Dacka's Razor

I'm getting bored with politics... What else interests you?

iStock_000014034272XSmall-300x300Everyone that knows me personally knows that I am a pretty opinionated type of person.

What some of you that don't know me might not know is that I like talking about all types of stuff.  My wife would say that I talk too much about too many things!

Rather than just spouting on about stuff that doesn't interest people I thought that I would put out my feelers to get an idea of what you might be interested in reading about.

So I have created another little poll for you...

If you would be interested in something other than more boring political posts then pls take the time to pass on your preferences

Unravelling Menugate to find the FailQuail

Sinclair Davidson, proprietor of the fantastic Catallaxy Files, expertly unravels the Menugate scandal by travelling back through time via the amazing wonder that is the internet to poke around to see what is what.

What he finds is brilliantly outlined in his extremely informative post - Menugate – a story in tweets. Sinclair's post is illustrative of how far investigative journalism has fallen in this age of instant updates and tweets blasted from our oh-so-smartphones.

Just a pity that David Carter, the intrepid twitter activist who leaked the image to the media, turns out to be a fairly squalid excuse for a human.  Someone who has an axe to grind with not only the restaurant owner (apparently he was unceremoniously sacked several months before the dinner in question) but also a pathological hatred for Tony Abbott and the Liberals, as his early tweets to both Gillard and Rudd clearly illustrate.


dr-evilA quick scan of this nut jobs Twitter profile or Facebook would have sent off warning bells in any sensible journo's mind, but alas as I mentioned in my previous post - Garçon! A serving of FailQuail please! - that did not fit the narrative that those left leaning compassionistas at the ABC and Fairfax desperately wanted to trumpet to the masses.

What message is that I wonder? That Tony Abbott and the Liberals are misogynistic wearers of blue ties intent on the oppression of free women, not only here in Australia but the world! Mwah hahaha!

So off they went, half cocked and half witted.

Tim Blair sums it all up brilliantly..

...news organisations and reporters have established a conclusion ahead of all possible evidence.

Without timely corrections, inaccuracy becomes reality.

George Orwell would be proud.

Garçon! A serving of FailQuail please!

We've spent three days talking about this? What a beat up, especially now that it has come to light that it was all BS. Imagine that.

Confected outrage from a whole heap of people just wishing it was true because it fits their narrative. I really want to believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy but saying they exist does not prove that they do.

Oh and Twitter is not a reputable news source. It is an echo chamber populated by wannabe heroes, try hard comedians and narcissistic idiots grappling for 15 minutes of fame.

And these people on the ABC and Fairfax Media who broke this "story" call themselves journalists? Next time stop and ask just one of the three W's. You know something like..

  • Who is behind things?
  • What is their agenda?
  • Why is someone saying this?

I cannot believe this rot. Let us not worry about dead boat people, dysfunctional border policy, businesses closing or warnings that we could be heading for a recession.

Let us instead focus on the hurt feelings of a person whose hide is as thick as a rhino's.

Seriously. Give. Me. A. Break.

Bill Leak - The Australian (again)


Take your time


Bill Leak - The Australian

Rumblings about Gillard being deposed

018505-gillard-ruddThis just in from Andrew Bolt and The Australian.

Following discussion this morning on The Insiders, there are fresh rumours that Julia Gillard may be about to be deposed in favour of Kevin Rudd.

PM replaced before election?

Key backers, rumoured to include Bill "I support whatever the Prime Minister says even though I dont know what she said" Shorten, are said to be "wobbling" in their support, especially given the rock star reception afforded Kevni when he visited Geelong on Friday.

Could Labor possibly be prepared to swap back to the man they described as a raging, psychopathic egomaniac?

Would the voting public be so stupid to vote back in a man said to be so dysfunctional that no one wanted to work with him?

Personally, I would like nothing better than to see the back of Julia Gillard, but I desperately would like the voting public afforded the chance to send her on her way themselves, not another coup by Labor's Faceless Men.

Watching Gillard deliver her speech conceding the election to Abbott would be priceless and worth every second of the 98 days that we would have to endure until that delicious moment could eventuate.

What does Feeney the Faceless Man know?

20130604-234120.jpgWith Martin Ferguson's recent retirement a bunfight has erupted for his old seat of Batman.

Batman is recognised as Labor's safest seat in Australia, with Labor holding the seat at the last election with a margin of 25%.

In today's political environment, this is tantamount to rolled gold for the preferred Labor candidate.

Whoever gets the nod is almost guaranteed a seat in the new parliament after the September election.  They might even get to be the driver of the Labor Tarago post September.

So who is shaping up to get the golden nod?

