Parliament House Staff Appall Me

[octave]

3 minutes ago, willedoo said:

Only to do your own research instead of blindly accepting something.

 

True but what do we do about the large number of people who do not do that.  In terms of the media there are outlets such as fox news,  their viewers are not likely to be the type who take it upon themselves to check assertions.  It is fair to ask "who checks the checkers"  I believe in scientific method and peer review.  We definitely need people to do the research and put the verifiable facts out there.    

37 minutes ago, willedoo said:

I'd rather leave it to the reader to use their own brain and judgement to make his or her own decision  on what is or isn't worth believing.

 

I believe a media news source should be obliged (ethically and legally) to only present well researched facts or at least to label opinions and not try to pass them off as facts.   I am a bit concerned by -

43 minutes ago, willedoo said:

on what is or isn't worth believing.

I think what is important to  is not what is "worth: believing"   but rather what is factually true even if it contradicts what I have held to be true in the past.  In areas that are important to us like medicine we surely need fact checking. 

[willedoo]

6 minutes ago, octave said:

I think what is important to  is not what is "worth: believing"   but rather what is factually true even if it contradicts what I have held to be true in the past.  In areas that are important to us like medicine we surely need fact checking. 

I've probably used the wrong word there and need to be more literal. By worth believing I meant that if someone looks into the issue, does their own factchecking via a cross section of reputable sources, they could decide that the article warrants believing. Scrub out worth and insert another word maybe, but I think you know what I mean.

 

I do agree that a lot of people won't bother to do that when it comes to their news sources. I think some independent body like Marty suggested could only police the glaringly obvious untruths in media. A lot of the rest of it is a grey area. For instance, do they ban lying but allow paltering, which is one of the the biggest problems with media today.

[willedoo]

Here's an example. Peta Credlin on Fox News said that the Covid app has only ever tracked down 17 Covid cases, at a cost of whatever dollar figure per month she quoted. In the context of her presentation, the implication was that the app was a dud. What she said regarding the figure is probably true and could be easily verified.

 

What she didn't mention was how many contacts had been traced and tested negative. The success of the app would be in how many contacts can be traced, not how many of those traced contacts tested as positive cases. So in that case, if her figure is correct, it's not misinformation; she told the truth. But it could be classed as paltering because of the omission of other relevant facts.

 

That's an example of grey areas I referred to, and it happens daily in our news and influences peoples opinions. It would be a minefield for any appointed body to oversee what's acceptable and what is not.

[Jerry_Atrick]

It is a difficult area... However, an independent APC drawn whose officials are drawn from diverse professional (and if need be, political) backgrounds where they have teeth to adjudciate and effect punishment on the licenced press is a start. There is a code of ethics or rule book or whatever... everyone has to play with it. In Australia, you have the ludicrous position where the APC can find a press organisation deceitful and recommend they do something about it, but that press orgaisation can snubb that request with no more than media awtch and competotor news organisations reporting it.

 

Compare to the UK, where their press complaints commission or whatever it is now called can effect censure and even pull a license.. Sky News here, owned by Murdoch is a completely different beast to Australia.. yes - it leans conservative, but they look like the ABC compared to Sky News in Australia. My son coudln't believe how bad Sky News in Aus is..

 

For registered/licenced press organisaitons, there is already a rule book. My comment about the rules was for unlicenced publoshers - e.g. bloggers, vloggers, youtubers, etc.. who espouse crap. Some of it contravenes anti-vilifcation laws and hate-speech crimes here and if it is based here gets shut down. This, however, is an area which is going to require internaional coordination to be effective and my guess is the gulf is so wide between different nations as to what is acceptable, that it is unlikely to happen - but someone's got to start it...Yes, it is difficult, and there is a lot of grey... but the contact tracing example, above is a perfect example

 

The problem with relying on people doing their fac checking is that very few do.. most are lazy and will take their news sources from those that are more likely to provide news that confirms their bias (I am sure we all do). As these people also vote, publishers should be under a duty to publish the facts in the context in which they should be reasonably known.. They can opine all they like.. opinion is just that... But they should not be able to disguise facts they have access to in order to support their opiinion in a deceptive way...

 

As I sais, easier said than done..

 

BTW, the Aussie Track and Trace is held as a beacon here.. compared to the crap they spent £7bn (yes, bn) on here.

[Jerry_Atrick]

5 hours ago, Marty_d said:

Your wife shouldn't be forced to make this choice.

 

If the guy is just out of touch and truly doesn't realise that he's making people uncomfortable, he may actually appreciate a firm but friendly comment - in a private setting - that she's not liking the touching.  Yes he may feel mildly humiliated but wouldn't it be less humiliating than if she made it public or went to the head of the club?

 

Either way I feel for her.  Sorry she's going through this.

I think this is the best option - I am sure you have discussed with yout wife, but is it something like a tap on the shoulder or upper arm - or is it a hug after an achievement? The fomer may require less assertion than the latter.

 

My sis-in-law, who is English was gob-smacked when she was pregnant and her gump was visible - by the amount of people that woulc come up and rub her bump wishing her the best... She finally got used to it, but she said it was very unnerving. That was 22 years ago... do they stiull do that in Australia (or Melbourne at least)? From memory, she said it was mainly the older folk who did it..

 

[nomadpete]

The average punter has no interest in going down the rabbit hole of researching and cross referencing the information that they use to form an opinion.

 

They only want a simple executive summary or better still a a easily remembered slogan (like 'ditch the witch')

 

I only wish people generally would do a bit of digging. It might help them (me too) come to grips with the bigger picture of what is happening around us.

 

We are conditioned to have a short attention span. Just look at how news is presented. Its all sound bites.

 

[nomadpete]

7 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

It is a difficult area... However, an independent APC drawn whose officials are drawn from diverse professional (and if need be, political) backgrounds where they have teeth to adjudciate and effect punishment on the licenced press is a start. There is a code of ethics or rule book or whatever... everyone has to play with it.

Jerry, that proposal sounds like an idealist's way of regulating preselection for our government. But I like it. I'm part idealist!

[old man emu]

10 hours ago, willedoo said:

What she didn't mention was how many contacts had been traced and tested negative. The success of the app would be in how many contacts can be traced, not how many of those traced contacts tested as positive cases. So in that case, if her figure is correct, it's not misinformation; she told the truth.

 

[pmccarthy]

A bit of digging may not help. I have done a lot of digging, a great deal, on human induced climate change and I am unconvinced. That might not matter, you say. But so much news today starts from the presumption that it is real, and I have to disbelieve that news item. What is left is slim pickings. 

 

Those who believe in "climate science" will label me a fringe dweller, but I have genuinely read up, consulted sources and people I trust, and still have the dilemma. I do believe that the many people in my situation are targets of "cancel culture" and are simply howled down or ignored by those who have been swayed by the leftist propaganda machine. 

 

Time will tell.

[facthunter]

PMC, you are becoming more of a minority view as more real evidence comes to light. example Antarctic ICE and there's(unfortunately) plenty more evidence emerging.  Climate change opinion started from it didn't exist. The world is too large for "our" activity to affect it The Population of the Planet has tripled in my lifetime. Oceans ARE more acid Measured CO2 is going up. Lots of things ARE going as predicted in TREND. There's a lot of BIG money trying to convince people otherwise.. THEY are not working for OUR good  Or a desire to promote a greater truth. Nev

[Marty_d]

13 hours ago, willedoo said:

Then who fact checks the fact checkers. It's a never ending circle; just one big rabbit hole.

Not really.  You trust public service agencies like the ATO to get your tax right,  and when they stuff up, you go to an ombudsman or appeals tribunal.  Why would this be any different? 

[red750]

Back to the parliament house staff shenanigans, reminds me of the old story.

 

A man takes his lady to a big department store. They go to the dress department where she picks out a couple of lovely, expensive outfits. Then they go to the lingerie department, where she selects a nice negligee and some other nice underwear. Then on to the footwear department, and chooses three pairs of expensive shoes. They then make their way to the checkouts. As she is unpacking her trolley, he puts his EFTPOS card away, and says, "I've changed my mind."

[pmccarthy]

1 minute ago, red750 said:

Back to the parliament house staff shenanigans, reminds me of the old story.

 

A man takes his lady to a big department store. They go to the dress department where she picks out a couple of lovely, expensive outfits. Then they go to the lingerie department, where she selects a nice negligee and some other nice underwear. Then on to the footwear department, and chooses three pairs of expensive shoes. They then make their way to the checkouts. As she is unpacking her trolley, he puts his EFTPOS card away, and says, "I've changed my mind."

Is that a joke? It makes me shudder just to think of the next scene.

[red750]

Sarcastic anecdote.

[old man emu]

He  f**cked her for sure.

[Old Koreelah]

7 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

A bit of digging may not help. I have done a lot of digging, a great deal, on human induced climate change and I am unconvinced. That might not matter, you say. But so much news today starts from the presumption that it is real, and I have to disbelieve that news item. What is left is slim pickings. 
 

 

7 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Time will tell.

That’s the problem, PM. By the time we are all convinced that humans are contributing to climate change, it will be far too late to do anything about it (think of how long it takes a supertanker to change course.)

 

Often debated is whether anything we do will change it.

The real issue is how the world community perceives Australia’s role; at present we are the biggest exporter of polluting coal and our government has done much to stymie renewables. The world will expect us to clean up the mess.
 

When the current trickle of climate refugees turns into a flood, our rich, empty land will be a prime destination.

 

[facthunter]

It looks empty and mainly is because it's very barren rarely gets reliable rain and WE are stuffing it up MORE. WATER is more precious than just about anything else in this country.  There's hardly any river you can drink out of without boiling it Soil carbon is very low and topsoil blown away or washed away by rain erosion, because of how we control weed by discing etc. The artesian parts has been wrecked also. Try imagining how much land we have denuded of trees and caused salination ad caused higher ground temps..When I first started flying the Barrington area was all trees as was most of the country from Penrith to Cowra. Much of the vast wheat country of WA is hopelessly saline probably not recoverable. Didn't take long either in the big scheme of things. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

4 hours ago, red750 said:

Back to the parliament house staff shenanigans, reminds me of the old story.

