Back in the days of John Howard there was a fascinating process at play. Quite often during his reign, the more the Howard haters whinged and wailed about him, the more he rose in the polls.
As many have said, Howard's ordinariness worked strongly in his favour. He was non-threatening to most, even if they weren't great admirers of him. So when the spiteful, infantile Left arced up about every little thing he did, the majority could see this for the massive ongoing tanty that it actually was. These people are waaay OTT, they thought. Howard doesn't deserve this hate.
And this happened so often often that the Left's infantile squawking became a reliable reverse indicator for many. The more his haters expressed their outrage, the more people suspected that Howard was on the right track. And so his support tended to rise with the volume of their Godawful shrieking -- or at least did not fall as a result of it.
Now, for some reason Abbott hasn't benefited from an equivalent process. I think it's due to several factors, the main one being his devout Catholicism. His love of the monarchy turns off a lot of people too as that Prince Philip knighthood train wreck so vividly illustrated.
Then there's his devotion to physical fitness and his love of boxing. He was also an extremely high achiever academically, having been a Rhodes Scholar. Abbott is a far more extreme character in many ways than Howard was.
The former PM was low-key when it came to religion. And while he was physically fit for his age he didn't swim, run and ride all over the joint like a man possessed. Just did some early morning power-walking in his daggy tracksuit. While obviously intelligent, he was not an academic star in his youth. Unlike Abbott, he wasn't a career high flyer before entering politics. Just ran a modest suburban law practice for many years.
So, there's widespread wariness about Abbott. Even though he craves acceptance and admiration from his countrymen and has clearly won it from those volunteer fire fighters and other ordinary Aussies that he spends to much time with, a high proportion of the population just don't quite trust him. He's a bit too full on and intense for their liking.
But now, after many months in the top job, I think this general mistrust is starting to thaw. They are increasingly willing to see him as a decent but flawed bloke who's competent and rational, and has our best interests at heart. He might make a few crazy calls. But when he does he quickly corrects his mistakes. And he has enough humility to listen to criticism and change his behaviour as a result.
That's why I think that from now on he might start to benefit from the insane rage of his infantile enemies in the same way Howard did. For this reason I think he's got a far better shot at retaining his gig as PM than most of the commentariat believe.
What do you reckon? Will the Abbott-haters win? Or will they win it for him?
Monday, March 9, 2015
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Margolyes abuses Abbott on Q and A. Love media exultant
Didn't see Q and A last night. But clearly the highlight of the show for the armies of child-brained fans on Twitter and in the mainstream media was the moment when pompous Pommie actress Miriam Margolyes called Tony Abbott a tit. They've all been punching the air, crowing triumphantly about this as if it was a crippling blow landed against the Pugilist in Chief.
"Take that Abbott!" they cry. "The daffy ol' actress who played Professor Sprout in the Harry Potter movies called you a tit on our favourite leftie love-in! No man alive could withstand that kind of an assault. You're toast, Tony! Just accept it."
Makes you wonder why so many Aussies would attribute such political power to such a clearly balmy ol' Brit. Hell, she's just another luvvy blowhard spouting the same ol' socialist shite they all do. She has no special interest or expertise in politics ... She's clearly a few plays short of the canon, too! I think all those years of playing mad aunts, wizard instructors and Dickensian scrubbers have taken their toll on the poor woman's psychological health.
Or perhaps she was barking to start with? Do a search for her name and in pretty much every photo that turns up she's sporting this strange purse-lipped smile. Loopy lefties, gruesome greenies and others of their ilk notice this alarming smirk and see it as confirmation she's a mischievous eccentric with searing insights into the workings of the world. But any sensible person would shudder at such a weird default facial expression and see her for what she is: an emotionally retarded simpleton who delights in her own spite; a narcissist who's spent her life in pursuit of adulation from complete strangers.
And thanks to their ABC, she's just been given another way to get it. Better still for Margolyes, this new role of "public intellectual" is even easier than the other fictional ones she usually takes on. No lines to learn or rehearsals required! All she need do is hurl nasty, puerile abuse at conservatives and the job is done.
