So Andrew Bolt was on The 7.30 Report last night in a debate about the Adam Goodes furore. Pretty unusual thing to see. And I suspect it had something to do with the Government's recent attempts to have the organization obey its own charter and be a bit more balanced.
You'd think that this appearance might prompt lefties on social media to say, there you go, not so biased after all! I think a few did that. But the overwhelming reaction on Twitter at least was one of white hot rage that Bolta was even allowed in the ABC studio!
Funny that many self-described supporters of free speech were okay with an odious misogynist with terrorist sympathies being given a platform on Q and A. But when a prominent conservative puts forth a reasonable and thoughtful position on a huge story about race relations in this country they go into collective social media meltdown.
Much of this childish tantrum throwing was due to their belief that they own the ABC; that only views they deem acceptable can be aired on it. No doubt, many would have much preferred a "debate" between a couple of leftie quackademics, say, one of whom believed that all those booing Goodes were racist and should be pelted with eggs, and one who, er, "disagreed" by saying: "No, only 70% were racist! And compulsory counselling would be a better option."
The other reason they detest people like Bolt being allowed to put contrary views is that they know how stupid he will make theirs look to any reasonable person. If given a choice, people will eventually see how shallow, emotive, divisive and toxic the Left's agenda truly is -- especially on race relations. They can't afford to have that happen, and so will try to prevent it at all costs.
So good on the ABC for putting Bolt on. He certainly showed the politically correct view for the tosh that it is. Charlie King's arguments were very weak and sentimental. Look at the transcript you'll see. The number of times he invoked emotions was remarkable. Here's a sample:
CHARLIE KING, ABC SPORTS COMMENTATOR: Well I think - I mean, I see an undercurrent of racism here and I think it all stems from comments that were made to him at the MCG when a young girl made a racist comment. He was responding to rants, racist rants from the crowd. He didn't know the age of the young girl obviously and he pointed her out and I think that hurt him and it hurt him deeply. And I wonder whether racism has an age limit or not and I think it's more about what's said and the impact of what's said rather than anything else. I think he was offended by that. I think he was offended later on by comments that Eddie McGuire made comparing him to King Kong and then I think the booing has just gone on and on since then and then he did a dance to celebrate his Aboriginality and that wasn't liked by the crowd either and so he's just found it really difficult, really difficult.
CHARLIE KING: Well, look, Adam Goodes I think is a great hero of Aboriginal people. There's no doubt about that. I mean, what he has done has been magnificent. When you start attacking Adam Goodes with racial comments, as the young girl did and as the booing signifies yet again, then you're actually destroying a hero of Aboriginal people, so the racism actually spreads not just to Adam , and I feel for Adam Goodes tonight, but I feel for all Aboriginal people in Australia who are hurting, Sabra, just like I am tonight and have been since I've heard the booing levelled at Adam Goodes. I understand what he's going with - going through and I know how that feels. I've been there myself and I know other Aboriginal people who've been there as well.
So, it's all about feelings -- Adam's especially. Sooo leftist. They're always trying to turn politics into a sensitivity competition. Amazingly subjective. And if emotions are the prism you see everything through and they are your criteria for what you deem acceptable and what you think is not, well, you can basically demonize (or condone) anything.
Call me old fashioned but I believe it's much better to at least try and think things through. Doesn't mean you don't care. Just means you care enough to think.
Friday, July 31, 2015
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Quota crusader Sharman Stone is the Government's odd woman out
If you have even a modicum of common sense, you can see how silly gender quotas are. Hell, the whole concept is ridiculous.
We need more women in Parliament, the frightbats cry. "Give so and so a gig 'cause she's a woman!"
Then when so and so does get the gig and you point out that she didn't get there on merit but because she's a chick, the same frightbats cry "How dare you say that? She's eminently capable you vile misogynist!"
Eh?
There's another silly argument used by quota apologists. Attempting to appear rational, they say, "Your argument about merit would be valid if there was a level playing field. But that's clearly not the case. That's why we must place gender over merit, so as to reward merit."
Yeah, sure. Kinda like that classic line "we had to destroy the village in order to save it".
Anyhoo, the very fact that feminists can demand quotas and get them proves there is a level playing field. You could even argue it is in women's favour. So, if they can get a gig by whining, why can't they get a gig by being good at what they do? (And if you say that women can only get a gig by carping then all you'll ever have is ghastly frightbats in positions of power -- 'cause, hey, that's all they do.)
