We all know that their ABC's flagship weekly jawfest Q and A tilts heavily to the Left. It's also a given that artists in general tend to be petulant pinkos. That's why the show so often includes actors, singers, comedians and the like.
There are many reasons for the general, er, left-leaningness of arty wankers. In major part it's the result utopian socialism's relentless march through the institutions. As a result most people in film, theatre, etc, think that you can only be truly creative if you're a doctrinaire commie! Any half way intelligent analysis will confirm that this doesn't necessarily follow.
That said, I can't blame it all on bolshie brainwashing. I do think there is some self-selection going on. Creativity does require self-indulgence, after all. And that suggests emotional immaturity. As we all know, lefties suffer from that particular psychological affliction big time. So there is a bit of overlap there.
Back back to Q and A: Accomplished actor James Cromwell is on the show tonight. Even though he's a grizzled old bloke, like most of his ilk he does have the mind of a spoiled child. He's had a long history of progressive activism, including support for terrorist group the Black Panthers.
After converting to veganism some years ago he's been doing lots of, er, pro-bonobo work for those loopy losers at PETA. And he engages in silly, sanctimonious stunts from time to time. Coupla years back, for example, he burst into a uni board meeting to protest against "cat torture".
Seems kinda odd given that cats aren't actually vegans ... Hell, if he wanted to be truly consistent, shouldn't he have berated the moggies themselves for their callous treatment of mice and other defenceless little critters?
Clearly, common sense is not Cromwell's strong suit. Which is one of the reasons he was selected for inclusion in tonight's Q and A episode, no doubt.
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.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Ben Elton vs Malcolm Turnbull on Q and A
Way back in the mists of time I thought Ben Elton was a total legend. But now I realize he is and always was basically a smug, loudmouth, leftie bore. That was pretty obvious from his appearance on Q and A last night.
Like so many of his ilk, Elton is not interested in the politics of ideas. He's interested in the politics of emotions. So he flicked the switch to saccharine sanctimony right from the get go, employing that hackneyed and emotive tactic of Abbott bashing.
This approach is favoured by right on movers and shakers on that show because it's really easy to do, you don't have to do cite any real facts or evidence, and you're bound to get a lot of support from the PC numpties in the audience (many of whom claimed to be LNP voters so as to help their ABC claim lack of bias, no doubt!).
Check out his opening salvo:
BEN ELTON: And the critical thing to understand is that we have a Prime Minister who stands before the world and says he wants to talk about economic growth but he is not prepared to talk about climate change. The two are not mutually exclusive. This man has children. He knows - he knows about Newton's third law of mechanics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The combined energy of the sun is locked in a battery in the air. We suck billions of years of energy out in one fell swoop and set fire to it, that is going to have consequences. And in front of the world, our Prime Minister sought over and over again to dodge those issues.
Gawd. What a simplistic analysis.
He was basically saying, "Hell we're destroying the planet with our fuel consumption. There's just no argument about that ... And Abbott is all for this relentless plundering of resources. What a bad, bad man. The fact that he has kids as well makes him even more heartless!"
Sheesh. Like something out of a bloody pantomime ...
Interesting that just as he clumsily tried to demonize the PM he shamelessly sucked up to fellow panellist Malcolm Turnbull. Aware that he's a warmist, he was desperate to curry favour with him:
BEN ELTON: Now, I know you feel very strongly about these issues but you're forced to hide some of that because of the party that you represent.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: I've been very bad at hiding things.
BEN ELTON: I know, and I think you’ve done a good job and I’d wish you’d had a tilt at the leadership. But the fact is, this is a crisis. Tony has children. Why - he’s not stupid.
Everything is tactical with socialists, isn't it? They don't just want to have their say in a free and frank exchange of views. They're forever trying to recruit you into something, or elbow you out of it. And they love that whole stick and carrot approach. So they are at turns amazingly nasty, and very warm and friendly.
