Van Badham vs Tim Blair

Gawd. I've seen a lot of infantile, egocentric behaviour from the censorious squawkers of Artsville. But one recent reaction has really taken the bloody cake. It comes from nascent socialist squealebrity Van Badham.

Appalled and offended that she's been mocked by Tim Blair for a grotesquely self-indulgent anti-Abbott rant in which she included details about her late father's unseemly behaviour while he was unemployed, she tweeted this to one of her fellow sneering hipsters.

OMG! The insult to my *dead father* actually was published by THE DAILY TELEGRAPH. My god! What is this?! pic.twitter.com/odHnuZtGK1
— Van Badham (@vanbadham) December 20, 2013

It's called a fair crack, Vanessa.

It could also be said that using your dad's death to score cheap points against your main political hate figure constitutes an insult to his memory. We've all got dead relatives and loved ones. But only the most shameless and selfish use their deaths to slime those they detest -- and so soon after their passing. (It's not unlike Bolt-obsessed bloviator Mike Carlton and others like him using the death of Nelson Mandela to slime conservatives.)

Then there's the sheer irony of the potty-mouthed termagant demanding that everyone bow in sympathy to her fine feelings and respect her in her grief. Just take a look at the petulant princess's Twitter stream and you'll see what I mean. You'll be picking your jaw up off the floor.

She's gotta be one of the most abusive lefties on the site -- and that's saying something. She goes out of her way to provoke and offend people, verballing them at every opportunity.

Is it because she's as batshit insane as she appears to be, or is it just a cynical ploy? Maybe even a bit of both ...

She's certainly cottoned onto the fact that to carve a niche in the the leftoid media too much vile abuse is just never enough. As well as endless adulation from absolute idiots, there are well-paying meeja gigs and grants galore to be had if you can out-crazy your fellow feminist moonbats. To the "victim" the spoils!

Vanessa Badham is what I call a blushing violent. Vicious, aggressive, happy to make the most vile and knowingly false accusations when it suits. Then at other times when it suits she hides behind her gender, and plays victim. It's an amazingly cynical tactic. And sooo typical of the primitive, vindictive, cowardly Left.

My advice to the spoiled brat: Listen, baby cakes, if you don't wanna be mocked because you're still grieving then don't put that sensitive info into the public realm -- let alone for the purpose of a mean-spirited sliming.

Frankly petal, your feelings aren't that important. You show no respect for the feelings of others, so why should they respect yours? You were askin' for it.

Why luvvies love calling Mandela "Madiba"

On the weekend Tim Blair asserted that those who use Nelson Mandela's clan name Madiba are "fantastic poseurs". Today he cites definitive evidence for this claim.

There are a coupla reasons leftist luvvies can't stop using the appellation. Firstly, it's familiar -- the inner-city tosser's version of calling Russell Crowe "Rusty".

Say "Madiba" and you subtly infer that you were mates with the guy -- or have at least broken bread with him on occasion. Even if you don't wish to convey that impression, it makes it seem you're an authentic fellow traveller with him. Clearly, you've been a brave and committed activist in the great man's struggle for freedom and equality.

The practice is akin to using a person's first name. Also, like the recently deceased icon's surname, it has the advantage of sounding truly African. Talking or writing about "Nelson" would just sound a bit awkward. Madiba, on the other hand, sounds intimate, affectionate and authentic.

Also, it's kinda esoteric. Not widely used in the meeja -- well, at least not until recently anyway -- it conveys to your reader or interlocutor that you have deep and detailed knowledge of the issues surrounding the person behind the name. Say "Madiba" and you're not just a brave human rights activist, you're also a scholar -- an assiduous student of the struggle against apartheid.

That said, I think it's lost much of its power in this regard. Hand-wringing meeja pseuds have really gone overboard with it, rendering it next to powerless on the socialist sneerer's smugometer. That's kind of sad -- and very much like what they did with the word "pugilist" to describe Tonay Abbott. Hell, even bogans call him that now ...

Rudd, Abbott's character flaws now the focus of voters

Watched The Project the other night -- well, watched it for as long as I could bear (limit: about a minute and a half) -- and the airheaded whippersnappers were bemoaning the fact that much of the meeja coverage of the upcoming election was focusing on the personalities of Rudd and Abbott over more substantial policy issues.

This was pretty funny coming from them. The show itself is pure "heat 'n' eat". Each issue gets an ultra-slick, ultra-swift, ultra-simplistic and predictably PC treatment -- then onto the next. Their adoring audience of sneering hipsters are in no doubt about which positions they're expected to hold, and which are deemed way uncool. And coolness is all they care about anyway ...

