incidentally trying out the new Rozelle interchange.

Did you take the tolled bit? That seems to be the key to the problem. Unsurprisingly.

JC Dec 14, 2023 6:49 PM
Anything you’ve ever said that’s honest?

You oft state you feel I’m dishonest, yet are not able to back up your mouth on this, not once.

When you get battered so often, why keep coming back for more?
(You’re not here for the hunting, are you?)

Even the concern trolling is fraudulent.

Three old spinsters die and go to heaven and at the Pearly Gates, they are met by St Peter.

He says: “Ladies, you all led such wonderful lives that I’m granting you six months to go back to earth and be anyone you want to be.”

The first spinster says: “I want to be Sophia Loren.” With a bang, she’s gone.

The second says: “I want to be Madonna.” She also disappears immediately.

The third says: “I want to be Sara Pipalini.”

St Peter looks perplexed. “Who?” he says. “Sara Pipalini,” replies the old spinster. St Peter shakes his head and says: “I’m sorry, but that name just doesn’t ring a bell.” The old woman then takes a newspaper out of her purse and hands it to St Peter. He reads the paper and starts laughing. He hands it back to her and says: “No, my dear woman, the paper says it was the ‘Sahara Pipeline’ that was laid by 1,400 men in 6 months.”

Boom, boom.

He hands it back to her and says: “No, my dear woman, the paper says it was the ‘Sahara Pipeline’ that was laid by 1,400 men in 6 months.”

Dave Allen, IIRC.

Just trying to help, Trans in that:

funny, exasperating, quirky, odd, creative and brilliant

way.

Should you dump your husband? Clementine Ford thinks so

As Clementine Ford attempts to prosecute the case against marriage by celebrating her own separation, the degree of disgust she expresses for men is more than disturbing; it should be illegal.
By Antonella Gambotto-Burke
From Arts
1 hour ago
5 minute read
13

In the light of the recent massacre by terrorist group Hamas of 364 twenty-somethings celebrating peace at a rave in the desert, Clementine Ford took aim at “Zionist” women, saying: “I don’t care that you felt betrayed or let down, and I especially don’t care that you want to have a big crybaby rant … You’re pathetic, you disgust me, and I pity you for being so basic and gross … Honestly, you actually can’t get any whiter than that.”

Actually, I’m not sure you could get any whiter than Ford – a queer, bleached blonde agony aunt whose father ran for One Nation in Queensland, but: tomayto, tomahto.

Ford also displays a deep, sustained, and ugly rage against men, which she justifies as an appropriate reaction to misogyny (although one assumes there isn’t anyone from Hamas in her orbit; if so, I could perhaps understand her rage.) While there is no question that some of the points she makes in I Don’t: The Case Against Marriage are accurate, the degree of disgust she expresses for men is more than disturbing; it should be illegal.

Ostensibly about the “corrupt and oppressive institution” of marriage, the book is, in fact, little more than a celebration of her own separation. Ford, who likes to pose with baseball caps printed with the happy legend “Leave Your Husband” says she has never “felt like more of a family” since separating from her son’s father.

Like all extremists, she is not only immature but almost entirely self-involved.

“I am a marriage abolitionist because I cannot in good conscience support an institution that has enslaved women sexually, reproductively, financially and domestically,” Ford writes, adding: “Marriage is a system whose foundations are built on the erasure of women, and the exploitation of everything that we are.”

Throughout the text, such projections and generalisations are presented as fact. “An enormous amount of research has been undertaken to ensure the arguments I make … are supported by historical fact and feminist scholarship,” she said.

An example of this rigorous, fair-minded scholarship? “How dare any modern man compare the long-overdue and still-not-far-enough uprising of women against the rapists, abusers and misogynists who have terrorised us for millennia as a witch-hunt. F —k them all to hell.”

Unsurprisingly, Ford fails to mention the women who abuse and torture children. The only reason women are, on the whole, less overtly violent than men is because the only ones vulnerable to their physical aggression are children, whom – curiously – they do regularly attack.

As the Australian Institute of Criminology reports, filicides are most commonly committed by custodial mothers.

While Ford happily shares grotesque male violence visuals, she consistently fails to present the big picture. Men, as a sex, are in serious trouble globally.

In Australia, men account for 75.6 per cent of suicides (my 32-year-old brother and a number of male friends among them). In Australia, 92 per cent of prisoners are male. Multiple studies show that illicit drug use is “significantly” more prevalent among men than women, both here and overseas.

Given this – and to share Ford’s enthusiastic use of expletives – what the f —k is she on about? Wherefore, then, the Toxic Patriarchal Utopia against which she rails? Is her entire philosophy – if it could be called that – a sustained episode of red-faced foot-stamping against Daddy?

