I used to have a lot of respect for Julia Bishop. Then Abbott was knifed, and it became clear that she either knew about the plans to do this way in advance and did nothing, or -- worse still -- was actively involved in the plot.
In the past I saw mostly grace and strength. Now I tend to see calculating self-interest. Here's a small example. At a recent event in Los Angeles JBish was heckled by animal rights activists. Rather than firing back at them or just letting security frogmarch 'em out the door, she actually told them it was okay to have their say.
I think the main reason she did this was because she knew that because they were of the Left, any negativity on her part would have been seized on by the mainstream media, which as we all know is chockas with hand-wringing, finger-pointing SJWs. So, by being so gracious in this situation she guaranteed herself good press, or at last no condemnation from the usual suspects.
Then there's the possibility that she actually sympathized with these shouty loons. But you never quite know with her. She's very calculating and hides her real sympathies well.
If you think that's too long a bow then imagine how she would have reacted if some less PC protesters -- say those against Islamic immigration -- were to start shrieking at her. Think she'd have been so polite to them?
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Ask Izzy app right up Malcolm Turnbull's alley
Yesterday, heard Malcolm Turnbull on the wireless spruiking an app for homeless people to access services called Ask Izzy. Easy to see why he was so over the moon about it. After all, it was an example of the cutting edge digital technology that the ultra-wired PM just adores. So he could use his fave phrases about agility, etc:
“This application, this website, is the type of innovative, collaborative and agile thinking that success in today’s world demands,” Turnbull said.
The cliches were comin' thick and fast. Half-expected him to say "because of this app, there's never been a more exciting time to be homeless!".
The fact that it was meant to help society's downtrodden gave it that touchy-feely, huggy-wuggy element that those full of a sense of their own moral virtue find so intoxicating.
“It’s an example of using all the resources at our disposal to harness the power of technology to make a difference. [What] you’ve done is an example of what can be achieved when a social conscience, when deep love combines with technology, pragmatism and focus on the customer.
“This is an outstanding example of everything successful, progressive, compassionate, 21st century Australia will be. A country that is known for its innovation, for its compassion, for its love and support of those less fortunate.”
Dunno about you, but parts of that passage make a tad queasy -- especially the bit about "deep love". Blech! Last time "deep love combined with technology" was when Malcolm took a selfie. And the same narcissistic emotions were motivating him at the launch, IMO. He was saying "Look at moi. I care!"
So Turnbull was getting a nice big shot of gooey feels by launching the app -- as were the mostly left-leaning hacks present by reporting it. So good press was guaranteed. Much more appealing than making hard decisions about serious issues that affect the whole country. You know, like the threat of terrorism.
Which is not to say that homelessness is not a serious issue that needs to be addressed. But with an app?
I don't doubt the goodwill of those who created it. They were sincerely trying to help, I'm sure. But how many people are gonna use it, really? Ever seen a hobo with a smartphone?
Me neither.
“This application, this website, is the type of innovative, collaborative and agile thinking that success in today’s world demands,” Turnbull said.
The cliches were comin' thick and fast. Half-expected him to say "because of this app, there's never been a more exciting time to be homeless!".
The fact that it was meant to help society's downtrodden gave it that touchy-feely, huggy-wuggy element that those full of a sense of their own moral virtue find so intoxicating.
“It’s an example of using all the resources at our disposal to harness the power of technology to make a difference. [What] you’ve done is an example of what can be achieved when a social conscience, when deep love combines with technology, pragmatism and focus on the customer.
“This is an outstanding example of everything successful, progressive, compassionate, 21st century Australia will be. A country that is known for its innovation, for its compassion, for its love and support of those less fortunate.”
Dunno about you, but parts of that passage make a tad queasy -- especially the bit about "deep love". Blech! Last time "deep love combined with technology" was when Malcolm took a selfie. And the same narcissistic emotions were motivating him at the launch, IMO. He was saying "Look at moi. I care!"
So Turnbull was getting a nice big shot of gooey feels by launching the app -- as were the mostly left-leaning hacks present by reporting it. So good press was guaranteed. Much more appealing than making hard decisions about serious issues that affect the whole country. You know, like the threat of terrorism.