But back to their point: Firstly, I think there has been a great deal of policy analysis in the meeja. You just have to look for it. And if you boil it all down now as we head into the campaign home stretch it's very clear what each major party is all about. Basically the Libs offer small, responsible government and are therefore aiming for the adult vote. Nanny-statist Labor, on the other hand, just want to keep power at all costs, and are desperately courting cretins.

Most Aussies have figured this out. And now as they prepare to cast their votes they're looking very closely at the two leaders' psychological make-up. Rupert's tabloids in particular are well attuned to the zeitgeist and are responding to this heightened interest. Hence their focus on the make-up lady story and Abbott's "shut up" comment.

The character of the leader is certainly not the most important factor in most voters' decision making process. But it's a biggie -- as it should be. And I think Aussie voters have pretty much made up their minds about Rudd. They've realized that for all his talk about having changed, he's still the same two-faced, narcissistic, bullying asshat that they were ready to kick out back in 2010 -- just before the faceless men did it for them.

And Abbott? Well, I think for ages they believed the leftie-luvvie lie about him being a woman-hating, puritanical thug simply because it was repeated so often. Now that he's been in the public eye much more frequenty and in many different contexts I think they've been pleasantly surprised and many have changed their minds about him. Interestingly, he's now the most Googled pollie in Oz. Clearly a lot of people are trying to find out as much as they can about him so they can decide for themselves what he's really like.

As Rudd falls in their estimation, Abbott enjoys a commensurate rise in their affection and interest. As a result, it looks almost certain that the Abbott haters' worst nightmare is coming true. The man they loathe more than anything will now be PM!

What a laugh! If he does win on September 7 their complete and utter despair will be the icing on the cake for me and many, many others. 

Julia Gillard's conservative hairstyle

Pretty much everything Julia Gillard does is motivated by spin over substance. This includes changes to her appearance. Take the introduction of those serious-lookin' specs. Many pundits opined that she was trying to emulate Hillary Clinton. I think there was a lot of truth to that observation. 

And perhaps her latest hairstyle is another example. First thing I thought when I saw the classically elegant look was that there was an element of Margaret Thatcher about it.

Sure, she was at a black tie ball. But it was still a media event that left a public impression. Had her spin doctors recommended something in a more conservative vein to imply to the voters that she's not such a raging leftie after all?

Sounds insanely desperate. But then insane and desperate are pretty good descriptions of much of what she's done lately.

Well, if equating herself with the Iron Lady was the intention then it won't help at all. As everybody knows, Gillard is no Thatcher and never will be. 

Akerman sledged for citing Mathieson sexuality rumours

So Piers Akerman mentioned on Insiders that rumours about Tim Mathieson's sexuality had been circulating in the Canberra press gallery for a couple of years. Not surprisingly his statement has provoked widespread condemnation from Piers's, er, peers. Needless to say, countless leftie Twitter trolls are arcing up big time about it. And they're all sheeting home blame to Akerman.

But why condemn him for merely reporting what he's seen and heard? It actually reflects more poorly on the press gallery, in my opinion. Clearly, the vacuous busybodies are mighty interested in the sex life of the PM's beau, and spend a lot of time gossiping about it. But if someone mentions their obsessions publicly, they all go into paroxysms of faux indignation. What a pack of prurient, cowardly hypocrites!

Julia Gillard gets no respect! Sheesh, I wonder why ...

Lefties are squawking up a storm about how badly Gillard's been treated. They're forever bleating about how she doesn't get the "respect the office deserves".

Well, that's got a lot to do with the fact that she herself has disrespected the office. She didn't actually win the position honourably (you know, by being elected) in the first place. She took the easy, dodgy route by slyly knifing the bloke who had won it fairly. And she's abused her position repeatedly from day one with her constant, shameless lying. 

The sisterhood is particularly put out by the sexist abuse of Gillard. And yes, there's been a lot of hatred towards her -- some of which is misogynous. 

But again, she's brought much of this on herself by zealously playing the gender card -- particularly in the last year or so. Her false accusations of sexism are in themselves sexist, since they're aimed almost exclusively at men. So she shouldn't be surprised when she does cop some anti-female snark coming back at her.

Lots of conservative women in politics get sexist abuse hurled at them (and quite often it's from the same people squealing about misogyny in relation to Gillard!) but they don't wallow in their victimhood. They just shrug it off and get on with the gig. That earns them respect.

Gillard, on the other hand, has courted this reaction, stoked it, and wallowed in it big time. It's gotten to the point where her victim status is now offered as the main reason we should vote for her! It's truly pathetic.

The other annoying claim from Gillard's sob sisters is that as well as all the public loathing, she's been unfairly treated by the media. What a crock that is! On the contrary, they've made a point of protecting her from criticism -- particularly about her dodgy past as a lawyer. The vast majority of Aussie journos avoided that as a subject for ages until finally they could remain in denial no longer.

