Sunday, August 31, 2014

March in August's low turnout proves pampered petulance of the Left

Recently I heard about the latest latte leftie dummy spit and group sulk called March in August. Read that it was to start at a park in Northbridge.

Now, because these charming assemblies are full of brimming bolshies who can't be arsed actually thinking about political issues and much prefer to play the man rather than the ball, most of the venom the speakers and placard wavers express is aimed at their favourite hate figure, the PM. And considering that Tony Abbott has been even more, er, Abbottesque than usual lately -- what with his comments about white settlement, as well as his condemnation of those adorable head choppers from ISIS -- you'd expect there to be squillions of squealing Tonyphobes at this latest demo.

But nup. It was a total fizzle. As a coupla Twitter wits opined, you get bigger crowds at an under 10s soccer match, or a sausage sizzle out the front of Bunnings.



Left me scratching my head as to why this was the case ... Hmmm. Maybe it was something to do with the lack of a catchy, alliterative title? After all, there was something distinctively meme-ish about "March in March" and it was extra-easy to remember for the severely cognitively challenged -- who clearly constituted most of the many thousands who rocked up on that day. So, would this latest organized outburst have drawn bigger crowds if it had been named, say, "Anger in August"? Maybe ...

But I think the main reason for the tragically piss-poor turnout was the highly immature and emotional nature of the Left. If your actions are motivated by feelings, well, they'll always be inconsistent in nature.

Then there's pervasive pinko tendency to blame others for your own condition. So, in the same way that these child-brained adults accuse decent hardworking folk who never did anything wrong to them for their own misery, they also leave it up to others to tell them what to do. Hell, the spoiled sprogs can't even shift their fat arses down to a local park unless the local commissars motivate them sufficiently.

It's all there in that stupid exhortation so beloved of the bolshie: "maintain the rage". Such "rage" can hardly be genuine and justified if someone has to tell you to maintain it, as well as when and where to express it, right?

Actually, it's not really rage at all. More like wallowing in your spurious sense of victimhood on cue.


Friday, August 22, 2014

Bill Shorten rape allegations reveal usual leftist double standards

Everyone is guilty of selective morality from time to time. But leftists seem to have made it their entire reason for living. Take the case of those rape allegations involving Bill Shorten that were swirling around social media for yonks, and which he's recently alluded to in a press conference now that the plods have decided they won't press charges against him.

Aside from some brimming right-wingers on social media, the vast majority of non-lefties have decided to give Shorten the benefit of the doubt. The reaction of the Left has been jaw-droppingly inconsistent, as usual.

They've been very quiet about these claims right across the media spectrum, from snarky tweeps to "professional" journos. Imagine if the same claims had been made about Tony Abbott. Without a doubt there'd be bolshie trolls aplenty tweeting up a storm about it, all utterly certain of the PM's guilt.

Yes, ABC hacks probably would have kept mum like they did in regards to Shorten. But would those from joints like The Guardian and The Age have managed to resist the urge to tell the world about them? Not likely.

Then there's the deafening silence of the frightbats. (Hey, that sounds like a movie title, dunnit?) They claim to champion the rights of women regardless of political affiliation, and are forever claiming that the legal system is stacked against them if they do make an accusation of rape -- particularly against a powerful white male. Not only have these malignant nags been totally silent since every Aussie on social media learned about the Shorten allegations, they've also dutifully kept quiet, or even defended the Opposition Leader since he's gone public about them.

And since when were feminists satisfied that a refusal to charge some bloke for rape constituted a complete exoneration of him? On the contrary, they often see such decisions as yet more evidence of systemic, patriarchal misogyny.

Why aren't any of them sticking up for the accuser in this case? People do know who she is, and Shorten -- an extremely influential individual -- has pretty much implied that she's a liar, or fantasist at best. Come on "feminists", justify your label. Stop being such tragic tools of the patriarchal penis people, why don't ya!

As well as the specific feminist hypocrisy, there's the general leftist double standard regarding their view of the plods. Usually they don't trust anything "the pigs" say, right? And the more extreme of them will glow with pride if they manage to clock a copper with a rock at some stupid demo. But now that the boys in blue have done something the leftards actually approve of, well, their decision is wise, unbiased, unquestionably correct ... friggin' Solomonic even! There is simply no reason on Gaia's green earth to doubt them.

