Friday, April 11, 2014

Bob Carr's pomposity comes through loud and clear

Everyone is getting stuck into Bob Carr over his book Diary of a Foreign Minister. But as some have noted, some of the quotes people are having the most fun mocking are actually attempts at self-deprecation.

So why the confusion? The pundits getting stuck into Carr can't all be literal-minded idiots, can they?

I think the reason for this is that his sense of self-importance is so strong and constant that it just won't be shifted. Even when he's trying to send himself up he comes across as a right tosser. And that's because he just is.

This is what makes him unusual as a politician. Most of them have a high opinion of themselves, of course. And they're extremely ambitious. But they also usually have the emotional intelligence to know how they are perceived by the voting public. They manage to speak much more on their constituents' level and generally don't come across as poncing prats. They manage to deal with the relentless abuse that is part of the job by gradually training themselves to ignore it. They grow their thick hides slowly.

Carr, on the other hand, clearly sees himself as special and superior. His ability to ignore criticism hasn't come from bitter experience so much as the sincere belief that he's a blessing on democracy and that anyone who can't see that must be a mental infant.

Have a listen to this interview he gave to Ben Fordham and you'll see what I mean. Fordham flays him left right and centre. Most other pollies would likely lose their composure. But Carr just cheerfully blathers on regardless in the most stunningly arrogant way. You can imagine him hanging up the phone and not giving it another thought!

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Mona Eltahawy on Q and A

Mona Altahawy appeared again on Q and A last night and lectured us on our record on human rights, among other things. As some tweeps observed it was a tad ironic for someone from Egypt to lob here and wag her finger at Australia on this issue.

That aside, she proved herself to be a real bigot, and a censorious one at that. Not surprisingly, she invoked that old "blame the white male" ploy so beloved by left-wing zombies. And, like they almost always do, she used it in a rant in which she was railing against "racism":

MONA ELTAHAWY: Well, you’re talking to someone who got arrested for spray-painting over a racist and bigoted ad in the New York subway and I’m going to stand trial very soon in New York soon for this and I - so I have many thoughts on this. First of all, in the United States, the people who go on the most about freedom of expression and it’s my right to say this and my right to say that are usually old, rich, white men who parade under the term libertarian. And what it ends up basically meaning is: I have the right to be a racist and sexist shit and I'm protected by the first amendment. And it’s utterly ridiculous. Because when you look - if you look at this ad that I sprayed over - now, I’m - I love the first amendment. As a US citizen, because I am Egyptian-American, I love the first amendment. I love that it protects freedom of expression and freedom of belief. But here is the thing: if a racist, bigoted ad is protected as political speech, which it was - the New York subway didn't want this very racist and bigoted ad but a judge deemed it protected political speech?

And what were the words that Mona the moaner felt so outraged by?

MONA ELTAHAWY: I can tell you because it - I mean it’s outrageous. It said: “In the war between the civilised man and the savage, always choose the civilised man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” And I thought: are you fucking kidding me? In my subway? How can you put this up? And the subway - the subway authorities did not want this ad, because they said it was going to incite people and so they took it to the hate group and it’s been classified as a hate group by the - it’s the Southern Law Centre, right, Ken? Is that what they’re called?

In "her" subway ... liked she owned it!

Sure, the ad was provocative. But where did it refer to race? Islam is a religion, remember. And it wasn't even referring to that generally. It was attacking jihad specifically, implicitly condemning its employment of barbaric terrorism as a way to achieve its goals. Sounds pretty reasonable to me ...

But Altawahy the censorious bigot had to try to remove it from view. Then she had the gall to say she loves the first amendment! What a hypocritical pig.

Just reconfirms what I've long known about these malignant, marauding meat heads of the Left. Their definition of freedom of speech is the right to shout ... other people down.

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Work on Wednesday vs March in March

After that recent nationwide display of leftist incoherence and emotionalism known as March in March (MIM), blogger Tim Blair introduced the idea of Work on Wednesday (WOW). It was a tongue in cheek alternative to that unedifying collection of demos that, among other things, served as a reminder of how so many Aussies are actually making a meaningful political statement simply by earning a living.

What's interesting is how the Marchers have reacted to it. Not surprisingly they have returned fire collectively and homogenously -- almost as if they received instructions from some central authority (which I think was probably the case). They have been at pains to subvert the pro-capitalist campaign endorsed by WOW, sending numerous e-mails to Blair about how you can be a Worker as well as a Marcher. He has published many of these on his blog.

Some stark differences emerge: Firstly, MiM was grim, bolshie and humourless. WOW was witty in a deadpan way.

And did WOW inconvenience anybody? Did drivers have to take different routes because the streets were full of ranting loons, and were the plods called in at taxpayers' expense to make sure nothing got out of hand? No way. The demonstration was conducted quietly, and individually, without bringing attention to itself.