And ultimately two of them lost their jobs for investigating that, remember. Add Howard Sattler to this list of professional road kill, albeit for simply being a meathead, and the body count stands at three. Now, I know of no reporter who was actually sacked because of his treatment of a sitting PM in the past. (If anyone does, please enlighten me.) Clearly, rather than being beaten up by meeja heavies, she's been consistently treated with kid gloves.

Then there's the treatment she gets from her own party. Would any male politician have lasted so long in the top job if he were so catastrophically unpopular? No way!

Gillard has been our worst PM by a country mile. She's also our most mollycoddled. Roll on September 14 when we finally get to put an end to the whole nauseating bloody farce that this malignant mediocrity has inflicted upon us. 

"You're having a lesbian" campaign from PFLAG

Something that has long fascinated me about the more zealous advocates of gay rights is how easily and often they ignore the realities of reproduction. They talk about gay male and lesbian parenting, for example, as if there was no one else involved in the child's creation. For myself and so many other flint-hearted conservatives this is both astonishing and annoying.

Let's face it, until cloning becomes old hat it's gonna take a man and a woman to make a baby. So, in the case of a "family" resulting from "marriage equality" there will always be a biological parent (father or mother) who more or less disappears from the child's life after she is born. Their absence is sure to affect the bub -- and not just because of societal conditioning due to "heteronormativism". 

Fair enough if you're going to argue that these issues are negligible. But most of the time gay marriage advocates don't even acknowledge that they are there. They blithely brush them aside, totally ignoring the mechanics of human reproduction. And if you remind them of these cold hard facts they don't like it at all. They do a lot of eye rolling and derisive snorting. They'll often claim you're being heterosexist or homophobic, too. It's bloody infuriating.

That's why I find the latest campaign from Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) to be quite revealing. In it, a woman gives birth to bub, and the doc says: "Congratulations, you're having a lesbian." Next to her is her male partner -- clearly the father of the child.

So, if they're going to acknowledge the necessity of heterosexual sex in reproduction in their own political advertising, why are they so quick to dismiss it in debates with conservatives? 

Ben Naparstek vs John van Tiggelen and lefty stoushes in general

Conservatives are gleefully yucking up a storm over a falling out between the editors of two prominent lefty publications. In it, editor of The Monthly John van Tiggelen has sent a very snarky email to wunderkind Ben Naparstek of Good Weeked accusing him of poaching writers, among other things. If van Tiggelen's claims are true then Naparstek's behaviour has been disgraceful -- not to mention deeply sexist.

I recall a vaguely similar situation occurring a coupla years back involving The Drum and Crikey -- though I don't think the enmity was nearly as intense.

In any case, this conflict got me thinking about how much white-anting and bitchery goes on within lefty strongholds as opposed to conservative ones. While internecine battles do occur in Toryland, they're generally not nearly as vicious or protracted as the ones that rage in joints like Labor and the unions. Look at the deep level of personal enmity between Rudd and Gillard, for example. It's nasty as all get out.

It's also pretty funny, given lefties' constant claims of compassion, solidarity, and community. Obviously hypocrsiy has a lot to do with it. There's the fact that conservatives tend to be more restrained characters as well. They may feel just as much envy of or hatred for a competitor but because they're more likely to take responsibility for their actions, they usually manage to stop themselves from doing things that they know they'll probably regret later on. Then there's the fact that lefties are more driven by emotion than anything else ...

I think it's got something to do with their ideological mindset, too. And it kinda gets back to that whole "zero sum game" mentality they have. They think of work and wealth as being finite commodities. They're not entrepreneurial by definition. To them, big organizations like the public service, the ABC and Fairfax are the "only game in town". They zone in on a desired position with total, relentless focus.

Now if two or more ambitious lefties are competing for such a gig they will often stop at nothing to get it, keep it and use it to assert dominance over, or get revenge on, their closest competitors. 

Conservatives, on the other hand, will tend to seek elsewhere if it's all getting too full-on. That's not to say they're lazy or unambitious. Far from it. They just realize that there's a world beyond the established organization. There are many smaller businesses in the private sector to work in, or they can even start from scratch and create their own.

What do you think? Is this the reason or is it something else? 

ABC's ratings drop due to rise of the right-wing blogosphere?

Just on this recent plunge in the ratings of several ABC shows -- most notably Insiders, which lost 14% of its viewers recently:  It's a pretty noteworthy drop, which makes me wonder what the main cause is. Of course the luvvies are saying that it's got a lot to do with the fact that people are preferring to watch the content on the ABC's other channels or iView. But I think it's much more than that.

It seems to me that even the ABC's traditional audience is starting to tire of the obvious and relentless bias in so many of its shows. And that's because they're finally considering other points of view.

