That's one down…

See here.

Update: as Pax says in the combox, we should pray for Catherine. She is a woman of deep spiritual need.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to That's one down…

  1. Paul G says:

    CD is still producing some good material, quoted in your referenced article:

    “I’m not a journalist. I’m a writer, I’m a polemicist”
    (so polemicists don’t normally rise to the standards of truth and good taste of journalists?)

    Deveny said her humour was “deeply subjective”
    “I meant every single word,” she said.
    (so it was true but not very objective?)

  2. Peregrinus says:

    Precisely because her humour is “deeply subjective”, she cannot object to an equally subjective response from the father of a ten-year-old girl; I don’t like what she says, and I dislike anyone who finds it humorous to say such things.

    And she can hardly take exception to the Age’s decision, either, unless she supposes that she has a God-given right to a platform for the dissemination of her deeply subjective thoughts.

    • Louise says:

      Quite right, Pere. She also finds it “deeply offensive” that Parliament begins with prayer and on that basis would like to see it banished from Parliament.

      Deveny appears to believe that it is The Age’s duty to publish her foaming at the mouth, crazed rantings.

      I wish our local rag would pay me to do likewise.

  3. Matthias says:

    “What ye sow that shall ye reap” even if for a little while . Sadly I think she will become even more foul of mouth ,thought and pen!!!

  4. Louise says:

    And the Feministas are now suggesting that she was sacked b/c she is a woman.

    My reply? “Prove it.”

    • Louise says:

      Glad you chose to blog this, David. I confess I have gloating over this all day.

    • Peregrinus says:

      No, no, it’s a feminist conspiracy that got her sacked!Her deeply subjective humour was directed at females, see, and feminists won’t put up with that ’cause they have no sense of humour!

  5. Christine says:

    feminists won’t put up with that ’cause they have no sense of humour!

    Oh boy, ain’t dat the truth!!

  6. On the radio last night the editor of The Age said CD had been warned about her use of Twitter before and how it might reflect poorly on her employer and portray an image they did not want to be associated with. That puts the whole matter further into context, and makes the bleating of the ‘literati’ and ‘feministas’ even more objectionable. It was a ‘fair cop’, I say.

  7. Tom says:

    I’m so glad she’s gone. I couldn’t stand her articles. Every time she talked about God one got the impression that you had just become stupider by reading her articles. Her grasp of anything like the analogy of being was, perhaps analogously, non-existent? :))

  8. Pax says:

    I think Catherine is a person in need of our prayers.She is a single mother bringing up 2 boys and she has lapsed from her faith.
    The abruptness of her sacking would have come as a shock and if she has not managed her finances it might well be a frightening place for her to find herself in.
    I have always been surprised at the Age publishing her writings because much of it was totally egocentred and fairly glib, shallow and superficial .

    • Louise says:

      She is certainly in need of our prayers, but I don’t have much sympathy re: the job. It can’t have paid that much, for one thing, and if she really needed the money, why would she persist in putting her job on the line for the sake of being a Smart Mouth?

      • Clara says:

        A newspaper columnist I knew was paid $500 per column and that was 20 years ago. I wouldn’t be surprised if Deveney was paid twice that. Big hole in the family budget.

    • Tom says:

      CD has published several books, and performs stand up – I’ve no idea of her personal finances, but it seems she has several other income streams apart from her rantings for the Age. She may need our prayers, but this is a woman who addressed the Atheist convention with a speech entitled ‘God is Bullshit.’ The best she’s going to get from me is an aside.

  9. Paul G says:

    This is probably an oversimplification, but I can’t resist it….

    According to the polls for the British election, Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democratic party were expecting a big surge in support, and perhaps would come second in the election. They were supported by several celebrities, including Richard Dawkins (Nick Cleggs’ declaration that he is an atheist no doubt helped here), and the Guardian newspaper gave the Lib-Dems its editorial support a few days ago.

    The votes are now coming in, and the result is????
    Lib-Dems look like losing about 5 seats nett, and their vote has increased a little (about 1%). It looks like common sense has prevailed.

    • Peregrinus says:

      According to the polls for the British election, Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democratic party were expecting a big surge in support, and perhaps would come second in the election. They were supported by several celebrities, including Richard Dawkins (Nick Cleggs’ declaration that he is an atheist no doubt helped here) . . .
      I doubt it; Gordon Brown is also an atheist.

      The votes are now coming in, and the result is????
      Lib-Dems look like losing about 5 seats nett, and their vote has increased a little (about 1%). It looks like common sense has prevailed.

      It looks like a rigged electoral system has prevailed. The Lib Dems, with 22.8% of the vote, look like getting about 50 seats; Labour, with about 28.6%, about 250 seats. How does that represent “common sense”?

      And it’s not all bad news for the Lib Dems; neither Labour nor the Tories (36.5%, about 300 seats) seem likely to get enough seats to form a government without, if not Lib Dem support, then at least Lib Dem assent.

      It’s unlikely that the Tories and Labour can do a deal, which puts the Lib Dems to some extent in the position of kingmaker. And, no doubt, on the Lib Dems agenda for post-electoral chit-chat with other parties will be the introduction of an electoral system which takes the voters’ preferences a little more seriously.

      • Paul G says:

        yes, the BBC is calling the Lab-Lib-Dem combination “the coalition of the defeated”.

        I once lived in Belgium through an election there, and the result was also a coalition of the parties whose vote share went down. (“result” in the sense that the politicians worked it out after the election, with no reference to the voters. In fact, in this case, the resulting coalition was the same as the one that existed before the election, with the exception that the party powerbrokers decided to change the Prime Minister, so the voters didn’t even get someone that anyone actually voted for)

  10. Peregrinus says:

    “Defeated” in the sense that they have substantially more votes than the Tories?

    Yes, both Labour’s and Lib Dem’s share of the vote has fallen, but it still aggregates to well over 50% of the total. I can’t see any objection, from a democratic point of view, to their co-operating to form a government. They would certainly have a stronger mandate than the Tories given that, when offered the Tories, 64% of the voters chose someone else.

    If the electorate doesn’t give any party a mandate, then they [i]should[/i] have to work with one another to form a government. No party has a God-given right to govern alone if, when offered that option, a clear majority of the electorate has rejected it. There’s nothing undemocratic about multi-party governments; if there is, then the Australian Liberal Party has never acheived power democratically.

  11. Peter Golding says:

    Eureka Street has actually defended Deveney.(As have most of the comments on the article).
    The monumental decline of the Jesuits as an intellectual force for good is one of the real tragedies of the modern day church.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *