Tim Blair

When people make these comments such as "its not good for Australia", does anyone, even the average dumb journalist ask: "and what are your qualifications for making that statement".

Or:"outside of in your head, what research do you have to back that statement?" The Senator may be right but I sense that if he were it would be as random an occurrence as death by meteor strike.

Sorry he is a she. Is she the idiot side kick (dropkick) of Bob Brown during George Bush's speech in the Australian Parliament?

Yes

Hmmm, side kick. Lets see. If we cast Bob Brown as Chatman does that make her Rabid?

At the risk of sounding like a total lefty here, I think an important distinction must be made.

Regulation of the ppm of mouse droppings allowed in my coffee: good!

Regulation of the nation of origin of my entertainment choices: kiss my ass in hell!!

Sir Bernard Ingham on wind power:

"Anybody who really cares about the countryside doesn't want it polluted by forests of whirling steel bog brushes in the sky. They are not sustainable. They are not compellingly beautiful. They are compelling symbols of green tokenism."

Ohh Kerry you stupid beeeyaaatch:
and give US corporations greater control of Australia's medicines, quarantine laws, manufacturing, agriculture and cultural industries.

What kind of green propaganda is this ? Aussie consumers get the BENEFIT of buying better/cheaper goods and services from America, and she spins it by calling it "greater control".

Theres nothing this greenie-psycho would like more than to force inferior and expensive goods onto consumers.

Maybe its just me, but aren't the greens supposed to debate ENVIRONMENTAL policy ?

Why do they bitch about Free Trade agreements, Israel killing terrorists, the war to remove Saddam and asylum seekers ?

Filthy commie bitch, you're lucky the media is friendly to you.

Hey Tim,

Did you see Kerry on MTP? (I don't know if you could down there in Koala country).

Take a look and see how Kerry snuck in a reference to Kyoto, something he (of course) voted against.

If it's inappropriate to compare Bush with Hitler, is it appropriate to compare Kyoto with concentration camps?

A Russian understands markets better than an Austrailian. The times have definitely changed.

It's appropriate for citizens of the former Soviet Union to make such comparisons, Andjam, since they, of course, had their owm.

Unfortunately they're forced to use German camp names because the media would strangle itself with its own Red Flag before naming a communist concentration camp.

Similar logic would suggest that George Soros has some standing to compare Bush to Hitler, as he lived under nazi occupation for a year or so (less than this economist lived under communism, but that's merely a matter of degree).

Jeff Geoghagen: At the risk of ruining your conversion to raving leftist loony, let me point out that the practical response to regulating the ppm of mouse droppings in your coffee tends to be to treat the floor as a ceiling, i.e. allowing mousedroppings up to the level of the regulation. I think you might prefer to have accurate info on which brands of coffee has _any_ mousedroppings in it to simply knowing that _all_ of them are allowed to have up to some ppm. I know I would. (Seriously, you don't even want to know what is _allowed_ in your food supplies, although it is, of course, impossible to keep everydamnthing out.)

Andjam: I am willing to let Soros make his Bush = Hitler comparison for at least the year he hypothetically suffered, provided he does it from Germany, and doesn't set foot on US soil. In fact, I hope the Bush = Hitler comparisons keep on coming, since it is my experience among the moderate to raving lefties with whom I spend a fair amount of time that they are starting to find it both indefensible and distasteful. To quote both candidates, "Bring it on."

Interesting

It is not permissable for Soros to make unpleasant comparisons, but Tim here gets away with obvious rhetorical ploys like :

She'd have loved the gulags. Lots of regulations there.

Tsk.. Tsk..

b.t.w

Mouse droppings in food -- Ewwwwww!!! -- Now I understand the meaning of "ignorance is bliss".

It is not permissable for Soros to make unpleasant comparisons, but Tim here gets away with obvious rhetorical ploys....

Yo, Crazy, look again!

People questioned Soros credibility to make "Bush = Hitler" comparisons, as opposed to Russians talking about concentration camps. No one marched over to Soros' house, bitch slappled him, and then smashed his computer.

Soros can say whatever he likes. It's just that no one has to take him seriously if he puts out pyschobabble.

And that hold for you, too. The babble, I mean.

'Scuse, I meant "bitch slapped.

I dunno, I kind of like "bitch-slappled." It makes me think of someone getting whacked across the face with a hunk of scrapple. (Incidentally, scrapple is made of pig parts, but that's neither here nor there... or is it?)

And that hold for you, too. The babble, I mean.

I am so hurt.

All I was trying to point out is that these kind of comments are mere rhetorical devices, used by speakers (and writers) to gain attention. I was not really trying to justify Bush=Hitler comparisons; merely seeking to illustrate that all writers use these tricks to some degree or another.

That is, of course, unless you believe that Tim really thinks that Kerry Whatshername supports concentration camps (like Hitler). i.e. Kerry=Hitler!

Awaiting your hatemail, er... comments.

And I did write:

...Soros to make unpleasant comparisons...

Was that prasise for Soros?

Crazy:

You pointed out that we accepted Tim's use of unpleasant comparisons, while Soros "is not permissable", as noted below:

"It is not permissable for Soros to make unpleasant comparisons, but Tim here gets away with obvious rhetorical ploys....

You pointed out what you saw as double standards. I disagreed with that conclusion. In a rude fashion, but, hey, that's the way I am.

You're splitting hairs and backtracking, and calling it "courtesy" on your part. I really don't care what you think about Bush, because you haven't said anything of substance in that direction.

If pointing out your logic errors is "hatemail" to you, then you are just trying to misdirect attention away from yourself. Feel free to do so. Just don't expect people to buy it.

Awaiting your rhetoric.....NOT.

Jeff

"Awaiting your rhetoric.....NOT."

Very perceptive.. my closing line (which you siezed upon like a pit bull) was indeed an example of hyperbole. Does your reaction show you up as lacking sense of humor or does this now constitute another attempt at misdirection on my part?

"You pointed out what you saw as double standards. I disagreed with that conclusion."

Indeed you disagreed.

"If pointing out your logic errors is 'hatemail' to you..."

I'm afraid your post did not point out any logical errors -- or any other errors for that matter. Infact, if Soros has no credibiliy in making Hitler comparisons -- and this seems to be the core of your thesis -- then by what authority did Tim write about Kerry's affinity for Gulags?

"You're splitting hairs and backtracking, and calling it 'courtesy' on your part."

Well I can accept the hairsplitting charge. After all, this matter is not exactly at the heart of Tim's article. But please do advise me as to where exactly did I "backtrack".

And while you are at it, could you explain the "courtesy" quote? Perhaps it refers to the fact that my posts are a tad politer than yours -- but that is just a guess on my part. Do let me know --I wouldn't want to be accused of more "misdirection".

"I really don't care what you think about Bush, because you haven't said anything of substance in that direction."

I don't know how my opinion of Bush got dragged into this. I was not even trying to express an opinion on Bush; or even defend Soros for that matter. In fact, I was being critical of Soros. Perhaps you feel I'm backtracking by saying this, but "unpleasant comparisons" is not exactly the acme of praise.

I did express an opinion (negative) on Tim's 'Kerry is pro Gulag' comment. I'm not sure how that made me into a 'pyschobabbler' (what an awkward term).

On the contrary, "psychobabbler" is a perfectly fine term. It uses a simple and common grammar rule (add a suffix -- in the case "r") to a verb to make a noun that defines one who engages in "psychobabble."

Many thanks, Andrea

"Psychobabble: Language characterized by the often inaccurate use of jargon from psychiatry and psychotherapy."

Now I can take issue with Jeff's inappropriate word usage ;)