Most people think that Kevin Rudd is a bit if a strange one. But I think he's more than strange. I think he might just be a robot.
I mean, watch him. His avuncular nerd persona is so contrived, it hardly appears to be organic. Actually, it seems more like it's been programmed by some geeks having a laugh.
Then there's his emotionless voice, and the absurd verbosity. And watch his hand movements when he points to reporters, etc. Mechanical as all get out!
And what about his astonishing psychological imperviousness. No human -- even a psychopath -- could have survived that all out assault from his own side after his second tilt at the Lodge after being knifed by Gillard. Yet he did, and came back to win.
Kevin Rudd 2.0 is one hard-arsed uber-droid. But even machines have their limits. And it looks like the machine we call the PM is finally starting to fall apart after years of constant pressure and no maintenance.
Take that strange presser in Perth. It was pretty obvious that Rudd was very close to boiling point. He's been programmed to win at all costs, see. And the increasing likelihood that he might just lose -- and big -- simply does not compute. With pretty much every pundit in Oz predicting a Coalition landslide, the odds of the PM chucking a full on cyber flame-out a la the creepy android Ash from Alien are pretty damn high, I reckon.
In the video below the monomaniacal contraption attempts to off Ripley with a rolled up magazine, and is set upon by the crew before winding up as a talking head covered in yicky white android blood.
Dunno about you, but I can easily envisage the Ruddster meeting a similar end after losing it with one of his assistants.
Often intemperate and sometimes foam-flecked rants about politics, current events and popular culture by Perth blogger and very occasional standup Matt Hayden (obviously not the cricketer). Your problem if you can't spot the sit-down comedy.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Greens invoke "love" in gay marriage ad campaign
Walking down Beaufort St yesterday I saw this ad from the Greens. I thought it was typical of their sanctimonious sentimentality. As you can see, it shows a coupla blokes being hitched, and says: "Marriage is about love not laws."
That begs the question: If it's not about laws, then why are the Greens trying to get the laws changed?
There's the other obvious question: Is marriage really primarily about love?
There's the other obvious question: Is marriage really primarily about love?
And what about the meaning of love itself? In the words of that great 1980's musical philosopher Howard Jones: What is love anyway?
Well, let's just ignore that wider mystery and assume that everyone knows what the Greens are on about in their ad ...
So, obviously everyone wants to find love. And clearly a marriage without love wouldn't be much fun. Still, many marriages survive without it. Conversely, many marriages between those who do truly love each other ultimately fail. (The course of true love never did run smooth, remember.)
Fact is, marriage has always been about a helluva lot more than just love. It's much more about achieving social stability than delivering personal fulfillment. Among many other functions it's there to keep the ravenous male sex drive in check and to ensure that blokes do the right thing by the kids they sire.
Sure, it doesn't always work out as planned. As lefties love to remind us, life is messy. But it's important to have ideals that the majority of people aspire to, even if many fail to live up to them.
In fact, society wouldn't function without numerous societal norms enforced by laws. Take paying for stuff at the shops, for example. That's a societal norm, enforced by laws. No doubt some lefties would like even that to be given the flick. But imagine if it were. The economy would be stuffed in no time and chaos and violence would reign before too long.
Having blokes marrying blokes and chicks marrying chicks wouldn't be as destabilizing as that. But it would have a huge effect nonetheless. Call me old fashioned, but I really don't think we should throw the codger out with the bathwater when it comes to the definition of marriage. It is one of humanity's most enduring and universal institutions. Radically altering the definition of it looks too much like "policy in the run" to me. If gay marriage becomes the norm it'll be the thought bubble to end all thought bubbles, I reckon.
I'm all for a robust open debate about the meaning of marriage. And if "marriage equality" -- itself a deceptive term -- does come as result of that, so be it. But it definitely shouldn't eventuate because some special interest groups managed to bully pollies using highly emotive tactics and false accusations of homophobia.
Fact is, marriage has always been about a helluva lot more than just love. It's much more about achieving social stability than delivering personal fulfillment. Among many other functions it's there to keep the ravenous male sex drive in check and to ensure that blokes do the right thing by the kids they sire.
