International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Archive for the ‘Blithering idiots of our time.’ Category

Oikophobia

Today I learned a new word: oikophobia.

Xenophobia is fear of the alien; oikophobia is fear of the familiar: “the disposition, in any conflict, to side with ‘them’ against ‘us’, and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours.’ ” British philosopher Roger Scruton

Here’s a good example I saw recently.

So, US Defence Secretary (and war criminal) Leon Panetta wants to station US troops in New Zealand. I have just one question to ask in response: what’s in it for us? Because there doesn’t actually seem to be any benefit in it for New Zealand. We get to be marked as US “territory”, possibly used as a remote venue for torture or other US war crimes, and we get to have our people killed and raped by American soldiers (as happens in e.g. Okinawa). And in exchange, we get to be dragged into their wars. That sounds like a shit deal, and one no proper representative of New Zealand’s interests should want any part of.
 Before other oikophobes in our government spat on them, the US counted us as an ally.  Since that time, we’ve been trying to figure out how to get back into their good books, while trying to not get offside with the oikophobes.
Here’s an idea: Ignore the oikophobes and just do the right thing. Original, no?

New Evidence Suggests that Someone Wrote “Jesus” and “Wife” on the same bit of papyrus in the 4th century

Glenn’s got this one covered. I’ll pull out a few quotes.

In a statement released by Harvard University, Professor Karen King says “Christian tradition has long held that Jesus was not married, even though no reliable historical evidence exists to support that claim,” This appears to be a strange reversal of duty. If anyone wishes to claim that there was a woman who was married to Jesus, surely it is they who would need to provide “reliable historical evidence exists to support that claim.” What is more, the fact that all the biographical material written about Jesus, right up to this scrap in the fourth century, no not include references to him having a wife is a significant fact. Given the reverence shown in many parts of the Christian world, even from an early time, to the mother of Jesus, the natural expectation we should have is that if Jesus had been married, his wife would have been singled out as an especially important person. But the reality is that none of the accounts of the life of Jesus that we have even make reference to such a person existing – until this snippet appeared, dating from the fourth century.

The Gnostic heresy is pretty well documented, so the fact that there’s a bit of papyrus from thte 4th century is one big yawn.

The Huffington Post (no surprises there) called the discovery “shocking,” although who is actually shocked is anyone’s guess. Massaging the notion that Jesus being married is a fairly common suggestion, it throws this wee gem into the mix: “The life of historical Jesus is often a matter of controversy, and this is not the first time it’s been proposed that Jesus was married. Most recently, Dan Brown’s novel “The Da Vinci Code” depicted Jesus as being married to Mary Magdalene.” That may not be the best way to make the claim sound more plausible (but there’s at least a chance the Huff’s writers and editors aren’t aware of that).

Ouch.

But wait, here’s a chance for the media to attack the big, bad Roman Catholic Church.

“Angered” is hardly the word (perhaps the writer is attempting to connect dots to the angry protests over an anti-Islamic film happening as I write this). The film was more of a laughing-stock among early church historians and New Testament scholars. But notice that the idea that Jesus was not married is here presented as the position represented by the Catholic Church. The fact is, quire regardless of church affiliation, Jesus being married is simply not a view taken seriously across the spectrum of New Testament scholars – and churches for that matter. It’s a cute attempt to imply that it’s the Catholic Church in one corner and the rest of us in the other, but such is not reality.

I think some Christians were angered by the The Da Vinci Code, but that is hardly worth writing home about. The movie presented easily verifiable lies about the christian faith, it’s hardly news that some people would be angered by that. But there were (of course) no riots or ambassadors being dragged through the streets and killed.

Update: In case you hadn’t heard, the fragment has now been declared absolutely fake since it contains an error that only occurs in a PDF(yes, really!) of the so-called “Gospel of Thomas”.

The Victorian Values promoted by such hetrosexual bigots as Chris Carter

Silly, silly man.

Labour MP David Clark, a Presbyterian minister, said there was an absence of advice for gay marriage in the Christian scriptures, particularly in Jesus’ words.

“I suspect he would say that marriage is frequently paraded in the media by those who claim a Christian viewpoint as really a thinly veiled defence of Victorian morality.”

Mr Clark voted for the bill.

