Ray Martin spruiks daughter Jenna's book on The Project

Caught a bit of The Project last night. It really is one of the most nauseating shows there are. As televisual emetics go, it's right up there with Q and A. But while the weekly ABC jawfest makes you queasy with its relentless, bloody-minded bias, it's the Network Ten production's chummy smugness that is so intensely vomitous.

Last night's episode was a perfect example of this. See, "journalistic legend" Ray Martin was on the show, along with his daughter Jenna, who's written a book that seems to have been inspired by living in the shadow of such a famous dad.

Before her appearance, Martin narrated a little segment about troubled celebrity "father-daughter" relationships, the implication being "but Princess Jenna and I are not like that at all". (And I'm sure that's true, by the way. She seems like a nice enough young woman and they're clearly very fond of each other.)

That said, I just found this brazen spruiking just so wrong in several ways -- the grotesque sense of entitlement being one of them. And there was Jenna's obvious excitement at being given this opportunity -- one denied to many far more talented young women lacking the good fortune to have such a well-known and well-connected father, by the way -- as well as the gleeful way she lapped up the obsequious attention from the panel and audience. I mean, wouldn't you be at least a tad ambivalent about this? Wouldn't you wanna do it all, or mostly, on your own steam?

Then there was Ray's creepy delivery. That voice. It's so robotic; so devoid of humanity. Drooling idiots may think it conveys a sense of authority and trust, but to anyone who can actually think it's like the aural equivalent of a Big Mac. It's dreary and bland even when he's narrating some newsworthy event. But now he was telling us about his own daughter -- who'd written a book that seemed to have a lot to do with her relationship with him. Yet his voice was exactly the same. Given that context, his vocal blandness became weirdly repellent. Made me shudder, actually.

The segment was also hugely hypocritical in light of the relentless attacks on Tony Abbott's daughters over alleged nepotism -- many of which I'm sure Ray and other leftie airheads on the show would find not at all unreasonable.

Have a look at the vid. If you don't find yourself gripped by the sudden urge to blow chunks I'll be very surprised.

Sky the dog eaten by sharks. Will animal rights activists see sense now?

Having watched the shark wars unfolding here in Perth, I've been able to see the astonishing misanthropy of greenies close up. These sinister communards purport to care about the human race, but really don't give a tinker's about it. They just care about themselves and their sneering fellow travellers, and would be quite happy for the rest of us to die horribly so that they can inherit the Earth, along with their beloved cockroaches, salamanders and voles.

One of these animal rights creeps was banging on at a demo at Cottesloe a coupla months back. Declaiming against eeevil "Emperor" Barnett's proposed shark mitigation strategy she really let the marsupial cat out of the bag when she said that she didn't care whether his proposed cull would work (ie save human lives) or not. See, she was only concerned with whether it was "just". (You'll hear her say it in this video.) And of course killing sharks was unjust. In other words, she considered human life less valuable than that of big fat toothy fish.

That's why I took note when I read about this sad case of a beloved dog being devoured by noahs up north:

A devastated skipper says his faithful dog Sky was probably trying to protect him when it was taken by a shark off Point Sampson, 1260km north of Perth.

Franz Van Derpoll said he was out catching a fish for dinner with Sky when he saw two sharks circling where he was spear fishing, 6km off Johns Creek Harbour.

"She's probably decided to jump over the side to protect me and when I came up from my second dive there was lots of blood in the water and no dog," he said.

Knowing how deeply shark huggers care about the welfare of non-human persons (animals), I thought such an event might make them start to understand why most Homo sapiens are a tad unsettled at the thought of being guzzled alive during their next dip in the ocean and would like to do some things to reduce the risk of it happening. After all, shark-huggers are indifferent to human suffering, but the suffering of a much loved pet -- sorry, animal companion -- well, their big open nature loving hearts would be able to feel that now wouldn't they?

But on second thoughts I think these hopes were in vain. I'm sure they'd manage to take the sharks' side after some ideological contortions. The dog was enslaved by men -- and fishermen at that. And it was the men who took it onto the shark's domain. So killing Sky was actually an act of of cruel kindness -- a simultaneous act of territorial defence and canine emancipation.

Sharks. Such wise creatures. They can really teach us something, eh?

Abbott's wink during phone sex gran's call causes comical outrage

Just so funny watching the squealing crybabies of the Left going completely and utterly spacko over what was a comparatively mild budget -- and one aimed not at "inflicting cruelty" as they describe it, but rather to undo the massive economic and financial damage wrought by the previous government, surely the worst in living memory.

The explosion of outrage over Tony Abbott's notorious wink during his interview with Jon Faine is the most recent example of this socialist shark-jumping. So insanely obsessed are the leftist squitterati with every aspect of this man's character that even the momentary movement of one of his eyelids is cause for a nationwide paroxysm of foam-spitting indignation.