How could anyone fail to see through her? Those poor pinko dupes. They really are the saddest little puppies in the park aren't they?
"Take that Abbott!" they cry. "The daffy ol' actress who played Professor Sprout in the Harry Potter movies called you a tit on our favourite leftie love-in! No man alive could withstand that kind of an assault. You're toast, Tony! Just accept it."
Makes you wonder why so many Aussies would attribute such political power to such a clearly balmy ol' Brit. Hell, she's just another luvvy blowhard spouting the same ol' socialist shite they all do. She has no special interest or expertise in politics ... She's clearly a few plays short of the canon, too! I think all those years of playing mad aunts, wizard instructors and Dickensian scrubbers have taken their toll on the poor woman's psychological health.
Or perhaps she was barking to start with? Do a search for her name and in pretty much every photo that turns up she's sporting this strange purse-lipped smile. Loopy lefties, gruesome greenies and others of their ilk notice this alarming smirk and see it as confirmation she's a mischievous eccentric with searing insights into the workings of the world. But any sensible person would shudder at such a weird default facial expression and see her for what she is: an emotionally retarded simpleton who delights in her own spite; a narcissist who's spent her life in pursuit of adulation from complete strangers.
And thanks to their ABC, she's just been given another way to get it. Better still for Margolyes, this new role of "public intellectual" is even easier than the other fictional ones she usually takes on. No lines to learn or rehearsals required! All she need do is hurl nasty, puerile abuse at conservatives and the job is done.
How could anyone fail to see through her? Those poor pinko dupes. They really are the saddest little puppies in the park aren't they?
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
John Birmingham claims racism in reaction to Bali Nine duo
Whenever lefties really don't like something they are fond of explaining it away with a false accusation of some sort of bigotry, usually racism. This is because they themselves are fixated on race to an unhealthy degree. Being so emotionally retarded, they are incapable of seeing others as individuals first and foremost, so they must think everyone else has the same primitive world view.
A perfect example of this simplistic analysis is John Birmingham's take on the reasons Australians generally aren't outraged that Chan and Sukumaran are gonna be shot for their crimes. With no evidence whatsoever he concludes it's because they're not white. So "we" don't give a rat's about their fate.
Apart from it being such a lazy little gargle, his own rather alarming prejudice comes through quite clearly. I mean, who is he actually referring to when he says "we"?
Well, he clarifies this to some degree:
And that bullet's coming, partly because 'we' just don't care.
I use the air quotes because some do. But as a whole, as a clan, we do not.
Hmm. Let's just unpack that a little more to see what else he means: He's not including those who themselves aren't white, surely. They couldn't possibly be racist -- least of all against other non-whites.
So by "we" he means white people. He also means Aussies generally (clan, whole). So he's relegating non-whites to a category of, er, non-Australian-ness, isn't he?
Hate to burst Birmo's bolshie little bubble. But Australia is actually a multi-racial nation. And many of those he condemns for not kowtowing to his hand-wringing line on capital punishment are from races other than caucasian.
And the reason they have their view is not because they don't care about Chan and Sukumaran. It's because they loathe the drug trade and believe in a sovereign nation's right to make and enact its own laws. They also know that these drug smugglers knew exactly what they were getting into when they set out to break those laws. It gives them no pleasure that two young lives will be ended in this way. They just figure, well, what did these idiots expect?
Aside from the obvious puerility of Birmingham's race-based analysis, there's clear evidence to refute his claim: Barlow and Chambers, who were white as white can be, were also executed for drug trafficking (by Malaysia in this case).
Back then, just as today, there were those in Australia who were appalled by this punishment and campaigned against it, and those who accepted it without complaint. I recall no massive public outcry against their execution. And this was at a time when our population was much "whiter" than it is now. If the "Blunt Instrument" was accurate the whole nation would have been up in arms about their fate. But that certainly wasn't the case.