076860-david-feeneyThe front runner at the moment is Senator David Feeney. Feeney is already a Senator but he is likely to lose his Senate seat as he is currently listed as the third candidate on Labor’s Senate ticket.

As a result, Feeney has put  up his hand for the Lower House seat and has been backed in by non-other than the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.

This is where things start to get a bit weird.

You see, Gillard Cabinet ministers Jenny Macklin, Penny Wong and junior minister Catherine King have publicly backed the need for Labor to select a woman for Batman, which really puts them at odds with Gillard.

Macklin was quoted recently saying that the ALP was failing to meet its rules that required 40 per cent of candidates in winnable seats to be women.

...I am very concerned that if a woman is not preselected for Batman, the ALP in Victoria will have only 27 per cent of candidates in held seats who are women.

This is well short of the 40 per cent required by the national rules.

It does not reflect the depth of talented women in Australian society today - women who should be encouraged and supported to take up the opportunity to represent their community.

Where does this 40% quota come from?  It comes from Labor's contentious 40/40/20 rule, which is a direct policy platform of EMILY's List, the progressive feminist group that has provided Australia with the cream of female politicians over the past 20 years.

Politicians of calibre such as Kate Lundy, Tanya Plibersek, Penny Wong, Jenny Macklin, Lara Giddings and Julia Gillard are all products of EMILY's List, as were failed Labor Premiers Carmen LawrenceAnna Bligh, and Kristina Kennelley.

emily_logoEMILY is an acronym for Early Money Is Like Yeast, as it makes the dough rise and apparently this is directly translatable to women in politics. Get in early and watch them rise to the top.

EMILY's List Australia was started in 1996 by the infamous and lamentable Victorian Premier, Joan Kirner, who reportedly was apoplectic when Julia Gillard had failed to win pre-selection twice in the early 1990's.

In order to secure Gillard her treasured spot in our illustrious Parliament, Kirner created EMILY's List Australia and for the first nine years of EMILY's List Australia's operation, Joan Kirner was CEO.

Soon after the establishment of EMILY's List, Gillard finally gained preselection in the Labor safe seat of Lalor and as they say in the movies, the rest is history.  Except it is history a great deal of people know very little about.

While Julia Gillard is EMILY's List's most famous product, it is extremely strange that she is not backing a woman, especially one of the Sisterhood™ for the safe seat of Batman and even more so considering Labor's Left faction openly canvassing that they may possibly pursue a complaint with the party about the failure to meet the target.

If that complaint were to be upheld the party rules say there must be a spill of every seat's preselection in the state, including the Prime Minister's.

So why exactly is Gillard backing Feeney if it goes against Labor policy, flies in the face of her beloved EMILY's List core beliefs and puts her hold on her own seat at risk?

Apparently Gillard considers Senator Feeney a strong and loyal ally who has performed well.

Particularly since he was one of the faceless factional leaders involved in overthrowing former prime minister Kevin Rudd in 2010, helping Julia Gillard rise to the prime ministership.  So it would seem that because of this Feeney has Gillard's backing and remains firm favourite for the seat.

However, Michael Smith, the 2UE broadcaster who lost his job because of his pursuit of truth in the AWU scandal, thinks it is not just Feeney's support of Gillard in the Night of the Long Knives that holds the key to this Machiavellian style pre-selection mystery.

Let's see what Michael has to say in his recent post - David Feeney, Julia Gillard, Emily and her list. It's not who you know, it's what you know about them - because it makes for very interesting reading indeed.

Victoria Police is investigating who got what from the AWU WRA slush fund.

Very serious charges await people who knowingly enjoyed the financial and taxation benefits from that well structured slush fund, which was created using the best legal advice money can't buy.

A reasonable person would think it quite likely too that an incoming Coalition Government will commission an enquiry knto the AWU Scandal with powers to compel people to give evidence.  That enquiry will have powers the police don't.   It is always good to know that there are people on the same page as you if the Sheriff comes a-summonsing.

David Feeney has no affirmative action equal opportunity disadvantaged feminine LGBTI or skin shading issues to give him the nod for pre-selection for the safest of safe seats, to rebalance Martin Ferguson's nonPC white maleness.   David's  just a normal pudgy former union official white man who knows where the bodies files are.

The Emily's Listers will be a bit list-off to see that their gel, the first gel PM, has annointed a mere male to take over from the previous holder who was also merely male.

After Wayne HEM put $5,000 forgettable into Ms Gillard's bank account, and after Bruce Wilson had "just decided while I was away that I should have my home renovated so he just id it" and after Kon Spyridis had made such a racket at the office looking for money - well, along came the Knight in Shining Armour David Feeney to help to record the correct version of history.

