To lie or not to lie...

Left-wing academics (oxymoron??) live in such ivory towers that they do not necessarily ignore evidence contrary to their own opinions, THEY ARE PROBABLY NOT EVEN AWARE THAT SUCH DIFFERENCES COULD POSSIBLY EXIST.

For example the latest storm in a teacup that necessitates their attention is that the Australian government(s), the RSL and other nefarious ANZAC 'spirits' have 'militarised' the entire Australian population.

These desk-bound pacifists champ at the bit about how our youth are being 'led down the military garden path' and vociferously decry the 'spectacle' of the Anzac parades.

How brave of them to speak truth to power. Note these same academics supporting Islamic sexism, violence, Anti-Jewish boycotts, the banning of free speech on college campuses etc etc.

However the saddest thing about their latest whingeing about the Anzac's is not so much their rampant hypocrisy as it is that these so-called 'scholars' fail the basic standard of factual objectivity required for an academic pursuit of truth.

If you had to sum up the authors' attitudes to wars, one observation is relevant: they concentrate on those wars that suit their pacifist and peace-march assumptions. Thus the ultimate opposition by a host of Australians to the Vietnam War is discussed, often vividly, but World War II is neatly skipped over and the Korean War is ignored. A section on Australia in the years 1939-42 should have been absolutely essential in the planning of this book. Instead the authors dwell on Australia's attitudes to Japan in the years 1904-14.

The authors even scorn the fears -- sometimes expressed in parliament and the press -- that a combined Japanese force might endanger Australian shores. But they are silent on the fact those forecasts came close to the bone in 1942. You could read this book and not learn that Japan invaded New Guinea and bombed Darwin. Japan's record in World War II is not really mentioned. Do the authors support Australia's participation in World War II? This book leaves readers in some doubt.

So it is unusual to see the RSL being singled out as an enemy of national values, while wartime Japan and Nazi Germany are essentially exempt from criticism.

Read the full exposure of their claims: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/books/we-werent-that-dumb/story-e6frg8nf-1225848127735

Tasmaniacs & Vicmaniacs

Welcome to basket-case Tasmania's new wild world of legislature. Legalise prostitution, legalise drugs, homosexual marriage, legalise any new  moral travesty you can  imagine but criminalise free choice to oppose these perversions.
Who woulda thunk it?

Legislation enabling abortion is common enough. But the Tasmanian law could be the first in the world to penalise doctors, counsellors and protesters with draconian fines and even jail sentences if they oppose abortion. Health minister Michelle O’Byrne says that the bill has been modelled on 2008 legislation in the nearby state of Victoria. But she also seems to have been inspired by the peculiar interpretation of democracy invoked by Vladimir Putin when the Russian government jailed the punk rock group Pussy Riot.

Here is what the bill proposes.

A doctor with a conscientious objection to abortion must refer a woman to another doctor. No penalty is specified, but non-compliance might lead to deregistration. A counsellor who refuses to refer a woman to an abortion clinic could be fined A$32,500. A protester who exhibits a placard or utters negative words about abortion within 150 metres of a clinic could be fined $65,000 and jailed for one year. (The two busiest churches in Hobart are located within 150 metres.)
 

UPDATE
I wrote yesterday (above) about the new law about to effect Tasmania, not realising that a similar one has existed in Victoria for some time, note this story:

A Melbourne doctor has defended his decision to refuse to refer a couple for an abortion because they did not want a girl. Dr Mark Hobart acknowledged that under Victorian law if a doctor has a moral objection to a woman's choice to abort a pregnancy, that doctor must refer the woman to a doctor who does not object.

He also admitted that he may face suspension or possibly be deregistered for refusing to give the couple a referral when he discovered their reasons for abortion.

"But just because it's the law, doesn't mean it's right," Dr Hobart was quoted by the Herald Sun as saying.

The unnamed coupled reportedly asked Dr Hobart to refer them to an abortion clinic after discovering at 19 weeks they were having a girl when they wanted a boy.

A Medical Practitioners Board spokeswoman said doctors were bound by Victoria's Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 as well as a professional code of conduct.