Jesus didn’t live in Victorian England. He lived in ancient Israel. The morality of that time comes from a strict interpretation of Leviticus, whose laws indicated that homosexual behaviour should be stoned*. Victorian England merely locked up homosexuals.

In fact it’s even sillier than that – way sillier.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister):

NZ Herald June 21 2004 “Should people who want to have legal recognition of a marriage be able to get it? The Government says yes, but you can’t marry. Marriage is only for heterosexuals. The Government is not — underline — not, changing the Marriage Act. That will remain as an option only for heterosexual couples.”

TIM BARNETT (Labour – now Secretary General of Labour):
1st Reading “The Civil Union Bill is an acceptable alternative; marriage can remain untouched.”

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour):
1st Reading  “I accept that marriage has a traditional and religious heritage, which is why our churches are so protective of it ….Having said that, I utterly reject the idea that the State cannot create an alternative way of recognising couples—be they straight or gay—…”

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Labour):

1st Reading “The Marriage Act applies only to heterosexual couples. The opponents of the Civil Union Bill feel strongly that that should remain so.The Government respects that view, which is why there is no proposal to change that Act.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour, Associate Minister of Justice):
1st Reading “Through the Civil Union Bill, the Government …is also confirming that in New Zealand marriage remains solely available to a man and a woman. Marriage will continue to be covered by a separate Act and recognised as a separate institution. …The social, religious, and traditional values associated with marriage will remain”
3rd Reading “Marriage remains something available solely to a man and a woman. Civil unions offer an alternative to those unable to marry, or who do not wish to marry.”

Idiot/Savant is calling for homophobic bigots to be kicked out of the Labour party. But really, one has to wonder how these people were allowed to stay given their “Victorian England values” only 8 years ago.

 

————————————–

*True, he challenged some aspects of it. But he focused on the self-righteous way it was being enforced.

“New Zealand’s own Rosa Parks” – excuse me while I go vomit

The arrogance is jaw dropping.

The group was met by MPs from Labour, National, Greens, Maori and Mana after marching from Civic Square.

The bill’s sponsor Labour MP Louisa Wall was introduced as “New Zealand’s own Rosa Parks”.

She told the crowd that the discrimination in New Zealand’s marriage laws needed to be amended.

She also asked church leaders and other opponents to be tolerant as the bill was debated.

“Please do not fear what this bill will do,” she said.

So an MP who was gifted a safe seat for life and puts up a silly bill that merely changes a label and gives no real new rights is compared to someone who literally risked her life, got arrested and lost her job to fight racism.

What an incredible insult to the civil rights movement.

Oh, and we’re all supposed “be tolerant” (translation: shut up and let us do what we want) while this lunacy is debated.

The “you know your place” implication is especially ironic in this context don’t you think?

Racism is (now) showing someone who has a race

When people talk about PC thinking destroying the world, they’re talking about things like this.

In an unusual move, Bank of Canada Governor has Mark Carney apologised for bank note changes that prompted critics to accuse the central bank of racism.

The initial design for the new C$100 note featured a picture of an Asian woman but this was scrapped after focus groups expressed concern Asians should not be the only ethnic group represented.

When the bill was released into circulation last year, the Asian woman had been removed and replaced by a woman who looked to be Caucasian, prompting complaints from Chinese groups and media commentators.

In the bank’s first formal apology in nearly a decade, Carney said the Bank had never intended bank notes to feature people who represented only one ethnic group.

“I apologise to those who were offended. The Bank’s handling of this issue did not meet the standards Canadians justifiably expect of us,” he said in a statement.

If that’s not evidence that PC thinking is screwing up people’s brains, I don’t know what is.

Also, in other idiotic news

A family ordered to leave their late mother’s state house says government agencies paid her benefit and collected her rent for four months after she died.

Northland man Raymond Dunn said his mother Rina Dunn’s Work and Income benefit ceased only weeks ago.

The family is still occupying the Whangarei house in defiance of a chain of eviction notices served by Housing New Zealand since Mrs Dunn died on March 21.

Until two weeks before the last deadline of August 13, the rent was being paid from Mrs Dunn’s benefit, which Work and Income had not cut off, Mr Dunn said.

He was disgusted that the Government could pay as well as take his late mother’s benefit for that length of time, he said.

Get that? He’s disgusted that he received money he was not entitled to, and probably broke the law to receive. It’s illegal to not inform WINZ of a change of circumstances, yet here is an entire family having a go at the authorities for paying it (I think, honestly it’s hard to know really).

Quite how they could be disgusted that the government took money for rent is beyond me. It’s not like they had moved out – quite the opposite, they’re refusing.

I note that they were kicked out today. No word on whether the police will investigate the government for failing to act on not being given information, or failing to stop charging rent for a house that was being lived in.

The Standard bans Peter George

Peter George is a regular at both Kiwiblog and The Standard. He’s pretty middle of the road and usually has something very sensible to say.

His last comment on The Standard was no exception.

micky, you may not have noticed but the overwhelming majority of flame wars are one sided attempts, and often with only one aim, to attack me regardless of what I post. If you look just below here I posted something and the usual trolls attacked, and the exact same topic was deliberately re-raised and discussed.

If you want to be an exclusive club of hard lefties that harrasses off anyone you take a dislike to then you need to be more upfront.

He then points out that the blog was supposed to be founded to push the ideas of the bloggers to a wider audience. Fair enough.

The response? We’re sick of you – you’re out of here.

What you seem to fail to understand is that as well as putting up ideas for criticism, there are objectives of the site includes pointing out the flaws of political policies, flawed economics, political idiots, brown-nosing journos, and outright thickheads like yourself. This is because those are also part of the political process, which is something that you seem to prefer that others do not do. Most people around here have long since concluded that is because you hate mirrors….

I’d ask if you get the point, but it is quite apparent that you never do think on what others say. For some reason you appear to think that examining and expressing your own unthinking and often bigoted ideas about the left is a preferable technique to listening to others or actually thinking.

Permanent ban for yet again trying to tell us what we should be doing with the site. I’m tired of it and I really don’t think you’re capable of either learning or holding your end up in any kind of discussion.

Interesting to read the thread myself – I didn’t see a single person who seemed upset by this.

(Oh, and Lynn – if you’re going to come here and express your weird fetish for preaching that The Standard is just a computer program and doesn’t have opinions etc etc – don’t bother humiliating yourself.)

Sperling Quote of the Day

Because all of her psychotic, nasty, and vitriolic spew had been anonymous – i had no proof that it was her that has been stalking and harassing me. I knew it was her – but i had no proof…

Quite how people can read admissions like that and still think that Sperling has a shred of credibility is beyond me. All Ms Brown needs to do is place that comment in evidence, and the question of whether she made those comments need not be answered in the first place, since by Sperling’s own admission the allegation has no basis outside paranoia.

And in fact it’s worse than that. Not only is there no proof that the comments are from Ms Brown, there is actually proof (which has been provided to the court) that they are not from Ms Brown. But Sperling is so determined to paint the woman she hates as a stalker, she’s prepared to ignore evidence, claim court testimony is a perjury (funny that she’s just made that very testimony unnecessary!) and see a complaint laid against her (in large part because of those obsessions) as “final proof” that her paranoia is true.

All of which makes me wonder that she actually might believe her own fictitious story about all this.

—————————————–

This post is about Jacqueline (Jackie) Sperling, and is part of an ongoing series discussing her ongoing campaign of harassment and lies against lawyer Madeleine Flannaganlawyer Simon Buckingham, and Ms Brown (her original target for harassment), as well as The Narrative – the alternate reality she presents on her blog in which she pretends to be the victim of her targets. You can read a court decision that outlines her campaign and the court’s assessment of The Narrative herePlease do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.

Conspiracy or Incompetence

I once had a flatmate, and we’d talk politics all the time. One thing he always said was, “never attribute to a conspiracy what can be attributed to incompetence”.

Jackie Sperling is trying to make it out that she’s being stalked*.

…I have ignored her constant attempts at intimidating me by letting me know that she thinks she knows where i am studying. I also ignored her when i spotted her near where i am studying and hoped that despite her working at the other end of the city – that it was just a coincidence that she was near where she had made it so clear that she knew i would be.

