiness/general-news/russia-bans-aus-produce/2707958.aspx

Well when you say massive we just hide behind our political masters and make consoling bleeting noises.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 03:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 16:42

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Fruity Gordo posted:

I'm a bourgeoise private health consumer who has gone into debt to keep paying my premiums in case I need to go to hospital for my manic depression because public wards are suicide factories, do go on.

Check your credit privilege

# ? Aug 8, 2014 03:32

Drugs: Jul 16, 2010; I don't like people who take drugs. Customs agents, for example - Albert Einstein

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to spend $38,000 to say it

# ? Aug 8, 2014 03:32

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Isn't the idea of advertising that you do it in something which has an actual circulation?

# ? Aug 8, 2014 03:32

Seagull: Oct 9, 2012; give me a chip

Les Affaires posted:

Dollars transferred to The Australian for this ad: $38,000
Effect on future LNP election campaigns: Significant, negative
Effect on public policy: 0

The free market works.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 03:36

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

Gough Suppressant posted:

Isn't the idea of advertising that you do it in something which has an actual circulation?

That would require somebody in the IPA knowing anything about business.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 03:43

Drugs: Jul 16, 2010; I don't like people who take drugs. Customs agents, for example - Albert Einstein

It wasn't a serious attempt to sway government policy or embarrass Tony Abbott, it was a 38 thousand dollar advertisement for IPA membership, unwittingly and directly paid for by their current membership of ageing racists.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 03:46

adamantium|wang: Sep 14, 2003; Missing you

quote:

Daily Telegraph sorry for using Boston bombing image to mock Mike Carlton
Editor of Sydney�s Daily Telegraph, a News Corp paper, says he was unaware image of bombing victim was being used in spread about resignation of Fairfax Media columnist

Amanda Meade
theguardian.com, Friday 8 August 2014 12.25 AEST

_{Boston victium photoshop The original photo of the Boston bombing victim and the Photoshopped version, featuring the head of Mike Carlton. Photograph: AP/Daily Telegraph photo by Kenshin Okubo}

The Sydney Daily Telegraph has apologised for manipulating an image of Boston bombing victim James Costello by adding an Arab headdress to portray journalist Mike Carlton staggering away from a Gaza-like disaster in a two-page spread headlined �Imploding. Always� and �Mad Mike Goes to War�.

The Telegraph�s editor, Paul Whittaker, apologised for using the Boston bombing victim�s image and admitted he was unaware of its origin.

�The Photoshopped image was an amalgam of different images put together during the art production process,� he told Guardian Australia.

�I was unaware that that particular image had been partially used. It is an inadvertent but regrettable mistake for which the Daily Telegraph apologises unreservedly.�

Carlton, who resigned as a Sydney Morning Herald columnist this week in the aftermath of a piece he wrote about Gaza, said: �It�s a new low in sewer journalism. To exploit that picture like that is just disgusting but not surprising for the Daily Telegraph.�

Carlton quit the Herald on Wednesday after being threatened with suspension for the language he used when replying to readers who objected to the article. The editor-in-chief of the SMH and Sun-Herald, Darren Goodsir, said Carlton had used �inappropriate and offensive language�.

The �Imploding. Always� reference was a play on the Herald�s tagline �Independent. Always�.

News Corp papers have openly celebrated the departure of Carlton, who does not hide that he is no fan of Rupert Murdoch.

The Telegraph ran two pages which included a lengthy news report, graphics and three opinion pieces on the �grumpy grandpa�.

The Australian newspaper also carried extensive coverage.

The photograph of Costello was flashed around the world in 2013. It showed the Boston resident dazed but alive and walking away from the bomb blast with his clothes hanging in shreds and his legs severely wounded.

It was taken by photographer Kenshin Okubo of Boston�s the Daily Free Press at the Boston marathon finish area on 15 April 2013.

In the Telegraph�s picture, Carlton is wearing a chequered Arab headdress and appears to be staggering away from the site of an Israeli bombardment in Gaza.

Costello made news by marrying the nurse Krista D�Agostino who looked after him when he was in rehabilitation for severe burns to his legs.

