Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Maurice Newman, Robyn Williams and leftie pedo smears

It's not surprising that the ABC decided Maurice Newman's complaints about Robyn Williams linking climate change skepticism to pedophilia have no validity. Their reaction is just so typically leftist. PC luvvies habitually use the most extreme analogies in order to denigrate their opponents, but then shriek and squawk up a storm if the same tactic is used against them.

Remember all the hyperventilating that occurred when Cory Bernardi linked gay marriage to zoophilia? The guy was sledged all over the Oz meeja, and was even demoted as a result of his statements. Yet while even some conservatives might have considered his comments extreme, they were tame compared to Williams's smearing of Newman and his intellectual ilk.

Bernardi's linkage was at least category-consistent, since both gay marriage and zoophilia pertain to sexual behaviour. He also alluded to some actual evidence, namely that there are influential people out there who see nothing wrong with humans schtupping animals -- Peter Singer, philosophical father of the Greens, being one. Compared to this, Williams's sliming of climate skeptics was right out of the ballpark.

In any case it's interesting how fond lefties are of their pedo smears. They tend to equate anything they don't like with sex with children almost as often as they do with racism and Nazism. Take this intriguing bit of graffiti in the Hay St Mall, for example. Not quite sure what the activist was trying to get at, but I think it's a safe bet he had some issues with the likes of Coke and Pepsi.

Pity he didn't make his point more eloquently. Getting up there was no mean feat.

So, what he lacked in coherence he certainly made up for in chutzpah. Have to give him a few cool points for that ...

Monday, December 17, 2012

Sandy Hook horror stops us all thinking rationally

One area of policy about which both conservatives and liberals often agree is gun control. Liberals (lefties in Oz) are all for it all the time, even more so when a horrific mass shooting occurs. And, particularly in the wake of these terrible events, many conservatives also demand sweeping legislative changes.

The best known local example was John Howard's reaction to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Now, after this Sandy Hook massacre, conservatives such as Miranda Devine are sounding very leftish.

I certainly sympathize. When you learn of the mass murder of children it's hard to stand up for the rights of gun owners. That's because your emotions are engaged. "God, this is too horrible," you think. "Politicians have to do something, anything, to at least try to stop such a thing ever happening again."

But if you look at the situation rationally it's hard not to conclude that lives could have been saved if there had been another armed citizen there at the scene. Hell, most people right across the political spectrum -- except for maybe some uber-leftie mega-saps -- would have been all for a security guard, cop, or army sniper taking out Adam Lanza immediately after he started firing (or even before he managed to kill anyone at all). He'd be feted as a hero if he did so. So why are they so appalled at the thought of a civilian doing exactly the same thing?

I think there are two kinds of irrationality at work here. There's the general belief that guns are evil in and of themselves which is what lefties in particular are most prone to. Then there's this idea that guns are okay, but only in the officially approved hands of cops, soldiers and the like. Conservatives, being respectful of institutional authority, often succumb to this fallacy.

But we know for a fact that many millions of people do own guns in western countries. The vast majority of them never use them for evil purposes. And surely killing a mass murderer early on in his shooting spree would not only not be an evil purpose, but an extremely good and admirable one -- regardless of whether the person firing the gun is wearing a uniform or not.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Gillard's end of the world spoof is life imitating satire

I'm sure you've heard about Julia Gillard's allegedly tongue-in-cheek address to the nation about the impending catastrophe predicted by the Mayan calendar. It's such a stunningly stupid stunt my eyes started to bleed after I watched it. It's actually beyond cringe-worthy and even beats Craig Emerson's "No Whyalla Wipeout" as the most tragic publicity stunt by an Australian politician so far this century. 

Countless people must be scratching their heads about why she's done this. I think her spin doctors have put her up to it to maintain her support amongst the sneering hipster demographic. But what's the point of that? It's a given anyway ... They're probably trying to get the focus off all this AWU stuff, too.

Whatever the motivation behind making the video, it's embarrassing in the extreme. Any non-moron would be wondering what on Earth it has to do with running the country. Can you imagine John Howard or even Paul Keating doing something so frivolous, puerile and totally unfunny?

The saddest thing about it is her droid-like delivery. She reads her lines in the same completely emotionless way that she announces her stupid failed policies.

You'd think that she'd know that for it to work as comedy it requires a bit of wit and oomph in the delivery. Apparently not.

And she's pretending to announce the end of the world, remember. Where's the mock-seriousness? She managed to summon something that seemed sorta heartfelt for her embarrassing suck-speech to the Yanks a while back (which actually was funny, for all the wrong reasons). Why not do a bit of pseudo-emoting here?

It's just sooo Gillard. Whatever she does she does not only badly, but in the most thoroughly inept manner possible. The only things she's good at are knifing people in the back, lying shamelessly and hanging onto power at all costs. 

And I wonder who wrote it, by the way? Presumably someone on staff at Triple J. More of your hard-earned taxes at work, people ...

Sunday, December 2, 2012

A victim of sleaze and smear who's done nothing wrong

Just watched Julia Gillard on Meet the Press. Paul Bongiorno not only raised the issue of the AWU scandal, but even asked her some questions about her honesty. Amazing!

As usual she stonewalled, constantly repeating phrases about Abbott's negativity, how she'd done nothing wrong, and her current fave, the Coalition's "sleze and smear" tactics. (Hell, she must have repeated that last one about a dozen times.)

Rattling off these lines one after the other is all she ever does when asked about the issue. Her approach is utterly mind-numbing.

Actually, I think that is one of its aims ... It's as if she's attempting to just grind down any interest in her involvement in the scandal by sheer, bloody-minded persistence. She sees it as a battle of wills. She's decided to just dig her heels in and hang on until her critics throw their hands up in exasperation and walk away. That always worked in the past, she figures, so she'll just keep using it now.

But I think this tactic is past its use-by date. The AWU scandal has already gathered heaps of momentum in the media, with formerly obsequious journos now daring to probe her on it -- and there's still so much more to come out. The Opposition know that the more she stonewalls on the issue the dodgier she looks to the electorate, who are finally getting interested in it in a big way.

Of course the constant mantra of "I did nothing wrong" and "Abbott's a negative misogynist using sleaze and smear against me" will continue to work on the Labor-loving moron demographic. But they're the only ones buying it now, I reckon. 

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Julia Gillard now resembling Craig Thomson

Julia Gillard's brazenness is almost beyond belief. There are numerous documents available demonstrating her deeply unethical behaviour as a lawyer for her crooked former beau, yet she continues to claim she did "nothing wrong". Then she hides behind her gender, sliming anyone with genuine and well-founded concerns about her character as sexist and misogynist.

For sheer gall, she's now starting to resemble Craig Thomson. It now appears that her statement that she had complete confidence in him was not motivated solely by political necessity. I think she might have been pretty damn impressed by his utter defiance in the face of so much evidence against him. Seems she was thinking, "Way to go, Thommo. I thought I was the master. But you've actually taught me something -- namely that there's just no limit to how far you can push the envelope when it comes to shameless denials. Also, that it's never too late to go on the front foot and attack your accusers."

Her favoured tactic is to use rhetorical hair splitting to isolate one little word or phrase that is used in an argument against her, misrepresent it, then exaggerate its significance hugely and claim that this is all her opponents ever do because they're horrible people who are out to slime her. 

She did it today by saying that Tony Abbott's claim that she dodgied up the form to get the AWU Workplace Reform Association accepted was false because it hinged on whether the proposed entity was in and of itself a trade union. Obviously it wasn't a trade union, she said, so there was no deception. Therefore, everything he says is the usual smear and innuendo, negativity, etc, etc, ad bloody nauseam.

Obviously, this wasn't the point. The point was that the form she filled in clearly misrepresented its purpose as a slush fund. Therein lay her deception. 

She did the same thing back in August when she zeroed in on The Australian's mistake in using the word "trust" when it should have been "slush" and threatening to sue them. When the paper issued a correction she then crowed about this back-down, deceitfully claiming that it proved that their campaign to link her to the fraud was built on a house of cards.

She's like a barmaid being sprung at work with her hand in the cash register, stuffing the notes down her blouse.

Boss: "Hey, what are you doing? Stop ripping me off!"

Barmaid: "I'm not ripping you off. How dare you accuse me of such a thing?"

Boss: "Yes you are. You're stuffing that cash into your bra."

Barmaid: "Bra ... what bra? I'm not wearing a bra. Liar!"

Boss: "Look it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a bra or not. I've caught you red handed. And I can still see the notes in your cleavage."

Barmaid: "Not only are you a liar. You're looking down my top! Pervert. Sexist! Misogynist!"

Gillard truly is a piece or work. But she can't keep getting away with this forever. 

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Janet Albrechtsen's ABC-AWU analogy on Q and A

There is so much to be suspicious about in Gillard's involvement in the AWU scandal that it amazes me it's taken this long for most Aussie journos to start looking in depth at it. Apart from numerous, very specific questions regarding certain aspects of the fraud that she hasn't answered, there's the issue of the slush fund's genesis.