Which is not to say that homelessness is not a serious issue that needs to be addressed. But with an app?
I don't doubt the goodwill of those who created it. They were sincerely trying to help, I'm sure. But how many people are gonna use it, really? Ever seen a hobo with a smartphone?
Me neither.
Friday, January 29, 2016
PC Barbie doll range hopes to placate feminists
I've often wondered what the key psychological driver in the tiny mind of the typical lefty social engineer actually is. Several come to mind including his desperate need to control others, and his valuing of emotions above thought.
But I think the main one might just be plain' ol' arrested development. Emotionally, SJWs are stuck at the level of a spoiled toddler who thinks she is the centre of the universe, and that everything should be absolutely perfect just for her. Her delicate fee-fees must be catered to at all times. And if she wills it, then it must be so!
Nowhere is this pathology more obvious than in politically correct victim feminism. In frightbats' tiny, toxic minds all the world is a playpen, and all the men and women merely dolls. So it's no wonder they've been waging a decades long, er, shehad against Barbie.
Even way back in the nineties I can recall the feminist chicks I knew squawkin' and squealin' about how Barbie was a tool of the patriarchy -- a way of inculcating girls into the "beauty myth". And I suspect that one of the main reasons the iconic Barbie hasn't been selling so well in recent years is because of this ongoing campaign to demonize it.
In an effort to lift sales Mattel has decided to make the dolls more reflective of diversity. So now you can get a whole range of them in various shapes, sizes and skin tones. (I'm surprised that there isn't a transgender version already. But I suspect there will be a "Caitlyn-Barbie" on the shelves before too long.)
Somehow I can't see these new toys -- especially the curvy one -- reversing the company's fortunes. IMO Mattel have opted into the SJW worldview. They are offering consumers what they think they should want, rather than what they actually do want.
If feminists haven't already started to deride this line they will do in time. Like spoiled little girls in the toy aisle, they've demanded yet another doll. But even that is not good enough. They'll chuck a tanty and throw it down on the ground before long. Just you watch.
But I think the main one might just be plain' ol' arrested development. Emotionally, SJWs are stuck at the level of a spoiled toddler who thinks she is the centre of the universe, and that everything should be absolutely perfect just for her. Her delicate fee-fees must be catered to at all times. And if she wills it, then it must be so!
Nowhere is this pathology more obvious than in politically correct victim feminism. In frightbats' tiny, toxic minds all the world is a playpen, and all the men and women merely dolls. So it's no wonder they've been waging a decades long, er, shehad against Barbie.
Even way back in the nineties I can recall the feminist chicks I knew squawkin' and squealin' about how Barbie was a tool of the patriarchy -- a way of inculcating girls into the "beauty myth". And I suspect that one of the main reasons the iconic Barbie hasn't been selling so well in recent years is because of this ongoing campaign to demonize it.
In an effort to lift sales Mattel has decided to make the dolls more reflective of diversity. So now you can get a whole range of them in various shapes, sizes and skin tones. (I'm surprised that there isn't a transgender version already. But I suspect there will be a "Caitlyn-Barbie" on the shelves before too long.)
Somehow I can't see these new toys -- especially the curvy one -- reversing the company's fortunes. IMO Mattel have opted into the SJW worldview. They are offering consumers what they think they should want, rather than what they actually do want.
If feminists haven't already started to deride this line they will do in time. Like spoiled little girls in the toy aisle, they've demanded yet another doll. But even that is not good enough. They'll chuck a tanty and throw it down on the ground before long. Just you watch.
Sunday, January 24, 2016
The rabidity of the feminists
"The rabidity of the feminists." Hmm. Has a ring to it, eh? It's not unlike The Silence of the Lambs. Could be the title of a comedy horror movie, actually...
And why such a strong link? I think it's because the two words are almost synonymous. Sure, not all rabid ones are feminists, but pretty much every feminist is rabid. (Humour, on the other hand, is rare in them. It's why so much right-on "comedy" makes you wanna barf, not laugh.)
Given this association, it's not surprising that the Oxford Dictionary uses "rabid feminist" as an example to illustrate the adjective's meaning. Hilariously, feminists unwittingly confirmed its validity with their, er, rabidity -- something the dictionary's official Twitter feed elegantly pointed out:
She prolly woulda labelled it harassment, and called in the plods! I can just imagine the scene outside the publishing house: "Let's get some muscle over here. Throw the book at the book!" Given how ludicrously thin-skinned, petty and punitive today's feminist chicks are, this is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility.
And why such a strong link? I think it's because the two words are almost synonymous. Sure, not all rabid ones are feminists, but pretty much every feminist is rabid. (Humour, on the other hand, is rare in them. It's why so much right-on "comedy" makes you wanna barf, not laugh.)
Given this association, it's not surprising that the Oxford Dictionary uses "rabid feminist" as an example to illustrate the adjective's meaning. Hilariously, feminists unwittingly confirmed its validity with their, er, rabidity -- something the dictionary's official Twitter feed elegantly pointed out:
If you click on the tweet they're citing you'll see that the feminist in this case was male, not female -- which might have been one of the reasons that they decided to skewer him. Dread to think what the reaction would have been like if the offended tweep had been a sob sister instead.If only there were a word to describe how strongly you felt about feminism… https://t.co/mAsmjUBoOs— Oxford Dictionaries (@OxfordWords) January 22, 2016
She prolly woulda labelled it harassment, and called in the plods! I can just imagine the scene outside the publishing house: "Let's get some muscle over here. Throw the book at the book!" Given how ludicrously thin-skinned, petty and punitive today's feminist chicks are, this is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Kate Smurthwaite hectors Milo Yiannopoulos on The Big Questions
Pretty clear to any sane adult that "feminism" is now a dirty word. And that's not because of what its critics say about it. It's clearly a direct consequence of its proponents' beliefs and actions over many years. The movement is now almost completely dominated by obnoxious, entitled, childish bores who are just running amok all over the joint, getting away with bloody murder!
Feminists say they wanna be equal with men. Then they say all men are arseholes (which is of course bollocks). But hey, if being arseholes is what they aspire to they should pat themselves on the back. They've achieved that goal, sure as shit!
To see just how toxic and balmy these chicks have become you should check out the last episode of BBC's The Big Questions. The debate question itself illustrated the Beeb's anti-male bias: "Does social media reveal men's hatred for women?" So drearily right-on, it was clearly a set up for the bolshie broads to bang on about online misogyny -- which of course they did.
One of them was the socialist sleb Kate Smurthwaite. Her toxic personality came across loud and clear. Most alarming was her obvious lack of a sense of humour. That she's a successful "comedian" says heaps about how poisonously politically correct that scene is these days.
She femterrupted advocate for the "no" case Milo Yiannopoulus (who, unlike Kate and her sob sister Connie St Louis, actually came prepared with some hard data to back his claims up) repeatedly when he was speaking, while he let her and others have their say and remained polite. She even called for him to be locked up -- and she was not joking! Amazingly, the debate moderator just let this pass.
This alleged comic was kinda funny, but in a sad way... She was also scary. Imagine what she and her ilk would do if they had real power? Gawd.
Feminists like Smurthwaite detest the label "feminazi". But she wants to throw someone in jail for tweetin'. What could be more fascist than that?
Can just imagine what her gigs are like: heaps of male-bashing and witless whining about misogyny that doesn't exist. If she does get laughs they're not dinkum, just the strained guffaws of sneering hipsters desperately trying to prove they're not sexist. And what does she do if someone heckles her? Call the plods to arrest her for harassment?
To the left of Milo (literally -- and politically, I think) sat Ella Whelan of Spiked Online. She challenged Smurthwaite's view at one point. When she did, the crybully called this "annoying background noise". Misogyny, much?
Really, it was just a train wreck. I could vent for ages about her, St Louis, the host and even a tragic virtue-signalling mangina in the audience. But I just don't have time.
Anyhoo, have a look. You'll really see what I mean.
Feminists say they wanna be equal with men. Then they say all men are arseholes (which is of course bollocks). But hey, if being arseholes is what they aspire to they should pat themselves on the back. They've achieved that goal, sure as shit!
