Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Rude Jennifer Byrne berates "sexist" Christopher Hitchens

Like so many people right across the political spectrum I've always enjoyed watching Christopher Hitchens being interviewed or in debates. The bloke was amazingly articulate and insightful as well as having balls of steel.

So I made a point of catching an interview he did with Jennifer Byrne, which was broadcast again last night because of his death.

It was filmed last year. He didn't look too well then -- although I suppose he never really did on account of all the booze and durries. From what I can tell he got the cancer diagnosis in June 2010, and this was broadcast in July of that year. So he was probably fully aware of how sick he was at the time. If so, you'd never know from his demeanour. 

He's interesting as always, but Byrne comes across as a complete twit. She's giggling and mugging all the way through.

He clearly suspects she's a moron. And right near the end he's left in no doubt. They get onto the subject of whether women should work or not, and he says they should have the choice. Feminist bimbo Byrne takes this as an appallingly sexist insult against all of chickdom, and berates him for minutes -- right up until the end! He remains charming and unruffled by her rudeness, showing amazing restraint. 

As well as proving what a champ Hitchens was, the little episode gives a real insight into the retarded mindset of so many women (and men) working at their ABC. How can you possibly have a rational discussion with someone who thinks that saying women should have choices constitutes sexism? 

It's truly jaw-dropping stuff. Hearteningly, many other people who watched it were similarly dismayed, as this comment thread attests

The actual segment in question starts a bit over half way through this video if you want to have a look. 

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Wong and Allouache have a daughter, but where is the father?

Penny Wong and her significant other Sophie Allouache are now the proud parents of a beautiful baby girl. I use the term "parents" flexibly, of course, because only one of the pair truly is a parent -- that's Sophie Allouache, who bore the child. The other dinkum parent is nowhere to be seen.

He's obviously agreed to take a low profile. Pretty much invisible, actually.

The father of Alexandra is a man known to the couple.

Well, at least they've met the guy. So they didn't choose him solely for the quality of his DNA, as described on some creepy sperm bank database.

His identity is to be kept secret.

Obviously that means that the meeja probably won't be allowed to print his name, even though it's a lay down misere that every hack in Canberra already knows it. (You never know, he might even be one. Most of the press gallery would give blood for the "progressive" cause. So why not sperm as well? Hell, it'd probably be a nice little earner, too.)

This report says that he will be known to the baby. Well, that's good of them.

Still, the poor tot will be left wondering why he, her dad, is taking such a minor role in her life. As she grows up she will almost certainly end up feeling that he fathered her not out of love for her mother but merely for ideological (or perhaps financial) reasons. So what does he truly feel about her? That's a doubly whammy to the heart right there.

Penny Wong and Sophie Allouache may think they've got the situation all nicely, neatly sorted. But it could get very messy indeed. Just as so many children of the IVF process -- deeply hurt by their fathers' absence from their lives -- often seek them out in adulthood, the fathers themselves frequently become much more emotionally involved than they planned to be and and demand more contact. Poisonous enmity often results and the only people to benefit are lawyers.

Really, the idea that bringing children into the world in such a cynical way constitutes social "progress" is just too revolting for words. It's also deeply ironic considering how often the gay marriage lobby cite "love" as their primary motivation.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Flyers used to frighten "scabs" in Fremantle

I've long been amused by the disconnect between rhetoric and reality in left-leaning cultures. Take unionism, for example. Unionists love to see themselves as tough but fair, big-hearted "salt of the earth" types. But they often get their way through abuse, intimidation and sometimes even outright violence.

Here's an illustration of their tactics in action:

Fremantle wharf workers accused of refusing to strike have been publicly branded scabs and "treacherous low-lifes" in intimidating flyers posted in the port city.

Flyers that name the five workers and accuse them of turning on their colleagues were posted anonymously in Fremantle late last week after vessel traffic operators and pilot boat crew took protected industrial action over a new enterprise agreement.

Truly nasty stuff. And cowardly to boot.

Still, it must be said that whoever made up the flyers does have an appreciation for literature

The poster quotes social activist Jack London's 1915 definition of a scab as a two-legged animal with a "corkscrew soul" and "a tumour of rotten principles" instead of a heart.

