Showing posts with label Piers Akerman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Piers Akerman. Show all posts

Friday, February 19, 2010

Piers Akerman Claims The Intellectually Disabled Are "Incapable Of Understanding Plain English"

Daily Telegraph columnist, and ABC Insiders panelist, Piers Akerman plays the 'You're A Retard' card in reply to commenters who keep pointing out what an enormous liar he is :



Piers Akerman's words :
"...you really should read an article before commenting on it. Unless you have an intellectual disability, and are incapable of understanding plain English."
UPDATE : I have contacted the online Daily Telegraph's editor, Kathy Lipari, to find out why she thinks it is appropriate that a Daily Telegraph columnist can claim that intellectually disabled people are "incapable of understanding plain English."

I will update with her response, when, or if, she responds.

Piers Akerman is a guest on ABC's Insiders this Sunday morning. Why does ABC TV think it is appropriate to include as a panelist on Insiders a columnist who smears the intellectually disabled?

Note : The above headline has been rewritten from earlier today.


.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Murdoch Defamation Payout Spigot Piers Akerman Faked Famous 'We Must Announce Disasters' Quote That Fueled The AGW Skeptic Movement

The Daily Telegraph's Piers Akerman, November 5, 2006 :
This alarmist approach reeked of stupidity, snake oil, and misguided gospel preaching but was in line with a formula adopted by the first chairman of the IPCC, Sir John Houghton, who produced the IPCC's first three reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001 and wrote in his book Global Warming, The Complete Briefing, in 1994: "Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.''
That bolded quote cited by Akerman did not appear in Sir John Houghton's book. Today's UK Independent quotes Houghton :

"It's not the sort of thing I would ever say. It's quite the opposite of what I think and it pains me to see this quote being used repeatedly in this way. I would never say we should hype up the risk of climate disasters in order to get noticed."

Even though the quotation appears on about 1.77 million web links, no one seems to know where it originated.

Akerman's November 5, 2006 article is cited by the UK Independent as "the earliest record" of the fake quote appearing online. How proud he must be.

Sir John, who was the former head of the Met Office but is now living in semi-active retirement in Wales, said he is considering taking legal action because he feels that the continued recycling of the misquotation is doing him and his science a huge disfavour.

"It doesn't do me any good because it suggests to everyone that I have hyped things up. I've been growing aware of it now for some time. The trouble is, if I just deny it then it cuts no ice with the people who want to believe it. I have to consider legal action," Sir John said.

If Houghton does take legal action, it will be the latest in a long line of defamation suits against Akerman, who must have cost Rupert Murdoch at least $2 million in payouts, payoffs and legal fees in the past few years alone.

How did Akerman respond to questions from the UK Independent about his fabrication of this famous quote? Well, how do you reckon, once he knew he'd been busted? Again?
Mr Akerman did not respond to enquiries by The Independent.
Daily Telegraph lawyers probably have a rapid response unit solely devoted to Akerman by now.

More soon....


.

Saturday, December 05, 2009

Seriously, who edits this shit?

Piers Akerman, Daily Telegraph
:
"Prime Minister Kevin Rudd....has attempted to drive a wedge between voters who favour board-shorts and those who opt for sleeker nut-huggers as worn by the new federal Opposition leader, Tony Abbott."

"....pro-lifers...would see abortion promoted not as a last resort but as the contraceptive process of choice, are debasing what should be a serious debate."
So pro-lifers want abortion to replace the pill? Is he back on the gack?

I'll take any conservative's God-infected raging against safe, legal abortion seriously when they also begin discussing the far more devastating, and shattering, events of miscarriages in Australia.

Why do they never discuss, debate or even mention the awful tragedy of miscarriages? What are they so afraid of?

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Malcolm Turnbull : Not As Much Fun As Brendan Nelson



Piers Akerman apologises for helping Malcolm Turnbull to the leadership of the Liberal Party :

As one who supported Malcolm Turnbull’s bid to oust Peter King in the electorate of Wentworth, and his subsequent deposing of former Opposition leader Brendan Nelson, I admit an error in judgment.

The Turnbull I admired then read widely, listened to argument and made up his mind on the evidence placed before him.

---------------

Now, Turnbull has joined Rudd and Wong and global warming tarts like Tim Flannery in denying the work and purpose of those who seek nothing but the truth....

Global Warming Tarts? I've had one of those. The woman behind the counter in the cake shop warned me they were bloody hot, but when I bit into one, I discovered it was actually quite cold.

The Ak :

After showing great promise, and being given great assistance...

Particularly by The Daily Telegraph, and The Australian.

....his political career is coming to a humiliating and inglorious close.

Who are you going to put the kiss of death on next, Piers?

@AlexHawkeMP better hope Akerman doesn't start praising him to the heavens, or he will never get to lead the Christian Liberal/Christian Greens Coalition of 2016.

This isn't widely known, but in the wake of the hilarious fuckapalooza of Godwin Gretch e-mails, Malcolm Turnbull was offered shocking, damning photographic evidence of KevinRuddPM's darkest secrets, but by then Turnbull was too scared of leaks to bring them before the public :

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Why Are Murdoch Journalists Who Claim "Global Warming Is A Lefty Scam" So Afraid To Confront Or Challenge The 'Climate Change Propaganda' Of Their Own Boss?

By Darryl Mason

A collection of quotes from Rupert Murdoch on Climate Change and Corporate Green brainwashing via his massive world media empire :
"Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction.

"We're starting with our own carbon footprint. Not nothing. But much of what we're doing is already, or soon will be, little more than the standard way of doing business. We can do something that's unique, different from just any other company. We can set an example, and we can reach our audiences. Our audience's carbon footprint is 10,000 times bigger than ours. That's the carbon footprint we want to conquer."

"Becoming carbon neutral is only the beginning. The climate problem will not be solved by one company reducing its emissions to zero, and it won't be solved by one government acting alone. The climate problem will not be solved without mass participation by the general public in countries around the globe."

"Imagine if we succeed in inspiring our audiences to reduce their own impacts on climate change by just one percent. That would be like turning the State of California off for almost two months."

"News Corporation, today, reaches people at home and at work... when they're thinking... when they're laughing... and when they are making choices that have enormous impact. The unique potential.. and duty.. of a media company are to help its audiences connect to the issues that define our time."