And would WOW try to actually hijack MIM? Sure, Workers couldn't have actually done so this time because the demos had already occurred. But if the chronology were reversed and WOW came before MIM, would Workers be attending the bolshie protests, trying to dominate proceedings? No way.

And have Workers and their supporters tried to do this online subsequently? Well, they've written some snarky blog posts and columns and mocked the Marchers on social media. But they haven't actually tried to overwhelm the movement or its legacy.

The same cannot be said of the Marchers. Just as they commandeered the streets, they are now trying to hijack WOW with their zombie-like e-mail campaign. Sooo leftist isn't it? They're never just happy for you to do your own thing. They always take massive, collective offense at conservative actions, rituals and establishments, then try to take them over.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

On Q and A, was Rachel Griffiths in character as Gillard?

Another infuriating, but at times fascinating, Q and A was broadcast last night. This one was dominated by the personality of Rachel Griffiths. She is certainly a charismatic, elegant woman and a brilliant actress. When it comes to politics, however, she's obviously a blithering idiot. But that's par for the course with these arty, lefty chicks, as we all know ...

Tony Jones, the other panellists, and pretty much the entire audience seemed to be star-struck by her presence. Watch the tape, particularly in the beginning, and you'll see what I mean. It was as if they were all struggling to reconcile this living, breathing figure sitting before them with one or more of her many memorable screen characters. It was quite interesting to watch.

She realized she was the centre of attention so she really let rip, particularly near the end. Some of her stream of consciousness riffs were as dippy as they were long. Made me wonder whether she'd hit the turps beforehand, actually. But I suspect not. Spouting psychobabble is the norm if you're a lefty, and it tends to get even nuttier if you're famous and adored. That's because everyone looks up to you, and no one dares say what a twit you are.

The first questioner asked which "Julia" Griffiths would bring to the tele-movie about the ex-PM. Griffiths said that she'd try and find and "inhabit the human being" behind the public figure:

JONES: How do you go about doing that, particularly a very controversial one like this, a real person who is obviously still alive when you do the performance?

RACHEL GRIFFITHS: I think I will read everything I can. I will talk to everybody I can, probably people she doesn't want me to talk to, people she does. I've spent some time with her. I think it's true what people say that the closer you get, the more you like her and the closer you get to News Limited the less you like her. Did I just make that up? Maybe.

TONY JONES: I think you just made cut-and-paste anyway.

RACHEL GRIFFITHS: Might have. Did she really say that? I think, as you dive into playing a character, the idea is that you should lose all perspective. So you kind of go deeper and deeper into a person and at that point are probably less able to argue any political position. I would try to put myself in her shoes. How is it to be a female entering the highest office of the land and being received the way she was? How is it to be a woman in politics? I will talk to people like yourself about your first experience and your first day of Parliament and whether or not you felt that was a welcome place for women. I’ll be...

I was struck by her obsession with the gender politics angle, even though she was expressing her desire to move beyond it. Maybe she was like this before being handed the role -- a strong possibility. Or perhaps this attitude had been heightened and honed by the process of identifying with Gillard -- the ultimate victim feminist -- and she was still seeing the world through this prism?

I think there was some of the latter influence because through the rest of the discussion so much of what Griffiths said seemed to echo the dreary PC cant of that dreadful mediocrity -- although mercifully she spared us the grim, grinding voice.

Take her right-on expression of support for Hillary Clinton, which came just after boofhead Eddie McGuire trotted out the obligatory male feminist suck-speech in support of the Bogan Queen:

RACHEL GRIFFITHS: I think we’ll be creating our extraordinary piece of riveting television in the shadow of, and that is the rise of Hillary Clinton, because I absolutely believe that she will be the next US President and I think her being a post-menopausal woman, a woman that has now escaped the kind of scrutiny of the child-bearing sexual creature of a woman in her prime and she can just do the older woman withering stare to her critic. She has got her kind of smoky voice down now. She is smooth. She is not jarring and there is an army of women - I can't tell you how surprised people are going to be, the women who are going to come out and organise for Hillary, and elevate her to that office and I think it's going to take us by surprise as we see that energy and I believe those women are here. I think there is baby boomer women and women of older generations whose are absolutely - are passionate about Julia and they loved seeing a woman in our office and I think we are a representative democracy and that our Parliament should look like that. 

So Clinton in the US, and Gillard here, are powerful figures and great role models for women ...