So why not forget all this PC tosh and reward merit? Generally speaking this is what happens in the current Government. Love 'em or hate 'em, LNP women are generally competent and strong. They don't fall back on silly victimhood arguments because they've never had to use them to get where they are. (The same could not be said of the handbag hit squad and their ilk on the other side.)
But then there's Liberal Sharman Stone, who's been waging her own affirmative action, er, she-had. And she reckons those frightbats are the bomb:
LOUISE YAXLEY: She says Labor's system appears to be working.
SHARMAN STONE: So I look across the chamber at those Labor Party women. I can see them having merit equal to the men who are sitting beside them. It certainly hasn't produced for them two classes of parliamentarian at all.
Well, yes, that's because they're all mediocrities. Labor women get there by hiding behind their skirts and acting like damsels in distress, and the men gain power by sucking up to faceless union power-brokers and knifing each other in the back. Merit barely gets a look in.
So enamoured of child-brained PC feminism is Ms Stone that she thinks Parliament Question Time should be abolished.
Disturbingly dippy. So out there, in fact, it goes beyond Labor lunacy. It's more something you'd expect from the child-brained totalitarians in the Greens.
Gotta wonder how she got so far in the Liberal Party. Must be the exception that proves the rule.
We need more women in Parliament, the frightbats cry. "Give so and so a gig 'cause she's a woman!"
Then when so and so does get the gig and you point out that she didn't get there on merit but because she's a chick, the same frightbats cry "How dare you say that? She's eminently capable you vile misogynist!"
Eh?
There's another silly argument used by quota apologists. Attempting to appear rational, they say, "Your argument about merit would be valid if there was a level playing field. But that's clearly not the case. That's why we must place gender over merit, so as to reward merit."
Yeah, sure. Kinda like that classic line "we had to destroy the village in order to save it".
Anyhoo, the very fact that feminists can demand quotas and get them proves there is a level playing field. You could even argue it is in women's favour. So, if they can get a gig by whining, why can't they get a gig by being good at what they do? (And if you say that women can only get a gig by carping then all you'll ever have is ghastly frightbats in positions of power -- 'cause, hey, that's all they do.)
So why not forget all this PC tosh and reward merit? Generally speaking this is what happens in the current Government. Love 'em or hate 'em, LNP women are generally competent and strong. They don't fall back on silly victimhood arguments because they've never had to use them to get where they are. (The same could not be said of the handbag hit squad and their ilk on the other side.)
But then there's Liberal Sharman Stone, who's been waging her own affirmative action, er, she-had. And she reckons those frightbats are the bomb:
LOUISE YAXLEY: She says Labor's system appears to be working.
SHARMAN STONE: So I look across the chamber at those Labor Party women. I can see them having merit equal to the men who are sitting beside them. It certainly hasn't produced for them two classes of parliamentarian at all.
Well, yes, that's because they're all mediocrities. Labor women get there by hiding behind their skirts and acting like damsels in distress, and the men gain power by sucking up to faceless union power-brokers and knifing each other in the back. Merit barely gets a look in.
So enamoured of child-brained PC feminism is Ms Stone that she thinks Parliament Question Time should be abolished.
Disturbingly dippy. So out there, in fact, it goes beyond Labor lunacy. It's more something you'd expect from the child-brained totalitarians in the Greens.
Gotta wonder how she got so far in the Liberal Party. Must be the exception that proves the rule.
Monday, July 13, 2015
Gary Johns's "cash cows" comment causes predictable twitstorm
It generally holds true that if you want to provoke a lefty all you need to do is say something eminently sensible. And if you wanna make 'em go howling at the moon mad, then make that point brutally clear in, er, colourful language.
The latest #Auspol related social media meltdown is a case in point. In it, former Labor MP Gary Johns said this on The Bolt Report:
"Look, a lot of poor women in this country, a large proportion of whom are Aboriginal, are used as cash cows, right?" Mr Johns said. "They are kept pregnant and producing children for the cash. Now, that has to stop."
Needles to say, the usual suspects went batshit insane with rage on Twitter. (And considering how batshit insane they are already, that's saying something!)
