Mordy whacks bolt

[I Love Peter Kiel]

So just to clarify. I don't expect these communities to become perfect; black, white or migrant, NO community is perfect, and some have problems with drugs, some with education, some with gangs, some with tax fraud...

Affirmative Action was the first step, we should be focussing today on equal development moving towards self-actualisation. That way an aboriginal person isn't hostage to the constraints of their environment, just like they are not hostage to theirs.

That is to say, if the hospitals, schools, amenities, opportunities, communications were brought to the level of a normal town, after a generation or two, these 'disaster areas' will be just normal towns, with as many flaws and problems and stability and possibility as the rest of our country. Being born in a town like that will give you the foundations you need to make your own decisions on career, family, ethics, religion, just like the rest of Australia. Just like everyone else, Aboriginal people are individuals with different desires and directions. This foundation will allow them to express their autonomy naturally.

Or we could just keep the ghettos, pump in a token amount of money every 10 years and leave them to fight over it. Forget about providing real jobs or the possibility of creating a company or getting a mortgage and buying/building a house, or lasting education cycles or health care that resembles a developed country in the last 50 years, or even sanitation services and clean running water, they'll just have to try and make that happen themselves. It might take them another 80 years to get to the stage that we're at now, but that's life.

That's true for other communities, not just the remote ones dominated by indigenous people, but they are in the most urgent need at the moment.

A very good post.

I hope the first alternative comes true.

[IluvHarvey]

I'm all for affirmative action. It starts with getting kids away from communities where they can be abused, exposed to alcohol and drugs etc.

Sounds an awful lot like a policy they had in place up until not that long ago

Perhaps you could nominate yourself as "Commissioner for Aborigines" and get to work sorting Quadroons from Octoroons and nominating missions where these vulnerable could be shown the care and mercy of kind Christian Brothers on their path to whiteness

As I said, you can concentrate on the mistakes and cruelty of the past, and ignore the terrible situation many people are in in remote communities because it doesn't affect you and you'll never go there.

Have you actually been to one of these communities?

Have you seen the amount of good work going on there?

Or are you just concentrating on what you would like to believe?

Have you? I'm sure there's a lot of good work going on. The fact is, people need jobs. Living on welfare is soul-destroying.

Yes worked in Youth services out of Roebourne. You?

[I Love Peter Kiel]

I'm all for affirmative action. It starts with getting kids away from communities where they can be abused, exposed to alcohol and drugs etc.

Sounds an awful lot like a policy they had in place up until not that long ago

Perhaps you could nominate yourself as "Commissioner for Aborigines" and get to work sorting Quadroons from Octoroons and nominating missions where these vulnerable could be shown the care and mercy of kind Christian Brothers on their path to whiteness

As I said, you can concentrate on the mistakes and cruelty of the past, and ignore the terrible situation many people are in in remote communities because it doesn't affect you and you'll never go there.

yes and a sure sign of madness is repeating the exact same mistake and expecting a different result.

Seems like the defenders of the cultural communist, Andrew Bolt has changed tact a few times in this thread.

Started with denial, then defensiveness, than victimisation, finally resorting to the old populist "elite" furphy.

You guys who rail against the latte sipping leftie intelligensia are using a tried and true tactic of using popularism?

Been used by almost every tyrant in history. Hitler used it, Stalin, especially Mao. The Khmer Rouge used this type of populism to wipe out 3 million people in the 70's (Mao about 20 million in the 60's).

Obama used it, and will again next year, Hawke used it, Abbott is using it.

it is a facile tactic for the weak minded that the users rely on to divide the population against each other.

Bolt is using it against educated Aboriginies to portray them as one of the "others".

it preys on prejudice, insecurity, and fear. Welcome to your manipulation.

I have nothing against latte-sippers. Like to sip a good latte myself.

No doubt we're all so 'weak-minded' that we'll be easily convinced by the next dictator to do what he says.

[I Love Peter Kiel]

I'm all for affirmative action. It starts with getting kids away from communities where they can be abused, exposed to alcohol and drugs etc.

Sounds an awful lot like a policy they had in place up until not that long ago

Perhaps you could nominate yourself as "Commissioner for Aborigines" and get to work sorting Quadroons from Octoroons and nominating missions where these vulnerable could be shown the care and mercy of kind Christian Brothers on their path to whiteness

As I said, you can concentrate on the mistakes and cruelty of the past, and ignore the terrible situation many people are in in remote communities because it doesn't affect you and you'll never go there.

