Tim Blair

Yea, taxing the men and doling out welfare instead is *just* the thing the State should do in order to promote stable marriages! Yee-haw!

It should be added that the tax-eater quoted above forgets that most rich men outside the Middle East and certain regions of Africa *don't* have harems, leaving lots of women for us somewhat less wealthy blokes... Case-in-point: Bill Gates.

In the case of increased transfers though, women can marry the state instead of men, which is virtually guaranteed to bring down especially frail social structures. (Read: US non-middle class blacks.)

Brilliant plan there from Peter Martin. Perhaps a truly pro-marriage president could also provide compulsory plastic surgery to make handsome men less appealing. And perhaps frontal lobotomies to decrease the appeal of intelligent, charming or witty men.

No wait - the government should just arrange marriages for everybody at random. That way even the most unattractive man has an equal chance of winding up with Lucy Liu. Even SBS economics commentators will have a shot.

I went looking for a picture of Peter Martin in the hope that his physical appearance might explain his attitude. I didn't find one, but I did find that he has a very dull blog:

petermartin.blogspot.com

Being economics correspondebt is like being economics spokesman/spokesperson/spokesthingie for the Australian Democrats.

A contradiction in terms.

Ooops. Too much Wild Turkey.

Being economics correspondent at SBS is like being economics spokesman/spokesperson/spokesthingie for the Australian Democrats.

A contradiction in terms.

The Joan Baez interview actually isn't bad. She's not exactly quoted out of context, but she's really expressing opposition to living in mud huts, if you're forced to anyway. I'm feeling a little guilty because I unplugged my TV in 1971, so I'm probably ethically challanged. Hitler had no TV at all.

The Bush is a sociopath thing has been done - by Phillip Adams of all people.

Why do people on the left focus on one of the last persons in the world who are likely to be a sociopath (ie the affable George W Bush) and ignore those who actually are (like the not-so affable Saddam Hussein).

Really. I mean, Dubya's folksy nature is one of his main strengths. Its how he beat Al Gore.

"he just unplugs the TV."
I seem to remember Baez and her hippy mates being against TV because, you know, it's all run by evil corporations and stuff.

Thanx for the Bush conspiracy generator link! That sight gave me a real chuckle, especially when I came up with this result:

George W. Bush lowered taxes so that The Jews, big corporations, oil companies, Republicans, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, white men, SUV owners, the Christian Coalition, and gun owners could upset women.

Of course! It all makes sense now! Why didn't I think of that before?

"The Joan Baez interview actually isn't bad. "

It's nauseating.

Here are some comments about it, along with a link to the whole thing:

Joan Baez Canonised

Christ! I've seen faith in government extended to absurd lengths, but I've never seen anyone until now express faith in the government's ability to make sure they get laid.

Can anyone provide a quote where Bush (or anyone in his administration) called his critics unpatriotic? Just one quote?

Or is it just that all these anti-war activists are intimidated to death by Ann Coulter? What kind of wet dishrags have their dissent crushed by a 110 lb. blonde?

I can sympathize with Joan Baez. I lived with the mortal, mind-numbing fear of being called "unpatriotic" for about 8 years. I think it was during the 1990's and maybe even into 2000. On the other hand, at least one Bay Area freaky flagger thinks that Bush's America is a missile unto the world (scroll down; first text sentence). That's seems like a hell of a worse accusation than that of calling someone unpatriotic. But that's just me.

Martin wants to take away the ability to get women because you are filthy rich? What will relatively unattractive/average/short guys have to LIVE for?!!!

First, the word sociopath doesn't even exist anymore, at least not scientifically -- the word used is psychopath, because the word sociopath (a relic of the 60's and 70's) suggests that somehow society creates psychopathy, which research has since demonstrated is false.

Second, the concept of psychopathy has been extensively studied since the 80's, and I can tell you, Bush is not a psychopath, at least not in the way this moron uses the word. Nowadays, psychopathy is actually thought of as a continuum, not an "either/or" condition, and politicians in general tend towards the higher end of the spectrum -- it's basically called for to be successful in that field. But on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, the best current protocol for assessing psychopathy, Bush would likely come no where close to 30 out of 40, which is the minimum for being labelled "highly psychopathic."

One other note -- I attended a conference on this topic about 5-6 years ago, presented by Reid Meloy, an expert in this field. Someone asked a question about politicians, which got a laugh. He replied,"Let me preface these remarks by stating that I am a registered Democrat who has voted for the man twice. That being said..." and went on to identify how Clinton would score rather highly in this area.

(BTW, Nixon was not nearly as high as people would think -- his prroblems had more to do with paranoia...)

Can anyone provide a quote where Bush (or anyone in his administration) called his critics unpatriotic? Just one quote?

The single case I'm aware of John Ashcroft's testimony before the Senate.

That's right. Fear of being called unpatriotic is what kept Hitler from being stopped.

Not legions of Brownshirts. Not, after 1933, the Gestapo. No, no. Fear of being called something un-nice (though, er, in many cases probably accurate) by someone in power. That's paralysing fear, dudes.