But being so caught up with their own emotions they never twig that those whom they recruit eventually start to figure out that all the affection and support they offer is conditional. These one time acolytes start thinking for themselves at last and -- not dependant upon the validation of group membership -- see things rationally at last. That's when they start to grow up. And the leftie flattery doesn't work anymore.
That's how Turnbull reacted to Elton, which clearly stung the comic. Not only did he reject Elton's charm offensive. He called him out on his sliming of Abbott.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: So there is a lot but there is a lot of capital committed. I just want to say this, though, in defence of Tony Abbott, just be careful that you don't make the mistake of creating a caricature and assume - which may amuse you - and assuming that that is the real person.
BEN ELTON: No, not not remotely. It certainly doesn’t amused me Malcolm. He has created his own caricature.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, but - no but, Ben, Ben, Ben, the one...
BEN ELTON: I'm trying to understand how a Rhodes Scholar can deny climate science.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Ben, the one thing - Ben, the one thing you've done tonight is prove that Mark Twain was wrong when he said only fiction has to be credible, because, as a novelist, everything you've said about Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party is a caricature. It is a fantasy and it is incorrect.
BEN ELTON: No, not the the Liberal Party. I like your bit of the Liberal Party.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh, right.
TANYA PLIBERSEK: Tony Abbot..
BEN ELTON: Look, come on, Malcolm. Tony Abbott stands up and says to the world, I want to tell you how tough it was to cut education cuts and get people to pay for their doctor's fees. This in front of the world.
TONY JONES: I’m sorry, I’m going to interrupt you there because, sorry...
MALCOLM TURNBULL: This is just a Tony Abbott sort of hate fest, is it? I mean it’s ridiculous.
BEN ELTON: Yeah.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Anyway. Well, okay, yeah. Okay. Well, I reckon you - I reckon you, look, he should - you should have your own show on YouTube. You know, get a YouTube channel.
Great smackdown ... Actually it would be great if Elton actually did that and just left the mainstream meeja completely. It would then be obvious how unremarkable he actually is. He'd be there fighting for views with all the other loony leftie doomsayers ranting to camera. He really wouldn't stand out at all.
Turnbull is more of a leftie on some issues than the vast majority of his LNP peers, but he's still conservative enough to see sense and refuse to indulge shameless pinko sanctimony. So that was heartening to see.
Like so many of his ilk, Elton is not interested in the politics of ideas. He's interested in the politics of emotions. So he flicked the switch to saccharine sanctimony right from the get go, employing that hackneyed and emotive tactic of Abbott bashing.
This approach is favoured by right on movers and shakers on that show because it's really easy to do, you don't have to do cite any real facts or evidence, and you're bound to get a lot of support from the PC numpties in the audience (many of whom claimed to be LNP voters so as to help their ABC claim lack of bias, no doubt!).
Check out his opening salvo:
BEN ELTON: And the critical thing to understand is that we have a Prime Minister who stands before the world and says he wants to talk about economic growth but he is not prepared to talk about climate change. The two are not mutually exclusive. This man has children. He knows - he knows about Newton's third law of mechanics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The combined energy of the sun is locked in a battery in the air. We suck billions of years of energy out in one fell swoop and set fire to it, that is going to have consequences. And in front of the world, our Prime Minister sought over and over again to dodge those issues.
Gawd. What a simplistic analysis.
He was basically saying, "Hell we're destroying the planet with our fuel consumption. There's just no argument about that ... And Abbott is all for this relentless plundering of resources. What a bad, bad man. The fact that he has kids as well makes him even more heartless!"
Sheesh. Like something out of a bloody pantomime ...
Interesting that just as he clumsily tried to demonize the PM he shamelessly sucked up to fellow panellist Malcolm Turnbull. Aware that he's a warmist, he was desperate to curry favour with him:
BEN ELTON: Now, I know you feel very strongly about these issues but you're forced to hide some of that because of the party that you represent.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: I've been very bad at hiding things.