In the past, there was a real lack of outlets with views different to the left-leaning ABC. Sure, the commercial mainstream media organizations were a bit closer to the centre, but they were still "soft left". Even the papers that the Left loves to demonize as conservative, like The Australian, included a range of opinions, much as they do now. The only overtly conservative, right-wing opinions could be found on commercial talkback radio (which was, and remains, concentrated in Sydney) and a few small circulation magazines, the most notable being Quadrant. 

In the last ten years or so we've had the rise of the blogosphere, where anyone who wanted to have a growl about politics was able to do so. While blogs are written from all perspectives, those from the right of the political spectrum have done extremely well. Part of the reason for that was because they were the most passionate and rebellious.

So the dreary PC perspective of the ABC has really had a shake up. Countless people who hadn't considered conservative viewpoints, or were just too scared to express them, were invigorated by the rise of the blogosphere. And this new found irreverence has bled into the wider culture, so that even tragic ABC-watching luvvies have started to think in new ways about the issues of the day.

This process has been magnified by the huge explosion in social media use. While Twitter is dominated by lefties in this country, RWDB tweeps are slowly gaining on them. And I think that on Facebook they actually have the upper hand over the Left. Just type the word Gillard into the Facebook search box and you'll see just how many pages there are devoted to sledging our PM.

Basically, all these factors are combining to increase conservative "mind share" in Australia. As a result, the relentless narrow-mindedness of those behind ABC shows like Insiders is now obvious to a greater number of viewers than ever before. And that's why so many of them are switching off.

What do you think? Is this the main cause or are other factors involved?

Reaction to Kochie's comments about breastfeeding in public

Just couldn't believe the ruckus over David Koch's recent comments about breastfeeding in public (though I was relieved that no media outlet resorted to that ol' standby "storm in a D-cup" when describing it). The episode certainly did give new meaning to the term "freedom of expression", eh?

The fact that so many chicks with sprogs were so outraged about what he said is another sign that the idiotic hair-trigger bolshevism usually associated with childless leftie feminists has now gone mainstream. While some of them are no doubt lesbian couples a la Penny Wong and her significant other, I assume the majority would have done things the, er, old fashioned way.

And I pity the men in those unions. They'd have to be treading on eggshells the whole time. I mean, if their partners go ballistic over some TV personality's quite innocuous observation about breastfeeding, then you've gotta wonder how they would react to an unwanted answer to the question "Does my bum look big in this?".

But the general over-reaction isn't nearly as much of a worry as some of the specific statements of one of the women who weighed in on the issue:

The Australian Breastfeeding Association slammed Koch's remarks but said it was an opportunity to educate the Australian public about the need to support breastfeeding mothers.

"It is an opportunity to say (Koch's) comments are illegal: you can't discriminate against any mother at any time," spokesperson Meredith Laverty said.

Which just goes to show there are a lot of thick, totalitarian types out there who must be pleased as punch about Nicola Roxon's creepy plan to make offending people against the law.

The censorious Ms Laverty then added this odd observation:

"(Babies) just don't choose when they're hungry. We don't ask people to duck off into the toilet to have their lunch. I thought our society was past this."

Well, no. That would be extremely unhygeinic, apart from anything else. That said, I'm sure members of one extreme minority group, coprophagists, would beg to differ. Hell, they'll prolly be the next group arcing up about how they're routinely discriminated against!

Gawd. Imagine what kind of hijinks would occur at a demo held by these crazy cats. And what would we call them? The bolshie breast-feeders call themselves lactivists, so what would these be, craptivists? Still, at least they wouldn't be scowling, since they'd all be sporting shit-eating grins ... 

A victim of sleaze and smear who's done nothing wrong

Just watched Julia Gillard on Meet the Press. Paul Bongiorno not only raised the issue of the AWU scandal, but even asked her some questions about her honesty. Amazing!

As usual she stonewalled, constantly repeating phrases about Abbott's negativity, how she'd done nothing wrong, and her current fave, the Coalition's "sleze and smear" tactics. (Hell, she must have repeated that last one about a dozen times.)

Rattling off these lines one after the other is all she ever does when asked about the issue. Her approach is utterly mind-numbing.

Actually, I think that is one of its aims ... It's as if she's attempting to just grind down any interest in her involvement in the scandal by sheer, bloody-minded persistence. She sees it as a battle of wills. She's decided to just dig her heels in and hang on until her critics throw their hands up in exasperation and walk away. That always worked in the past, she figures, so she'll just keep using it now.

But I think this tactic is past its use-by date. The AWU scandal has already gathered heaps of momentum in the media, with formerly obsequious journos now daring to probe her on it -- and there's still so much more to come out. The Opposition know that the more she stonewalls on the issue the dodgier she looks to the electorate, who are finally getting interested in it in a big way.

