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.