Lefties were forever accusing John Howard of wanting to "take us back to the fifties". But these guys are clearly stuck in a mindset several decades before that

Quoting a diatribe widely attributed to socialist writer Jack London is also a tad unwise considering the guy was a known racist.

Still, they're probably pretty safe on that score. The view of most MEAA-card carrying Aussie meeja workers is that London was the duck's nuts -- if they've even heard of him, that is.

But just imagine the squitterati's outrage if an eeevil employer were to quote another writer associated with the same odious attitudes.

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Richard Glover, Peter FitzSimons interview to be a taxing exercize

One thing that defines lefties is utter shamelessness when seeking attention. And because they so often lack originality, and are just mouthing meaningless and sanctimonious platitudes much of the time, they are quite fond of using gimmicks in pursuit of this goal.

One good example is the silly 24 hour climate change themed comedy show by Brit Mark Watson. A local, upcoming one is the planned quackathon between smug ABC presenter Richard Glover and child-brained lummox Peter FitzSimons. The pair are going to try and break the Guinness World Record for longest one-on-one interview

These two tossers could bore a Sjogren's Syndrome sufferer to tears in a couple of minutes flat. Hell, if Le Boring Festival were dinkum, and not part of a Goodies episode, a mere soundbite of Glover and FitzSimons would be a shoo in for "Gold Bore". So I don't even want to think about what kind of human wreckage they'll leave behind after a whole 24 hours.

Obviously, no one will listen to this epic jawfest for any length of time willingly, unless they are already deeply disturbed. But there are people working in the ABC studio itself who will be forced to endure much of it. I pity them.

But I pity the long-suffering Aussie taxpayer even more. Surely he will be footing the bill for all the long hours of therapy (not to mention heavy duty anti-depressants) these poor souls will require in order to restore some semblance of sanity --- just as he had to cough up for the grotesque uber-wank in the first place.

UPDATE: FitzSimons is definitely a good sport. After finding this post he submitted a comment, which unfortunately didn't get through (which I think was because of default settings, since changed). When I replied to his query as to where it went he responded:

I posted a comment saying "Harsh but fair", even if it was ludicrously unfair.

Went through the whole process, and it was there on your site when I checked. But then it disappeared.



I think that bolded phrase perfectly captures the spirit of this blog. 

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Occupy Melbourne tent fashionista gets dressing down

With apologies to Ted Nugent, here's an event that could be described as intensity in tent city. See, the cops have torn a tent dress from one of the Occupy Melbourne moonbats, and assorted quarterwits are all asquitter.

Milking the act for all its worth, the ranga drama queen said: "This is not consensual. Don’t take my clothes off.’’

That's some impressive victim-playing. She managed to weave in a false accusation of sexual harassment, as well as the standard "police brutality" line.

And that theme was adeptly picked up by fellow moonbat Tal Slome, who turned it into a wider critique of society:

Ms Slome described the incident as a "completely unnecessary form of brutality. Who decides what constitutes clothing in our society?"

I can see this incident being examined over and over in po-mo women's studies courses in coming years ... And maybe the gay rights crowd will take it up as well. After all, wearing a tent as a dress certainly qualifies as pretty camp.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Anna Bligh invokes Michael Kirby after civil union bill passed

Anna Bligh is clearly not the sharpest pencil in the box. But she knows how to demonize her opponents. After last night's vote to legalise civil unions for same sex couples, she said this:

ANNA BLIGH: So let me conclude again with the words of Michael Kirby when he said, "Fortunate is a human being, straight or gay, who has such a lifelong love. Evil are those who would deny such a love to a fellow human being."

In other words, if you disagree with the decision you'r eeevil. What a nasty tactic to use. And sooo typical of the bullying, hectoring PC thought police.

Simply disagreeing with this change in the law doesn't mean that you want to deny homosexual people their love. It just means that you don't want their relationships to have the same legal status as heterosexual ones. That is discriminatory, and in the final analysis, it might even be wrong. But it's certainly not evil.

Hell, Anders Behring Breivik is evil. A sense of proportion here, please.