He later wrote he was involved in the tragedy to �meet my best friend, and the love of my life�.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:05

i got banned: Sep 24, 2010; lol abbottwon

Bill Shorten is sick to the guts about Russia imposing sanctions but not about stomping on refugees. Noice.

Also wasn't the IPA set up by Murdoch or his father? So the IPA funneling $38,000 to the Australian just seems weird.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:31

Freudian Slip: Mar 10, 2007; "I'm an archivist. I'm archiving."

The thing that disgusts me about this we hole scandal is if it was a photoshop of a Palestinian dude who had been injured in a blast - most people wouldn't give a poo poo

# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:34

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

Crikey Editorial. I'm laughing so hard I can't read the rest of the email.

quote:

Crikey says: and now, a word from our Senate leader

Senator Eric Abetz writes:

Hello-uh, this uh Senidah Ericuh UhBetz here, very uh grateful to be given the uh uhppurtunity to uh say a few things to the uh Crikeyuh audience uh aboutuh free speech and uh free thought uh. Sadly uh this is uh under uttack these days uh from those who would uh constrain uh the Minister uh of the uh Crown and uh leader of the uh Senate from uh thinking uh out loud on a live TV cross about uh a disease that uh affects uh one in 12 uh women, and uh throwing doubt on the uh whole sciendiftic edddifissss that underuhpins modernuh medical treatment.I uh will be uh encouraging uh every uh branch of uh government and uh industry to uh adopt uh a similarly sceptical uh approach to the uh so-called settled so-called uh science.

From uh now on uh I am happy to say that the our uh minerals and uh energy departments will be employing a uh cadre of uh "young earth" geologists, who will search uh our wonderful 6000-year-old uh continent to find new mineral wealth using the uh Old Testament because uh no one uh saw the cooling of magma so-called uh 4 billion uh years ago so how would we uh know.

Here is uh one for the Greenies and Ferals. From today there will be uh no animal uh testing for uh medical purposes because what are the odds that Jesus would have uh made us all the same way and have you ever uh seen a fossil don�t answer that. Ha ha instead we will be testing on boat people and it will uh also be uh a job that uh young people can uh apply for as part of their uh 40 days and uh nights uh sorry uh jobs a month. Truly, the Lord provides.

Finally, because the uh science of cancer is uh so unsettled, I am also pleased uh to announce that for my uh next uh prostate exam I will uh going straight to the uh Roman uh Catholic uh Church, the experts uh in this uh trade. Although as far as uh the unemployed, poor, pensioners, students and many more this government is uh proving to be uh dab hands.

Heil- Hello. Goodbye,

Uh Eric

# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:35

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

Keane and Dyer offer some advice to Joe Hockey

quote:

Stop whining and focus on fairness: a letter to Joe Hockey

Dear Joe,

We couldn't help but notice your outburst this week, in which you complained that the media was "polarised" and against you, Labor weren't providing bipartisan support for you, and the business community was "weak" in its support. As you're the steward of our economic fortunes and a successful Treasurer is an important part of a successful economy, we thought we'd offer you some thoughts on how, with your first anniversary in the job looming, you can make the rest of your time in the job more successful.

1. Stop whingeing. Even your colleagues are starting to notice that you're given to complaining about your lot. There are plenty of them who would happily have your job. No one cares about a politician lamenting how tough his job is, anyway. Being Treasurer is supposed to be tough: you are looking after the 12th or 13th biggest economy in the world, with a AAA credit rating. You are not entitled to anything other than the pay and perks. And you have to earn those.

2. Accept that your economic challenges aren't that great compared internationally or even to your predecessors. There's no Asian financial crisis, like Peter Costello had. There's no global financial crisis, like Wayne Swan had, or the task of landing a mining investment boom without an inflationary breakout. In fact, some of your problems, like a strong dollar, are ones that reflect Australia's economic success. You have a low inflation, low interest rate, low public debt, high-skilled economy with low trade barriers positioned next to the growth region of the 21st century. Ask your visiting counterparts in November how many of them would like to swap places.

3. So stop talking down the economy. Henny Penny is a terrible look for any minister, but especially a treasurer. You must remember how Kevin Rudd continued sounding like an opposition leader long after he became prime minister. You're doing the same, looking for the cloud in every economic silver lining and blaming your opponents for it. If you want to know what impact a Treasurer talking down the economy can have, look at what you did to retail sales in May.

4. Acknowledge the budget is unfair. Seriously, your stoush this week with Peter Martin was utterly unbecoming and brought to mind your attempt to bully David Peetz over WorkChoices in 2007. You are not Paul Keating, not even Peter Costello, who both liked to pick up the phone and hector journalists. You've already lost the fairness argument, probably lost it before you'd sat down on budget night. Time to admit yes, the budget is unfair, but it's because low- and middle-income earners receive far more from the government than high-income earners and companies and cuts to government outlays are inevitably going to hurt the former more than the latter.

5. Flag that the tax review will directly tackle the rapidly growing cost of superannuation tax concessions, which flow disproportionately (wildly disproportionately) to high-income earners, and that high-income earners will in the future benefit less from super. That will do something to offset the perceptions of unfairness dogging you.

6. Yes, the media environment is polarised. You say you've never seen that before -- maybe because you benefited from the polarisation when you were in opposition. Media outlets that "abandon the argument for good reform" because they're being partisan is exactly how News Corporation behaved from the moment Labor was elected, so don't lament something that you benefited from (similarly, stop demanding bipartisan support for your policies, when you gave zero support to Labor's reforms or budget cuts). Remember that when John Howard decided the Press Gallery was against him, he innovated and went around them.

7. So, for example, understand that in an increasingly fractured media environment, effective communicators have to simplify their message to cut through. Assembling a long list of controversial reforms and trying to run them all at once, which was your budget approach, is never going to work in such an environment because you can't concentrate on making the case for individual reforms while fighting spotfires across a number of fronts.

8. Forget about business support. Voters already think your party are too close to business and mainly interested in doing its bidding, ahead of what would be best for ordinary Australians. The support of business carries no weight outside the tiny readerships of the national dailies. And the quality of the contribution of business peak bodies to public debate is lamentable. It's either the same incessant whining about IR, or rent-seeking demands for handouts and winner-picking.

9. Smile. You used to be very popular with voters because they could see a decent bloke poking through the political exterior. The plummeting in your approval numbers has coincided with an angrier, harder public persona. If nothing else, people are more likely to listen to you if they see a bit more of the Hockey of old rather than a beetle-browed fiscal disciplinarian.

So use your one-year anniversary to press the reset button. Much depends on your performance -- not just the government's fortunes, but more important things too, like the economy, the jobs of 12 million workers and our 23 years without a recession.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:44

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

ColtMcAsskick posted:

The full page anti Abbott IPA ad was hilarious though.

I stole a copy from the paper at Oporto :australia:

# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:45

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

Relevant:

# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:47

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Les Affaires posted:

Relevant:

Not sure what happened to change his mind.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:50

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Not sure what happened to change his mind.

Hint: doing it to Americans and not filthy browns.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:54

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

ewe2 posted:

Hint: doing it to Americans and not filthy browns.

Nah, something changed late 2008 / early 2009.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:57

Amoeba102: Jan 22, 2010

I still find it hard to believe people ever thought of Hockey as likable.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:59

Drugs: Jul 16, 2010; I don't like people who take drugs. Customs agents, for example - Albert Einstein

ewe2 posted:

Keane and Dyer offer some advice to Joe Hockey

Point 4 claims that the budget is unfair because low-income earners receive the most government assistance, and point 5 correctly says that we spend a catastrophic amount of money on tax welfare for millionaires. How do the authors reconcile these two points? Why is welfare for rich people considered a different class of expenditure than welfare for poor people?

# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:59

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Nah, something changed late 2008 / early 2009.

Could it be... his mind?

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:00

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

Haters Objector posted:

Point 4 claims that the budget is unfair because low-income earners receive the most government assistance, and point 5 correctly says that we spend a catastrophic amount of money on tax welfare for millionaires. How do the authors reconcile these two points? Why is welfare for rich people considered a different class of expenditure than welfare for poor people?

Because welfare for the rich is there more to placate them into supporting good policy than it is to meet some economic or market imbalance.

Providing monetary benefit to those who can quite comfortably cover the cost themselves provides less economic benefit when compared to using those same dollars elsewhere.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:02

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Haters Objector posted:

Point 4 claims that the budget is unfair because low-income earners receive the most government assistance, and point 5 correctly says that we spend a catastrophic amount of money on tax welfare for millionaires. How do the authors reconcile these two points? Why is welfare for rich people considered a different class of expenditure than welfare for poor people?

The policies that benefit the rich tend to be ones that allow tax reduction / minimisation, while the ones that benefit the poor tend to be cash or transfers-in-kind. One is forgone revenue, one is expenditure.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:02

Drugs: Jul 16, 2010; I don't like people who take drugs. Customs agents, for example - Albert Einstein

Doctor Spaceman posted:

The policies that benefit the rich tend to be ones that allow tax reduction / minimisation, while the ones that benefit the poor tend to be cash or transfers-in-kind. One is forgone revenue, one is expenditure.

Which is effectively the same thing from the perspective of balancing a budget?

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:05

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

Haters Objector posted:

Point 4 claims that the budget is unfair because low-income earners receive the most government assistance, and point 5 correctly says that we spend a catastrophic amount of money on tax welfare for millionaires. How do the authors reconcile these two points? Why is welfare for rich people considered a different class of expenditure than welfare for poor people?

You know, now that I look at it, it looks like an awful typo. It doesn't make sense. I have tweeted @BernardKeane for clarification.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:07

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

#4 is suggesting an argument for Hockey, not advocating that position.

Haters Objector posted:

Which is effectively the same thing from the perspective of balancing a budget?

You asked why "welfare for rich people considered a different class of expenditure than welfare for poor people?". The answer is that welfare for the rich frequently isn't expenditure.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:12

Amethyst: Mar 28, 2004; I CANNOT HELP BUT MAKE THE DCSS THREAD A FETID SWAMP OF UNFUN POSTING
plz notice me trunk-senpai

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4062660.htm

quote:

Minister floats science funding based on patents not papers

This government is intellectually bankrupt.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:14

Drugs: Jul 16, 2010; I don't like people who take drugs. Customs agents, for example - Albert Einstein

Doctor Spaceman posted:

#4 is suggesting an argument for Hockey, not advocating that position.

You asked why "welfare for rich people considered a different class of expenditure than welfare for poor people?". The answer is that welfare for the rich frequently isn't expenditure.

According to the treasury, tax concessions are still expenditure

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/TaxExpenditures

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:16

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Haters Objector posted:

According to the treasury, tax concessions are still expenditure

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/TaxExpenditures

Yeah, tax concessions are counted as tax expenditure, not government expenditure.

quote:

Tax expenditures are reported in an annual statement by Treasury. In 2012�13, there were 363 tax expenditures provided under the Australian tax system, the total value of which was estimated at approximately $115 billion, or 7.5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). For comparison, total government direct spending in 2012�13 was about 23.5% of GDP.

The rich benefit from the former (and other things, like negative gearing) far more than the average Australian.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:23

Seagull: Oct 9, 2012; give me a chip

Amethyst posted:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4062660.htm

This government is intellectually bankrupt.

As we know, CSIRO explicitly set out to produce wi-fi.

These fuckheads don't know poo poo.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:26

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

The Minister for Science was unavailable for comment.

It's a spectacularly stupid thought-bubble, but I really can't see it going beyond that stage thankfully.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:27

Seagull: Oct 9, 2012; give me a chip

Is anyone in the Liberal party even from a scientific background and simultaneously haven't entirely missed the point of the method.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:28

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Captain Pissweak posted:

Is anyone in the Liberal party even from a scientific background and simultaneously haven't entirely missed the point of the method.

Dennis Jensen is the only one with a scientific background, and he's a climate change denier

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:29

Drugs: Jul 16, 2010; I don't like people who take drugs. Customs agents, for example - Albert Einstein

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Yeah, tax concessions are counted as tax expenditure, not government expenditure.