"We need to push ourselves to make as many reductions as possible in our own energy use first.. and that takes time. But we must do this quickly.. the climate will not wait for us."

"While we reduce our own carbon footprint we will encourage the companies who truck our DVDs and newspapers, sell us paper, and provide an enormous range of products and services.. to all contribute."

"Some of our businesses use more energy than others, but our strategy everywhere is the same.. first, reduce our use of energy as much as possible. Then, switch to renewable sources of power where it makes economic sense. And, over time, as a last resort, offset the emissions we can't avoid."

"We could make a difference just by holding our emissions steady as our businesses continue to grow. But that doesn't seem to be enough: we want to go all the way to zero. Today, I am announcing our intention to be carbon neutral, across all our businesses, by 2010."

"We're not a manufacturer, or an airline, but we do use energy. Printing and publishing newspapers, producing films, broadcasting television signals, operating 24-hour newsrooms. It all adds carbon to the atmosphere."

"Climate change and energy use are global problems. News Corp is a global company. Our operations affect the environment all over the world."

"I have to admit that, until recently, I was somewhat wary of the (global) warming debate. I believe it is now our responsibility to take the lead on this issue."

Murdoch journalists like Tim Blair, Andrew Bolt and Piers Akerman, all well know that their own boss is the world's most influential distributor of what they call "global warming fearmongery", but they'd prefer their readers to get all shouty and hepped up about Tim Flannery and Al Gore and the ABC instead.

Why? Because they know if they did go after Rupert Murdoch's "climate change catastrophe" fearmongery, with the same venom and repetition that they go after scientists and academics and celebrity activists, they'd get fired.

Their silence, and credibility, has been brought. Willingly. Without a fight.

If Blair, Bolt and Akerman truly believe that climate change and carbon neutrality is now being used to introduce 'World Government' then why are they still taking money from Rupert Murdoch?


.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Murdoch Media : How To Spot A Global Warming 'Conspiracy Theorist'


image sourced from here

From news.com.au :
Global Warming conspiracy theory

This theory claims the science behind current environmental changes - as popularised by Al Gore in the film An Inconvenient Truth - was created for financial gain.

Some believe that governments are using the global warming "myth" to raise taxes and restrict competitive US businesses in Europe - or that it is a United Nations ploy to create a one-world government.
Now you know.

,

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Murdoch Journo Declares Allegiance To Taliban

Yesterday I pointed out the shared beliefs of conservative extremist Andrew Bolt and The Taliban.

Today, another Murdoch conservative extremist, Piers Akerman, announces his solidarity with The Taliban :



I thought it was illegal to announce your support for terrorists?

Next thing you know these conservative extremists will be telling us that the Taliban and Hamas are legitimate freedom fighters.

Someone call ASIO. These people are fucking insane.


.

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Akerman's Big Fat Libelous Mouth Nearly Sucked ABC Into Expensive Lawsuit

Not happy with costing his boss, Rupert Murdoch, more than $1 million in defamation payouts over the years, Daily Telegraph columnist Piers Akerman tried to get the ABC sued on Sunday morning's Insiders by naming federal Labor minister Anthony Albanese as being possibly somehow connected to a murder still being investigated by police :
Appearing as a panellist on ABC-TV's Insiders program, News Limited's rotund reactionary began putting the case for a federal inquiry into the bribery allegations emanating from the murder of property developer Michael McGurk. When Insiders host Barry Cassidy questioned Akerman's logic, given the allegations were about ministers in the NSW Government, Akerman began spreading the web of suspicion, in the process mentioning a certain cabinet minister in the Rudd Government. The program was forced to scramble to delete any record of the comments from its website to avoid the possibility of a rather messy lawsuit.
If anyone knows, from repeated lawsuits, what they can and can't say on TV or in a newspaper, it's Piers Akerman.

Akerman was ignored by the clearly furious host, Brian Cassidy, for most of the rest of the show. At its close, Akerman trundled through a trifecta of lies and distortions :
Three broken promises reminded this week. Not one house built for Aborigines. Not not one boat turned back, and of course workers to lose out under the industrial award modernisation.
Akerman's blog post the next morning was called :

Who Will Pay For The Tragedy Of Dementia?


Akerman's had a great run sucking up ABC appearance fees and expenses as the most absurdly biased pro-Liberal hack in Australia. We know from recent studies that the Lefty Green Nazi Socialist Pagan Bias at the ABC is a myth, just another Conservative Blubbering Point, something for mostly Murdoch opinionists to stuff column space with. There's no need anymore to stack ABC shows like Insiders with 66% Murdoch media hacks. There are plenty of other journalists, bloggers and commentators with just as much so-called 'insider' information on Canberra and the workings of Australian politics as Akerman is supposed to possess but rarely reveals.


.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

Murdoch Boss Viciously Attacks Murdoch Bloggers For "Political Extremism" And "Radical Sweeping Statements"

By Darryl Mason

This is shocking. Digitally nervous News Limited CEO John Hartigan has launched a brutal, vicious attack on bloggers, all bloggers, including his own Herald Sun and Daily Telegraph bloggers : Piers Akerman, Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt :
"Then there are the bloggers. In return for their free content, we pretty much get what we've paid for. Something of such little intellectual value as to be barely discernible from massive ignorance."

"Bloggers don't go to jail for their work. They simply aren't held accountable like real reporters....It could be said the blogosphere is all eyeballs and no insights."

"In the blogosphere, of course, the mainstream media is always found wanting. It really is time this myth was blown apart."
Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt's boss has obviously been keeping an eye on their blogs for a while now :
"Blogs, and a large number of comment sites, specialise in political extremism and personal vilification. Radical sweeping statements without evidence are common."
That's a bit hardcore, isn't it? Doesn't Hartigan know how much traffic blogs that specialise in personal vilification and political extremism generate for News Limited?

After using most of an hour of a live ABC TV broadcast to pump and hype the success of the Murdoch media online, News Limited CEO John Hartigan didn't have time to explain how New Limited lawyers acting for two journalists have tried to shut down independent blogs; desired to find out anonymous blogggers' real names; demanded payments for "immeasurable hurt" allegedly caused by bloggers to News Limited journalists, all fit into his high-profile 'Right To Know' campaign to protect sources, shield whistleblowers and demand greater freedom for the media.

