Do what I say, don´t do what I do...

What is bipartisanship?  I would have imagined that if someone was talking about trying to take a ¨bipartisan¨approach to politics, it would involve the different sides putting forward their opinions and coming up with some kind of consensus solution, an outcome that isn´t the first choice but is accepted by all.

Apparently that´s just crazy talk Dr Harry!

How about this little gem from Yahoo News.  It has a segment on some of Obama´s campaign promises and then looks at how well he has succeeded.  The intro is this:

CANDIDATE OBAMA ON BIPARTISANSHIP – “I don’t want to pit Red America against Blue America. I want to be President of the United States of America.”

And the assessment on how well he went is this:

PRESIDENT OBAMA ON BIPARTISANSHIP – He has made gestures to his Republican colleagues on Capitol Hill and has invited them into his administration. But turning politics into a less divisive, less partisan affair has proved difficult. Only three Republicans voted for Obama’s stimulus legislation in February.

Now I might be wrong here, but from memory the stimulus bill was some 1000 pages long and members of the two houses were given less than a day to read it?  So the fact that any Republicans at all voted for the bill is a wonder, not a mystery.

Yahoo are shamelessly attacking the Republicans and cheering for Obama over his efforts to be bipartisan, but the basic truth is that Obama has negotiated nothing at all.  He has asked for his programs to be supported but he hasn´t asked for input or held negotiations so that the other side can put forward their point of view.

With a Pauline Hanson voice..... ¨Shame Yahoo, shame on you!¨ (and Barry for that matter).

cheers

Harry

Here´s something a bit more interesting to look at!

who will survive the bloody carnage of this particular war?

Apparently we now have a swimsuit war.  Who knew?

Bohl has recently returned from Europe where he witnessed the hysteria that has grown there with the emergence of a new player in the market, the Italian-designed polyurethane Jaked suit, which has sparked a flurry of world records. 

"If the Jaked is allowed for the world titles every world record will be broken. And I'm not sure that our kids will have access to it (the suit)," Bohl said.

I think the concept is ridiculous.  I propose that all swimmers in all meets should swim in nothing more than budgie smugglers (guys) and minimal one pieces (girls).  I´d be happy with bikinis as well.  The sport is called SWIMMING not SWIMWEAR DESIGNING.

I wholeheartedly believe in the advancement of science and technology and think these new innovations are fantastic, I just don´t believe that they have a place in a sport where an athlete can win or lose depending on which company´s swim suit they wear.

To be an aborigine or not to be an aborigine? That is the question...

So it seems that someone has finally kicked up a stink about the Tasmanian Government and how they define aboriginality.

For those who don´t know, Michael Mansell and all his white friends at the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre are aboriginal, because they share a half dozen surnames of families that emerged from the sealing communities in Bass Strait.  All the other white people who aren´t friends with Michael DON¨T get to play aborigines and have to do their own thing.

Opening lines of the article:

Alan Wolf was an ATSIC regional councillor for six years and is currently a board member of federal Aboriginal languages body, Federation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages.  However, the State Office of Aboriginal Affairs (OOA) has denied Mr Wolf indigenous fishing rights on the grounds he is not an Aborigine. 

Mr Wolf is one of 440 people regarded as Aborigines by the Federal Government and federal courts, but not by the Tasmanian Government for the purpose of state programs. 

The State applies the same Aboriginality test as the Commonwealth but differently, making it harder for people without links to certain families and archival evidence to prove their ancestry.

What does all this mean?  Besides the good news that Michael Mansell and his white friends at the TAC will finally have to let other people play in their little ¨club¨ besides themselves?

Well the key part for me of all this is the concept of  ¨indigenous fishing rights¨.  Now in the Northern Territory that means that aborigines are able to kill turtles and dugongs (even when they´re severely endangered).  In Canada that means that the Inuit are able to kill bears and seals and whales (little ones) and baby fur seals.

What does this mean in Tasmania?  I don´t really have any idea, but I´m guessing it means much greater access to abalone and rock lobster fisheries, maybe to kill seals as well, although I haven´t heard of this actually happening.  And what do I think about the whole situation?

Well I´ve actually got no problem with it at all.  I think the Tasmanian aboriginal community should be allowed to access as much traditional lifestyle opportunities (whether fishing or hunting) as they want.

BUT

They should have to exercise their traditional fishing rights in their traditional manner.  No wetsuits, no masks, no snorkels, no scuba, no nets, no outboard motors, no rifles.

Go smother yourself in seal fat and go diving for abalone.  Or do the same thing as you swim out to sneak up on a seal lying in the sun and beat it´s head in with a club.  I´m cool with that.  

Just don´t use all the advantages of modern technology and then claim you´re exercising your indigenous rights, while fishing out of season, in protected areas or with fish that aren´t size.

cheers

Harry

Remember: every time you click on the internet, a professional journalist cries

Top stories: Our "Cathode Ray of Death" series showed how excessive blog reading is linked to leukemia and the ebola virus.

click here

Every cloud has a silver lining...

I believe that this is the funniest post about meat ever.

enjoy

Harry

You have freedom of speech, just choose to remain silent

Did you know that the UK Government has now banned homophobic jokes? I didn´t.

How is this not a matter that completely attacks the very notion of free speech? What happened to the idea of

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

What about the episode of Seinfeld when a comedian converted to Judaism just so he could make Jewish jokes? Is it then alright to make a poof joke if you happen to bat both ways or like exploring the chocolate mudslide? Or are all queer jokes banned?

As Mark Steyn wonders, does this mean that Little Britain will be breaking the law? (Check out Steyn´s article by the way, he´s an excellent writer, although probably a bit too small government/personal freedom for many people)

For an alternative point of view on the subject, check out Iowahawk´s post on gay joke smuggling. For me, the punch line is the very last line.

Who decides what should be allowed and what should be banned? Why is it ok to take a statue of Jesus and immerse it in a jar of urine but it´s not so cool to draw a cartoon featuring the prophet Mohammed (who isn´t actually divine, just a prophet for the divine)?

Why is it ok to promote the killing of old people through Euthanasia, but not ok to promote the killing of rapists and murderers through the death penalty?

As Steyn says, this is basically a way for the Government to gather more power and in my opinion that is almost always a BAD THING.

This is all very interesting and I could write a lot more about it, but basically I think you should be able to say whatever you want. If you post something as fact you need to be able to prove it (so those newspapers posting opinion as front page news, sort your shit out!). If you libel someone, you should be accountable. And if you post opinion, it should be properly advertised as such.

cheers

Harry

ps if you do tell people what you actually think, then everyone will know you´re a retard hating, communist loving, mediaeval and brutal monarchy bowing, nuclear proliferation appeasing, Chicago political whore, because your opinions are out in the open for everyone to see. Rather than pretending otherwise until it´s too late.

the four existential givens

Thanks to Jonathon, who I stole this off. I think it´s funny :)

cheers

Harry