The reaction to my tweet about the issue, comparing two unedifying claims from the mists of time, illustrates this selective credulity. (By the way, when I wrote it I was originally referring to the wall punching incident. And while leftists thought I meant sexual assault charges, their reaction still proves my point.)

Still on these two cases, another double standard: The incident Ash refers to involved Abbott allegedly goosing a female political enemy on stage. Now while that is still bad and wrong, it sure as hell ain't rape now is it?

So, a bit of an apples and oranges type situation there. But no matter. If you're a leftist it's your feelings about something that matter isn't it? (And remember all the leftist lamentation after Abbott winked when that grumpy gran sex worker called in to berate him? Gawd, anyone would've thought that he'd just beheaded the poor old duck right there in the studio.)

There are other inconsistencies in the leftist reaction to this issue that illustrate their stupid childish malice. But I think the ones I've listed will do for now. Any sensible person can see that these squealing quarterwits have no moral authority whatsoever.

Which begs the question: Do they not realize how utterly ridiculous they appear to any rational person when they react in this way? You'd think they might be mindful of that fact ... But I suppose that being mindful and self aware is too big an ask when your ideology is about bossing people around and nothing else.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Elizabeth Farrelly reacts to Tim Blair's frightbat poll

One thing about lefties, greenies, victim feminists and sundry hand-wringing twits that I find particularly exasperating is how they always -- always -- use the same tactics when confronted with criticism. One of their all time faves is to attribute any and all of it to the critic's own feelings of inadequacy. They just never take his words on face value and offer a solid counterargument in their own defence.

Case in point: Elizabeth Farrelly in her snootily sneering response to news of her inclusion in Tim Blair's recent "frightbat" poll. It's classic (feminist) fluffy wuffy: "You're just mocking me 'cause you're actually secretly attracted to me and you feel threatened by the fact that I'm such a brilliant, courageous and insightful woman. You pathetic, inadequate white male, you!"

Sheesh. Liz couldn't be more way off if she tried. The mockery comes not because of the majestic intellect that lesser mortals -- males in particular -- find threatening. It's because she's so ridiculously self-deluded they almost can't believe it. And her ginormous sense of entitlement just makes 'em wanna puke.

She routinely comes up with such daffy, dippy, pompous columns that any rational person reading them is left shaking her head, mumbling, "WTF? Is this chick friggin' serious?" And her obvious narcissism is not remotely attractive. It's not even repellant. It's just so silly that it's surreal and ultimately, well, kinda sad.

If there is fear in the motivation of those who mock Queen Elizabeth and her ilk it's fear of the culture they represent. Alarmingly, it has enough power and influence to irreparably bugger-up many aspects of our society and economy -- which I think is ultimately their main aim anyway ... That's why conservatives mock them.

So if there are any sanctimonious fluffy wuffies reading this, some advice: This one size fits all tactic of saying "it's all to do with your stuff" is lazy and arrogant. It just makes you look like even bigger asshats than you do already. Please try to lift your game in future, children.

Your repeated recourse to this hackneyed deflection method means that you'll never look at your "stuff" or even begin to critically examine your own attitudes. If you did this you might eventually see things in a slightly less insane way -- or at the very least perhaps start to understand why people find you so worthy of mockery and derision.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Feisty feminist frightbats fight back against Tim Blair!

I'm sure you've learned about this latest twitstorm raging among the socialist squitterati. See, blogger Tim Blair posted a jokey poll asking for readers to nominate the nation's leading frightbat. The term has gained real momentum -- particularly on social media -- provoking a fascinating frenzy of reactions including white hot rage, high decibel cackling, fake nonchalance and intense, verbose analysis from post-modernist quackademics.

Personally, I think the term is remarkably apt. After all, the shrieking socialist sisters do closely resemble the eponymous winged mammals in that they habitually see the world upside down and clearly prefer darkness to light. (I could also say something about rabies but being the gentleman I am I just won't go there ...)

Some of the women listed in the poll seemed to concur with this assessment, even urging their pathetically obediant (and disturbingly numerous) acolytes to vote for them. One can only wonder at their motivation ... Perhaps they thought they were landing a blow against the patriarchy. By proudly self-defining as nocturnal flying creatures they felt they were finally "reclaiming the night"?

But not surprisingly most of the feminist trollective confirmed the humourless scold stereotype and were not amused. Take this terse reaction from Wendy Bacon (strangely absent from the distinguished list of nominees, BTW):

Antifeminist propaganda? Calm down Wendy. It was just a joke.

Well, as they keep saying, feminism is a broad church. So there was much impassioned debate -- at least as to the extent to which this one word coined by a humorous blogger constituted heartless oppression of all chickdom. Clearly, frightbat has divided the feminist trollective. It's this decade's The First Stone, no doubt about it!

Not only did feminists en masse fail to present a cogent position, but those who at first seemed to go along with the joke were ultimately confused in their reaction. See, after initially yucking it up, they did what they always do: turned the issue into a stupid bolshie t-shirt campaign:


This is leftie feminist incoherence at its finest, people.  These self-described frightbats are fighting back ... at, er, being called frightbats.

And they wonder why people mock them.

Friday, June 13, 2014

Public health, drug companies, and how doctors often keep us sick

In light of all the furore about this seven buck co-payment proposed by the Government I've been thinking about the role of doctors in our society, and related issues. A few observations come to mind:

Firstly, I find it kind of odd that we talk about medical services as health care. I would say much of what falls under this rubric would be more accurately described as symptom maintenance.

Take general practitioners, for example. They are great if you've got some mechanical problem such as a busted toe or an open festering wound -- or if it's clear there's something deeply awry inside your body 'cause you're pissing blood or there's pus coming out of your ears.

Needless to say they're also great for general check-ups and screenings, etc, so you can be sure there isn't a giant tumour brewing in your arse or something ...

But quite frankly most of the time quacks are just doling out scrips to people! And those scrips are not meant to improve anyone's health (as in seriously address the cause of an issue, delivering a cure if possible). They're just meant to address symptoms.

I've had various ongoing, niggling issues that I've seen docs about over the years. And pretty much every visit I've had to a GP has been the same: The joint is always chockas. You get a coupla minutes with him max. He usually looks like shit warmed up himself, often stressed out and overweight. (That ol' quote "physician, heal thyself" comes to mind here.)

Seems to me that your average GP looks at you as if you're a non-sentient being; a lump of living flesh, basically. He just wants you to describe one or two key symptoms and check your vital signs so he knows you're not hurtling towards a meeting with the Grim Reaper.

If that's the case, of course he'll refer you to a specialist. But usually within a minute or two he'll whip out the prescription booklet -- if it's not open already -- and scrawl the name of some slick-sounding new drug his favourite pharmaceutical rep has just told him about. Then he'll hand it to you and wave you away so he can do the same thing for the next person.

Most of the time he won't even tell you anything about the powerful chemicals he's prescribing (aside from dosage instructions, etc). He just wants you to obey his orders and bugger off pronto. I guess he just figures that if you're still bothered by whatever symptoms you're experiencing you'll come back in a week or two so he can try something else ... and so on until you're satisfied.

This sausage factory approach is due to several factors, I believe. One of them is the immense power of the drug companies. Needless to say they are businesses first and foremost and their business model is usually all about treating symptoms, not curing people.

And it should be remembered that there are heaps of conditions, many of which manifest psychologically in major part, that can be hugely improved if not completely cured with the right approach. Countless people in this country are on several powerful symptom-masking drugs every day. But if they stopped eating crap, got off the cigs and booze, and did some bloody exercize, they could often throw most if not all of them away.

Now I know this anti-capitalist analysis makes me sound like a raging leftie. That's why I would I hasten to add that this business model has a lot in common with the worst aspects of nanny state socialism. As we all know there's a whole "industry" that depends on social dysfunction.

Basically, hordes of hand-wringing social worker types spend their every waking hour whining about the appalling, pervasive misery of various groups of people, then advocate exactly the policies that will exacerbate or perpetuate this dysfunction. It's a real misery go round, no doubt about it. And it creeps me out big time that so many pinko parasites want it to continue for their own selfish reasons.

