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. 

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Will Sasha Burden appear on Q and A?

You've probably heard of Sacha Burden, the uni student who anonymously dropped a bucket on the Herald Sun after doing an internship there as part of her course.

She's been publicly unmasked and mercilessly pilloried for what she did by the likes of Andrew Landeryou. Still, what does she expect? If you're gonna sledge people, then you should at least have the integrity to put your name to what you do. Actually, the affair probably wouldn't have garnered anywhere near the amount of meeja attention that it has had she actually done that in the first place.

Not surprisingly, Landeryou has received a lot of abuse as a result of his post on her. And he's gleefully returning the favour.

Burden's fellow travellers clearly believe that she (and they) should not be made accountable for what they do and say. They're forever smearing others with nasty, false accusations and they expect that the objects of their scorn should just go along with it and not bite back. Only spoiled children have such an obnoxious, born-to-rule mentality. (This is one of the leftist's key psychological characteristics: A gargantuan sense of entitlement combined with severe emotional immaturity.)

It's sooo annoying. Whenever I talk to lefties I'm forever biting my tongue because I just want to say: "Awferfackssake! Don't you get it? It's not about you. Stop whining and bloody well grow up before it's too late!" But I know that the vast majority of them will never do that. They are doomed to remain in that sanctimonious and stunted state their entire lives. Sad and scary all at once.

Not surprisingly much of the leftist squawkin' 'n' squitterin' in support of Burden has occurred on Twitter. And it has come mostly from tweeps who don't have the balls to use their own names.

It's such a pervasive phenomenon, this. Take Q and A. Whenever some tragic PC numpty like Jane Caro says something utterly cringeworthy and self-parodic a whole stream of suck-tweets will appear on the bottom of the screen. And almost all of them will be from tweeps with clearly fictional handles.

Really, the correlation is so noticeable it would be good fodder for a thorough statistical analysis. Some sociology student should do an Honours thesis on it, I reckon. (Still, she'd have to spin the study in a politically correct way so as not to be given a big fat fail. Perhaps she could hypothesise that it's because of fear of News Ltd unmasking them that they don't use their real names?)

But just on the subject of Q and A: Burden does strike me as being just the kind of sneering hipster the producers use to maintain their relentless left-wing bias. There have been many young, utterly clueless panellists whose inclusion was obviously due to the fact that they recently received meeja coverage for some idiotic leftist pronouncement or other. Burden might have to make more news to be considered panel-ready, of course. Still, she's got a meeja profile now, so she's well on the way.

I'm guessing there's a good chance that she will be asked on the show eventually. If and when she does appear, those anonymous suck-tweets will form a river, not just a stream.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Lara Giddings unlikely to succeed with gay marriage push

Tasmania has been the scene for some notable developments regarding gay rights issues. The most well known of these was the Toonen vs Australia case. That resulted in the repeal of Australia's last sodomy laws. A good outcome. 

Now there's another big legal change brewing in the Apple Isle. And that's the legalization of gay marriage. Zealous advocates of this radical shift seem to believe they've got widespread support, and that once it's law everyone will be okay with it.

The Premier Lara Giddings told the Tasmanian Labor Party conference yesterday she would legislate marriage equality into law by the end of the year.

"We have received legal advice that certainly says that we can take these steps," the Premier said.

"The community wants this change to occur and certainly the Labor Party does."

Maybe the ALP in Tasmania is wholly supportive. But federally it sure as hell ain't. I recall some big time argy-bargy at their last federal conference, with Joe de Bruyn sticking up for breeders and being loudly heckled by scores of sneering hipsters from the party's left-wing. And Julia Gillard herself is well known as one who is yet to be attitudinally reconstructed on this issue.

So if Giddings thinks it's all gonna be smooth sailing on the good ship "Marriage Equality" she's got another thinkola comin'. When asked, many Tasmanians may be giving the impression that they reckon gay marriage is all fine and dandy. That's basically 'cause they're terrified of being labelled homophobic. But deep down they feel great unease, I reckon. They're gonna arc up about it big time!

Frankly I doubt that the proposed changes will be made law in the first place. But if they are, there'll be such a massive backlash that they'll be overturned soon after -- kinda like the Northern Territory euthenasia laws were back in the 1990s.

UPDATE: An article that appeared on Google News minutes ago points to problems already.