To see just how toxic and balmy these chicks have become you should check out the last episode of BBC's The Big Questions. The debate question itself illustrated the Beeb's anti-male bias: "Does social media reveal men's hatred for women?" So drearily right-on, it was clearly a set up for the bolshie broads to bang on about online misogyny -- which of course they did.
One of them was the socialist sleb Kate Smurthwaite. Her toxic personality came across loud and clear. Most alarming was her obvious lack of a sense of humour. That she's a successful "comedian" says heaps about how poisonously politically correct that scene is these days.
She femterrupted advocate for the "no" case Milo Yiannopoulus (who, unlike Kate and her sob sister Connie St Louis, actually came prepared with some hard data to back his claims up) repeatedly when he was speaking, while he let her and others have their say and remained polite. She even called for him to be locked up -- and she was not joking! Amazingly, the debate moderator just let this pass.
This alleged comic was kinda funny, but in a sad way... She was also scary. Imagine what she and her ilk would do if they had real power? Gawd.
Feminists like Smurthwaite detest the label "feminazi". But she wants to throw someone in jail for tweetin'. What could be more fascist than that?
What are you in for
Murder
What are you in for
Rape
What are you in for
Grand theft auto
What are you in for
A TWEET
— Milo Yiannopoulos ✘ (@Nero) January 18, 2016
Can just imagine what her gigs are like: heaps of male-bashing and witless whining about misogyny that doesn't exist. If she does get laughs they're not dinkum, just the strained guffaws of sneering hipsters desperately trying to prove they're not sexist. And what does she do if someone heckles her? Call the plods to arrest her for harassment?
To the left of Milo (literally -- and politically, I think) sat Ella Whelan of Spiked Online. She challenged Smurthwaite's view at one point. When she did, the crybully called this "annoying background noise". Misogyny, much?
Really, it was just a train wreck. I could vent for ages about her, St Louis, the host and even a tragic virtue-signalling mangina in the audience. But I just don't have time.
Anyhoo, have a look. You'll really see what I mean.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Sad story of Leisel Jones illustrates the importance of fatherhood
One of the many toxic beliefs promoted by today's heavily misandrist feminists is that fatherhood doesn't really matter much. They say that there's nothing useful those eeevil, soulless males can supply to the creation and maintenance of a happy family -- apart from the sperm, of course. Therefore the kids won't be damaged by the absence of their biological father -- or a non-related male role model, for that matter.
This belief has been thoroughly debunked in many ways, such as the widespread phenomenon of children of in vitro programs seeking out their sperm donor progenitors in adulthood. It's pretty clear that people really need to know who sired them to get some kind of complete sense of their own identity, even if they don't maintain contact with that person.
I've met several people who have expressed deep regret that they never really knew their dads. I've also known a few blokes who were gutted that they lost touch with their kids. There are countless true tales in the media about the scars such an absence can cause, too. Champion swimmer Leisel Jones's sad story is a recent one.
She had a rift with her father a long time ago which never healed. He's gone and popped his clogs without any sort of reunion occurring. The fact that Leisel Jones says she feels no sadness just makes it sadder still to read about. I don't know the details of course. And I'm no shrink. But it seems likely to me that the hurt is so deep she's presently kinda numb:
'I haven't spoken to him in 17 years but I don't feel any anger or sadness.
'If you are a Dad, please give your kids a big hug and accept them for who they are.
Little girls in particular need a strong male figure in their life that have their back and can teach them things in life that only a dad can.'
Of course the more right-on types would think that such a statement just shows the extent to which Ms Jones has been brainwashed by the patriarchy. But I think she's expressing a deep and universal truth.
Men and women are different but equal. A kid needs a mother and a father -- preferably the ones who contributed the DNA that created her. If for whatever reason this bond breaks (or is not formed in the first place) it causes huge psychological damage.
A situation in which a kid doesn't know or is alienated from his dad should be avoided if at all possible. But now, because so much of what we used to value in society has been trashed by leftie cultural revolutionaries, such alienation is commonplace. Truly tragic. And it looks like it's just gonna keep getting worse ...