Of course the constant mantra of "I did nothing wrong" and "Abbott's a negative misogynist using sleaze and smear against me" will continue to work on the Labor-loving moron demographic. But they're the only ones buying it now, I reckon. 

Leigh Sales, Tony Jones now misogynist nut-jobs

It's really heartening to see the ABC finally start to investigate this AWU scandal. Better late than never, as they say ... 

With the likes of Leigh sales and Tony Jones asking some hard-ish questions regarding the scandal, Gillard's description of those curious about her involvement in it as "misogynists and nut-jobs" seems even more absurd than it did when she first used it at that press conference back in August. 

It's going to be very interesting to see what happens in the coming days. Will Gillard change course? She must be under huge pressure to do so and be more forthcoming.

Still, having denied any wrongdoing so unequivocally before, to admit any now will only make her look doubly dishonest. That's why I think she's probably going to keep toughing it out indefinitely.

Yet new information surfaces every couple of  days, it seems. And every time it does, Gillard has more questions to answer. This really must be getting to others in the party. Surely there will come a time when they feel they just have to act and get rid of her?

Do missing AWU files spell doom for Gillard?

I never thought I would find white collar crime remotely fascinating, but I've gotta say this whole AWU scandal has me completely hooked. (Actually, is white collar the right term? It involves roughneck union heavies, so maybe "light blue" is more apt ...)

In any case, it's unfolding before our eyes like some fictional political thriller. There were those diary entries from Ian Cambridge last week. Now there are revelations about several missing files. And Julie Bishop is doing a fine job pursuing this issue.

Ms Bishop said it ''beggared belief'' that documents held in government and court archives could disappear.

''Now this is starting to smell like a cover-up, this is starting to smell like somebody is deliberately destroying documents because if these files in Western Australia and Queensland are not located quickly the police must investigate,'' she said in an interview with Channel Ten's Bolt Report.

As Michael Smith says on his blog, stealing files like this is an extremely serious offence. So if they didn't just get misplaced (highly unlikely) then something has to be done.

If nothing is done, well, that will be deeply disturbing and depressing -- but hardly surprising.

I'm really curious about how this will all turn out. Some commentators are saying that all these developments combined spell doom for Gillard, and soon. But I'm not so sure.

Gillard's been running a completely dysfunctional government pretty much the whole time, and she's still got the backing of her party. I think she'll just keep brazenly ignoring all this stuff until the bitter end, which will come at the next election.

What has been truly astonishing about the AWU scandal is how the majority of journos have willfully ignored it. Imagine if it related to Abbott's or Julie Bishop's past conduct. Every leftie hack in the entire country would be pursuing it with a vengeance, chasing every angle imaginable. But since it pertains to Gillard, most are just desperate to look the other way.

With Royal Commissions all the rage now, there should be one into the Fourth Estate. There's something truly dodgy going on there!

More depressing still is how Gillard's approval ratings have remained quite high, and have even gone up recently. There must be a lot of Aussies who have bought the PM's media cheer squad's line of "nothin' to see here, folks, so you should all just move along". 

My advice to these voters is that on the contrary, there's plenty! You just have to go looking for it, that's all. 

Chaser boys sledge Alan Jones on The Hamster Wheel

I wasn't surprised that The Hamster Wheel really went to town on Alan Jones last night. Lots of gags about his off-colour comments regarding Julia Gillard's father's death, of course. But also some nasty stuff about his sexuality; stuff that would provoke howls of outrage and rampant accusations of homophobia if it were aimed at a darling of the Left (Bob Brown for example).

Of course PC lefties would counter that accusation of a double standard by saying that Bob Brown is out and proud. So he cannot be criticized. But isn't a person's sexuality his business? If he prefers to keep it private shouldn't "compassionate", "tolerant", "progressive" people respect that, regardless of his political affiliations. If they don't they're just subordinating gay rights issues to partisan politics, surely a backward step. What do they wanna do, take us back to the fifties? 

Still on double standards, and sexuality: If you're going to bring up the decades-old story of Jones being arrested in a public toilet, then why not make jokes about a much more contemporary scandal; one involving a very well known and successful broadcaster being sprung downloading thousands of images of kiddy porn, for example?

The story of former ABC celebrity Andy Muirhead's trial and incarceration has been hogging the headlines of late. If anyone's just askin' for a cruel piss-take it's that guy, surely. And the Chaser boys could really have run amok with their "collector" gags!

Gee, I wonder why they didn't go there? Aren't they fearless satirists committed to waging a "war on everything?" Was it because they're too gutless to show their employer in a negative light, therefore risking their jobs? Oh no, that couldn't possibly be ...

And the show is supposed to be political satire with a media focus, right? So why no mockery of the hilariously desperate and silly attempts by every Labor pollie and his dog (as well as some commentators) to link Jones's comments to Tony Abbott? Nope. Instead they just joined the pile-on on the conservative broadcaster. 