Sure, it doesn't always work out as planned. As lefties love to remind us, life is messy. But it's important to have ideals that the majority of people aspire to, even if many fail to live up to them.
In fact, society wouldn't function without numerous societal norms enforced by laws. Take paying for stuff at the shops, for example. That's a societal norm, enforced by laws. No doubt some lefties would like even that to be given the flick. But imagine if it were. The economy would be stuffed in no time and chaos and violence would reign before too long.
Having blokes marrying blokes and chicks marrying chicks wouldn't be as destabilizing as that. But it would have a huge effect nonetheless. Call me old fashioned, but I really don't think we should throw the codger out with the bathwater when it comes to the definition of marriage. It is one of humanity's most enduring and universal institutions. Radically altering the definition of it looks too much like "policy in the run" to me. If gay marriage becomes the norm it'll be the thought bubble to end all thought bubbles, I reckon.
I'm all for a robust open debate about the meaning of marriage. And if "marriage equality" -- itself a deceptive term -- does come as result of that, so be it. But it definitely shouldn't eventuate because some special interest groups managed to bully pollies using highly emotive tactics and false accusations of homophobia.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
"Abbott's Internet" ad campaign another example of Labor waste
As the spin-obsessed smarties in Labor become increasingly nervous about their chances of holding onto government, they're trying ever more desperate tactics. Abbott-focused smear campaigns are in high gear, and they're really pulling out all the slops.
As well as relentless and vicious personal attacks they're flogging a line about his team being a bunch of utter bozos re the interwebs. The latest example is a daffy online campaign attempting to convince people that they should vote Labor because Abbott's internet plan is way behind the rest of the world.
Even if everything they say in it were true (highly unlikely) how many votes would it garner? Buggerall, that's for sure. Fact is, most people in the country are concerned about slightly more important issues than their bloody internet connections. Only a few vapid tech-heads addicted to file-sharing and movie downloading would think this was a crucal enough issue to alter their vote.
Yet Labor clearly think it's worth a shot and have poured a whole lot of taxpayers' money into this stupid, pointless campaign. They flew a production crew, along with some actors, all over the world to get these reactions from locals that they believe will be enormously persuasive. Imagine how much this would have cost (not to mention the appalling carbon footprint it left!). It's yet another example of Labor splashing (our) cash around in a desperate attempt to cling to power.
My guess is that it won't win one new vote. On the contrary, its glaring wastefulness will probably have the opposite effect.
As well as relentless and vicious personal attacks they're flogging a line about his team being a bunch of utter bozos re the interwebs. The latest example is a daffy online campaign attempting to convince people that they should vote Labor because Abbott's internet plan is way behind the rest of the world.
Even if everything they say in it were true (highly unlikely) how many votes would it garner? Buggerall, that's for sure. Fact is, most people in the country are concerned about slightly more important issues than their bloody internet connections. Only a few vapid tech-heads addicted to file-sharing and movie downloading would think this was a crucal enough issue to alter their vote.
Yet Labor clearly think it's worth a shot and have poured a whole lot of taxpayers' money into this stupid, pointless campaign. They flew a production crew, along with some actors, all over the world to get these reactions from locals that they believe will be enormously persuasive. Imagine how much this would have cost (not to mention the appalling carbon footprint it left!). It's yet another example of Labor splashing (our) cash around in a desperate attempt to cling to power.
My guess is that it won't win one new vote. On the contrary, its glaring wastefulness will probably have the opposite effect.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Fake "undecided" voter at Brisbane people's forum one of many
Not surprised by the revelation that a zealous young Labor supporter called Gabrielle Ward purported to be an undecided voter so she could ask a question at the Brisbane people's forum recently. As Bolta remarks, there seems to be a lot of this happening lately, particularly on Q and A.