David Feeney is named 6 times by Ms Gillard in the Record of Interview with MD Peter Gordon on 11 September, 1995.   David Feeney was a central figure in Ms Gillard's claims that she paid for all her own renovations.

Here are the 6 Feeney "grabs" from the record of interview, then I'll publish the whole of the section for context.   The speaker is Ms Gillard, 11 September, 1995.

  • David Feeney, who is an official of the Transport Workers' Union, had raised it with Andrew with the specific intent of Andrew raising it with me and David was happy for me to talk to him about it.
  • I have spoken to David Feeney. I spoke to him on Friday afternoon.
  • Obviously, it accords with what David Feeney has told me that he was sent away by the AWU and without explanation an account from Con was put in my letter box last week, so that's the first account that I've had from him.
  • I'm making arrangements to get the $1780 together to pay the rest of it. I have suggested to David Feeney that I think the way forward in relation to this is for me to simply meet with Bob Smith at FIME and say someone came here looking for payment of an account.
  • The information from David Feeney is that Bob Smith doesn't believe that I am at fault in relation to this. He has got no agenda about damaging me in relation to this or using it against me, that he will be quite happy to see the issue go away, and that he thinks that Bob will respond well to a direct discussion like that.
  • I've left that matter on the basis that David Feeney will sound Bob out and, provided there isn't any unforeseen problem, I will meet with Bob as soon as possible for the purpose of clarifying that matter. Now I believe that that must be the source of the rumour about, that must be the factual construct behind what has become the rumour about, about the association or Bruce or the union or whoever paying for work on my house and I don't obviously given I've been fairly surprised by events to date in relation to this matter, I can't categorically rule out that something at my house didn't get paid for by the association or something at my house didn't get paid for by the union or whatever, I just, I don't feel confident saying I can categorically rule it out

Sorry Emily, when it comes to historic appointments, you can't compete with David's grip on a little piece of Australian historic gold.  

It's not who you know, it's what you know about them.

Well, as Michael outlines in the rest of his post and indeed nearly his whole blog, Gillard's motives are not what they seem and are somewhat murkier than most would imagine possible for someone holding the highest office in the land.

A union slush fund, a corrupt union conman and a shonky Labor lawyer, nearly $1 million dollars fraudulently obtained with the help from a dodgy Power of Attorney, supposedly witnessed by one J.E.Gillard, past and current Slater & Gordon MD's and a couple of dodgy Union officials in Feeney and Shorten running interference to stop things coming to light, then and now.

All of this fleshes out a story that continues to this day, despite the best efforts of Labor power brokers with too much to lose and many in the Left leaning mainstream media all trying to just make it all go away.

richard-nixonThey said of Nixon and the Watergate scandal that brought his Presidency to it's knees that it wasn't the crime, but the coverup that eventually brought him unstuck.

Gillard's cries of "I have done nothing wrong" sound eerily similar to the disgraced Nixon's cries of "I am not a criminal".

With the factional vultures with an axe to grind circling and the Victorian Police investigating, this story might just well be coming to an end.

From little things big things grow. Much like yeast in bread dough.

None too soon either.

Sliced Bread

Post modernist redefinition of reality

7780_gay-marriage-b-110727-gettyAs I lay in bed this morning doing my daily scan of the various papers on my iPad, I came across an article that caught my attention.

The article, In their own words: Aussie men voice opinions for or against same-sex marriage, appeared to seek to provide "deeper" analysis of Australian men's attitudes to same-sex "marriage".

This followed on from a recent Galaxy poll conducted by Australian Marriage Equality into the topic indicated that 42% of Australian men believe same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry.

It was meant to be an in-depth examination of six Australian men and their opinions, however before we even got a chance to read the opinions of the six men, the author let us all know how he saw the discussion by surmising the issue as thus:

Statistics reveal heterosexual men less supportive of equality.

The author is Matt Young, an openly gay man who is proud of his sexuality. Not that there's anything wrong with that (apologies to Seinfeld). I applaud him on living his life how he wants, for that is his right.

What I took exception to in relation to the article was not the topic itself or people's position on it but rather that the author let his own obvious bias shine through immediately by conflating an opposing opinion to somehow being less supportive of equality.

How can a person's legitimate opinion and opposition to same-sex marriage be boiled down to being less supportive of equality? WTF? That's quite a leap of logic, a conclusion that is driven by the authors own biased viewpoint of the situation.

