Friday, September 30, 2011

Julian Burnside's "paedos in speedos" Twitter smear

Hot on the heels of Geoff Clark's Orwellian claims that he hoped his legal censoring of Andrew Bolt would actually promote debate comes another little event that clearly illustrates the jaw-dropping hypocrisy of the PC left.

The foppish, latte slurping hand wringer Julian Burnside has beclowned himself quite splendidly with a nasty little tweet linking Tony Abbott to paedophilia.

To his credit he apologized for it immediately. But true to socialist form he combined this with some deft weaseling, denying that the tweet did actually refer to the Opposition Leader. 

Which begs the question: If it wasn't about Abbott, then why did he apologize to him?

Not surprisingly, Burnside is an assiduous of promoter of the "it's not about freedom of speech" line regarding Bolt, something that his fellow concerned aristotwat Derek Sapphire approves of immensely.

I find behaviour like this just so depressing. It really makes you wonder if these ridiculous people will man up and be honest about anything at all, ever? 

Sure, what Burnside did was pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. And it did serve a useful purpose. The infantile nastiness of it is sooo typical of the circles he moves in, and constitutes yet more proof of what a petty and prejudiced level these people are on. 

But just imagine if a prominent conservative were to make a similar online "mistake" about paedophilia in Aboriginal communities, playing on the media image of a prominent Indigenous politician or activist ...

I rest my case, Your Honour.

Geoff Clark on his Bolt case motives

One thing that's always creeped me out about the advocates of political correctness is how easy they find it to say the complete opposite of what is clearly the truth. They say it unblushingly, with a straight face. It's sad, funny and scary all at once.

A perfect example of this is the line that the silencing of Andrew Bolt is "not about free speech". Of course it's about free speech! His enemies were appalled and angered by what he was saying (and how he was saying it) and so they all got together in a concerted effort to muzzle him. And they succeeded.

One of the complainants, Geoff Clark, had the spectacular gall to say not only that his action was not an attempt to curtail free speech in Australia, but this as well

"It creates debate, there's nothing wrong with that debate, provided it's not harmful or offensive."

Got that? Intimidating someone into silence (and making an example of him, which Clark admits was part of his motivation in this revealing interview with Neil Mitchell) creates debate. So, less is more, night is day, and two plus two equals five

That aside, when Clark is demanding that there be more civility in this debate that he so clearly and sincerely wants to encourage, a reasonable person might find it a little odd that he would characterize his victory in this way:

"The sword of justice has struck, and cut off the head of the serpent. Let's hope it doesn't grow two heads."

Firstly, I think that calling someone a serpent (or more specifically, a serpent's head) might be perceived as "offensive" by most people. 

And forgive me for my lack of cultural sensitivity, but it just doesn't seem to make any sense. Geoff, how can the serpent you so sincerely wish not to silence keep debating you when it has no head?

Really, mate. Just be honest about what you're trying to do. You might actually earn a little genuine respect then, instead of just achieving compliance through fear and intimidation.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Alexander Lebedev does a Ron Casey

Everyone in Australia knows of the infamous punch-up between Ron Casey and Normie Rowe that was broadcast live on the Midday Show back in 1991. I was actually one of the few people who saw it live and the event was seared into my brain.

I was living in a grungy share house type situation in Northcote in Melbourne and had just turned on the TV. I didn't choose that show. It just happened right there in front of me. I couldn't believe what I was seeing.

Recently, a similarly dramatic live TV stoush has occurred in which an older grey haired bloke landed a punch against a younger, more hirsute opponent. The man taking the Ron Casey role was Alexander Lebedev, Russian billionaire.

Note the similarities with the original, Australian event two decades ago. Spooky, eh?

Perhaps there is a grand design to human events after all. Hell (and heaven!), maybe there is even a God. And if so, what is he trying to tell us?

Er, be kind to senior citizens? God doesn't like beards? (No, that can't be right.)

Stuffed if I know. 

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Norm Sanders on The Bolt Report

Having had a lot of contact with lefties and greenies over the years I've got a pretty good idea about what makes them tick. They are driven primarily by emotions, and quite immature ones at that. Basically, they think that ultimately everything is all about them; that only they truly care; and that they can create a utopia by sheer act of will (which invariably involves shrieking a lot and bossing people around).

Of course this quality can make them extremely annoying. But it can also make them quite interesting, amusing, and even likeable. Hell, sometimes they can even be undeniably charismatic! It's that fire in the belly that people respond to, see. (This is one of the reasons you see a lot of lefties and greenies in the performing arts.)

Needless to say, when people are driven less by reason than emotion, they tend not to be very consistent. They can even be downright contradictory.

I saw a perfect example of this on today's episode of The Bolt Report. Veteran environmentalist Norm Sanders was chewing the fat with Bolta and John Hewson.

Now the first thing that you notice is how affable he is. He's technically a senior citizen but seems much younger than his years. He's very energetic and enthusiastic, and also good natured. If you ever met him in a social setting he'd be very hard to dislike. (That may not be the case if you tried to debate him at a demo, but!)

So he's very easy to warm to, but his arguments are just all over the shop. Have a look at the discussion, and take particular note at around the four and a half minute mark. Norm Sanders really hammers home a point about the Earth being in a state of catastrophic decline, repeatedly saying it's a "fact" that the joint is going to hell in a handbasket environmentally.

But a little later he says that there are no facts, just emotions. And he just carries on regardless! 

It's hilarious. And keep an eye out for Bolta's expression. It's a classic. He's clearly thinking something akin to "what the hell is this guy on?".

Well, he's not really on anything. He's just addicted to the endorphins created by his deep and virtuous desire to do his bit to "save the planet". He's hooked on a feeling (and he's high on believing) that nature appreciates his efforts. But the sad fact is that nature doesn't give a rat's about them -- nor does it care about itself, for that matter.

That's just something greenies will never accept. Hell, if they did it would mean that all their fine feelings are ultimately worthless in the grand scheme of things. They simply couldn't bear the thought of that. Consequently they just don't go there. 

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Why Rudd won't win if reinstalled, despite strong polling

The recent poll results that foreshadow a Rudd victory if Labor reinstalls their knifed leader are getting a lot of media coverage. They must also figure prominently in the party's secret deliberations about whether to replace Gillard with the bloke she toppled.

But if Labor do actually go back to the, er, suture, could they stitch up a win? Frankly I don't think so.

I believe that what the polls reflect is not so much clear support for Rudd, but more the electorate's desire to be once again in control of their government. It's as if the people are saying: "We voted Rudd in back in 2007. And we were robbed of the chance to vote him in again, or throw him out, in 2010. We want Rudd back so that we, the people, can decide who leads the nation, not a bunch of ruthless, faceless power brokers."

Of course I have no real evidence to back up this claim. It's just a hunch, but I'm pretty sure it's on the right track.

I suspect that there's a strong chance Labor heavies will take the most optimistic interpretation that can be gleaned from these polls and reinstall Rudd soon, even though they utterly detest him. And while the Coalition's lead will take a big hit, they'll still ultimately win the next election comfortably.