Avshalom posted:

Anidav posted:

I learned so much of your people. I went into a synagogue and shook the Rabbi's hand and said "My Breasts."

I think he misinterpreted my Hebrew as the police came and took me away.

Solemn Sloth posted:

Updated my post with link to abc story

Stoca Zola posted:

Cheers. I think the computer glitch and the IT people have been scapegoated here; only one dept staff and one contractor working on the system, which probably should have had additional resources to help with testing, and in addition, only one follow up by a principal in six months worth of reporting? Something went wrong but it wasn't just the reporting software.

PaletteSwappedNinja posted:

Their fatal flaw was expecting the average cop to handle any computer-related task more complex than browsing stormfront.

Splode posted:

What if the government was overthrown by a dictatorship but the dictatorship had policies like "don't imprison and torture refugees in tropical murder camps"

Discuss.

Pickled Tink posted:

First Dog!

Pickled Tink posted:

First Dog!

ewe2 posted:

At the risk of interrupting perspective-chat, any of our WA peeps have some on this little brouhaha? What are the combatants like?

Solemn Sloth posted:

Goodes is for my money the best utility to ever play football and an even better leader off field.

I hope Andrew bolts head literally exploded upon seeing today's front page of The Age

Drugs posted:

Bolt would have loved the front page because it's given him material for another 15 blog posts

bigis posted:

If you haven't seen it you should watch Go Back to Where You Came From on SBS catch up.

Cartoon posted:

Thanks,

Now I'm angry again.

Solemn Sloth posted:

bolt is in good form today

...

"the stolen generation literally doesn't exist"

Ranter posted:

Is this a direct quote or paraphrasing? That's insane.

quote:

It is now a sin - even a crime against high art - to mention that despite all the apologies, all the teaching, all the ceremonies and all the newspaper stories, no one to this day has been able to name even 10 of the children allegedly stolen by officials just for being Aborigines. Even the courts cannot find them, for all the activists now appointed to the judiciary. Yet I predict that questioning the “stolen generations” myth will soon be ruled unlawful.

quote:

Children taken from their parents were taught to reject their Indigenous heritage, and made to adopt white culture. Their names were changed, and they were forbidden to speak their traditional language

Ranter posted:

Is this a direct quote or paraphrasing? That's insane.

Andrew Bolt posted:

It is now a sin - even a crime against high art - to mention that despite all the apologies, all the teaching, all the ceremonies and all the newspaper stories, no one to this day has been able to name even 10 of the children allegedly stolen by officials just for being Aborigines. Even the courts cannot find them, for all the activists now appointed to the judiciary. Yet I predict that questioning the “stolen generations” myth will soon be ruled unlawful.

Robert Manne (the Monthly) posted:

Bolt challenged me to name ten stolen children. This was, I must admit, a cunning move. Unless one is prepared for a challenge of this kind, lists of names of the victims of a policy do not trip off the tongue. I doubt I would have done better if I had been asked to name ten victims of the Stalin terror or the Armenian genocide, matters I have read a very great deal about. Bolt’s “name ten” myth was born.
...
Soon after this radio encounter – the transcript of which was published in the Herald Sun – I asked the Director of the Melbourne Writers’ Festival if she was interested in inviting Andrew Bolt for a debate with me on the stolen generations. What then followed was truly bizarre. Bolt made it a condition of his participation that I send him a list beforehand not merely of ten “stolen children” but of “a hundred” or even “hundreds”. I emailed Bolt to let him know that I found his request peculiar. The issue dividing us was whether or not there were ten or a hundred or indeed thousands of “stolen children”. What Bolt seemed to require, as a condition of agreeing to a debate, was that I first provide him with the evidence proving that he was wrong. Although we had by now entered an “Alice in Wonderland” world, I told him I was happy to meet his condition so long as he provided me with a definition of what counted for him as a “stolen child”. Bolt refused to answer this question. Nonetheless I decided to send him a reasonably detailed list of mixed descent children removed in the different states and territories between 1900 and 1970.
...
Bolt claimed on a dozen occasions or more that I had been challenged but had failed to name even ten “stolen” children. Usually he failed to mention that I had sent him some 260 names. He never mentioned that I had asked him to supply a definition of what counted for him as a stolen child and that he had refused. On one rare occasion when he did acknowledge that I had sent him more than 200 names, Bolt claimed that the names I had sent him all came from Queensland. They did not. He claimed that in these cases neglect had been proven at court. In fact, as I had already made clear to him, having Aboriginal blood was itself sufficient proof of neglect under Queensland’s 1865 Industrial Schools and Reformatory Act. Bolt also claimed that the children in the “half-caste” homes in interwar Darwin and Alice Springs were sent there because of neglect. As the documentary collection shows beyond ambiguity, they were not. The policy set out in 1934 was explicit: “It is the policy of the Administration to collect all half-castes from the native camps at an early age and transfer them to the Government Institutions at Darwin and Alice Springs.”

Bolt continued to claim that no racism was involved in the policy of mixed descent child removal. As already argued, the documentary collection revealed that the Commonwealth government in 1933 supported the policy of “breeding out the colour” of the “half-castes” whose removal it had organised. The collection published the 1909 view of the Western Australian Protector James Isdell. “I would not hesitate for one moment to separate any half-caste from its aboriginal mother, no matter how frantic their momentary grief. They soon forget their offspring.”

Solemn Sloth posted:

It is now a sin - even a crime against high art - to mention that despite all the apologies, all the teaching, all the ceremonies and all the newspaper stories, no one to this day has been able to name even 10 of the children allegedly stolen by officials just for being Aborigines. Even the courts cannot find them, for all the activists now appointed to the judiciary. Yet I predict that questioning the “stolen generations” myth will soon be ruled unlawful.

Solemn Sloth posted:

I believe that andrew bolt is hinging his case on "taken just for being aborigines" and saying that they were all in fact taken for their own good because aboriginal parents are universally abusive, despite you know the fairly well documented intention of eugenics amongst senior officials in charge of carrying out the operations.

Lascivious Sloth posted:

how is he not fired/run out of town for this poo poo? thats probably the worst thing I've seen someone in australia say. And this is the guy saying racism against goodes doesn't exist.

Lascivious Sloth posted:

how is he not fired/run out of town for this poo poo? thats probably the worst thing I've seen someone in australia say. And this is the guy saying racism against goodes doesn't exist.

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Bolt has a long history with the "name 10" thing. It's based around an argument he had with Robert Manne, who has pretty comprehensively demonstrated how intellectually dishonest Bolt is being.


The whole article is pretty much required reading if you want to get into the specifics of how much of a disingenuous fuckwit Bolt is, as is Anne Summers' piece (also in The Monthly).

Konomex posted:

I'm gobsmacked. This is astounding. How is this man employed by a commercial media network? Especially with such terrible ratings.

Konomex posted:

I'm gobsmacked. This is astounding. How is this man employed by a commercial media network? Especially with such terrible ratings.

Fire him immediately.

Frogmanv2 posted:

Pretty sure Gina Rinehart is bankrolling it. She paid to get on the board and has clout there.

"[/spoiler posted:

Cartoon" post="448419111"]
Thanks,

Now I'm angry again.