Yesterday Gillard's excuse for why she didn't alert the AWU about its existence was because, er, the crooks defrauding it effectively were the AWU. How could anyone in their right mind buy that? Yet many in the press gallery have.

If people do find it hard to grasp why some people might find the way she operated more than a bit dodgy, then they should read or watch a former lawyer's very useful analogy for Gillard's deeply suss conduct

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: If you go back and look - well, I don't know about that. If you go back and look at the crux of this and, Barnaby, you seem to be struggling with what the problem is. The problem is pretty clear and let me try to put it in user-friendly terms here tonight. Let's say I am a partner at a law firm and that law firm has, as its big client, the ABC. Now, let's say Tony Jones works for the ABC and he happens to be my boyfriend.

TONY JONES: For argument's sake.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: For argument's sake. And Tony wants to set up...

BARNABY JOYCE: Yeah, I’m struggling with that. I’m struggling with that.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: No. No. No. Stay with me.

BARNABY JOYCE: I’m struggling with that part.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: Tony wants to set up a slush fund to gather funds for re-election of him as staff elected director onto the ABC. Now, what do I do as a girlfriend? I say...

BARNABY JOYCE: Divorce him.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: I can do two things. I can say, look, there’s a bit of a conflict here. I should probably hand it over to someone else at the law firm. I don't do that. In fact, I give the legal advice not only to set up - to establish a trust fund for Tony, my boyfriend, but also to set up a fund...

TONY JONES: Janet, my mind is spinning. Do you mind sort of...

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: set up a fund that is called...

TONY JONES: I’ve become the Bruce Wilson in the equation.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: It improves. It improves.

PENNY WONG: That makes you Julia.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: There’s a happy ending so let me come to the happy ending. The fund is called the ABC Workplace Reform Association.

PENNY WONG: This is getting worse and I’m getting a bit stressed by it. Would you like me to move?

TONY JONES: Certainly not.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: Now, as a lawyer, I’m very familiar with ABC rules. I know that you can't set up an association using the letters ABC without authorisation. It was not authorised. What do I do next? I decide not to open a file. I'm a lawyer. I've got fiduciary duties to my partners at a law firm. I choose not to tell those partners about this matter. I’m a lawyer. I’ve got fiduciary duties to the firms major client, the ABC, but I choose not to tell other members of the ABC that I’m doing work on the side for my boyfriend to set up a fund using the letters ABC for the purposes that have nothing to do with workplace reform.

This was a really good way of describing what happened because it might actually make some ABC luvvies twig to how dodgy Gillard was right from the outset. Surely, having that beloved three letter acronym used in such an obviously deceptive and secretive way would send them all into an indignant rage. So, no wonder people in Gillard's law firm and the AWU were appalled at what she did way back then. And no wonder anyone with any sense of morality and professional standards is appalled when they read about it now.

Monday, November 26, 2012

Julia Gillard slimes and smears Ralph Blewitt

Managed to watch some of that press conference that Gillard gave today in a desperate attempt to make the AWU scandal go away. Lots of non-answers and evasions, of course.

One of the most revealing parts of it was when she was asked if she actually witnessed the signing of the Power of Attorney. It required a very simple answer, yes or no. She couldn't give one. Even some tragic Labor luvvies in the meeja are starting to realize this is a serious issue, and that her constant claim that she "did nothing wrong" just doesn't cut it.

The way she went on the attack against Ralph Blewitt showed how angry and desperate she was. She used her well honed sliming techniques on the former union official:

"Mr Blewitt is a man who has publicly said he was involved in fraud. Mr Blewitt is a man who has sought immunity from prosecution," Ms Gillard said.

"Mr Blewitt is a man who has fled Indonesia to avoid a police interview in relation to land fraud, although he denies wrongdoing in the case. Mr Blewitt says he owes money on another Asian land deal.

"Mr Blewitt admits to using the services of prostitutes in Asia. Mr Blewitt has published lewd and degrading comments - and accompanying photographs - of young women on his Facebook page.

"Mr Blewitt, according to people who know him, has been described as a complete imbecile, an idiot, a stooge, a sexist pig, a liar, and his sister has said he's a crook and rotten to the core.

What has any of that got to do with the facts of the matter? Hell, he could be a serial killing, cannibalistic pedophile for all I care ... Did she witness him signing the document or didn't she?
 "His word against mine? Make your mind up."

I think an awful lot of people have made up their minds -- even many within her own party. And not in the way she'd expect ...

Knowing how easily and often this woman lies her word is worth very little indeed. Sure, Blewitt's not the most credible person in the world but he strikes me as being a lot more trustworthy than she is. And people can, and do redeem themselves, after all. Which is exactly what he genuinely seems to be attempting to do in this case. He's been clear, consistent and unequivocal in his claims, while Gillard has been evasive, changing her story repeatedly.

Hell, the Prime Minister of the country comes across as way dodgier than a self-confessed bagman. How sad is that?

Then there's the fact that back in the day Gillard herself was great mates with this "sexist pig". Surely he was the same guy in the nineties? Why did she have anything to do with him then, I wonder ... 

UPDATE: Blewitt responds to the smear

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Wilson, Gillard, Blewitt and the issue of credibility

Interesting that Bruce Wilson has now broken his silence to defend Julia Gillard. Her supporters are very happy about this, of course. But you've gotta wonder, if she had nothing to do with the AWU fraud then why didn't he do this before? If he had he may well have nipped the issue in the bud and saved her the trouble she's currently experiencing.

It's pretty funny that people like Tony Burke are saying Wilson's is the last word and the issue is officially over. Ha! The story's just getting started, more like ... Wilson was the alleged mastermind behind the fraud. Why would you believe him?

Mr Wilson also rounded on the union bagman Ralph Blewitt, attacking his former mate as a "very risky" person for Ms Gillard's critics to rely on.

"Relying on Ralph to be your star witness is a very, very risky strategy," Mr Wilson said. "It's not one I would be prepared to take."

Talk about the pot and the kettle.

But there's a difference between the two: Apart from the fact that Blewitt was clearly Wilson's underling, Blewitt has made his admissions to the coppers under penalty of perjury. Sure, he could be lying. But he's risking a helluva lot more than Wilson is.

In any case, you don't have to believe either of them. There's enough stuff in the documents to make any curious and rational person suspicious of Gillard's involvement in the fraud.

And we do know that she was very close to these two alleged crooks for a long time. It beggars belief that she didn't have the slightest clue what was going on.

Her "young and naive" defence is comical. And it's so sexist. It relies heavily on the twin stereotypes of diabolically evil, scheming men and saintly, trusting women. The excuse would be pathetic if it came from any woman. But the fact that a leftie feminist is using it makes it too tragic for words. I mean, doesn't your typical leftie feminist pride herself on not being anyone's fool -- least of all a man's? Just shows how hollow that whole ideology is. (Actually, it's a bigger fraud than the one perpetrated on the AWU when you think about it!)

Friday, November 23, 2012

Leigh Sales, Tony Jones now misogynist nut-jobs

It's really heartening to see the ABC finally start to investigate this AWU scandal. Better late than never, as they say ... 

With the likes of Leigh sales and Tony Jones asking some hard-ish questions regarding the scandal, Gillard's description of those curious about her involvement in it as "misogynists and nut-jobs" seems even more absurd than it did when she first used it at that press conference back in August. 

It's going to be very interesting to see what happens in the coming days. Will Gillard change course? She must be under huge pressure to do so and be more forthcoming.

Still, having denied any wrongdoing so unequivocally before, to admit any now will only make her look doubly dishonest. That's why I think she's probably going to keep toughing it out indefinitely.

Yet new information surfaces every couple of  days, it seems. And every time it does, Gillard has more questions to answer. This really must be getting to others in the party. Surely there will come a time when they feel they just have to act and get rid of her?

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Royal Commission, anti-discrimination law and Abbott

It's pretty obvious that Labor's main strategy to win the next election is to terminate Tony Abbott with extreme prejudice (or should that be "tolerance"?). They consider his seeming lack of connection with the Australian people in general and women in particular as the Opposition's weakest point. They've been heartened by the success of Gillard's misogyny speech to hurt him electorally and have decided to keep going with the nasty personal smears, increasing their intensity if possible.

When you consider this game plan, it sheds light on a couple of their recent announcements. Take the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse. Obviously, this is going to focus heavily on the Catholic Church. That's a great way to smear Abbott by association.

Then there's this recent huge change to anti-discrimination legislation which makes it so much easier for people to make complaints. This could well be a tactic to draw Abbott into criticizing the law, thereby leaving him open to accusations of homophobia, racist, sexism and all the rest.

Combine the nastiness and cynicism of these goals with Labor's dreadful record on delivering outcomes and it's likely these big initiatives will cause more problems than they solve. They'll spawn horror stories galore before too long, just you watch!

What do you reckon? Are they that cynical, or do you think that maybe Labor does have some sincere motivations for these recent decisions?