Same with drug companies, and the countless quacks who are in their thrall.

What do you think? Is our medical system really about health care in the truest sense of the word?

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Dean, King, Krauss and Bernardi on Q and A

Last night's Q and A was one of the better ones. That was partly because it had a higher proportion of conservatives than usual -- though it must be said that Lucy Turnbull did let the side down a bit (not unlike her husband). There was some unbecoming snark, but mostly just spirited jousting which was fun to watch.

The dominant figure was Rowan Dean, who put his arguments succinctly and forcefully. He also came out with the zinger of the night:

ROWAN DEAN: Well, I think it's fascinating and I think - well, I'm sure we will hear a little bit about Malcolm in a moment. But from my point of view, Malcolm Turnbull is a very charismatic, very intelligent, very smart, very talented, a great mind at business. He should be the leader of the party, the Labor Party.

Gold.

At one point he also firmly admonished Labor's Catherine King, who interrupted the conservative panellists repeatedly and babbled away incessantly in agreement when her fellow travellers were speaking. She was kinda like a bolshie version of Magda Szubanski's character Pixie-Anne Wheatley. She was really getting on my nerves after a while so I can only imagine what it must have been like to be sitting near her.

King is another vivid illustration of the dire situation Labor finds itself in. The culture is clearly toxic and only the most sanctimonious, unprincipled and shameless progress in it. Nowhere near a meritocracy any more ...

Not surprisingly King clung to that line about Labor guiding us through the GFC. She also shamelessly touted her party as great economic managers, which was just hilarious. And when Cory Bernardi made a perfectly reasonable point about her inhabiting a virtual world she responded with the accusation that he was attacking her personally.

Just plain daft. But even if true, wouldn't it have been acceptable? She's a leftie feminist, after all, and aren't they always saying the personal is political?

But of course what that really means is we can get personal, you can't. So typical of Labor, leftie feminists in particular. They are always trying to falsely portray their opponents as bullies, misogynists, racists and generally mean types who don't fight fair, etc. At the same time they're making the most viciously personal attacks on them in other ways. Witness the scurrilous sliming of Abbott, his wife and daughters that's been going on lately.

There was an interesting dynamic going on between the religious Cory Bernardi and boffin Lawrence Krauss. While disagreeing strongly I think they quite liked each other. Late in the show, in the corner of the screen, you'll catch an intriguing moment where they share a quiet joke together. Good to see.

The way each conducted himself was interesting given their respective backgrounds. Allegedly Bible thumping Bernardi was probably the calmest presence of the night. He even patiently gave the audience and some in the discussion a mini-tutorial in the Westminster system, explaining that he, as a backbencher, was technically not part of the Government. Revealingly, this detail seemed to be news to Catherine King. (But hey, she's in Labor. You don't have to know anything to rise in that joint. You just have to strike the pose, and regurgitate the spin doctors' talking points, right?)

Just as Catholics are supposed to be all fire n' brimstoney, scientists are supposed to be cool, rational, and detached right? Lawrence Krauss certainly wasn't any of those things. Actually he was the most emotional panellist of the whole night. He was het up from the start and highly critical of anything religious, such as the Government's policy on school chaplains:

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: But aren’t they told - I was reading about this and it seemed that they're not supposed to - they’re not supposed to proselytise. So as someone was saying, it’s like paying a quarter of a billion dollars to invite clowns into the schools and tell them not to be funny.

Well, if clowns are expected to be funny, then surely scientists should not be partisan, right? As well as being emotional he was also highly political, proselytising like crazy about the threat of human-caused climate change. (Also, I think the clown analogy was unfortunate, since he appeared to be dressed as one.)

But just on his obsession with climate change: In a revealing series of statements he showed just how arse-about the "scientific" community is on this subject:

CORY BERNARDI: Well, I do think, in the end, the debate was entirely hijacked by those who were seeking to foster rent seeking, that were seeking to centralise decision-making in unelected bodies.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: I mean this is - look, these people who work and spend their whole lives trying to figure out how the climate works and do models, they're just trying to figure out how things work and to say that the scientific community has somehow hijacked or somehow hiding things is this misunderstanding. Because, in fact, if they're wrong, the way you become famous, as a scientist, is to prove your colleagues wrong. That’s what you want to do. And if this data, if the models don't work, then other people become more famous by showing that. These people spend their entire life and, literally, thousands of hours and the people who - and you're one of them - who have these deniers, I would like to ask what do your models predict?