Women, in Ford’s universe, are responsible only for their triumphs. If a woman succeeds, it is on the basis of her courage, determination and vision (“I have fought the odds to get here, empowered by the knowledge that every single woman who has come before me has fought her own battle in order to survive”); if a woman fails in any way or experiences a negative feeling, it is almost always because of a man (“Women hate men because they force us to”).

Ford doesn’t want equality. In 2017, she signed a fan’s book with the words, “Have you killed any men today? And if not, why not?” And, as she tweeted in 2020, “Honestly, the coronavirus isn’t killing men fast enough.”

Imagine, if you will, if the same comments were made of women.

Imagine, if you will, how her son may feel on reading her words as a man.

Ford’s primary interest is not understanding, or philosophical evolution, but an extremely profitable divisiveness.

Like an American television evangelist, she whips her audience – for the most part, hurt, lonely, overburdened, or vulnerable women – into a frenzy of fear and loathing for men (unless they’re trans, gay, or have facial piercings and pink hair). Is it any surprise that so many men now want to be women? Who would be a man in such a world?

In the chapter dealing with her visceral aversion to a woman’s adoption of her husband’s name, Ford writes, “Apart from anything else, we should be robust enough to consider why it is we make the choices we do, and how we come to the conclusion that they’re the things we want. How many women who insist they chose to change their name can really say they would have made that choice if they hadn’t already been socialised into a system?”

Women, Ford emphasises, have a “name already”, a name with which they were born, a name inextricably entwined with their identity. Their birth names are meaningful, important.

Oddly, the same principle does not extend to genitals.

Ford passionately supports the trans community, one in which the genitals with which they’re born are lopped off in the name of an identity determined by the very socialisation she claims to question. Similarly, her mandate of sufficient “robustness” to consider why choices are made apparently relates only to issues that don’t affect her book sales demographic. As she stated on social media in 2022, “I will instantly block anyone who spouts their transphobic, trans exclusionary bullshit”.

The hypocrisy’s delicious. Fancy a slice?

Ford’s Thomas Kinkade pipedream of women desiring to be “left to grow old in peace, tending to their gardens and their cats, sharing their hearths and homes with friends they knew would leave at the day’s end” is not only whiter than white, but, in effect, a suburban-retirement-home ad campaign. As most of the women on the planet would be asking, What hearth? What garden? What cat?

It also ignores crucial findings, such as the Mayo Clinic research showing that unmarried women in rural areas (“gardens”) suffer poorer mental and physical health, never mind the countless reports linking unmarried women with higher mortality rates. In 2019, for example, a British Office for National Statistics report revealed a staggering disparity: single females have the highest mortality rate (4360.7 deaths per 100,000), whereas those who are married or in a civil partnership have the lowest (2429.1 deaths per 100,000).

But why mar fun propaganda with facts?

While I’d like to say that I accepted my muscular, heavily tattooed, martial artist, record producer boyfriend’s proposal as a reaction to Ford’s “angry toddler” views on marriage, I really didn’t. I accepted in part because he understands that Hamas is a terrorist organisation. And he does all the cooking and the dishes. He’s tender. He’s funny. He is magnificent with my gloriously headstrong academic whirlwind of a daughter.

The main reason, however, is that he opens all my jars.

In the $2 dollar remainder bin, just after Christmas.

I think the constant appeal to “legal advice” without a shred of proof over a number of issues is wearing thin.

Appears Lee J shares your feelings. I expect claims of legal privilege might be met with a rather strict interpretation.

Undoubtedly.

Is the FBI Abetting the Globalist Hate Crimes Against Traditional Catholics?

Johnny Rotten
Dec 14, 2023 7:02 PM

Sara Pipalini/Sahara pipeline

Reminds me of an old joke about a musician playing from the dots when a bystander walks over, inspects the sheet music and remarks to the muso “I see you’re playing Paganini”

Muso: No, actually that’s page nine!

and remarks to the muso “I see you’re playing Paganini”

Muso: No, actually that’s page nine!

I have the same problem ordering gelato.

Young warnie going well; apparently he employed a motivator to get over his slump; and the motivator advised him to imagine the ball was sonny bill’s testicles. It’s worked a treat.

Oops, sonny bill’s nuts just got their revenge.

The Summer of Dave off to a flyer. cf The Summer of George.

JC

Dec 14, 2023 6:28 PM

Sanchez

I haven’t been up to speed on the trial, however I read about Mrs. Red Bandana’s testimony today.

The busted phone and the miraculous appearance of the bruise pic appears to have placed both 10 and Mrs R.D in serious trouble.

The judge’s earlier question was also pretty instructive I think.