Have you actually been to one of these communities?

Have you seen the amount of good work going on there?

Or are you just concentrating on what you would like to believe?

Have you? I'm sure there's a lot of good work going on. The fact is, people need jobs. Living on welfare is soul-destroying.

Yes worked in Youth services out of Roebourne. You?

You're a very good man.

I won't reveal my true profession...it may prejudice you against me.

[dragit]

Can this get moved to the Aboriginal Affairs section?

It's important stuff, but I'm here to worry about Rhys Stanley and Chicken Sauce.

[joffaboy]

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/10/03/buy ... eedom-now/

[asiu]

... we can remove any profession that needs critical thinking followed by a broad accurate disemination of information from our wonderlist then.

[IluvHarvey]

I'm all for affirmative action. It starts with getting kids away from communities where they can be abused, exposed to alcohol and drugs etc.

Sounds an awful lot like a policy they had in place up until not that long ago

Perhaps you could nominate yourself as "Commissioner for Aborigines" and get to work sorting Quadroons from Octoroons and nominating missions where these vulnerable could be shown the care and mercy of kind Christian Brothers on their path to whiteness

As I said, you can concentrate on the mistakes and cruelty of the past, and ignore the terrible situation many people are in in remote communities because it doesn't affect you and you'll never go there.

Have you actually been to one of these communities?

Have you seen the amount of good work going on there?

Or are you just concentrating on what you would like to believe?

Have you? I'm sure there's a lot of good work going on. The fact is, people need jobs. Living on welfare is soul-destroying.

Yes worked in Youth services out of Roebourne. You?

You're a very good man.

I won't reveal my true profession...it may prejudice you against me.

I have seen some wonderful things working in places like Roe. The reason I asked you if you had been to these places is that I am sick to death of people casting ill informed opinions on what happens there. A lot of time and money has gone into that whole area and the changes that have been made is enormous. Obviously there is still work to do, I'll admit that but believe me educating these rural communities works a lot more than just taking kids away. What people fail to see is the good that happens there. It is always the negatives that are unfairly portrayed as the norm. CHANGES ARE BEING MADE. Please don't ignore that. There is no simple solution.

Now to the argument about the "white" Indigenous people. Why shouldn't they be allowed to admit to their heritage? Who says you have to be dark skinned to be allowed Indigenous rights. What about descendants from the stolen generations? Why should they be treated differently from someone with dark skin? Especially when there family members had no choice?

For the record I am white, I am also an Aboriginal, I am a descendant from the stolen generation and I am bloody proud of my heritage!

And I couldn't give two s***s about an apology! Whats done is done, now lets fix it so it doesn't happen again!

Oh and I have to ask....... what is your true profession?

[Austinnn]

Bolt doesn't pretend to know everything. He has done pretty well for a son of poor immigrants.

He is considered 'dangerous' by the Left because he stubbornly questions a lot of the brainwashing we are subjected to by the likes of Bob Brown, Noam Chomsky, John Pilger etc.

I don't have to agree with Bob Brown and you don't have to agree with Bolt.
I'm sure many of you are happy that he has taken a 'whack', as you say. Unfortunately you can't competely silence him, much as you would like to.

Good on Bolty! What a battler! Poor Dutch migrants, I'm sure life was pretty tough for him growing up. To think that his parents the huge obstacle of learning another language. I'm currently doing the same in France, it's tough. Perhaps not quite as tough as everything that I say or do being judged and disqualified based on the colour of my skin or my parents' religious beliefs, but there you go.

I'd like to learn more about the brainwashing offered up by Chomsky and Brown. I must look for Chomsky's daily article in a leading Australian newspaper. Oh sure, they are the words of OTHER intelligent journalists who have the ability to accept or dismiss Chomsky's ideas and then present their own views, but they are all just brainless mouthpieces for The Oracle, I agree. :sarcasm: As for Bob Brown, he's hardly brainwashing anyone. He is a solitary voice in parliament that dared to speak alone about 10 years ago in a much more hostile environment than Poor Old Bolty is currently facing.

In the end, it's a bit like footy; we support different teams, green, red, blue, pin-stripe. I can't prove to you Bob Brown is right, you can't do the same with Bolt or Alan Jones.

Unfortunately, I agree with you, we'll never be able to shut Andrew Bolt up, and even if we do some other arsehole will spring up and start shitting his opinions into a newspaper for morons to accept as 'The Truth'.

So how about we just make do with Making Andrew Bolt Accountable? Would that work?

The children their don't have a choice.

And they don't have your advantage of being able to read!

I don't understand this first sentence, I assume it's a typo. I AGREE with you about education; the difference is that instead of taking children out of the communities and educating them, I advocated creating the right infrastructure in the communities which allows them to get educated. What is so hard about working inside these communities? Many people don't want to, but if the right conditions are created, it can work.

[Austinnn]

To dragit, Spacey and other folks complaining that this thread is in the wrong place, just pretend we're not here. You don't have to click on the thread, it's obvious from the title what it's about.

But in order to make it MORE relevant;

Did you know that there's absolutely NO TRUTH in the claim stated in this post that Andrew Bolt was once on St Kilda's reserve list, and he got cleaned up by Mordy in a reserves game and the impact broke his spine in several places, and that Rupert Murdoch took him under his wing and taught him to hate and resent and write. I repeat that this claim is FALSE.

[I Love Peter Kiel]

Noam Chomsky supported the Viet Cong as the 'good guys'. He also supported the Communist revolutionaries in Cambodia...the Khmer Rouge.

When a few embarrassing facts emerged such as millions having been killed by Pol Pot, it was no longer fashionable to support the Khmer Rouge. So Noam perpetrated the story that the Khmer Rouge had been created by the US bombing of Cambodia. Yes, conveniently it was the evil USA! It's amazing how many people believe this.

[I Love Peter Kiel]

To dragit, Spacey and other folks complaining that this thread is in the wrong place, just pretend we're not here. You don't have to click on the thread, it's obvious from the title what it's about.

But in order to make it MORE relevant;

Did you know that there's absolutely NO TRUTH in the claim stated in this post that Andrew Bolt was once on St Kilda's reserve list, and he got cleaned up by Mordy in a reserves game and the impact broke his spine in several places, and that Rupert Murdoch took him under his wing and taught him to hate and resent and write. I repeat that this claim is FALSE.

You speak a lot of sense, my friend.

But I repeat that the reason I contributed to this thread is...someone wanted to CELEBRATE a judge finding someone guilty.

A judge is supposed to be impartial, not a warrior for the Left.

Yes, Bolt has been wacked. I'm sure you're all happy.

What will you all demand next?

Do you really want a media 'watchdog', as Bob Brown has called for?

[Austinnn]

Noam Chomsky supported the Viet Cong as the 'good guys'. He also supported the Communist revolutionaries in Cambodia...the Khmer Rouge.

When a few embarrassing facts emerged such as millions having been killed by Pol Pot, it was no longer fashionable to support the Khmer Rouge. So Noam perpetrated the story that the Khmer Rouge had been created by the US bombing of Cambodia. Yes, conveniently it was the evil USA! It's amazing how many people believe this.

I'm not sure that I see the relevence to Andrew Bolt. Are you saying that he's fighting "this sort of" propaganda? By creating his own propaganda? That he apparently doesn't even believe?* To make money? While tens of thousands of Aussie folk like Ralphy say that his prejudice against 'the Aboriginals' is the Truth? And you're defending him?

*unsubstatiated claim, but intriguing nonetheless

[Austinnn]

But I repeat that the reason I contributed to this thread is...someone wanted to CELEBRATE a judge finding someone guilty.

A judge is supposed to be impartial, not a warrior for the Left.

Yes, Bolt has been wacked. I'm sure you're all happy.

What will you all demand next?

Do you really want a media 'watchdog', as Bob Brown has called for?

OK, once more:

The judge WAS impartial. He held Bolt to account for the FACTUAL MISREPRESENTATION in his blogs, nothing more. He didn't say "Don't be racist", he didn't say "Stop denying climate change", he wasn't a warrior for any movement.

He punished Bolt for the lies that he told in his blog, and let it be known that the key facts which made the basis of Bolt's cynical posts were in fact false. Nothing more, nothing less.

The rest is a figment of Bolt's imagination in an even more cynical attempt to create a ground movement of right-sided resistance to Indigenous progress and to gain further unquestioning support for his anti-environmental, anti-muslim and anti-indigenous views.