Now, you may disagree with his analysis and think that it's simply not true that Aboriginal women are being abused in this way (presumably by their menfolk). However, given the extremely high rates of welfare dependence and the truly sickening levels of sexual and physical abuse that plague these communities it seems like a reasonable point.
Now, if he'd made it in a less colourful way it would have attracted condemnation from the Left. And knowing how self-indulgent and mean-spirited socialists tend to be, some of it would surely have been vindictive and personal.
But the thing that really set the leftist trollective off like fireworks on the 4th of July was his use of the term "cash cows". As we all know these child-brained purveyors of political corectness live their entire lives in a perpetual state of hair-trigger sanctimony. They are just hangin' out for even the flimsiest excuse to chuck a massive tanty that shows the world how much they abhor sexism, racism, etc. It's always all about them, you see.
Since "cow" is often used as a derogatory term for a woman, they piled on with false accusations of sexism, as well as racism. Intoxicated with lefteous indignation, they were in a state of billious bolshie bliss:
And on and on it goes ...
The gruesome opportunists would rather fulminate over his use of a common figure of speech so as to advertise their own spurious moral virtue than actually engage with his argument. So childish, so petty, so leftist ... and so sad.
The latest #Auspol related social media meltdown is a case in point. In it, former Labor MP Gary Johns said this on The Bolt Report:
"Look, a lot of poor women in this country, a large proportion of whom are Aboriginal, are used as cash cows, right?" Mr Johns said. "They are kept pregnant and producing children for the cash. Now, that has to stop."
Needles to say, the usual suspects went batshit insane with rage on Twitter. (And considering how batshit insane they are already, that's saying something!)
Now, you may disagree with his analysis and think that it's simply not true that Aboriginal women are being abused in this way (presumably by their menfolk). However, given the extremely high rates of welfare dependence and the truly sickening levels of sexual and physical abuse that plague these communities it seems like a reasonable point.
Now, if he'd made it in a less colourful way it would have attracted condemnation from the Left. And knowing how self-indulgent and mean-spirited socialists tend to be, some of it would surely have been vindictive and personal.
But the thing that really set the leftist trollective off like fireworks on the 4th of July was his use of the term "cash cows". As we all know these child-brained purveyors of political corectness live their entire lives in a perpetual state of hair-trigger sanctimony. They are just hangin' out for even the flimsiest excuse to chuck a massive tanty that shows the world how much they abhor sexism, racism, etc. It's always all about them, you see.
Since "cow" is often used as a derogatory term for a woman, they piled on with false accusations of sexism, as well as racism. Intoxicated with lefteous indignation, they were in a state of billious bolshie bliss:
Why does Gary Johns get a platform to say anything? He and his racist misogyny need to fade into irrelevance. http://t.co/ye9HzbaU9d #auspol
— Senthorun Raj (@senthorun) July 12, 2015
#WhitePrivilege in 1 Tweet
How is this not racist hate speech?
How dare they refer to #Aboriginal women as animals pic.twitter.com/sYIGr4Ac1U
— Kon Karapanagiotidis (@Kon__K) July 12, 2015
To those in my TL telling me not racist to call #Aboriginal women "cash cows". Our country used to hunt Aboriginal people for sport.
— Kon Karapanagiotidis (@Kon__K) July 12, 2015
#Racist moron Gary Johns should apologize for saying #Indigenous women are made to be cash cows by having children. #TheBoltReport #auspol
— Stephanie Rice (@stephrice88) July 12, 2015
The uteruses of Aboriginal women are not the business of Gary Johns. He himself is an argument for contraception - http://t.co/xwiF387evL
— Celeste Liddle (@Utopiana) July 12, 2015
And on and on it goes ...
The gruesome opportunists would rather fulminate over his use of a common figure of speech so as to advertise their own spurious moral virtue than actually engage with his argument. So childish, so petty, so leftist ... and so sad.
Friday, July 10, 2015
Aaron Patrick on Bill Shorten's ambitious character on Lateline
It's long been obvious that Bill Shorten is an extremely ambitious, egocentric character. Of course there are many of those in Canberra, on both sides of the political fence. But they're usually complicated, multi-faceted folk as well.
Look at Malcolm Fraser. He was ruthless and domineering, but also compassionate and deeply sensitive to criticism. And take Bob Hawke. Charismatic as all get out, with a real sense of entitlement to the top job. But he also had a genuine concern for working people and that made him an extremely effective PM as well as a popular one.