BEN ELTON: I know, and I think you’ve done a good job and I’d wish you’d had a tilt at the leadership. But the fact is, this is a crisis. Tony has children. Why - he’s not stupid.
Everything is tactical with socialists, isn't it? They don't just want to have their say in a free and frank exchange of views. They're forever trying to recruit you into something, or elbow you out of it. And they love that whole stick and carrot approach. So they are at turns amazingly nasty, and very warm and friendly.
But being so caught up with their own emotions they never twig that those whom they recruit eventually start to figure out that all the affection and support they offer is conditional. These one time acolytes start thinking for themselves at last and -- not dependant upon the validation of group membership -- see things rationally at last. That's when they start to grow up. And the leftie flattery doesn't work anymore.
That's how Turnbull reacted to Elton, which clearly stung the comic. Not only did he reject Elton's charm offensive. He called him out on his sliming of Abbott.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: So there is a lot but there is a lot of capital committed. I just want to say this, though, in defence of Tony Abbott, just be careful that you don't make the mistake of creating a caricature and assume - which may amuse you - and assuming that that is the real person.
BEN ELTON: No, not not remotely. It certainly doesn’t amused me Malcolm. He has created his own caricature.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, but - no but, Ben, Ben, Ben, the one...
BEN ELTON: I'm trying to understand how a Rhodes Scholar can deny climate science.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Ben, the one thing - Ben, the one thing you've done tonight is prove that Mark Twain was wrong when he said only fiction has to be credible, because, as a novelist, everything you've said about Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party is a caricature. It is a fantasy and it is incorrect.
BEN ELTON: No, not the the Liberal Party. I like your bit of the Liberal Party.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh, right.
TANYA PLIBERSEK: Tony Abbot..
BEN ELTON: Look, come on, Malcolm. Tony Abbott stands up and says to the world, I want to tell you how tough it was to cut education cuts and get people to pay for their doctor's fees. This in front of the world.
TONY JONES: I’m sorry, I’m going to interrupt you there because, sorry...
MALCOLM TURNBULL: This is just a Tony Abbott sort of hate fest, is it? I mean it’s ridiculous.
BEN ELTON: Yeah.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Anyway. Well, okay, yeah. Okay. Well, I reckon you - I reckon you, look, he should - you should have your own show on YouTube. You know, get a YouTube channel.
Great smackdown ... Actually it would be great if Elton actually did that and just left the mainstream meeja completely. It would then be obvious how unremarkable he actually is. He'd be there fighting for views with all the other loony leftie doomsayers ranting to camera. He really wouldn't stand out at all.
Turnbull is more of a leftie on some issues than the vast majority of his LNP peers, but he's still conservative enough to see sense and refuse to indulge shameless pinko sanctimony. So that was heartening to see.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Spicer, Harmer and feminist trollective nag Julie Bishop
I'm always amazed at the extreme pettiness of the witless, humourless, emotionally retarded Australian Left -- in particular as it pertains to chickdom. Sheesh, do these whingers ever give feminism a bad name!
Take all that outrage at Julie Bishop refusing to identify as feminist. Hell, if they actually believed in female empowerment like they say they do you'd think they'd be glad she refused to use that label, or at least not be bothered either way.
But nup. The sour faced sob sisters can't handle a truly independent woman who doesn't have to claim victim status like they do and gets by on merit instead. The fact that she's whip-smart, elegant, and super fit to boot just riles the hatchet-faced termagants even more!
Well, they would react like that wouldn't they? Successful women like Bishop just reveal their pathetic, parasitic ideology for what it is: a massive con. As is the case with so many lefty shibboleths, the idea that women still need PC double standards to succeed is just a giant steaming crock of BS.
Gawd but these sheilas are sad and pathetic. Nasty, too. Check out their reaction to Bishop's tweet about an attack on her by perpetually whining airhead Tracey Spicer:
Their arrogant self-delusion is just mind boggling, isn't it?