The fact that some of us are celebrating the judge's good work is because we are happy for a voice we hate to have been made publicly accountable for a change. It doesn't happen often, please let us enjoy it. The fact that he is an ex-Saint is the cherry on the cake.

[To the top]

One thing you observe in life is that the right are very proficient in labelling any who oppose them.

And so we see with ILPK who presumes to label the Federal Court Judge who found against Bolt at law a "warrior of the left".

Why presume this?

What gives ILPK the right to call a Federal Court Judge a "warrior of the left"?

And, if he is a "warrior of the left", what is so wrong with that?

We have media in Australia where, with Murdoch, only right wing opinion and comment is printed.

Fairfax is not far behind, giving space to former Liberal Party parliamentarians, former staff members of Liberal parliamentarians and the right wing Institute of Public Affairs.

And, unfortunately, the ABC is following Murdoch and Fairfax.

Then, on here, we have even got to the stage that a Federal Court Judge, ruling on law and against Bolt is immediately branded a "left wing warrior".

By who?

And using what criteria?

And for what objective?

Because right wing governments deliver better outcomes for the citizens of the world with their adherance to "free enterprise", "profit is the great regulator" and the "trickle down" philosophy?

If you want to debate that the right of politics delivers better outcomes for citizens, bring it on!

Me, I am from the IMF and World Bank body of opinion.

And I agree and support the Joseph Stiglitz view that a resurgance of right wing economics, driven by idealogy and special interests, threatens the global economy.

[DK27]

I have not read this entire thread but don't really have half an hour to do so.

Andrew Bolt is damaging to a unified cohesive society. His articles are often poorly researched and often drive a wedge between different groups in our society. It really upsets me that people read his crap and frighteningly believe it.

I rarely read his crap but one example was 2 federal elections ago he wrote that the Greens were for legalizing drugs. Sections of his article was copied into flyers put into letter boxes in marginal electorates by shadowy Liberal supporting groups. The problem was the article was lies. The Sun were legally forced to print an apology after the election. By being repeated, people believed it. The groups that did the flyers were untraceable. Who paid for the flyers. All really dodgy.

His big article a while ago on global warming quoted a scientist in support of his denial argument. He lazily googles the quote but neglects to say it is from 15 years ago and the very same scientist now is avidly supporting action on global warming. 97 % of climate scientists are pro action on global warming. Why would he write articles quoting the 3% of dissenting opinions with no mention that the vast majority of scientist are very concerned for our future? Unfortunately Tony Abbott saw this issue as a political wedge issue and picked it up to promote his own ambition and now we have a range of groups spending heaps on TV ads on either side of this issue which gets away from the fact that the vast majority of scientists are saying we need action now. Political ambition has clouded the issue.

[desperate saint]

OH please the judge was impartial!! yes I suppose Kirby is impartial like all of us they lean to the left or to the right, at least in the American system they acknowledge themselves as either left or right appointee's to the supreme court <we in Australia are naive enough to think everyone is impartial

[Austinnn]

OH please the judge was impartial!! yes I suppose Kirby is impartial like all of us they lean to the left or to the right, at least in the American system they acknowledge themselves as either left or right appointee's to the supreme court <we in Australia are naive enough to think everyone is impartial

Doesn't matter which way he leans, his judgement was just and based on facts, not political opinion, unlike Bolt's oevre.

[The OtherThommo]

Well this is bubbling along nicely! I know it's the wrong thing to do on a footy forum, but I'm a sucker for Climate Change Denial!

To all those who agree with Porky Bolt that Climate Change is a hoax, I hope that your views are based on real unconflicted scientific research, not just on the opinions of those with vested interests in continuing the same destructive way of life. People who make their living from logging or mining for example.

I find it amusing that the media people who oppose the idea of man-made Global Warming are always the same people who champion individualism over humanitarian ideas, great outstanding folks like Bolt, Christopher Monckton, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and James Delingpole. Take a look at some of the other causes they espouse and it's clear that their priority is keeping things the way they've been for the last 100 years. It's also interesting that Rupert Murdoch seems to be paying quite a few of these people's salaries. But they're all different voices, aren't they?

http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-s ... e-war-1692

It's great that not everyone agrees with everyone, and we need to keep the debate open, but the longer we debate, the later we will act. Some causes don't have the time. I remember MMM FM promoting Saving The Planet in 1989. 22 years later and we're STILL mass debating. Let's hope that the Deniers are right, personally I think they're taking this stance because they percieve that a change of lifestyle is too great a sacrifice for a cause they secretly believe it's too late to act on.

