Is that what you really think?

Have you ever noticed how lots of people out there hold opinions that are based, not on what they really think, but on what other people think?

For example, many uni students have a defacto opposition to abortion, guns and the Liberal Party, and an automatic belief in global warming, the racism of Australians and the purity and goodness of the union movement. They don't actually BELIEVE in any of these things (generally speaking), they're just positions they've absorbed from those around them.

Orson Scott Card, one of my favourite authors, has written a great little column about Sarah Palin and her treatment by the media. One of his best points is that many intellectuals (so called) have opinions on people such as Palin or Rush Limbaugh, without ever having heard their radio show or listened to their book. Their opinions are based on what those around them think, not on them assesing facts and doing some informed reasoning.

As for Palin's book, here's the link to the review of it in Card's column.

This whole thing brings me back to Avatar and that whole idea that those we treat badly we need to portray as sub-human in some form. By doing this we can justify our appalling behaviour in our own heads (such as the Spanish in Haiti and slave owners in the USA). All these people in the media constantly denigrate Palin as being stupid, a liar, a woman hater, whatever. They then use those epithets as an excuse for even more vigorous attacks on her.

There's plenty of people out there I don't like, but I can't think of anyone that I truly hate. And those people that I have hated in the past, as soon as I'm removed from them the problem goes away. Everybody has something good about them and these unreasoning and vicious attacks that seem to be quite common nowadays just indicate the nature of the person making the attack.

Think about it!

Harry

A slight difference of opinion

Following up from Angus's post on the "bitchslutwhoreskank" I just thought I'd share a little article that I came across a couple of days ago. Complete coincidence incidentally.

Lara Bingle Fan Club

Thought I'd share my thoughts and maybe include some more photos to allow a proper analysis.

Why is it that the girl always receives the blame when cheating or adultery goes on? Are we back in the dark ages? Are we in 2008 and living under Islamic law?

Of course not, yet the woman nearly always gets the blame. Now yes, I know the woman controls the source of all that men seek out in life (vagina) and that men are prone to do silly things to achieve said goal. But despite jokes about big head and little head, it still comes down to the fact that we all have free will. While I certainly wouldn't complain if Lara tried to have her way with me, I think it's very dubious that she managed to rape a big unit like the Fev.

He entered into a relationship with her in the full knowledge that he was married, and possibly even lied about his marriage to Lara to enable the relationship to occur.


So instead of going hammer and tongs for Lara, why don't you spread a bit of abuse the Fev's way?

Just because the woman controls the vagina doesn't mean that your brain automatically turns to mush. Apparently for some men it means that their moral compass goes all heywire, but that isn't an excuse or a justification. And trying to use it as such is simply weak.







So just remember, if you're in a relationship, keep it in your pants! And if you do stuff up, don't go around blaming other people, deal with it yourself.

And girls, try blaming the guy for a change, rather than the girl who quite possibly had no idea that he was married!

Harry

Labor, Kevin, George and Obama

While watching Insiders on ABC this morning (the BEST show on politics in Australia and one of the best of TV full stop) Lindsay Tanner made a very interesting statement.

He was being interviewed regarding our man Kevin and his experiences in Washington. I'll give you the background first and then get back to Lindsay.

A little while ago, the editor of the Australian (the best paper in Australia) was having a dinner with Kevin Rudd and some other people. The Australian later published an article regarding a Kevin Rudd phone discussion with George W Bush. The most important part of the piece was this: apparently while talking about the global financial crisis Bush asked Rudd "what's the G20?" The article then went onto explain how Rudd was shocked at how stupid George W was. The big problem is this; George isn't an idiot and he was publically talking about the G20 only days before.

So somehow, details of a private phone conversation found their way into a newspaper article that made Kevin look really good and George look really stupid. Of course, the Whitehouse quickly denied this and ever since Kevin has been obfuscating, denying that George ever said a thing, while (very importantly) refusing to deny that the basis of the article was given to the Australian by him. The Australian have been keeping mum about this whole situation, because they know perfectly well where the blame lies, but aren't going to reveal their sources and they continue to back their article, saying that is was based upon impeccable sources (in this case, the Prime Minister of Australia!).

So anyway, after being ignored by most media outlets in Australia for a while, this has finally come to the forefront after Rudd was given the most perfunctory of hand shakes by George while in Washington for the G20. So the rest of the media has finally woken up and Labor is finally being asked.

Now, Lindsay Tanner was being interviewed on Insiders and asked about the article and he made the usual denials, saying that Kevin had denied everything already. Then, he suggested that a far greater gaffe was Julie Bishop, in Parliament, refusing to criticise John Howard for his assertion several years ago that if Barack Obama were elected than he would be the preferred President for Al Qaeda. He then suggested that this was a far greater insult in dealing with the United States.

But the problem is that Al Qaeda have already come out and said that the election of Barack is a good thing!

And of course, John Howard didn't make the point about Obama just because he thought all these radicals hiding in caves hated George Bush. He made the point because Obama at the time was advocating disengagement in Iraq, more importantly he was advocating running away from a conflict that had already been won (ongoing problems notwithstanding). Such following on of the US tradition of running away from everywhere with a hint of casualties for the last 25 years (think Lebanon and Somalia) such an disengagement would have given an enormous boost to Al Qaeda and their associates and once again portray the United States as nation unable to stay the course or follow through with it's own actions.

Say what you will about George (and lots of people say lots of not very nice things) he has turned around the perception of the US, particularly within the Middle East. It wouldn't take much to turn things around again, but right now, if George says he's going to do something, you know it's going to happen and you won't scare him away.

Obama has been very reticent about Iraq recently (because he knows that it's won) and the issue barely featured in the recent campaign, so we'll have to see what he chooses to do. Apparently, the cost of being in Iraq currently is very similar to the cost of stationing troops overseas anywhere else, as combat has dipped so dramatically!

So, if he drops the bundle and does something that encourage the groups who feed on US weaknesses, than it will turn out that John Howard was right. And just because Barack Obama is now the President of the United States still doesn't mean that John Howard was wrong. Of course it might be cause for some uncomfortable moments, but in the end Howard put forward opinion and he hasn't been proven wrong.

Sorry if this post was a bit convoluted!

Harry