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.