Ron Boswell called a "dinosaur" regarding gay marriage

One term of abuse long favoured by lefties is to call someone a "dinosaur" when he doesn't share their views. Apart from it being nasty, it also doesn't make much sense. Why does something immediately become better because it's up to date? Surely there are things that we should retain because they have stood the test of time, even if they are not perfect.

This certainly applies to this attack on Ron Boswell. Senator Doug Cameron has said that his beliefs about gay marriage, including that it undermines the family, are "dinosaur views". It's also ironic coming from a bilious trade unionist with what could be termed, er, unreconstructed attitudes on industrial relations. 

Also, the conservative senator's views are hardly unusual. Gay marriage advocates keep pushing this line that a majority want gay marriage. But I suspect they're being extremely optimistic. I think Boswell's is the majority view.

And just on his use of words: He says that gay marriage "undermines the family". Yet its proponents, many of whom are greenies, brush this argument aside by saying: "We're not trying to ban straight marriage, just be more inclusive. Its character will remain unchanged."

Yet don't green nimbyists invoke a similar argument to conservatives when protesting against local development? They say: "If your highrise goes up next to our lush park, there goes the neighbourhood!"

Doesn't matter that the developers are building on a vacant lot, not in the park. The protestors are adamant that it will destroy or erode the character of the place.

So, maybe they should try to look at the issue that way. They might start to understand why people are resisting their gay marriage push.

That said, I don't think that most of them sincerely believe this argument anyway. They are not just asking for greater inclusiveness and "diversity". They really want to throw the furniture around. It's a power grab as much as anything else. If they, and not conservatives and Christians, can call the shots on this issue, well, they know they've got the upper hand. And that's what it's ultimately all about for the Left -- power over others.

Why is Simon Sheikh quitting GetUp!?

Simon Sheikh quitting GetUp! seems kinda weird to me. I mean, he only started the organization a few years ago -- it really is his baby -- and it's been going gangbusters pretty much the whole time.

Of course it's possible that he'll just be having a hiatus -- a road trip to recharge the batteries. If that's the case then this post is completely irrelevant.

But if this official blog update is any guide it seems like his resignation may well be permanent.

Obviously he's been burning the candle at both ends, as evidenced by his well-publicized collapse on Q and A. Still, he got back on the bike very soon after that and was his usual energetic self. So it doesn't seem like he's on the verge of a nervous breakdown. 

His handing over the reigns to a successor is reminiscent of countless political resignations, in which the pollie in question says: "I'm leaving to spend time with my family." You know that's total BS in the vast majority of cases. Your typical pollie is hooked on the power his profession delivers as if it were crack cocaine. Even if he's got cute little sprogs back home pining for their daddy, you just know he'd much rather be crackin' skulls in Canberra.

Sheikh didn't wield that kind of power, but he certainly had a lot of influence. So why has he quit so soon?

Maybe he realized that the influence of GetUp! has peaked, and that it's all downhill from here? (I think that Bob Brown might have come to a similar conclusion about the Greens, actually. And that had a lot to do with his decision to find other ways to be sanctimonious, annoying and obstructive.)

Or maybe there's some other reason for Sheikh's resignation, such as a vicious power struggle behind the scenes? Who knows ...

In any case I just don't buy the official line. And I reckon other reasons for it may well emerge sooner or later. 

Dumb Drunk and Racist crew sneer at the bogan caste

Watched Dumb Drunk and Racist again last night. One thing that is consistently annoying about it is its simplistic, didactic, patronizing tone. But then it is on their ABC. They all have that born to rule attitude there, and they just can't help themselves.

As with so many shows on the national broadcaster, it's kinda like Play School for adults. Actually, the whole concept of taking four Indians on a tightly stage managed tour of Australia and asking them to describe their reactions at various points is like a hugely expensive and prolonged game of show and tell.

DDR is relentlessly PC, drearily predictable, and utterly obvious. You can always see exactly what the production team are trying to achieve with their cynical manipulations of their Indian participants.

For example, when Joe Hildebrand takes his guests -- all from a country in which the cow is sacred -- to a cattle sale, he confesses to being nervous about what their reaction might be. Nervous about what, I wonder? That they might not be appalled by the scene as hoped?

And when a show is made entirely by middle class urbanites there is sure to some mockery of the rural working class. So part of last night's episode involved trying to define and locate some bogans (accurately described by one of the guests as a caste in itself). The exercize involved getting one of the Indians to dress up in classic bogan garb including "wife beater", thongs, and stubbies.

Will they feature such a mocking take on members of the "sneering hipster" caste? I suspect such parodies are considered off-limits, since that would alienate the audience. No matter. To anyone not a member of this ridiculous demographic, the whole production is an unconscious self-parody anyway. 

But back to the show's perception of bogans: No doubt many latte slurping wankers watching approvingly were rolling their eyes when one of the designated bogans said that he "dropped out of school to drink and become a tradesman". Ironic, since they themselves would've dropped out of the work force to get stoned and become "artists" and academics.

They should remember that bogans such as this bloke skilfully build and maintain much of the infrastructure they take for granted, as well as generating the wealth that funds their stupid, pointless, self-indulgent lifestyles. 

You'd think that being self-described lefties and champions of the underdog, they might take the bogans' side on occasion -- or at least be less condemnatory of them. But they are too mean-spirited to manage even that. What a revolting pack of parasitic snobs they are.

Border control is a humanitarian issue after all

Years ago, when I was doing standup comedy regularly, I used to have this routine that began with a play on the word "vegetarian". I'd say if vegetarians eat vegetables, then what do humanitarians eat? I then gave a couple of examples of well known caring, sharing types being engaged in ghoulish acts of cannibalism.

I wasn't trying to make any kind of a statement. I was just trying to get a laugh out of this weird verbal accident (which I suspect many others have stumbled on as well). But considering all these horrific drownings of people coming to Australia in leaky boats in the last few years, I think that maybe this wasn't such a verbal accident after all ... 

There is something truly ghoulish about the hand-wringing Left's insistence that only they are true humanitarians, and that anyone espousing a tough border control policy is a mean, heartless, racist bastard. How much of a humanitarian can you be when your purportedly compassionate policy lures hundred of people to their deaths?

Those espousing a "softer, kinder" asylum seeker policy say that this position is humanitarian because the influx of boats is due to push factors. These asylum seekers are fleeing danger, they say, and so they would be coming here no matter what. But the very fact that this lethal tide can be stopped (as it was in the Howard years) disproves their thesis.

But these aspects of the debate don't bother them -- nor do the deaths, for that matter! "Accidents happen", as Sarah Hanson-Young said. They consider the drowning of hundreds of men, women and children a small price to pay for maintaining their delusions about their own moral superiority.

Given that these same people are so fond of accusing conservatives of racism, it looks increasingly like their position has much to do with their own subconscious prejudice. That is, they see racism everywhere because they themselves are pathologically obsessed with race.

If the people drowning as a result of their "compassionate" policies were white, I suspect that sanctimonious lefties would actually start to see them as people, and not just acceptable collateral damage in the war against conservatism. They might actually start to understand the real reasons why so many Australians detest their stupid policies, and ultimately renounce them. They'd be doing something to save lives, not end them, then.

Julia Gillard on Q and A last night

Julia Gillard was on Q and A last night. I didn't watch every little moment of her appearance because I find her so annoying in so many ways that I have to turn off the TV from time to time. Did see most of it, however.

And there were a few things that stood out. Firstly, I don't think she mentioned Tony Abbott even once. This was really noticeable because she and pretty much everyone else in the ALP have been doing their level best to demonize him for months.

Perhaps the focus group results have shown that Australians are sick to death of the relentless, destructive negativity of this mean-spirited tactic and the spin doctors have told Gillard et al to ease up on it for a while? We'll know this to be the case if Gillard maintains the approach she used last night, and ministers such as Craig Emerson refrain from their endless Abbott bashing in interviews and on Twitter.

The other alternative is that maybe she was just playing with Abbott's mind? That's possible. But frankly, I don't think she's that smart.

As usual, she never really answered any questions. She just used them to wheel out the old platitudes about how she was motivated solely by her desire to improve the lot of working families.

She also used one of her favourite phrases "it was a judgement call, and I made it" at least once. She frequently uses this or a variation thereof to "answer" questions about why she made a certain decision.

This is akin to saying: "Yes, I did decide that. And what I decide goes. That's all you need to know."

It goes beyond the usual obfuscatory poli-speak and reveals a disdain for the public that is really quite sinister. But she's so polished and relaxed in her delivery that she gets away with it. And she'll throw in that stupid little fake giggle of hers occasionally, which also seems to put people off the scent.

And just re that laugh. One time it did actually appear to be genuine was when she concurred with this audience member's observation:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: If you go by the opinion polls when Kevin was challenging for the leadership, the majority of Australians would have preferred to have him as the leader of the Labor Party but the Labor Party sought different to have somebody else.

JULIA GILLARD: That's true. Well, and the way...

TONY JONES: It is a strange dichotomy, though, isn’t it? The Labor Party wanted someone, the people wanted someone else is what he is saying.

