Money for nothing for Jim Soorley

Australian readers may well be aware of the irksome Jim Soorley, big mouth former Labor Lord Mayor of Brisbane (which of itself is no small job, given Brisbane City Council's extremely large size by Australian standards.) A former priest, he's now a decidedly anti-Catholic atheist (or agnostic perhaps?) friend of Phillip Adams.

I recall reading some years ago that as a priest he upset some of his suburban flock (I think it was in Brisbane) by insisting on displaying an "aboriginal" flag in his church. The regular flying of same flag took place in front of city hall all during his reign as Lord Mayor.

Always willing to shoot his mouth off, and irritating State and Federal Labor politicians no end, he somehow swung a job on his retirement from the council as a regular columnist on Brisbane's magazine style Sunday Mail newspaper.

What he does is something like blogging, just commenting on whatever he wants , but with nothing like the links to let anyone read the source or check facts. In other words, it's easier than most commentary orientated blogging. By far.

Just look at today's column here.

I would summaries its stories as follows:

* a piece of fluff commentary about Russell Crowe;

* a recommendation of a novel he is reading;

* pure speculation that ye olde weather forecasters were better than the Weather Bureau today;

* an unequivocal repeat of the line that "at least" 100,000 Iraqi deaths were caused by the war;

* a stunningly broad brush comment about Global Warming, but against even considering nuclear power as an option. This I have to show in full:

"WE NOW know that continued use of fossil fuels is causing global warming with all the associated problems of drought, salination, floods and tsunamis.

Arguments are building for nuclear power to be the new green energy source for the world. I struggle to take this argument seriously and to believe that intelligent people can overlook the downsides.

I never thought we'd forget the horrors of the Cold War and the threat of extinction from nuclear bombs in the wrong hands, to say nothing of Chernobyl and the human misery caused by that industrial accident. Yet all that seems forgotten as the marketing of nuclear energy begins big time.

Be afraid, this is a world-wide PR campaign to con us that nuclear energy is clean, green and safe. The waste will kill for hundreds of millions of years. We must resist those who say that "we'll find a way to dispose of it ? don't worry"."

Tsunami's!! Caused by global warming!

* a comment on the Dr Death inquiry which seems to pick up a bit of news talk that some College of Surgeons audit of the doctor is going to suggest that the overall death rate was "within the norm". Here's Jim's commentary:

"WELL, the first substantive analysis on Dr Jayant Patel's surgery has taken place. It shows that both his death rate and transferrals to other hospitals were about the norm.

In other words, an independent audit shows a medical error rate within acceptable limits. While this won't provide any comfort to patients who feel badly treated, it should send a message to the Premier to stop his grandstanding and concentrate on fixing the problems in Queensland Health."

Here, as far as I can see, is what this commentary is based on (from ABC Online, for 16 June):

"Meanwhile the Australasian College of Surgeons says it is premature to comment about a report into Dr Patel's performance.

A team of medical experts has been auditing surgical outcomes at the Bundaberg hospital.

Newspaper reports suggest the draft study shows the medical error rate of Dr Patel may be within acceptable limits.

College president Russell Stitz says the full analysis is yet to be done.

"We understand that it's imminent but it's not yet out and to make statements before the full analysis is obviously inappropriate," Dr Stitz said.

"So we're all looking forward to the full report, which is by committee chairman Peter Woodruff, who's a vascular surgeon and a previous vice-president of the College of Surgeons."

The State Health Minister has asked for the final report to be completed by the end of the month."

(I don't think it takes a genius to work out that the averages won't particularly matter anyway if there is clear and compelling evidence, as there already seems to be, that he was grossly negligent or incompetent in some of the particular cases. )

Jim never liked Peter Beattie; his wildly unjustified commentary is done just to be able to have another jibe at him.

I trust you can see why this annoys me. He's just jots down whatever comes into his head, sticking to old figures, old leftie/ greenie beliefs, old political rivalries, (but not his old religious beliefs,) without any care for subtle things likes facts.

I hate to dignify his activity with publicity, and part of the problem is that the more people complain in letters to the editor about a columnist like this, the more the paper thinks he is worth keeping. I stopped buying the paper years ago, but my mum likes it for the weekly TV guide and gives it to me.

By the way, if you want a fact-free speech from his, seems it will set you back $3,500 to $5,000.