I sent this email to the editor of the spiked blog, because I reckon they’re not as free thinking as they think they are!

*     *     *     *     *

G’day guys,

I just came across spiked for the first time today. According to your What is spiked? page, spiked  is:

… waging a culture war of words against misanthropy, priggishness, prejudice, luddism, illiberalism and irrationalism in all their ancient and modern forms.

I like that!

But when I started to read, at the top of the list, the articles on abortion I found that all of them - well, all the ones I read, anyway - were toeing the conventional line that women have the right to abortion. Not one writer had the courage or the insight to take a different line, one that concerned itself with the rights of the infant being destroyed. So what’s so free thinking about that? What’s so rational about that? In what way is presenting only one side of a debate unprejudiced? Its exactly the same line as being taken in all the mainline press. You have contributed nothing new at all.

I like the idea of alternative views getting an airing, and maybe on your other topics they do. But on this one, as far as I can see, spiked just toes the same old destructive line that the mainline press does and thereby fails the test of being truly free thinking.

Thanks

Willem Schultink

Geelong
Australia.

@martin 11.54 am - Pedigree is not what Jags are about. They are about innovation. Look at the Mark 7 - first production twin overhead cam engine; Mark 10 - all independent suspension; E-Type - totally revolutionary styling! XJ a trendsetter that was also to become the home of the first mass produced V12 … I could go on.

The styling of this Jag is innovative and forward looking. For too long Jag has been backward looking, resting on its past glories. Now they have made a forward looking, cutting edge style. The engineering too, is right up there and going into the future. This is a good development for Jaguar.

This is in response to comments on an article by Stephen Ottley, entitled ‘First Drive, the new Jaguar XJ‘, in ‘The Age’ on 16 July 2010.

Some comments by others in response to my postings:

*     *     *     *     *

@Willem 10.32 you have to stop making reasoned arguments. This is the interwebs. Opinions and rants from minority interests groups is what its about here

johnno - July 16, 2010, 10:58AM

Chris is correct and it does not take a religious perspective to see this. The best for children is being raised by their own biological parents, preferably in the stability and public institution of marriage. Where this is not possible, then they need, deserve and have the right to be raised by a mother and father. We do wrong by our children when we make their needs subservient to the political goals of others.

Also, well said Willem of Geelong - July 16, 2010, 10:32AM

I find it rather bigoted for some above commentators to dismiss Chris’ piece based on his faith. Isn’t that what intolerance is all about?

FGC | Sydney - July 16, 2010, 11:03AM

*     *     *     *     *

@ Willem - so fine, but what policies would “support” this utopian view of marriage? One that would discriminate against others? Why should a non abusive family household that does not match the marriage criteria get less value out of their tax dollar than a married family? Any policy would be discriminatory and for what gain? Bugger all.

Kat | Melbourne - July 16, 2010, 10:43AM

There are a few correspondents here who need to read what the article is about. Its about the best relationship arrangements for raising children. Its not about the Catholic Church’s abuse of children. That is a separate issue, and quite a tragic one, but it is not the issue being discussed.

The questions is, is a child best raised in a stable married relationship, or in other relationships? The author of this article makes a point that research seems to indicate that a child being raised by a husband and wife in a stable married relationship has a better chance of being looked after properly than children raised in other relationship structures. We can debate that point of view and have different points of view. That’s entirely valid. Abusing the author because he’s a member of an organisation that has done some things wrong is totally beside the point. And its an invalid argument.

Again, the question is, is a child best raised in a stable married relationship, or in other relationships? Can we focus on the question and refrain from abusing the author? Please.

This is in response to an article by Chris Meney, entitled ‘Man and wife? That’s best for baby‘, in ‘The Age’ on 16 July 2010.

Actually, what Chris Meney is saying is what’s obvious to anyone who cares to look. A couple in a serious, stable relationship is more likely to look after their own children better than those with a less stable relationship. And most couples in such long term relationships get married Its a public commitment that reinforces and clearly states the underlying private commitment.

That is not to say that other relationship arrangements can’t work. I have seen some wonderful single parents who give of themselves to their kids in every way they can. But every one of them will tell you how hard it has been for them. Men and women have different strengths and weaknesses, and a husband and wife complement each other. Single parents have to try to carry out both roles. Its tough, and I admire those who give it their best shot.

The least favourable arrangement is for kids living with non biological parents. This is also obvious. The non biological parent does not have the same bond to a child that a biological parent does. Therefore the risk of abuse is greater. This is particularly true in transient relationships because there is no opportunity for a long term bond to develop.

So if kids in long term married relationships fare better than all others, then it makes sense for governments to support those relationships. It could be argued that governments failing to do so are  failing in their duty of care to the children of our nation. So Chris Meney is quite right to call for governmental support for these relationships that have been demonstrated to work.

This is in response to an article by Chris Meney, entitled ‘Man and wife? That’s best for baby‘, in ‘The Age’ on 16 July 2010.

Huh? Larger vehicles are safer, so lots of our correspondents want to ban them? That makes lots of sense! Not!

The article was about large vehicles in general, though it used 4WDs as examples. It is just commonsense that a larger vehicle, all else being equal, will be safer than a smaller vehicle. You don’t really need expensive tests to show that.