 

A man takes his lady to a big department store. They go to the dress department where she picks out a couple of lovely, expensive outfits. Then they go to the lingerie department, where she selects a nice negligee and some other nice underwear. Then on to the footwear department, and chooses three pairs of expensive shoes. They then make their way to the checkouts. As she is unpacking her trolley, he puts his EFTPOS card away, and says, "I've changed my mind."

I may be overthinking it, but I've got to be honest, I am not sure what you're getting at here in the context of the conversation. I get that this is (at least in my perception) portraying a situation where the bloke is effectively paying for the hope of sex, or that the woman is manipulating the man to get nice material posessions out of him for the promise of sex, and he decides he's had enough (and presumably she will go on and muck rake him, make a scene or even go so far as to allege he raped her)? 

 

Is the man and woman husband and wife, sugar-daddy/baby, pollie and advisor? Yeah - this sort of "gold-digging" does happen, more than we care to admit... But I guess I am a bit lost in the current context of the point of the sarcastic anecdote. Have any of the pollies or staffers been engaged in something like this that I missed? Genuinely asking because apart from a generic reference to gold-digging, which happens, I am struggling to understand it in the current context.

 

BTW, the book, "The Manipulated Man" (written by a woman) is full of these sorts of anecdotes - or at least the bits I read were...

 

[edit]

And if it is a general reference to gold-digging, then I pull my head back uin unreservedly for overthinking it

Edited April 1, 2021 by Jerry_Atrick

[willedoo]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I may be overthinking it, but I've got to be honest, I am not sure what you're getting at here in the context of the conversation. I get that this is (at least in my perception) portraying a situation where the bloke is effectively paying for the hope of sex, or that the woman is manipulating the man to get nice material posessions out of him for the promise of sex, and he decides he's had enough (and presumably she will go on and muck rake him, make a scene or even go so far as to allege he raped her)? 

 

Is the man and woman husband and wife, sugar-daddy/baby, pollie and advisor? Yeah - this sort of "gold-digging" does happen, more than we care to admit... But I guess I am a bit lost in the current context of the point of the sarcastic anecdote. Have any of the pollies or staffers been engaged in something like this that I missed? Genuinely asking because apart from a generic reference to gold-digging, which happens, I am struggling to understand it in the current context.

 

BTW, the book, "The Manipulated Man" (written by a woman) is full of these sorts of anecdotes - or at least the bits I read were...

 

[edit]

And if it is a general reference to gold-digging, then I pull my head back uin unreservedly for overthinking it

Jerry, I think you are right about overthinking it. Obviously the bloke is a cross-dresser and is too embarrassed to go to the department store alone. He gets his lady to buy the gear for him and when he gets to the checkout, he realises he could save money by wearing her clothes for free. So he cancels the sale; it's that simple.

[nomadpete]

Jerry, you obviously haven't heard the full joke.

 

The joke is not very deep, it highlights the difference between a woman's needs ana her man's needs.

 

If you like, I'll post the full text which you might identify with.

[willedoo]

2 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Jerry, you obviously haven't heard the full joke.

 

The joke is not very deep, it highlights the difference between a woman's needs ana her man's needs.

 

If you like, I'll post the full text which you might identify with.

Well, that stuffs my theory.

[red750]

It's a "shoe on the other foot" anecdote. Women lead men up the garden path, giving the man the impression that he will get what he's hoping for, only to have the gate slammed in his face. "No. I've changed my mind." If a guy was to do what is shown in the anecdote, as aluded to by PMcC, there would be hell to pay from the woman, but the man in the other situation has to crawl of home with his tail (?) between his legs.

[octave]

9 minutes ago, red750 said:

It's a "shoe on the other foot" anecdote. Women lead men up the garden path, giving the man the impression that he will get what he's hoping for, only to have the gate slammed in his face. "No. I've changed my mind." If a guy was to do what is shown in the anecdote, as aluded to by PMcC, there would be hell to pay from the woman, but the man in the other situation has to crawl of home with his tail (?) between his legs.

 

Jeez I am glad I have a good marriage because I cant relate to this at all.

[red750]

They'll have to rewrite the lyrics of the 1950's song by Kitty Kallen:

 

Touch my hair, as you pass my chair,

Little things mean a lot.    an assault charge.

 

https://youtu.be/JUT0hr1AanA

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, red750 said:

It's a "shoe on the other foot" anecdote. Women lead men up the garden path, giving the man the impression that he will get what he's hoping for, only to have the gate slammed in his face. "No. I've changed my mind." If a guy was to do what is shown in the anecdote, as aluded to by PMcC, there would be hell to pay from the woman, but the man in the other situation has to crawl of home with his tail (?) between his legs.

Obviously I have and continue to lead a sheltered life....