Related book: Do Fathers Matter? What Science is Telling Us About the Parent We've Overlooked
This belief has been thoroughly debunked in many ways, such as the widespread phenomenon of children of in vitro programs seeking out their sperm donor progenitors in adulthood. It's pretty clear that people really need to know who sired them to get some kind of complete sense of their own identity, even if they don't maintain contact with that person.
I've met several people who have expressed deep regret that they never really knew their dads. I've also known a few blokes who were gutted that they lost touch with their kids. There are countless true tales in the media about the scars such an absence can cause, too. Champion swimmer Leisel Jones's sad story is a recent one.
She had a rift with her father a long time ago which never healed. He's gone and popped his clogs without any sort of reunion occurring. The fact that Leisel Jones says she feels no sadness just makes it sadder still to read about. I don't know the details of course. And I'm no shrink. But it seems likely to me that the hurt is so deep she's presently kinda numb:
'I haven't spoken to him in 17 years but I don't feel any anger or sadness.
'If you are a Dad, please give your kids a big hug and accept them for who they are.
Little girls in particular need a strong male figure in their life that have their back and can teach them things in life that only a dad can.'
Of course the more right-on types would think that such a statement just shows the extent to which Ms Jones has been brainwashed by the patriarchy. But I think she's expressing a deep and universal truth.
Men and women are different but equal. A kid needs a mother and a father -- preferably the ones who contributed the DNA that created her. If for whatever reason this bond breaks (or is not formed in the first place) it causes huge psychological damage.
A situation in which a kid doesn't know or is alienated from his dad should be avoided if at all possible. But now, because so much of what we used to value in society has been trashed by leftie cultural revolutionaries, such alienation is commonplace. Truly tragic. And it looks like it's just gonna keep getting worse ...
Related book: Do Fathers Matter? What Science is Telling Us About the Parent We've Overlooked
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Flakka is the Akka Dakka of designer drugs
Every few months there is news of another horrendous designer drug leaving untold social damage in its wake. Each of them is more terrifying than the last. Flakka is the latest of these. Here's an example of the kind of insanity it causes:
Kenneth Crowder, 41, was high on flakka when he ran through the streets naked, declared himself God and tried to have sex with a tree. After being tasered twice by police, he pulled the probes from his chest and tried to stab a police officer with his own badge while declaring himself Thor.
Just thor? You'd think that after that ordeal he'd be ekthtremely, ekthcruthiatingly thor!
Now that it's available in Australia, odds are it'll wreak havoc in all our major cities. But I'm most worried about Darwin. You can only wonder what terrifying act a typically thrillseeking Territorian might try -- not to mention the headline the local paper will use to report it!
But back to that Crowder bloke: The detail about him trying to have sex with a tree got me really worried. What if greenies start getting into it? And they may well do so given how cheap it is. (At five bucks a pop they could buy heaps of it on every dole day.) And the effects could be horrifying!
Check out the nature lovers below, who all seem to still be, er, on their faces. Can you imagine what they'd be like on flakka?
Crikey! It'd be bye bye virgin forest, that's for sure ...
Kenneth Crowder, 41, was high on flakka when he ran through the streets naked, declared himself God and tried to have sex with a tree. After being tasered twice by police, he pulled the probes from his chest and tried to stab a police officer with his own badge while declaring himself Thor.
Just thor? You'd think that after that ordeal he'd be ekthtremely, ekthcruthiatingly thor!
Now that it's available in Australia, odds are it'll wreak havoc in all our major cities. But I'm most worried about Darwin. You can only wonder what terrifying act a typically thrillseeking Territorian might try -- not to mention the headline the local paper will use to report it!
But back to that Crowder bloke: The detail about him trying to have sex with a tree got me really worried. What if greenies start getting into it? And they may well do so given how cheap it is. (At five bucks a pop they could buy heaps of it on every dole day.) And the effects could be horrifying!
Check out the nature lovers below, who all seem to still be, er, on their faces. Can you imagine what they'd be like on flakka?
Crikey! It'd be bye bye virgin forest, that's for sure ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)