Monday, November 19, 2012

Do missing AWU files spell doom for Gillard?

I never thought I would find white collar crime remotely fascinating, but I've gotta say this whole AWU scandal has me completely hooked. (Actually, is white collar the right term? It involves roughneck union heavies, so maybe "light blue" is more apt ...)

In any case, it's unfolding before our eyes like some fictional political thriller. There were those diary entries from Ian Cambridge last week. Now there are revelations about several missing files. And Julie Bishop is doing a fine job pursuing this issue.

Ms Bishop said it ''beggared belief'' that documents held in government and court archives could disappear.

''Now this is starting to smell like a cover-up, this is starting to smell like somebody is deliberately destroying documents because if these files in Western Australia and Queensland are not located quickly the police must investigate,'' she said in an interview with Channel Ten's Bolt Report.

As Michael Smith says on his blog, stealing files like this is an extremely serious offence. So if they didn't just get misplaced (highly unlikely) then something has to be done.

If nothing is done, well, that will be deeply disturbing and depressing -- but hardly surprising.

I'm really curious about how this will all turn out. Some commentators are saying that all these developments combined spell doom for Gillard, and soon. But I'm not so sure.

Gillard's been running a completely dysfunctional government pretty much the whole time, and she's still got the backing of her party. I think she'll just keep brazenly ignoring all this stuff until the bitter end, which will come at the next election.

What has been truly astonishing about the AWU scandal is how the majority of journos have willfully ignored it. Imagine if it related to Abbott's or Julie Bishop's past conduct. Every leftie hack in the entire country would be pursuing it with a vengeance, chasing every angle imaginable. But since it pertains to Gillard, most are just desperate to look the other way.

With Royal Commissions all the rage now, there should be one into the Fourth Estate. There's something truly dodgy going on there!

More depressing still is how Gillard's approval ratings have remained quite high, and have even gone up recently. There must be a lot of Aussies who have bought the PM's media cheer squad's line of "nothin' to see here, folks, so you should all just move along". 

My advice to these voters is that on the contrary, there's plenty! You just have to go looking for it, that's all. 

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Grace Collier on union culture and corruption

Here's a really good article by Grace Collier on union culture which has some useful insights. She says that many unionists have a war mentality and therefore believe that pretty much any action can be justified as long as it can be seen to benefit the tribe. She also likens the atmosphere of many unions to that of a cult. If you keep in mind these characteristics you can see how easily corruption can flourish.

There's another aspect of unionism that increases this tendency. That is that you don't actually have to produce anything of market value when you're in a union. The money flows into its cofffers in a steady stream from the pay packets of employees no matter what. It's like taxes being used to pay government employees. It's pretty much guaranteed.

That's the opposite of being in a business -- particularly a small to middling one. In that environment, if you don't make sales, you go belly up. So all or most of your attention is directed towards that goal. You don't have anywhere near as much time to play politics.

But in a union, it's all politics. You're playing politics with the employer to increase the benefits to members. And you're playing politics with your fellow unionists to get to the top of the power structure. 

If you think of these three factors together you start to understand what a strange world these people live and work in, day in and day out. Behaviour that most people would find dodgy as is often seen as pretty much par for the course and therefore totally acceptable. It only worries them if they feel they might eventually get sprung for it.

Friday, November 16, 2012

Final Hamster Wheel shows same old left-wing bias

In comedy and satire everything is exaggerated. So you can see the political subtext very clearly. Many satirists purport to dish out mockery across the board without fear or favour. But that's a crock. They're just as selective as anyone else. And it shows.

Watch anything vaguely humorous on the ABC and you'll see the same dreary left-wing bias every time. The writers and performers are clearly terrified of transgressing uber-PC rules relating to race, gender and sexual identity among other things.

Take the final episode of the Hamster Wheel, which was shown this week. Pretty much every sketch reeked of obnoxious undergraduate Bolshevism (as it always does). Kinda sad for many reasons, not least because the "boys" who write and perform the show are swiftly approaching middle age.

For example, there was a segment on some media beat-up by A Current Affair about the growth in the number of Asian shops in a shopping mall. It was an easy target that was predictably handled. But there was one little part of it that I thought was particularly interesting because it revealed a specific double standard often applied to racial politics in this country.

The boys were making fun of the fact that the tabloid show had hugely exaggerated the extent of the Chinese "takeover" of the mall in question, saying that according to the racists at ACA "just a tiny bit of Asianness makes something completely Asian".

If such a concept can be freely mocked when it comes to discussions of "Asianness" then surely it would apply to related aspects pertaining to Indigenous issues too, right?

No way. As we are all well aware, the official line is that just the slightest hint of Indigenous ancestry is enough to make someone completely and authentically Aboriginal. And woe betide anyone who dares suggest a contrary view.

Good to know that the Chaser boys observe this little legal idiosyncracy very carefully. Otherwise their show could result in even more wasted taxpayers' millions in the form of massive compensation payouts to people whose feelings they had hurt.

And it's not just the writers and performers who know what's required of them by the bullying Left. The audience are right up to speed on this as well.

The "standby eulogy" for Julia Gillard was a case in point. Apart from the fact that it failed to mention the AWU scandal specifically -- which would surely have been the biggest target by a country mile if they really were anarchic takers of the piss (I mean, if anything's gonna "kill" the PM, surely it's this!) -- the audience took offence at the lame, tame gags near the end and even started to groan. It's as if they were saying: "Boys, we chuckled at the beginning to give the impression that we can laugh at our own side. But mocking the Great Helmsperson's recent face plant was simply beyond the pale. You're seconds away from being officially deemed sexist and misogynist. You have been warned!"

Depressing stuff. And to think lefties believe they're the ones with the best sense of humour! What a joke.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Paul Howes, Olivia Wirth and the wisdom of Henry Kissinger

Australian political junkies will no doubt be aware that AWU head honcho Paul Howes and Qantas corporate affairs spokeswoman Olivia Wirth are an item. This is a notable development, not least because it raises questions about potential conflicts of interest.

Then there's the sheer incongruity of the union (er, the one between them, that is). Now, I don't wanna sound sexist or misogynist here, but as well as being highly capable Ms Wirth also happens to be one undeniably foxy babe. Howes, on the other hand, could never be described as tall, dark and handsome.

You've gotta ask, what's his secret?

The explanation that comes first to mind is that famous line from Henry Kissinger: "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."

Yep, it's obviously pretty potent stuff. Not only does it overcome those natural forces that often bring men and women together; it also traverses ideological divides. At first blush union heavies and corporate movers and shakers seem like very strange bedfellows, after all. 

Friday, November 2, 2012

The Hamster Wheel's lame Dumb, Drunk and Racist parody

There's just so much dreary ol' bolshie bias in the ABC it's hard to know where to begin. And it's obvious in ways both big and small. Last night, for example, the Chaser boys did a sketch about Joe Hildebrand and his show Dumb, Drunk and Racist.

I was only watching The Hamster Wheel intermittently so I can't remember the exact details but basically it attempted to satirize the fact that when he wasn't making docos for the public broadcaster he worked at the eeevil News Ltd. So they concocted this follow-up to the initial series, in which he confronted some Indians with the horrible reality of his co-workers' appalling attitudes. The sketch took pot shots at Miranda Devine, Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman, etc, basically accusing them of being racist.

In the same way that misogyny has a clear and unequivocal meaning -- hatred of women -- racism means perceiving others as different and inferior on account of their race. Now all these high profile journos have said controversial things about racial politics, railing against divisive policies that identify people according to their race before their essential humanity. But none of them have ever condemned, sneered at, or looked down on any group or individual because of their race -- at least as far as I know. (And if any of them have, I'm happy to be corrected.)

So the sketch had a false subtext -- not that this would bother the kind of meatheads who think The Hamster Wheel is insightful, courageous and cutting edge, of course. They are forever conflating race with political belief, culture, even religion, after all. 

As well as completely missing its intended target, the sketch also scored a massive own goal in that its, er, "humour" depended on the seeming incongruity of the right-on Hildebrand working with these appalling reactionaries. But all this really proved to any thinking person was that News Ltd actually employs people with a range of political views. (And Hildebrand isn't the only one who tends to take a PC line. There are heaps of other journos who clearly have more left-wing sympathies in that corporation.)

Yet do the Chaser boys hold a diversity of views? Or can you find any conservatives in the entire national broadcaster, for that matter. (Maybe one or two, but they're rare as hen's teeth.)

Another case of taxpayer-funded self-satire from the sneering hipsters at their ABC.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Destroy the Joint destroyed by true people power

As Paul Sheehan notes, Alan Jones is back on top commercially. Of course correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, so this may be due in major part to factors other than public resentment towards the boycotting campaign. But one thing's for sure: Destroy the Joint has failed dismally to achieve its goal of bitching, moaning and nagging the Sydney broadcaster off air.

I knew that the censorious, slacktivist campaign would ultimately fail. But I didn't think this outcome would be clear quite so soon. So it's a pleasant surprise.

Deep down the gimlet-eyed, hatchet-faced communards who dreamt up this vicious pile-on must be spitting even more chips than they normally are. That's a funny thought.

Still, like Bob Brown talking up even negative election results as positives for the Greens, they'll claim it was a success. They do that to keep their spirits up, and also because they are totalitarians who think that "a thousand repetitions make a truth". Ironically, they themselves are the only ones simple-minded enough to believe their repetitions. What a tragic psychological state to be in!

One of the lies they tell themselves in the hope that it will catch on and "go viral" in the minds of the masses is that their tightly controlled and centrally managed online bitchathon was a true act of "people power". But it was the opposite. If anything, the true collective act of people power in this case was all those listeners, consumers and business people refusing to go along with their nasty little campaign.

It really shows the power of the individual, doesn't it? One man in his seventies against thousands, most of whom are half his age and younger. And he wins!

You'd think they might learn from this. But nup. They'll just redouble their efforts next time, and make it even more clear what a pathetic pack of tiny-minded bullies they are.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Reclaim the Night March in Brunswick was bizarre, pointless

What is it with these lefties? They have such a pathological aversion to common sense. This Reclaim the Night March along Sydney Road in Brunswick is a case in point.

Organiser Natalie Pestana told The Age she wanted to counter the notion that women bear some responsibility for preventing harassment and sexual assault.

"Women grow up with a different set of rules," she said.

"We're taught to keep a key between our fingers in case we're attacked and check the back seat of our car. These are things that guys just aren't made to do.

"We're pissed off and annoyed that women are being blamed when they're the victim of an assault."

So the march was about railing at the "victim blamers". Yet where was the outrage against the victim killers?

Hell, you'd think that any halfway sensible person would feel greatest anger towards the individuals who commit the rapes and murders, not those who offer advice about how to reduce the risk of such crimes happening.

If you're a feminist who wants to blame an institution, then why not the piss-weak legal system that lets known sexual predators out on the streets? The law is still dominated by blokes, too. You could even call it a mini-patriarchy -- you know, like a subset of the biggie the sisterhood keeps shrieking about.

And I do agree with rally attendee Phil Cleary's point about the law going easier on men who use the "she provoked me" defence. That still seems to occur from time to time. Whether that's a pervasive phenomenon, I don't know. 

But what the ideologues behind such demos call "victim blaming" doesn't even fit that description much of the time. Often it's just good advice.

Yes, there's a sexist double standard here. That's because life is sexist. Men are generally stronger and bigger than women. So a cowardly, vicious and truly misogynistic man driven by sick sexual fantasies poses a real threat to most women. Saying you should be wary of scumbags like this is not "blaming the victim". It's just bloody common sense!

Of course, in a perfect world women should be able to do whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want. But this isn't a perfect world. So they shouldn't behave like it is. (Nor should men, for that matter. But that's a side issue.)

That's where the real danger of silly protests like these lies. They may well encourage some women to be less sensible; to walk home alone utterly plastered down dark streets instead of catching a cab.

And yes, even catching a cab isn't safe. Some women get attacked by cabbies, too. But it's a helluva lot safer than walking home alone.

As I said, the world is a dangerous place. It's not right. It's not fair. But it's just the way it is, unfortunately. Bitching en masse about the comments of shock jocks will not make the world any safer for women. Grow up and get used to it.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Gillard's misogyny speech prompts Macquarie Dictionary redefinition

In her relentless campaign to smear Abbott at all costs, Julia Gillard used a very strong word to describe him. She said he was a misogynist, a hater of women. But when it became clear even to her fellow bottom feeders in Labor that this was a tad OTT they had to do some serious spinning.

Take Bill Shorten on Q and A. It was hilarious to see him bend over backwards so as not to lose his treasured insult:

BILL SHORTEN: No. Let's go through and what I understand to be the meanings of misogyny and sexism. There's been a lot of really valuable contributions from a range of people. I take the definition of misogyny - the old definition is do you hate women. I don't think Tony Abbott hates women. But do I think in the vernacular that misogyny has moved to the following definition, yes I do and the following definition is - there are some people who say things to women which are frankly inadvertent. That doesn't make them right but they're capable of being corrected. You say to this bloke or this person, “That's just not right,” and they change. Misogyny, to me, is a - in the language which I understand it to have been used most recently is a view that there are some people who have a prejudice about women in certain occupations and they have an unexamined view in their own head about the status of women and the equality of women to do a whole range of things.

The thing he now describes as misogyny is much closer to sexism. But misogyny is a more powerful word and not just because of its well known definition. There's also something about the very sound of it that has more emotional impact. It's an ugly word, used to describe an ugly attitude. And it's this ugliness that Shorten and Gillard and their partners in slime are so attracted to. By repeatedly associating it with Abbott it makes him repellant in the minds of many voters. That's why they so desperately want to keep using it.

In what is a truly bizarre and alarming development, the editors of Macquarie Dictionary have abetted this sleazy campaign by making Shorten's absurd redefinition official. You just can't make this stuff up.

In a helpful post, Andrew Bolt suggests some other words that the tome needs to include.

Still, we shouldn't be surprised. The Left are forever doing this. Because they're such nasty bullies, they just can't stop themselves from taking powerfully emotive words that describe repellant acts and attitudes and expanding their definitons so they can then inflict them on anyone they choose.

Take "rape", for example. Everyone knew what that meant. But then in the nineties it spawned a sub-category, "date rape", which was something much closer to seduction after an initial refusal.

"Racism" is another one. In days of yore it meant treating people as inferiors on account of their race. Now it is used just as often to describe treating them as equals.

Even the concept of race itself has becoming murkier, meaning that those who wish to silence others with the accusation "racist" can do so much more easily. (Case in point: the Andrew Bolt trial.)

Race has also become conflated with religion -- well, one religion at least. Now, if you criticize Islam, the Left can slime you as a "racist".

Then there's the word "homophobe". In the past, it meant someone who feared and hated gay people. Now it's anyone who disagrees with the idea of gay marriage, among other things.

I could go on. But I think you get the drift.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Julia Gillard's speech and the feminist Mike Tyson

I find it pretty funny -- but also very revealing -- that Gillard's fiery speech against misogyny and sexism was widely seen as being something deep, true and hugely empowering for women. Rather than it being a kind of "Once more unto the breach dear friends" for chickdom, it was actually just a bloody great victim-whinge.

As Brendan O'Neill noted, she spent most of it quacking on about how offended she was:

In what was essentially a gratuitously ostentatious display of Gillard’s own emotional sensitivity to certain words and ideas, the Aussie PM continually played the offence card. “I was very offended” by something Abbott said about abortion, she said. “I was very personally offended by those comments”, she said about something else. “I was also very offended on behalf of the women of Australia”, she said, in relation to a comment Abbott made about housewives. It goes on and on. “I was offended too by the sexism… I was offended by those things… I am offended by their content… I am always offended by sexism… I am always offended by statements that are anti-women… I am offended by those things… I am offended by things.”

Her speech and the many glowing references to it from the sisterhood say a lot about where feminism is at these days. It's just the opposite of what it's meant to be.

Gillard is so pathetically hypersensitive she actually believes that being called "she" is sexist and sees eeevil patriarchal motivation behind Abbott looking at his watch! That's so passive and piss-weak it makes the most demure and submissive of girly-girls seem Boadicea-like by comparison. It's the epitome of inertia, isn't it? Her job is to run the country, not endlessly bleat about how her delicate sensibilities have been egregiously offended by the most minor and irrelevant words and actions.

The fact that none other than Mike Tyson has heaped praise on the Prime Minister's childish rant says a lot too. Now, some people may be surprised at this reaction. But it seems remarkably consistent to me. Obviously, after being convicted and jailed for rape he has amended his perception of women somewhat. But his underlying assumptions about the female sex have remained the same, I believe. He's gone from thinking that women are weak and delicate beings who can be brutalized, to thinking that they are weak and delicate beings who must be protected from anything that they find remotely offensive. Obviously, that's an improvement. But it's hardly a game changer now is it? 

And isn't changing the gender "game" -- that is, the underlying attitudes of men towards women (and vice versa) -- what feminism is supposed to be all about? How can you possibly be genuinely empowered and independent if you think you're being oppressed by some bloke looking at his watch? On the contrary, you must see men as being practically bloody omnipotent.

"Badass mother----er!" my arse.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Kate Ellis on Q and A and the feminist double standard

It's so ironic that Labor are now trying so relentlessly to demonize Tony Abbott as an eeevil misogynist, when the Government's very existence depends on the support of Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper.

Then there's the obvious misandry and pettiness of the "handbag hit squad". They even try to portray that very appellation as evidence of pervasive sexism. But it was coined by a woman (Julie Bishop) anyway. And what about all the speedo and budgie smuggler jibes hurled at Tony Abbott? They're very gender-specific and demeaning yet the Labor women don't condemn them, and have even been known to repeat them on occasion.

