Boxing Day in Bondi: My mystical dog day afternoon

Like many of you I'm sure, I've long wondered why "Boxing Day" bears that very name. Seems it's vaguely to do with boxes (as opposed to the sport) and there are various theories about it.

Well, whatever its exact origins mine was more of a "Boxers' Day", due to the spooky mutt-themed synchronicity I experienced ...

See, I headed down to Bondi Beach, planning to shuffle about and take a few snaps. I got out of the bus just near a distinctive piece of street art that I'm sure most Sydneysiders know well.

Snoozing on the pavement opposite was this adorable little fella. I couldn't help noticing how much he looked like the hound on the wall nearby.

Maybe he was the artist's original model, I thought. Perhaps he felt a craving for his old glory days, and had lobbed there hoping to be recognized by passersby. Tired of the adulation (or disappointing lack thereof) he was enjoying some much needed shuteye ...

Or maybe it wasn't ego, but love that had brought him there. Could the image have reminded him of on old flame? Maybe he was pining for the poochy past; yearning for a long lost puppy love?

Well, whatever his motivation, I felt there was some sort of spiritual significance in this canine coincidence for me. It just had to be a Message from Dog.

But what exactly? The most likely one seems to be that I should just accept that life's a bitch, stop being so pugnacious and let sleeping dogs lie ...

But to be honest, I'm still quite mastiff-ied. 

Any other suggestions, people? 

Never mind the bollards ... it's just Christmas in Sydney

Fascinating to watch the reaction of Western governments and the mainstream media to the problem of Islamist terrorism. Just sooo reluctant to grasp the nettle, eh?

They know the threat is very real because people keep getting killed and maimed by these gruesome goons. So they have to do something.

But they're squeamish about actually identifying the problem. Doing so would mean ditching some of the main foundations upon which their politically correct Empire of Bollocks is built. There's no way they wanna even start going down that road ...

So they keep trying to fool the public with stupid posturing and pronouncements, or tragically hare-brained "preventative" schemes. But aside from a buncha basket-weaving, sandal-wearing inner-city Greens voters, they're only fooling themselves.

This response to the recent Melbourne terror attack from the geniuses at The Conversation says it all.

FFS. Talk about denial!

Obviously the powers that be here in Sydney have been “thinking” along the same right-on lines because anti-terror barriers have been in place at central locations like the Sydney Opera House and the eastern end of Martin Place for a while now.

And more “diversity bollards” have been popping up lately. Take these giant stone baubles at Martin Place's western end, near the corner of Pitt St.

Now I'm not sure if they were installed specifically due to the increased triggering potential of the giant Christmas tree erected adjacent to the GPO. But it certainly seems like it … Pretty sure they are a recent addition. In any case they look like being a permanent fixture.

Then there are the ones in the newly opened section of George St down toward the QVB.

Love how they're all wrapped up like Chrissie presents! Fact that they are shows that whoever put them there is afflicted by two levels of idiotic delusion.

One: that these lumps of concrete will truly make us safer from murderous morons out to eradicate as much infidel “Aussie scum” as possible.

Two: that the Yuletide decorations will make them seem less obvious to passersby.

Gawd. What a crap gift! Worse than finding a Peter FitzSimons tome in your stocking, it is ...

Instead of offering square lumps of concrete to Sydneysiders justifiably concerned about the real possibility that they'll be run over, knifed or shot by some insane, retarded Islamist arsehole shrieking "Allahu Akbar!", both the Government and mainstream media should start by acknowledging the, er, Caliphant in the room, and allowing free, unrestrained debate about how best to actually deal with this massive problem.

That would be the best Chrissie present we've all had in ages, I reckon.

If anything, John Alexander's joke mocked dishonesty more than disability

Disappointed that John Alexander apologized for that joke he made about being eligible for a disabled parking sticker. The SJWS who piled on with the faux outrage over it will take that as an admission of guilt and bash him with it in future, as well as go in harder with their verballing of his jokes and statements. They are cowards and bullies who simply don't know what to do if you stand up to them.

So the Member for Bennelong should have just said "get a life" or words to that effect. Of course doing so would've provoked an even greater explosion of outrage initially, but in the long run he'd benefit. The usual suspects would realize he can't be bullied.

Of course, being triggered by gags is nothing new. You can find absolutely any joke offensive if you want to. And, sure, ultimately everyone has the right to have that reaction. But it's pretty clear if something is massively OTT or not. And that certainly was the case here.