If Birmingham is not convinced perhaps he'd like to test the issue in the manner suggested below:
A perfect example of this simplistic analysis is John Birmingham's take on the reasons Australians generally aren't outraged that Chan and Sukumaran are gonna be shot for their crimes. With no evidence whatsoever he concludes it's because they're not white. So "we" don't give a rat's about their fate.
Apart from it being such a lazy little gargle, his own rather alarming prejudice comes through quite clearly. I mean, who is he actually referring to when he says "we"?
Well, he clarifies this to some degree:
And that bullet's coming, partly because 'we' just don't care.
I use the air quotes because some do. But as a whole, as a clan, we do not.
Hmm. Let's just unpack that a little more to see what else he means: He's not including those who themselves aren't white, surely. They couldn't possibly be racist -- least of all against other non-whites.
So by "we" he means white people. He also means Aussies generally (clan, whole). So he's relegating non-whites to a category of, er, non-Australian-ness, isn't he?
Hate to burst Birmo's bolshie little bubble. But Australia is actually a multi-racial nation. And many of those he condemns for not kowtowing to his hand-wringing line on capital punishment are from races other than caucasian.
And the reason they have their view is not because they don't care about Chan and Sukumaran. It's because they loathe the drug trade and believe in a sovereign nation's right to make and enact its own laws. They also know that these drug smugglers knew exactly what they were getting into when they set out to break those laws. It gives them no pleasure that two young lives will be ended in this way. They just figure, well, what did these idiots expect?
Aside from the obvious puerility of Birmingham's race-based analysis, there's clear evidence to refute his claim: Barlow and Chambers, who were white as white can be, were also executed for drug trafficking (by Malaysia in this case).
Back then, just as today, there were those in Australia who were appalled by this punishment and campaigned against it, and those who accepted it without complaint. I recall no massive public outcry against their execution. And this was at a time when our population was much "whiter" than it is now. If the "Blunt Instrument" was accurate the whole nation would have been up in arms about their fate. But that certainly wasn't the case.
If Birmingham is not convinced perhaps he'd like to test the issue in the manner suggested below:
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Shark decapitated. Oh buoy!
The shark wars have certainly been pretty intense over here in the wild west from time to time. But lately, aside from the occasional group shriek and placard rattle from the local Carcharodon cuddlers there haven't been any major new developments. Until now that is.
See, down south at a charming little beach called Meelup a shark's severed head has been discovered stuck on a buoy.
No doubt many Gaia-worshipping activists will be brimming with lefteous indignation over this brazen act of ichthyophobic barbarism. Hell, some of them'll be so upset they'll prolly even drop their bongs and forget to lodge their dole forms.
That's kinda funny, and sad. Whenever they hear of the latest human beheading in the name of Islam most deep green socialists are like, "Meh." And if they are at all upset about it the next step is to assiduously avoid the, er, caliphant in the room and blame the bad ol' USA, Rupert Murdoch, or even Tony Abbott.
Which leads me to the probable identity of the head lopper in this particular case: The obvious choice would be a local surfer or fisherman who takes pleasure in riling shark-huggers.
But given the watery killing's unique and disturbing modus operandi, there's another less likely but still possible explanation. It might just be the first strike in a new campaign by Islamic State. Tired of battling for lands lost long ago, have they decided to defiantly claim the oceans as their own and rid the depths of infidels?
Remember that these people are crazy enough to kill you over a cartoon, and believe they'll be rewarded with 72 virgins in heaven if they blow themselves to smithereens in a crowded cafe. When you're that flat out, howling at the moon insane anything's possible, isn't it?
Frankly, I'll be quite relieved if this is the case. More dead sea fauna means less dead land people. And it will be nice to have the greenies on our side for once -- even if it's only 'cause they believe "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
And it'll be gold for the tabloids. I can see the headlines now:
"The way we sea it." Jihadi describes plans for marine caliphate
Aquatic assassins dubbed Four Frogmen of the Apocalypse killed in massive scuba tank explosion
IS recruitment video extols virtues of porpoise driven life, joys of wet work
Islamic State flag lodged in floating, decapitated sea cow carcass. Oh the hu-manatee!