Theirs is the classic politically correct double standard. And one of the most shameless, brazen and petty practitioners of it is surely Nicola "Don't Call Me Nicky!" Roxon. She freely admits to disliking Abbott, has been sliming him for years, yet is miffed that he ignores her in social settings.

Hey, Nicky, I thought you were against all that patriarchal chivalry crap? 

Listen, baby cakes. The reason Abbott doesn't like you is not because you're "capable". It's 'cause you're spectacularly incompetent, and a nasty, sanctimonious hypocrite to boot!

Speaking of hypocrisy: Kate Ellis was on Q and A last night. Now some claim she's part of the handbag hit squad, but I don't agree. She's not down on their level. She's been dutifully pushing the ALP's slimy line on Abbott, sure. But you can see she lacks conviction when doing so. Deep down she knows it's a crock.

Unlike the three scowling sisters Roxon, Plibersek and Wong -- who are all as hard as nails but hide behind their gender when it suits -- she's a more classically (and consistently) feminine woman.

And she actually lacks confidence when speaking publicly. That's why I had some sympathy for her when a few of the blokes on the panel talked over her. This was certainly impolite, but hardly unusual conduct for that show. And it was completely insignificant when you consider how the panel and audience are routinely chockas with lefties, many of whom are obnoxious themselves.

Yet the Twitter squitterati went absolutely spacko over it. This was like their own personal Pearl Harbor, an event that would live in infamy!

Again, that leftie-feminist double standard: They never arc up about a conservative (man or woman) being treated badly or even abused outright, but savour the spectacle instead. Hell, they'll even join in the kicking if they can.

And it wasn't just the online audience who were hypocrites. The studio audience were rude and raucous too. There was a classic moment when a young bespectacled bloke gave Ellis a lecture on what feminism meant. The look on her face was just priceless. She actually let out an audible gasp of incredulity!

Then the audience booed him. To his credit, Tony Jones admonished them for this.

But the cause of their displeasure (and Ellis's shock) was clear. They were dogmatic types who believed that only women (and preferably lefties) had a right to discuss what feminism meant. In their insular, divisive ideology males are expected to either toe the PC line or keep their bloody mouths shut! What a pathetically juvenile and sexist attitude that is.

The majority of Australians, male and female, have had an utter gutfull of this nasty gender war. Labor think they're onto a winner by prosecuting it so relentlesly. But it will backfire on them big time come election day, that's for sure.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Chaser boys sledge Alan Jones on The Hamster Wheel

I wasn't surprised that The Hamster Wheel really went to town on Alan Jones last night. Lots of gags about his off-colour comments regarding Julia Gillard's father's death, of course. But also some nasty stuff about his sexuality; stuff that would provoke howls of outrage and rampant accusations of homophobia if it were aimed at a darling of the Left (Bob Brown for example).

Of course PC lefties would counter that accusation of a double standard by saying that Bob Brown is out and proud. So he cannot be criticized. But isn't a person's sexuality his business? If he prefers to keep it private shouldn't "compassionate", "tolerant", "progressive" people respect that, regardless of his political affiliations. If they don't they're just subordinating gay rights issues to partisan politics, surely a backward step. What do they wanna do, take us back to the fifties? 

Still on double standards, and sexuality: If you're going to bring up the decades-old story of Jones being arrested in a public toilet, then why not make jokes about a much more contemporary scandal; one involving a very well known and successful broadcaster being sprung downloading thousands of images of kiddy porn, for example?

The story of former ABC celebrity Andy Muirhead's trial and incarceration has been hogging the headlines of late. If anyone's just askin' for a cruel piss-take it's that guy, surely. And the Chaser boys could really have run amok with their "collector" gags!

Gee, I wonder why they didn't go there? Aren't they fearless satirists committed to waging a "war on everything?" Was it because they're too gutless to show their employer in a negative light, therefore risking their jobs? Oh no, that couldn't possibly be ...

And the show is supposed to be political satire with a media focus, right? So why no mockery of the hilariously desperate and silly attempts by every Labor pollie and his dog (as well as some commentators) to link Jones's comments to Tony Abbott? Nope. Instead they just joined the pile-on on the conservative broadcaster. 

The Jones material took up a lot of the show. It was followed by a reality TV parody mocking Tom Cruise and the Church of Scientology. Good on them for taking the piss out of that organization, but if they want to find more locally relevant and extreme examples of group-think to subvert with their courageously irreverent humour then why don't they try looking a little closer to home? The retarded, inward-looking culture of the ABC contains an abundance of juicy targets for sharp-eyed satirists.

If they were to do this The Hamster Wheel might even draw a bigger audience. And it would be one containing fewer parasitic sneering hipsters, and more of the productive, thoughtful people the organization is purported to serve. What a heartening subversion of the dominant paradigm that'd be! They are the ones who are paying for it, after all.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Barnett's shark mitigation plan provokes comical outrage

I knew this new, proactive approach to tackle the shark menace by the Barnett Government would upset sanctimonious nature-loving types. But I didn't expect their reactions to be so comical.

An example from this article:

Many were also affronted by Premier Colin Barnett's dismissal of the animals as just "fish''.

Eh? What, do they think they are people now? Yep, I think some of them actually do ...

And there's more tragic anthropomorphism:

The Conservation Council of WA said the "guilty until proven innocent'' approach was a kneejerk reaction to public concern that would harm the environment and would not protect swimmers.

Do they want them to be given the right to a fair trial? That will be very hard to pull off. Think of all that seawater in the court room for a start ...

And I'm really sick of people saying we should stay out of the "shark's habitat" like it's some sort of territorial issue and we humans are dispossessing them of their, er, water. (Starting to worry that maybe the Greens are dreaming up some Mabo-esque sea rights legislation right now.)

Hell, the sharks have got the entire ocean all to themselves. We just want a few narrow stretches close to the beach. How is that unreasonable?

And this idea that not every shark is a potential threat? Yeah well, maybe. But if it's a big noah and close to a popular beach, I'm all for staying on the safe side and blasting the bastard to kingdom come!

And they should videotape each gory explosion for good measure, too. I can sit back, crack open a cold one and watch it all on Youtube, then!

Friday, September 28, 2012

Greg Combet accuses Tony Abbott of zoophobia

Shenanigans in Canberra have had a distinctly zoological theme lately. First there was all that faux outrage over Cory Bernardi's statements alluding to bestiality.

Labor and the love media clearly misrepresented him. He was just using hyperbole to express a slippery slope argument. The worst that can be said about his choice of imagery was that it, er, humped the shark. But he certainly wasn't arguing that gay sex was on a par with bestiality. And that was what many of his critics were insinuating.

More recently, Greg Combet sledged Tony Abbott over his fondness for critter-themed language.

"Previously he has described the carbon price as 'another cash cow', 'a python squeeze', 'a cobra strike', 'a dog of a tax', and today it was 'an octopus'," Mr Combet said.

"What's he got against animals?

Labor are so desperate to demonize this guy it's just hilarious. They accuse him of misogyny, homophobia, hatred of walls ... And now he's a zoophobe as well!

It's also pretty ironic when Doug Cameron recently called Ron Boswell a dinosaur. Then there's the fact that Tony Abbot has often been likened to an "attack dog" by those in the press gallery, most of whom are card carrying Labor luvvies. Oh, and then there was that time that Bob Hawke said Abbott was "mad as a cut snake"...

What have the ALP got against animals?

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Cory Bernardi's warnings about bestiality not that far-fetched

In various leftie strongholds there'll be a lot of eye-rolling, head shaking and even some cafe latte-spluttering over conservative senator Cory Bernardi's statements regarding gay marriage, in which he warned of the possibility of the legalization of bestiality, among other things.

But I don't think that his concerns are too far-fetched. If there's one thing you can be certain about with the cultural Left it's that they're never happy with what they get. Think about all their favourite issues like feminism, mult-culti, and environmentalism. Can you think of just one leftie warrior who has ever said: "Gee thanks, pollies. You have finally given me what I have been demanding. My work here is done. I can now stop shrieking, whining and stamping my feet and be a normal, reasonable person at last!"

No way. They're just never satisfied, these people. On the contrary, whenever they make a gain in the culture wars they are emboldened and invigorated by it, and immediately start ratcheting up their demands.

The reason for this is simple. Most of the time, deep down, they really couldn't give a tinker's cuss about the actual issues they spend their lives squawking about. The thing they're really after is the power. And the more the better.

So they can never settle. Their identity depends on upsetting the identities of others. They have to keep advocating for change, haranguing and intimidating people just to know who they are.

That's why, if they win on gay marriage, there will inevitably be demands for more "diversity" when it comes to "relationships". When you've exhausted all the human permutations bestiality is the next step. 

And the Left has certainly got some apologists for it. Take Peter Singer, one of the philosophical fathers of the Australian Greens. Better known for his views on offing tots, he's also got some pretty wacky views on zoophilia.

