Monday, April 28, 2014

Julian Burnside's bizarre Twitter conspiracy theory

We all know that local lefties aren't coping well with the fact that the adults are back in charge in Australia. I'd say that some of them are actually starting to lose their marbles over it -- er, except that most of them didn't possess any to start with.

The poor little poppets seethe, sneer and snark about pretty much everything the Abbott Government does. And while their interpretations are routinely irrational, they are seldom flat out barking.

But here's one that certainly is: Julian Burnside -- world class finger-wagger and Australia's high priest of sanctimonious cant -- seems to have got it into his head that the LNP is actually paying people to troll lefties on Twitter.

Dunno what he thinks this fictional black opp has been named, but here's a suggestion: "Trolling Thunder." (Hmm. I quite like that. I might even start a hashtag for it ... )

Speaking of which: Burnside himself has created one for this nutty theory and he's encouraging members of the leftist Twitter trollective to point out these eeevil people.

He's been bravely leading by example, trolling tweeps he believes are trousering this filthy lucre, or at least would like to be.
And what's his source for his crazy conspiracy theory? Seems to be an SMH article, which he's linked to repeatedly.
As you'll see, the article is titled "Social media trawled as Government spends $4.3 million on research contracts".

You'd have to conclude that Julian Burnside has seen the headline, mistaken trawled for trolled and not read any further.

That, or maybe he has read it thoroughly, and his deep-seated prejudice against conservatives and febrile imagination have combined to create this surreal scenario.

In any case, it seems to me that perpetual lefteous indignation and excessive social media usage have left the poor man utterly befuddled. I think he needs a good long holiday, don't you?

Friday, April 11, 2014

Bob Carr's pomposity comes through loud and clear

Everyone is getting stuck into Bob Carr over his book Diary of a Foreign Minister. But as some have noted, some of the quotes people are having the most fun mocking are actually attempts at self-deprecation.

So why the confusion? The pundits getting stuck into Carr can't all be literal-minded idiots, can they?

I think the reason for this is that his sense of self-importance is so strong and constant that it just won't be shifted. Even when he's trying to send himself up he comes across as a right tosser. And that's because he just is.

This is what makes him unusual as a politician. Most of them have a high opinion of themselves, of course. And they're extremely ambitious. But they also usually have the emotional intelligence to know how they are perceived by the voting public. They manage to speak much more on their constituents' level and generally don't come across as poncing prats. They manage to deal with the relentless abuse that is part of the job by gradually training themselves to ignore it. They grow their thick hides slowly.

Carr, on the other hand, clearly sees himself as special and superior. His ability to ignore criticism hasn't come from bitter experience so much as the sincere belief that he's a blessing on democracy and that anyone who can't see that must be a mental infant.

Have a listen to this interview he gave to Ben Fordham and you'll see what I mean. Fordham flays him left right and centre. Most other pollies would likely lose their composure. But Carr just cheerfully blathers on regardless in the most stunningly arrogant way. You can imagine him hanging up the phone and not giving it another thought!

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Mona Eltahawy on Q and A

Mona Altahawy appeared again on Q and A last night and lectured us on our record on human rights, among other things. As some tweeps observed it was a tad ironic for someone from Egypt to lob here and wag her finger at Australia on this issue.

That aside, she proved herself to be a real bigot, and a censorious one at that. Not surprisingly, she invoked that old "blame the white male" ploy so beloved by left-wing zombies. And, like they almost always do, she used it in a rant in which she was railing against "racism":

MONA ELTAHAWY: Well, you’re talking to someone who got arrested for spray-painting over a racist and bigoted ad in the New York subway and I’m going to stand trial very soon in New York soon for this and I - so I have many thoughts on this. First of all, in the United States, the people who go on the most about freedom of expression and it’s my right to say this and my right to say that are usually old, rich, white men who parade under the term libertarian. And what it ends up basically meaning is: I have the right to be a racist and sexist shit and I'm protected by the first amendment. And it’s utterly ridiculous. Because when you look - if you look at this ad that I sprayed over - now, I’m - I love the first amendment. As a US citizen, because I am Egyptian-American, I love the first amendment. I love that it protects freedom of expression and freedom of belief. But here is the thing: if a racist, bigoted ad is protected as political speech, which it was - the New York subway didn't want this very racist and bigoted ad but a judge deemed it protected political speech?

And what were the words that Mona the moaner felt so outraged by?

MONA ELTAHAWY: I can tell you because it - I mean it’s outrageous. It said: “In the war between the civilised man and the savage, always choose the civilised man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” And I thought: are you fucking kidding me? In my subway? How can you put this up? And the subway - the subway authorities did not want this ad, because they said it was going to incite people and so they took it to the hate group and it’s been classified as a hate group by the - it’s the Southern Law Centre, right, Ken? Is that what they’re called?

In "her" subway ... liked she owned it!

Sure, the ad was provocative. But where did it refer to race? Islam is a religion, remember. And it wasn't even referring to that generally. It was attacking jihad specifically, implicitly condemning its employment of barbaric terrorism as a way to achieve its goals. Sounds pretty reasonable to me ...

But Altawahy the censorious bigot had to try to remove it from view. Then she had the gall to say she loves the first amendment! What a hypocritical pig.

Just reconfirms what I've long known about these malignant, marauding meat heads of the Left. Their definition of freedom of speech is the right to shout ... other people down.