|
Post by angra on Dec 18, 2012 22:44:26 GMT 10
Oh no - Blot's back with a vengeance. Where to start?
Oh now it's the Serbians. And the ABC again, and French socialists persecuting Gerard.
What a broken record.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 19, 2012 7:00:22 GMT 10
"Oh no - Blot's back with a vengeance. Where to start?" Don't start. I had a quick look at his spectator article. It reminded me of a "parting shot" email that someone once sent around a whole organisation I was working for before running out the door and getting on a plane overseas. It will full of how awful everything was, and how wonderful things would be now, and how it was everyone else's fault - and also settled a few scores by name. The worst thing about bolta is that I think he actually believes the stuff that he writes. He really believes it. He's in a parallel world where up is down and it all revolves around him. It's nice to see that somebody can turn their solipsism into such a profitable career. Anyhow - back to reality ... I see that the prez/congress have decided not to do anything at all about handguns or assault rifles The bill backed by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) mirrors legislation that has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). It would ban magazines for more than 10 rounds of ammunition and prohibit the transfer, possession or importation of those magazines that are manufactured after the date of the law being signed. www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/high-capacity-magazines_n_2323928.htmlNotice that it doesn't actually ban high-capacity magazines. It just prevents anyone from (legally) manufacturing any new ones. This will have very broad support from the right (who actually suggested it) because, while it appears to be a bold step towards something ... it actually has no effect whatsoever. It had no effect last time - the same group of people supporting it this time used to chuckle about how useless the last ban was, because there were already so many in circulation, and warehouses saw it coming and stocked up. Nobody who wanted a big magazine needed to worry then either. If even this miniscule step were to have any impact at all, it would have to ban possession of _any_ high-capacity magazines, and that would be politically impossible. It would also be terrifying for small-town constabulary to try to enforce - americans do loves their guns.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 21, 2012 8:07:58 GMT 10
Talk about twisting words. A couple of days ago, bolta wrote this: Thomas discovers Summers has published a foul comment (from a reader) suggesting not only that I am a Nazi but that my father would die of shame. Not only are both insults grotesquely false and offensive to Dad and me, I find it monstrously hypocritical that Summers should publish them after the fuss she made over Alan Jones saying Julia Gillard’s father died of shame. Has Summers no shame herself? "Wow", I thinks to meself. That's a pretty astonishing thing for somebody to publish. So I went and took a look at the quadrant article to see what this comment actually was. Given that the writer of the quadrant article in question suggested that summers grovel to andrew before his lawyers "get wind of it" (a rare clue, in print, of something that I've long suspected - but let's not go there), I won't quote it. But merely link to it. annesummers.com.au/2011/10/my-response-to-andrew-bolt/#comment-65696 Yeah. Seriously. Bolt actually claims that suggests he's a NAZI (it doesn't) and that his father would "die of shame" (again, it doesn't). Wow. Be careful discussing this one - I'd hate to think that "the Bolts' lawyers" might "get wind of it" (to quote the quadrant piece that bolt uses). I see that anne summers has not taken down that comment - and I personally don't see why she should have to. I don't think it says what bolt claims it does.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 21, 2012 8:25:32 GMT 10
Bolta's also approving of a load of silliness written by james delingpole, apparently claiming that to use the word "gay" in its current disparaging sense (as applied by teh youfs and, I think, katy perry) would "have you arrested in Australia these days". I assume that must be one of his "opinion" things. Because it's certainly not a factual claim. Most of that article (not quoted by bolt) is about an article in the australian, which makes a number of dubious assertions about wind farms in australia. It seems that delingpole is very annoyed because the australian press council disagreed with him about some of its content. Fascists! The APC thought that an included quote about the industry being "bloody well near a pedophile ring" was a bit beyond the pale. It also thought that his claims about a lawfirm issuing "rigorous gagging orders" was at the very least at odds with all available evidence (not to mention completely denied and, I personally think, lacking an understanding about statutory rights in australia). It also felt that describing the wind farm industry as a "PONZI scheme" was not tenable. Here's the bit that I wish they'd commented on, because this is deep into tinfoil hat territory: If the unions were merely exploiting government environmental legislation to milk the taxpayer it would be bad enough: but what makes the wind farm scam so scandalous are the public health issues. Why aren't we more aware of these? Because there have been cover-ups on an epic scale. The owners on whose land the turbines are built are subject to rigorous gagging orders (from law firms such as Julia Gillard's ex-company, Slater & Gordon); tame experts are paid huge sums to testify that there are no health implications; inquiries are rigged; victims are rehoused and silenced with million-dollar payoffs If delingpole was able to produce any real evidence of any of that, it would indeed be a hell of a story. And I'd personally get a bit of a buzz out or reading about a conspiracy THAT huge. Except ... nobody seems to be able to produce any evidence, and that is quite strange. In fact, the evidence seems to support the view that wind farms have no direct health impacts on people and livestock in their vicinity at all, and a strong inverse correlation has been found between reported symptoms (which range across the spectrum from dogs no longer barking to spontaneous human combustion) and an individual's personal profit connection with the offending turbines. One of the Oz' defenses was that the article was an opinion piece. That sort of goes without saying, though. I don't think people expect to find anything else in the pages of the australian.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 21, 2012 8:32:46 GMT 10
Here's a cut'n'paste from the Blots blog piece about Summers, which presumably his moderators approved...
