Ben Roberts-Smith, The Circle, and PC double standards in the media

Just on this kerfuffle over those comments by Yumi Stynes and George Negus about decorated Australian war hero Ben Roberts-Smith: You can clearly see their idiotic PC assumptions in action. In their tiny minds all Western soldiers are fair game because they are men of violence fighting for an imperialist cause. They have a much less harsh view of terrorists -- sorry, insurgents. They are brave underdogs with legitimate grievances who have no choice but to act violently, you see ...

Mindlessly obeying the PC instruction manual, Stynes then just combined it with a wider stereotype about buffed blokes not being the sharpest pencils in the box. Hence the gag about Roberts-Smith diving to the bottom of the pool "to see if his brain is there".

Then George Negus chipped in with another lame joke about how such big muscly blokes are often not just dumb, but might be sexually inadequate as well. Was this a snide reference to the soldier's recourse to IVF? Possibly.

If it were, then that was very nasty indeed -- not least because there are many reasons aside from the man's impotence that couples seek such reproductive assistance.

But even if it were not, imagine the outrage from Negus's fellow hand-wringers in the meeja if say, the controversial Kiwi Paul Henry were to make a comparably ignorant insinuation about a high profile figure on their side of politics who'd had recourse to the technology? (Not that he's the most left-leaning in Labor, but Senator Stephen Conroy would qualify in that regard.)

Any protestations of innocence would be ignored completely and the slavering meeja rotties of the PC left would launch an all out pack attack. Negus would probably be among them.

Ugh, but they're a pack of gruesome, nasty hypocrites, aren't they?

Andrew Mallard and John Button support Justice For All Day

Andrew Mallard and John Button suffered terribly due to horrendous miscarriages of justice. So I don't want to trivialize their suffering.

However, I have to say that they do look a little silly with their blue make-up and t-shirts reading "innocence + prison = nightmare" as they do their bit for Justice For All Day. Most people in Perth do know who they are and I think they'd lend greater gravitas without the get-up.

And where did the idea for it come from? The article states:

Spokeswoman Estelle Blackburn, who campaigned to overturn Mr Button's conviction, said supporters of the campaign would paint their faces half blue, like warriors fighting for freedom in the movie Braveheart.

With respect, I think linking a pro-justice campaign indirectly to Mel Gibson is not such a smart move. While he's never gone to prison himself, he's certainly guilty as hell!

Angus Paterson, cameraman hit by Gillard's convoy, is a legend!

This accident in which a cameraman was run over by a car in Gillard's convoy, seems almost like a metaphor for the current state of the Labor Party. They just blithely go on pursuing their own petty, internal agendas, waging war against each other. And if any lowly Australian citizen gets in the way, well, stuff 'em!

I saw at least one TV journo -- very supportive of Gillard in his report, by the way --  more or less blame the photographer himself for the mishap. Well, whether it was Angus Paterson's fault or not, you have to be impressed by his reaction to having his foot run over.

In the video footage he himself filmed he falls to the ground in agony, yet still has the presence of mind to tell the driver to "move forward". Then a few seconds and as many expletives later he assesses the damage, saying it's not that serious, because he didn't feel that anything had "snapped". 

The bloke's a legend. Maybe he should be the next PM?

Glen Pendlebury's latest idiotic act

It's pretty obvious that greenie activist types aren't the sharpest pencils in the box. They're stupid enough to think that their infantile, disruptive behaviour is saving the planet. But all it's really doing is pissing people off.

That's the macro-idiocy of their movement. They also display micro-idiocy. Take Glen Pendlebury, one of the three stooges who boarded the Shonan Maru 2, and had to be retrieved at enormous cost to the taxpayer.

Now he's gone and cut his finger after being extricated from tree cutting machinery. He required minor surgery -- yet another cost to the taxpayer.

He's just a stupid, clumsy, spoiled brat isn't he?

City of Fremantle plans to ban plastic bags

Fremantle has long had a reputation for being a real haven for lefties, greenies and assorted moonbats. From my own personal experience of the place, there's definitely a lot of truth to this. And this decision by the council to finally ban plastic bags, as it has long intended, certainly confirms that perception.

That said, I don't think that the majority of Freo residents will be too pleased with this crazy, pointless change. As this article states:

Fremantle made headlines in 2005 when it endorsed a strategy to achieve a plastic bag-free city.

However, it has conceded it was unlikely to achieve this aim with a voluntary scheme.

Says a lot about those in power that they are happy to force it on the people, then.

Will be interesting to see what happens. I suspect that shoppers will be mightily pissed off about it, but there will be little overt complaining. They'll just grumble privately and put up with it as they have done with so much of this ferndamentalist insanity.

The reason is that while zealous greenies don't constitute an actual majority down there, they certainly are numerous. And they've been flexing their political muscles for ages. They have simply broken the will of any organized resistance. It's a lot like an occupation, really.

Eve Ensler's crazy vagina monologue on Lateline

Watched Lateline the other night and saw an interview with Eve Ensler, writer of The Vagina Monologues. Sorry to put it bluntly, but the woman is clearly as nutty as squirrel poo.

Basically, she's more obsessed with vaginas than most men are -- but in a very different way, of course. Like a busted record she's stuck on this idea that the whole world is bent on denying female sexuality. Not unlike climate change evangelists, she attributes everything bad that happens to this patriarchal scourge. And she thinks that women can achieve liberation by quacking on endlessly about their panty hamsters.