Headless body in topless aquarium
Hashtag #JeSuisSharkie trending on social media
Any others you'd like to suggest?
See, down south at a charming little beach called Meelup a shark's severed head has been discovered stuck on a buoy.
No doubt many Gaia-worshipping activists will be brimming with lefteous indignation over this brazen act of ichthyophobic barbarism. Hell, some of them'll be so upset they'll prolly even drop their bongs and forget to lodge their dole forms.
That's kinda funny, and sad. Whenever they hear of the latest human beheading in the name of Islam most deep green socialists are like, "Meh." And if they are at all upset about it the next step is to assiduously avoid the, er, caliphant in the room and blame the bad ol' USA, Rupert Murdoch, or even Tony Abbott.
Which leads me to the probable identity of the head lopper in this particular case: The obvious choice would be a local surfer or fisherman who takes pleasure in riling shark-huggers.
But given the watery killing's unique and disturbing modus operandi, there's another less likely but still possible explanation. It might just be the first strike in a new campaign by Islamic State. Tired of battling for lands lost long ago, have they decided to defiantly claim the oceans as their own and rid the depths of infidels?
Remember that these people are crazy enough to kill you over a cartoon, and believe they'll be rewarded with 72 virgins in heaven if they blow themselves to smithereens in a crowded cafe. When you're that flat out, howling at the moon insane anything's possible, isn't it?
Frankly, I'll be quite relieved if this is the case. More dead sea fauna means less dead land people. And it will be nice to have the greenies on our side for once -- even if it's only 'cause they believe "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
And it'll be gold for the tabloids. I can see the headlines now:
"The way we sea it." Jihadi describes plans for marine caliphate
Aquatic assassins dubbed Four Frogmen of the Apocalypse killed in massive scuba tank explosion
IS recruitment video extols virtues of porpoise driven life, joys of wet work
Islamic State flag lodged in floating, decapitated sea cow carcass. Oh the hu-manatee!
Headless body in topless aquarium
Hashtag #JeSuisSharkie trending on social media
Any others you'd like to suggest?
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Chan, Sukumaran's impending executions a consequence of their actions
Really getting sick of all the sanctimonious hand-wringing in relation to the impending executions of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.
Some of the coverage is so one-sided it's just embarrassing. If you didn't already know that they were found guilty of smuggling heroin you would not be able to tell from some of the recent reporting. Would look like Indonesia had just decided to choose a coupla Aussies at random and decided to brutally murder them.
The selectivity of the outrage is also nauseating. If you're gonna arc up about how barbaric the punishment is, then why only do so when it's about to be meted out to your countrymen? Why not campaign against it every time Indonesia executes a drug smuggler (or other kind of criminal, for that matter)? They have done it numerous times, including to their own people.
And all this talk about how Sukumaran has redeemed himself through art is just rubbish. Neither the creation nor the appreciation of art ever made anyone a better person. History is littered with renowned artists who were also A-grade arseholes. In any case, Sukumaran seems pretty mediocre as a painter, although he certainly improved greatly (and good on him for that).
I mean, Hitler was a crap artist. Are we gonna give him cool points for that? (Not that Sukumaran's deeds were anywhere near as ghastly, of course. But the point still holds. It's a truly piss weak argument to say that someone's nascent "sensitivity" should be some sort of get out of jail free card.)
As to whether it's a fair punishment? Well, my own belief is that killing someone for smuggling drugs is certainly OTT. But I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it either.
These guys knew what they were getting into. They were fully aware they were committing a serious crime and that Indonesian law demanded that drug smugglers be executed.
There were historical precedents, too. Barlow and Chambers were executed in Malaysia back in the eighties. Another drug trafficker called Michael McCauliffe bought the farm there in 93. More recently Van Tuong Nguyen was offed in Singapore for the same crime.
