The Tony Abbott Thread

[Lapin]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26506144-952,00.html

BIBLE classes should be compulsory so children have a fundamental understanding of Christianity on leaving school, federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says.

[Logic]

aarrghhhhhhhh!!!! I can't find the right words to say anything else :mad:

[Praxis]

It's just unbelievable isn't it?

And to think we thought Howard was trying to push the country backwards. Abbott makes Little Johnny look like a bloody visionary.

The next election should be very interesting indeed.

[Ateo]

that would certainly be a liability in the next elections anyway.

But you know what it would be good to make compulsory to study many bits of the bible such as the threesome of lot and his daughters or so many others we certainly can think of, I didn't have any of that in my compulsory bible education back in school;)

[Lapin]

True. If we can't get any porn on the internet we can always turn to Ezekiel 23:20

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled."

[Praxis]

True. If we can't get any porn on the internet we can always turn to Ezekiel 23:20

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled."
Someone call Stephen Conroy! I find the above highly offensive and I want it banned! No one on teh interwebz should have to read such stuff!

[robertkd]

Well I got made about that so left this comment,


So what the Abbott solution is brain wash the children at an early age and hope some of the mythology sticks. No way keep your poison out of our children's minds, as for offending people how dare people suggest enforced myth based religious fairy tales be compulsory at schools. Children should be protected from this as much as any other perversion we strive to protect our children from. I find it personally offensive that any sane person would want to teach children about genocide, enforced slavery, vengeance, intolerance, rape and demeaning of women all by a fictitious "loving god", it's all there in the bible just read it, sure is classical history of some tribes of man. people if you want to believe in fantasy sky pilots that's your choice but do not enforce your insanity on others.

Hands of our children!


:mad:

[deesl4e]

What are words for ?:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad :

[Kookaburra Jack]

BIBLE classes should be compulsory so children have a fundamental understanding of Christianity on leaving school, federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says. (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26506144-952,00.html)

The Bible was first published in the 4th century by a supreme militaristic Roman Emperor who is better described as a malevolent despot. Rule by the Book was a theme then picked up by Islam a few hundred years after the success of "Constantine's Bible".

When are these bogoted persecutory and intolerant "Religions of the Book" going to be seen in a scientific objective historical perspective? They are inventions of warlords.

Abbott needs his head read.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

And all this time I thought I was the best at accidentally making an arse out of myself! I wonder if this guy is doing it on purpose. Particularly when he says things like this:I think everyone should have some familiarity with the great texts that are at the core of our civilisationAre they the same great texts that promote frauds and scams as well as a "cure for leprosy" which consists of killing a bird then dipping another bird in the blood of the dead bird and letting the live bird go (Leviticus 14:1 onwards) and shit?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Someone call Stephen Conroy! I find the above highly offensive and I want it banned! No one on teh interwebz should have to read such stuff!Well I think it oughtta be illegal. I say it should be RC material. Isn't the Bible copyrighted? Oh what the heck it is still bullshit and should be banned. It better be banned if he wants to call it a "clean feed" right?

[Phroso]

I'm so incensed by the Labor party's Internet nannyism that I've resolved, after many years of Labor support, to give my vote to some alternative political party at the next general election.

How about the Liberals? You've got to be joking!
We need Abbott in charge like a hole in the head.

What to do? What to do?

Where are the voices of reason in the political landscape?

Now I know what it feels like to be "on the horns of a dilemma".

[deesl4e]

I'm so incensed by the Labor party's Internet nannyism that I've resolved, after many years of Labor support, to give my vote to some alternative political party at the next general election.

How about the Liberals? You've got to be joking!
We need Abbott in charge like a hole in the head.

What to do? What to do?

Where are the voices of reason in the political landscape?

Now I know what it feels like to be "on the horns of a dilemma".

Agreed phroso. Two wrongs don't make a right. Infact I wonder if a hole in the head would be better than abbott

[gruber]

lets put black up for election:D

[Lapin]

Good move Mr Black. I'm sending of my membership application to the ASP. They are the only party standing up for freedom of choice and individual responsibility.

[Fearless]

"But it is something else to say all children should have a knowledge of the Bible. That might hurt other people who have their own holy scriptures," he said (Dr Ali).

I find this bemusing... arguments over who's book is the right book... gotta love it.

Better make the kids read every one of the damn books I guess so at least all bases are covered...

...then schedule 10 years of psych counselling to undo the damage.

9UbqZ_oN5do

[humantoo]

All businesses do whatever is needed to ensure their survival. Mr Abbott is therefore just following the Catholic business plan.

What works and has always worked for religions and cults?

Early exposure...the younger the better.

Get in first........apathetic humans will stick with the first idea.

Repetition.........know it by heart so you don't have to engage the brain.

Ritual...............the old ways are best-even priests in party dressers!

Faith...............Questioning is evil. Trusting is the only truth.

Fear................fill those young minds with the horror that their bodies will be externally burnt by the flames. (even though no flesh and blood will be involved and no physical pain will be possible....if questioned...go back to rules of Faith)

Reward............fill those young minds with the pleasure that 70 virgins will bring to their bodies. (even though no flesh and blood will be involved and no physical pleasure will be possible....if questioned...go back to rules of Faith)

[Homosapien]

Madness! Complete madness!

I actually wonder if he has read the thing from front to back. Most religious people I know, haven't.

Sad. :( Very sad. :( :(

[rainbowings15]

This is arrogant wedge politics. Lets hope it dies a quick death as I don't trust people who are really hurting in their hip pocket at election time. They are liable to scare easily and stampede toward the party with God on their side.

[eccles]

Next thing that DRIP. the Mad Monk will want is B.A. Santamaria canonised.

[hmn]

I have been reconsidering sending my daughter to private school lately purely because of religious ed, but there may not be anyway of getting away from it....

Abbott wants students to read the Bible (http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/b/sunrise/36413/abbott-wants-students-to-read-the-bible-have-your-say/)

and

All kids must read the Bible (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/all-kids-must-read-the-bible-federal-opposition-leader-tony-abbott-says/story-e6frf7l6-1225811885777)

[DanDare]

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26507226-5006301,00.html

Boy oh Boy. Go read and then here is the Australian Secular Lobby's response:

Tony Abbott would be welcomed into Anna Bligh’s Australian Labor Party here in Queensland, with his most recent call for compulsory Bible classes in schools.

Largely unknown to most Australians, but particularly Queenslanders, is the sorry state of Queensland’s public education system, where religion has indeed become a major priority in the organisation of public schools, never mind what the federal president of the Australian Education Union, Mr. Angelo Gavrielatos, says to the contrary.

The Queensland public education system is not even a secular system, unlike the rest of Australia’s public school systems, following the successful 1910 Queensland referendum to de-secularise public schools and introduce the very Bible lessons that Mr. Abbott wants for all Australian school students, never mind what their religious beliefs might be.

In 1910, the Christian churches in Queensland managed to force their way into public schools across the state as a result of the referendum decision to introduce both Bible lessons and Religious Instruction classes.

One hundred years later, Education Queensland, with the full support of Premier Bligh and Education Minister, Mr. Geoff Wilson, still allows classroom teachers to teach Bible lessons during school time, from the official Education Queensland Bible Lesson curriculum.

Not only this, but Premier Bligh, the Queensland Studies Authority and Education Queensland also allow and support the teaching of Intelligent Design and Creationism in Science classes, at the discretion of the classroom teacher, and with no explanation required to be given to parents or students.

The taxpayer funded school chaplains that both Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd enthusiastically support are increasingly taking over the organisation and running of Scripture Union sourced Bible Clubs in public schools.

While many Australians might be shocked at Tony Abbott’s latest attempt to drag religion into politics via our schools, the truth here in Queensland is that Mr. Abbott’s ideas are not so very far from the reality of everyday life in a typical Queensland public school.

Christian prayers at assembly and significant school events, Bible Clubs and lunch time prayer groups, official Bible lessons from classroom teachers, gendered and sexist programs designed by Hillsong Church and run by volunteers, students coerced into RI because of poorly designed forms
and unpoliced policies , and Christian school chaplains, many of whom freely evangelise and proselytise for new converts to their brand of faith, are all to be found in Queensland public schools in the 21st century.

[Annie]

:eek::eek: Dan, other than writing to relevant politicians, is there anything the average outraged (non QLD) person can do to help stop this madness? Lobbies such as the ASL on Facebook are crucial but is there anything else people of the non-xtian variety can be doing? Actually, even some xtians might have a problem with indoctrination..... here's hoping. Is the AEU doing anything about this? This has implications for schools nationwide. Ive searced their site but am none the wiser.

[nari]

As an long-time ex-QLDer, it doesn't surprise me about Qld schools teaching biblical concepts. Amongst other reasons, I'd never go back to Qld to live with their parochialism.
(Apologies to any QLD-ers who don't agree)

The idea of forcing all schools to teach biblical concepts is appalling. I don't think the electorate would even contemplate supporting Abbott's notion. Then again, what did Einstein say about human stupidity? ;)

nari

[DanDare]

Annie asks an important question.

At the ASL we are trying to network people together to gather support and skills. At the same time we are starting to meet with politicians and present our concerns fairly forcefully. There are some legal challenges in the breeze as well.

To help I ask folks to try and learn who all the pollies and civil servants are ( a big task so we need to pool knowledge, perhaps via face book?).

Once we know where they stand we begin campaigning, email, phone, face to face, whatever it takes. Along with that it helps if we have a united idea about what we want (or don't want as the case may be).

At the face book group the discussion boards are the way I am hopping to get everyone working their ideas and aspirations. They are a way to find out what our common stance is.

This is necessary because we have all been kept apart for years. Those secularists who are atheists have had to be quiet and inconspicuous, and the theist secularists have not had to review why they think its important. We need to heat up the public debate in the face of other issues like global warming and economic disasters. Come on Aussies! :)

[notforprophet]

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26507226-5006301,00.html

All I can say is... GOD HELP US!!!

[Annie]

@Dan - Im heading off over east today for about 3 weeks but will be back on ASL in mid January. You are absolutely right. We have to DO SOMETHING! Have a great solstice.:)

[LeeC]

Dare I say I am not against the idea of the bible text being taught in schools - I am, in fact, all for it.

I was educated in England and we had RE (Religious Education) classes each week, however it didn't stop on just the bible stories. Since a quarter of my school were muslims, we got to hear many different stories.

From this, I personally concluded that they were just stories from a simple time.

It probably helped me to never believe in gods.

However the devil is in the detail.

I am against what I feel Abbot wants - i.e. a preacher in every classroom for his religion of choice

So - how do we make some noise about this?

I suppose the first question to ask is "Which version of the bible?"

By asking this question first, chances are we will have many Christians on our side making noises as well.

OK... when do we start the march?

Lee

[rainbowings15]

Wow! This is incredible in this day and age! I went to a Qld country high school in the early 80's. Compared to the other high, ours was quite a forward thinking school and we didn't have RE.
We need to get RE out of public education. I dont see the difference between my belief (iceberg roses arn't as nice as federation ruby reds) and their belief ie religion. My belief is not to be forced into the school system and nor should theirs. Its a simplistic example, I know, but religion is only as powerful as humans allow it.

[LeeC]

We need to get RE out of public education.

I could not disagree more. You might just as well say you should take out history from the classroom. However, to quote someone famous...

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

My point here is that if you do not teach religion in schools (all of it BTW) then the only exposure a child may get is from a church and that church will not teach the bits if does not like. i.e. how common virgin births are in religions, coming back from the dead, claims that only there religion is right

This is why religion has to be taught in schools - but of course, this isn't the type of education Abbot is talking about.

[Logic]

Religious education and christian eductation are 2 different things.... public schools currently call it RE but it's really more CE - that is the problem.

[going to hell_apparently]

What I want to know, is the bible going to be taught as a book of fiction or fact. I asked Tony Abott this question on 4BC last week however he would not answer despite many requests, he simply trailed off with some rubbish about not being prepared to debate the merits of the Bible at this time.

I had previously asked him the following question some time ago and tried to ask him again on the radio but he cut me off.

"If my 9 year daughter was asked at school this multible choice question following in an exam and my daughter answered C, should she be marked as correct or incorrect?

In years, approximatly what age is the earth?
A/ 8,000 B/ 100,000 C/ 6 billion

[Seamus]

I have no problem with teaching of comparative religion in any school as a subject as long as the range is broad and age appropriate. I have a big problem with religious INSTRUCTION of any kind in public schools.

I'm not convinced that any kind of religious teaching is necessary in a school system. I reject the notion that any child needs to learn about the dominant superstitions of his society at school. I'd far prefer classes in civics and politics and maybe ethics.

I reject the idea that a public school has any role in teaching a child what to believe,including moral values. I accept it's appropriate that children be taught the pragmatics of how to behave as social animals by the public school system. That benefits both the child and society. Teaching a child religion benefits neither.

[deesl4e]

I have no problem with teaching of comparative religion in any school as a subject as long as the range is broad and age appropriate. I have a big problem with religious INSTRUCTION of any kind in public schools.

I'm not convinced that any kind of religious teaching is necessary in a school system. I reject the notion that any child needs to learn about the dominant superstitions of his society at school. I'd far prefer classes in civics and politics and maybe ethics.

I reject the idea that a public school has any role in teaching a child what to believe,including moral values. I accept it's appropriate that children be taught the pragmatics of how to behave as social animals by the public school system. That benefits both the child and society. Teaching a child religion benefits neither.
Largely agree with you on this one. It maybe could be taught as some type of elective in the last 2 years of schooling but as you suggest a broad spectrum of religions and not just xianity. Maybe the subject could be known as Human Mythological Practices and Beliefs.

[nari]

Kids should be taught about religion in general at school, but at an age where they can decide for themselves. Years 11 & 12 sound about right...
Probably too late for some who have been carefully taught to follow one road (viz the song from 'South Pacific') and who can't break up the hallowed ground they were put into from birth.
Schools should be teaching civics, much in the way the USA does, but without the parochialism that goes with it.

Religion is a personal affair, and expecting public schools to rant about the Bible to students is just not on. I doubt the electorate would tolerate it...

Nari

[LeeC]

Religious education and christian eductation are 2 different things.... public schools currently call it RE but it's really more CE - that is the problem.

I do not like the sound of that... my eldest is 4, school in another year. I would not like only Christian gods to be taught to him.

I am thinking I will be spending a little time down at the headmaster's office about this.

Lee

[Logic]

I do not like the sound of that... my eldest is 4, school in another year. I would not like only Christian gods to be taught to him.

I am thinking I will be spending a little time down at the headmaster's office about this.

Lee

Couldn't hurt to ask for the RE ciriculum, my parents opted me out when I was in public school as it was totally christian teachings. They felt the same as you, RE is good, CE is not!

[Dan]

I could not disagree more. You might just as well say you should take out history from the classroom. However, to quote someone famous...

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

My point here is that if you do not teach religion in schools (all of it BTW) then the only exposure a child may get is from a church and that church will not teach the bits if does not like. i.e. how common virgin births are in religions, coming back from the dead, claims that only there religion is right

This is why religion has to be taught in schools - but of course, this isn't the type of education Abbot is talking about.

I couldn't agree more children need to be taught about religion for what it is. We can't/shouldn't just sweep it under the rug. However this is not what abbot wants, he wishes to brain wash children and indoctrinate them with a false education. Obviously this undermines the entire education system.

[gruber]

All a school should be teaching is the skills required to survive in the workforce and society and critical thinking skills, it is upto the parents to teach the kids morals

[DanDare]

Just a war story FYI. Our schools are meant to run RE as "opt-in", to provide the qualifications of the RE teacher and the curriculum of the class.

My daughter in year 2 was just shoved in a fundamentalist xtian class without informing us. The RE teacher was a cretin. My daughter, in response to the story of Adam and Eve expressed concern about inbreeding and tried to explain to the teacher about recessive genetic traits. She didn't fully understand this herself yet but had asked me some months before what "inbreeding" meant and I had done my best to explain. Anyway, the teachers response was that "they did not have DNA back then".