Gawd. What incoherent, irrational and mean-spirited nonsense.

Because of the poisonously censorious atmosphere created by highly politicized warmists such as Krauss himself the skeptical scientists who continue to question and disprove the AGW "consensus" don't become famous at all. If anything they become infamous, often lose their gigs and suffer derision and ridicule on a grand scale. One of the labels they are tarred with is "denier", which Krauss subsequently went on to use (on Dean, by the way, not Bernardi).

He should also know that to debunk a theory you don't have to offer your own prediction. You just have to show the theory's predictions are wrong. And any rational person can see that the so-called deniers have done that time and time again over the last several years.

Lawrence Krauss. What a clown.

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Adam Goodes-led Recognise campaign is creepy, racist and wrong

Saw an ad for this creepy campaign of attitudinal reconstruction called Recognise a day or two back. Had well known footy player Adam Goodes fronting a pack of sporty types all urging us to get behind his movement to recognise Aborigines in the Constitution.

The whole thing is as annoying as it is ridiculous. I suspect it's gonna make footy fans even more pissed off with politically correct interference than they are already -- which is a helluva lot. After all, the last thing they want to sit through at a footy match is pompous political posturing and interference from the Left. They get enough of that in their working lives. They wanna see the big men fly -- and if there's biffo, that's a bonus!

And I suspect that most of those fans, er, recognise the classical (and correct) definition of racism -- that it's when you see those of a different race as fundamentally different and therefore inferior to your own. And being fair-minded people from all over the globe, racism is what they abhor.

Overwhelmingly they believe that the best way to combat it is to take the sage advice of Martin Luther King: Judge people "by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin". Implicit in that exhortation is the belief that we should see people as individuals above all other criteria. And when we do come to the category called race, isn't it best to define ourselves and others as members of the human race? Rather than seeing people as members of various minority groups, it's better to see each individual as a minority of one. That's a much more mature, humane and practical way of approaching the whole issue.

So when a bunch of latte-slurping nanny state tossers start telling them that to counter racism you must do the polar opposite of that -- that is, see racial groups as separate and distinct -- well, they don't like it one bit.

Now, smug right-on whitey-tighties like to bang on about how seeing Aborigines as different doesn't mean they see them as inferior. On the contrary, they say, as they puff themselves up with lefteous indignation, we think they're superior.

To that, I say, Bill Shorten! Apart from the well established fact that the cultural Left is incapable of honesty about anything, and is always using deceit to get what it wants -- namely coercive power over others -- you just have to look at their actions to know how insincere their words are. For example, notice how they happily tolerate the appalling suffering of Aboriginal people, particularly in remote communities, that continues partly as a result of the sinister separatism they endorse. There is no way on Gaia's green Earth they would put up with white people -- women and kids in particular -- enduring such misery and violence.

Clearly, this recognition push is about enshrining in law the difference of Aborigines. Difference implies separation. It's a subset of the grand global project of the sanctimonious socialist: apartheid with a smiley face badge whopped on it.

Now I know that the campaign's supporters argue that it is actually proposing the exact opposite of this. But look at what they're pushing for:

Remove Section 25 – which says the States can ban people from voting based on their race;

Remove section 51(xxvi) – which can be used to pass laws that discriminate against people based on their race;

Insert a new section 51A - to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and to preserve the Australian Government’s ability to pass laws for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

Insert a new section 116A, banning racial discrimination by government; and

Insert a new section 127A, recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages were this country’s first tongues, while confirming that English is Australia’s national language.

Firstly, notice the inherent contradiction between the third and fourth points. They want to enable discrimination for a racial group, and simultaneously outlaw racial discrimination.

Eh? That's fluffy wuffy double speak at its finest, people.

Then there's the bit about this country's first tongue ...

Now these changes are not going to unify the country. They are dividing it, by race.

Why can't these bozos recognise that?