So, she actually admitted that her party brazenly flouted the will of the people. And she thought this was funny. Very revealing.

Needless to say Labor's useful idiots took to Twitter with gusto, saying how assured and genuine Gillard was. True to form the ABC's online editors made sure these nauseating suck-tweets were given inordinate exposure.

Ugh ... Oh well, as galling as this was it's actually a good thing. It merely confirmed that creepy communards are currently in control, as well as the disturbing extent of their influence. When the good people of Oz do get a chance to kick them out of office, they'll be kicking bloody hard, that's for sure.

The Tent Embassy fiasco and Gingerella's missing shoe

Whether you vote Labor or Liberal, you'd have to find seeing the nation's Prime Minister and Opposition Leader running in fear from an enraged mob of Aboriginal activists on Australia Day truly depressing. The fiasco showed just how ridiculous things have become in this country when it comes to racial politics -- not to mention politics generally.

Then there was the role of the media ... Basically Abbott made some quite reasonable remarks about the Tent Embassy. Shameless lefty hacks beat them up. It also looks like there might have been some very slimy tactics from within the PM's office itself:

Sydney radio presenter Ray Hadley today said he'd received information that Ms Shaw or another protester had received a call from a Gillard staffer about comments Mr Abbott made earlier in the day about the tent embassy.

"Once she was told that, she was also told Mr Abbott was across the road, 'maybe you can give them a bit of a liven up'," the 2GB presenter told his audience today.

"Barbara Shaw then went on stage and for all intents and purposes, incited people."

Apparently, this hasn't been confirmed. Still, considering what the scum-sucking sleaze merchants of Labor regularly get up to, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Well, whoever was ultimately responsible for things getting out of thand, and whether the AFP did overreact as some believe, the whole event bordered on the surreal.

Then there was Gillard's missing shoe. Couldn't help thinking it had a fairy tale quality to it. And others picked up on that Cinderella parallel -- including the very protestor who picked up the shoe!

As Ms Gillard was rushed from a Canberra restaurant yesterday after being trapped inside with the Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, for more than 20 minutes, her right Midas low-rise wedge shoe was lost in the melee.

It was found later by a protester who gleefully raised it above her head and cried, "Gingerella, come get your shoe."

While her actions were downright disgraceful, you have to give this person a coupla cool points for wit and timing. The ABC should hire her post-haste as a comedy writer. Not only would the choice be perfectly PC, but she's clearly far more talented than most of those already employed in that department. (Don't believe me? Watch any episode of The Hamster Wheel, Spicks and Specks or In Gordon St Tonight.)

But back to the shoe: The fact that it was a "Midas" was also weirdly apposite. Gillard's reign has been so disastrous, the woman clearly has a reverse Midas touch. Hell, anything she gets anywhere near rapidly turns to poo. If she does get the footwear item back, I wouldn't be surprised if she finds a dog turd stuck to the heel. 

And as to whether it is returned: Looks like it won't be. If it is sold on eBay as planned then this will show not just how mean spirited and opposed to true reconciliation the protestors actually are; it will also take Gillard's credibility down to a new low. I mean, imagine being a nation's leader, having your shoe nicked and not having the nerve and authority to get the bloody thing back?

You couldn't get any piss-weaker if you tried.

UPDATE: Kidnapped shoe returned to its traditional owner. Those advocating for footwear rights will be glad that justice has been served. (Not sure if the dog poo's been wiped off it, but.)

Leftist outrage over Qantas fleet grounding seems misplaced

Just re this Qantas crisis: The unions are of course outraged about the fleet grounding and there is much talk that Alan Joyce is "holding the nation to ransom". They seem most annoyed by the fact that he's done the ol' switcheroo on them. But by grounding the fleet he's effectively "downing tools", which is something that unionists do with monotonous regularity. They think going on strike is fine for employees, but they can't stand it when employers do it.

As well as union outrage, many on the green left are seething with contempt for Joyce and what he has done. But isn't this a great thing for the planet? Think of all those greenhouse gases that are now not being spewed into the atmosphere. If the grounding keeps going for weeks or even months, it will do more to prevent global warming than the carbon tax could ever do. The effect of taking all those planes out of the air must be akin to taking 45 million cars off the road, at least. Bloke's a climate change hero, surely.

Carbon tax will haunt Labor for years

The dreaded carbon tax has been passed by the Lower House. Gillard and company are arrogant enough to think that Aussies will eventually get used to it and Labor will rise again in the polls. But she just made a lot of people who were pissed off to begin with utterly ropeable. There's no way she'll ever get them back. Nor will any other Labor leader. We all know that Labor is toast, but it will be burnt to a crisp now for sure at the next election.