My daughters tearful home coming was the first we knew of her attending scripture. We complained. The schools response? They stuck her at the back of the scripture class and told her to be quiet.

In practice, R.I. is indoctrination, pure and simple, and should be expunged.

[Mark]

My daughters tearful home coming was the first we knew of her attending scripture. We complained. The schools response? They stuck her at the back of the scripture class and told her to be quiet.

And what was your response to that?

If it were me, I'd be ripping into them!

[LeeC]

My daughter in year 2 was just shoved in a fundamentalist xtian class without informing us.

Can they do that? Guess so, but that is awful

The RE teacher was a cretin. My daughter, in response to the story of Adam and Eve expressed concern about inbreeding and tried to explain to the teacher about recessive genetic traits. She didn't fully understand this herself yet but had asked me some months before what "inbreeding" meant and I had done my best to explain. Anyway, the teachers response was that "they did not have DNA back then".

Excellent.

My daughters tearful home coming was the first we knew of her attending scripture.

Now that is the time to go down to the school and make the teachers cry

A head-to-head chat and all that.

Is there any place to complain about the standards of education your child is receiving?

We complained. The schools response? They stuck her at the back of the scripture class and told her to be quiet.

I would tell my child not to be quiet... ask questions, the teacher is paid to answer them.

I wonder if you could demand to sit in on one of these lessons? You could say you would also sit quietly at the back :-)

In practice, R.I. is indoctrination, pure and simple, and should be expunged.

I agree with this... the best way (I think) is to demand proper religious education.

Lee

[Seamus]

Dan

I'm appalled but not surprised at the the school or the staggering ignorance of the teacher. (I attended Catholic schools)

I guess the question is not so much what you are going to do,but whether you are both willing and able to remove your child from the school. If not,zip it;anything which makes your child seem different will be to her disadvantage and cause her distress.

The school seems to be in violation of section 116 of the Australian constitution. Your child may not be compelled to attend religious instruction.

What you can actually do:



Formally write to the school, clearly,unemotionally,setting out what you want.Be worth spending a couple of hundred dollars to have a solicitor send the letter for on your behalf..


Personally write to:

The State Discrimination Board

Pru Goward,Federal equal opportunities commissioner.

The State Ombudsman. (his brief is to investigate mal administration)

State Minister AND Shadow Minister for education.


Sue the school.(or the education department) It would make terrific test case about RI in public schools. Who knows,you could end up an Australian Madalyn Murray O'Hair.:p

[LeeC]

The school seems to be in violation of section 116 of the Australian constitution. Your child may not be compelled to attend religious instruction.

"116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. "
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter5.htm

If the Commonwealth cannot, does this mean the state cannot either?

I am not well up on my Commonwealth/State business... I am but a poor Englishman lost in Victoria

Lee

[proudmumma_atheist]

When my children attended school I just wrote a letter having them removed from religious class.
Mind you they sat there in the class room not allowed to do anything at all.

I knew of a muslim parent who did a similar thing and she was then highly encouraged to do a parenting course .. no joke this was primary school. The family then removed their children from the school when I mentioned to them they do not have to do religious classes write a letter asking for them to be removed and that it is wrong that the school "encouaraged them to do a parenting class due to not wanting their children to learn a mixed bag of christianity. I didnt see the need to say oh yeh I am an athiest/secualar humanist.

I dont understand why they dont just leave it up to the parents to teach the religious belief as it is so varied and not just christian. Keep it secular we are a multi cultural society in Australia are we not.

I know we are also considered christian but yeah I have issues with religion being taught in schools let alone the bible being mad compulsory.

So Mr Abbot has issues with our multi culture society and belives everyone would be better behaved if we were all forced to read the bible.

Considering Queensland has performed so poorly in their schooling and no not tests just some people that are in the workforce are struggling more so than ever with basic maths, reading conversations as schools have been dumbed down.

Mr Abbot has foot and mouth disease for sure.
I mean we are Australia a nation of mixed cultures and not all are christian.

I feel people have rights to follow what they belive in and not forcing it on other people doing this would be more than wrong I hope he never gets in ever.

No one likes to be forced even with the best intentions, this is not one of those situations.

[Caio]

Religion has no place in compulsory education, plain and simple. In high school, it can be an elective. Teach it at home or Sunday school, to teach it alongside math, English, history etc, bestows on it a right it does not deserve, either submit to the proof of the other subjects or bugger off.

[LeeC]

Religion has no place in compulsory education, plain and simple.

It seems that I am on the outside when I say I want (and would actively push for) religious education in schools.

Now I hate this one sided preaching nonsense – there should be a none of that in schools.

However if a child is not shown the wide variety of religions and beliefs systems at school – where/when will they ever been shown it?

Take religion out of school altogether and you will be having children forced feed a one-sided fundamentalist view from their parents church of choice.

No – that is a scary thought.

Keep religion in the open where all can see it – get children reading the book of Thomas at high school and it really makes them think... it worked for me anyway


I would be interested to know why some people here think religious (not the one sided shit) education should not be in schools.


Teach children all the religions that claim to be right and they will notice that they cannot all be right and more likely all are wrong.


Lee

[davo]

I understand your point LeeC, would it not however be better to teach religion as part of for example Philosophy/Ethics rather than as a subject itself?

I personally do not see the value in a full religious education in schools. I think that it should be included in critical thinking subjects however, as that is where it belongs, and I think these subjects are vastly more important for children to learn.

[Caio]

@ Lee

Teach them by all means, but it shouldn’t be compulsory.

As for showing them a variety of different beliefs, well yea I agree, learning about different cultures is important, but when your in a religion class, this is not what you necessarily learn, I remember in years 7 to 10 (11 and 12 were different and actually had some interesting things) it was predominantly about learning who Jesus was, teachings and that sort of stuff. The message was that Christianity is the religion of this school and this is what we believe, now shut up and listen.

What I don’t want is to have religion bestowed upon it a status on par with science, history, math etc; it is not a real subject so it shouldn’t be compulsory. Yes oppressing it will be more detrimental than keeping it in the open, at least this way it can be scrutinized; it would be subject to regulations by the board of studies for instance. But it should be a “opt in” class for public schools, and only for high schools, in no way shape or form should it be in primary education.

I agree with Davo though, that the subject of religion would be better placed in a subject of critical thinking/philosophy.

[kencooke]

The following from the Queensland Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2006/06AC039.pdf)

76 Religious instruction in school hours

(1) Any minister of a religious denomination or society, or an
accredited representative of a religious denomination or
society, which representative has been approved by the
Minister for the purpose, shall be entitled during school hours
to give to the students in attendance at a State school who are
members of the denomination or society of which the person
is a minister or the accredited representative religious
instruction in accordance with regulations prescribed in that
behalf during a period not exceeding 1 hour in each week on
such day as the principal of that school appoints.

(2) Instruction in accordance with a regulation may be given in
State primary and special schools during school hours in
selected Bible lessons.

(3) A separate reading book shall be provided for such purpose.

(4) Instruction of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) is not to
include any teaching in the distinctive tenets or doctrines of
any religious denomination, society or sect.

(5) Notwithstanding anything in this section, any parent of a
student in attendance at a State school may withdraw such
student from all religious instruction in such school by
notification in writing to the principal that the parent desires
the student to be so withdrawn.

(6) The provisions pursuant to this section shall not apply or
extend to State preschool centres.

[kencooke]

This Queensland Government web site (http://education.qld.gov.au/strategic/eppr/schools/scmpr021/) provides fairly comprehensive guidelines for religious instruction in state schools

[kencooke]

And the following paragraphs are from...

Queensland Education (General Provisions) Regulation 2006 (http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2006/06AC039.pdf)
Reprinted as in force on 1 January 2009



31 Students withdrawn from religious instruction

The principal of a State school must arrange for a student who
has been withdrawn from all religious instruction by the
student’s parent to receive other instruction in a separate
location during the period arranged for religious instruction.


30 Bringing and leaving sectarian publications on State
school premises

(1) A person other than a minister of religion or accredited
representative must not bring onto, or use on, State school
premises any denominational or society publication.
(2) A minister of religion or accredited representative must not
leave on State school premises any denominational or society
publication used by the minister of religion or accredited
representative for religious instruction.

[kencooke]

Has anyone tried bypassing the principal and getting in touch directly with the department of education? Here are the contact details specific for religious instruction...

Contacts

For information on religious instruction in school hours, contact:

Principal Advisor, Student Services
Student Services Division
Phone:
(07) 3234 1604
Fax:
(07) 3227 8672

It works in Victoria apparently. Or was that South Australia?

[DanDare]

And the following paragraphs are from...

Queensland Education (General Provisions) Regulation 2006 (http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2006/06AC039.pdf)
Reprinted as in force on 1 January 2009

(1)A person other than a minister of religion or accredited
representative must not bring onto, or use on, State school
premises any denominational or society publication.
(2) A minister of religion or accredited representative must not
leave on State school premises any denominational or society
publication used by the minister of religion or accredited
representative for religious instruction.

And yet we get the Gideons escorted onto the premises to hand out bibles across the school campus in 2008, without notification of the parents. We only found out from our kids later.

[DanDare]

Has anyone tried bypassing the principal and getting in touch directly with the department of education? Here are the contact details specific for religious instruction...



It works in Victoria apparently. Or was that South Australia?

If any one does please also let the Australian Secular Lobby know about the complaint and the response. (ASL Web Site (http://australiansecularlobby.com/), Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=171506088479)) We are bringing more and more pressure to bear but it must come from many directions, so let us know about your own actions and we will reinforce them.

[Seamus]

If the Commonwealth cannot, does this mean the state cannot either?

Yes. Federal Law always trumps State law. I suspect this practice has
never been challenged in the Federal high court.



It's 'may not'.

[LeeC]

Hi Davo

I understand your point LeeC, would it not however be better to teach religion as part of for example Philosophy/Ethics rather than as a subject itself?

I like it but we can debate on what to call the class later - what I have in mind will also include philosophy, ethics, and how 'non believers' think.

I was thinking of keeping in the title "religious" to keep the believers happy - the name is not important to me but what actually is being taught.

I personally do not see the value in a full religious education in schools. I think that it should be included in critical thinking subjects however, as that is where it belongs, and I think these subjects are vastly more important for children to learn.

I think we are in general agreement so I've better get my citizenship and start voting for you :D


I have stated my argument for the religious education part - it is to expose the child to how/what people believe.


The class will also have UFO, Bigfoot and other nonsense.


Basically, it is a class for scepticism.



Lee

[LeeC]

Teach them by all means, but it shouldn’t be compulsory.

Wrong... :)

Unless you think the teaching of science and evolution should also be optional?

You see the problem is you want one rule for what you want (i.e. no religious education) and another for what the fundamentalist theist wants (i.e. no evolution/science education)

You cannot have both (well, not yet anyway – not when the voting public who are theists out number the atheist)


Where do you stop and how do you draw the line?


This is why I would make it compulsory – take a read of Dan Dennett’s book “Breaking the Spell”, he spells out (no pun intended) the idea better than I can.


The message was that Christianity is the religion of this school and this is what we believe, now shut up and listen.

And that is the type of lesson/teaching I am against, like you are.


As I mentioned before, learning about the book of Thomas really did kill off Christian for me, and I learnt about this in a religious education class at about the age of 12 years old.

I think (thought clearly I do not know for a fact) that it would be difficult for a fundamentalist religion to grow in an environment where the bible is shown to be nothing more than a book written by man.

What I don’t want is to have religion bestowed upon it a status on par with science, history, math etc;

Obviously not science or maths, but why not to the level of English literature?

They are stories written by man that had a great influence on the world today, should that not be taught?

it is not a real subject so it shouldn’t be compulsory.

Please define what a ‘real subject’ is.

But it should be a “opt in” class for public schools, and only for high schools, in no way shape or form should it be in primary education.

Then no fundamentalist Christian will ever put their child in such a class just as they try and avoid the teaching of evolution now.



With your idea it would be all too easy.

Take care

Lee

[dimel]

:eek::eek: Dan, other than writing to relevant politicians, is there anything the average outraged (non QLD) person can do to help stop this madness? Lobbies such as the ASL on Facebook are crucial but is there anything else people of the non-xtian variety can be doing? Actually, even some xtians might have a problem with indoctrination..... here's hoping. Is the AEU doing anything about this? This has implications for schools nationwide. Ive searced their site but am none the wiser.
Using political logic, compulsory bible lessons in public schools must be causing an increase in school yard bullying, violence, sexual & drug abuse, as well as the rise in homelessness. (With no apology to those politicians who KNOW better and say nothing about the stupid bloody mindlessness of their party colleagues!)

[dimel]

I could not disagree more. You might just as well say you should take out history from the classroom. However, to quote someone famous...

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

My point here is that if you do not teach religion in schools (all of it BTW) then the only exposure a child may get is from a church and that church will not teach the bits if does not like. i.e. how common virgin births are in religions, coming back from the dead, claims that only there religion is right

This is why religion has to be taught in schools - but of course, this isn't the type of education Abbot is talking about.
Yes, Logic, I agree, it is not the teaching of religion that is the problem it is the teaching of one religion from the point of view of one fundamentalist individual. A serious study of the development of religious thinking and religions as part as the overall history of human development could even be said to be essential for a 'well rounded education'!?
Can you just imagine a child coming home and telling his fundamentalist Christian family that today they learnt just home many 'saviours' had been crucified for the benefit of mankind and how many 'virgin' births there had been? Just imagine the rush of pupils from public school to church schools!

[DanielV]

I'm not convinced that any kind of religious teaching is necessary in a school system. I reject the notion that any child needs to learn about the dominant superstitions of his society at school. I'd far prefer classes in civics and politics and maybe ethics.

Seamus, I agree with you. I think it is one thing to talk about some of the cultural aspects that sprang from religions, such as artwork, poetry and so forth; but I think the rest can be safely jettisoned.

I think we do rationality and reason a disservice by continually propping up superstitious beliefs as if they were entitled to an existence beyond the minds of their adherents.

[DanDare]

I have heard of a couple of schools here in Queensland that do teach comparative religion in R.I. class. They compare each religions beliefs about after life, morality, gender, and current institutional structure as well as the general evolution of those religions.

I would have no problems whatsoever with such classes, in fact I would applaud their inclusion in every school as a mandatory part of civic education.

However, I would require delivery of such a curriculum to be adequately audited since the devout are not shy of delivering their own version in a skewed way.

[DBK]

I would require delivery of such a curriculum to be adequately audited since the devout are not shy of delivering their own version in a skewed way.

Hmmm... maybe us atheists should teach such classes.

I've got a year to go 'til I get my DipEd.

[Fromm_Nicht]

I feel that comparative religious study should form a part of the compulsory history syllabus. This part of the syllabus would teach the origins and evolution of religious belief whilst also comparing different religions from across the world and throughout history. Without a knowledge of the history of religion it is impossible to fully understand the history of human civilization. An honest and comprehensive religious history syllabus could be linked to the development of key civilizations throughout history and would make abundantly clear to students the horrendous mistakes perpetrated in the name of religion at the same time as demonstrating the incompatibility of one religion to the next.

[A Monkey Shaved]

IMHO Sounds as dumb to me as making Moby Dick compulsory.
Edit, Correction, probably dumber, because it is mostly a load of unintelligable gibberish, which is why IMHO so many Catholic schools in my day avoided it and just indoctrinated us kids with their Catechism instead. I hope Tony Abbot is not thinking about making that book compulsory.

[Annie]

............An honest and comprehensive religious history syllabus could be linked to the development of key civilizations throughout history and would make abundantly clear to students the horrendous mistakes perpetrated in the name of religion at the same time as demonstrating the incompatibility of one religion to the next.

Only if you have a teacher that wants to make that clear...... therein lies the problem. As a teacher, I can honestly tell you that the syllabus and curriculum are wide open to interpretation. As it stands, any student with a decent teacher will glean this information from history and politics lessons as they are. In my opinion, enough class time is wasted on religion as it is.

[Loki]

While I wouldn't want knowledge of religion to be suppressed, people need to know how insidious and hateful it is, I also don't want religion to be taught to primary school students. The periodic table is not taught to primary students as they do not have the maturity, the skills, or the historical background to take it on. I feel religion is the same.

[dimel]

:eek::eek: Dan, other than writing to relevant politicians, is there anything the average outraged (non QLD) person can do to help stop this madness? Lobbies such as the ASL on Facebook are crucial but is there anything else people of the non-xtian variety can be doing? Actually, even some xtians might have a problem with indoctrination..... here's hoping. Is the AEU doing anything about this? This has implications for schools nationwide. Ive searced their site but am none the wiser.

The first thing the Athiest Foundation can do is demand equal time in all schools, secular and religious! And if you think this is asking too much it is because religious dogma is so pervasive throughout society that it will take a major increase in the intelligence of THE PEOPLE to do anything about it.

It is interesting to note that it is the Bible-toting Religious believers in a God of Love that are, in the USA, so vocal against universal health care; I wonder if the same thing will happen here if Tony Abbott get's control of government?

As someone else said GOD HELP US! But as gods/GODS are a figment of human imagination and the tool of the power hungry we have to help ourselves.

LAUGH OUT LOUD or we'll all go mad.

dimel

[Fromm_Nicht]

Only if you have a teacher that wants to make that clear...... therein lies the problem. As a teacher, I can honestly tell you that the syllabus and curriculum are wide open to interpretation. As it stands, any student with a decent teacher will glean this information from history and politics lessons as they are. In my opinion, enough class time is wasted on religion as it is.

That suggests to me then that the first step should be to strengthen and enforce a set curriculum. With such an open curriculum surely many students are going to come out of the school system with a pronounced bias towards the subjects studied with more of an emphasis on teacher opinion rather than accepted fact.

[Annie]

No but I see where you are coming from. It depends on what facts the teacher wants to teach. Teachers dont normally teach opinion, unless it's a values lesson and things like 'manners' and 'acceptance' are taught. Facts don't normally have a huge role to play in these lessons. A curriculum, like a syllabus can also be cherry picked. What really needs to happen is that teachers need to be upskilled and professionally developed in what living in a secular society means. Incredibly not too many even know that Australia is secular. :eek:

[AngryAtheist]

As an long-time ex-QLDer, it doesn't surprise me about Qld schools teaching biblical concepts. Amongst other reasons, I'd never go back to Qld to live with their parochialism.
(Apologies to any QLD-ers who don't agree)

The idea of forcing all schools to teach biblical concepts is appalling. I don't think the electorate would even contemplate supporting Abbott's notion. Then again, what did Einstein say about human stupidity? ;)

nari

Here Here, fellow QLDer here, proud to be one but embarrassed by the idiots that run the place - I blame FloJoe Bjelke-Peterson for this mess. Paternalistic criminal that he was and the pumpkin scones, don't get me started on them rediculous pumpkin scones.

What the hell is going on with Labor Government - you blokes and sheilas need to pull your blo-ody heads in.

Rid RUDD Rid RUDD who's with me?

[AngryAtheist]

Sorry, touch of the QLDer just got out of me.

[Fromm_Nicht]

No but I see where you are coming from. It depends on what facts the teacher wants to teach. Teachers dont normally teach opinion, unless it's a values lesson and things like 'manners' and 'acceptance' are taught. Facts don't normally have a huge role to play in these lessons. A curriculum, like a syllabus can also be cherry picked. What really needs to happen is that teachers need to be upskilled and professionally developed in what living in a secular society means. Incredibly not too many even know that Australia is secular. :eek:

Perhaps a more rigorous education of teachers needs to be adopted, one similar to in Germany perhaps where a teacher will undergo 5-6 years of university study followed by a further 2 years at a practical seminary.

[dimel]

Only if you have a teacher that wants to make that clear...... therein lies the problem. As a teacher, I can honestly tell you that the syllabus and curriculum are wide open to interpretation. As it stands, any student with a decent teacher will glean this information from history and politics lessons as they are. In my opinion, enough class time is wasted on religion as it is.

HEAR! HEAR!
dimel

[smartymarty66]

I had to opt out of RI for my four children during primary school. ( they all went to state schools in queensland) I had one of the teachers ring me up and try to guilt trip me into letting my daughter join in. After pointing out to me that she is the only one who has to step out of the room, she has to sit on her own for an hour or so. I asked my daughter who said she loved it as she got to spend the hour reading under a tree, her idea of bliss. No problems with any of the other teachers.

[Annie]

@ Fromm_Nicht. Given the current teacher shortage and the need to import teachers from other countries, whacking more years on their course of study is not likely to improve anything. Especially as teachers are not likely to be renumerated accordingly. Teachers are usually very good at actually teaching which is much more complicated than simply knowing. They are usually highly skilled and motivated. All that is really needed is a simple understanding of the basic socio-political attributes of this country, without delving into history, foreign politics, and philosophy which would be of no professional advantage to many teachers. A concise, short course outlining the relevant legislation and the rights and responsibilities that come with living in a secular society, in my opinion, should be a compulsory foundation unit in the first year of study for teachers.

[dimel]

I have no problem with teaching of comparative religion in any school as a subject as long as the range is broad and age appropriate. I have a big problem with religious INSTRUCTION of any kind in public schools.

I'm not convinced that any kind of religious teaching is necessary in a school system. I reject the notion that any child needs to learn about the dominant superstitions of his society at school. I'd far prefer classes in civics and politics and maybe ethics.

I reject the idea that a public school has any role in teaching a child what to believe,including moral values. I accept it's appropriate that children be taught the pragmatics of how to behave as social animals by the public school system. That benefits both the child and society. Teaching a child religion benefits neither.

Any religious education should be part of HISTORY and should include ALL THE CASES of belief in various messiahs, virgin births and miracles that have cropped up in various societies. KNOWLEDGE is the way to FREEDOM and the more our children KNOW and the less they are BRAINWASHED into ridiculous, damaging and potentially violent beliefs the better!

:rolleyes:

[Seamus]

IMHO Sounds as dumb to me as making Moby Dick compulsory.
Edit, Correction, probably dumber, because it is mostly a load of unintelligable gibberish, which is why IMHO so many Catholic schools in my day avoided it and just indoctrinated us kids with their Catechism instead. I hope Tony Abbot is not thinking about making that book compulsory.

Yeah ,that was the case at the (four) Catholic schools I attended. We were effectively discouraged from reading the bible,lest we become confused.So of course I did,from about 14 to 16.

They were right.The bible bored me stupid and confused the hell out of me,especially Revelations which I thought was gibberish written by a mentally ill person.(still do) Formed an intense dislike of St Paul very early on. I quite liked some of the psalms, the parables and the sermon on the mount. At 14 I was also rather fond of 'The Song Of Solomon'.

[Loki]

I suspect that when Abbot says "all kids should read the bible" or whatever, he does not mean "all kids should read the bible". He means "all kids should read (that is study under direction) specific parts of the bible, to be selected by the usual vested interests". I doubt he is saying that all kids should read the bible from start to finish, but not sure he is aware if this himself. If they did it might even be a win for atheism, as a whole (and in part for my mind) it is unintelligible drivel and would surely make many kids question the sanity of the author or authors.

[smartymarty66]

Can we choose the bits they should read? I was always fond of the whole "Job getting drunk and impregnating his teenage daughters whilst convinicing everyone his wife was turned into a pillar of salt and that everyone he lived near was gay" story.

Hang on I saw that episode on Jerry Springer

[Seamus]

Can we choose the bits they should read? I was always fond of the whole "Job getting drunk and impregnating his teenage daughters whilst convinicing everyone his wife was turned into a pillar of salt and that everyone he lived near was gay" story.

Hang on I saw that episode on Jerry Springer Now THAT'S funny.:D


However,"as many bible scholars will tell you" the sin of Sodomy was probably NOT homosexuality,but inhospitality and some other really mean things. (something of which most Christians seem blissfully unaware)

ME? I really don't care,except from an academic point of view, about the mythology of an apparently really rather nasty, petty tribe of bronze age goat herders.-They invented this nasty little god who shared their dominant human qualities,which included: Insular, clannish, paranoid, jealous, petty, vindictive,vicious, ruthless,sadistic and cruel. Much like the bulk of humanity today.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Controversy

Main article: The Bible and homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality)
Whether the primary offense of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah was that of homoeroticism or non-sexual interrogation and inhospitality has been much disputed in recent times, with the arguments primarily centering upon linguistic aspects.
Classical Jewish texts are seen by many as not stressing the homosexual aspect of the attitude of the inhabitants of Sodom as much as their cruelty and lack of hospitality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitality) to the "stranger." [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#cite_note-The_Inhospitable_Sodomites-2) The Jewish Encyclopaedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Encyclopaedia) [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#cite_note-3) has information on the importance of hospitality to the Jewish people. The people of Sodom were seen as guilty of many other significant sins. Rabbinic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi) writings affirm that the Sodomites also committed economic crimes, blasphemy and bloodshed.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#cite_note-4) One of the worst was to give money or even gold ingots to beggars, after inscribing their names on them, and then subsequently refusing to sell them food. The unfortunate stranger would end up starving and after his death, the people who gave him the money would reclaim it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

[dimel]

Just a war story FYI. Our schools are meant to run RE as "opt-in", to provide the qualifications of the RE teacher and the curriculum of the class.

My daughter in year 2 was just shoved in a fundamentalist xtian class without informing us. The RE teacher was a cretin. My daughter, in response to the story of Adam and Eve expressed concern about inbreeding and tried to explain to the teacher about recessive genetic traits. She didn't fully understand this herself yet but had asked me some months before what "inbreeding" meant and I had done my best to explain. Anyway, the teachers response was that "they did not have DNA back then".

My daughters tearful home coming was the first we knew of her attending scripture. We complained. The schools response? They stuck her at the back of the scripture class and told her to be quiet.

In practice, R.I. is indoctrination, pure and simple, and should be expunged.

Reading this forum (and the newspaper article suggested) I am beginning to believe it is time that all signs of religious affilliation are taken out of public view - and that includes clothes that scream to the world I am such and such!; after all one's spiritual affiliations is between the individual and whatever god, fairy at the bottom of the garden, devil or whatnot one believes in and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE ELSE!

Of course that ignores the brainwashing of small children (as Dawkins says there are children of Christians, Muslims etc., not Christian or Muslim Children!) but hopefully if all the public religious bilas is removed children will grow up to have a more balanced view of life, the world and their place in it?

It could be the quickest way to remove the current invasive pervasive smell of religion that has moved into everything!

Notice the way the media is playing the 'we shall pray for help etc' services after every traumatic event?

In a Peter Singer book about changing attitudes he suggests excluding the offender from social acceptance so what would happen if we started ignoring anyone who wears clothes telling us they are part of a religion? And that would include dog collars!

This would be a variation of Gandi's social disobedience.

Personally if I walked into a doctor's surgery and was faced with a doctor wearing a hijab I would turn around and walk out!

And I am waiting for the day that someone wearing a bike helmet, with face visor up, is prevented from going into a bank while a completely hijabbed woman is allowed in!

How many little ways are there for individuals to show their distaste for religions and religious proselytizing?

To end on a humorous note: I have a cousin who was standing, exhausted after a late shift, on Granville Station at some unearthly morning hour when a man danced up to him and asked "do you know Jesus?" The reply was a sting of every obscenity known to man!

Of course, that could be another way to react to religion?

[dimel]

Reading this forum (and the newspaper article suggested) I am beginning to believe it is time that all signs of religious affilliation are taken out of public view - and that includes clothes that scream to the world I am such and such!; after all one's spiritual affiliations is between the individual and whatever god, fairy at the bottom of the garden, devil or whatnot one believes in and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE ELSE!

Of course that ignores the brainwashing of small children (as Dawkins says there are children of Christians, Muslims etc., not Christian or Muslim Children!) but hopefully if all the public religious bilas is removed children will grow up to have a more balanced view of life, the world and their place in it?

It could be the quickest way to remove the current invasive pervasive smell of religion that has moved into everything!

Notice the way the media is playing the 'we shall pray for help etc' services after every traumatic event?

In a Peter Singer book about changing attitudes he suggests excluding the offender from social acceptance so what would happen if we started ignoring anyone who wears clothes telling us they are part of a religion? And that would include dog collars!

This would be a variation of Gandi's social disobedience.

Personally if I walked into a doctor's surgery and was faced with a doctor wearing a hijab I would turn around and walk out!

And I am waiting for the day that someone wearing a bike helmet, with face visor up, is prevented from going into a bank while a completely hijabbed woman is allowed in!

How many little ways are there for individuals to show their distaste for religions and religious proselytizing?

To end on a humorous note: I have a cousin who was standing, exhausted after a late shift, on Granville Station at some unearthly morning hour when a man danced up to him and asked "do you know Jesus?" The reply was a sting of every obscenity known to man!

Of course, that could be another way to react to religion?

Just had another thought about how to make a statement AGAINST religion and that is for everyone to start wearing the clothes that make a statement about their GOD/NON GOD. Towards the end of his life Alan Watts started wearing what were seen as outlandish clothes that expressed his FREEDOM; what if EVERYONE DID THAT until the religious statement via clothes began to look old hat and uncool and generally disappeared into a mass of colourful clothes?

More fun than ignoring or swearing at people!
:cool:

[DanDare]

Reading this forum (and the newspaper article suggested) I am beginning to believe it is time that all signs of religious affilliation are taken out of public view - and that includes clothes that scream to the world I am such and such!; after all one's spiritual affiliations is between the individual and whatever god, fairy at the bottom of the garden, devil or whatnot one believes in and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE ELSE!
I would love to agree with you there dimel. Sadly that would also do away with football supporters clothing and trekkie outfits etc.
Just had another thought about how to make a statement AGAINST religion and that is for everyone to start wearing the clothes that make a statement about their GOD/NON GOD. Towards the end of his life Alan Watts started wearing what were seen as outlandish clothes that expressed his FREEDOM; what if EVERYONE DID THAT until the religious statement via clothes began to look old hat and uncool and generally disappeared into a mass of colourful clothes?

More fun than ignoring or swearing at people!
:cool:
Much better. Buy a red atheist A t-shirt or pin from the www.richarddawkins.net shop or a brights badge from www.the-brights.net or make up your own stuff.

[prudie]

http://www.tonyabbottisright.com/createposter.aspx

Have fun with it. I submitted

390

[Praxis]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v54/Praxis/DisplayFileaspx.jpg

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

http://www.tonyabbottisright.com/DisplayFile.aspx?img=/Posters/Tony_4486_12592.jpg&w=880

[Xeno]

http://a.imageshack.us/img185/110/ta2g.jpg (http://img185.imageshack.us/i/ta2g.jpg/)

[prudie]

This is addictive

[wolty]

This is addictive


Hehehehehehehe :D

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

http://www.tonyabbottisright.com/DisplayFile.aspx?img=/Posters/Tony_5565_c1495.jpg&w=880

[prudie]

Do you think anyone is actually submitting legitimate advert proposals to the? They must have known this would happen.

[Atrax Robustus]

Do you think anyone is actually submitting legitimate advert proposals to the? They must have known this would happen.

Ummmmm Prudie? It's a Labor site - they did know this would happen. :)

[prudie]

Ummmmm Prudie? It's a Labor site - they did know this would happen. :)
d'oh that's how much I read it.

[prudie]

That just takes all the fun out of it now

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Do you think anyone is actually submitting legitimate advert proposals to the? They must have known this would happen.I have to admit that mine were actually quite legitimate.

[prudie]

I have to admit that mine were actually quite legitimate.

"Because he was on the telly" and "Because life is like a box of chocolates"?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

A-yep. :)

[Onlyatheory?]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/all-kids-must-read-the-bible-federal-opposition-leader-tony-abbott-says/story-e6frf7l6-1225811885777

The link above is from the Herald Sun. Does anyone know if he actually said these words or was it something more mundane like a suggestion that it would be beneficial for kids to have a grasp of the bible or some such dribble?