"The board expects practitioners to practise lawfully and to provide safe care and to meet the standards set out in the board's code of conduct," she said.

In January the Medical Board cautioned a doctor for airing his views against abortion and warned he could be deregistered if it happened again.

The god of this world

We do not often hear the full title of Darwin's paean to evolutionary theory:  On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Nor do we hear how his ideas, with a little help from Frederick Nietzsche, and Margaret Sanger reached their fruition in Nazi Germany.

The fact that Barak Obama now calls on 'God' to bless Planned Parenthood (Margaret Sanger's paean to murder, and to the eradication of black folk) makes one wonder how intelligent this man really is and calls into question which god he serves, although given his track record I would think that this is fairly obvious.

Mother's correct!

Leave it to Mother Teresa to get it right again:

 Mother Teresa says, ‘Abortion kills twice. It kills the body of the baby and it kills the conscience of the mother.’ Abortion is profoundly anti-women. Three quarters of its victims are women: half the babies and all the mothers.”

To care or not to care...that is the

One of my overwhelming joys amongst the multitude of reading I do through numerous blogs and news sites is in the superior articulation of prescience and communication exhibited by those whose political affiliation would be considered 'conservative'.
Most left-wing blogs/articles are so laden with invective and potty mouthed adumbration's of deep political/societal truths (even by so-called 'academics') that to read a mere light hearted review of a Zombie horror experience by journalistic luminary Mark Steyn, is to luxuriate in sybaritic philological bliss at such elucidation of the English language.

The new management had left in place the dangling shingles and abandoned store windows and hired a bunch of Equity-minimum extras to rampage through the joint terrorizing those in search of an authentic "horror immersion experience." It was so authentic there wasn't even a welcome area: Participants met at the former mall's padlocked, graffiti-defaced delivery entrance. The bona fide decrepitude added an eerie frisson of verisimilitude to the zombie apocalypse. Not to mention that it's oddly poignant when something that was once real is reduced to no more than a stage set for dystopian fantasy. For a while, back in New Hampshire, every time we passed a shuttered building or an abandoned pasture, we'd joke about opening Zombie Sawmill or Zombie Dairy Farm.
 

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Read the full article: http://www.steynonline.com/5527/undead-reckoning

Truth exposed

More people are at last waking up to the worlds biggest scam;

With each passing year, it is becoming increasingly clear that global warming is not a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification, but a political ideology that has to be fiercely defended against any challenge. It is ironic that skeptics are called “deniers” when every fact that would tend to falsify*(see attached website for an explanation of falsify)  global warming is immediately explained away by an industry of denial.
 

I tend to believe in Vaclav Klaus' understanding of the Warmist philosophy:

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.” Vaclav Klaus
 

*Falsify: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/04/the-settled-science-and-its-leaning-tower

Who cares?

Virginia Trioli sneers from her leftard moral high-ground that we care less about those dying in Baghdad than we do about 'rich white people in America'. She's probably right, which begs the question why should we worry about any of them?

In the ancient world, the misfortunes of other people were of no great interest. The Greeks believed that only they were fully human; everyone else was a barbarian. The Old Testament Hebrews were not interested in the calamities afflicting the Canaanites and the Philistines, let alone the Babylonians and the Assyrians. Even today villagers in remote valleys in Papua New Guinea are said to regard residents of the neighbouring valley as less than human. The natural philosophy of man is beggar thy neighbour, not bind up his wounds.

Compassion became the natural response to a stranger’s distress only with the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Christian belief that each and every human being is a child of God gave compassion a metaphysical foundation. It was no longer a question of convenience or self-interest, but a response to a universal brotherhood under a divine Father.

So the very fact that Trioli and Green think that the disproportionate coverage given to the tragedy in Boston is unfair is a tribute to the residual Christianity in their outlook. The natural impulse of the Christian is to pray for “brethren” in distress, wherever they are. And this spiritual solidarity eventually gives rise to formidable networks of charity, many people working silently, anonymously, to help victims of tragedy and to restore peace to shattered nations. Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.