Take all that outrage at Julie Bishop refusing to identify as feminist. Hell, if they actually believed in female empowerment like they say they do you'd think they'd be glad she refused to use that label, or at least not be bothered either way.
But nup. The sour faced sob sisters can't handle a truly independent woman who doesn't have to claim victim status like they do and gets by on merit instead. The fact that she's whip-smart, elegant, and super fit to boot just riles the hatchet-faced termagants even more!
Well, they would react like that wouldn't they? Successful women like Bishop just reveal their pathetic, parasitic ideology for what it is: a massive con. As is the case with so many lefty shibboleths, the idea that women still need PC double standards to succeed is just a giant steaming crock of BS.
Gawd but these sheilas are sad and pathetic. Nasty, too. Check out their reaction to Bishop's tweet about an attack on her by perpetually whining airhead Tracey Spicer:
@spicertracey @Nezzy_Lives may be helpful read what I said in Press Club speech on women's empowerment - how I selfdescribe is matter for me
— Julie Bishop (@JulieBishopMP) November 11, 2014
Then there's this from Wendy Harmer:
You can't be unaware, Minister, not self describing as a feminist (as only woman in Cabinet) been a disappointment for many. @JulieBishopMP
— Wendy Harmer (@wendy_harmer) November 11, 2014
Astonishing. These frightbats spend all their time carping about absolutely everything the Government does, often attacking Bishop herself in the most vindictive manner. And then they get all upset because she doesn't identify as one of them!Their arrogant self-delusion is just mind boggling, isn't it?
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Greens' #GoWithTheFlow campaign reveals their totalitarian instincts
As we all know, so much of what the Greens are exhorting the good people of Oz to do is life imitating satire. You just couldn't make it up, that's for sure. (It's invariably "political correctness gone mad" as pollies love to say. But I think that's a misnomer anyway. PC is mad, full stop.)
Here's their latest barking exhortation: pee in the shower to save water -- and they're not taking the piss! As usual, the nuttiness of what they endorse is matched by their zeal and they're impressively organized as well. Hell, the crazy campaign has even got its own hashtag (or should that be "slashtag"?): #GoWithTheFlow.
Coupla things stand out for me here: Obviously it's not going to do anything much to save water. Even if every greenie in the country obeyed orders the effect would be negligible -- not unlike the proverbial "drop in the ocean" (and literally so).
Anyway, if you're gonna "tinkle under the sprinkle" as the spookily aptly named Larissa Waters asks, why not just do without the sprinkle? Actually, I think the introduction of tinkling might actually extend the sprinkling, since participating greenies will probably feel less guilty about the amount of water they use, and so will shower for longer than usual as a result.
There's another aspect of it that I think is quite revealing: Showering and peeing are very private matters. Yet in their characteristically bolshie and domineering way the Greens have no compunction about giving instructions related to them. It's as if they're saying: "You thought your ablutions were your own business. But nup. They're ours, too. And we're gonna tell you how to carry 'em out -- for the good of the planet of course."
It's invasive, dishonest, and quite, er, toiletaritarian.
And it reminds me of how commies have such an inordinate interest in that other most private of human bodily functions: sex. They're always telling us how we are to behave in the boudoir, aren't they? Their attitude is promoted as being pro-sexual freedom, but it's actually not that at all because they're determined to stamp out any resistance to their beliefs -- like that offensive notion that marriage is between a man and woman, for example. Their long term aim seems to be to make everyone into tree-hugging, shrub-humping, bilby-frotting polyamorists who want to marry their significant brothers -- or at least be completely at ease with others doing so.
I think it's all driven by their ferocious, relentless drive to get everyone by the short and curlies. And if they can't do that literally, telling people how to run their sex lives, wash themselves and urinate is the next best thing.
In this context #GoWithTheFlow is another example of the ongoing struggle between extreme left-wing collectivism and conservative individualism -- a real case of "me versus wee".