Sure, there is an undeniable strain of anxiety in many societies about the sexual power of chickdom. But it's not nearly the whole story. And even if she is right, and you are oppressed by this, how is yammering about your reproductive organs gonna free you from it?

Sure, you might become as much of a blowhard as Eve Ensler, but that hardly qualifies as liberation. (It's certainly not liberating for anyone within earshot of you. Auditory torture, more like.) 

What's amazing is that she's been heralded as an insightful, revolutionary genius for ages -- a dinkum pubic intellectual. And she continues to get respectful treatment in the mainstream media. But just imagine how the same crowd would react to a bloke similarly obsessed with his wedding tackle.

Her interview with Emma Alberici on Lateline is chockas with daffy theories, bizarre assertions and heaps of msinformation. For example: 

EVE ENSLER: And I think part of the reason of doing the play was that so many women I had interviewed had not only, not said the word "vagina", they never saw their vaginas, they didn't know what they looked like, they didn't know how their vaginas functioned, they didn't know what gave them pleasure. They didn't even know their vaginas were their own.

Now that we're all trying to get over this stereotype of women as dippy, emotional airheads I don't think that observation is very helpful, do you?

EVE ENSLER: And I think what happens to women a lot, I think particularly when they're powerful, is the way the media, the way the world reduces them is to focus on these very shallow, these very superficial, these very insignificant aspects, as opposed to the brilliant and wise and visionary things that they're saying.  

Well, yes, Julia Gillard has said many brilliant, wise and visionary things during her reign. If only the media would focus on those!

Maybe Ensler's idiocy is infectious, because the usually sensible Emma Alberici asked some silly questions, such as this:

EMMA ALBERICI: One interviewer just last week asked our Prime Minister does she cry often. Is that a question you expect to be asked of men?

EVE ENSLER: Well, I wish it was asked of men. And I wish men were crying more, you know, I think often we see these questions about emotions as reductive questions as opposed to seeing ... the problem of the world from my point of view is it is all head and no heart. And until we have head and heart together ... it's very difficult, for example, to have empathy if you have no heart, right?

Of course. Think how much stronger the economy would be if the male politicians were sooking up all the time. (And just on that point about heart: If anyone in politics in Australia seems truly heartless, it's Julia Gillard.)

EMMA ALBERICI: Do you think the word "feminism" has become a dirty word?

Emma, is that a question you expect to be asked of men?

Ensler concluded her characteristically insane response with this:

EVE ENSLER: But I will say that we really have to look at the fact that 95 per cent of the violence done to women is done by men. One out of three women on the planet will experience rape or violence in her lifetime. That's a billion women, a billion women.

Now, there are men who are doing that. And I really just want to say to all the good men if they were busy standing up and speaking to the men who were committing the violence and asking them why and making violence against women their central issue, and as important, for example, as football is, I bet you violence against women would end very, very, very rapidly (laughs).

That's just such nonsense I don't know where to start ...

She seriously believes that men beat, rape or abuse women primarily because of peer pressure (or lack thereof). She clearly has no understanding of the manifold causes of the social problems she pontificates about.

Why is such an obvious fool given so much respect?

PETA's orca slavery lawsuit reveals the madness of animal rights

This lawsuit being brought by PETA that equates the treatment of five orcas in San Diego Sea World with slavery shows just how nutty these animal rights zealots can be.

Firstly, the lawyers are speaking for the orcas. Isn't that presumptuous in itself? Hell, it could even be described as speciesist.

What if the killer whales are all quite happy in captivity. They're well fed and looked after. They might figure it's a much better life than out in the ocean -- or at least not so bad.

A good rule of thumb is that if an animal can't speak for itself then you shouldn't try to speak for it. That excludes pretty much every species known except parrots. And about the only lawsuit they might want to bring is a class action against their owners for not supplying enough crackers.

Then there's this bizarre comparison from PETA:

Brushing animals off as property is the same argument that was used against African-Americans and women before their constitutional rights were protected, PETA says.

Shaw pointed out that argument does not translate because both women and African-Americans are people for which the Constitution was written to protect.

The lawsuit is so damned silly that the Sea World attorney has to point out the bleedin' obvious: that orcas are not people.

But of course PETA doesn't accept that. They think that animals are people. That's why the prospect of a victory for them in this case is so scary. Not only will there be lawsuits galore as a result -- many of them even crazier than this one -- things could get nuttier still.

I mean, if they're going to bring a lawsuit against humans for enslaving orcas, then surely they must think that the exploitation, cruelty, and oppression that goes on in the "wild" is also unacceptable, since it is also committed by "people". Therefore it should be deemed illegal as well, shouldn't it? So, are they gonna bring a lawsuit against nature itself?

If not, why not? Suing only human animals and not others seems a lot like, er, speciesism to me.

Gina Rinehart moves on Fairfax. Stranegly, feminists not cheering

So Gina Rinehart is buying a stake in Fairfax and Labor pollies and lefties in the meeja are very, very afraid. That's to be expected. 

But what surprises me is how few feminists are applauding the fact that there's a woman with so much power. They're forever demanding that there be more women on boards, and committees and such ... And they're always whining about the glass ceiling. Well here's one chick who's well and truly smashed through it -- from above! Surely they can put their other political beliefs aside and celebrate this achievement.

If they can't that would imply that they are not true to their stated goal of empowering women; that they are overwhelmingly full of BS, wouldn't it? And that just couldn't be the case, could it? Surely not!