Don't know if you want to move this one to the elections thread?

Interesting that a candidate that admits that she has no belief in God would spark so much interest into the religious/atheist debate. Maybe not a bad thing?????

[ABridgeTooFar]

Someone should ask him at one of those mass question conferences him and Julia are having. Or on Q&A tomorrow? (probably a better idea) He has been giving pretty honest answers recently so it would be interesting to see what he has to say about that quote from December and whether his belief that every child should read the bible interfere with the running of our education system if he is elected.

[Mentally Saturated]

Boy, oh boy, is this one gonna haunt him for a while.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/08/3133488.htm

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has been forced to defend his comment that "sometimes shit happens" when discussing the events surrounding the death of a digger in Afghanistan last year.

Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney was shot dead in a battle with Taliban insurgents in August.

Channel Seven has broadcast footage of Mr Abbott in October discussing the incident with US commander James Creighton.

Mr Abbott, in Tarin Kowt, is seen saying: "It's pretty obvious that, well, sometimes shit happens, doesn't it?"

The Liberal Leader has defended his comments today.

"Look, you've taken this out of context," he told Channel Seven.

"You weren't there. I would never seek to make light of the death of an Australian soldier."

Mr Abbott then went on to accuse the network of "trying to turn this into a subsequent media circus".

When asked how that was occurring and why his comments had been taken out of context, the Opposition Leader refused to answer for more than 20 seconds.

Vid clip link: http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201102/r715359_5635275.asx

Heck, I had to rewind and watch it again. For a moment there, I thought he'd been asked to explain everything he knows about the Theory of Evolution.. :p

Gary

[cyclist]

I heard about this on the radio this morning. I agree with his sentiments, that "shit happens", however, it is inappropriate for someone in his position to say something like that. There are better ways that he could have expressed this without using those particular terms

You can tell that he's religious, he pulled out the "out of context" card pretty quickly.

James

[BlueDevil]

Looks like a media beatup to me.

[RealityRules]

I understand Abbott wasn't talking specifically about the shooting or death of the Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney when he said "shit happens" - the conversation leading up to that was more general, and he was more agreeing with an explanation or a point of view.

As blunt and sometimes colloquial as Abbott can be, he doesn't deserve the shit from this.

[Sieveboy]

I understand Abbott wasn't talking specifically about the shooting or death of the Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney when he said "shit happens" - the conversation leading up to that was more general, and he was more agreeing with an explanation or a point of view.

As blunt and sometimes colloquial as Abbott can be, he doesn't deserve the shit from this.

I would normally agree with you about the media beating people up with comments taken out of context, but it is Tony Abbott we are talking about. I doubt he would hesitate for 1 second to beat up Ghoulia Gillard if she made the same comment in the same context. I suspect he would do it with a loud voice and visible glee. Fucking hypocritic religious dickhead (Abbott that is :)).

[Fearless]

Mixed feelings on this. I saw this last night when it went to air and I was going to post a thread on it but decided it needed more time to consider the information and not react prematurely.

I do wonder why channel 7 fought for 'months' apparently for the said footage through freedom of information. Tip off perhaps?

Apparently the wife accepted Tony's explanation but more recent hours sees his father quite upset by the comments.

More focus now is on the alleged passive aggressive silence during the awkward interview in question asked which is easily found on you tube.

The mistake being made by the media is saying it was his response to the death, not the circumstances that possibly contributed to the death.

I think T.A. got caught on the back foot and couldn't handle it. Something a hopeful P.M. should need to manage on the spot.

I don't buy the 'dignified silence' play but I don't think the family need the further salt rubbed into the wound either.

[Fearless]

Sieveboy, you are totally right that Tony would have been all guns blazing using the media as a soundboard if it were Julia who said what was said.

No doubt in my mind.

[riddlemethis]

'shit happens' is a colloquialism that means 'bad stuff happens in life for no reason'. No less appropriate term could or should be used in discussing matters about a theatre of war & the death of young soldiers who are fighting for...wait, why are they we there again? Were I the family of ANY soldier killed in Afghanistan or Iraq I'd be harbouring a deep desire to demonstrate the proper meaning of shit happens to Tony Abbott.

Coupled with Abbott filmed firing off some rounds from a machine gun & requesting to go out on patrol whilst on this same trip, we have the picture of a fuck-witted wanker cowboy, not fit to lead his party, let alone the country. Make no bones about it, this man is a complete tool & has made serious enemies during his days in Canberra, not least of all in his own party room.

I'm certain someone has done a number on him, bringing this to tge attention of a willing news outlet, but frankly, he deserves every fraction of said number. Whoever is behind this wanted to make sure he is dead, burried & cremated. Ding dong, the witch is dead!

[BlueDevil]

The real problem I see with this issue is that at a time when the family should be quietly working their way through their grief they have been thrown into a media circus over a non-event.

[66 vegie]

It's voting time in N.S.W, we can expect this type of thing coming out from the media now...they love to light the fire on both sides of the political fence. They don't care who's feelings are involved...as long as they get good ratings for the station.

[djarm67]

This maybe the first time I agree with Abbott.

Sometimes shit "DOES" happen

[cyclist]

I was thinking about this when I saw the article on SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-frozen-fury-lingers-beyond-his-words-20110209-1am2n.html) on this very topic.

What if instead of shit happens he had said something like

I think that this shows the randomness and cruelty that happens in the theatre of war

To me, that and what he said are basically the same, but one of them is wrapped up in fancy language. Would there have been such a stink if he had wrapped it up with a few euphemisms? Probably not.

I'm still personally not sure if this is blown out of proportion or if it is justified. I think that the expression "shit happens" is a bit more impersonal compared to my example above which is why it is felt to be a problem.

James

[Fromm_Nicht]

What if instead of shit happens he had said something like

I think that this shows the randomness and cruelty that happens in the theatre of war


While they are similar, the quote above has a distinct advantage over "shit happens". It has already acknowledged the fact of war, something that doesn't just happen on its own...it takes politicians and willing fighters. "Shit happens" seems more to suggest that deaths in war are unavoidable random occurences. Whereas, if Tony Abbott was in opposition to the war in Afghanistan he is in a position where he may have significant sway to change things.
The shit wouldn't have happened Tony if you didn't support the shit in the first place.

[Dane]

As much as I dislike the man, I agree with his sentiment. It does not speak well of his ability to be in a position of power though to use such expressions without taking into account that it was politicians like him that started the war. The wooden spoon in the silverware cutlery draw...

[Deborah]

He was representing his constituents while being followed around by cameras, not having a relaxed chinwag at a mates BBQ. Why was he being followed by cameras? Because he represents a supposed viable alternative to government in this country and with that comes a direct involvement with the welfare of our soldiers. "Shit happens", in whatever context, removes some of the sense of ownership of the person saying it. Wrong in this case.

I think it was an inept attempt on his part to come across as egalitarian and blokey for the polls. And sure, he probably felt genuine sentiment for the situation, there is no reason for me to doubt that.

I'm not qualified as a politician, script writer, psychiatrist, military commentator, PR person or counsellor. But as an ordinary person with some empathy, I had an instant gut reaction to the situation depicted by the soldier, and that was something like: "And what a hard place for you to find yourself in, it sounds like you did everything that you could". Is that seriously so hard? Though it might come accross as pithy and clichéd, it would entail less dealings with adverse publicity - never Abbott's strong point.

In th unlikely event that this was ever uttered by our ranga overlord, Abbott would be frothing at the mouth to defend 'our diggers'.

[RealityRules]

I think Abbott was just empathising with the American commander who was explaining a few issues they had with organising things in the theatre of war at that time.

The film was not public, it was obtained under Freedom of Information, and not obtained for that bit.

Abbott is now being criticised for stony silence at the 7 dude. He can't win, or would have if he had told the 7 dude he was empathising.

[BlueDevil]

Just prior to Abbott's comments the 'commander' (or whatever rank he was) was explaining the unfortunate fact that they had a lot of fire power available that for some reason wasn't used ie there was a stuff up of some sort. Abbott's comment seemed more directed towards that issue than the death itself - ie I took the comment as meaning 'unfortunately sometimes people stuff up' and he seemed to be sympathizing with them about the error.

I guess it would be interesting to hear from the army men who were there as to how they perceived his comment. If they perceived nothing 'offensive' in his comment then end of story.

I am no fan of Abbott, but I am not convinced that he did anything wrong in this circumstance.

[Annie]

While they are similar, the quote above has a distinct advantage over "shit happens". It has already acknowledged the fact of war, something that doesn't just happen on its own...it takes politicians and willing fighters. "Shit happens" seems more to suggest that deaths in war are unavoidable random occurences. Whereas, if Tony Abbott was in opposition to the war in Afghanistan he is in a position where he may have significant sway to change things.
The shit wouldn't have happened Tony if you didn't support the shit in the first place.
+1 FN. When you are party to creating shit and someone dies from it, it might be appropriate to be a bit humble. As a forever gaffing politician, he should know how powerful words are by now.

[loubert]

While they are similar, the quote above has a distinct advantage over "shit happens". It has already acknowledged the fact of war, something that doesn't just happen on its own...it takes politicians and willing fighters. "Shit happens" seems more to suggest that deaths in war are unavoidable random occurences. Whereas, if Tony Abbott was in opposition to the war in Afghanistan he is in a position where he may have significant sway to change things.
The shit wouldn't have happened Tony if you didn't support the shit in the first place.

+1

Further more, I think this plus his other stuff-ups show that he is looked after heavily and has no skill in speaking off the cuff about anything. Remember his comment about not believing what he says, or whatever it was at the time.... FacePAlm.

And quite frankly, if you need Barnaby Joyce to semi-defend you on sky news (this morning) you're in real trouble. ;)

[loubert]

On a side note. So far from what I've seen, I'm impressed that the government has not been sinking the boot in. As they shouldn't over this.

[RealityRules]

... the government has not been sinking the boot in.

Perhaps they can't given

When Kevin Rudd first visited the troops in 2008, he swore - well - like a trooper.

Standing on the back of a jeep in driving wind and rain, he empathised with the troops having to live and fight in such "genuinely shit weather".

Later, at Kandahar, he told the Australians based there that the Americans really rated them. "You guys really know your shit," he said.

www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-frozen-fury-lingers-beyond-his-words-20110209-1am2n.html (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-frozen-fury-lingers-beyond-his-words-20110209-1am2n.html)

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I must say that I agree with Abbott on this one; "Shit Happens" isn't as stupid a comment as it seems. In fact, that's probably the smartest thing I ever heard him say. :)

[Fromm_Nicht]

When Kevin Rudd first visited the troops in 2008, he swore - well - like a trooper.

The criticism here is not that Tony Abbott swore, but rather the sentiment expressed by what he said, as if people dying in Afghanistan are natural disasters. Incidentally, "shit happens" would be more appropriately applied to the floods and to cyclone Yasi, what do you think the reaction would be if someone did just that...

[Praxis]

If I was a betting gal, I'd be putting some money on Malcolm Turnbull being quietly gotten ready to be wheeled out like the next dead cert for the Melbourne Cup. I reckon they've been grooming him and keeping him out of sight and fairly quiet.

And it will be the Second Coming that TA wasn't hoping for.

This has political machinations written all over it.

[RealityRules]

The criticism here is not that Tony Abbott swore, but rather the sentiment expressed by what he said, as if people dying in Afghanistan are natural disasters.

I agree, but he wasn't referring to deaths or a death, he was empathising with the US commander's acknowledgement of logistic issues.

Praxis, I'm sure it hasn't done Malcolm any harm, but there will need to to be more to allow him to challenge. Do you think he is behind this, or others want a leadership media event?

[Fromm_Nicht]

Do you think he is behind this, or others want a leadership media event?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/09/3134111.htm

Federal Liberal MPs say Tony Abbott's leadership is "rock solid", despite his reaction to questions about his "shit happens" comment on the death of an Australian soldier in Afghanistan.


Perhaps this issue has actually helped Abbott within his own party. Just yesterday he was apparently at odds with other party members over cutting foreign aid and then BOOM! Media is mean to him and they all jump to his defence.

[ABridgeTooFar]

Seems like a big media beat up.

[gruber]

"Look, you've taken this out of context," he told Channel Seven.



DING DING DING DING GIND DING and thats the 500th time tony has said his catch phrase

[BlueDevil]

thats the 500th time tony has said his catch phrase

In this case I think it is likely that his comment has been taken out of context.

(Can't believe I am actually defending Abbott!!:eek:)

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

BlueDevil: I suspect it will be the last time the comment is actually taken out of context. :p

[slim]

The shit happens line doesn't bother me in the slightest. Looking at the video, he appeared concerned - not his usual belligerent self anyway.

Tony's reaction to the journo is almost painful to watch. It's as if he's having a seizure. I would have expected him to handle himself better than that.

Can you imagine the shitstorm that would have ensued had a Labour or Greens MP had uttered the same words in the same context?

Abbott 'n co would be having a field day, and the shock jocks would be demanding resignations.

[Jaar-Gilon]

I guess it would be interesting to hear from the army men who were there as to how they perceived his comment. If they perceived nothing 'offensive' in his comment then end of story.

If you watch the video the US soldiers he is talking to look like they pretty much agree with him that shit happens, they do not look (and I suspect are not) offended in the slightest.
Journalists are just as much of a waste of oxygen as the fucking politicians they so self righteously condemn!!

[BlueDevil]

If you watch the video the US soldiers he is talking to look like they pretty much agree with him that shit happens, they do not look (and I suspect are not) offended in the slightest.


That is pretty much how it looks to me as well.

[gruber]

Just saw a interview with him and after being asked several questions he just stood there with his head going like a booble-head and he didnt even utter a word, could it be possible abbot has finally learnt to shut his mouth instead of opening it to spew something out

[Logic]

I think the head bobbing was suppressed rage and the silence was him trying not to snot the reporter in the nose.

I'm not an Abbott fan but I will defend him on this one....out of context alright....

[riddlemethis]

I'm sorry but I have vehemently disagree here.

Dead soldiers in a war is the very antithesis of random.

And making logistical stuff ups, like not employing available firepower in a situation which knowingly warranted it should never be written off as 'shit happens' because the end result can easily be someones death.

Would you accept shit happens if it were your child dead? I know I fucking well wouldn't. I doubt Abbott would either.

I think we are generally desensitised to flippant sayings like this being bandied around that we'll now accept their (mis)use in completely inappropriate situations & by people who ought to know better given their aspirations to run the country we live in. Shit happens has very heavy connotations of 'nothin you can do so get over it'. Thats only true here if you accept we should be in Afghanistan at all & even then! If this young mans death occurred in part b/c of a logistical mistake then I don't care for Abbotts empathising with those responsible. He should have held his counsel & asked some serious fucking questions through the appropriate channels.

That soldiers may speak like this is understandable - it's psychological defence mechanism against knowing you could easily be next. They put emotional distance between themselves and reality and it's made more necessary by the fact that if a mate is killed because someone made a stupid fucking mistake, you can't ask questions (that's the nature of the military). But Abbott was being a poser (firing guns, asking to go on patrol) & demonstrated the extent to which he is flippant about the gravity of having our troupes over there, especially compared to whether our interests are actually being served.

McKinneys father was offended by Abbotts conduct & choice of words & that to me speaks volumes above most of the analysis I've seen so far. I simply can't believe that we've all become so blaze about having soldiers deployed in war zones & so disconnected from what our turns of phrase actually mean.

/rant /phew!

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney was shot dead in a battle with Taliban insurgents in August.

Channel Seven has broadcast footage of Mr Abbott in October discussing the incident with US commander James Creighton.

Mr Abbott, in Tarin Kowt, is seen saying: "It's pretty obvious that, well, sometimes shit happens, doesn't it?"

The Liberal Leader has defended his comments today.

"Look, you've taken this out of context," he told Channel Seven.

"You weren't there. I would never seek to make light of the death of an Australian soldier."

Mr Abbott then went on to accuse the network of "trying to turn this into a subsequent media circus".

