A poetic view of Copenhagen

One Crikey reader pens a lovely piece of poetry on Copenhagen, Imre Salusinszky weighs in Rundle and Windschuttle, while others argue over internet censorship and government Chritsmas propaganda.

Wonderful Copenhagen:

Steve O’Connor writes: Re. “Copenhagen: one, big, brutal reality check” (yesterday, item 2):

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

7 comments

Leave a comment

7 thoughts on “A poetic view of Copenhagen

  1. Evan Beaver

    Robert Murray, I disagree entirely:
    “it is not ignorant, silly or corrupt”

    RE climate scepticism. I have not seen an intelligent explanation of the current observed changes from a single sceptic. The most recent sceptic I saw, Ian Plimer on the 7.30 report, was utterly embarrassing and devoid of anything that could even remotely be called science.

  2. Jo Dyer

    For those, like Ava, concerned about the number of trees wasted to produce government propaganda and other junk mail, can I suggest the purchase of “Ghost Trees”, intriguing artwork created by Sydney artist Michael James Rowland that transforms paper from junk mail back into elegant trees….

    Check it out at http://tinyurl.com/mjr-trees .

  3. shepherdmarilyn

    Ah Imre, the Iraqi soldiers have every right in the world to try and defend their country against the maruading hoards, even us.

    Just like we do if we are invaded. I know the Newsltd. stable all managed to absolutely support murdering innocent Iraqis but most of the rest of the world didn’t.

    And we were and are correct.

  4. Stilgherrian

    Ah, Verita Pravda, verballing me again eh? If I “crowed” about stephenconroy.com.au, or even mention it before about Saturday, I’d be surprised — because as far as I recall I didn’t even know about it until it was taken down and I started writing the Crikey story about that takedown.

    I never thought Senator Conroy’s office would have been involved in that takedown. Indeed they said they were not involved — it’s a shame that due a production error that didn’t make it into yesterday’s story — and so did auDA. We have the clarification today. I’m more than happy with that. But people were asking over the weekend and it’s a reasonable angle for the story to explore that speculation and squash it.

    I think you’re trying to mountain a molehill here. I’d have asked about the “sudden” takedown no matter whose name was attached.

    The attempt to stifle Mark Newton is a “myth” now? Perhaps we should ask him about this, eh?

    That Conroy’s office consulted with the IIA about the scheme overall doesn’t rule out the they also did that bit of bullying as reported at the time. No-one was denying that it happened then, I seem to recall.

    As for the RC material, I do think it’s time for Conroy to stop misrepesenting that classification. To focus solely on the child abuse material, rape, bestiality, incest etc is to give a misleading impression of the full scope of the proposal. I’m all for doing something about fighting child abuse — provided that it’d be an effective spend, not just because some conservative Christians have stirred up a lather of fear. But I am still to be convinced that blocking the minuscule ACMA blacklist will really do anything practical to prevent that child abuse.

    Even Conroy has softened the aim to help “reduce” the “inadvertent” exposure to this material. I am stilol to be convinced by actual evidence that this “inadvertent exposure” happens and is worth spending $44 million of taxpayers’ money to stop.

  5. shepherdmarilyn

    Is filtering out porn, snuff films, child porn and other goodies really going to upset your life though, that is the question because it is not going to affect mine in the least.

    Of course if one could rid the world of the perverts who make the stuff that would be great, but many homes on the planet have a pervert or two.

  6. Keith is not my real name

    “Rundle’s attack on me, while pathetic, does not come close to some of his previous classics. I particularly recall his avid barracking for Saddam Hussein’s troops against the men and women of the ADF, in 2003.

    I note, in closing, that the goateed little grub finds non-Anglo names hilarious. Is this what it has come to, for the far Left?”

    @Imre Salusinszky… You really shouldn’t have included those para’s above, it totally ruined what you were saying.

  7. bakerboy

    Imre Salusinszky – when are you going to apologise for your disgraceful criticism of the many loyal and sensible Australians who opposed the war in Iraq in 2003. Yes, we still remember your article in the pro-war Oz newspaper in 2003.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...