I will bring yesterday's posts up at the right date. For the moment, I am distracted by the continuing fall-out from the Sydney hostage crisis. This post is a follow up to Palme' d’Ors for silliness in Sydney’s hostage crisis. I have, following advice from kvd, corrected the heading.
My first new Palme d'Or for supreme silliness goes to Senator David Leyonhjelm for his views on guns. It’s not that I agree with Stephanie Peatling nor necessarily disagree with all aspects of what Senator Leyonhjelm says (I opposed Mr Howard’s views on gun control), but the timing was remarkably stupid. As, I might add, were the reactions of US Tea Party supporters.
My second Palme d'Or for supreme silliness goes to change.org for their email encouraging me to support a petition on tighter bail laws. Now as an organisation they need to run with popular issues to get cash, and I understand the position of those suddenly reacting who change.org is responding to. But at a time when Australia has been rife with proposals and actions to restrict bail, many of which have very adverse effects on particular individuals or groups with little social gain, we need another anti-bail campaign like a hole in the head. Let’s just wait until we know the facts.
My third Palme d'Or for supreme silliness goes to the neo-conservative commentators for their comments on the
#illridewithyou campaign. The term neo-liberals is sometimes applied to them, but that has an economics connotation that I don’t always disagree with. I like neo-conservative better because they wish to freeze Australian society into that particular past model stuck in their mind. To attach neo-liberal to those views is an insult to liberalism.
This is not, I might add, an attack on my regular commenter Rod who has been engaged in a conversation with me on the issue. Rather, the neo-cons attack the very goodness of the human spirit.