Basically these guys, along with others, didn't just seek power for its own sake. They wanted to do something good with it.
But I don't think that Shorten is like that. He appears to be driven almost entirely by his own ginormous ego. Seems to me that, not unlike Julia Gillard, he's been dreaming of being PM his whole life. But he hasn't given much thought to what he really wants to do for Australia if and when he snares the gig.
His very unimpressive performance in the witness box at the Trade Union Royal Commission certainly confirms that reading of his character. And this Lateline interview with Aaron Patrick, who wrote the book Downfall: How the Labor Party Ripped Itself Apart, constitutes evidence of this as well.
The interview reveals that Shorten certainly wasn't from Struggle Street. He was born into a world of privilege, actually. That would explain that conspicuous absence of fire in the belly (er, unless his belly contains something to fuel the fire, that is!).
TONY JONES: Now, his career, you're right - this is something you were just touching on there, but you're right it encapsulates many of the contradictions of modern Labor. A young, aspiring politician from the right side of the tracks, not the wrong side of the tracks, with an entire - an entree in fact to the world of mega rich people, business people like Richard Pratt, the billionaire.
AARON PATRICK: One of the things that I don't think people appreciate about Bill Shorten is that, sure, he has his union background and he presents this sort of blue-collar image, but he likes hanging out with rich people. He's always liked it. He'd always enjoyed socialising and mixing with business figures. Now you could argue that that's good. That's a legitimate thing and Bob Hawke used to do it too and Paul Keating as well. So I don't think we should think negatively of him for that. But it's still a bit incongruous. And I remember once in research for my book his relationship with Richard Pratt is very well known, but what isn't known is that him and Debbie Beale, his wife at the time, went and stayed in the apartment in Manhattan, which - you'd go there and you'd say to the doorman, "I want to go up to Mr Pratt's apartment and it's on the ..." - this floor, "Which door is it?" And the doorman'd say, "It's the whole floor."
TONY JONES: (Laughs)
AARON PATRICK: OK! And then when they - when he went with the Pratts to visit Cuba, Communist Cuba, they did it in Pratt's private jet.
The young Shorten also tried to take over a union. But it was functioning very well. So it seems that personal ambition was the main, if not sole motivation there:
AARON PATRICK: Well, thank you, yes. The Young Labor Network, which Bill ran, tried to take over a union called the Theatricals Union. It employed - or, sorry, it had members of people working in the entertainment industry. Some may have even worked at the ABC. And it was seen as a far-left union. And what Bill Shorten and the other guys wanted to do was seize control of this union and use its votes within the Labor Party as their own power base and flip it from the left faction to the right faction. So, they all went and got jobs. And Bill Shorten got a job at Flemington Racecourse, which now abuts his present electorate, and also Victoria Park, where he became an ardent Collingwood fan. There was one problem with the plan, which was: it was quite a good union.
TONY JONES: Yeah. The leadership was actually well-liked and evidently doing a good job, so the whole thing failed. But it's kind of prophetic, isn't it? I mean, if the idea was simply to use the union as your toehold into Labor politics at a high level, was that also the motive for going into the AWU?
AARON PATRICK: Well, what I think Bill Shorten learnt through that experience was: you weren't going to obtain political power by going and taking over at the enemy's trade union. You were going to do it by going into a union that was already on your side which was weak, taking it over from the inside. And that's what he did at the AWU. And the AWU made Bill politically because he managed to grow the membership of it, increased his power base within the Victorian Labor Party and developed a national profile, partly through assiduous networking with journalists.
The guy clearly has big time tickets on himself. And that can lead him into situations in which he looks very foolish indeed, like recently in the RC witness box:
AARON PATRICK: I thought - in all honesty, I thought it was one of the more, if not most damaging moments in his career. The thing about Bill Shorten's psychology is that one of the reasons he's gone so far is that he has this unshakeable belief in himself. And he walks into a room and he's convinced that he's the smartest person in the room. And that's served him well throughout his career and his life. He was in that court - in that Royal commission today in the box and he was at the mercy of those - of that ex-High Court judge and that barrister. And he couldn't talk his way out of it. And he was held to account for what he was saying in a way that he can't be held to account in any other part of his career.
Look at Malcolm Fraser. He was ruthless and domineering, but also compassionate and deeply sensitive to criticism. And take Bob Hawke. Charismatic as all get out, with a real sense of entitlement to the top job. But he also had a genuine concern for working people and that made him an extremely effective PM as well as a popular one.