Sarah Hanson-Young, for example, believes the wink shows him to be "a total creep". This from an overfed, overrated, mental and emotional infant whose reaction to news of scores of people drowning as a result of her inhumane political demands was "accidents happen". Now that is creepy.

And you've gotta wonder what Faine's immediate reaction to this pensioner's declaration that she worked as a sex line worker to make ends meet was. Did he sit there po-faced, solemnly determined not to denigrate the dignity of this poor denizen of the working class by raising an eyebrow or looking askance?

I doubt it. Odds are he was just as amused by the revelation as Abbott was. And I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the lefties listening in were also amused -- before their PC programming kicked in and they managed to stifle their smirks, that is.

Adam Goodes called a gorilla by Essendon fan

With academe, the meeja and big business so chockas with sanctimonious politically correct poseurs determined to puff themselves up and ponce around pointing their fingers at alleged bigots I tend to treat each new claim of discovered racism with more than a little skepticism. And if I look a little further I tend to find that my, er, prejudices have been confirmed. The outrages they're squawking about may be offensive and wrong, but are a long way from being certifiably eeevil. And their hysterical reactions often reveal more about their own conflicted psyches than those of the people they're condemning.

Take the latest incident involving Adam Goodes. Moment I read the headline to this story I thought this was gonna be an over-reaction. And it was:

The incident became public when an Essendon supporter submitted an anonymous post on the club’s fan site, Bomberblitz, two hours after the Bombers’ loss to the Swans.

“I could not believe what I heard from an Essendon member,” the supporter wrote.

“Late in the first quarter, Adam Goodes got his first touch when he received an easy mark just inside 50.

“At that stage, we (were) more than six goals down and no one was too happy that Goodes held the ball within kicking distance. There was … the banter you would expect to hear from a footy crowd.”

Then the supporter claimed he heard someone say: “F*** off, Magilla the gorilla.”

“I turned around and asked loudly, “Who said that?” An adult male replied in a cocky manner, “I did.”

“I shook my head in disbelief. After all our club has done to combat racism on and off the field, this individual thought it was OK to refer to an indigenous player in such a manner. He changed his tune when I pointed him out to security.

“He (the abuser) ruined my family’s night at the footy.”

Notice the egocentric sanctimony of the accuser. He was most miffed because he felt his night was ruined. Always the way with these PC types. They think it's all about them and their noble feelings.

That last bolded section is what I find really interesting. The racial specificity is so revealing ...

I'm not saying that the abusive fan was not motivated by racism. But it's quite possible he wasn't. If he also called beefy white players rock apes and Neanderthals, then you'd have to conclude that he wasn't being racist wouldn't you? Or, if he was, then it would be too difficult to know for sure ...

And publicly calling someone a racist, and punishing him as such, is a pretty serious action. (This Essendon fan has had his membership to the club revoked, by the way.) Imagine if criminal trials were conducted in such a punitive, self-righteous fashion. (Being racist can qualify as a crime, remember.)

It's common knowledge that sporting heavyweights of all races are often described in pretty unflattering terms. I can remember a perfect example from my youth as a keen surfer. There was a powerful, stocky Queenslander called Gary Elkerton. His nickname was "Kong". I'm sure that no one then, or since, thought the moniker was racist.

Why? Because they don't immediately associate simean characteristics with white people. Yet they do when it comes to Aborigines. Why is that?

I mean, there was no explicit reference to Goodes's colour or race in the insult -- at least not in what was reported. If there were, well that would have been racist for sure. But there wasn't ... So why do those taking offence think it was racist, when calling a white person a gorilla wouldn't be seen as such? Do those puffing themselves up with indignation think that Aborigines are more like gorillas than white people? Looks that way to me ...

What do you reckon?

Julian Burnside's bizarre Twitter conspiracy theory

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

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

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

LNP pays $4.3 million a year for trolls to abuse us on Twitter and stalk us on Facebook. Watch out for them; they are easy to spot.
— julianburnside (@JulianBurnside) April 27, 2014

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

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

LNP pays $4.3 million a year for trolls to abuse us on Twitter and stalk us on Facebook. Watch for the #4.3m and point them out
— julianburnside (@JulianBurnside) April 27, 2014

He's been bravely leading by example, trolling tweeps he believes are trousering this filthy lucre, or at least would like to be.

@AyesHavit One of the #4.3m
— julianburnside (@JulianBurnside) April 27, 2014

And what's his source for his crazy conspiracy theory? Seems to be an SMH article, which he's linked to repeatedly.

@howiexxx @weezmgk Try reading this: http://t.co/DBJEMKFhKh I guess you would like to be one of the #4.3m
— julianburnside (@JulianBurnside) April 27, 2014

As you'll see, the article is titled "Social media trawled as Government spends $4.3 million on research contracts".

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

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

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

Thanks for reading, and if you've enjoyed this piece, please consider supporting me via Ko-fi.

Bob Carr's pomposity comes through loud and clear

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mona Eltahawy on Q and A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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