Maybe next time.


Note : Seeing as John Hartigan didn't single out certain bloggers for criticism, we have to assume that when he says "And there are the bloggers" he is referring to all bloggers, including Akerman, Blair and Bolt.

Monday, June 29, 2009

See That Shark? Watch Me Jump It

Meanwhile, The Great 'Rudd Shields Swan Over Fake Email (GRSFEC)' Conspiracy Theory Takes Shape


By Darryl Mason

After a consistently entertaining and dramatic week in politics in which utes and emails came to feature together for the first time in newspaper headlines. The Daily Telegraph's Piers Akerman straps on his water skis and submits his claim for monumental irrelevancy,
The last weeks of the winter session have been more damaging to the Rudd Labor Government than the Coalition, no matter how you slice it.
The first polls after the solid week of Utegate headlines, hysteria and claims of snarky conspiracy, show the opposite of what Akerman effervescently claims, and the damage inside the Liberal true believer ranks seems intense :

Malcolm Turnbull has paid for his botched attack on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, with more than half of voters believing he was deceitful about a now-notorious fake email. Even among committed Coalition voters, nearly a third believe he has been deceitful and another 10 per cent say he has been dishonest.

A Galaxy poll taken at the weekend has revealed the Opposition Leader's integrity has taken a hammering, revealing a rump of only 7 per cent of voters who think he was "open and honest" during the affair.

If it turns out that Turnbull was speaking, mostly, honestly throughout his dozens of interviews last week, something else will be needed to explain why so many Australians looked at Turnbull being interviewed on TV and thought, 'Oh, this guy is so full of shit.'

Malcolm Turnbull was interviewed by the AFP ("The Feds" for American readers) on Sunday, and Labor keeps hammering that Turnbull has something to hide. Something big. Maybe even a little dark, sinister.

Those kinds of vague claims crack deep into our culture's love-hate mistrust of politicians. We love corrupt politicians in novels and TV shows, the bastards, but we hate them in real life, those bastards.

And A Politician Who Has Something To Hide From The Feds feeds our political thriller fiction-fuelled desire to see corrupt politicians flayed publicly and prosecuted rigorously, regardless of who they are.

So Lindsay Tanner goes for a gushing head wound :
"Clearly, he's not going to provide his computer records to the federal police," Mr Tanner told the Nine Network.

"Given the nature of the potential crimes we're dealing with here, that is appalling. He should be making all assistance available to the federal police in order that they can determine whether any serious crimes have been committed and pursue them accordingly if they have been."

Brutal. And damn hard to shake off, even if the AFP interrupted Masterchef for ten minutes to announce that Malcolm Turnbull was in the clear and there was no reason to doubt his honesty on anything ute or e-mail related anymore. Even then, there would be plenty of Australians wandering around muttering, "Malcolm Turnbull? Dodgy prick."


Piers Akerman asked his readers the following question :
....did anyone really believe someone within Treasury would be sending faked emails?
Commenters responded to his call for exploration of a larger conspiracy involving Rudd & Swan and reasonably high-tech fakery and so was crafted a conspiracy theory swollen with potentially thrilling drama, tech-treachery and possible falls from power that makes you want to shout "I Want To See This Movie! (or at least read the book)', even if the theory doesn't turn out, in the end, to be actual reality. Some of these comments from Akerman's blog have been slightly
edited :
Michael A replied to lethal
Sun 28 Jun 09 (06:26am)

It is very interesting that the AFP were able to tell everyone the email was a fake almost immediately but have still not enlightened us as to the origins of the email. Was this all a Labor setup?

Angry God replied to lethal
Sun 28 Jun 09 (12:06pm)

As far as I understand computers and managed networks such as government systems, they facts are that the original email would contain data known as the MAC addreess. This is a unique number (that can be spoofed if you know what you are doing). The managed network locks these MAC addresses to the network switch.

A resonable investigator would have been able to identify the originating computer in a few seconds if they were competant. We assume that they are competant and as such we know that the AFP knows which computer initiated the modified (read fake) email.

In a managed network the spoofing of a MAC address within an email will be highlighted as a security breach. So either no spoofing of the MAC address occured or the email was sent from an outside of government network computer.

The AFP will know this info. It will be interesting where the fake comes from as it will be identified by this method.

Ann replied to lethal
Sun 28 Jun 09 (12:24pm)

The cursory search of PMO and Treasury computers by Rudd lackeys found no evidence of email so Rudd shrieks “It’s a fake”. Yet AFP take five minutes to find it was generated on a Treasury computer, sent to Grech home computer then deleted from Treasury computer.

samantha replied to lethal
Sun 28 Jun 09 (02:41pm)

For me, there are two really big questions that need to be answered. WHO in Treasury devised the email, and for what purpose?

Sammi replied to lethal
Sun 28 Jun 09 (03:03pm)

The Treasury generated email was created to catch their leak and it was made as juicy as possible to make sure it would be passed on to the Opposition and used, hence Rudd knew about it before it re-emerged. It also served the double purpose of covering up the copious email trail created by Swan and Co while attempting to secure a loan for Rudd’s mate.

It's a very interesting theory. And no-one showed up to try and dispel it, for many hours on Sunday.

Unlike the Liberal Party staffers who haunt News Limited blogs, do the Labor Party staffers who zip around online, posting anonymous comments on blogs as they run interference, dispensing disinformation, countering accusations, get the whole the weekend off?

Piers Akerman, for what's it worth, is convinced the Great Rudd & Swan Fake Email Scandal still has plenty of drama to be played out :
...the hard evidence still shows that Swan did more in his attempt to assist Rudd’s car-dealer mate, John Grant, than he did for any other car dealer in the nation.

That is indisputable.

Treasury officials, operating on clear instructions from Swan’s office, went to extraordinary lengths on Grant’s behalf.

We'll see. But it would be no great surprise if Rudd and Swan produce something that gets them off the hook. Rudd promised to "mess with their heads" when he became Labor Party leader, and it doesn't look like he has given that strategy even a week off since.