Basically these guys, along with others, didn't just seek power for its own sake. They wanted to do something good with it.
But I don't think that Shorten is like that. He appears to be driven almost entirely by his own ginormous ego. Seems to me that, not unlike Julia Gillard, he's been dreaming of being PM his whole life. But he hasn't given much thought to what he really wants to do for Australia if and when he snares the gig.
His very unimpressive performance in the witness box at the Trade Union Royal Commission certainly confirms that reading of his character. And this Lateline interview with Aaron Patrick, who wrote the book Downfall: How the Labor Party Ripped Itself Apart, constitutes evidence of this as well.
The interview reveals that Shorten certainly wasn't from Struggle Street. He was born into a world of privilege, actually. That would explain that conspicuous absence of fire in the belly (er, unless his belly contains something to fuel the fire, that is!).
TONY JONES: Now, his career, you're right - this is something you were just touching on there, but you're right it encapsulates many of the contradictions of modern Labor. A young, aspiring politician from the right side of the tracks, not the wrong side of the tracks, with an entire - an entree in fact to the world of mega rich people, business people like Richard Pratt, the billionaire.
AARON PATRICK: One of the things that I don't think people appreciate about Bill Shorten is that, sure, he has his union background and he presents this sort of blue-collar image, but he likes hanging out with rich people. He's always liked it. He'd always enjoyed socialising and mixing with business figures. Now you could argue that that's good. That's a legitimate thing and Bob Hawke used to do it too and Paul Keating as well. So I don't think we should think negatively of him for that. But it's still a bit incongruous. And I remember once in research for my book his relationship with Richard Pratt is very well known, but what isn't known is that him and Debbie Beale, his wife at the time, went and stayed in the apartment in Manhattan, which - you'd go there and you'd say to the doorman, "I want to go up to Mr Pratt's apartment and it's on the ..." - this floor, "Which door is it?" And the doorman'd say, "It's the whole floor."
TONY JONES: (Laughs)
AARON PATRICK: OK! And then when they - when he went with the Pratts to visit Cuba, Communist Cuba, they did it in Pratt's private jet.
The young Shorten also tried to take over a union. But it was functioning very well. So it seems that personal ambition was the main, if not sole motivation there:
AARON PATRICK: Well, thank you, yes. The Young Labor Network, which Bill ran, tried to take over a union called the Theatricals Union. It employed - or, sorry, it had members of people working in the entertainment industry. Some may have even worked at the ABC. And it was seen as a far-left union. And what Bill Shorten and the other guys wanted to do was seize control of this union and use its votes within the Labor Party as their own power base and flip it from the left faction to the right faction. So, they all went and got jobs. And Bill Shorten got a job at Flemington Racecourse, which now abuts his present electorate, and also Victoria Park, where he became an ardent Collingwood fan. There was one problem with the plan, which was: it was quite a good union.
TONY JONES: Yeah. The leadership was actually well-liked and evidently doing a good job, so the whole thing failed. But it's kind of prophetic, isn't it? I mean, if the idea was simply to use the union as your toehold into Labor politics at a high level, was that also the motive for going into the AWU?
AARON PATRICK: Well, what I think Bill Shorten learnt through that experience was: you weren't going to obtain political power by going and taking over at the enemy's trade union. You were going to do it by going into a union that was already on your side which was weak, taking it over from the inside. And that's what he did at the AWU. And the AWU made Bill politically because he managed to grow the membership of it, increased his power base within the Victorian Labor Party and developed a national profile, partly through assiduous networking with journalists.
The guy clearly has big time tickets on himself. And that can lead him into situations in which he looks very foolish indeed, like recently in the RC witness box:
AARON PATRICK: I thought - in all honesty, I thought it was one of the more, if not most damaging moments in his career. The thing about Bill Shorten's psychology is that one of the reasons he's gone so far is that he has this unshakeable belief in himself. And he walks into a room and he's convinced that he's the smartest person in the room. And that's served him well throughout his career and his life. He was in that court - in that Royal commission today in the box and he was at the mercy of those - of that ex-High Court judge and that barrister. And he couldn't talk his way out of it. And he was held to account for what he was saying in a way that he can't be held to account in any other part of his career.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)