Any sane, rational adult would realize that he wasn't making fun of the disabled. He was mocking politics, and how it makes you compromise your principles.

Much of the "reporting" of Alexander's quip removed context in an effort to make it seem mean spirited. Take the Guardian:

"The doctor at the time said you have eligibility for a disabled sticker. I said, I still have some pride,” Alexander told supporters at his victory function on Saturday night.

He then quipped: “That was before I entered politics.”

That short extract, and the deceptive headline, is meant to make you focus on the lead up. But check out the other stuff he said:

"When I thought my tennis career was finished, because I hurt my back, I started coaching there at one point, and then the back got better," he said.

"I was actually eligible for the disabled sticker on my car! And then I got to about number 14 in the world.

"The doctor at the time said, 'You have eligibility for a disabled sticker'. I said 'I still have some pride'.

"That was before I entered politics! I digress."

That makes it clearer what he was getting at. He was implying that he didn't really need the sticker, though technically he qualified. To have used it under those circumstances would have been dishonest.

It would have been like being eligible for the dole when you've actually got a job. Now, would saying that you're too proud to accept government payments under false pretences be mocking the unemployed? Obviously not.

So he wasn't mocking the disabled. (Actually, you could even see it as a form of respect for them. He didn't want to take something from someone who was genuinely in need of it.)

So, the joke's lead up was about his pride in his honesty and how thought he could keep living by it. But that all changed when he entered politics. Boom, boom!

In other words: To succeed in Canberra, you basically have to have no pride (and be dishonest).

Speaking of which, here's Labor's Carol Brown:

“In his victory speech last night, Liberal John Alexander made remarks that could only be interpreted as offensive to people with disability."

Well, actually, there are many interpretations. I think the one I've listed above is very close to what Alexander actually intended.

For shamelessly opportunistic Labor pollies like Brown, almost any joke by a political opponent will be interpreted as offensive because they lack rational arguments, so will happily use verballing instead.

"To suggest that Australians who require a disability parking permit have anything to be ashamed of is repugnant. It’s not funny – it’s stupid and offensive."

As I explained above, the shame Alexander alluded to was not in having a disability parking permit if you are genuinely disabled, but in dishonestly acquiring one.

Brown is conflating shame with disability far more directly and strongly than Alexander did. Which is why I think she's being dishonest. (Actually, looks to me like the kind of dishonesty JA himself was mocking in his joke ... Funny, that.)

Needless to say, it wasn't just fake news peddlers and brazen pollies milking JA's joke for faux outrage. Check out this sanctimonious reaction from a troll to my tweet about this non-story that was all over the love media:

Typical emotive tactics from a PC plonker. Firstly, he goes straight to ad hom and says that JA and anyone defending him is "insensitive" (ie, a bad person).

Later on in a vile attempt to slime another tweep (Taswegian) he associates the idea of a diseased mind with his own family member with MS! Fact that he does this unprompted says sooo much more about Watson's own character than Taswegian's.

Whichever way you cut it, Watson's disgraceful tweet is waaay more offensive than Alexander's joke.

Ugh. What utter scumbags these people are.

Van Badham tells men to "stand up and fight" Milo Yiannopoulos. What a joke!

So funny to watch Milo Yiannopoulos trigger the local MSM snowflakes as he tours Australia. They're trying so dang hard to push this bogus line about him being a neo-Nazi racist. They all just repeat the same fake news talking points like the fricken zombies they are. 

They always highlight the Twitter ban, natch. Vanessa "Van" Badham says he was punted "for encouraging the sexist and racist abuse of Ghostbusters actor Leslie Jones".

Such bollocks. He didn't sic his followers onto her at all. He mocked her in tweets, then some tweeps piled on afterwards with really vile stuff and the liberal media blamed him for that.

When you have hundreds of thousands of followers some of them are gonna be utter arseholes, let's face it. What they do is not your responsibility. But this reverse association trick is a fave leftist tactic. It's like saying that because a sleb has a stalker who commits a crime, the sleb is to blame. Nasty, dishonest stuff.

Sure, Milo trolled Jones big time and mocked her appearance. And he referred to her race in a self-mocking tweet about his own obsession with black dudes. But to call this racist is a helluva long bow to draw, especially since there are countless truly racist tweets -- along with all the other putrid stuff -- still up on the platform unchecked (some of it even from slebs who are!).

The Aussie love media luvvies all repeatedly call him "alt-right" which is now a term that's used to describe neo-Nazi white supremacists like the goons who read Daily Stormer. Our socialist snowflakes are thrashing the hell out of it! But Milo is not like that at all as he explains comprehensively in his best-selling book Dangerous.