When asked how that was occurring and why his comments had been taken out of context, the Opposition Leader refused to answer for more than 20 seconds.You know, I agree with all the highlighted bits.

[Annie]

I'm sorry but I have vehemently disagree here.

Dead soldiers in a war is the very antithesis of random.

And making logistical stuff ups, like not employing available firepower in a situation which knowingly warranted it should never be written off as 'shit happens' because the end result can easily be someones death.

Would you accept shit happens if it were your child dead? I know I fucking well wouldn't. I doubt Abbott would either.

I think we are generally desensitised to flippant sayings like this being bandied around that we'll now accept their (mis)use in completely inappropriate situations & by people who ought to know better given their aspirations to run the country we live in. Shit happens has very heavy connotations of 'nothin you can do so get over it'. Thats only true here if you accept we should be in Afghanistan at all & even then! If this young mans death occurred in part b/c of a logistical mistake then I don't care for Abbotts empathising with those responsible. He should have held his counsel & asked some serious fucking questions through the appropriate channels.

That soldiers may speak like this is understandable - it's psychological defence mechanism against knowing you could easily be next. They put emotional distance between themselves and reality and it's made more necessary by the fact that if a mate is killed because someone made a stupid fucking mistake, you can't ask questions (that's the nature of the military). But Abbott was being a poser (firing guns, asking to go on patrol) & demonstrated the extent to which he is flippant about the gravity of having our troupes over there, especially compared to whether our interests are actually being served.

McKinneys father was offended by Abbotts conduct & choice of words & that to me speaks volumes above most of the analysis I've seen so far. I simply can't believe that we've all become so blaze about having soldiers deployed in war zones & so disconnected from what our turns of phrase actually mean.

/rant /phew!
+1 RMT. You saved me the trouble of ranting as well. :)

[bobalot]

It was ambush journalism, but I don't have much sympathy for Tony. If it were the PM or another Labor politician he would be either:


attacking them
making snide remarks that are actually attacks but can be plausibly denied

Julia Gillard has been copping this type of piss poor journalism for months.

[BlueDevil]

McKinneys father was offended by Abbotts conduct & choice of words & that to me speaks volumes above most of the analysis I've seen so far. I simply can't believe that we've all become so blaze about having soldiers deployed in war zones & so disconnected from what our turns of phrase actually mean.


If the media report I heard is true the father hadn't actually seen the footage when he commented on Abbott. In the news tonight it was said that his widow had not taken any offence to the comment.

If it was me in that position I would be directing my anger at Ch 7 for turning a simple comment into a circus (as Abbott said). Absolute gutter journalism.

[DanDare]

Just prior to Abbott's comments the 'commander' (or whatever rank he was) was explaining the unfortunate fact that they had a lot of fire power available that for some reason wasn't used ie there was a stuff up of some sort. Abbott's comment seemed more directed towards that issue than the death itself - ie I took the comment as meaning 'unfortunately sometimes people stuff up' and he seemed to be sympathizing with them about the error.

I guess it would be interesting to hear from the army men who were there as to how they perceived his comment. If they perceived nothing 'offensive' in his comment then end of story.

I am no fan of Abbott, but I am not convinced that he did anything wrong in this circumstance.
Actually, I think "shit happens" as a response to "we did this wrong" by Abbot is a bad thing. An appropriate response would be "have you documented what you did wrong and learnt the necessary lessons from it?".

[riddlemethis]

It wasn't gutter journalism at all. There has been a 3 1/2 month battle to get that footage after the LNP tried to have it all made unavailable because it depicted what a total tool Abbott is, playing weekend warrior in a real theatre of war. This little gem was found completely unexpectedly & Abbotts office was called 2.5 hrs in advance, told what was going to air & the meet with Mark Riley was arranged. If anything Abbott's response was deliberate, to try to paint himself as a victim rather than a freakin idiot. Abbott is one of the most media savvy pollies in the country - used to be Hewsons press sec ffs! - saying he wax caught off guard is bullshit.

He's a grandstanding knob, pure & simple, and this distraction about the quality of journalism is spin of a very effective nature apparently. Even Barry Cassidy has apparently forgotten that journalists aren't supposed to be politicians friends, they are supposed to communicate 'what happened' & ask questions about it. Which is what was done here.

Imagine for a second that our response to the suffering of Queenslanders was, 'yeah well, shit happens'. The implications of what Abbott said (not to mention his piss poor performance yesterday) are exactly the same as telling Queenslanders that.

[deesl4e]

'shit happens' is a colloquialism that means 'bad stuff happens in life for no reason'. No less appropriate term could or should be used in discussing matters about a theatre of war & the death of young soldiers who are fighting for...wait, why are they we there again? Were I the family of ANY soldier killed in Afghanistan or Iraq I'd be harbouring a deep desire to demonstrate the proper meaning of shit happens to Tony Abbott.

Coupled with Abbott filmed firing off some rounds from a machine gun & requesting to go out on patrol whilst on this same trip, we have the picture of a fuck-witted wanker cowboy, not fit to lead his party, let alone the country. Make no bones about it, this man is a complete tool & has made serious enemies during his days in Canberra, not least of all in his own party room.

I'm certain someone has done a number on him, bringing this to tge attention of a willing news outlet, but frankly, he deserves every fraction of said number. Whoever is behind this wanted to make sure he is dead, burried & cremated. Ding dong, the witch is dead!
+1,000,000 RMT
Abbot is with out doubt the biggest expletive of any kind to lead any political party in this country.
If Abbott can flippantly say shit happens then maybe he can give us an answer as to why our armed forces are there in the first place.
And the same goes for crocodile tears Gillard. Why in the fuck are we still there ?
Wonder who loaded the gun on this. Turbull ?

[riddlemethis]

The other thing that I'm shocked no-one is really looking at - this is Tony Abbott without his spin Drs putting words in his mouth. We're always bemoaning that we never get to see our pollies without the spin, and then when we do the reaction is 'Aww, thats just gutter journalism'. It reminds me of that terrible movie with Jack Nicholson - 'truth? You can't handle the truth!'

I for one would like to see far more of this stuff - it might keep the bastards honest & focussed on the fact they chose to be public servants & that makes them responsible to us, not the other way around.

[Fearless]

This has divided opinion everywhere. Sadly to the family's expense which is the sore point, but in any bloody context his words were not appropriate.

To be honest seeing the footage over and over now he clearly had NFI what to say to the troops. Maybe something like "hopefully we can learn from these situations to prevent it happening again' etc. 'shit happens' just excuses and downplays everything. It would have been almost better not to have said anything at all as he did to the reporter, saving himself shoving both feet in his mouth.

But that's Tony isn't it? Not far off old Dubya for speaking before his brain has caught up.

[riddlemethis]

Oh I would put money on Turnbull being behind this deesl4e! Revenge is a dish best served cold & he owes Tony big time. Especially when you consider they'd probably have romped in the election with Turnbull at the helm. Turnbull at least is a real liberal, not a right-wing conservative religious power monster like Abbott. The LNP would be a VERY different kettle of fish with him at the helm, (as long as they took his lead on policy too.)

[riddlemethis]

LOL Fearless, he IS our Dubya, quite right.

[cyclist]

@RMT, I agree with you saying "shit happens" means that it is a random event, it's like a calling it a traffic collision vs traffic accident, accident implies that no one is a fault.

At the end of the day, it is someones fault that this young man died. Whether it is his own fault for not following a particular procedure, or Howard's for sending the Australian troops to Afghanistan.

James

[Lord Blackadder]

Oh I would put money on Turnbull being behind this deesl4e! Revenge is a dish best served cold & he owes Tony big time. Especially when you consider they'd probably have romped in the election with Turnbull at the helm. Turnbull at least is a real liberal, not a right-wing conservative religious power monster like Abbott. The LNP would be a VERY different kettle of fish with him at the helm, (as long as they took his lead on policy too.)

I like Turnbull. I would like even more to see him dance on Abbot's political grave singing, "Hallalujah!"

[bobalot]

The footage shows that soldiers were telling him they were outfitted well, and sometimes despite all that, soldiers die.

A few days later, he came back, ignored what they all said and started having a go at the government for not outfitting our soldiers properly.

It turns out Tony went to Afghanistan to score political cheapshots rather than actually listen to what soldiers were telling him.

This bloke is truly a grub.

[Fearless]

Bobalot, I thought that they were commenting on an operation where they did not have enough support and equipment when it was actually readily available.

I believe they alluded to the point that they had all this equipment but hadn't utilised it which may have reduced risk and prevented loss of life.

"Sometimes shit happens" wouldn't have been the best way to summarise these points.

[bobalot]

Bobalot, I thought that they were commenting on an operation where they did not have enough support and equipment when it was actually readily available.

I believe they alluded to the point that they had all this equipment but hadn't utilised it which may have reduced risk and prevented loss of life.

"Sometimes shit happens" wouldn't have been the best way to summarise these points.
That maybe true, but my point still stands. Even after Generals in the military contradicted Abbott, he continued to make up BS so he could attack the government.

So much for "listening to the men on the ground".

[Fearless]

Agree with the point you were making.

[bobalot]

Agree with the point you were making.
Sorry mate, I misinterpreted. My mistake.

[robertkd]

If the media report I heard is true the father hadn't actually seen the footage when he commented on Abbott. In the news tonight it was said that his widow had not taken any offence to the comment.

If it was me in that position I would be directing my anger at Ch 7 for turning a simple comment into a circus (as Abbott said). Absolute gutter journalism.

+ 1, agree I don't like Abbott personally but this statement seems to have been taken out of context.

[Sieveboy]

I'm sorry but I have vehemently disagree here.

Dead soldiers in a war is the very antithesis of random.

And making logistical stuff ups, like not employing available firepower in a situation which knowingly warranted it should never be written off as 'shit happens' because the end result can easily be someones death.

Would you accept shit happens if it were your child dead? I know I fucking well wouldn't. I doubt Abbott would either.

I think we are generally desensitised to flippant sayings like this being bandied around that we'll now accept their (mis)use in completely inappropriate situations & by people who ought to know better given their aspirations to run the country we live in. Shit happens has very heavy connotations of 'nothin you can do so get over it'. Thats only true here if you accept we should be in Afghanistan at all & even then! If this young mans death occurred in part b/c of a logistical mistake then I don't care for Abbotts empathising with those responsible. He should have held his counsel & asked some serious fucking questions through the appropriate channels.

That soldiers may speak like this is understandable - it's psychological defence mechanism against knowing you could easily be next. They put emotional distance between themselves and reality and it's made more necessary by the fact that if a mate is killed because someone made a stupid fucking mistake, you can't ask questions (that's the nature of the military). But Abbott was being a poser (firing guns, asking to go on patrol) & demonstrated the extent to which he is flippant about the gravity of having our troupes over there, especially compared to whether our interests are actually being served.

McKinneys father was offended by Abbotts conduct & choice of words & that to me speaks volumes above most of the analysis I've seen so far. I simply can't believe that we've all become so blaze about having soldiers deployed in war zones & so disconnected from what our turns of phrase actually mean.

/rant /phew!

RMT you have captured the essence of the situation.

Context or not, Abbott to my mind has not and will never be suitable material to lead this country. Whilst I loathe the way the journalist got the reaction from Abbott, what we saw was the real Abbott, a poser, a wanker, a flippant arsehole and ultimately a liberal media product that is barely contained by his minders.

More than a few comments on the various articles on the SMH website thanked Abbott for being a great labor supporter. Will the liberals dump him or are the right wing nut jobs too blinded to see the soft lefties of Hockey and Turnbull can beat labor? Watch this space.

[BlueDevil]

I agree with much of what is in this article:
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/defence-group-defends-abbotts-comments-20110208-1alhf.html

It is particularly worth noting:

The defence association's executive director, Neil James, says no digger or their family would think the opposition leader's comments insensitive "once they know the context".
"They're discussing the skirmish ... and Tony Abbott makes his comment 'Sometimes shit happens' and John Cantwell says straight away 'It certainly does'," Mr James told AAP.
"They're discussing the fact that in war tragedies sometimes occur."
Lance Corporal MacKinney's widow later thanked Mr Abbott for calling her to discuss the issue.
"Tony and I spoke at length and I fully accept that he was quoted out of context in the television news," Ms MacKinney said in a statement.
"As far as we, Jared's family, are concerned there is no issue, the matter is over, and we will be making no further comment."
and: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/top-stories/defence-minister-stephen-smith-defends-tony-abbott-over-afghan-comment/story-e6frg12l-1226002771982

DEFENCE Minister Stephen Smith has offered support for Tony Abbott over his "shit happens" remark on the death of an Australian soldier in Afghanistan. As the Seven Network comes under growing criticism over its story on the remark, made during Mr Abbott's visit to the troops last year, Mr Smith said he believed Mr Abbott had not intended to cause offence.
“I share the view that I don't believe that Tony Abbott would say anything that was flippant or insulting or critical about an Australian soldier, an Australian soldier's death or our contribution in Afghanistan. I share that view,” Mr Smith told Sky News.
So defence personnel have no problem with Abbott's comment. The widow herself says the family have no issue with it. Even his political opponents are supporting him.

I maintain my view that this is a beatup by Ch 7 which has backfired on them. I don't place great credence in online news polls but those I have seen all favour Abbott.

As I have said before I am not an Abbott supporter, far from it. But in regards to this issue I feel it unfair to let personal views taint the issue. I am confining my views strictly to the comment itself. Sure he looks like a dick firing machine guns, and his long silence response was quite bizarre. But this is all irrelevant to what his intention was when he said the 'shit happens' comment. I have no doubt that he did not intend offence, and none was taken by anyone other than the dickhead Ch 7 reporter.

Gutter journalism.

[Fromm_Nicht]

Whilst I loathe the way the journalist got the reaction from Abbott, what we saw was the real Abbott, a poser, a wanker, a flippant arsehole and ultimately a liberal media product that is barely contained by his minders.

What I'd like to see is for journalists to go hard after Abbott on how he reconciles his "charitable christian values" with a proposal ro cut foreign aid. Push him hard enough on this and I think we may see him stuff up big time.

[Fearless]

I have no doubt that he did not intend offence, and none was taken by anyone other than the dickhead Ch 7 reporter.

Gutter journalism.
I doubt that particular journalist fought for months to get the said footage so it was obviously bigger than the one journo... so who exactly do you think might have tipped Ch7 off about it enough for them to chase it? I'm curious... a disgruntled lib media person? or an unimpressed troop at the scene? I haven't heard how out of tonnes of footage this one was tagged.

The journo didn't appear to me to be offended. bewildered maybe.

I think there is a bit of fudging going on now about actual context, but everyone is going to have their opinions right or wrong.

At the end of the day Tony just demonstrated his flaws yet again. More emotional charge to this issue though.

[Fromm_Nicht]

I have no doubt that he did not intend offence, and none was taken by anyone other than the dickhead Ch 7 reporter.

You aren't paying attention to what is being said in this thread. The issue was not about whether anyone was offended, it is about the conflation of wartime casualty with random chance. I don't care if the soldiers bloody agree with him...they are soldiers, they kill people and detaching themselves from reality a little is what they do to reconcile themselves with that. That is fine. The problem is that the man who wants to be in charge seems to be detached from reality, without his support and the support of others like him there would be no war. I have already said this in this thread, no matter the context, this shit would not have happened without the support of Tony Abbott. Were it his will he is in a very good position to end Australia's part in this war. Shit doesn't just happen in war, someone is ALWAYS responsible.

[BlueDevil]

You aren't paying attention to what is being said in this thread. The issue was not about whether anyone was offended, it is about the conflation of wartime casualty with random chance. I don't care if the soldiers bloody agree with him...they are soldiers, they kill people and detaching themselves from reality a little is what they do to reconcile themselves with that. That is fine. The problem is that the man who wants to be in charge seems to be detached from reality, without his support and the support of others like him there would be no war. I have already said this in this thread, no matter the context, this shit would not have happened without the support of Tony Abbott. Were it his will he is in a very good position to end Australia's part in this war. Shit doesn't just happen in war, someone is ALWAYS responsible.