Yes, none of these executions occurred in Indonesia. But the context is still relevant. If a nation says they'll top you for doing something they really don't like, best to take them at their word.
Which brings me to the "if only" argument beloved by child-brained pinkos:
But of course lefties will never go that far. That would require a sense of responsibility and morality as well as some common sense. And you just have to give all of those things a wide berth if you wanna build a career out of wringing your hands and wagging your fingers, now don't you?
Some of the coverage is so one-sided it's just embarrassing. If you didn't already know that they were found guilty of smuggling heroin you would not be able to tell from some of the recent reporting. Would look like Indonesia had just decided to choose a coupla Aussies at random and decided to brutally murder them.
The selectivity of the outrage is also nauseating. If you're gonna arc up about how barbaric the punishment is, then why only do so when it's about to be meted out to your countrymen? Why not campaign against it every time Indonesia executes a drug smuggler (or other kind of criminal, for that matter)? They have done it numerous times, including to their own people.
And all this talk about how Sukumaran has redeemed himself through art is just rubbish. Neither the creation nor the appreciation of art ever made anyone a better person. History is littered with renowned artists who were also A-grade arseholes. In any case, Sukumaran seems pretty mediocre as a painter, although he certainly improved greatly (and good on him for that).
I mean, Hitler was a crap artist. Are we gonna give him cool points for that? (Not that Sukumaran's deeds were anywhere near as ghastly, of course. But the point still holds. It's a truly piss weak argument to say that someone's nascent "sensitivity" should be some sort of get out of jail free card.)
As to whether it's a fair punishment? Well, my own belief is that killing someone for smuggling drugs is certainly OTT. But I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it either.
These guys knew what they were getting into. They were fully aware they were committing a serious crime and that Indonesian law demanded that drug smugglers be executed.
There were historical precedents, too. Barlow and Chambers were executed in Malaysia back in the eighties. Another drug trafficker called Michael McCauliffe bought the farm there in 93. More recently Van Tuong Nguyen was offed in Singapore for the same crime.
Yes, none of these executions occurred in Indonesia. But the context is still relevant. If a nation says they'll top you for doing something they really don't like, best to take them at their word.
Which brings me to the "if only" argument beloved by child-brained pinkos:
If only the AFP had arrested them in Australia instead of dobbing them in to the Indonesians. #qanda
— Jane Caro (@JaneCaro) February 9, 2015
Well, if you're gonna say "if only", why stop there? Why not say: If only Chan, Sukumaran and the other members of the Bali Nine had decided not to smuggle the bloody smack in the first place! None of this would have happened, and we'd never have even heard of them.But of course lefties will never go that far. That would require a sense of responsibility and morality as well as some common sense. And you just have to give all of those things a wide berth if you wanna build a career out of wringing your hands and wagging your fingers, now don't you?
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Sad news about Bernie Slattery
Just found out something upsetting. Veteran journalist and blogger Bernie Slattery has died.
I never met Bernie face to face, or even spoke to him on the phone. But he was one of the first bloggers I made contact with when I started blogging myself back in about 2003.
As well as being a wry, witty writer, he was extremely helpful. When I was starting out I remember being flummoxed about how to put links to other blogs on mine. So I asked him how to do this in an e-mail. He didn't need to answer the question himself. Could have just pointed me to a help article or forum thread or something. But he replied with comprehensive instructions that solved my problem.
Over the years I had numerous enjoyable conversations with Bernie via e-mail and in blog comments. I also had a silly OTT leftie character that would troll him. He enjoyed playing along with the gag.
If you look at his blog you'll see he's got a kind face and a twinkle in his eye. That photo certainly captured the spirit that came across loud and clear in all my communication with him. So it's really sad to hear that he has passed away at the comparatively young age of 65.
That said, I'm absolutely sure he lived his life well, with grace and humour, and had a positive effect on many people's lives. So there is some consolation in that.
My deepest sympathies go out to his friends and family.
I never met Bernie face to face, or even spoke to him on the phone. But he was one of the first bloggers I made contact with when I started blogging myself back in about 2003.