Being the mind-bogglingly biased Liberal Party flunkie and junkie that he is, Akerman wants his readers to believe that whatever happens, it's Not Yet Over for Malcolm Turnbull. Akerman has to rally the team for the man who said that John Howard broke Australia's heart. Akerman knows Turnbull is shedding support faster than Brendan Nelson railing against whatever, but he has to pump for Turnbull. And throw in something conspiratorial about the Greens as well.

This is what Akerman does for a living.

But I'm not convinced that even if Wayne Swan was seized by the AFP and sent in chains to the SuperMax for a solid water-boarding session to finally get him to answer e-mail and ute related questions that happen to be those very "Not The Right Questions" he has refused to answer so far, that Malcolm Turnbull would still be able to effectively change the clearly very real belief amongst so many voters that he is brimming with bullshit and a craptastic liar as well.

Australians love great liars.

It was long part of our oral storytelling tradition to try and spin the wildest yarns, and any brave and bold attempt to pass off a story mostly comprised of obvious fiction was always admired, even if the teller couldn't carry the tale convincingly.

But we can't respect nor tolerate bad liars. And Malcolm Turnbull, like Swan, is a bottom shelf liar.

Turnbull thinks he is a rare brandy, but he is a harsh house spirit scotch when it comes to effectively bullshitting the Australian public. His face is a billboard screaming, "Don't listen to my words, look at my eyes, see? even I don't believe what I'm saying, why should you?"

Joe Hockey loometh.

.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Why Do They Hate America So Much?

Step forward the new screechers of foam-flecked anti-Americanism :
While it may seem uncharitable to be critical of a new US President on his Inauguration Day...
What the hell, it's never too early to kick off The Great Obama HateFest 2009-2017.

Remember, when Australians were critical of George W. Bush, and refused to believe his deadly lies, and wrote letters and protested about a war they didn't want to be a part of? They were not only Bush Haters, they were damned terrorist-loving anti-Americans as well. Obviously.

Bush Derangement Syndrome, we learned, was just a cover for an all round loathing of Americans and American culture.

If you thought the American president was a dill, or a dangerous fool, you instantly hated all Americans.

So obviously those same rules and labels must also apply now, particularly for those, like Piers Akerman, who can't even wait until Obama sits down at his desk in the West Wing for the first time before he goes after the new American president.

Here another Murdoch journo using sneering mockery to hide his Obama Hating Anti-American extremism :
"...(the inauguration commences) with the ceremonial healing of blind crippled lepers and ending with Obama’s transformation into a single beam of pure light. Let the miracles begin!"
Most of the anti-American extremism in the Australian media today is coming from Murdoch writers like Piers Akerman and Janet Albretchsen and Tim Blair, and Andrew Bolt will of course soon join them, but this core group of anti-American Obama Haters should not forget the warnings from their own boss, Rupert Murdoch, about such easy and tempting hatred :
"The Australian people must not allow their perfectly legitimate doubts about one policy or one American administration to cloud their long-term judgment...Australians must resist and reject the facile, reflexive, unthinking anti-Americanism..."
And they should not forget the warnings of John Howard :
"While anti-Americanism seemingly finds a ready outlet in every age, we should not pretend that it is cost-free. For some, a bit of armchair anti-Americanism may be nothing more than a mild indulgence. But … be careful what you wish for."
The Obama Hating Anti-Americans in the Murdoch media will claim they're only criticising the new American president, and holding him to account, but don't let them fool you : They Hate America.

Obama Wins Presidency : A "Victory For Stupidity"

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

It's Not "War", It's Just Another 'War On Terror' Massacre

By Darryl Mason

The savage slaughter of hundreds of civilians in Gaza is now so obvious, so horrific, that even some of the Murdoch media can't pretend it's not happening.

From the news.com.au and Daily Telegraph online front pages at 1.30am today :



The story.

It's pretty obvious why they don't have this story open for comments. The disgust felt by most Australians at what is being done to the Palestinian people in Gaza grows by the day, as Israel kills more than 500 men, women and children in nine days of artillery attacks, tank assaults and gunship strafing.

And finally, Rudd voices his outrage - well, not really - at the relentless slaying of children by an Australian ally engaging in acts of brutal terrorism and collective punishment :
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said Israel must meet its humanitarian obligations to the people of Gaza.

"Australia recognises Israel's right to self-defence while we call on all parties to avoid any actions which result in unnecessary suffering or increased suffering on the part of innocent civilians,'' he said.

Israel had to meet its humanitarian obligations under international law and ensure people in Gaza had access to basic goods, food, humanitarian assistance and medical supplies.

Mr Rudd said a diplomatic solution should halt the rocket attacks against Israel "by the terrorist organisation Hamas'' and stop arms shipments into Gaza.

It should also bring about the opening of the Gaza crossings, involve an immediate ceasefire and "form part of a longer term compact involving Israel and Palestine, based on a two-state solution".
Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph's Piers Akerman, who has been busted plagiarising Israeli Army press releases and propaganda and publishing it under his own byline, pathetically tries to tamper the growing disgust at Israel's mass killings by not mentioning the outrageous death toll, already beyond 500 people, at all. He describes "collateral damage" as "a small bonus."

Like Akerman, The Sydney Morning Herald, supposedly an Israel-hating organ of Evil Pagan Lefties, sees no reason to mention all those dead kids, and in the below online front page pic shows Israel Army missiles and artillery shells on a report about Hamas rockets being fired into Israel. Just another editorial mistake, presumably :



From the on-the-spot report, where Israeli locals appeared more upset by car alarms than the Hamas rocket hit :
Looking at the raw numbers - more than 10,000 Qassams fired in the past six years and 19 people killed - the rockets do not appear all that effective.
Wonder why would that be? This is what a Qassam rocket looks like :



These rockets are not being smuggled in from Iran, or whatever bullshit claims are now circulating in the media, these are homemade weapons. They are ineffective at killing because as far as military grade missiles go, they are utter shit, they don't even rate. They are effective at scaring the hell out of thousands of Israelis, but not quite as effective as the terror that comes from helicopters gunships unloading into Gaza apartment blocks, and blowing up mosques while women and children are praying inside.

Why does the Australian media so religiously follow the Israeli propaganda line that what is now going on in Gaza is "War"? Homemade rockets against the best gunships and weapons of mass destruction that American, British and Australian tax dollars help to buy is not "War" by even the loosest definition.

To quote HG Wells, it's like bows and arrows against the lightning.