While most Australians think this guy is out where the buses don't go the hand-wringing, latte-slurping squitterati reckon he's the, er, duck's nuts. And there are quite a few people more extreme than him. If you think they won't be emboldened by such a radical cultural shift as the legalization of gay marriage then you really are pretty naive.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Ron Boswell called a "dinosaur" regarding gay marriage

One term of abuse long favoured by lefties is to call someone a "dinosaur" when he doesn't share their views. Apart from it being nasty, it also doesn't make much sense. Why does something immediately become better because it's up to date? Surely there are things that we should retain because they have stood the test of time, even if they are not perfect.

This certainly applies to this attack on Ron Boswell. Senator Doug Cameron has said that his beliefs about gay marriage, including that it undermines the family, are "dinosaur views". It's also ironic coming from a bilious trade unionist with what could be termed, er, unreconstructed attitudes on industrial relations. 

Also, the conservative senator's views are hardly unusual. Gay marriage advocates keep pushing this line that a majority want gay marriage. But I suspect they're being extremely optimistic. I think Boswell's is the majority view.

And just on his use of words: He says that gay marriage "undermines the family". Yet its proponents, many of whom are greenies, brush this argument aside by saying: "We're not trying to ban straight marriage, just be more inclusive. Its character will remain unchanged."

Yet don't green nimbyists invoke a similar argument to conservatives when protesting against local development? They say: "If your highrise goes up next to our lush park, there goes the neighbourhood!"

Doesn't matter that the developers are building on a vacant lot, not in the park. The protestors are adamant that it will destroy or erode the character of the place.

So, maybe they should try to look at the issue that way. They might start to understand why people are resisting their gay marriage push.

That said, I don't think that most of them sincerely believe this argument anyway. They are not just asking for greater inclusiveness and "diversity". They really want to throw the furniture around. It's a power grab as much as anything else. If they, and not conservatives and Christians, can call the shots on this issue, well, they know they've got the upper hand. And that's what it's ultimately all about for the Left -- power over others.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Robbie Farah's trolling ordeal and the push to censor Twitter

Gotta feel sorry for Robbie Farah. Must be horribly upsetting to have such nasty things tweeted about his mother's death. But this crusade he's on is just pointless. He, like Charlotte Dawson, has made the mistake of feeding the trolls. And of course the abuse hasn't stopped.

Obviously, anyone who posts such nasty, vile hate messages is a waste of skin. But unless they're actually making physical threats then you should just ignore or block them. If a well known person acknowledges that the troll really landed a punch it makes him feel important somehow -- exactly the result he craves. 

Obviously, if someone is posting what seem like serious and repeated threats to kill or harm then that's another matter. Go to the coppers. And if someone is tweeting lies about you -- saying you're a crook or rapist or whatever -- and it's affecting your reputation, then maybe defo action is justified.

But this recent troll-hunting push is not about defamation or criminality on Twitter. It's something else entirely. It's more to do with taste, really.

It reminds me of the legislation that the complainants in the Andrew Bolt case used to silence him. It's Orwellian as all get out.

It's stupid in the extreme to enact and enforce laws to protect people from having their feelings hurt because by their very nature they are so subjective.

Then there's the slippery slope aspect: Firstly, how can you define when major snark crosses the line into intolerable trolling? Twitter is a seething maelstrom of bitchiness. If the wished-for crackdown were to occur the jails would be full in no time, and the authorities still wouldn't have put a dent in the problem.

And if mocking someone's death on Twitter is deemed a criminal offence, then what about other media? The Chaser gleefully making fun of Peter Brock's demise comes to mind here. Nasty, tasteless and offensive, sure. But criminal? (Actually, I thought it was one of the best things they did because it actually required some writing, musical and performance skill, unlike most of their other "work".)

If this taste push gets momentum, then will such sketches be deemed illegal? If they are, then that would be terrifying. And if they aren't, well, it would just show how silly and inconsistent this nanny statist campaign actually is.

I think you can make a strong case that the Chaser boys should be thrown in jail for crimes against comedy. But of course that would be ridiculous -- just a little more so than criminalizing nasty tweets.

Friday, September 7, 2012

Misogynists and nut-jobs smear a Labor favourite

Julia Gillard really thinks she's on a winner with this tactic of smearing anyone who has questions about her role in the AWU scandal as a misogynist, nut-job, or idiot. It's a typically cheap, nasty tactic that her party has used earlier  -- for example when Tony Abbott was snapped with a placard behind him saying she was "Bob Brown's bitch". Her ministers all went into overdrive equating this one little incident with ugly "American style" lunacy and hatefulness.

Cynical ALP spin doctors were right in thinking that Oz hacks would run hard with this angle. After all, lazy, sneering Aussie journos have been milking the cow of anti-Americanism for decades now. There's a ready made smear machine all fired up and ready to go!

And it's a powerful machine, considering how many in the press gallery are tragic, jelly-backed Labor luvvies. But the tide is turning. Huge numbers of Aussies have had more than a gut-full of the way the MSM are acting like spin doctors for the Government on this.

So they're turning to social media and the blogosphere instead. Larry Pickering's websites and Facebook page are getting eye-boggling numbers. Have a squizz at the comment threads and you'll get some idea of just how many people are fired up about this. Then there's Michael Smith's blog. It's only been up for a coupla weeks but it has already garnered over 200 000 page views.

There's a big shift happening now. No wonder Gillard is packin' death. She won't sue, though, because that would risk the whole sleazy affair being opened up and investigated even more thoroughly in the long term. Hence she's employing what she thinks is a tried and true tactic with the "nutjobs and misogynists" smear. But it's another error of judgement from someone who's made many already. 

Of course no one will end up being shot in the streets as a result of this unrest. But I can't help thinking this is a little bit like the recent Twitter and Facebook revolutions in the Middle East. Autocratic rulers tried to perpetuate their narrative through official mainstream media channels that they controlled completely. But it didn't work because everyone just turned to the internet and Twittered and Facebooked their way to freedom instead!

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Campbell Newman fights unions on Twitter

Have just read that Campbell Newman is taking his differences with Queensland unions to Twitter:

Queensland Premier Campbell Newman has resorted to using a Twitter account to dispel union "myths" about his government's jobs and services cuts.

"We have set up a Twitter account called Queensland Mythbusters and people can Tweet a query to that and we'll come back with an answer," Mr Newman says.

Hmmm. Considering what recently happened to Charlotte Dawson, this could be very unwise.

I mean, we know how much the unions hate the likes of Newman. And terms like "bully" and "thug" -- often inaccurately used to label Dawson's trolls -- are much more appropriate when describing militant unionists. Those who've had to walk past a picket line can certainly attest to this.

So I think Newman's new online strategy could easily result in a vicious snark-spiral. Will we see him "pushed to the brink" like Dawson, only leaving his hospital bed to talk to 60 Minutes about his ordeal?

It's possible, readers ...

All I can say is, Campbell, if things start to get really nasty, just don't feed the trolls.

Stay away from your PC and turn off your iPhone. Remember that your family loves you. The haters don't matter. And the block and unfollow buttons are there for a reason. Don't hesitate to use them, okay!

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Julia Gillard abused by Curtin University protestors

One thing that's long fascinated me about the most zealous proponents of political correctness is how brazenly inconsistent they are when dishing out condemnation. Leftie-feminists, for example, will interpret any criticism of their leaders as the most vile misogyny, yet be completely deaf to the clear and overt women-hatred being hurled at their enemies. And quite often they will be the ones hurling it!

An example is the outrage directed at anyone who dares criticize, say, Sarah Hanson Young compared to the complete lack of condemnation of the gleeful sledging of women like Julie Bishop and Gine Rinehart.

Usually this double standard (wo)manifests in the attitude of leftie zealots to eeevil capitalists and conservative pollies. But now, it's even being applied to a woman on their own side of the political divide, Julia Gillard.

Take today's visit to Curtin University, for instance. Protestors forced her to enter the joint via a back entrance.

About 50 protesters, chanting slogans like "Racist, sexist, anti-queer, Gillard you're not welcome here" and "Shame Gillard, shame" blocked the entrance to a university building.

They even chanted that she was a "homophobic whore".

I'm amazed that this insult passed muster, considering who was doing the protesting.

The Left really is devouring itself. It's ugly, but also kinda fun to watch, isn't it?

UPDATE: Well, well, well. How very, very interesting. That "homophobic whore" quote has just been removed from the story I linked to.

Hell, maybe the journo was writing an outright lie to try and make the protestors look like total asshats. But I doubt that very much.

So why was it removed? You gotta wonder, don't you ...

Jeez I wish I'd taken a screen shot of that story when I first saw it.

UPDATE: Have just learned from helpful commenters that the word being chanted was "law" not "whore". So we can blame the media, in the form of the West Australian, for that little faux pas.

I'd like to thank those activists for setting me straight on this. Er, but I'm not sure if that terminology is still legal, considering the context 'n' all ... 

In any case, consider this post corrected -- both personally and politically. (Unlike Media Watch, I have some journalistic standards, you know. So I'm happy to admit to mistakes -- even if they're made by others. How noble is that!)