The Jones material took up a lot of the show. It was followed by a reality TV parody mocking Tom Cruise and the Church of Scientology. Good on them for taking the piss out of that organization, but if they want to find more locally relevant and extreme examples of group-think to subvert with their courageously irreverent humour then why don't they try looking a little closer to home? The retarded, inward-looking culture of the ABC contains an abundance of juicy targets for sharp-eyed satirists.

If they were to do this The Hamster Wheel might even draw a bigger audience. And it would be one containing fewer parasitic sneering hipsters, and more of the productive, thoughtful people the organization is purported to serve. What a heartening subversion of the dominant paradigm that'd be! They are the ones who are paying for it, after all.

Greg Combet accuses Tony Abbott of zoophobia

Shenanigans in Canberra have had a distinctly zoological theme lately. First there was all that faux outrage over Cory Bernardi's statements alluding to bestiality.

Labor and the love media clearly misrepresented him. He was just using hyperbole to express a slippery slope argument. The worst that can be said about his choice of imagery was that it, er, humped the shark. But he certainly wasn't arguing that gay sex was on a par with bestiality. And that was what many of his critics were insinuating.

More recently, Greg Combet sledged Tony Abbott over his fondness for critter-themed language.

"Previously he has described the carbon price as 'another cash cow', 'a python squeeze', 'a cobra strike', 'a dog of a tax', and today it was 'an octopus'," Mr Combet said.

"What's he got against animals?

Labor are so desperate to demonize this guy it's just hilarious. They accuse him of misogyny, homophobia, hatred of walls ... And now he's a zoophobe as well!

It's also pretty ironic when Doug Cameron recently called Ron Boswell a dinosaur. Then there's the fact that Tony Abbot has often been likened to an "attack dog" by those in the press gallery, most of whom are card carrying Labor luvvies. Oh, and then there was that time that Bob Hawke said Abbott was "mad as a cut snake"...

What have the ALP got against animals?

Misogynists and nut-jobs smear a Labor favourite

Julia Gillard really thinks she's on a winner with this tactic of smearing anyone who has questions about her role in the AWU scandal as a misogynist, nut-job, or idiot. It's a typically cheap, nasty tactic that her party has used earlier  -- for example when Tony Abbott was snapped with a placard behind him saying she was "Bob Brown's bitch". Her ministers all went into overdrive equating this one little incident with ugly "American style" lunacy and hatefulness.

Cynical ALP spin doctors were right in thinking that Oz hacks would run hard with this angle. After all, lazy, sneering Aussie journos have been milking the cow of anti-Americanism for decades now. There's a ready made smear machine all fired up and ready to go!

And it's a powerful machine, considering how many in the press gallery are tragic, jelly-backed Labor luvvies. But the tide is turning. Huge numbers of Aussies have had more than a gut-full of the way the MSM are acting like spin doctors for the Government on this.

So they're turning to social media and the blogosphere instead. Larry Pickering's websites and Facebook page are getting eye-boggling numbers. Have a squizz at the comment threads and you'll get some idea of just how many people are fired up about this. Then there's Michael Smith's blog. It's only been up for a coupla weeks but it has already garnered over 200 000 page views.

There's a big shift happening now. No wonder Gillard is packin' death. She won't sue, though, because that would risk the whole sleazy affair being opened up and investigated even more thoroughly in the long term. Hence she's employing what she thinks is a tried and true tactic with the "nutjobs and misogynists" smear. But it's another error of judgement from someone who's made many already. 

Of course no one will end up being shot in the streets as a result of this unrest. But I can't help thinking this is a little bit like the recent Twitter and Facebook revolutions in the Middle East. Autocratic rulers tried to perpetuate their narrative through official mainstream media channels that they controlled completely. But it didn't work because everyone just turned to the internet and Twittered and Facebooked their way to freedom instead!

Will Sasha Burden appear on Q and A?

You've probably heard of Sacha Burden, the uni student who anonymously dropped a bucket on the Herald Sun after doing an internship there as part of her course.

She's been publicly unmasked and mercilessly pilloried for what she did by the likes of Andrew Landeryou. Still, what does she expect? If you're gonna sledge people, then you should at least have the integrity to put your name to what you do. Actually, the affair probably wouldn't have garnered anywhere near the amount of meeja attention that it has had she actually done that in the first place.

Not surprisingly, Landeryou has received a lot of abuse as a result of his post on her. And he's gleefully returning the favour.

Burden's fellow travellers clearly believe that she (and they) should not be made accountable for what they do and say. They're forever smearing others with nasty, false accusations and they expect that the objects of their scorn should just go along with it and not bite back. Only spoiled children have such an obnoxious, born-to-rule mentality. (This is one of the leftist's key psychological characteristics: A gargantuan sense of entitlement combined with severe emotional immaturity.)