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

Violent Pleasures

What exactly is the Daily Telegraph's Piers Akerman trying to say here?
How can the social cost of alcohol-fuelled violence or the dismal effects of wasteful wagering be measured against the temporary pleasures of engaging in such pastimes?
So now you know, engaging in alcohol-fuelled violence, as a pastime, provides only fleeting enjoyment.

Monday, December 01, 2008

The Ak Attack

Piers Akerman of the Daily Telegraph says British born Muslims were involved in the Mumbai terror attacks, despite official denials by the governments of Britain and India, and so Australians who think Australian citizens should not be held without charge in the jails of our allies are EVIL. Or something. It doesn't matter. His readers get the message, they understand, and issue yet more Murdoch-media hosted calls for massacres of Australians citizens :
...lawyers, civil rights groups, civil libertarians and refugee advocates... they should all be shot as traitors.

Friday, November 07, 2008

The New Anti-Americanism : Obama Win Is A "Victory For Stupidity"

By Darryl Mason

It's only been 48 hours, but the rise in Australia of the new anti-Americanism, now that Barack Obama has won the White House, by millions of votes instead of just a few hundred, has been swift, shocking and sickening.

And the worst of this vile new anti-Americanism comes from the Murdoch media.

Tens of millions of Americans voted to end the nation-gutting eight year rule of Republicans in the White House, but Australia's finest conservative, Liberal minds can't stop talking about the colour of Obama's skin. Obama didn't win, they tell us, because he had more popular policies and ideas, he only won because he is black, and "many, many Americans" only voted for him because they were stricken with whitey guilt.

Evil Pagan Lefties hated the Bush administration, that much is clear, but these anti-American extremists in the Murdoch media are claiming the majority of Americans are so dim, so deluded, they only voted for Obama because he is black, like them, or black enough to assuage white man guilt for building a nation off the broken backs of millions of African slaves.

America is now, claims one Murdoch dancing bear, "a racist nation".

Another claims Obama's win is a "victory for stupidity".

Seriously, this is how fucked up Murdoch's ballistic-bile-brethren have become months before Obama takes his seat behind that beautiful old desk in the West Wing. No doubt, their anti-American extremism will grow only more bitter and twisted.

One of the worst of these new anti-American extremists is The Australian columnist, Janet Albrechtsen. It should come as no great surprise that this anti-American sits on the ABC board.

Here Janet suffers a hilarious but disturbing downward spiral of the brain. She starts by making up headlines for an event that didn't happen :

Had Republican John McCain beaten the odds and been elected the 44th US President today, the sure-fire headline would have been “America is a racist nation”...

Now, I’m sure there are many Americans who did not vote for Obama because he is black. Some may well live in Wasilla. Hockey-mom Palin may well have encouraged them to turn out to vote for McCain. But let me run this by you. If it’s racism when an American refuses to vote for Obama because he is black, surely it is also racism when an American votes for Obama because he is black. And can anyone deny that plenty of Americans did just that when they voted for him?

Yes, they can deny that. They voted for a Democrat who wants to end the Iraq War and provide health care to the poor, for starters.

...let’s not for a second be so deluded – or hypocritical – as to imagine that race was not a reason why many, many Americans voted for him.

That must be it. They successfully fought the irresistable urge to return the Republican Party to power, while more than 90% of Americans say the country was headed in the wrong direction, just because Obama's dad was from Kenya? You're insane!

...in the meantime let me be the first to say...that this election result confirms that the US is still, in part, a racist nation.

Maybe through your hate-blinded, anti-American eyes, Janet, but the rest of us saw millions of grinning young Americans, of all religions and races, dancing in the streets of their hometowns, together, united, and so damn happy.

The Professional Idiot remains obsessed, as usual, with the colour of a man's skin. November 5 :
The Democrats are offering the cool, young black guy promising change - the African American whose mere election will heal the country’s racial wounds. The man whose age, colour and African heritage suggests he’s of a new century, a new order.

A black president. Fantastic. Now can we all get over this colour thing?
Sure. Can you?

No.

November 5 (later) :
America has elected its first black president.

If you are really looking for a race-based vote, how can anyone avoid the black vote in this election?
No. No. No. No.

November 7 :
Some 95 per cent of black voters backed the black guy against McCain...

True, looking black, he didn’t need to say more...

The Daily Telegraph's Piers Akerman claims Obama's big win is "a victory for stupidity." :
Without a white woman contesting the party’s nomination, it seems unlikely a black man would have won the party’s vote.

Though Obama’s Republican opponent, war hero and former PoW and US Senator John McCain, has not raised race as an issue, the Democrats have used it to engender a sense of guilt in white Americans who harbour doubts about Obama’s capacity as the leader of the free world. Not to support Obama raises the question of whether that decision has a racist undertone...
Then there was the Daily Telegraph's Tim Blair trying to claim, on ABC's Insiders, that the only reason Barack Obama could pull 100,000 people to a speech was because he had "The Rolling Stones" opening for him, which never happened.

How shocking and crushing it must be for these new anti-American extremists to actually realise that 100,000 "Victory For Stupidity" Americans could gather to hear a political speech because they were interested in...politics?

Maybe they preferred it when Americans didn't pay enough attention to national politics so that George W. Bush could get 'elected' twice? Because Americans sure seem to be paying attention now, don't they?

Seriously, all of you Murdoch-sponsored anti-American extremists need to GET SOME HELP.

Friday, October 03, 2008

Rupert Murdoch Doesn't Back Climate Change Fear Mongering, Except When He Does

I asked Daily Telegraph opinionist Piers Akerman why he shreds Labor and professors and Al Gore and the ABC over climate change fear mongering, while continuing to give a free pass to his own boss, Rupert Murdoch, now the most prolific and influential promoter of climate change reality in the world :
Your boss backs the fear mongering as well, Piers. Why don’t you get in his ear?
Akerman denies that his boss uses his media to spread fear and unease about the effects of climate change :
"I don’t think he backs fear mongering, I believe he makes decisions on the best available evidence and is not afraid of admitting his mistakes when he’s been wrong..."
I stand corrected. Rupert Murdoch and his media, like the Daily Telegraph, do not back the fear mongering promotion of climate change reality, apparently. Which is why stories and headlines like this never appear in The Daily Telegraph, except when they do, which is often :


Akerman also claims that "Murdoch’s editors are responsible for their own decisions," meaning that Murdoch has no influence over editorial decisions made by his newspapers. Except, of course, when Murdoch openly admits that he does indeed tell his newspaper editors what to publish :

Rupert Murdoch has admitted to a parliamentary inquiry (in the UK) that he has "editorial control" over which party The Sun and News of the World back in a general election and what line the papers take on Europe.

The minute stated: "For The Sun and News of the World he explained that he is a 'traditional proprietor'. He exercises editorial control on major issues..."
He also helped "shape" the pro-Iraq War message across his worldwide media empire, and admits it here.

Embracing Corporate Greenism has proven very profitable for Rupert Murdoch, and his media, as energy giants flood his newspapers and websites with advertising promoting their new Green Consciousness.

The blogs of former Murdoch 'global warming deniers' now 'climate change realists', like Akerman, Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt are where you will now most often see such Corporate Greenism advertising.

If there's money in it, Rupert's always a true believer.

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Akerman Backs Military Dictatorship Over Democracy

Murdoch media columnist for Sydney's The Daily Telegraph, Piers Akerman, like all fervent enemies of true democracy, thinks there is a time and place for military dictatorships. In this case, Pakistan :

The developing crisis in Pakistan, however, does highlight the nature of international terrorism and its ability to destabilise populations well beyond the assassin’s bullet or bomb.

Pakistan is certainly no model of democracy but General Pervez Musharraf’s military dictatorship was a major bulwark - leaky and corrupt as it may have been - against Taliban and al-Qaeda forces.

Is Akerman, "one of Australia's most respected journalists", really so ignorant and downright dense that he doesn't know Musharraf's intelligence services raised the Taliban and helped shape and empower the collection of extremist groups collectively known as Al Qaeda?

Is he merely playing dumb, or is he lost for an opinion because so many Evil Lefties thought Bhutto's death was as tragic and horrific as Condoleezza Rice and George W. Bush thought it was?

Akerman thinks that if Musharraf wasn't ruling by military dictatorship, the 'Islamists' would seize power. He's an idiot. In a free and fair election, extremists in Pakistan would win power. They wouldn't even come close. It's incredibly insulting to the people of Pakistan to entertain the belief that they are literally chomping at the bit to elect a Bin Laden, or that they all want to live under Sharia law. It's fiction. More importantly, it's NeoCon fiction, and Akerman is an enthusiastic subscriber to this trash.

Even while dribbling, Akerman still manages to keep whistling the NeoCon theme song : 'We All Love Democracy, Yes We Do, As Long As Its The Same Democracy That We Want For You'.

It's the Hamas paradigm all over again. Sure, goes Akerman's thinking, vote for whoever you want, it's a democratic election after all, but just because you elect them doesn't mean our nations will recognise who you all voted for, let alone speak to them, or practice diplomacy. Hell, someone else but Musharraf might not buy enough weapons from the West if they were to win a Pakistan election. Or, God forbid, they might buy their weapons from Russia or China instead.

Akerman is anti-democracy and anti-free market.

Akerman winds out his nasty little pro-military dictatorship screed by leaping into the kind of segue-way that would have the writers of Today Tonight bowing in unworthiness at his bloated feet. Witness :
Pakistan has the bomb and is the linchpin in the war against al-Qaeda.

“It’s a very alarming situation. Could fall like ripe fruit into the hands of the bad guys.”

Indeed. The worrying thing is that Australia is currently being run by a P-plate Government with a Defence Minister in Joel Fitzgibbon who has shown he is yet to understand that responsibility is about more than amiability and a Foreign Affairs Minister in Stephen Smith who thought until last month that he was in line for the education portfolio.

In a word, Australia is, at this time of international crisis, completely rudderless.
Wow. Akerman realised he had actually finished a whole column without sploffing on the Labor Party, and then saw he had a few dozen words left. Surely there must be an anti-Rudd government angle in Bhutto's assassination? There wasn't, but Akerman shoehorned one in anyway.

Akerman backs military dictatorships, but despises Australians when they exercise their democratic rights, having recently labeled more than half of Australia voters as "mugs" for voting in the Rudd government.

Maybe Akerman's brain is still short-circuiting over his hero John Howard's refusal to let him edit the Howard Diaries.

Akerman asked Howard for the gig in person at the Liberal Party election massacre party ("Nooo!!!") and Howard turned Akerman down on the spot, even though he kissed Howard's arse so fervently and pathetically that people standing nearby who overheard Akerman had to turn away in embarrassment.

Monday, December 24, 2007

Tears Of A Clown

Akerman's Latest Conspiracy Theory : Beware The "Third Force" In Australian Politics

By Darryl Mason

Liberal Party propagandist and, surely by sheer coincidence, Murdoch media columnist Piers Akerman is shocked, shocked and outraged, by the revelation that the union movement spent some $14 million dollars in 2006 and 2007 telling Australians workers how the now former Howard government's now former WorkChoices regime would eat into their paypackets and family time.

Incredibly, as he half-heartedly tries and fails to fire up some more union-related fear-mongery, Akerman doesn't even mention that the Liberal Party has now utterly dumped its WorkChoices regime and will not stand in the way of the Rudd government freeing Australian workers of it completely in the next few years. WorkChoices is dead and buried, and Brendan Nelson hand-carved its tombstone, but Piers hasn't noticed yet.

Akerman also clamps on his tin foil hat and becomes all conspiratorial as he warns of a "third force" in Australian politics. Outside of the "third force" that is the mainstream media, and the "third force" that is the public relations budgets of our largest corporations, and the "third force" that is the accumulated ad spending power of the business community and the "third force" that is the multi-million dollar budgets of energy and oil industry lobbyists.

He means that other "third force", the one he doesn't like much. The Unions, and GetUp. Boogah!

Akerman thinks it's disgusting that a bunch of unionists can raise millions of dollars at public rallies and spend that money on advertising their point of view. The hide of them participating in public debate and democracy like that. Shocking.

The ACTU funded the anti-WorkChoices advertising campaigns, to little opposition from its members. Whereas you, the taxpayers, funded the former Howard government's pro-WorkChoices advertising campaigns.