Actually what I am doing is seperating out the single issue of the 'shit happens' comment from all other issues. This was the focus of the Ch 7 report. I would have to watch it again but I don't recall them covering other issues such as who was responsible for the war etc.

I am defending Abbott only on the issue of the comment he made. Who is responsible for the war etc is another issue entirely.

Like many others here I think he is a dickhead and I would not want him as the leader of our country. So I have no problem with those who want to sink the boot in over other 'Abbott issues'. But in regard to the 'shit happens' comment I believe he has done no wrong. The fact that he is an idiot in general does mean he was wrong over this one specific issue.

[Fromm_Nicht]

Actually what I am doing is seperating out the single issue of the 'shit happens' comment from all other issues. This was the focus of the Ch 7 report. I would have to watch it again but I don't recall them covering other issues such as who was responsible for the war etc.

I am defending Abbott only on the issue of the comment he made. Who is responsible for the war etc is another issue entirely.

Like many others here I think he is a dickhead and I would not want him as the leader of our country. So I have no problem with those who want to sink the boot in over other 'Abbott issues'. But in regard to the 'shit happens' comment I believe he has done no wrong. The fact that he is an idiot in general does mean he was wrong over this one specific issue.

Regardless of whether or not the media has covered the aspect of responsibility it is a facet that must be included in the context of the debate. Whether or not he has done anything wrong doesn't necessarily depend only on whether those present were offended but also of the far reaching implications of what he said. Those implications being, whether accidental or intentional, that catastrophe in war is unavoidable because shit happens. The fact is the situation was avoidable, through better management on the part of military logistic officers or through the withdrawal of troops from the area.

[Toll]

In a paddock somewhere a cow pattie is thinking........Abbott Happens!

[slim]

I still don't think the "shit happens" remark deserves the level of angst that it's generated. Whilst it's true that Abbott could have asked some harder questions on the subject of the soldiers death - the footage doesn't indicate that the colonel & Abbott were in an appropriate forum for engaging in such a q'n'a session.

Put in the same situation, I would have come up with an equally glib & weaksauce response to the statement by the colonel. To me, it's looks as though Abbott had nothing constructive to say, but thought that the situation warranted a response - he chose the soft option of agreeing with the military man at the time, and came up with a fairly neutral response. Whilst it was a poor choice of words, it was hardly worth getting into a huff over when put along side Abbott's (and the party's) general quality of policy and overall dishonesty and belligerence. It looks like he's one of those politicians who has a position on nothing, and has no policy ambition - all you hear about are refugees and tax. This is what I feel he should be hammered on, not on his lousy ability to communicate.

On a different note, I don't see how the "ambush" in question can be regarded as gutter journalism. Abbott had several weeks to prepare some sort of response for the question he knew was coming, the fact he had 2.5 hours to consider a response ON THE DAY just further highlights his level of (in?)competence.
Further to this, I do think that politicians should be expected to provide a considered response when queried about their statements and positions. They must be able to justify statements and positions made in public at all times. Abbott failed (and continues to fail) miserably on this count, and deserves every little bit of shit that comes his way. This guy has had a free ride in the mainstream/popular media for the last two years, it's about time he was held under the microscope to the same degree as his opponents.

[Peter A]

You can tell that he's religious, he pulled out the "out of context" card pretty quickly.

Yes, this is one of their favourite strategies for getting themselves out of a sticky situation. What's really interesting about this particular incident is not so much the comment itself, but his inability to respond to the reporter who asked him about the context. The stupid look on his face, coupled with the silence, was evidence enough that he acknowledged, at least on a sub-conscious level, that what he had said was inappropriate.

However, the worst thing about this whole incident was the manner in which the reporter who asked him to explain the context within which this quote appeared (can't remember his name at the moment) was attacked for simply doing his job, for simply having the audacity to question an authority figure. Isn't this the sort of thing that happened often enough during the time when the Catholic Church was questioned at one's own peril? Haven't we moved on since those dark times?

I guess we haven't.

[riddlemethis]

Actually what I am doing is seperating out the single issue of the 'shit happens' comment from all other issues. This was the focus of the Ch 7 report. I would have to watch it again but I don't recall them covering other issues such as who was responsible for the war etc.

I am defending Abbott only on the issue of the comment he made. Who is responsible for the war etc is another issue entirely.

Like many others here I think he is a dickhead and I would not want him as the leader of our country. So I have no problem with those who want to sink the boot in over other 'Abbott issues'. But in regard to the 'shit happens' comment I believe he has done no wrong. The fact that he is an idiot in general does mean he was wrong over this one specific issue.

Are you deliberately talking around the point here? The term 'shit happens' is laden with meaning & nuance that is completely inappropriate in those circumstances. It's used most often as a sarcastic aside in order to tell people they need to 'suck up' something for which they themselves are responsible. Or it's used as an admission that life can be randomly tragic. Either way it's totally wrong to use in anything but the most ironic way when talking about the events of war, where at least people would know you were meaning that indeed in this case shit did not just happen.

Let's back it up a step & say Abbott was trying to make the case to invade Afghanistan & when we protested 'but young Australian soldiers will die & for what' and he responded 'yeah well shit happens...', I'd think you'd be fucking outraged at the flippancy & rightly so.

That he used it here in a socially awkward situation for want of something weighty to say is no excuse. Just like the old saying, it's better to be presumed a fool than open your mouth and prove you are.

The point of all this is it demonstrates that the man is an intellectual midget, so far removed from what we'd describe as statesman-like, as to be, well, laughable. Unless it's scripted he simply can barely string a cogent thought together, let alone understand the necessity for gravitas, especially when you KNOW there are cameras on you. In short he showed on that trip that he's a bogan dickhead, who's about as deep as the average puddle.

The comment & it's context is inextricably linked to everything that's been raised here. This wasn't a bunch of mates talking shit down the pub, where I'd not give a shit about their comprehension of colloquial English, it was the man who played a role in sending those he was talking to potentially to a premature death.

[BlueDevil]

Are you deliberately talking around the point here? The term 'shit happens' is laden with meaning & nuance that is completely inappropriate in those circumstances. It's used most often as a sarcastic aside in order to tell people they need to 'suck up' something for which they themselves are responsible. Or it's used as an admission that life can be randomly tragic. Either way it's totally wrong to use in anything but the most ironic way when talking about the events of war, where at least people would know you were meaning that indeed in this case shit did not just happen.

The people he was talking to obviously didn't find the term inappropriate, and they in fact agreed with him. It seems his intended meaning of the term 'shit happens' along with his tone of voice was understood by those he was conversing with and perceived by them as he intended it.

Let's back it up a step & say Abbott was trying to make the case to invade Afghanistan & when we protested 'but young Australian soldiers will die & for what' and he responded 'yeah well shit happens...', I'd think you'd be fucking outraged at the flippancy & rightly so. This is a completely different and hypothetical situation. I will stick with the actual even that occurred.


The comment & it's context is inextricably linked to everything that's been raised here. This wasn't a bunch of mates talking shit down the pub, where I'd not give a shit about their comprehension of colloquial English, it was the man who played a role in sending those he was talking to potentially to a premature death.The context was of Abbott talking with soldiers in Afghanistan. They were talking about a specific incident and Abbott made a comment specifically related to that incident. It is that particular cinversation which I am addressing

[riddlemethis]

They were talking about a specific incident where someone died & how a stuff up in logistics management might have contributed to that & you're comfortable that a group of people who wield much responsibility in such matters will write that off as 'shit happens'! Holy crap!

Tony Abbott was screaching for Peter Garretts head on a bloody plate over alleged mismanagement of the insulation scheme - didn't personally take enough responsibilty for who got employed or some such bullshit - and he did so because people died. 'oh the humanity' he cried! Well guess what, shit happens! Can you imagine!?

But when highly trained people who pride themselves on their precision & planning in their job, don't live up to their standards & someone gets killed, we can write that off as a 'shit happens' boo-boo?

In that case, of course they 'agreed' with him because it's their asses on the line if we acknowledge their fuck ups.

Or conversely they are towing the traditional military line of never openly involving themselves in politics, even when privately they actually think a politician (or all of them generally!) is a fuck knuckle.

Like I said, this wasn't mates shooting the shit down the pub. It was important people talking about important matters where 'shit happens' just doesn't cut it as an explanation for anything, no matter how conscience assuaging. Abbott (& apparently much of the rest of the country too) need to dig a bit deeper into their vocabulary toolbox (not to mention their emotional intelligence one) & start saying what they actually mean, rather than throwing around platitudes & pretending they're being philosophical.

Maybe I just appreciate the power of language too much to not be smacked between the eyes with the blatant stupidity of what this man said under the circumstances & his subsequent defence of being a semi-literate buffoon.

[Logic]

In a paddock somewhere a cow pattie is thinking........Abbott Happens!

ha!! :D

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

They were talking about a specific incident where someone died & how a stuff up in logistics management might have contributed to that & you're comfortable that a group of people who wield much responsibility in such matters will write that off as 'shit happens'! Holy crap!Well what would you have done if you were in his position?

Tony Abbott was screaching for Peter Garretts head on a bloody plate over alleged mismanagement of the insulation scheme - didn't personally take enough responsibilty for who got employed or some such bullshit - and he did so because people died. 'oh the humanity' he cried! Well guess what, shit happens! Can you imagine!?Absolutely nothing to do with the situation. What BlueDevil was referring to (he can correct me if I am wrong) was one particular situation, and how media made a big deal over a silly little comment.

But when highly trained people who pride themselves on their precision & planning in their job, don't live up to their standards & someone gets killed, we can write that off as a 'shit happens' boo-boo?

In that case, of course they 'agreed' with him because it's their asses on the line if we acknowledge their fuck ups.

Or conversely they are towing the traditional military line of never openly involving themselves in politics, even when privately they actually think a politician (or all of them generally!) is a fuck knuckle.I don't think it was being "written off" and it has nothing to do with the situation at hand. Just because someone says "shit happens" doesn't necessarily mean that they are ignoring it. Of course, one is not to ignore that possibility.

Like I said, this wasn't mates shooting the shit down the pub. It was important people talking about important matters where 'shit happens' just doesn't cut it as an explanation for anything, no matter how conscience assuaging. Abbott (& apparently much of the rest of the country too) need to dig a bit deeper into their vocabulary toolbox (not to mention their emotional intelligence one) & start saying what they actually mean, rather than throwing around platitudes & pretending they're being philosophical.

Maybe I just appreciate the power of language too much to not be smacked between the eyes with the blatant stupidity of what this man said under the circumstances & his subsequent defence of being a semi-literate buffoon.So how about "excrement occurs" or "metaphorically speaking fecal material propagates" instead of "shit happens" then?

[bobalot]

It turns out that Tony had two hours advanced warning of the question. It has hardly ambush journalism. It was a stupid question, but not an "ambush".

It appears Tony couldn't answer a easily answerable question even with plenty of forewarning.

[riddlemethis]

Frankly Croc, I've already covered that; I'd use appropriate language that was befitting of my role as leader of a major political party & a prime ministerial 'wannabe'.

In the consideration of a persons fitness for high office it's important to establish who people are. Problem for Abbott is this instance is not an isolated one. During the same trip he was filmed playing with guns like a weekend warrior & actually asked if he could go out on live patrol with no apparent regard for the heightened danger this would represent for the soldiers. He's a gigantic wanker.

That everyone is so immune to our language that deliberate turns of phrase have lost their actual meaning isn't my problem & your piss-taking at the end of the above post demonstrates a lack of understanding of the standards its possible to attain with the English language.

[BlueDevil]

I started writing a response then went off to have dinner. It seems while I was eating Croc was posting in a similar vein to my own. Nevertheless I will go ahead and post what I had already written:

They were talking about a specific incident where someone died & how a stuff up in logistics management might have contributed to that & you're comfortable that a group of people who wield much responsibility in such matters will write that off as 'shit happens'! Holy crap!

A misrepresentation of my position.


Tony Abbott was screaching for Peter Garretts head on a bloody plate over alleged mismanagement of the insulation scheme - didn't personally take enough responsibilty for who got employed or some such bullshit - and he did so because people died. 'oh the humanity' he cried! Well guess what, shit happens! Can you imagine!?
Not an equivalent comparison.


But when highly trained people who pride themselves on their precision & planning in their job, don't live up to their standards & someone gets killed, we can write that off as a 'shit happens' boo-boo? One trait that all humans share is that we make mistakes. Every one of us. Repeatedly. Some mistakes are minor. Some mistakes are extremely serious, but the serious consequences don’t stop them from occurring. To expect that mistakes won’t occur is completely unrealistic.

I very much doubt that this incident would have been written off. I would presume it would be investigated and steps taken to try to prevent a reoccurrence. (In fact it seems that the military were giving Abbott a run down on what went wrong)


Like I said, this wasn't mates shooting the shit down the pub. It was important people talking about important matters where 'shit happens' just doesn't cut it as an explanation for anything Given that we saw such a small grab of what could have been a lengthy conversation why do you presume that ‘shit happens’ was being used as an ‘explanation’. It sounded more like a commiseration to me.

[BlueDevil]

In the consideration of a persons fitness for high office it's important to establish who people are. Problem for Abbott is this instance is not an isolated one. During the same trip he was filmed playing with guns like a weekend warrior & actually asked if he could go out on live patrol with no apparent regard for the heightened danger this would represent for the soldiers. He's a gigantic wanker.


Agreed. He is a gigantic wanker. Let's hope he never becomes PM.

[riddlemethis]

The problem is BD, shit happens is not a commiseration, it's slang terminology that is aligned with 'meh, whaddaya gonna do', 'can't be helped, get over it, move on'. And that's the crux of my point, he's such an f-wit he's not even aware that this is a pithy throw away that has no place in his 'official' vocabulary.

[BlueDevil]

The problem is BD, shit happens is not a commiseration, it's slang terminology that is aligned with 'meh, whaddaya gonna do', 'can't be helped, get over it, move on'. And that's the crux of my point, he's such an f-wit he's not even aware that this is a pithy throw away that has no place in his 'official' vocabulary.

Take the example of the expression "tough luck" in two different scenarios below:

1. "Gee that was really tough luck that your friend was tragically killed last week". (said in a soft sympathetic fashion with open body language)

2. "Tough luck, bitch. Get over it"! (said in a harsh abrupt fashion with hands on hips).

Same words...very different usage.

I think you and I are interpreting the expression 'shit happens' in different ways. My perception is that Abbott meant it as a commiseration, and it was accepted that way by the military people he was with.

We will probably have to agree to disagree on this issue.

[riddlemethis]

Agree tough luck can be used either way but shit happens not so much, because even in sympthy it always implies 'don't blame yourself, it wasn't your fault' or 'there was nothing you could have done to prevent it' - except the soldiers were telling Abbott that there had been a failure of resource allocation in the operation where McKinney died. In and of itself that demonstrates more could have been done & mistake or incompetence, it requires a more grace response than 'shit happens'.

Recall that Abbott was there on a 'fact finding' mission after allegations that our troops weren't being adequately equipped. The soldier was explaining that they've got plenty of firepower/protection resources but IIRC they went in under resourced on that mission for some reason & McKinneys death was the result. Was this a tragic mistake? Sounds like it. Was it a case of shit happens (a random event that couldn't have been prevented & about which nothing could be done to prevent a repeat), not in my books.

But yes, agree to disagree is fine with me.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I wouldn't be too worried anyway riddlemethis - Crocodile will have an unlimited supply of fireworks prepared in the event Tony Abbott's IQ goes past eleven. I guess I can relax a little in this area.

[DanDare]

I'm with riddlemethis on this one. The first report I saw about it talked about the context and the stuff up that lead to the death. Abbots comment seemed to be saying "Oh well, stuff ups occur and you are absolved of any repercussions or need to follow up". That is a bad decision from a leader with the military at a time of war.

[Fromm_Nicht]

I'm with riddlemethis on this one. The first report I saw about it talked about the context and the stuff up that lead to the death. Abbots comment seemed to be saying "Oh well, stuff ups occur and you are absolved of any repercussions or need to follow up". That is a bad decision from a leader with the military at a time of war.