It's sooo annoying. Whenever I talk to lefties I'm forever biting my tongue because I just want to say: "Awferfackssake! Don't you get it? It's not about you. Stop whining and bloody well grow up before it's too late!" But I know that the vast majority of them will never do that. They are doomed to remain in that sanctimonious and stunted state their entire lives. Sad and scary all at once.

Not surprisingly much of the leftist squawkin' 'n' squitterin' in support of Burden has occurred on Twitter. And it has come mostly from tweeps who don't have the balls to use their own names.

It's such a pervasive phenomenon, this. Take Q and A. Whenever some tragic PC numpty like Jane Caro says something utterly cringeworthy and self-parodic a whole stream of suck-tweets will appear on the bottom of the screen. And almost all of them will be from tweeps with clearly fictional handles.

Really, the correlation is so noticeable it would be good fodder for a thorough statistical analysis. Some sociology student should do an Honours thesis on it, I reckon. (Still, she'd have to spin the study in a politically correct way so as not to be given a big fat fail. Perhaps she could hypothesise that it's because of fear of News Ltd unmasking them that they don't use their real names?)

But just on the subject of Q and A: Burden does strike me as being just the kind of sneering hipster the producers use to maintain their relentless left-wing bias. There have been many young, utterly clueless panellists whose inclusion was obviously due to the fact that they recently received meeja coverage for some idiotic leftist pronouncement or other. Burden might have to make more news to be considered panel-ready, of course. Still, she's got a meeja profile now, so she's well on the way.

I'm guessing there's a good chance that she will be asked on the show eventually. If and when she does appear, those anonymous suck-tweets will form a river, not just a stream.

Baffled by Andy Muirhead's motivations

Former ABC host Andy Muirhead has been found guilty of accessing child pornography. Obviously there is, and will continue to be, a lot of condemnation of this guy, much of it entirely justified. It goes without saying that what he has admitted to doing is deeply revolting and wrong on so many levels.

Still, you've got to feel sorry for him, too. His defence lawyer said "his fall from grace had been significant and it was unlikely Muirhead would ever work in his chosen industry again".

That's certainly true. And he will probably find getting any kind of professional work difficult. This conviction will haunt him for the rest of his days -- and not just work-wise. Anyone who knows him now or is yet to meet him will be aware of the case and it will colour their judgement of him.

I find the whole thing baffling in a couple of ways. There's the general incomprehension of wondering how anyone could become compelled to view this material, and so much of it. That's the first thing.

Everybody knows that viewing child porn is a criminal offence, and that if you do it you'll eventually be caught. So why do such people keep going, and not seek help?

There's another mystery: Why would someone in such a high profile position do it? Muirhead must have known that his getting caught would garner a lot of publicity, which would be sure to increase his humiliation.

Not sure if he had any training as a journalist, since he was a presenter who started his media career by doing comedy, of all things. But he was working for the bloody ABC for years! He had to have accumulated some media nous, and be more aware than most of legal issues, etc.

So why did he do what he did? I can only suspect that he had some kind of strange Freudian desire to spectacularly ruin his own career and personal life. As to the genesis of that, I have no idea whatsoever ...

UPDATE: I've closed comments because I can't really see what else can be added to this discussion. (Also, one person getting increasingly abusive.)

Olympic shooter Russell Mark condemns D'Arcy and Monk

When this silly gun photo scandal involving Olympic swimmers Nick D'arcy and Kenrick Monk started, several commentators pointed out that shooting was an Olympic sport. They observed that the outrage was all pretty absurd considering that not only were our local sharp shooters not being condemned, they were lauded for their skill in using firearms.

Interestingly, one of them -- Russell Mark -- has weighed in on the kerfuffle. He says that D'arcy and Monk do deserve to be condemned for their actions:

But Mark said the swimmers were holding the weapons in an "aggressive nature".

"One of them did a Chopper Read pose, and I think Nick's got a pistol and is pointing virtually at Kenrick's rib cage, which was an unsafe position. It was an aggressive pose with a firearm ... if I had've done that, I would have been dragged over the coals as well," Mark said.

Maybe he would have been ... And if that were the case it would have been just as silly -- perhaps even sillier -- than the present scandal.

Either way he's certainly identified an aspect of the photos that the AOC finds so offensive. It's the inherent aggression of the pose, and the invocation of the character of a vile Melbourne criminal (who subsequently became a best-selling author, by the way!), that is deemed so appalling.

So the officials' reaction pertains to symbolism more than anything else. The fact that the two swimmers have seemed to celebrate a macho, criminal and coarse side of Australian culture rather than a cuddly, sensitive, caring and sharing one is what the delicate petals at the AOC find so terribly upsetting. 