Here's their latest barking exhortation: pee in the shower to save water -- and they're not taking the piss! As usual, the nuttiness of what they endorse is matched by their zeal and they're impressively organized as well. Hell, the crazy campaign has even got its own hashtag (or should that be "slashtag"?): #GoWithTheFlow.
Coupla things stand out for me here: Obviously it's not going to do anything much to save water. Even if every greenie in the country obeyed orders the effect would be negligible -- not unlike the proverbial "drop in the ocean" (and literally so).
Anyway, if you're gonna "tinkle under the sprinkle" as the spookily aptly named Larissa Waters asks, why not just do without the sprinkle? Actually, I think the introduction of tinkling might actually extend the sprinkling, since participating greenies will probably feel less guilty about the amount of water they use, and so will shower for longer than usual as a result.
There's another aspect of it that I think is quite revealing: Showering and peeing are very private matters. Yet in their characteristically bolshie and domineering way the Greens have no compunction about giving instructions related to them. It's as if they're saying: "You thought your ablutions were your own business. But nup. They're ours, too. And we're gonna tell you how to carry 'em out -- for the good of the planet of course."
It's invasive, dishonest, and quite, er, toiletaritarian.
And it reminds me of how commies have such an inordinate interest in that other most private of human bodily functions: sex. They're always telling us how we are to behave in the boudoir, aren't they? Their attitude is promoted as being pro-sexual freedom, but it's actually not that at all because they're determined to stamp out any resistance to their beliefs -- like that offensive notion that marriage is between a man and woman, for example. Their long term aim seems to be to make everyone into tree-hugging, shrub-humping, bilby-frotting polyamorists who want to marry their significant brothers -- or at least be completely at ease with others doing so.
I think it's all driven by their ferocious, relentless drive to get everyone by the short and curlies. And if they can't do that literally, telling people how to run their sex lives, wash themselves and urinate is the next best thing.
In this context #GoWithTheFlow is another example of the ongoing struggle between extreme left-wing collectivism and conservative individualism -- a real case of "me versus wee".
Thursday, November 6, 2014
"Good father" Gough Whitlam's legacy celebrated by childish socialists
The older I get and the more I learn about lefties, the clearer their psychology becomes. Their core affliction is one of arrested development. Basically, they just wanna remain kids their entire lives. Like spoiled sprogs, they expect the state to provide absolutely everything to them free of charge and without conditions. And if they screw up, they'll never take responsibility for it. They'll always blame someone or something else for their shoddy behaviour then expect the state to foot the bill for the damage they caused.
In the tiny, neotenous mind of the socialist political leaders are parents whose job it is to look after them in every possible way and bail them out when they're in trouble. This is in stark contrast to the conservative ideal, which sees leaders as adults trying to facilitate the emotional and psychological maturation of the electorate. Tories want to encourage responsible behaviour, self possession and self direction so that the state doesn't have to look after millions of crybabies -- many of them in middle age and beyond -- who are such a massive financial burden upon it.
It's pretty clear that perennially petulant pinkos see their (usually male) leaders like fathers. If they get what they want from them they're over the moon, gushing with endless gratitude. If not, they'll whine and sulk up a storm to punish cruel, heartless daddy for his appalling behaviour.
The embarrassing antics of many of the true believers at Whitlam's memorial service were a clear illustration of this sad syndrome. Take their graceless booing of the current PM Tony Abbott. Christopher Pyne nailed it with this tweet.
Then there was the endless adulation heaped upon their dear departed leader. It was all about what Gough gave them. (Well, that's how they saw it. It wasn't what he gave them. It's what the taxpayers did, even though they weren't asked. And they certainly showed their disdain for this by decisively voting him out of office when they got the chance.)