Exactly, whether Abbott was simply offering commiseration, trying to find common ground with the soldiers, or was simply too stupid to say anything else, it is about the implications of the words he used and therefore his assumed understanding of the situation. By applying the phrase "shit happens" he is either implying that the military should be absolved of the consequences of mismanagement or that he truly does not understand that the death was avoidable. This becomes further apparent in his response to being questioned, he did not explain that what he meant was that sometimes mistakes are made (even if he did mean this, he did not follow up with "shit needs to be figured out") so we can assume that Abbott has drawn an opinion that the death was completely unavoidable.

[Just another animal]

I think what abbot was meaning to say was 'God did it.' but wanting to appear to keep religion and official business separate he substituted it with the more secular phrase 'shit happens.'

[Sanity personified]

When Tony Abbott loses the next election, guess what I am going to say?

[Sieveboy]

When Tony Abbott loses the next election, guess what I am going to say?

Your going to crack out the tea bags like me:)?

[loubert]

if he lost the next election, if i had the money, i'd put up a billboard with his mug on it then with large letters......... shit happens

[Fromm_Nicht]

Your going to crack out the tea bags like me:)?

You're going to teabag Tony Abbott?:eek:

[deesl4e]

The thaught of Abbott even contesting the next election is just sickening. It doesn't matter what side of politics one is on the country needs a relevant and effectual opposition.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

When Tony Abbott loses the next election, guess what I am going to say?Occasionally biological byproducts in the form of fecal material initiates itself into a situation that occurs?

[wolty]

if he lost the next election, if i had the money, i'd put up a billboard with his mug on it then with large letters......... shit happens

Heh. Love to see that.

[wolty]

Back on topic for a sec, getting away from the wonderful dreams of shit happens Tony.

Two things I have thought of after watching the interview.

One. It almost seemed to me with the extended silence, he was trying to keep his anger in check.

Two. If a soldier says shit happens in that context, it is a resignation of bad stuff happens for no reason. They live with it everyday and are entitled to say whatever they want. If someone uninvolved says it, it demeans the whole situation.

[bobalot]

Tony Abbott had over two hours forewarning of the conversation. The fact that he couldn't think up a simple line like:
"I didn't mean anything offensive by it, I was saying in war sometimes nothing can be done to avoid causalities" speaks volumes. The bloke can't say anything past scripted rubbish like "STOP THE BOATS" and when he does do something unscripted, he makes a goose out of himself.

Standing there and looking like a psycho made it even worse. The people defending him are like the people who tried to defend Mark Latham's infamous handshake.

The bigger issue I think almost everybody has missed is that after being told in person that the troops were well equipped, he came back to Australia and used the death of a soldier to attack the government for not supplying the troops.

Even after the top brass told him otherwise, he said "He would prefer to listen to the troops on the ground" as if our army generals are fucking idiots. Bloody unbelievable.

[BlueDevil]

The bigger issue I think almost everybody has missed is that after being told in person that the troops were well equipped, he came back to Australia and used the death of a soldier to attack the government for not supplying the troops.

Even after the top brass told him otherwise, he said "He would prefer to listen to the troops on the ground" as if our army generals are fucking idiots. Bloody unbelievable.

Maybe Abbott was lstening to the fighting troops themselves:

A SOLDIER soon to be deployed to "the badlands in Afghanistan" says he has paid almost $5000 to replace army-issue gear he says is "guaranteed to fail in the field".
The 5RAR soldier is one of 100 being deployed to relieve Diggers from 6RAR in the region west of Tarin Kowt, where Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney was killed in the Battle of Derapet last month.
The soldier, who asked to remain anonymous, told The Advertiser that the battalion was undermanned and ill-equipped for the job.
"It's not that we're not up to the task - Australian soldiers are some of the best in the world - but we are going in undermanned and poorly equipped," he said.
"I've shelled out nearly $5000 of my own money to get the kit that will last me the whole trip."
His comments came at the end of a week of criticism of the army amid allegations Australia's soldiers are under-resourced in Afghanistan.

snip..


Among items bought by the soldier for his tour of duty are extra boots and a Sord rig - which is an ammunition and equipment vest "almost all Australians in Afghanistan purchase because the army-issue vests fall apart".
He said even spare army dog tags, used to identify soldiers killed in action, must be bought by soldiers at $30 a set.
The soldier said army officials would argue that buying a Garmin 401 wrist GPS for $320 was a luxury but he begged to differ.
"We use GPS to call in mortar attacks and support," he said. "It could prove life-saving equipment."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/afghanistan-bound-soldier-pays-5000-to-replace-dodgy-army-kit/story-e6freuzr-1225929132116

Also:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/robot-shortage-puts-soldiers-at-bomb-risk/story-e6freuzr-1225890528024

http://www.smh.com.au/world/soldiers-told-to-cut-outfits-that-could-kill-them-20100817-128in.html



I have no military knowledge, these are just some articles that I found in a few minutes of googling. I went hunting for the articles because I have heard these issues discussed on talkback radio a few times. I have heard family of soldiers saying they have to send over packages of clothing, sleeping bags and various other items.

[bobalot]

Wow, a unverified claim! I'm fucking impressed!

A anonymous unverified claim is clearly superior to:


troops on camera saying they are well equipped
our own top brass saying so. Men and women who have had decades of experience in the military...what the fuck do they know?

Who needs the obvious when we have The Daily Telegraph.

[bobalot]

Your SMH article clearly states:
On June 1, he told a Senate estimates hearing: ''The vast majority of troops acknowledged that they were among the best-equipped troops in the theatre. The inference is that, because we have some issues with pouches at the present time, we have let our soldiers down. I do not accept that.''The entire article is about some pouches they were having troubles with and the army is already responding to this very issue.
Defence said it is developing new pouches in response to complaints and they should be issued by the end of the year.The army has a mechanism where if there were issues with some equipment, the soldiers pass on their concerns and the army responds....

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/6435/stoptheinternets.jpg
THE GOVERNMENT IS FAILING OUR TROOPS!
http://img593.imageshack.us/i/stoptheinternets.jpg/http://img593.imageshack.us/i/stoptheinternets.jpg

[Sieveboy]

Ok, as calmly as possible:

1: Abbott is a tool.
2: See no 1.
3: Abbott will use anything in his lust for power.
4: He needs media helpers (AFAIK his quit a week before the interview)
5: Yes the journalist was some what ugly in his methods.
6: Refer to rule 1.
7: When confronted with his poor choice of language, showing little articulate leadership, he froze and lost more credibility in the eyes of the True Blue Believers.
8: Will Turnbull return the knife to Abbott, in the back?

[BlueDevil]

Sorry, forgive me for being cynical. When bosses say all is well in an organization, and the workers say it is not I have a tendency to listen to what those at the coal face say. (Possibly the truth may lie somewhere in between)

On the film clip they were referring to one very specific incident and the firepower that was available at the time (but not used). This doesn't exclude the possibility that troops have deficiencies in basic equipment, nor does it mean that in all fire fight situations that they will have a full complememt of fire power available.

As i said before I have no first hand knowledge of any military issues, it is definitely not an area I have any expertise in. However I have heard the basic equipment issue raised a number of times. Maybe the troops are just whingeing, but I doubt it.

I really can't believe I am defending Abbott! As I have said previously I hope he never becomes our leader, and I seriously doubt he ever will. But in this one very specific incident I do not believe he has done anything wrong.

[bobalot]

Sorry, forgive me for being cynical. When bosses say all is well in an organization, and the workers say it is not I have a tendency to listen to what those at the coal face say. (Possibly the truth may lie somewhere in between)
That wasn't being cynical, that was supporting a viewpoint without a shred of evidence. Something altogether different.

You don't actually have a single shred of solid evidence what Tony Abbott said is actually true and large amounts of evidence that it isn't.

[BlueDevil]

That wasn't being cynical, that was supporting a viewpoint without a shred of evidence. Something altogether different.

You don't actually have a single shred of solid evidence what Tony Abbott said is actually true and large amounts of evidence that it isn't.

And your evidence is?

[bobalot]

And your evidence is?
I posted it before.

The troops themselves on camera saying it's fine and evidence presented by top brass in a senate inquiry. The fact the the concerns about the pouches were already being responded to? Did you actually read the articles you posted?

I would say that's better evidence that a politician who admits that he lies and has been caught out lying on numerous occasions.

[BlueDevil]

I posted it before.

The troops themselves on camera saying it's fine and evidence presented by top brass in a senate inquiry.

So one person talking about one specific incident and one specific form of equipment in a 10 sec film clip is evidence that there is no widespread problem?

Since this is not a topic that I have any particular interest in I am unaware of who said what in any senate enquiry. But I am sure if the 'top brass' said it then it must be true. :rolleyes:

Are you suggesting that if you wanted to know how 'healthy' any organization was (whether it be government, private, commercial, whatever) the only person you would listen to is the person with a vested interest and being paid big bucks to run the organization? Personally I would be talking to the workers first up.


The fact the the concerns about the pouches were already being responded to? Did you actually read the articles you posted?

Did I read it? More to the point did you read it! Maybe you missed this bit:
Army headquarters has ordered soldiers to use scissors to modify these pouches to eliminate a potentially dangerous defect.

If the issue is being responded to then clearly that is an admission that there must have been a problem in the first place.

Not sure how much longer I want to devote to this thread when there are plently of more interesting topics on the forum.

[bobalot]

So one person talking about one specific incident and one specific form of equipment in a 10 sec film clip is evidence that there is no widespread problem?
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A WIDE SPREAD PROBLEM.

The burden is on YOU to prove this. The word of Tony Abbott and unverified reports does not meet the burden of proof.

Please feel free to explain what government policies regarding procurement of supplies for troops in Afghanistan are different under Labor than the under the Coalition. After that, please feel free to explain (with evidence) these policies fail our troops in Afghanistan.

All that would prove Tony Abbott's claim that Labor's management of the war in Afghanistan are failing our troops in terms of supplies and equipment.

Since this is not a topic that I have any particular interest in I am unaware of who said what in any senate enquiry. But I am sure if the 'top brass' said it then it must be true. :rolleyes:
As opposed to a wide spread conspiracy in the military to cover up massive shortages of equipment which coincidentally doesn't have a shred of evidence? Yeah of course, why should I trust military men who are acutely aware their troop's lives depend on them when I could speculate on conspiracy theories?

Are you suggesting that if you wanted to know how 'healthy' any organization was (whether it be government, private, commercial, whatever) the only person you would listen to is the person with a vested interest and being paid big bucks to run the organization? Personally I would be talking to the workers first up.
There are no widespread reports of complaints other that some unsubstituted bullshit from Tony Abbott. I guess you missed that.

If the issue is being responded to then clearly that is an admission that there must have been a problem in the first place.
Nice strawman. Nobody claimed that there were no problems. Tony Abbott made the claim that the government was failing the troops. Having a system in place to deal with issues as they arise is not a failure of the troops.

Your argument is an epic failure though.

Not sure how much longer I want to devote to this thread when there are plently of more interesting topics on the forum.
After numerous posts you haven't provided a shred single of evidence for your claims other than unsubstantiated speculation. So your posts here are not exactly adding much to this thread.

[Mister Pervert]

I heard about this on the radio this morning. I agree with his sentiments, that "shit happens", however, it is inappropriate for someone in his position to say something like that. There are better ways that he could have expressed this without using those particular terms

You can tell that he's religious, he pulled out the "out of context" card pretty quickly.

James

The inappropriateness comes from the transcendental nature of a microphone that is hardwired to gather recordings, from a distance, that weren't intended to be heard by anybody but those for which those words were spoken. Much as I think Abbott is an idiot, his "shit happens" comment totally aligns with anything I might have whispered, in the same circumstances.

If you want "EMPATHY", see Julia Gulia, crying like that spastic Bob Hawke, in parliament the other day.

Your friend,

Mr P

[Darwinsbulldog]

I have nothing to add to the general consensus that Abbot is a twit. ;)

[Centauri]

I have nothing to add to the general consensus that Abbot is a twit. ;)
I have always considered Abbot a twat rather than twit. But he wears both titles well.

[Darwinsbulldog]

I have always considered Abbot a twat rather than twit. But he wears both titles well.

A twa-it-taa-woo perhaps? :p

[BlueDevil]

Hi bobalot,

correct me if I am wrong but I thought it was you that first raised this particular side issue? When I asked you for evidence to support your claims you referred to a 10 sec video clip and an unsupported comment about what the top brass had said (your comment may be 100% correct but you didn't cite any evidence)

At least I made an attempt to provide some evidence by citing three articles (I am sure there would be more with a bit more googling). I also mentioned that I had heard discussions of troops being poorly equipped in terms of clothing, sleeping bags etc, and families of the soldiers were on radio talking about having to send over parcels of basic items. I obviously can't find transcripts for those radio discussions that occurred months ago so you can either choose to believe me or not. Whether you regard the articles I linked to as evidence or not is your issue. I am not saying that the media are 100% reliable in their reporting (far from it) but at least I took the trouble to find something. And given that I don't have 'inside knowledge' or personally know anyone in Afghanistan what more do you expect me to produce?

So maybe now you could post some evidence for your comments?

Just on this point though, you said:
The fact the the concerns about the pouches were already being responded to? Did you actually read the articles you posted? To which I replied:
If the issue is being responded to then clearly that is an admission that there must have been a problem in the first place.You referred to my reply as a strawman, so you may have misunderstood my reply. In fact I was simply pointing out that the army had recognised that the ammo pouches were in fact defective. I don't believe that I am misrepresenting anyone (strawman) - it is a simple statement of fact that the army clearly recognise themselves.

We have drifted off topic from the original purpose of the thread so I am not sure that other people are going to be particularly interested in you and I demanding evidence of each other. This side topic really isn't that important to me that I could be bothered arguing too much about it.

If you can produce good evidence for your claims I am happy to concede.

[bobalot]

Well, here it is in simple steps:

1) Tony Abott comes out and says "The Government (Labor Party) is failing our troops in supplies and equipment!".

2) He provides no evidence for this other than some unsubstantiated bullshit that you embarrassingly regurgitated in this thread.

3) The BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON HIM (or anybody who takes his claims seriously) to show that:


Show what government policies regarding procurement of supplies for troops in Afghanistan are different under Labor than the under the Coalition.
Explain (with evidence) these policies fail our troops in Afghanistan.

4) I point out that he hasn't done that and in fact soldiers on the ground and the military hierarchy disagree with him. Even if I didn't bring those up, he still hasn't supplied any evidence for his fantastic claims.

5) For some reason, you actually are defending Tony's claims as viable and even allude to some conspiracy amongst military hierarchy to cover up shortages in equipment.

Since you are actually taking this clown's claims seriously, YOU have to provide evidence that they are credible. Why should I have to provide evidence that some unsubstituted claim is wrong?I could, but I don't have to. This is the exact same tactic that creationists use -> Demand their opponents prove their claims wrong.

[BlueDevil]

Gidday bobalot,

this is getting a bit tiresome I must say. The original topic was much more interesting, but even that is starting to fade into the obscurity it deserves.

Let me remind you that I have provided evidence, right there in my very first post on this side topic.

If you don't believe that the evidence I have provided is adequate then you are quite entitled to reject my claims. There is no compulsion upon me to provide further evidence just because you don't like what I have cited.

Let me repeat that yet again so we can be really clear: If you don't accept the evidence I provided in my first post (in accordance with the burden of proof concept) then you don't have to accept my claims! Simple! It really makes no difference to me whether you agree with me or not. You are entitled to your opinion just as much as I am to mine. And it really doesn't bother me if every single person on this forum rejects my opinion - I am quite comfortable with that. Truly.

PS Just one more thing I thought I would quietly mention (sorry for whispering, but I am not keen on shouting). Just thought I would let you know that I have been an atheist for around 40 years, and have atheist books and pamphlets going back to the early eighties. As a result I am well familiar with the burden of proof concept, so while it was nice of you to try to educate me about this issue it is something I am already aware of. Thanks anyway.