Certainly confirms what I've long thought. At the beginning of pretty much every episode of that show you'll see that those who claim to vote LNP outnumber the other voter categories. But if you look at the actual audience you'll see that the majority are borderline retarded whippersnappers, smug middle class wankers, and dirty, smelly ol' hippies. And we all know that people in these sad demographics overwhelmingly "dress to the left" (if they can dress themselves, that is).
Inevitably, Q and A audience members' questions will focus mainly on tragic ol' leftie obsessions such as catastrophic climate change, the hideous cruelty of the "race to the bottom" by the major parties on border policy, gay marriage, eeevil Rupert Murdoch, the appalling rise of misogyny in Australia and the countless shortcomings of the puritanical pugilist Tony Abbott.
Sure, I can't actually prove this, but it's pretty bloody obvious that as they enter the venue for the taping a fair whack of the crowd will happily lie about their political allegiance in a brazen attempt to discredit conservative claims of left-wing bias at the national broadcaster. And they do it week in, week out, at numerous venues all over Oz.
My suspicion is that some are young Labor luvvies like Gabrielle Ward. But the vast majority of those engaging in this widespread and repeated con are Greens supporters. Labor types will resort to dishonesty far more easily than normal folk, sure. But at least they do usually have a moral code, even if they don't use it that often. Hard core Greens supporters, on the other hand, lie as easy as breathing. They get off on it, too.
After all, their whole mission is to white-ant Western civilization at every opportunity. They hate the very idea of universal morality -- seeing at as some sort of eeevil white male plot to control women, gays, minorities, and, er, bilbies. So in their tiny, often bong addled minds, when they fob themselves off as conservatives they don't see it for what it truly is: gutlessly telling porkies. Hilariously, they actually believe they're bravely striking a blow for the dispossessed! Makes 'em feel like members of the French Resistance during the Nazi Occupation, or something.
Gawd, what pathetic skulking little weasels they are ...
Certainly confirms what I've long thought. At the beginning of pretty much every episode of that show you'll see that those who claim to vote LNP outnumber the other voter categories. But if you look at the actual audience you'll see that the majority are borderline retarded whippersnappers, smug middle class wankers, and dirty, smelly ol' hippies. And we all know that people in these sad demographics overwhelmingly "dress to the left" (if they can dress themselves, that is).
Inevitably, Q and A audience members' questions will focus mainly on tragic ol' leftie obsessions such as catastrophic climate change, the hideous cruelty of the "race to the bottom" by the major parties on border policy, gay marriage, eeevil Rupert Murdoch, the appalling rise of misogyny in Australia and the countless shortcomings of the puritanical pugilist Tony Abbott.
Sure, I can't actually prove this, but it's pretty bloody obvious that as they enter the venue for the taping a fair whack of the crowd will happily lie about their political allegiance in a brazen attempt to discredit conservative claims of left-wing bias at the national broadcaster. And they do it week in, week out, at numerous venues all over Oz.
My suspicion is that some are young Labor luvvies like Gabrielle Ward. But the vast majority of those engaging in this widespread and repeated con are Greens supporters. Labor types will resort to dishonesty far more easily than normal folk, sure. But at least they do usually have a moral code, even if they don't use it that often. Hard core Greens supporters, on the other hand, lie as easy as breathing. They get off on it, too.
After all, their whole mission is to white-ant Western civilization at every opportunity. They hate the very idea of universal morality -- seeing at as some sort of eeevil white male plot to control women, gays, minorities, and, er, bilbies. So in their tiny, often bong addled minds, when they fob themselves off as conservatives they don't see it for what it truly is: gutlessly telling porkies. Hilariously, they actually believe they're bravely striking a blow for the dispossessed! Makes 'em feel like members of the French Resistance during the Nazi Occupation, or something.
Gawd, what pathetic skulking little weasels they are ...
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Rudd, Abbott's character flaws now the focus of voters
Watched The Project the other night -- well, watched it for as long as I could bear (limit: about a minute and a half) -- and the airheaded whippersnappers were bemoaning the fact that much of the meeja coverage of the upcoming election was focusing on the personalities of Rudd and Abbott over more substantial policy issues.
