Except that he’s not an intellectual, his understanding of most public affairs would barely pass muster in any self-respecting uni bar conversation (at least back when I was at uni, and students didn’t spend all their leisure time comparing features on their iphones), and the only time he really knows what he’s doing is when he is sticking it to the opposition. Which is why he spends so much time doing exactly that; it’s his comfort zone.

Back on early election when Rudd was questioned on Tasmanian forests, and Michael O’Connor was appointed onto the national ALP execuitive from Forestry union within CFMEU (having condoned violent union protests against anti logging folks), Rudd said to the effect of:

We will decide forests on the “science”.

But over 100 best biologists wrote a letter Howard as PM prior to 2004 election where Latham flamed out, saying in clear language most of that forest should be saved. It was hard to reference but I found the list, first linked to defunct Earthbeat, also published by me at the time.

But Rudd didn’t follow the science. He is a, and I mean this in a front bar room and also legal technical sense, a big f*cking liar. The forests policy fraughtness is emblematic of Rudd on king coal climate (iCoal 2.0 indeed, as per Get Up).

So there we have it Kevin “Science” Rudd. A logical hook for him as an accomplished academic to grab at, his default rhetorical indeed. But when he said it under pressure in an interview, it was without sincerity or conviction. He is thus hoist on his own hook/petard. Science is a purely ironic term.

The fact he looks like a walking lab coat only amuses more even more. It’s a slow fuse this tag and joke. But it bears repeating, repeating, repeat ……..

But “Science”? We’ll have to ask Tom about that one again when opportunity permits. Tom marches to a different drum but he picks up a lot that the rest of us miss, for example he was one of the first to figure out who “Sharon Gould” was in the Quadrant hoax.

Indeed we saw his knee jerkery on abc tv news tonight. The guy is a news grab in search of a conviction.

(i) by not pursuing the truth regarding SIEVX Rudd’s government is already complicit in the tragedy — - the excuse of realpolitik does not wash

(ii) Rudd’s rabid language demonising the ‘smugglers’ hides him behind a thin veil —  — the refugees are also implicitly targetted as collateral evils. It’s what people used to desc ribe as a dog whistle when we heard this kind of stuff from Howard/Ruddock et al. I thought for a moment the other day that in Rudd’s usual ugly, extravagent and painfully contrived language we were about to hear him say that we will decide who comes here and when etc etc.

(iii) If his real problem is with the smugglers and not the refugees he would be working with Indonesia not just to intercept the boats, but instead to speed up the latters’ almost interminable transit in our poorer neighbouring states

In any case, isn’t the real and wider issue that here we sit on a massive + wealthy land mass and we appear unable to summon enough compassion to take into our nation a few hundred people fleeing from a situation verging on genocide??????? The heartlessness continues, and the orwellian abuse of language prevails!!!!!