The phone thing is interesting.
Firstly Britnah claims her phone was completely wiped. She tells Ten it is a government phone with all sorts of apps on it which she suspects Mossad used to scrub her phone.
But one image survives.
The infamous bruise photo.
What are the odds, eh?
Of course, just a screenshot. No metadata to verify details of the image, particularly when it was taken.
Nek minnit, Britnah manages to miraculously recover all her phone data.
BTW, it apparently was all on a personal phone, not a work phone.
But not one of the super-sleuths at Ten thinks to say, “Hey, Britnah, now that you’ve recovered your data, is there any chance we can have a look at that original image?”

Have I missed something?

The toad has waived PP by her speech. She claims she got legal advice about the content of the speech so what was in the speech obviously reflects the advice. I agree with the Judge: no lawyer in their right mind would ok a speech about an allegation of rape in the proactive way that speech was made, especially amidst the torrent of media whispers already occurring.

Winston Smith
Dec 14, 2023 8:15 PM

Something similar happened to me and I have not been back to that Pub ever since and never will. Friends have also done similar.

… it’s fascinating how much LW knows about the dodging and weaving of “politics”

J’ismists have always fancied themselves as playas since Mr La Tingle (dec’d) was around.

feelthebern

Dec 14, 2023 6:30 PM

If there was legal advice provided, big if, there would be no obligation for saint lisa to hand it over.

No.
Justice Lee has acknowledged that.

My guess, saint Lisa will have to walk back her comments ie she had a chat with a lawyer friend.

Yes.
Lee has already indicated he has formed the view that, if such advice exists, it was reckless or incompetent.
Or both.
Whether he gets an explanation of the “legal advice” or not, I think he holds the view that the speech was somewhat malicious.

From a psychological perspective it is fascinating that futurists so often portray doom and disaster.

Bad news sells.

If my recollections are correct, most of the predictions of the futurists of the 1970s – be they for good or ill – failed to come to pass.

feelthebern

Dec 14, 2023 6:47 PM

If Lisa has lied about the advice pre giving the speech, Lee will view that dimly.
If her fall back is the Drumgold conversation, hells bells.

I think it is likely he will view any explanation dimly.
My money (in no particular order) is on:-
1. An informal chat with a suburban solicitor friend over lunch at Chateau Bandana;
2. Google;
3. The grad lawyer chick in procurement at Ten;
4. Re-runs of Carson’s Law;
5. Dumgold.

Professor Calma, Reconciliation Australia co-chair, said there hadn’t been much discussion about the way forward after the referendum but the conversation over reconciliation had never stopped.

And when your generous tax payer funded salary package is dependent upon it never stopping, why would you want it to?

If my recollections are correct, most of the predictions of the futurists of the 1970s – be they for good or ill – failed to come to pass.

Julian Simon arguing Erlich’s end of times predictions were crap.

examples of Simon’s work that disputed Ehrlich:

The Ultimate Resource (1977): This book argued that resource prices had been declining for centuries, not rising as Ehrlich predicted, and that technological innovation would continue to mitigate resource scarcity.
The Resourceful Earth: Nature’s Response to Global Challenges (1994): This book further developed Simon’s arguments against resource depletion, citing historical trends and specific examples of resource abundance.

Both sides appear to do the end of times thing. We see it here coming from the Right.

Dunny Brush

Dec 14, 2023 6:50 PM

Wilko taking umbrage as being compared to a tabloid hack is a huge tell.

I maintain that is key to all this.
This was to be Toad’s Walkley moment. Sure, Logies are fine, but I need recognition as a serious j’ism.

Patt Mac Dec 14, 2023 8:31 PM
That ford POS has a kid??
Who in God’s name would even think of procreation with that?

Apparently conceived naturally.
As difficult as that may be to believe.

Hamas announced its readiness to recognize Israel.

Deputy head of the Hamas Politburo Musa Abu Marzouk in an interview with Al Monitor: “Hamas is ready to recognize Israel for the sake of unity with the PLO”.

Julian Simon arguing Erlich’s end of times predictions were crap.

Norman Borlaug was already engaged in successfully increasing crop yields in Mexico & India before Ehrlich’s book was even written.

His ‘green revolution’ saved hundreds of millions from starvation.

Bad news sells, good news gets forgotten.

DYSLEXICS OF THE WORLD UNTIE!

Rafiki

Dec 14, 2023 8:46 PM

Cohenite

I think that she said simply that she “got advice”, and did not specify that its was legal advice.

I could be mistaken, but I am 93.1% sure she said “sought legal advice”.
If the advice wasn’t from a lawyer, the privilege thing goes away.
There is no such thing as hairdresser-client privilege.

feelthebern at 8:40

If Channel 10/Lisa are found to be malicious by the judge, does that not open them up to the jackpot (for BL) of damages?
Isn’t that what you want (as the applicant) in Oz?