Nice diversionary tactic, Tim.

But it was a VERY ORDINARY speech, you'll have to agree.

Ask yourself this: Are Americans (or we mere vassals) feeling safer now than we were when GWB came to power.

Er... no. So not.

Sack the jerk.

Bush a `sociopath': what is Hilary Clinton then, the communisto who incites real violence using `race' as the trigger.Then, Bill Clinton who sold secret military technology to the communist govt. of China in return for campaign funds to the democrat Party.Bill is considered `smart', and so is Hilary,why,then, are they so corrupt and have wreaked such violence against the people they do not serve, the American people.

Jorge's take above is exactly my own. Peter Martin is obviously complaining about the fact that the most interesting women he met turned him down, choosing instead guys who did better in life than he did. Unfortunately for him, free market principles prevail in mating choices. So, he basically wants the State to help him get better dates.

If "Nemesis" is Mullah Omar's screen-name, then I guess I understand his not feeling safer. Otherwise: ROTFLMAO.

Cordially...

Hey Nemesis,

I'm feeling a lot safer now that Bush is in power. Bill Clinton and his administration were such a shower of small-dicked twats whose lack of backbone provided the culture in which terrorism could flourish. That made me nervous.

On the other hand, Bush and his team have the nads to fix the mess left by their stupid predecessors.

I always feel sorry for those on the left: not only are they a lot sillier than we Tories, they are moral cowards to boot. Lefties are only really good at talking and playing politics. Sometimes, me old china, you have to cut the Gordian knot, and not essay to untie it with committees, conferences, international qangos and op-ed pieces.

Dobeln got it right in his second post. The real problem is not the existence of a minority of rich men but paying out more money in welfare to women than lower paid men earn. In this situation you either have to restrict welfare payments or increase minimum earnings. Otherwise you get unstable family commitments.

Damn, are you turkeys trying to crush my dissent again?

Never, sez I.

And toryhere, you may be feeling safer, (presumably you are delusional?) but go tell it to all those who've been killed by terrorists on GWB's watch.

This man's track record is just pathetic.

A couple of days after 9/11, Imus (national radio morning show) said Bush was the right guy for the job because he's enough of a prick to pull the trigger. I took that as reassuring. Others didn't.

Poor Nemesis,

You are the one who has perception problems, me old son. Perhaps I can help you use your brain by mentioning the fact that more people died in war on Winston Churchill's watch than did on Neville Chamberlain's and Stanley Baldwin's. The point is of course that Chamberlain and Baldwin, though the latter was admirable in many ways,had appeased Hitler thus creating the environment that led to the Second World War. After that war had started and people realised what it was going to take to win it, I'd suggets they felt a lot safer with Churchil than with Chamberlain. So it is now with George Bush.

Nemesis inverts the real question:

Do the West's enemies feel safer today than when GWB came to power?

Please feel free to sputter and stammer, Nemesis.

Joan Baez is still alive???

Who knew?

Randall Robinson asks: Can anyone provide a quote where Bush (or anyone in his administration) called his critics unpatriotic? Just one quote?

Otter replies: The single case I'm aware of John Ashcroft's testimony before the Senate.

Tim, I hold you directly responsible for the plunging IQ in this comments thread. Your provocative scribblings have incited your enemies to inane postings, thus reducing our enjoyment of your site. Really, you must ask yourself: why do they hate you? And do it soon -- and get the right answer -- before the site goes down the crapper.

Wow, these intellects and insights have got me really flummoxed.

Just love the tired and wholly invalid WW2 analogies. Really got me there. Hmmm. Germany 1939 - military superpower, engaged in an active, aggressive and unprovoked wars of conquest against several countries. And then there's Saddam 2003, tinpot unarmed jerk, engaged in a war with no other country, anywhere.

The parallels are so - oh, yes - completely non-existent.

Mind you, we do have a military superpower, engaged in active, aggressive and unprovoked wars of conquest, don't we?

See, we can all make stupid comparisons if we want to.

As to "do the West's enemies feel safer?". Haven't a clue, and neither do you. I'm not sure that personal "safety" is really an issue for these maniacs. Is this a real issue for suicide bombers? These enemies quite clearly do not feel particularly chastened by anything GWB has done, as evidenced by the awful atrocities which have marred his reign. I suspect "encouraged" probably summarises their attitude to GWB.

No - we all feel less safe now. And that's just the way GWB wants it.

Nemesis,
Clearly most Americans DO feel safer with GWB as Pres. He has the support of the voters.

Don't bother arguing bullshit polls either - Bush is gonna get his second term and you know it.

And nemesis can then go into a deep, sustained depression for another 4 years. Why don't you just shutup now, and put your energy into thinking up ways of opposing the Rice presidential run in 2008.

Lots of people (including myself) will never again feel as safe as they did at 8.50am NY time on September 11th, 2001.

And of course, as we all know, our feelings are far more important than the simple fact that we are, by any objective measure, much much safer today than we were then.