The rich benefit from the former (and other things, like negative gearing) far more than the average Australian.

I know that. I think we are arguing past each other here, the point I was making was that Keane seemed to be suggesting that the only way to improve the budget bottom-line is through a reduction in direct transfers, which would obviously disproportionately effect the poor. Specifically, he said:

quote:

yes, the budget is unfair, but it's because low- and middle-income earners receive far more from the government than high-income earners and companies and cuts to government outlays are inevitably going to hurt the former more than the latter.

Which is at best disingenuous, because it ignores the existence of tax expenditures, which disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and could be reduced to improve the budget bottom line without effecting those on low incomes.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:32

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

The piece is meant as advice for how Hockey could make a case for his policies, not as a defence of those policies.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:37

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

Cartoon posted:

Telstra has now started advertising about the amazing NBN deals they can provide. That's got to be transgressing fair advertising guidelines. Which loving National Broadband Network is Telstra going to connect you to? The ads being pushed here in Kempsey makes it 100%

Telstra's copper supports DSL 2+, which is both national and broadband (by the classic definition of the term). I don't see any issues with advertising it as a National Broadband Network; it is merely a statement of fact.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:45

DeathMuffin: May 25, 2004; Cake or Death

Captain Pissweak posted:

These fuckheads don't know poo poo.

If there's anything that this last year has taught me, it's how fundamentally flawed the concept of meritocracy is... Just how many of these uber wealthy captains of industry are actually dumb as poo poo.

Like - we all suspected it, but we seem to be reminded of it on a daily basis.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:46

webmeister: Jan 31, 2007; The answer is, mate, because I want to do you slowly. There has to be a bit of sport in this for all of us. In the psychological battle stakes, we are stripped down and ready to go. I want to see those ashen-faced performances; I want more of them. I want to be encouraged. I want to see you squirm.

sidviscous posted:

If there's anything that this last year has taught me, it's how fundamentally flawed the concept of meritocracy is... Just how many of these uber wealthy captains of industry are actually dumb as poo poo.

Like - we all suspected it, but we seem to be reminded of it on a daily basis.

Remember the three generation rule: it takes one generation to make a business, another generation to build a business, and a third generation to ruin it.

Thinking specifically of the Murdochs, the Packers, the Hancock/Rineharts etc...

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:52

Sparticle: Oct 7, 2012

Amethyst posted:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4062660.htm

This government is intellectually bankrupt.

lol, I'm the $0 that goes towards mathematics/stats and most of physics and IT research which is not allowed to be patented.

The government must think that all scientists only make weird new devices, like their idea of a scientist is derived from Back to the Future.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:53

Mr Chips: Jun 27, 2007; Whose arse do I have to blow smoke up to get rid of this baby?

Amethyst posted:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4062660.htm

This government is intellectually bankrupt.

BRB, off to the patent office with this formula describing the relationship between energy and mass.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 16:42

CATTASTIC: Mar 31, 2010; ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

sidviscous posted:

If there's anything that this last year has taught me, it's how fundamentally flawed the concept of meritocracy is... Just how many of these uber wealthy captains of industry are actually dumb as poo poo.

Like - we all suspected it, but we seem to be reminded of it on a daily basis.

Noted captain of industry, Eric Abetz:

�Media reports that I have drawn or believe there is a link between abortion and breast cancer are incorrect�

�Dr Angela Lanfranchi�s views on this topic were not the accepted medical view�

�Dr Lanfranchi is a breast cancer surgeon and a clinical assistant professor of surgery. She is the surgical co-director of the Sanofi-Aventis Breast Care Centre and the Steeplechase Cancer Centre in New Jersey.

She has spoken at hospitals and universities around the world and she has the right to free speech in Australia.�

�I accept the AMA has a right to disagree with Dr Lanfranchi�s views.�

e.
Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is a breast surgeon and clinical assistant professor of surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. Dr Lanfranchi heads up the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. She gives a riveting presentation of the scientific proof that the pill kills women and babies, and how it does so.

CATTASTIC fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Aug 8, 2014

# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:55

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol August: Half-baked enraged drivel

«‹›97 »