It just means that there are individuals who don't agree with Matt's and Australian Marriage Equality's own biased view on the subject.  If you dont agree with Matt's and others like him then you are tarred as some kind of unenlightened bigot that is somehow against "equality".

The only thing I can take from this is that Matt is less supportive of other people holding different opinions to his own. I presume Matt supports diversity, but only if your opinion is the same as his.

Man looking on peak of mountainYou're not voicing your own opinion, thoughts and values, you are somehow oppressing someone somewhere who thinks differently to you.

Your opinion is worth less than theirs, for you my friend are not as enlightened as they are, don't you know?

There is barely enough room for everyone at the top of Mount Sanctimonious in our post modernist world.

It looks crowded up there in the rarefied air of the moral high ground from down here in the cheap seats.

I am definitely opposed to discrimination of all sorts in relation to how people treat each other, whether that be by the colour of their skin, their sexuality or choice of religion, for we are all humans who should be allowed to live how we want to.

However, I believe that words have distinct meanings and language is built on words having meanings, otherwise language breaks down and becomes meaningless.

In his book The History of Human Marriage (1921), Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as:

...a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring.

While this is an old source, marriage by definition is universally given to be a union between a man and a woman. A marriage requires a husband and a wife.  These are gender specific terms that describe the participants in a marriage.

A man cannot be a wife, nor can a woman be a husband.  A cow cannot be a bull, nor can a gander be a goose. They are what they are and no amount of wishful thinking can ever change these things.

This perverse need to alter and change language, and more importantly the underlying meanings of words is crux of the problem, for in the post modern world we have groups with agendas and barrows to push.

These groups seek to co-opt words that have distinct and legitimate meanings for a large proportion of our society and change them to suit an increasingly vocal minority's viewpoint.

If you don't agree with them and their opinions, they denigrate you and call you words that have long been the bastion of evil and hate.

Words like bigot, racist or misogynist.

Now these words are thrown around like confetti in order to silence any legitimate discussion of issues of great import. As this happens more and more, the opportunity to hold an opposing view is lessened more and more.

If new circumstances, such as the prominence and acceptance of homosexual relationships, appear then create a new word to describe that new circumstance or tradition, don't seek to change words that have had traditional meaning for thousands of years to thousands of people to suit the worldview of a minority and seek to railroad the majority who think differently with threats of being branded bigots or somehow against equality.

Yet we are being railroaded into redefining this important word to suit the wants of a minority of people in our society, regardless of the wants of the majority.  If you disagree with their point of view, then you are "against equality".

We are being hemmed into supporting a position for fear of being branded as being oppressive and I think many people just don't want the trouble that comes with holding a differing opinion these days.

I can't and won't speak for anyone else but I am not against equality at all.

What I am against is people redefining words that mean something to me and others to suit them and them only.  Where is my opportunity to be allowed to retain traditions that mean something to me and many like me?

This whole issue reminds me a seminal and timeless classic from the twisted minds of Monty Python and The Life of Brian.

The pertinent lines for me are the last in the scene.

REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!

FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

I would like to also provide a disclaimer to my viewpoint before I am howled down as being a homophobe or against equality; My uncle is gay and has been out for over 15 years. I support his right to living his life how he wishes, unequivocally.

My uncle and his partner are integral participants in our family celebrations for just about as long as he has been open about his sexuality.  His partners part in our extended family is beyond question with my nephews calling his partner "Uncle Derek".

We love both of them unconditionally, in fact whenever they are unable to join us in our various family occasions there is a distinct feeling of us missing out for they bring a unique sense of humour and celebration to our gatherings.

At my sisters 30th birthday fancy dress, Derek came in drag as a gangsters moll for the theme was the Roaring 20's.  His costume was an absolute scream and he played both the part and the crowd perfectly.  There is something about seeing a 6ft 4 black man in gold lame dancing with your father on the dance floor as the disco tunes pump from the DJ's booth but that is a post for another day!

Computer says...

Bill Leak stitches this farce up rather nicely..


So what does the manual say about the polls Joel?

From Andrew Bolt comes a startling insight from former Labor Chief Whip, Joel Fitzgibbon, into the joke that Labor has become, even to those inside Labor itself.

When asked whether he was shattered about todays Newspoll results that show Labor almost beyond salvation Mr Fitzgibbon pulls out the official Labor playbook to give the suggested response to any questions  relating to the disastrous figures.

And laughs. OMG could this bunch be any WORSE?

I think we know the answer, but lets go to the tape.

The poll that Kochie is referring to is the latest Newspoll which clearly shows that Labor's support is falling faster than a lead balloon and is heading to Tarago country.

Screen Shot 2013-06-04 at 2.19.01 PM