When such aspects of public behaviour are deemed most important, you know that politically correct lefties are well and truly in charge. Just as well the two swimmers weren't caught on video saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman, or that the carbon tax was a bloody great con.

If that were the case they'd be in even greater strife than they are now!

Bob Brown on Q and A

I did mean to post about Bob Brown's appearance on Q and A earlier, but just haven't had the time until now ...

Not surprisingly, he came out with some jaw-droppingly wrong-headed stuff. His ability to say the complete opposite of what is clearly the truth is truly awesome to behold. His rationale for pushing to clamp down on Murdoch papers is one example:

BOB BROWN: Yes, Gloria. I’ve copped a lot of stick over wanting a media inquiry to look at the very simple fact, ultimately, of having the Journalists’ Code of Ethics upheld in Australia, where so often it’s not. And, you know, unlike doctors or engineers or lawyers, there is no professional organisation which keeps them really in check and I think it’s sad.

TONY JONES: The fear in a lot of journalistic organisations is this will be a restriction of freedom of the press and of freedom of speech.

BOB BROWN: Well, it won't. It will actually help free up the press. The greatest restriction of the press at the moment is Rupert Murdoch. He restricts what you see. He restricts the opinion you get. He restricts what the topic base of the future is. He's got an enormous control, as a non-Australian and a multimillionaire, on what we see, think, hear or read. He has 70% of the papers produced in metropolitan Australia and he's got other very great interests in the media. Now, good on him. But that is very...

Astonishing. He's saying that restricting what journos can say will increase their variety of what is expressed. That's like saying the sun shines at night!

He also wheels out that chestnut about Murdoch controlling 70% of the papers. That's so dodgy. That figure refers to the circulation, and all it proves is that the people really like what Murdoch is selling. Brown just can't bring himself to give people credit for making their own purchasing decisions. If  he had any respect for the majority of Australians, he would at least condemn them for their choices. But he'd much rather view them as puppets being manipulated by the diabolical Rupert. What a revoltingly smug and superior attitude.

Later on, he gets some mildly hostile questions from the audience. He firstly denies that he wants a one world government, then pretty much repeats his desire for one. And whenever he gets some criticism, which he clearly can't cope with at all, he blames Murdoch for it. In his tiny leftist mind he can only ever see people as dupes, never thinking individuals in their own right.

TIM ELLIOTT: The Greens and yourself have been repeatedly calling for one world Government with one vote, one value. Can you please explain to Australians why we should forfeit our sovereignty to the Chinese and Indians who have the numbers to impose their systems and values on us, all but abolishing social welfare, human rights, basic freedoms and turning Australia into a quasi police state.

BOB BROWN: Well, thanks, Tim. I’ve never called for world Government. You have been reading the Murdoch press again.

TONY JONES: No, actually, I suspect he’s probably read your Dear Earthian speech, the thrust of which is that the human race is headed for extinction and the only thing which would save us is a global parliament and a global democracy.

BOB BROWN: Well, I didn’t - I said we have to be aware that we’re on a planet which has finite resources. We're using 120% of the renewable living resources at the moment. We're headed for ten billion people by the second half of this century, according to the United Nations and everybody else on the planet wants to consume as much as we're doing and for that you need two more planets, which we don't have. It’s crunch time. This is a reality. And when it comes to looking at how we work this planet, we’re all in it together and it’s much better that you have a house united rather than divided. I’m not the first person who has spoken about this. Socrates said 2,500 years ago, Tony, that “I’m not a Grecian. I’m not an Athenian. I'm a citizen of the world.” Well, they made him to drink poison. You know this has been something that the tribalist instinct which says we're better than somebody else, and we just heard it, maybe the Chinese or the Indians - I don't subscribe to that. I’m an equal human being with everybody else on the planet. Abraham Lincoln knew that. Einstein knew that. Newton, in the 1760s, wrote about it. Twenty-two US states after the Second World War supported past motions that supported world Government. We have drifted a bit from it and I am talking about a world parliament which is represented. Now, if we're going to have the United Nations function...

TONY JONES: Our questioner has had his hand up for a little while and wants to respond, I think, to what you're saying.

BOB BROWN: Sure.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I mean, isn’t this emblematic of your opposition to freedom? I mean, you’re not denying that you want to take away our freedom to elect an Australian government. You want to control what opinions newspapers can publish. Aren't the Greens the new face of totalitarianism hiding in a koala suit?

BOB BROWN: Well, you are now quoting Miranda Devine from the Murdoch paper. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, I’m not at all. I don’t read Miranda Devine.

Imagine having such a jaundiced view of humanity? Truly sad -- but also scary. Very glad he's gone.