I was talking to a contemporary of mine only yesterday, who did Science/Law at Sydney Uni in the 1980s and then went to Harvard. I was saying it is only now, that I realise Real Property is probably the most fascinating AND politically important discipline taught to undergraduates.She agreed, adding there are in fact few problems in the law that at their rights are NOT Property problems.

If all these “international law/human rights/dignity” Luvvies opened their eyes they would see that most of the world’s “injustices” they are addicted to mewling over are ALL rooted in conflicts over property rights!

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8434

Great piece LE. Recently as an undregraduate I was stunned at how much time undergraduate law students devote to topics more suited to sociology/politics. FFS, most of this international public law bollocks is not even bloody law, but rather 21st century bible-bashing or happy clapping.

I wrote a lengthy review of his first book, but I never tried to get it published, but boy did it let me rip off some steam!

“Don’t even get me started on Anthony Lowenstein, Adrien”

OK, but does that preclude the rest of us?

I really don’t see that much by way of news in the newspapers. I suspect in the future individuals and small groups will just link to central feeds and obtain facts just as well as official journalists (like that great intellect Wayne Sanderson). The process really isn’t that complicated.

Most so-called journos are simply scribes that regurgitate PR nerds’ scribblin’. Sad but true. They cling to their status because they know that what they do really isn’t that hard.

The only real thing ‘journos’ have are credentialist status. Like when you ring someone up and say “I’m from The Age” or something. Books are the same. So many ‘in depth’ books are utter shite that could’ve been written from your loungeroom.

My favourite sample of the breed just lately is Anthony Lowenstein’s The Blogging Revoltion.

Each chapter consists of – a. Lame wikipedia rundown of the history of a country’s situation; b. Even lamer ‘new journalist’ style descriptuion of what it’s like to drive from the airport of said country (lots of Australian disgust at third world squalor); c. Totally boring anecdotes in which Lowenstein goes to meaningless social engagements with locals (only interesting when he manages to implicate one or more of said parties in ways that might get ‘em in serious hot water), and: d. Almost nothing about the blogosphere at all.

When he does write about it he gets it wrong, like calling Sandmonkey a neoconservative. You can’t be a fucking neoconservative in Egypt it’s not possible. Merely supporting the Iraq War doesn’t make you a neoconservative. Is Chris Hitchens a neoconservative? He was blasting the neocons before the rest of the world even knew there were neocons.

And yet he’s got ‘a book’, so he must know. Bollocks!