Let the study results show ...

So many things bothered me yesterday - to kick off a generally shitty day there was this tweet;

It struck me as a bit odd. I'm no mathematician, but one in three Australians saying they won't pay more to fight global warming means that two out of three would or were at least thinking about it - as in (and I'm sure this is already quite clear to you) the majority of Australians probably are willing to pay. 

Which means that the headline in the paper, rather than stating "We won't pay" should more accurately have said "We will pay for climate change".

In fact, the news.com.au article only gives the stats on the won't side of things. So we don't know how many respondents were willing to cough up some cash or even the metrics of the study (i.e. if there was an "undecided" option). 

Here's the Sydney Morning Herald's article on the study and here is where you can find the actual results of the study from the Institute of Public Affairs website. 

In fact, besides the 35% of respondents that said they wouldn't pay anything, it was only 3% of respondents that were undecided - leaving a massive 62% of respondents willing to pay between $100 and over $1000 in extra taxes to combat global warming.

I know, I shouldn't expect much from news ltd. 

I'm just saying, it annoyed me. But I'm not done yet.

THEN to finish my busy, stressful, almost insufferable day, I see this tweet;

I'm sure I don't need to say too much about why this one bothered me. 

Here's the two main reasons;

(1) Way to perpetuate stereotypes boys (and you know it was a man that did this study*). As if it needs to be reiterated that in popular culture large, mostly fake breasts draw more attention. I hope the follow-up study is about young women and plastic surgery, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, promiscuity and suicide.

(2) Could you waste time on a more useless topic? I'm pretty sure there's more important studies that could be done ... what about a study on why stupid American professors with no prospect of sex develop fixations on the mammary glands of the waitresses at their local Hooters so create a research project based on them in an attempt to initiate conversation and/or intercourse?

Take a breath. 

Right, so Twitter really got me riled up yesterday. I think I might do my own study on the number of times I slap myself in the forehead wondering how people so stupid manage to live and/or prosper.

Rant End.

* For the record, it was this guy. Professor in Food and Beverage Management eh?, nice title. I wonder if McDonald's has that doctorate in their education program.   

Devine Intervention for Abbott

The Sydney Morning Herald columnist Miranda Devine today has a piece about Tony Abbott's female supporters. She suggests that he is, in fact, beloved by the 'normal' female population, it's just a small proportion of women who find him to be a misogynist bible-bashing ignoramus - she describes these women as;

... the aggressively secular, paleo-feminist, emasculating Australian broad, for whom unabashed red-blooded blokeishness is an affront of biblical proportions.

Really? Biblical proportions? Well she would know about that - being the staunch conservative that she is. But it's the next paragraph that I particularly like;

They are unrepresentative of women, and disproportionately influential, because they either work in the media or politics or have high-profile, heavily networked careers which mean they are quoted in the media, and their opinions sought after.

Why do I like it? Because she's clearly picking a fight with loud and proud feminist and atheist, writer for The Age, Catherine Deveny. I would really like to see these two women have a war of words (or fisticuffs, whichever's easier).

Tony Abbott is a dinosaur. His archaic Christian ideas about women, abortion, divorce and climate change are so far removed from the mainstream mindset that he makes Andrew Bolt look like a reasonable fellow.

I'm waiting patiently for Ms Deveny to put Lady Devine in her place ... please?