The former Howard government spent more than $17 million on advertising its WorkChoices boondoggle in less than 10 months, and that's only until mid-way through 2007. We still don't know how much of taxpayers money Howard And Friends blew flogging WorkChoices from July 2007 through to the eve of the election, but it's easily another $15-$20 million.

Of course, Piers Akerman mentions all this absolutely nowhere at all in his one-eyed screed.

Akerman also refuses to tell readers that former Workplace Relations minister Joe Hockey had a report on his desk at the start of October, detailing how many taxpayers dollars his government was shoveling into its pro-WorkChoices campaign for the 2006-2007 financial year. Nor did Akerman report that Hockey refused to release that report before the election.

And here's some more details of the millions Howard And Friends blew marketing, hyping and generally flogging WorkChoices, which achieved little except annoying the hell out of television viewers every night for months on end :
More than $1 million was spent researching the effectiveness of the ads with the Open Mind Research Group.

And $12.6 million was spent buying advertising space for “welfare to work, support the system and workplace relations system campaigns”.

Dewey and Horton was paid $44,404.25 to take photos for Work Choices advertising while advertising agency Whybin/TBWA received $1.4 million for “creative services” that were part of the Work Choices campaign.
The final tally for the advertising and marketing alone on WorkChoices could hit more than $50-$60 million.

So out of control was Howard's ad blitzing on WorkChoices that in May, 2007, he had spent more on WorkChoices ads than he spent on national security awareness. Terrorists? What terrorists?

Akerman, like the Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt, and like half the op-ed writers at The Australian, still can't believe that the Howard government lost the election, and the Labor Party is now in charge of country.

It's like some kind of waking nightmare for them all, and they've still got their fingers in their ears and their eyes squeezed tightly shut as they chant "This is not happening. This is not happening. This is not happening."

It'd be funny, if it wasn't so sad, bizarre and downright disturbing.

Bolt and Akerman are promoted by their respective newspapers as "leading journalists".

But leading journalists where exactly?

Andrew Bolt is having such a hard time adjusting to the new political reality of Australia that he has now abandoned his Herald Sun blog for more than a month, if not forever :
I hope and expect at this stage to be back in a few weeks - perhaps around Australia Day. I toyed with the idea of keeping the blog going during my holidays, but my wife got angry cross (wife’s edit) and I think I probably need the break, to be honest. I need to look around me for a while, read a bit more, draw breath and recalculate perspective.
Wuss.

Terrorists? What Terrorists? Howard Spends More Flogging WorkChoices Than He Does On National Security Awareness

May 2007 : WorkChoices Forces Grim Future On Workers - Millions Already Work Overtime For No Extra Pay

May 2007 : Taxpayers To Foot Astounding $110 Million And Counting Howard Advertising Bill

June 2007 : WorkChoices Killing Liberals' Election Chances - Millions Of Australians Demand Return of 40 Hour Working Week

June 2007 : Howard's Claim That Australian Families "Have Never Had It So Good" Will Haunt Him All The Way Into The Election

Thursday, October 18, 2007

No Media Bias During Elections, Apparently

It's all in your mind. You might think certain newspapers display a clear bias in their election coverage, but according to the Australian Press Council, you're wrong :

Claims of newspaper bias towards one party during elections are perennial but unfounded, according to an Australian Press Council report to be released today.

"Regular readers ... were presented with a comprehensive and generally balanced coverage of issues and policies, parties and personalities," the research report says.

According to the report, both researchers were unequivocal in their conclusion that, in terms of coverage, balance, and fairness, no party was favoured.

But the Press Council report also states there is a "trend" towards focusing on the lead personalities of the political parties contesting elections, moreso than policy or the qualities of various parties as a whole. The Press Council report called this growing focus "presidential-style" coverage.

"What is clear is that personalities, not issues, are now central to the reporting of elections in Australia," the report says.

This had tightened control of information, with policy releases usually limited to the leaders.

"Frequently ministers and their shadows are not made available to explain or respond to questions on the impact of the proposed policies."

The researchers found that rather than being detached observers of the political process, the papers were active participants, generating a great deal of their own material in the form of editorial, analysis and opinion items and placing a heavy emphasis on opinion polls.


Of course. Analysing polls, churning out pages of opinion pieces and cramming front pages with editorials are a much cheaper way of filling all that blank space around the advertisments than actually sending reporters out into the cities and suburbs to do on the spot reporting of peoples' views and circumstances.

It is interesting to note that in the news.com.au coverage of this story, they used a photo of the Piers Akerman, a notoriously pro-Howard government opinionist, who's devoted 14 of of his 15 most recent stories (listed on the Daily Telegraph site) to attacking Kevin Rudd, and repeatedly trying to link Rudd to his now unfounded conspiracy surrounding the rape of a young Aboriginal girl :



No bias from Akerman. God, no. Just a Fox News-style 'fair and balanced' approach, which for Akerman translates into a balanced range of views from 'Why You Shouldn't Vote For Rudd' to 'Why Rudd Doesn't Deserve Your Vote'.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Prime Minister John Howard is so spooked by his inability to get back in the favour of the majority of Australia's voters that he is refusing to commit to even running for prime minister again, and has taken to babbling like a loon in response to unremarkable questions :

...when asked if he would now guarantee he would lead the Government into what is expected to be an election as close as October, he refused.

"Look I know the games you fellas play," Mr Howard said.

"I have a position in relation to this and it, it, it applies for all time. For all time that's relevant. And I just don't intend, I just don't intend. I know you'll start saying: 'Oh Howard, you know, he's altered his formulation'. Come on, you know that, I know you. Situation normal. Situation usual. Response usual. Response normal."

What?

Maybe the medical reason Howard will cite as a reason to to bow out of running for re-election will be dementia.


If you get picked up
by police in New South Wales for so minor an offence as jaywalking, they will soon have the power to take a DNA sample from you and store it in a database. Naturally, it's supposedly all part of the effort to fight terrorism. The new police powers are already being called part of "a police state by stealth." But where's the stealth?


John Howard's beloved "battlers"
are abandoning the prime minister in droves. He is widely seen by former Liberal voters as "too old, desperate and sneaky." Not exactly the kind of descriptions you'd want blasted across Sunday newspapers in bold type, but there they are.