And if, as some pundits have said, there are lots of sneaky little conditions written into the legislation that make it really hard to dismantle, then this anger towards Labor will go on and on as long as any part of it lives.

Of course Many Labor MPs are now ruing the day that Gillard went back on her pledge not to introduce the carbon tax, even while pretending to support her. But I think they'll still be deeply regretting the breaking of her promise even years from now.

I don't know that Labor will actually die as a major force because of the carbon tax. But it could come scarily close.

Why Rudd won't win if reinstalled, despite strong polling

The recent poll results that foreshadow a Rudd victory if Labor reinstalls their knifed leader are getting a lot of media coverage. They must also figure prominently in the party's secret deliberations about whether to replace Gillard with the bloke she toppled.

But if Labor do actually go back to the, er, suture, could they stitch up a win? Frankly I don't think so.

I believe that what the polls reflect is not so much clear support for Rudd, but more the electorate's desire to be once again in control of their government. It's as if the people are saying: "We voted Rudd in back in 2007. And we were robbed of the chance to vote him in again, or throw him out, in 2010. We want Rudd back so that we, the people, can decide who leads the nation, not a bunch of ruthless, faceless power brokers."

Of course I have no real evidence to back up this claim. It's just a hunch, but I'm pretty sure it's on the right track.

I suspect that there's a strong chance Labor heavies will take the most optimistic interpretation that can be gleaned from these polls and reinstall Rudd soon, even though they utterly detest him. And while the Coalition's lead will take a big hit, they'll still ultimately win the next election comfortably. 

Sir Crispin Tickell on China, climate change and democracy

I often listen to the BBC World Service in the wee hours. One of the regular shows is called One Planet. It's hugely biased, but still quite interesting. One recent interview really caught my ear.

The presenter Mike Williams was taking to British diplomat and environmentalist Sir Crispin Tickell about China and its approach to climate change. Tickell's observations were revealing because he invoked several of the most beloved cliches and misrepresentations of the deep green Left. (You can listen to it here. Tickell starts about a minute and a half in.)

Of Australia he said that we are the biggest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide. The nation is "doing a great deal of harm, thereby".

This is just completely irrational. So what if each person here has a comparatively large carbon footprint? We are a small nation and the cumulative impact is negligible.

Tickell then said of our addiction to fossil fuels that "Australians are increasingly aware that they are dependant on what doesn't work".

Clearly, the opposite is true. We are increasingly aware that these methods (coal in particular) are "oldies but goodies". One of the reasons we're so resistant to the carbon tax is that the much hyped renewables are neither reliable nor affordable enough to replace what's been working very well for a very long time. And we've still got mountains of the stuff, so why not keep using it?

Like so many warmists, he also repeated this massive lie about China being an environmental exemplar -- "pioneers of clean, green growth" as he puts it. Williams didn't pick him up on this point, but accepted it, adding that having such a policy is easy if you're an authoritarian regime.

They then got onto the subject of democracy in general, with Tickell saying the Chinese really "aren't that bad" in this regard. Rather than accept that China is itself very undemocratic, which is clearly the case, he shifted the goal posts on what democracy actually means. 

And there's a classic interchange in which a clearly shocked Williams says: "You're surely not suggesting China is a democracy." To which Tickell replies: "I don't know what you mean by democracy." It's truly jaw dropping stuff. When you can stun even a BBC journalist into incredulity with such a take on tyranny, well you really must be "out where the buses don't go".

Tickell's whole attitude in this interview is a distillation of the classic warmist position. It's inaccurate, irrational, and well on the way to being totalitarian.

Kristina Keneally on what ails Labor

Kristina Keneally reveals one of the attitudes that is afflicting today's Labor in her opinion of how best to fix the party. She says that it needs a "rebranding".

Ms Keneally said the Labor Party needed to develop a new brand, claiming most people did not know what it stood for.

She thinks it's all a marketing problem! No, most people know what Labor "stands" for: monumental incompetence, dysfunction, petty internal hatreds and utter disdain for the electorate, among other things.

The problem is that Labor politicians themselves don't believe in anything much. Mostly they just see the party as a way to further their own personal ambitions -- you know, have a great income with a load of perks, get to boss people around, hobnob with celebs ... that sort of thing.

She's kind of right when she says this:

"We speak very well to the unionised workforce and we speak very well to the educated progressive class, but we don't have a brand or a method of speaking to middle Australia."

Yeah, that's because they wrote off middle Australia a long time ago. And middle Australia has finally run out of patience with them.