[BlueDevil]

Just in case there is anyone out there still following this thread and has any interest in the original topic here is a link to an article in the The Age. I would have to say it is pretty much in line with my views on the issue:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/abbott-ambush-was-an-oldfashioned-hatchet-job-20110212-1arbn.html

[Fromm_Nicht]

I would be hesitant to throw my support behind an opinion piece that sets the tone with this:

ONE crucial unanswered question from Australian politics last week is: Why didn't Tony Abbott deck the TV news reporter?


And then ends with this:

Even if Abbott had thumped him, Riley still would have won. Great footage. What a story.


Seems to suggest the author thinks Abbott SHOULD have "thumped" the reporter and that it would be a sad incident if he were held to account for it.

The article misses the point of yours and the authors opponents argument in this debate. It is not about whether Abbott meant offence toward dead soldiers, or whether anyone took offence at his remark. It is about Abbott's own apparent inability to aknowledge that war is not a default state, that the shit wouldn't have happened if the soldiers weren't there. He had ample opportunity to aknowledge this, first in Afghanistan speaking with the officer, then in the pre-arranged interview. Instead, the baffoon turned up unprepared (despite being forewarned) and instead glared like an angry chimp who wants to tear off somebody's arms and beat them to death with them. In doing this he also demonstrated his uncontrolled aggression and lack of the discipline required of a person in his position. The entire incident illustrates that this is not a man who has the willpower to lead an entire nation and that Australians could very well be in dire peril should he ever get the top job.

[BlueDevil]

Hi Fromm nicht, yes I agree with you on the comments about whether Abbott wanted to, or should have, decked the reporter. I think Abbott handled the interview very poorly and I guess we will never really know what was going through his mind at the time. His odd silent response may do him some political damage, but I doubt the actual 'shit happens' comment has done much harm.

I should have made it more explicit that while I agree with the general gist of the article I linked to there may be some aspects of it that are not quite in line with my views.

Can only hope the liberals will find a dynamic atheist leader come next election time - not likely though!

[Fromm_Nicht]

I should have made it more explicit that while I agree with the general gist of the article I linked to there may be some aspects of it that are not quite in line with my views.
That's a relief, there were a few strange points made in the article. Though considering it seems to be mostly a journalistic editor trying to buy credit with the public by attacking his own trade, you're going to get a bit of weirdness.

Can only hope the liberals will find a dynamic atheist leader come next election time - not likely though!
I don't know anything about Malcolm Turnbull's religious beliefs but I think he is the best candidate for the job of liberal leader at the moment. I would likely still vote green as I don't see either of the other parties taking the socially progressive and environmentally conscious position that they do, but I think Turnbull as leader would allow for a significant shift to the left in politics in this country. This is something I feel we need as we seem to have drifted quite a ways into the territory of conservative right wing idealism and all the religious and racist policy ideas that come with it (Chaplaincy, boat people etc.)

[bobalot]

Why is not assaulting a man who asked you a simple question (that you knew of hours in advance) considered some sort of virtue?

I deal with gigantic arseholes on a regular basis who far more obnoxious than the reporter was. Where's my pat on the back ...... wait, I don't have one-eyed supporters who make virtues out of normal behavior.

[bobalot]

No one can answer my question?

[riddlemethis]

Part of my point all along. It's a collective failure of intellect & insight that this incident has been downplayed the way it has in so many media & public fora. He demonstrated that he's not fit to shovel my shit.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

He demonstrated that he's not fit to shovel my shit.I think shoveling shit is the best he can do. After all, is it possible to tax and indoctrinate one's feces? :)

[bobalot]

It's hilarious. All the one-eyed Abbott supporters in this thread pompously saying "I'm surprised he didn't slug the guy!" as if it's some sort of virtue can't answer my simple question.

[bobalot]

@Bobalot: I would hope people are trying to stick to the facts. Your assertion that those who do not see things your way are are one-eyed supporters of Abbott is not helping.
Someone who believes that Tony Abbott should be allowed to assault a reporter over a question would undoubtedly be a supporter. Is this type of behavior considered generally acceptable for anybody else?

Perhaps I'm wrong, it's irrelevant to the question. Why is holding back from assaulting someone else considered some sort of virtue?

[riddlemethis]

Someone who believes that Tony Abbott should be allowed to assault a reporter over a question would undoubtedly be a supporter. Is this type of behavior considered generally acceptable for anybody else?

Perhaps I'm wrong, it's irrelevant to the question. Why is holding back from assaulting someone else considered some sort of virtue?

Think you're taking this to a level of 'personal' that isn't warranted. I'll go out on a limb & say that I doubt even those who've given Abbot benefit in this thread are not his supporters in any other context, but that they are able to separate their dislike of him from an analysis of the event itself. My disagreement with them on this point is associated not with my interpretation their political preferences & much more to do with issues of understanding the nuances of our language & the context in which it's used, especially as a litmus test of people who'd put themselves forward to 'lead' us. As the old saying goes, we get the leaders/governments we deserve & I'm terrified that 'the community' isn't reading the glaring neon 'fuckwit' sign over Abbotts head.

[BlueDevil]

Someone who believes that Tony Abbott should be allowed to assault a reporter over a question would undoubtedly be a supporter. Is this type of behavior considered generally acceptable for anybody else?

I think you just destroyed your own credibility.

[robertkd]

It's hilarious. All the one-eyed Abbott supporters in this thread pompously saying "I'm surprised he didn't slug the guy!" as if it's some sort of virtue can't answer my simple question.

I'm sorry however I don't see anyone actually supporting this point of view. Whilst I detest the man (Tony Abbott") my personal take on the statement is that it's a media blow out.

As for Abbott being this, that or other for not taking matters into his own hands, what a fucking stupid statement from the media observers and absolutely nothing to do with Abbott. If Abbott is to be nailed fine, nail him with his own actions and not that of the popular press.

To be honest I wouldn't consider anyone in this thread to be an Abbott supporter but what is worse then that is supporting the popular press.

[Fromm_Nicht]

It's hilarious. All the one-eyed Abbott supporters in this thread pompously saying "I'm surprised he didn't slug the guy!" as if it's some sort of virtue can't answer my simple question.

Who in this thread said that? I think you may be imagining things now.


To be honest I wouldn't consider anyone in this thread to be an Abbott supporter but what is worse then that is supporting the popular press.
I don't think anybody in this thread has been doing that either. The major argument being put forth to oppose the "media beat up" position is that whether or not anybody was offended and regardless of the context, Abbott's behaviour and comments have demonstrated that he does not fully understand the situation of war. It has been said before, shit only happens in war because someone gives an order. I don't recall reading any posts that support the media...

[bobalot]

@Fromm_Nicht (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/member.php?u=888), I got this thread mixed up in another thread I'm commenting in at BigFooty. You can see me posting there.

I apologise and I withdraw my statement.

It is a sentiment that has not been uncommon in recent days in talk back and the internet. I'm bemused why people think this is perfectly acceptable behavior.

I think you just destroyed your own credibility.
Why? People who believe that a certain person has the right to assault over a question, would unlikely to be his opponents.

[Fromm_Nicht]

@Fromm_Nicht (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/member.php?u=888), I got this thread mixed up in another thread I'm commenting in at BigFooty. You can see me posting there.

I apologise and I withdraw my statement.

Well you're obviously going to see some different sentiments on a sports forum. No offence to AF forumites who are also sports fans, but the general sports fan community seem to be a little less intellectual than the community here.;) Perhaps they are a better representation of the spread of the wider population...

[Centauri]

Well you're obviously going to see some different sentiments on a sports forum. No offence to AF forumites who are also sports fans, but the general sports fan community seem to be a little less intellectual than the community here.;) Perhaps they are a better representation of the spread of the wider population...

Yeah, just look at rugby league. Most of them don't have a brain cell between them. :p

[Fromm_Nicht]

Yeah, just look at rugby league. Most of them don't have a brain cell between them. :p

Owing to the fact that they are constantly bashing into each other and the ground. All that rapid stopping and change of direction is actually quite damaging to the brain.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Someone who believes that Tony Abbott should be allowed to assault a reporter over a question would undoubtedly be a supporter. Is this type of behavior considered generally acceptable for anybody else?

Perhaps I'm wrong, it's irrelevant to the question. Why is holding back from assaulting someone else considered some sort of virtue?Please - if you think Abbott has assaulted the reporter, let's hear about where and when that happens. This could be a step to firing the guy from parliament for good.

But really - you seem to be making stupid generalizations and taking it to a personal level. Not all people who are not offended by "shit happens" are "one-eyed Abbott supporters" for example.

So I ask now - where has the assault taken place?

[Centauri]

That's brilliant, Mr. B. :)

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Those fucking goddamn asterisks again. Roar.

[bobalot]

Please - if you think Abbott has assaulted the reporter, let's hear about where and when that happens. This could be a step to firing the guy from parliament for good.

But really - you seem to be making stupid generalizations and taking it to a personal level. Not all people who are not offended by "shit happens" are "one-eyed Abbott supporters" for example.

So I ask now - where has the assault taken place?
I didn't say that at all. There is a lot of sentiment on talkback radio and on the internet that Tony Abbott was a great bloke for not punching the guy out.

[BlueDevil]

Why? People who believe that a certain person has the right to assault over a question, would unlikely to be his opponents.

Clearly, because your comments were not true in relation to this thread. We had no way of knowing that you had made a mistake by posting in the wrong forum.

[bobalot]

Talkback radio and some pockets of the web are noted for a number of odd opinions.

Thank fuck we're a little more skeptical in this particular forum.
Mate, talkback radio is big. A lot of morons believe 100% what the likes of Alan Jones say.

I wish it were otherwise, but it's not.

[Mundo Pablo]

we ain't seen nothing yet, Tony is still on good behaviour. If & when he becomes PM -it's relax time, tighten all the financial screws and let the mouth loose.

[slim]

Mate, talkback radio is big. A lot of morons believe 100% what the likes of Alan Jones say.

I wish it were otherwise, but it's not.

Let's not forget the Murdoch press and the knuckle draggers that lap up the bollocks that passes for opinion there.

[RealityRules]

Poor old Tony has had more shit happen in his cranium ....

Mr Abbott said taxing someone was the exact opposite of mateship.

"Mates help each other; they don't tax each other," he said.

"Mateship comes from people, it doesn't come from governments."

www.theaustralian.com.au/ mates-dont-tax-mates-with-flood-levy-tony-abbott-warns (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/mates-dont-tax-mates-with-flood-levy-tony-abbott-warns/story-fn59niix-1226010756605)

[gruber]

I find it amusing how the wanker rallies against a one time levy to help rebuild a state and yet one of his election policies was to increase the tax on small businesses

[DanDare]

Instead of saying "Well, sometimes s**t happens" try saying "why the f*** did you let this s**t happen?".

[bobalot]

I find it amusing how the wanker rallies against a one time levy to help rebuild a state and yet one of his election policies was to increase the tax on small businesses
To be fair, it was business with profits over $5 million (something like that).

The problem with his policies were:

- The cost of the taxes would simply be passed onto the public
- It paid rich mothers significantly more than poor mothers. A uniform payment would have been far more fair.

But your point is correct, it is immensely hypocritical for him to be against levies since he was actually planning one himself (and participated in many during the Howard Government).

[Praxis]

As the carbon tax legislation passes and Australia breathes a sigh of relief, cartoonist at The Age, Alan Moir, give us this scarily true cartoon of Tony Abbott:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v54/Praxis/Abbott.jpg

[AUSloth]

While on the theme of Abbott cartoons:
http://static.lifeislocal.com.au/multimedia/images/full/1482423.jpg
Political rhetoric maybe but swearing blood vows? Yet another anachronism right out there with TA's belief system:confused:.

[atuanui]

Hi,
http://www.tonyabbottexposed.com/

cheers

[atuanui]

That site has been done by member of the liberal; party :(
yuck

[Aldaron]

I'm sorry...did I miss something, or were they referring to a piece by Miranda Devine as an attack from the Left??

Miranda Devine is slightly to the right of Genghis Khan...

[cyclist]

I'm sorry...did I miss something, or were they referring to a piece by Miranda Devine as an attack from the Left??

Miranda Devine is slightly to the right of Genghis Khan...

Understandable mistake Aldaron, it was Miranda Divine responding to an attack from the left.

Even so, reading the article that it's linked to, I'm not sure which side Miranda is actually on.

James

[AUSloth]

This week Tony Abbott and the Coalition opened up a new front in their ideological war against climate change action and carbon pricing.
In a move reminiscent of the US Tea Party, renewable energy has become the new target of Australia's conservative party.
Not content with the 'blood pledge (http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/10/13/abbotts-gory-pledge-would-be-a-legal-bloodbath/)' to repeal the carbon price, Abbott lieutenants Joe Hockey (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/hockey-pledges-to-revoke-energy-fund-loans-20111017-1ltec.htmlhttp:/www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/hockey-pledges-to-revoke-energy-fund-loans-20111017-1ltec.html) and Andrew Robb (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3341972.htm) announced that a Coalition government would scrap the Clean Energy Finance Council (CEFC). If well designed and administered, the body is a potentially useful aid for Australia's transition to a 21st-Century clean economy. The plan to abolish the CEFC threatens $10 billion of investment: $5 billion exclusively for renewable energy and the remainder available for cleantech manufacturing, energy efficiency and enabling infrastructure.*
full farticle (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3579222.html)
Way to go Tony! Keep putting grease on the tracks for the impending trainwreck that is the coalitions environmental policy. Is it just me or does anyone else have concerns that TA would watch the world burn just to get the letters PM after his name?:mad:

[Xeno]

full farticle (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3579222.html)
Way to go Tony! Keep putting grease on the tracks for the impending trainwreck that is the coalitions environmental policy. Is it just me or does anyone else have concerns that TA would watch the world burn just to get the letters PM after his name?:mad:It appears to me that the right wing is trying to cast doubt on every aspect of climate change, to shore up its opposition to the carbon tax or emissions trading. I am reminded of the words "Teach the controversy".

[DanDare]

It appears to me that the right wing is trying to cast doubt on every aspect of climate change, to shore up its opposition to the carbon tax or emissions trading. I am reminded of the words "Teach the controversy".
Its driving me nuts the the opponents of the carbon tax say it has no effect except making things more expensive and the government doesn't seem to know what effect it is meant to have.

The whole point is that it makes carbon emitting more expensive relative to non emitting alternatives, thus producing a change in behaviour at a large scale.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Understandable mistake Aldaron, it was Miranda Divine responding to an attack from the left.

Even so, reading the article that it's linked to, I'm not sure which side Miranda is actually on.

James

Far left and far right can be hard to tell apart! :)

[AUSloth]

The whole point is that it makes carbon emitting more expensive relative to non emitting alternatives, thus producing a change in behaviour at a large scale.
That is the point and I am in favour of it, however I have had discussions with several people who see it as a fee to pump the same polution out but pay for the privilege and offset the cost on the customers. Given the ethics of some corporations I've had a hard time arguing against this idea.

[DanDare]

That is the point and I am in favour of it, however I have had discussions with several people who see it as a fee to pump the same polution out but pay for the privilege and offset the cost on the customers. Given the ethics of some corporations I've had a hard time arguing against this idea.
Sure, but they can only pass the cost on so far before their competitors get the price advantage. That's when consumer purchasing patterns switch.

[dilbadoon]

I also don't see why it isn't perfectly reasonable to argue against the carbon tax without denying climate change.
The argument that unless the big poluting countries are going to do something similar, it would be hampering Australia's global competitiveness without having much positive impact for the environment seems to make sense. I'm certainly not saying we should sit around and do nothing, but look at the solar scheme, by subsidising it the government has enabled hundreds of homes to install solar systems that probably never would have (we're one). Insulation is another (while it was management was a complete cluster fuck).
I would have thought that more pro-active schemes like this would have a better effect and save passing on rising costs to consumers. I have a hard time believing that manufacturers etc. aren't going to be passing on at least some of the carbon tax to the bottom of the chain.