"I’ve long thought the florid mouthed Ms Summers has more in common, and common she is, with the painted harpies of the wharf than any intelligent and well-researched writer. "
'Painted harpies of the wharf'? What on earth can this comment mean that shouldn't be of interest to Summer's lawyers?
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 22, 2012 8:31:21 GMT 10
We're gonna have a Blot free Christmas Ev'rywhere we choose to go;
Take a look in the Terror/Hun and Ten glistening once again With sugar pieces and silly features aglow.
We're gonna have a Blot free Christmas Christmas cheer and carols by every bore
But the prettiest sight to see is the 'Blot is a Dickhead' tree that will be Standing outside our own front door.
(Apologies to Johnny Mathis)
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 22, 2012 9:34:08 GMT 10
"the 'Blot is a Dickhead' tree"
What do you decorate a thing like that with?
Actually, no. Don't answer that...
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 22, 2012 9:45:42 GMT 10
MoC - easy.
We hang little pictures of Blot's head on the tree with peanuts stuck on them. The Lorikeets do the rest.
Actually it of course should therefore be "s***head tree", but I thought that may be going a bauble too far.
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 22, 2012 21:01:58 GMT 10
Andy revisits his favorite topic today, that is... People Identifying With Races Andrew Dissaproves Of!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,,,!!!!! (cue ominous music) Bindii Cole, indigenous artist/ photographer, and in Andy's eyes guilty of choosing... incidentally, the one identity open to her that has political and career clout." -Andrew Bolt Her crime? Not being black enough. Identifying as Aboriginal but light skinned, Bindi Cole started creating works around the issue of identity.-
"Nan, my dad, my family said I was Aboriginal," says Bindi."I knew from when I could walk that I was Aboriginal."
"But then as I grew up obviously I didn't fit that stereotype."- from an ABC Article.
I think the above quote is what Andy has an issue with for today's post. Note that she mentions some family members. Andy got some facts here all messed up according to the ruling against him BOLT: ''Acclaimed St Kilda artist Bindi Cole… was raised by her English-Jewish mother yet calls herself 'Aboriginal but white'.'' BROMBERG: ''That statement is factually inaccurate because Ms Cole's Aboriginal grandmother also raised Ms Cole and was highly influential in Ms Cole's identification as an Aboriginal.'' BOLT: ''[Ms Cole] rarely saw her part-Aboriginal father.'' BROMBERG : ''That statement is factually incorrect. Ms Cole's father was Aboriginal and had been a part of her life until she was six years old. Ms Cole later lived with her father for a year whilst growing up.'' -Age article
Bindii doesn't hold a grudge and she has some pretty interesting insights on our Andy too ''I definitely don't have a resentment and I kind of feel sorry for him,'' Cole says. ''I hope that doesn't come across as being too … worthy, but I've had a lot of time to think about him and what he's doing. I came to the conclusion that … essentially, he's a bit of a bully. We all know that bullies are actually quite broken, damaged people. He's calling me an opportunist … I actually think that's what he is himself.'' - Bindii Cole "I am continually warned by my lawyers not to talk about the attempt by nine Aboriginals of pale complexion to have the Federal Court stop me from saying certain things about racial identity "-Andrew Bolt
in a post with a poor image of Bindiis grandma, which I suppose Andy is suggesting that she is not aboriginal either, or part there of. He is not questioning their aboriginality here. Bindi Cole is an award-winning artist. In 2009, she won the $25,000 Deadly Art Award as part of the Victorian Indigenous Art Awards and has also been a finalist in the William and Winifred Bowness Photography Prize, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Awards (the Telstra) and the National Photographic Portrait Prize. Does Andy resent someone winning a prize? His complaint is that she can say about herself what he cannot. When reading the articles this just not the case. Andy got his facts wrong about Bindii Cole and inferred she was getting some advantage by claiming heritage, in his opinion, she should not be entitled to. Why is this such an issue with him? There are plenty of people who claim benefits, say physical disability fraud, that he doesn't harp on about. How about financial type frauds by accountants? Not a peep from Andy. If we take Bindii Cole at face value, she has Indigenous heritage and a link through her dad and grandma with her culture, plus a difficult upbringing it seems. Who cares what she looks like. I actually like some of here stuff just from my internet browsing. Maybe Andy just doesn't like lefty arty types?