Cate Blanchett's contribution was just cringeworthy. Apart from it being historically inaccurate, the irony of it was just humungous. I mean, here's the most pampered, elitist, and financially over-rewarded woman in the entire country -- who was hardly underprivileged from the get go anyway -- lauding Gough's wealth redistribution in her direction. Hell, if she thinks he was such a legend for what he did why doesn't she emulate him and sling a slice of her next paycheck in the direction of the dispossessed? Doesn't have to be much, even a quarter would do. That's probably a cool million right there ...
Then there was Noel Pearson's "instant classic" speech. Don't deny the guy's a great orator. But some of what he said was a tad OTT, IMHO.
Like that bit about Gough harbouring "not a bone of ethnic or gender prejudice in his entire body". If true, then it would pretty much qualify him as a secular saint. Racism is not all pervasive, but given that each individual is confined to a male or female body, and hailing from a distinct ethnic group, I think it's well nigh impossible to be completely free of prejudice -- even if it is mainly positive -- about groups you know little or nothing of because by definition you are not one of them.
Anyhoo, this was the same guy who uttered the memorable line about "Vietnamese Balts". Sheesh. Just imagine if John Howard had said that. You'd never hear the end of it ...
But when it comes to Gough Whitlam different standards apply. He's the good father, not the bad one, so in his eulogies all is forgiven and history rewritten.
In the tiny, neotenous mind of the socialist political leaders are parents whose job it is to look after them in every possible way and bail them out when they're in trouble. This is in stark contrast to the conservative ideal, which sees leaders as adults trying to facilitate the emotional and psychological maturation of the electorate. Tories want to encourage responsible behaviour, self possession and self direction so that the state doesn't have to look after millions of crybabies -- many of them in middle age and beyond -- who are such a massive financial burden upon it.
It's pretty clear that perennially petulant pinkos see their (usually male) leaders like fathers. If they get what they want from them they're over the moon, gushing with endless gratitude. If not, they'll whine and sulk up a storm to punish cruel, heartless daddy for his appalling behaviour.
The embarrassing antics of many of the true believers at Whitlam's memorial service were a clear illustration of this sad syndrome. Take their graceless booing of the current PM Tony Abbott. Christopher Pyne nailed it with this tweet.
Gough Whitlam was unfailingly polite. He would have been aghast at the rudeness of some of the mourners today #auspol
— Christopher Pyne (@cpyne) November 5, 2014
Then there was the endless adulation heaped upon their dear departed leader. It was all about what Gough gave them. (Well, that's how they saw it. It wasn't what he gave them. It's what the taxpayers did, even though they weren't asked. And they certainly showed their disdain for this by decisively voting him out of office when they got the chance.)
Cate Blanchett's contribution was just cringeworthy. Apart from it being historically inaccurate, the irony of it was just humungous. I mean, here's the most pampered, elitist, and financially over-rewarded woman in the entire country -- who was hardly underprivileged from the get go anyway -- lauding Gough's wealth redistribution in her direction. Hell, if she thinks he was such a legend for what he did why doesn't she emulate him and sling a slice of her next paycheck in the direction of the dispossessed? Doesn't have to be much, even a quarter would do. That's probably a cool million right there ...
Then there was Noel Pearson's "instant classic" speech. Don't deny the guy's a great orator. But some of what he said was a tad OTT, IMHO.
Like that bit about Gough harbouring "not a bone of ethnic or gender prejudice in his entire body". If true, then it would pretty much qualify him as a secular saint. Racism is not all pervasive, but given that each individual is confined to a male or female body, and hailing from a distinct ethnic group, I think it's well nigh impossible to be completely free of prejudice -- even if it is mainly positive -- about groups you know little or nothing of because by definition you are not one of them.
Anyhoo, this was the same guy who uttered the memorable line about "Vietnamese Balts". Sheesh. Just imagine if John Howard had said that. You'd never hear the end of it ...
But when it comes to Gough Whitlam different standards apply. He's the good father, not the bad one, so in his eulogies all is forgiven and history rewritten.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)