"Damn, are you turkeys trying to crush my dissent again?"

If Nemesis is someone's joke of a parody of the left then its no longer funny and is almost a deliberate attempt to discredit the reasoned opinions of the opposite view.

Well, personally, I hope Bush loses (well, obviously). But ponder this: If Bush does win again, you are probably looking at a new President Clinton in 2008. It seems clear that this is what the Dem establishment is trying to engineer.

I just know you're all gonna love that.

Nice to see the best you lot can do is throw insults about intelligence and IQ. Par for the course in those completely devoid of an argument.

In the spirit of things, and for the record - my IQ is higher than yours (I say this with a confidence level of 99%), and you are all dummies (I say that with a confidence level of 100%).

So there.

Nemesis, I think it's time to change your diapers again.

Ooh, that hurts.

And they're called nappies. Let's try to stick English, shall we - at least until we're admitted to the Union.

As we all know, once he is sworn into office the President is entrusted with with cosmic powers that make him directly and personally responsible for everything that does and does not happen in the world. This is why 9/11 has to be Bush's fault; goddammit, he let down the Watchers.

I once read a book review of Joan Baez's autobiography. As I recall one of the reviewer's chief complaints was that she spent a great deal of time lovingly detailing the problems her spastic colon caused her, involving the frequent and sudden expulsion of semisolids from both ends. I put forth she suffers metaphorically from this problem as well.

As I said Nemesis its not funny anymore but if you are legit then you are just pathetic.

Nemmie,

Perhaps you weren't listening to GWB:

"Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11th, 2001 -- over two years without an attack on American soil -- and it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting -- and false."

Safer? Yes. This fight is far from finished. Appeasement is not a strategy.

Oh, and Gore would have crapped is nappies if he was running the show. But he did invent the Internet, you know.

HI
Back in the eighties when John Dawkins was treasurer in the Hawke government, Dawkins gave an address to the Canberra press club after a budget speech. The ABC economic correspondent at the time was PETER MARTIN who asked the treasurer a question, the fact that PETER MARTIN was out by at least a factor of ten in his figures with the question became quite amusing when Dawkins response pointed this out. The tv picture of a red faced PETER MARTIN was priceless.

No, joe, as much as I despise Algore, he did not claim to have invented the Internet. What he did was take steps to see that it survived between when the Defense Department stopped funding it and it became self-sufficient.

My dear Nemesis: I already translated the English word "diaper" into your own primitive dialect yesterday. Please try to pay attention; I'm not running a school for slow learners here.

It's funny but these anti-war types always run away from the real argument and try to argue on unimportant side-issues.

Gutless aren't they?

Nemmy,

The Second World War analogy works perfectly well. Germany was not a superpower in 1933-5. France and Britain could have crushed Hitler if they'd had the will. Unfortunately they chose appeasement.

The whole point is that thugs do not care about international agreements and conciliation. They will not negotiate until such time as they see that they cannot win. If we just turn the other cheek (the standard lefty reponse to terror) then they will just think us cowards and keep attacking us, on our own soil.

Thus, the modern version of appeasement is trying to understand terrorists. To the Bush regime that wasn't an option. So far Bush and his team have thus won all along the way. And that's just something you poor old lefties can't stand, particularly because none you has the wit the put up any alternative policy that is worth a pinch of parrot droppings.

Hmmm. Germany 1939 - military superpower, engaged in an active, aggressive and unprovoked wars of conquest against several countries. And then there's Saddam 2003, tinpot unarmed jerk, engaged in a war with no other country, anywhere.

If you believe Germany was on the level of US in 1939, you are sadly deluded. An international coalition could have ended the Third Reich there and then.

But, there's no arguing with you Nemesis. So let's just say:

You are a stupid fuck.

and leave it at that.

Triticale,

My Internet inventing reference to Big Al was made tongue-in-cheek. Am aware of the background.

But hey, I thought it was appropriate.

Why? Cause the guy's clueless.

Clarification, on your part, is a beautiful thing.

I actually like the stuff Joan Baez recorded back in the 60s.
She had a truly wonderful singing voice.

Her politics were always rubbish -
Back in '68 she was involved in a Lysistrata-like anti-draft movement,
promising "Girls say 'yes' to boys who say 'no'".

I don't think the sisterhood would like that sort of thing these days!

In her own case, I think she says "yes" to girls.

Nemesis states:

As to "do the West's enemies feel safer?". Haven't a clue, and neither do you.

No, I don't have a clue -- only a clue-by-4. Nope, no projectile defecation-inducing fear here; keep those blinders on, little pony, and stay on the DNC talking points trail.

Peggy Sue,

Try Tiffany Eckhardt ``Silver and Gold'' on _Barefoot_ for a piece that sounds, owing to a single note, like Joan Baez. Eckhardt isn't particularly Baez-like in other stuff. Actually if I go back and play Baez she doesn't sound as good to me as I remembered. Eckhardt on the other hand sounds like what I remembered, a paradox.