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 22, 2012 22:37:58 GMT 10
Bolta's also approving of a load of silliness written by james delingpole, apparently claiming that to use the word "gay" in its current disparaging sense (as applied by teh youfs and, I think, katy perry) would "have you arrested in Australia these days". I assume that must be one of his "opinion" things. Because it's certainly not a factual claim. Most of that article (not quoted by bolt) is about an article in the australian, which makes a number of dubious assertions about wind farms in australia. It seems that delingpole is very annoyed because the australian press council disagreed with him about some of its content. Fascists! The APC thought that an included quote about the industry being "bloody well near a pedophile ring" was a bit beyond the pale. It also thought that his claims about a lawfirm issuing "rigorous gagging orders" was at the very least at odds with all available evidence (not to mention completely denied and, I personally think, lacking an understanding about statutory rights in australia). It also felt that describing the wind farm industry as a "PONZI scheme" was not tenable. Here's the bit that I wish they'd commented on, because this is deep into tinfoil hat territory: If the unions were merely exploiting government environmental legislation to milk the taxpayer it would be bad enough: but what makes the wind farm scam so scandalous are the public health issues. Why aren't we more aware of these? Because there have been cover-ups on an epic scale. The owners on whose land the turbines are built are subject to rigorous gagging orders (from law firms such as Julia Gillard's ex-company, Slater & Gordon); tame experts are paid huge sums to testify that there are no health implications; inquiries are rigged; victims are rehoused and silenced with million-dollar payoffs If delingpole was able to produce any real evidence of any of that, it would indeed be a hell of a story. And I'd personally get a bit of a buzz out or reading about a conspiracy THAT huge. Except ... nobody seems to be able to produce any evidence, and that is quite strange. In fact, the evidence seems to support the view that wind farms have no direct health impacts on people and livestock in their vicinity at all, and a strong inverse correlation has been found between reported symptoms (which range across the spectrum from dogs no longer barking to spontaneous human combustion) and an individual's personal profit connection with the offending turbines. One of the Oz' defenses was that the article was an opinion piece. That sort of goes without saying, though. I don't think people expect to find anything else in the pages of the australian. One of Andy's readers... I ts okay Andrew. The Australian have reprinted Delingpoles piece in today’s paper. Coconut of Qld (Reply) Fri 21 Dec 12 (08:58am)
And Andy... Ludicrous and sinister, but I am taking a chance by even quoting James Delingpole, who is free to write in Britain what we barely dare now in Australia Salem: Sooo....Andy quotes and links fearfully to Delingpoles diatribe/ sook. A reader helpfully points out the Ox printed it in full. He really is in holiday mode, he's not even trying. Unless ludicrous and sinister refers to Delingpoles article. That would be nice!
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 26, 2012 12:39:57 GMT 10
Well how do you explain this? Unless subscribing to the Alice in Wonderland view that "I can make words mean anything I want to...“ and "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
This from Blot today -
"Fact: anyone who claims most sceptics are “deniers” of “global warming” are plainly fools or liars. None of the sceptics I know doubt at all that the planet has warmed in the past century. Most would agree man’s emissions are likely to have a warming influence. "
So all his rants about the global warming scam and assertions that scientists can't be believed because they are bribed by Governments is just some sort of ruse?
Just Google his comments about AGW and that the earth hasn't warmed in 16 years.
He really is the mad hatter.
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 27, 2012 7:08:13 GMT 10
Is the term 'doublethink' or cognitive dissonance appropriate there angra? I saw that line of his as well and I was trying to get it to match with all his posts on AGW.
It makes no sense.
I tried to break it down. 1. Blotists
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 27, 2012 7:55:28 GMT 10
chookmustard - I think it's on a par with his insistence that "I am not right-wing, merely conservative" and "I am not a racist".
Doublethink indeed.
He implies and supports something rabidly and repeatedly (eg WattsUp) then when challenged says "it wasn't me!" because he's used enough weasel words to wriggle out of any conclusions about himself.
What a coward.
|
|
|
Post by jack on Dec 27, 2012 8:09:50 GMT 10
" Well how do you explain this?" Fools give you reasons, wise men never tryyyyy.... " Just Google his comments about AGW and that the earth hasn't warmed in 16 years." The 16 years thing is, of course, a favourite trope from His Worship Monckton, who is currently in Australia doing his serial pest routine. Apropos of which, here's something Jeremy Sear tweeted about yesterday, see catchthefire.com.au/2012/12/rise-up-australia-party-national-launch-on-11th-feb-2013-at-national-press-club-in-canberra/It is with great excitement we take this opportunity to announce the official launch of Rise Up Australia Party at the National Press Club in Canberra on 11th Feb 2013 from 11am to 1pm.
The Key Note Speech will be delievered [sic] by Lord Christopher Monckton, from the Lord Mockton [sic] Foundation. He is a member of the British House of Lords... No, he aint - www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords...and is world renowned for his stand against climate change. Yep, it actually says that: "His stand against climate change." That's the dumbed down crux of it right there.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 27, 2012 11:06:53 GMT 10
From that CtF page: "RUA Party National President stated, “We must take a stand for our nation now or our children and grandchildren will pay a heavy price to re-take what we have lost. We cannot and must not miss this opportunity. The 2013 federal election is a window we cannot miss as the people have lost hope in our politicians in Canberra. We can bring back hope, get rid of dishonest politicians and be the voice of the people in parliament”."While folks here try to work out what the heck THAT means (has he decided yet, I wonder?), I recommend this great rhetorical guidance.
|
|