Up till recently I had two cars. One was a VW Caravelle with 7 seats; the other was a Range Rover. Both weighed about two tonnes. Both used roughly the same amount of fuel (LPG in both cases). Both took up about the same road space. So why is the Range Rover regarded as a ‘tank’, and the VW as a benign people mover? And, if drivers of 4WDs are ‘blockheads’, do I get to be a ‘blockhead’ if I get out of my VW and into my Range Rover? And become ‘unblockheaded’ when I get out again? Am I ‘not only stupid but entirely selfish’ when I get in to my Range Rover, but not so when I am in my VW? Remember, both are same size, same weight, same fuel consumption.

Now I have sold both cars and bought … a later model Range Rover to replace them. Still on LPG, because I do care about the environment. It has seven seats because I still have 5 kids at home. Because its a later model it has far better stability - better than most sedans. The air suspension lowers it when travelling at speed on the highways. The design has corrected the earlier problems with weak roof pillars, and these cars are now recognised as being as safe as any in a rollover.

So why does the Range Rover get abused and the VW not?

This is my response to comments on an article in ‘The Age’ newspaper on vehicle safety. The main thrust of the article was that larger vehicles are safer than smaller vehicles, all else being equal.

 My wife and I need to go to Finland for our son’s wedding. So I tried to book a flight through the website of a well known international airline. It was frustrating, and a bit hilarious at times! I never did have any success getting the flight booked. I wonder if they’ll get back to me before I book with someone else? This is the email I sent them:

*     *     *     *     *     *

Fair go guys.

I did a search for a three stage flight from Melbourne to Helsinki to Amsterdam to Melbourne. A list of flights came up. No prices. So I had to choose from a selection of flights without knowing which was the best price. That’s not smart.

Then I get a message that someone else has beat me to a flight. but no indication of which of the three flights I’ve selected I’ve missed out on. So I have to guess and try again. And again. And again.

Then I get a message that you can’t sell this flight online!! Well why list it then?? And you don’t tell me which flight of three. So I have to guess. Again. I tried about a dozen times, but each time it gave one of the two reasons listed above. So I still do not know:

Can I fly with ………..?
If so, how much will it cost me?

I reckon you guys need to have a talk with your website designer and your business manager. This is costing you bookings. You need to fix it.

If you think you still want me to fly with you you can contact me on either the phone number or the email address above.

Thanks

Willem
Geelong Australia.

Sometimes I despair about PC and other forms of bullying. As soon as we begin to talk about ‘vile comments’ or ‘draconian’ or some other put down phrase, you are telling the other person that their point of view is invalid. You just marginalise that person and their viewpoint without dealing with it, without trying to show them why your viewpoint is better.

I think that what JG is suggesting is that we have a debate about this issue where everyone’s viewpoints are given a fair hearing, even if we reckon they are wrong. The advantage of this, of which she is no doubt well aware, is that someone might actually make a suggestion that will help us all to deal with the problem. And that suggestion may well come from someone from whom we least expect it.

PC is attempting to shut down people you don’t agree with. That is a form of censorship, and Julia Gillard, as well as John Howard, are quite right to oppose it.

This is my response to comments on an article about Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s suggestion to have a debate on asylum seekers free of political correctness.

Strewth. Someone makes a comment about social mores and gets bucketed in no uncertain terms. Pretty savage terms, actually! All those who savaged Bettina Arndt ought to have a look at their own attitudes to life. Should they be treating other people in that way? Bettina was at least courteous, even if she criticised Julia Gillard. She was making a valid social comment. Why the savagery of the responses?

BTW, just because something was right in the 50s doesn’t make it wrong in 2010. Some things have permanent value. They don’t change just because time goes on. For instance, caring for your children was right in 1950, and it is still right today. So the question is not ‘thats so last century’, its ‘is this right?’ When we consider the issues of marriage etc, and permanent commitment, that is the question we should be asking. To make comments about this being 2010 and not 1950 is irrelevant.

This is a response to an article by Bettina Arndt in the ‘Brisbane Times’ newspaper, and other responses to that article.

One response to this post:

@Willem - June 29, 2010, 9:56AM

Well said.

The Big Lebowski | Los Angeles - June 29, 2010, 10:23AM

Which was encouraging!

Willem

So Australia lost a soccer match to Germany. And everyone is after Pim Verbeek’s blood! I reckon the Aussie team did pretty well to get where they did.

Germany is a nation of some 82 million people, whose number one ball sport is soccer. Australia is a nation of some 21 million people whose number one ball sport is AFL football. Soccer is at best third - after AFL and rugby - and possibly fourth if you include basketball. And this doesn’t even consider cricket!

Dick Advocaat got it right … our expectations of the Socceroos were a bit unrealistic. Soccer is a relatively minor sport in Australia and when we try to tangle it with a major soccer nation we’re going to come off second best.

Perhaps we’d get a better perspective on it if we consider how a representative team from the AFL Germany league would go if they tackled, say, the Geelong Cats. How do you reckon they would cope? I suspect that if Geelong hit the straps there’d be a bit of a slaughter- to make Germany’s defeat of the Socceroos look mild!

Could Pim Verbeek have done better? Of course he could! He has said so himself. Perhaps he needs to go and have a look at Geelong’s free flowing attacking style and he wouldn’t be so keen on making  defensive team. But compared to Germany he still has limited player skills to work with, and that will automatically limit the results we can get. So Aussie expectations should begin to match up with reality!

Willem