That said, I do not resile from my claim that the the Left is still chockas with super-hypocritical ultra-numpties. From what I know about the PC squitterati (and I know a helluva lot) they're every bit as misogynist as those whom they condemn, often more so.

Monday, September 3, 2012

New anti-smoking campaign in Fremantle

Just learned of a new anti-smoking campaign in Freo. It utilizes cardboard cut-outs of smokers furtively puffing away and exhorts them to "stop hiding" and "start quitting".

While this is a refreshingly different angle from all those gruesome photos on durry packets, the annoyingly sanctimonious tone still comes through loud and clear.

If the smokers are hiding, why is that? In major part because they feel hounded by the anti-smoking lobby, that's why! But the same lobby is blaming them for that very reaction.

There's something a bit totalitarian about this. It's like punching someone and saying, "Oh look, you've got a black eye! Better get that covered with make-up or you'll scare people. Really, how antisocial of you!"

I'm not a smoker myself. But I do find the sheer intensity and relentlessness of the campaign waged against them pretty disturbing.

Hell, there are many other things that are bad for your health that haven't been given such a full on, publicly funded shellacking. Although I suppose the health fascists are intending to get to them eventually, too ... 

And that's what worries me. They never give up, and just keep on expanding their reach.

I'd rather live in a society in which people are free to make their own decisions about their health -- even stupid ones -- than one in which everyone is living on mung beans and rain water out of sheer terror.

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Charlotte Dawson's Sixty Minutes interview was bizarre and revealing

I just watched Charlotte Dawson being interviewed on 60 Minutes. It was a truly bizarre experience, and for many reasons (only some of which I can list here).

I know a lot of people think that her apparent attempt to kill herself was all just a cynical, calculating ploy to get heaps of publicity for her book. But she did appear to be genuinely emotionally exhausted. And even if there were subconscious motivations of this kind she seemed to sincerely believe what she was saying. 

I felt sorry for this woman, and not just because of the emotional roller coaster she's obviously been on. It was also sad that she seemed not to have the slightest clue about how vigorously she'd fanned the flames engulfing her -- not only in her recent public pronouncements, but also by doing the bloody interview (and so soon after her emotional meltdown).

There was mention of her depression. Obviously, that wouldn't have helped matters. And there were other aspects of her mental state that struck me as being more than a bit out of whack.

She clearly conflates the adulation that fame brings with genuine affection, and values it as such. That why she finds it so devastating when she gets the opposite reaction. (I know that a lot of public figures do this. But few take it to anywhere near the same extent.)

Actually, I think people who crave the limelight are all a bit nutty to start with. And those who seek it relentlessly, on a grand scale, and as something in and of itself, are often frighteningly unhinged. 

That's why whenever I hear that some celebrity whose face is plastered all over the joint is being stalked by some tragic loser I find it both grimly predictable as well as highly ironic. See, it's like the stalkee (celeb) is often a kind of stalker as well.

But they don't just fixate on one person. They stalk the entire population through various media. So it's hardly surprising that one of those masses winds up being so deeply affected by their desperate campaign of attention-seeking that they finally start stalking back!

Now, with social media, you've got a similar phenomenon at play. But it's intensified by the fact that people don't actually need to leave their living rooms to get their love-hate object's attention. They're also emboldened by the (seeming) anonymity that the net affords.

So they become trolls instead. And a lot of their trolling is aimed at those who could reasonably be called uber-trolls -- Charlotte Dawson being one.

In that context 60 Minutes just engaged in a bit of troll feeding itself. By interviewing Dawson about her ordeal they gave her the attention she desperately craves. They also gave her an opportunity to condemn, and thereby feed, her trolls all over again. Hell, they engaged in some of it themselves, using strong language to condemn the haters. (Bullies, sure. But "thugs"?)

The whole exercize has ensured that still more venom will be directed online at Dawson, surely not a helpful outcome. (It reminds me of the interview Matthew Newton did with ACA after his stint in hospital. He relapsed pretty soon after that and he seems to be in a worse state then ever.)

Don't know what will happen next in Charlotte Dawson's adventure in the troll-eat-troll world of Twitter -- and beyond. But it won't be pretty, that's for sure. 

Saturday, September 1, 2012

Charlotte Dawson's apparent suicide attempt and Twitter trolling

Must say I'm a bit mystified about what actually happened to Charlotte Dawson in the wake of all that Twitter bullying. Particularly early on the event was strangely, perhaps carefully, described as her being "pushed to the brink" in many reports. 

Eh? Makes you wonder if she seriously, genuinely tried to top herself. Or did she pop some sleeping tablets, panic, then phone for an ambulance? In that case, it would have been more of a cry for help.

I know even that is serious, and I don't want to sound insensitive, but I think that's the more likely scenario. In any case, she was out of the hospital briefly to talk to 60 Minutes soon afterwards. So she clearly wasn't out cold and bedridden.

Another aspect of Dawson's reaction worth remembering is the fact that she's been known to snark up a storm herself. So she shouldn't be surprised when the, er, "tworm twurns" so to speak (or is that sptweak?).

Of course nanny nation advocates wasted no time in exploiting the incident, calling for greater controls and all the rest of it. But as Colin Barnett sensibly opined, there's no way you could ever enforce such laws.

Even if you could, they'd be far worse than the bullying itself, I reckon. The Dawson incident itself shows why. Not only was one of these Twitter "haters" suspended from her job, she's had her name -- Tanya Heti -- splashed all over the Oz and NZ meeja. Now for someone who seems not to want to live in the public eye (unlike Dawson) that must be devastating.

Okay, so she said some nasty things. Big deal. What's that old saying? "Sticks and stones may break my bones but collections of words totalling no more than 140 characters will never hurt me."

And some of the offending tweets were just ridiculous, like "go put your head in a toaster". Now if that qualifies as a crime we're all doomed. Imagine having the plods rock up on your doorstep 'cause you told someone to "go jump in the lake".

Then there's the issue of intention. Some people tweet things that are clearly tongue in cheek. But when taken literally they can result in all kinds of bother for the tweeter. Take the case of Pommie Paul Chambers, who joked that he was gonna blow up Robin Hood Airport and was consequently convicted of sending a "menacing online communication". He had to take his case all the way to the High Court to finally be taken, er, humorously

But back to being bullied online: Sure, it wouldn't be nice if you got hundreds of such tweets in a massive pile-on. But the problem is easily solved by blocking or just logging out. And the storm will always pass. 
I don't mind at all when I get snark, 'cause it's fun throwing some back. Actually, I even look forward to it from some people, cause it's so memorably phrased. One particularly florid leftie called me "mediaeval nightsoil". Brilliant! You gotta give credit where it's due ...

Speaking of lefties: I know they aren't the only ones calling for online policing. But they should be very careful what they wish for. No one does a pile-on like the Left, after all. Just watch the reaction to Sophie Mirabella when she's next on Q and A and you'll see what I mean. 

Monday, August 27, 2012

Julia Gillard is no Cinderella

Must say I find this "Cinderella" angle on the PM's latest footwear malfunction a bit tiresome. Aside from both of them losing their shoes, other parallels are very thin on the ground.

I mean, in any age, you need grace to be a princess -- take Princess Grace for example. And while Gillard is a good looking woman, she's totally lacking in that particular quality.

Also, she's a Fabian socialist whose disregard for the Queen is well known. If you wanna be a princess, you've gotta be a monarchist, surely!

Then there are the supporting characters ...

Firstly, who are the physically ugly stepsisters? Well, Labor is chockas with intellectually ugly ideological "sisters" -- Gillard herself being one. But far from being against her, the likes of Plibersek and Roxon are actually on her side (well, at least for now).

You'd be hard pressed to find a Prince Charming in the Gillard journey to power, too. Certainly not whatshisname, the First Bloke.

Hmm. Perhaps Bruce Wilson fit the bill for a while, back when Gillard was so "young and naive". But that little liaison certainly didn't end up lasting "happily ever after" now did it?

And what about the fairy godmother? No one comes to mind there -- not even Governor General Quentin Bryce (though she is Bill Shorten's mother-in-law). So, no fairy godmother. Just a hairy "godfather" in the shape of Bill Ludwig. 

About the only way the two narratives can be reconciled is if you look at Gillard as Cinderalla as a "post-modernist deconstruction" of the original storyline. And I'll bet some gimlet-eyed hatchet-faced leftie-feminist quackademic is doing just that in an Honours thesis!

Kind of appropriate. The whole time she's been PM, Julia Gillard has been deconstructing Australian democracy, after all.

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Artist Derek Roach unfairly treated in silly "slap" saga

Glad to know that the Cottesloe artist Derek Roach has received a lot of support after being fined a grand for his ill-considered attempt at disciplining a local kid who was annoying the crap out of him. As well as the fine -- an inordinate punishment IMO -- the meeja have run with this hard, and the poor bastard had his mug plastered across the front page of the local Oz yesterday.