Yiannopoulos abhors political correctness, of course. But to say this means he believes in a master race is BS on stilts.

But intellectual dishonesty is the essence of the PC Left, innit? And they're using it in a concerted effort to rile up their credulous acolytes then blame him for creating a "dangerous" environment. Then they can no-platform him -- to keep Australians safe, natch. What devious scumbags they are.

All the local leftie luminaries are packin' death over Milo, since he so fabulously flays their precious PC narrative -- to which they all owe their massively overpaid gigs (funded with money snatched from the very normies they spend their miserable lives sneering at for "wrongthink", BTW).

Vanessa "Van" Badham is more terrified of him than most, which has made her Guardian gargle from last week exceptionally silly. She kicks own goals throughout:

Yiannopoulos’s apologists insist that he can’t possibly be homophobic, racist or antisemitic because he claims some Jewish heritage and is married to a black man.

Actually it's not just these reasons. There's also his many articles and videos, in which he consistently and articulately condemns bigotry of all kinds and exhorts his readers and viewers to apply one standard, one standard for all. But Vanessa, who's always holding her leftie and frightbat pals to a far lower standard than others, simply can't comprehend that.

Which sounds marvellously like claiming men married to women are never misogynists. Oh, please.

Well d'uh! Of course married men can be misogynists -- as can self-described "male feminists". Given the tsunami of revolting revelations about such right-on dudes in America's liberal media and entertainment industries, it looks very much like that's the norm rather than the exception.

Women, too, can be women haters. Just look at the abuse Badham herself and her bolshie bestie Clementine Ford have hurled at chicks who don't toe their stupid victim feminist line. Misogynist indeed.

Then there's her obvious misandry. Badham, along with countless other crybullies, has built her career carping about "the patriarchy" -- just another way of saying "it's all men's fault!".

Then she has the jaw-dropping gall to imply that all her niggardly nagging is really a fricken favour to the blokes. FFS!

How very cancerous of us to insist on a common morality in which disadvantage is righted, difference accommodated and gender stereotypes dissolved. 

That's hilarious. Victim feminists like her don't want common morality. They want to be given everything on a platter on account of their gender; never to be held to account for anything. And can you think of anyone who stereotypes men as oppressors (and women as the oppressed) more than blowhards like Badham?

It’s an agenda which has now liberated generations of men from destructive, cruel expectation that the performance of dominant masculinity depends on repressed human feelings, social isolation, vocational denial and high-risk competitions of often violent, dangerous physical activity.

Gawd. So feminism has liberated men? Hardly. (Hasn't oppressed them either, BTW. Just annoyed the crap out of them.)

Well, I could never accuse Badham herself of repressing her feelings. Just a shame she possesses such a limited range -- one of which is clearly smug superiority ... Her sense of entitlement is just off the charts. She actually has the gall to demand blokes get bolshie at Milo's events:

It’s for this reason I’d like to see men protesting Yiannopoulos’s visit, especially those so vocal in their “wokeness”, so articulate in their feminist solidarity, so keen to insist they are our allies ... As long as Yiannopoulous enjoys his platforms without active male protest, it’s his own warped ideas of what it means to be a man that are entering the public arena unchecked.

So she basically wants her tragic fanbois to kick up a massive stink at his shows. If it's big enough for them to be cancelled, I suspect she'll be pleased as punch. Blech! What an ugly totalitarian attitude she has. 

May I remind you that Yiannopoulos has lost a book contract, two jobs and a prominent speaking role and yet is still very much breathing.

She says it like it's a bad thing ... And isn't that an intriguing choice of words? If a righty wrote that about Badham herself or one of her fellow travellers, there'd be a conga line of frightbats calling it a dog whistling incitement to violence for sure! 

He claims Australia is his biggest fanbase outside the US. I’d love to know how many more Yiannopoulos may win over, before those men made of better values allow themselves to stand up and fight back.

Another intriguing choice of words. She seems not to mean this figuratively, as in "rhetorical combat". After all, she doesn't want them to argue against Milo. She just wants him no-platformed (silenced).

So, it seems she might actually believe "male violence" is acceptable after all -- as long as she's calling the shots, of course.

In any case, it sounds like her woke-bloke army hasn't exactly risen to the challenge so far. I suppose standing up and fighting is all a bit too difficult -- especially when you're so used to peeing sitting down.