BTW Bolt seems to have packed on a few pounds since I last saw a photo of him. Must be all the truffles that Rupert feeds him.

Don't even get me started on Aboriginal affairs.

Anyway back to the footy, opium of the masses.

The marrow deep flaw in the logic of the climate deniers, Aussie, is the absolute denial of the scientific process itself. None of 'em, not one, has been able to come up with any credible, peer reviewed research to say the consensus view is wrong in fact or basis.

Here we have an entire cabal, funded by various nefarious idealogues, like the Koch brothers (who also fund the Tea Party in the US), who live in an era of the highest living standards ever, enjoying the fruits of one central strand of human endeavour, science, and choose to deny the output from one channel of a centuries old process that has delivered them the only progress they can comprehend.

If it ain't science that has delivered economically the standard of living enjoyed by the developed world today (and I can hear the whingers gargling), what is it? Every inch of progress has come about because of a basic scientific process. A cycle of observe, measure, hypothesise, test, review, and round we go again, until a consensus is reached and the opportunity to capitalise or mitigate is assessed and executed.

Yet, on this one issue all scientists are supposed to be part of a conspiracy!?!?!? The logic is startling. No, it's not. Power to influence is given to people by the likes of Murdoch based on their ability to incite and excite, irrespective of the merits of their argument or their basic capability. Rupert is 80+ and has never had any interest in anything other than money and power. He is said to be a believer in climate science, yet hires people like Beck et al to perpetuate the incitement. Why? Because he stands for nothing beyond short term, expedient exploitation of people's fears and ignorance. That's how he makes his money, which fuels his influence.

Climate science is nothing new. It's just science and is going through the same process as every other branch of scientific development has gone for centuries.

There is no such thing as a climate change denier. They are science deniers. The whole lot of 'em should shut down their computers, get out of their cars and walk, move into caves, kill animals with their bare hands for food and clothing, stay warm by huddling, or cool by nuding up, seek entertainment from within, communicate by grunting, seek no test, procedure or drug to remedy what ails them, resign from all employment and wander around aimlessly, waiting for the leaders of their social groupings to tell them what to do.

Because, without science, that's where we'd be.

As for there needing to be a debate, those who deny the science should refer back to the Monty Python sketch on arguments. A point of view does not an argument make. It has to have a basis to support it, otherwise it's just words, usually badly constructed words.

This "debate" about climate science and the supposed right of everyone to have a view, irrespective of whether they can even get within the same postcode as knowledge and logical objectivity, was best summed up by one person who The Autralian had write an opinion piece on why the science of climate change was wrong.

They had Archvaticansycophant George Pell lecture their readers via an opinion piece on why climate science was wrong. In that one fell swoop they encapsulated their opinion of logical, thoughtful processes as surmountable by the power of voodoo. That's how they regard their readers.

Bolt works for the same organisation. Q.E.D.

Thank you for being so succint!
Any more conspiracy theories?

That's not a conspiracy theory. This is a conspiracy theory.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 ... rentPage=1

And, a damn good one. Just as an aside, the Koch Bros, via their vast lobbying network within the Republicans, took on the EPA over their ban on dioxin. They wanted to continue using processes in their chemical plants that resulted in "moderate" levels of dioxin entering the food chain. And, because of their influence, they nearly succeeded. They even felt they had a right to alter DNA.

And, so strong is the Koch's commitment to climate change denial they even trade carbon in Europe, for a buck, you understand. Go figure. Ah, the irony. Make money out of carbon trading in Europe, so you can fund an antiscience movement in the U.S. Did I mention their forefathers left Europe for the US because they felt their religious fundamentalism was being surmounted by rational thought?

Then there's Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater. He's descended from a group of Dutch Reform Church folks who fled Europe and settled in Michigan. Erik's father made a mint from the Detroit car industry selling parts. He came up with the ubiquitous console cup holder.

See the link? Dutch, again. They were so downtrodden in Europe.

Now, how do I create a link from the Koch's to the Bolter? I could rely on Murdoch's funding of the Tea Party, like the Koch's, the Bolter works for Murdoch, etc.