Howard is also suffering a "youth revolt", particularly over climate change and WorkChoices. One in four young voters are said to have switched to backing opposition leader Kevin Rudd.


The number
of prominent religious leaders, lawyers and politicians demanding the Howard government get its shit together over the treatment of alleged terror suspect Mohamed Haneef grows by the day. At the same time, letters pages and online comments are, in the majority, faulting the government and AFP's handling of the case, and even usually pro-Howard media are raging against the spectacular abuses of civil and human rights now on show.

So what to do?

Slurry the waters even further by getting out rumours that Haneef was somehow possibly involved, or possibly linked to, a possible terror plot in Queensland because he had photos of Queensland buildings in his possession. His lawyer summed up the new rumours that are not yet charges, or even official AFP allegations :
"Obviously if you're Muslim and you come from India, don't dare take any photos of any structures ... or that will be interpreted by the Queensland police force of having a sinister intent."
Another option under consideration is simply to deport Haneef, as soon as possible :

“Our best option is to cancel the Criminal Justice Certificate .... and that is my understanding of what our intentions are,” the source told the newspaper.

“Cancel the certificate and get this guy out of Australia...”

The string of apparently baseless allegations and media leaks against Haneef has proven to be a major international embarrassment, not only for the Howard government and Australia's fight against terror, but also for the Australian Federal Police, who are being referred to as Keystone Kops, "bumbling" and "hopeless" in British and Indian newspapers.


He was bitten three times on the leg by a bronze whaler shark, but the 15 year old boy fought back and has survived the attack. His mother thinks he was inspired to defend himself, and to try and stop the bleeding, after having recently watched a horror movie where a man bled to death.


John Howard
was rallying the troops yesterday in western Sydney, while all the usual key Liberal Party media addicts were hiding from the cameras and microphones.

Howard told a Liberal Party conference he was "very proud of the fact in the 11-and-a-half years we have been in government ... we have lifted defence expenditure by 48 per cent in real terms..."

Curiously, this is almost the exact same percentage by which US defence expenditure has risen since the Project For A New American Century architects, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, 'Scooter' Libby and Paul Wolfowitz, started rallying for 1995 and 1996 for less money to be spent on education and health and more on weapons and bombs. Luckily, Al Qaeda and Islamic extremist-linked terrorist attacks rose dramatically around the same time.

Australia will spend more than $23 billion on 'defence' in 2008, giving Australia the second highest per person defence expenditure in the world, after the United States. The Iraq War has already cost Australian taxpayers $4 to $8 billion.


More than 130 people have attended the funeral of a baby boy they didn't know. The baby, named Luke for the service, was found dead and abandoned in rubbish. Many of the people drawn to the funeral, some of whom wept openly, said they didn't want the infant to be unrecognised in death. Police believe the unknown mother of the child may have been amongst the mourners. A christening gown and headstone were donated by the public and funeral directors.


Piers Akerman stabs fruitlessly at his keyboard : "It's no real surprise that the book actually flying out of the stores this weekend is the new Harry Potter novel, and not John Winston Howard: The Biography..."

It's no real surprise because John Winston Howard : The Biography hasn't been released yet.

Akerman claims "the biographers can only recycle and repackage past events, adding a little light and shade gleaned from interviews with some of the participants but nothing that was not already known."

The biographers interviewed more than 70 people, including John and Janette Howard. If Akerman is so keen to write off this book by claiming there is nothing new inside, you can rest assured that there is actually reams of valuable information and important insight to be learned that the vast majority of Australians, and probably lots of federal politicians, didn't know about John Howard.

To show just how ridiculous Akerman's attempts to claim there's nothing new, or of interest to the voting public, to be found in the new Howard biography, in the very same pages of the Sunday Telegraph, fellow columnist Glenn Milne writes :
The most damaging insight to emerge from the new biography of the Prime Minister comes, remarkably, out of the mouth of his chief loyalist: his wife, Janette.

The problem for Mrs Howard here is that she has inadvertently shone a light on the darker recesses of Howard's modus operandi that were for years hidden, but have now come to dominate the public debate about whether he deserves another, final term.

The Sunday Telegraph's lead editorial finally admits that the majority of Australians are unlikely to vote for John Howard come election time :
...the situation for the Prime Minister looks dire.
It's a crushing loss of confidence for John Howard from one of the primary newspapers he has long counted on for support, and to paper over his numerous lies, deceptions and faults, particularly on the eve of yet another Newspoll which is likely to show that Howard has already lost his chance for a fifth term in Kirribilli House :
After 11 years in office, the idea that he is a bit too sneaky has taken hold in the public psyche. It is a culmination of the "children overboard'' affair, the AWB wheat scandal and the ongoing suspicion that he dudded loyal deputy Peter Costello on when he would hand over the job.
Not to mention the widespread realisation that he deceived the nation into joining the United States in the illegal and horrific War On Iraq, and spat in the faces of the 75% of Australians who didn't want their country to be involved when he did so. Not to mention the wage-and-benefits stripping IR reforms. Not to mention the David Hicks fiasco and the widespread disgust Howard's generated by his acquiescence to Indonesia over the Schapelle Corby trail in 2005. The list is long, and grows longer by the week.


ABC Radio's
coverage of the horrors of the Iraq War once made John Howard so angry his "face went red and his lips white." That's the trouble with the truth, it often sparks emotional and physical reactions in the people who don't want it to get out.


More than 150 people have died in just four weeks of Sydney's flu epidemic. Hospitals are crowded with the sick and close-to-dying. Hundreds of babies and children have needed specialised care, pushing hospital capacity to the brink. Compared to last year, viral infections are up by an astounding 200%, with respiratory illnesses ratcheting up by 70%.


Australians may soon have to come up with a 20% deposit to secure a home loan. Considering most young Australians don't have $30,00 or $40,000 kicking around, they'll have to get their parents or grandparents to put up their homes as security. Personal bankruptcies are rocketing towards record highs, and falling house prices mean that tens of thousands of families will be left with enormous debts if they are forced to sell the family home due to "economic shock". The Howard government continues to claim that there is no housing crisis in Australia, that the Australian economy is booming and rock solid and that Australian families have "never had it so good."


A former bodyguard of Saddam Husein wants to open a fish and chip shop in Sydney.