This was pretty funny coming from them. The show itself is pure "heat 'n' eat". Each issue gets an ultra-slick, ultra-swift, ultra-simplistic and predictably PC treatment -- then onto the next. Their adoring audience of sneering hipsters are in no doubt about which positions they're expected to hold, and which are deemed way uncool. And coolness is all they care about anyway ...
But back to their point: Firstly, I think there has been a great deal of policy analysis in the meeja. You just have to look for it. And if you boil it all down now as we head into the campaign home stretch it's very clear what each major party is all about. Basically the Libs offer small, responsible government and are therefore aiming for the adult vote. Nanny-statist Labor, on the other hand, just want to keep power at all costs, and are desperately courting cretins.
Most Aussies have figured this out. And now as they prepare to cast their votes they're looking very closely at the two leaders' psychological make-up. Rupert's tabloids in particular are well attuned to the zeitgeist and are responding to this heightened interest. Hence their focus on the make-up lady story and Abbott's "shut up" comment.
The character of the leader is certainly not the most important factor in most voters' decision making process. But it's a biggie -- as it should be. And I think Aussie voters have pretty much made up their minds about Rudd. They've realized that for all his talk about having changed, he's still the same two-faced, narcissistic, bullying asshat that they were ready to kick out back in 2010 -- just before the faceless men did it for them.
And Abbott? Well, I think for ages they believed the leftie-luvvie lie about him being a woman-hating, puritanical thug simply because it was repeated so often. Now that he's been in the public eye much more frequenty and in many different contexts I think they've been pleasantly surprised and many have changed their minds about him. Interestingly, he's now the most Googled pollie in Oz. Clearly a lot of people are trying to find out as much as they can about him so they can decide for themselves what he's really like.
As Rudd falls in their estimation, Abbott enjoys a commensurate rise in their affection and interest. As a result, it looks almost certain that the Abbott haters' worst nightmare is coming true. The man they loathe more than anything will now be PM!
What a laugh! If he does win on September 7 their complete and utter despair will be the icing on the cake for me and many, many others.
This was pretty funny coming from them. The show itself is pure "heat 'n' eat". Each issue gets an ultra-slick, ultra-swift, ultra-simplistic and predictably PC treatment -- then onto the next. Their adoring audience of sneering hipsters are in no doubt about which positions they're expected to hold, and which are deemed way uncool. And coolness is all they care about anyway ...
But back to their point: Firstly, I think there has been a great deal of policy analysis in the meeja. You just have to look for it. And if you boil it all down now as we head into the campaign home stretch it's very clear what each major party is all about. Basically the Libs offer small, responsible government and are therefore aiming for the adult vote. Nanny-statist Labor, on the other hand, just want to keep power at all costs, and are desperately courting cretins.
Most Aussies have figured this out. And now as they prepare to cast their votes they're looking very closely at the two leaders' psychological make-up. Rupert's tabloids in particular are well attuned to the zeitgeist and are responding to this heightened interest. Hence their focus on the make-up lady story and Abbott's "shut up" comment.
The character of the leader is certainly not the most important factor in most voters' decision making process. But it's a biggie -- as it should be. And I think Aussie voters have pretty much made up their minds about Rudd. They've realized that for all his talk about having changed, he's still the same two-faced, narcissistic, bullying asshat that they were ready to kick out back in 2010 -- just before the faceless men did it for them.
And Abbott? Well, I think for ages they believed the leftie-luvvie lie about him being a woman-hating, puritanical thug simply because it was repeated so often. Now that he's been in the public eye much more frequenty and in many different contexts I think they've been pleasantly surprised and many have changed their minds about him. Interestingly, he's now the most Googled pollie in Oz. Clearly a lot of people are trying to find out as much as they can about him so they can decide for themselves what he's really like.
As Rudd falls in their estimation, Abbott enjoys a commensurate rise in their affection and interest. As a result, it looks almost certain that the Abbott haters' worst nightmare is coming true. The man they loathe more than anything will now be PM!
What a laugh! If he does win on September 7 their complete and utter despair will be the icing on the cake for me and many, many others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)