My understanding is that would had to have been pleaded by Lehrmann’s lawyers to be open to make a finding on motive. I have not looked at the pleadings filed. Others may have done so.

My point was even if she obtained legal advice before making her logie speech, the making of that speech would be a waiver of legal privilege.

By virtue of the loss of confidentiality? I’m a bit rusty on this stuff. Handing stuff over to actual lawyers for too long.

One thing is for sure.
Toad and Llewellyn in the box has been the best entertainment on Australian TeeVee since Abigail got her hooters out on Number 96.
It’s a pity Working Dog have pretty much ruined the chance of anyone saying “it’s the vibe” in a courtroom ever again. I guess “read between the lines” is as close as we’ll get.
Although I suspect, “Is that really your answer?” might become my new catch-phrase.

Uh-oh! Something’s gone kerplunk.

All of a sudden, sand warning, when I try to open the cat, I get:

Request Header Fields Too Large

The server refused this request because the request header fields are too large.

Safari, iMac, MacOs Sonoma 14.1.2 (23B92)

But, same computer, using Firefox, no probs?

Any ideas anyone? Bueller? (I hate Firefox!)

Since their report of the Nazi hosted holiday camp for Jews at Theresienstadt.”

I used to work with one of the “Ten Pound Poms” who served with the tank unit that liberated one of those hellholes. He didn’t talk much about it, but once a year, on the anniversary, he would go out, and drink himself “out of his wife’s favor.” He would have next day off, to recover. The manager, himself an ex soldier, would pay him for the day off, and it never appeared on any of his records….

A British group has become the first in the world to test a male contraceptive pill that scientists believe could transform how responsibility for birth control is shared between the sexes. (The Oz).
Australian schoolboys invented the male pill aeons ago.
You put it in your shoe and it makes you limp.

The bloke is a JET.

One man band composes a song live in 10 minutes using a Boss RC-505 Loop Station

Mmm… too much actual handling of a filthy pig has to happen.

Dunno – from memory, at the time of the Lindt Cafe siege, there were complaints that a dead pig had been thrown into a Perth mosque.

Problem appears solved … cleared the Safari cookies and cache which seems to have done the trick.

Tim Blair:

It is reasonable for a journalist to be asked about the level of public interest in their work.

After all, public interest is central to a reporting career. Journalists who are unread tend also to be unpaid.

Yet media veteran Lisa Wilkinson, defending herself on Thursday in a defamation trial launched by Bruce Lehrmann, was hostile to questioning about interest in her coverage of Brittany Higgins’s rape claims — claims strongly denied by Lehrmann.

“You were thrilled by the riveting commercial appeal of the story that she told,” Lehrmann’s lawyer, Matthew Richardson SC, put to Wilkinson on Thursday.

Wilkinson’s response was one for the ages: “Please don’t make me sound like a cheap tabloid journalist, Mr Richardson.”

Given that Wilkinson has been getting by on a reported annual salary of some $1.7m, even after taking a leave of absence from her hosting ­duties at The Project, she clearly isn’t cheap.

But The Project is as tabloid as television news can be.

Likewise, Wilkinson’s previous roles on Nine’s Today show and as editor of Dolly and Cleo magazines speak to a rich tabloid heritage.

Exactly why Wilkinson should want to disown her hugely successful tabloid accomplishments is anyone’s guess.

Even her husband, author Peter FitzSimons, writes for the tabloid Sydney Morning Herald (except the SMH describes itself as “compact”, which is what a tabloid is called if you’re on seven figures and live on the other side of the Bridge).

Size matters.

But Wilkinson presumably rejected the notion that she is a tabloid figure in the sense of favouring sensationalism and scandal over rigorous research.

If that was so, Wilkinson certainly didn’t do herself any favours when she launched into a terrific conspiracy theory about cover-ups and high-level political intrigue over the Higgins case.

It was sheer tabloid gold, no matter how “tabloid” may be interpreted.

“Did you believe,” Justice Michael Lee asked Wilkinson at one point, “that there had been a systemic cover-up of a rape allegation or not?”

“Yes,” non-tabloider Lisa replied.

“I believed there was a lot of damage control going on within the Prime Minister’s Office to keep this whole thing under wraps.”

Wilkinson’s supportive evidence for this belief, she revealed to the court, was that members of then-PM Scott Morrison’s staff had been in contact with former minister Linda Reynolds’s office after the rape allegations were made.

All of this added up, Wilkinson said, to something “pretty significant”.

Yet Wilkinson, as Lehrmann’s lawyer pointed out, had no idea about the content of those meetings.

“I know how politics works, Mr Richardson,” Wilkinson replied.

What a perfect tabloid kicker.