Or, I could mention the Kochs are descendants of Dutch immigrants. And, the Boers were Dutch, and they went to South Africa, and the Kochs did extensive business with South Africa, and Bolt went to South Africa once..........

But, if I am to be truly conspiratorial, I would suggest you seek out the writings and work of one Leo Strauss, the father of the neocon's and, ergo, the modern GOP. Sitting at the feet of ol' Leo, as he taught his manifesto for Right dominance of the US political process, were Cheney, Rove (Karl, not McManus), Wolfowitz, Pearl, Rumsfeld etc, etc.

Now, there's your conspiracy, right there.

Disclosure: For a period, some years back, on the basis of appearance, I was referred to as a "Clog Wog". This was a pejorative term applied by some to refer to those of Dutch descent. The application of the term to me was erroneous. I am 4th generation local, but predominantly Scawtish by heritage. Adam Smith was before his time.

I wonder if the Bolter copped the "CW" label as a kiddie. Could explain a lot.

[dragit]

To dragit, Spacey and other folks complaining that this thread is in the wrong place, just pretend we're not here. You don't have to click on the thread, it's obvious from the title what it's about.

But in order to make it MORE relevant;

Did you know that there's absolutely NO TRUTH in the claim stated in this post that Andrew Bolt was once on St Kilda's reserve list, and he got cleaned up by Mordy in a reserves game and the impact broke his spine in several places, and that Rupert Murdoch took him under his wing and taught him to hate and resent and write. I repeat that this claim is FALSE.

Thanks Austinn, boy that was a good bump that Mordy laid…

We should do the Israeli–Palestinian conflict next…

[Dr Spaceman]

To dragit, Spacey and other folks complaining that this thread is in the wrong place, just pretend we're not here. You don't have to click on the thread, it's obvious from the title what it's about.

Thanks for the tip Austinnn.

I only raised the appropriateness of the thread on the fan forum due to:

* The tenuous link between the issues being discussed and the football club we follow, and

* The existence of a similar thread in the General Forum.

If the admins are happy to keep this one going then I have no problem with that. And while it is here and is open I will continue from time to time to have a look at what is being posted on what is genuinely an interesting issue.

Having said that, I have no desire to immerse myself in the debate. Polictics can be very divisive and can lead to people being unfairly labelled in many instances. I’m quite happy to have a discussion amongst friends, where they are able to take into account their knowledge of me as a person, the expression on my face, the tone in my voice etc when digesting any comment I may make. But on a forum such as this it is all reduced to words on a page and can lead to the instant conclusion that you are a “bleeding heart greenieâ€

[avid]

OH please the judge was impartial!! yes I suppose Kirby is impartial like all of us they lean to the left or to the right, at least in the American system they acknowledge themselves as either left or right appointee's to the supreme court <we in Australia are naive enough to think everyone is impartial

Nobody is completely unbiased. But some strive to be and others don't.

The difference between a personal opinion and a a legal judgement like the one Mordi presented is that under the legal process the judge has to meticulously lay out out his entire opinion, support each point with verifiable fact, or well tested precedent, or explicitly articulated principle or assumption. Everyone else, including possible appeal judges, has the chance to probe it and test it, find fault with the evidence, or the logic, etc etc. A good judgement is one that stands up under this process of scrutiny.

A very similar thing happens with scientific research and peer review. Scientific opinion is always susceptable to correction -- testing and correcting is the basis of the scientific process. But in 'peer reviewed' research, the exposure of the opinion to testing is rigorous, and open for all to see. It's never perfect, but it's by far the best system for building reliable knowledge we've got.

People who purvey the popular idea that any scientist's opinion or any judge's opinion is just as good, or biased, as anyone else's simply has no idea of the formal processes behind them.
Or they're just being willfully dishonest about it.

(Andrew Bolt doesn't seem to be ignorant enough to go in the "no idea" category. The evidence in the court case showed him, at least in that instance, to be willfully dishonest.)

[GrumpyOne]

OH please the judge was impartial!! yes I suppose Kirby is impartial like all of us they lean to the left or to the right, at least in the American system they acknowledge themselves as either left or right appointee's to the supreme court <we in Australia are naive enough to think everyone is impartial

Nobody is completely unbiased. But some strive to be and others don't.