Hacks looking for a juicy angle have beat up this idea that his case was spookily reminiscent of the novel and subsequent TV drama The Slap. But that's way too long a bow, I reckon. It's debatable whether what Roach did even constituted slapping the kid in the first place. And in the show, as I recall, the sprog in question got a fair whack across the bonce. (Actually, I think even that was pretty mild. I would have grabbed the cricket bat the tike was wielding and clubbed him repeatedly. One: 'cause he deserved it. Two: 'cause he was demon hippy spawn. And three: 'cause he was part of another lavishly produced, but ultimately overrated ABC production that I had to bloodywell pay for!)

But back to the real world (er, if that's what you call it): While it seems that Roach had perhaps overreacted a little, the kid's mother's determination to press charges is what stands out for me. (One story I read said the plods were reluctant to charge Roach, but she was adamant that this be done.) Can understand someone being really angry, and giving him a spray, but to maintain the rage so long and hard seems OTT in my humble opinion. (As far as I can tell, she didn't witness the so-called "slap" so how did she know how severe it was?)

And speaking of maintained rage: I read somewhere that she's a law student. Now, I may be way off target here, but I'm gettin' a picture of a certain kind of law student, if you know what I mean ... Look, maybe she's actually a power dressing, hard-faced bitch who dreams of representing Big Tobacco. But I reckon it's much more likely that she's a lefty, social justice type determined to set the world to rights; the kind of brimming bolshie who grew up idolizing prosecutor Ronald Wilson (nicknamed "The Avenging Angel") and now dreams of being the next Jennifer Robinson.

Whatever she's like, it's pretty much impossible to know for sure. That's 'cause although she's been a major player in this little soapie, she's been pretty much invisible. No vision of her leaving the courts; no interviews (at least as far as I know). And those things always seems to happen in stoushes of this kind. After a decision is handed down both the accused and accuser get to have their say to the meeja vocally and in print. (And they're often equally keen to do so, which is understandable, of course.)

So the fact that she hasn't done this seems quite significant. It implies one of two things: Either she deeply regrets her decision. Or she's a vengeful coward who's been happy to unleash the plods of hell on an old bloke and savoured the spectacle from a distance.

Either way, for her, this is a rolled gold PR disaster. She should engage in some damage control quick smart, I reckon. If the first case above applies she should publicly say as much and apologize to Roach. And if she still believes he got what was comin' to him she should publicly say that too! If she were to do this she would at least earn some respect from the public.

Now, I may be completely wrong on this. Could be many other factors I have no knowledge of, or have simply not considered in my rush to judgement. If so, I'm more than happy to be disabused of my delusions. (Actually, I'd really like to be.) So feel free to disabuse away in comments below. 

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Creepy Peter Singer on Q and A

Really, how creepy was Peter Singer on Q and A last night? He pretty much laid out his nihilistic view of humanity for all to see. If you didn't feel just a little queasy about what he was saying then you need to see a shrink pronto, I reckon!

Even more disturbing was the fact that most of the other panellists thought that his was the voice of reason, and that token conservative Phillip Blond was the real weirdo.

Here's an early sample:

PETER SINGER: Well, I certainly agree that we should have diversity and that children with Down’s syndrome, people with Down’s syndrome can have a lot to offer to particular families and I totally agree that they should get good support

So far so good. Sounds very nice and life affirming doesn't it? He goes on ...

PETER SINGER: I also would say though that this is - if Down’s syndrome is detected during pregnancy, I think this is a choice that families can make for themselves or that pregnant woman can make for herself. Does she want to have a child with Down’s syndrome? And the fact is that the overwhelming majority of Australians and throughout the world really, women who are told that their child will have Down’s Syndrome early in pregnancy will decide to terminate the pregnancy.

Talk about trying to have it both ways!

He should be honest. What he means is that he prefers a society in which those humans with an extra chromosome get offed in the womb. (Still, it's kind of appropriate that an advocate of animal rights would use such weasel words.)

But wait. There's more! He describes those with more severe intellectual disabilites than Down's syndrome.

PETER SINGER: Well, I think if you're talking about severe intellectual disabilities and I'm not now talking about Down’s syndrome - I'm talking about something more profound than Down’s syndrome - I think that there are people who are human beings but don't have intellectual capacities to, for example, see themselves as living a life and really to be competent to make decisions or express preferences. So I think, in a way, I would say they don't have the choices about whether to go on living that we do and I think that that means also that there is a difference in how important it is that they should go on living.

So, if they're really mentally incompetent then they should be killed -- and even if they've already been born. 

Ghoulish stuff. And worse when you consider that what constitutes profound retardation is hard to pin down. Like beauty, intelligence (or lack thereof), is often in the eye of the beholder.

I, for instance, think that bolded section above is a pretty good description of most greenies I've met. (And I'm sure they'd think the same of me and my kind, too.) But I'm not seriously advocating that they be terminated. I just wanna mock them for their stupidity. It's fun, and they're askin' for it, after all.

But what happens when you say, with a straight face, that killing people is okay? There will always be zealots willing to expand the definition of who fits into the "expendable" group. If they are in power, that's sinister as all get out. 

The Green Ghoul continues:

PETER SINGER: Not a lesser humanity. Well, I mean, they're all human beings but for me, you see, being a human being isn't the morally decisive thing. I mean that's just being a member of a particular species and I don't think that really cuts the moral ice. I think what does is what kind of a life you can live, whether you can, for example, make choices about your life and also, of course, whether you're capable of suffering. So if you're capable of suffering then your interest in not suffering has to be considered and given the same weight as anyone else's suffering. But your interest in continuing to live your life, I think, does relate, to some extent, to whether you can see your life as something that actually exists over time or whether you're so profoundly retarded that, though you may be able to suffer, you don't see yourself as living a life. You know perhaps you aren't even capable of a relationship with your mother or father. I think that does make a real difference.

Ugh. This guy says we're on the same level as animals. (Actually, I reckon he thinks they're above us because more often than not he's advocating their preservation, and human death.)

Just on that reference to parenthood at the end: He seems to be arguing that the judgement of whether a life is worth living can be decided by considering cumulative factors, one of which is whether you have a relationship with your mother or father.

Hmmm. Many kids of gay couples aren't capable of having a relationship with their mother or father, because they've been denied one by the couple in question. So, by his reasoning, they'd have a lesser right to life, right?

Try that argument at the next "marriage equality" march (while pointing at some of the toddlers in tow) and see how popular you are.

TONY JONES: Does that indicate or, in your system of ethics, would that bestow lesser rights upon persons with very severe disability?

PETER SINGER: A lesser right to life, I would say, not a lesser right to have suffering or to avoid suffering or to not have suffering inflicted on you. Because if you're capable of suffering, that's all that's crucial there. But in terms of a right to life I think, yes, that makes a difference.

Very contorted reasoning there. But it sounds like what he's saying is that killing people is okay if they're really dumb -- and hey, you're ending their suffering, too! Bonus!

Seems like Creepy Pete is appointing himself as judge and jury, and advocating that the state do the, er, executioner-ing.

All alamingly totalitarian from where I'm sitting. And isn't it a cack that Andrew Bolt gets slimed as a Nazi eugenicist (and for saying we should stop categorizing people racially, of all things!) whereas this guy, who wants humans to be offed if he deems them to be useless burdens, is a dinkum hero to the very people sliming Bolta as a Nazi!

How lost are these people? You couldn't get any loster if you tried.

There's more of the same from the Green Ghoul on that episode if you wanna have a look. But I suggest you keep a bucket by the sofa just in case you have to blow chunks. I know I did.

Monday, August 13, 2012

Alleged Quigley-Barnett bromance goes sour

When browsing the news earlier today I got a helluva fright when I read the headline: 'I rejected Barnett's advances: Quigley'. It certainly conjured a shocking visual image.

The thought of such, er, henanigans occurring inside the local halls of power left me feeling quite nauseated. (On the other hand, I suspect that some advocates of gay marriage might have found that interpretation momentarily heartening.)

But I soon realized that the alleged advances by Colin Barnett were wholly political in nature.


Still, the romance analogy did appear again later in the article in this verbatim quote from John Quigley:

"He wasn't laughing at the time, he didn't make it as a flippant joke," he said.

"Because of his rejections he's now trying to perhaps turn it into something. It sounds like someone who invites a pretty girl out and gets rejected and he's goes saying 'I wasn't serious, I wasn't serious'."

Now Quigley may be many things -- eccentric, driven, extremely intelligent, for example. But pretty and girly are most definitely not among them. 

I mean, look at the guy. There's just no way known that he could ever be made to look fetching in a floral dress.

UPDATE: Barnett has retorted in a way that could perhaps be seen as alluding to the, er, sardonic quasi-homo-eroticism of Quigley's initial spray, saying the Labor heavy is "off with the faeries". Knowing how desperate Labor (and Green) luvvies are to be offended by anything Liberal pollies say, I suggest that the Premier clarify that he in no way intended that as a smear against the local gay community, lest he be hauled in front of Justice Mordy Bromberg and Ron Merkel and charged with hate crimes.