RACHEL GRIFFITHS: But can I just also say that placards of "ditch the witch" and placards against Tony Abbott are not stopping participation of fantastic people into Parliament. It's actually the bullying on the floor. So we can get distracted by social media but the truth is we get thick skins against that stuff and we develop resilience and we are teaching our kids resilience now. But if go into our Westminster system, that is bullying live on television and it absolutely relies on belittling and pulling people down and a kind of private school legacy of Eton and Harrow yelling at each other across the floor and it's not where any smart, successful woman I know really chooses to go and make a difference.

Eh? Is she implying that Gillard was not smart and successful? Hell, she was the bloody PM!

Sounds like Griffiths is trying to have it both ways. That's sooo like Gillard herself. She and her feminist mates said she deserved the gig because of discrimination against her gender. When her wish was granted -- thereby negating the validity of her premise -- she went and made an almighty hash of it. But rather than taking responsibility for her actions, she went and blamed "the patriarchy" all over again. How sad. She hadn't learned a thing. She's still the spoiled child she was in the beginning.

There were other examples of Griffiths channeling the ghost of Gillard. Her misogyny goggles were on, plugged in, and powered up. Take this interchange from earlier in the discussion:

LINDSAY FOX: Michael, I'm a great believer that we owe a great amount of support to anybody that has the high office of Prime Minister of Australia, whether he is Protestant, whether he is a Catholic, whether he is or a Jew.

RACHEL GRIFFITHS: Or a she.

But strangely, Griffiths was blind to the much clearer example of sexist behaviour happening right in front of her, namely Tony Jones -- probably one of the whitest of white males -- rudely interrupting Kelly O'Dwyer repeatedly throughout the show.

But on second thoughts this made perfect sense. Those misogyny goggles are very selective, after all ...

Monday, March 24, 2014

Chris Kenny interviews Tim Jones about March in March

I always find the sight of lefties marching amusing. Most of these people are so stupid, they really don't have a clue what they're out there getting bolshie about!

It's usually much more of a tribal ritual -- a real "us and them" thing. It's their way of saying we're special. We're better than the rest of the country. We're more courageous, virtuous, compassionate, and thoughtful than those appalling proles.

Having been a long term denizen of Artsville -- a joint absolutely chockas with pompous pinkos -- I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that all those claims are false. Lefties are overwhelmingly selfish, thick, cowardly and vicious. That's why the typical socialist demo is so incoherent. It's narcissism en masse.

And just as their collective actions are so often demonstrably meaningless, so are their individual motivations. Take this interview between Chris Kenny and March in March organizer Tim Jones.



Despite repeated requests from Kenny, Jones is unable to clearly lay out his agenda for the silly protest, other than general claims about politicians' lies. Bloke is fuming throughout much of it. That's so typical of the Left, too. They're always consumed by their emotions.

Couldn't help thinking how much Jones resembled a caricature of Joh Bjelke-Peterson. In this sketch, Marg Downey as Jana Wendt is baffled by the blathering Queenslander (played by Gerry Connolly).

Watch and you'll see. It's not dissimilar to Kenny's reaction to Jones. Yet another case of life imitating satire ...

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Perth March in March mystery: the bloke in the yellow sheet

Have you ever had an experience that was highly reminiscent of a thriller or horror movie that sent chills down your spine? You know, like waking up in the middle of the night and seeing some butt-fugly face staring at you? Frozen in horror, you were unable to breathe for what seemed like minutes until suddenly the hideous mug disappeared and you came to full consciousness ... Or maybe while stopped at a traffic light on a wet day you saw rain drops collecting on your window that spelled out the word "death". But no sooner had you apprehended this terrifying omen than it was scattered to oblivion by the windscreen wiper.

Yeah, well, I just experienced something similar ... kind of.

See, about an hour ago I was down at Langley Park for the start of Perth's March in March, intending to shoot some vids for YouTube.

Anyhoo, when I first arrived I took a shot with my phone. Tweeted it about twenty minutes ago. It was only after I did so that I noticed a most intriguing figure in it. He was a bloke in the crowd who seemed to be wearing nothing but thongs and a yellow sheet (or was it a towel?).

Now I find this very mysterious. Actually, I feel a bit like the David Hemmings character in the champion Antonioni flick Blow-Up. While developing shots from a fashion shoot, he realizes he may have inadvertently captured a murder.

Sure, nothing was murdered at this event except common sense. Still, shrouded figures are always fascinating. You've gotta wonder, who was this be-sheeted bloke?

He seemed to be a visitor from another dimension whose presence was deeply symbolic. But what did his sinister presence mean, exactly?

Hmm. Some of the protesters were chanting their desire to put Tony Abbott on a guillotine. Was he some kind of antipodean unionist version of Ingmar Burgman's Death character, perhaps?

If so, I'd say watch out Tony. Particularly if this same figure appears at the next Abbott presser.

Chilling. Truly chilling ...


Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Lisa Wilkinson on Q and A

Watched Q and A last night. Probably got through about half of it before I'd had enough of the relentless idiocy of the lefties on the panel. Predictably they engaged in repeated PC cant, as well as heaps of vindictive sliming of conservatives. But the prize for the most vain, sanctimonious and infantile contributions surely went to Lisa Wilkinson.

Needless to say the numerous numpties in the audience thought that the vapid tele-bimbo was the duck's nuts. She revelled in this adulation, displaying an annoyingly smug expression throughout much of the jawfest.

Her first brain fart occurred early on:

LISA WILKINSON: I'm a passionate believer in freedom of speech but not if that freedom of speech allows somebody to racially vilify or humiliate or marginalise or isolate a particular group and I think that's what 18C is about stopping having happen. And if there is going to be freedom of expression, that has to be balanced with freedom from oppression and I think that's what also 18C is about and really it's about the rules of the playground applying in adult life outside of the playground where bullies are no longer allowed to bully and get away with it.

The particular part of the RDA that the current government is focusing on is Section 18C. And it seems that all they want to do is remove the bit that makes it unlawful to offend or insult. So she seems not to have done her homework.

Or maybe she was referring to that particular section in the above rant. In that case she is so stupid she thinks that offending and insulting members of certain races constitutes oppression of them. Talk about a low bar ...

And I love her line about the rules of the playground applying to adult life. I've often heard lefties use such schoolyard analogies, BTW. They clearly think adult citizens are like sprogs, an attitude that ironically is far more childish than the grownups they purport to want to protect. Hell, if adults are so delicate that they need to be protected from insult, then it's not such a stretch to say they are too feeble minded to vote ...

In the above quote she seems to be saying that the state should tell people how to behave, much as a teacher brings justice to a playground. But if adults, who surely should be able to think, speak, and argue for themselves, need to be disciplined in such an overbearing way, then isn't the state the bully?

Being the PC feminist that she is, Wilkinson was very likely going to use that ol' sob sister standby: blaming the white male patriarchy. And of course she did:

LISA WILKINSON: Do you think part of the reason why you can't sympathise or recognise what’s...

GEORGE BRANDIS: No, I didn't say I didn’t sympathise.

LISA WILKINSON: But you can't seem to understand how that would cause enormous discomfort for somebody and they would withdraw from public life. Do you think that’s because you are a white, able-bodied, heterosexual male?

Two things: Imagine if Brandis had used that sexist line on her, arguing that she didn't understand some point he was making because of her gender, etc.

And the falsity of it is so bloody obvious! If Brandis's race, sexuality and gender render him incapable of concurring with her stupid cant, then why was Chris Bowen on her side? He belongs to the same demographic she used to describe Brandis, remember.

The tired ol' bimbo-feminist thesis she put forward implies that any straight white male who supports nanny statist PC policies is fundamentally incapable of fully grasping them. So if he claims to supports them, he's surely being insincere, right?

So why wasn't Bowen offended by her statement and say as much? Come to think of it, why do jelly backed leftie males never react with indignation to this implied smear? (Oh, wait. I think I just answered that. )

This goes right back to something that the majority of the population grasps completely: People are primarily individuals, not members of a group. Just as there are many glib, soulless SNAGs like Bowen, there are also many black lesbian women who can actually think for themselves, and are therefore conservatives. (Condoleezza Rice is a prominent example.) Lefties like Wilkinson (and Bowen, for that matter) are so thick and primitive they simply cannot grasp this obvious truth. It's as sad as it is disturbing.

Just to reconfirm Wilkinson's lack of intelligence she used the exact same gender card a little bit later:

GLEN RADFORD: Question is this: Liberal backbencher Sharman Stone has suggested that the party should introduce mandatory quotas to boost the number of women in Federal Parliament. What does the panel think of the quotas as a way to redress discrimination? And aren't quotas a form of reverse discrimination against those in the majority who have been selected on merit?

TONY JONES: Let's hear first from the women on the panel. Lisa Wilkinson?

LISA WILKINSON: It's interesting that that question comes from a man because maybe you would have to be a woman to get, you know, exactly what this is all about.

She then went on to blather about the need for more women. Interesting that she's fixated on gender. Why not more homosexual males instead of women. Why not more disabled people? Why not more people who are extremely tall?

Could this be because she's a white, able bodied, heterosexual woman? Er, no.

It's 'cause she's a doctrinaire nanny statist seeking to engineer society's rules to her own advantage. She wants to be sure that she and other right-on mediocrities are bestowed positions of power and influence without having to prove that they are capable and deserving of them. She, like almost all lefties, is always trying to get there the easy way (while making others pay). Typical socialist -- always thinking about her own needs and wants above those of others.