The difference between a personal opinion and a a legal judgement like the one Mordi presented is that under the legal process the judge has to meticulously lay out out his entire opinion, support each point with verifiable fact, or well tested precedent, or explicitly articulated principle or assumption. Everyone else, including possible appeal judges, has the chance to probe it and test it, find fault with the evidence, or the logic, etc etc. A good judgement is one that stands up under this process of scrutiny.

A very similar thing happens with scientific research and peer review. Scientific opinion is always susceptable to correction -- testing and correcting is the basis of the scientific process. But in 'peer reviewed' research, the exposure of the opinion to testing is rigorous, and open for all to see. It's never perfect, but it's by far the best system for building reliable knowledge we've got.

People who purvey the popular idea that any scientist's opinion or any judge's opinion is just as good, or biased, as anyone else's simply has no idea of the formal processes behind them.
Or they're just being willfully dishonest about it.

(Andrew Bolt doesn't seem to be ignorant enough to go in the "no idea" category. The evidence in the court case showed him, at least in that instance, to be willfully dishonest.)

Top post.


Nice picture of our home island too!

[The OtherThommo]

OH please the judge was impartial!! yes I suppose Kirby is impartial like all of us they lean to the left or to the right, at least in the American system they acknowledge themselves as either left or right appointee's to the supreme court <we in Australia are naive enough to think everyone is impartial

Nobody is completely unbiased. But some strive to be and others don't.

The difference between a personal opinion and a a legal judgement like the one Mordi presented is that under the legal process the judge has to meticulously lay out out his entire opinion, support each point with verifiable fact, or well tested precedent, or explicitly articulated principle or assumption. Everyone else, including possible appeal judges, has the chance to probe it and test it, find fault with the evidence, or the logic, etc etc. A good judgement is one that stands up under this process of scrutiny.

A very similar thing happens with scientific research and peer review. Scientific opinion is always susceptable to correction -- testing and correcting is the basis of the scientific process. But in 'peer reviewed' research, the exposure of the opinion to testing is rigorous, and open for all to see. It's never perfect, but it's by far the best system for building reliable knowledge we've got.

People who purvey the popular idea that any scientist's opinion or any judge's opinion is just as good, or biased, as anyone else's simply has no idea of the formal processes behind them.
Or they're just being willfully dishonest about it.

(Andrew Bolt doesn't seem to be ignorant enough to go in the "no idea" category. The evidence in the court case showed him, at least in that instance, to be willfully dishonest.)

I like it. When de man's right, de man's right. A well articulated grasp of processes that are vital to the maintenance of a civil society.

[gringo]

To dragit, Spacey and other folks complaining that this thread is in the wrong place, just pretend we're not here. You don't have to click on the thread, it's obvious from the title what it's about.

But in order to make it MORE relevant;

Did you know that there's absolutely NO TRUTH in the claim stated in this post that Andrew Bolt was once on St Kilda's reserve list, and he got cleaned up by Mordy in a reserves game and the impact broke his spine in several places, and that Rupert Murdoch took him under his wing and taught him to hate and resent and write. I repeat that this claim is FALSE.

You speak a lot of sense, my friend.

But I repeat that the reason I contributed to this thread is...someone wanted to CELEBRATE a judge finding someone guilty.

A judge is supposed to be impartial, not a warrior for the Left.

Yes, Bolt has been wacked. I'm sure you're all happy.

What will you all demand next?

Do you really want a media 'watchdog', as Bob Brown has called for?

I do want a media watch dog. I know politicians and journalists and if you think there is not a need for regulation of this industry you don't understand the way it is structured. I am not a fan of Chomsky, Pilger or Brown and as a centre left leaning person don't believe they represent a sane view just as I don't think bolt represents a sane view. We have media ownership that means that a few can influence the political landscape. Gina Rienhardt was so impressed by the influence the media had over the mining resources tax she bough into Channel 10. She is personally responsible for Bolt's promotion and has expectations of content that is friendly to her personal views. I know an Age journo that has been totally disillusioned by the fact that her articles are routinely changed to reflect editorial demands. We are coming into a world where one service will provide all the news content and commentary will replace true journalism which is impartial. Bolt is a commentator disguised as a journalist. Australia's nanny state is responsible for our sound financial position, deregulation or self regulation by industry is what screws the world's finances.