As well as being a wry, witty writer, he was extremely helpful. When I was starting out I remember being flummoxed about how to put links to other blogs on mine. So I asked him how to do this in an e-mail. He didn't need to answer the question himself. Could have just pointed me to a help article or forum thread or something. But he replied with comprehensive instructions that solved my problem.
Over the years I had numerous enjoyable conversations with Bernie via e-mail and in blog comments. I also had a silly OTT leftie character that would troll him. He enjoyed playing along with the gag.
If you look at his blog you'll see he's got a kind face and a twinkle in his eye. That photo certainly captured the spirit that came across loud and clear in all my communication with him. So it's really sad to hear that he has passed away at the comparatively young age of 65.
That said, I'm absolutely sure he lived his life well, with grace and humour, and had a positive effect on many people's lives. So there is some consolation in that.
My deepest sympathies go out to his friends and family.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Abbott leadership spill averted. But how did it get to that point?
Good to know that Abbott has survived this push for a leadership spill. And I thought he would head it off at the pass as he has ...
Really, trying to knife their leader was such a stupid thing to do. You've really got to wonder why it even got to this stage.
Well, there are malicious idiots in the LNP (as there are in all political parties). But they are far less common there than in Labor (where they are the norm rather than the exception).
Take this guy Simpkins, who pushed for the spill. Looking like a white-anting arsehat, and with egg all over his face (not unlike half the press gallery including Laurie Oakes, who said Abbott was "dead meat" as I recall) he says he doesn't think he's made any enemies. What a doofus!
And I think timing had a lot to do with it. With the Silly Season just over and Canberra not in full gear, there was little going on politically in Oz (except in Queensland, of course). So Abbott's knighthood gaffe got more attention than it normally would have. The press gallery, chockas with brimming pinkos who want Tony's guts for garters, beat it up as much as they could. Libs with personal vendettas like Dennis Jensen, who've been scheming for months, it seems, decided it was time to strike. As a result there seemed to be much more momentum against Abbott than there actually was.
Sure, Abbott has a problem. But I think he can turn it around -- just. There's no one better to lead the party. Turnbull may be more popular than him, but he wouldn't be a shoo in. And there's ages to go before an election. So much can and will change before then.
Anyway, putting Turnbull at the helm would be an absolute disaster for the LNP. He's not really a conservative. He would destroy its soul. Lefties know this, which is one of the reasons the poisonous pinkos pray for this to happen. But to have people in the party pushing for this too? Well, that's deeply disturbing ...
Really, trying to knife their leader was such a stupid thing to do. You've really got to wonder why it even got to this stage.
Well, there are malicious idiots in the LNP (as there are in all political parties). But they are far less common there than in Labor (where they are the norm rather than the exception).
Take this guy Simpkins, who pushed for the spill. Looking like a white-anting arsehat, and with egg all over his face (not unlike half the press gallery including Laurie Oakes, who said Abbott was "dead meat" as I recall) he says he doesn't think he's made any enemies. What a doofus!
And I think timing had a lot to do with it. With the Silly Season just over and Canberra not in full gear, there was little going on politically in Oz (except in Queensland, of course). So Abbott's knighthood gaffe got more attention than it normally would have. The press gallery, chockas with brimming pinkos who want Tony's guts for garters, beat it up as much as they could. Libs with personal vendettas like Dennis Jensen, who've been scheming for months, it seems, decided it was time to strike. As a result there seemed to be much more momentum against Abbott than there actually was.
Sure, Abbott has a problem. But I think he can turn it around -- just. There's no one better to lead the party. Turnbull may be more popular than him, but he wouldn't be a shoo in. And there's ages to go before an election. So much can and will change before then.
Anyway, putting Turnbull at the helm would be an absolute disaster for the LNP. He's not really a conservative. He would destroy its soul. Lefties know this, which is one of the reasons the poisonous pinkos pray for this to happen. But to have people in the party pushing for this too? Well, that's deeply disturbing ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)