November 26, 2004


• Check 'em out: Charlie's Angels in Iraq!

• Scott Ott warns dinosaur media of the blogosphere's withering firepower.

• Australians racist? Andrew Bolt disagrees.

• Let's hope the most influential philosopher alive never actually becomes seriously influential.

• A fun way to enjoy Thanksgiving: visit a safe drinking room. We also call them "pubs".

• Reader Dan Tyson forwards conclusive evidence: Political conservatism stifles open sex talk.

Posted by Tim Blair at November 26, 2004 01:46 AM

“Work on sex and history is one of the most exciting, challenging and revelatory fields of enquiry that is available” she says. “Contrary to some beliefs it is truly a study of the dignity of all human beings”.

The dignity part is why it sometimes involves gunfire.

Posted by: Ron Hardin at November 26, 2004 at 02:03 AM

Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore has reportedly thrown her support behind the [drinking room] concept, which is used in England.

Yes, my own travels in Britain revealed that the concept is used there very, very extensively indeed.

Posted by: Bruce at November 26, 2004 at 02:10 AM

Political conservatism stifles sex talk? Hey, praise George Bush in a Starbucks and the word "fuck" is all you'll hear for the next 20 minutes...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at November 26, 2004 at 02:12 AM

Singer would OWN you in any sort of one on one debate Tim.

Posted by: Tom at November 26, 2004 at 03:31 AM

Progressive Leftist females are too busy micro-examining their own angry viginas to even notice the concept of pleasurable sex.

Meanwhile, we 'Conservative' females have been noted to received the best of all sex uncompromised by any 'issues'. We know what it means to be female and adored as such. There compares to a satisfied Bush.

Also, Singer is one who appears to have 'issue' problems with his sex life, he can't get it up. Frustration of the penis leads one to take to all sort of drastic measures.

Posted by: syn at November 26, 2004 at 05:20 AM

Peter Singer is quoted as saying -
"Concerning bestiality (should people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants?), he responded, "I would ask, 'What's holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?' [but] it's not wrong inherently in a moral sense."

Even on Singer's terms bestiality is wrong I would have thought. He is a proponent of animal rights. Bestiality is rape of an animal. He would define how consent could be understood to have been given.

Posted by: Simon at November 26, 2004 at 08:18 AM

Australian 'racism': generally, the people making the biggest sprays about how 'racist' Australia is are people who, I suspect, grew up in the skippiest middle-class neighbourhoods. I bet David Marr, fr'instance never knew any wogs when he was growing up. The closest these people ever get to the oppressed ethnic minorities is that delightful litttle Thai bistro down in Paddington that does the to-die-for black sticky rice. Anyone I know who grew up in 'woggy' neighbourhoods tends to just laugh at the 'Australia is racist' bullsh*t.

Posted by: cuckoo at November 26, 2004 at 09:31 AM

"Safe Drinking Rooms", "World's Most Influential Living Philosopher", "Political conservatism stifles open sex talk".

You couldn't make this stuff up. Sounds like the moonbats are overcoming the election blues and have gone back out to graze.

Posted by: Fluent Idiot at November 26, 2004 at 11:07 AM

Well i guess after gay marriage rights, the next step is cross-species relationships sanctified by the secular left.
does this mean , i can propose to Margo, my pet sheep in anticipation?
Surely this would get rid of the "moral" issue of violation of animal rights.
I am not too familiar with margo speak, so any help with deciphering the bleats resulting from this propsal would be gratefully accepted.

Posted by: davo at November 26, 2004 at 11:33 AM

Those Angels rock. Better looking than the medics in my units when I was in the Army! (And opposite sex)

Posted by: Razor at November 26, 2004 at 12:34 PM

Apologies in advance for this post: animal/human love discussed below.

Do you reckon Singer believes there's "nothing wrong inherently in a moral sense" if animals have sex with humans? He couldn't advocate humans shagging animals and not vice-versa, could he? In which case why doesn't somone try that one out on him? Singer would of course have to be gagged so as to recreate the inability of animals to protest having some human boffing them. But otherwise I think he's given the green light for a bit of bestiality in reverse. I know it's cruelty (for the animal, not Singer), but does anyone have a horse we could use?

Posted by: Hanyu at November 26, 2004 at 01:22 PM

Are we absolutely certain Singer wasn't a casualty on THAT medivac chopper in East Timor,firmly attatched to that goat and representing the U.N Peacekeepers ?

Posted by: crash at November 27, 2004 at 02:18 AM

And Tim would own YOU in any sort of one on one debate, Tom.

So there! Neener neener neener!!!

Posted by: Me at November 27, 2004 at 06:28 PM

Why a horse, Hanyu? Use an elephant!

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 28, 2004 at 02:38 AM