Until now – i had not written anything about the harassment that i am still having to put up with. Despite the fact that it worries me that i have no idea how she found out where i am studying (i have never stated where i am doing my studies – not even on my Facebook page so is she checking my mail or something?) or how she got my phone number (i have changed it since i knew her) i have just ignored her and the sock puppets.

Of course the most obvious answer is that they have friends in common (and they do) and one of them told her victim.

The second most obvious is that she talks all the time about her courses, their names, length and requirements, on her blog.

The third most obvious thing is that she just might have posted it on Facebook at some point and Google picked it up.

Yes, Sperling is accusing her victim of hacking her email, when the information is available by typing two words into the word’s most popular search engine.

I’ve known where she studies for weeks, and I almost added it to the original version of my disclaimer below. I had no idea it was supposed to be private and the reason I didn’t include it has nothing to do with protecting her privacy. But at this point, I’m not 100% comfortable posting the information so I will not.

*Apparently my post of yesterday embarrassed her so much that she took it down and re-wrote it!

————————————

This post is about Jacqueline (Jackie) Sperling, and is part of an ongoing series discussing her ongoing campaign of harassment and lies against lawyer Madeleine Flannagan and Ms Brown (her original target for harassment), and The Narrative – the alternate reality she presents on her blog in which she pretends to be the victim of her targets. You can read a court decision that outlines her campaign and the court’s assessment of The Narrative herePlease do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.

Jackie Sperling Endorses this Blog!

I think Jackie posting this counts as a blank cheque, don’t you?

I suppose now that I’ve pointed it out she’ll take down or edit the post or something.

————

This post is about Jacqueline (Jackie) Sperling, and is part of an ongoing series discussing her ongoing campaign of harassment and lies against lawyer Madeleine Flannagan and Ms Brown (her original target for harassment), and The Narrative – the alternate reality she presents on her blog in which she pretends to be the victim of her targets. You can read a court decision that outlines her campaign and the court’s assessment of The Narrative herePlease do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.

Madeleine Flannagan, Lawyer, again defamed by crazy (ex) drug addict bent on campaign of harassment

Jacqueline Sperling has a special place in her heart for a lawyer named Madeleine Flannagan. As I’ve noted previously, she’s blogged obsessively about the dispute she created with her, and has produced as part of that obsession a screed of lies and harassment that is pretty hard to brush under the carpet. This is a woman obsessed to the point of madness.

Take her latest post:

In other words – i think Judge Harvey is saying – What. The. Heck?

Notice that Sperling is very careful to insert “I think”. By doing this she makes the statement an opinion, rather that a simple and blatent lie it would otherwise be.

This is Madeleine Flannagan’s 4th attempt to do something to me legally. This is her 4th abject failure. Madeleine Flannagan needs someone to be supervising her – in my honest opinion. She obviously has no idea what she is doing.
Note again the “in my honest opinion”. There can be no question that this is an honest opinion of course – it’s thoroughly dishonest.
The judge in question has in fact specifically and flatly refuted Sperling’s previous claims of Madeleine Flannagan’s competence as a lawyer. Shall I quote the section again? Yes, I think I shall.
[222] Some of those posts are distressing and are made knowing that their content would distress. [snip] In addition comments had been made of a derogatory nature regarding Ms Flannagan’s religious beliefs and her competence as a law practitioner which have no substance and are clearly designed to hurt. I am satisfied that the comments were made in such circumstances that the contents of them were clearly offensive.

So she’s doing something for which she has already been slapped down for by a judge. But since the judge didn’t actually act against her, she considers that all but the final decision in that judgement to be irrelevant fluff.

But the final irony is that Madeleine Flannagan had nothing to do with this legal action.

So we must as a consequence question not Ms Flannagan’s ability as a lawyer, but Ms Sperling’s ability to read a letter written in English a 6 year old would be able to understand.

And it goes without saying that the rest of the post contains lies so blatant I don’t see any reason to dignify them with any answer whatsoever.
—————

This post is about Jacqueline (Jackie) Sperling, and is part of an ongoing series discussing her ongoing campaign of harassment and lies against lawyer Madeleine Flannagan and Ms Brown (her original target for harassment), and The Narrative – the alternate reality she presents on her blog in which she pretends to be the victim of her targets. You can read a court decision that outlines her campaign and the court’s assessment of The Narrative herePlease do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.

Tag Cloud