Wednesday 14 August 2013

Morally and Intellectually Superior Left

Two examples this week of the sanctimony of the know all left.

Sharon, a contestant on Big Brother said on Abbott's "suppository" comment, it "doesn't surprise me. I'm not a fan." It doesn't surprise you that he would make a language gaff. Yeah, cause he's like a big idiot. Haw haw haw. How sanctomonious. Abbott isn't perfect, nobody is. But he's a Rhodes Scholar. You, Sharon, were a housemate on Big Brother.

Then there was the "sex appeal comments", which the fashionble leftists jumped on like piranhas. Jo Stanley tweeted her outrage. Huh? Jo Stanley. You mean the same Jo Stanley who worked for the same FM radio network as Kyle Sandilands. Never heard her express any outrage at the sexism of Mr. Sandilands.

Jo Stanley works in an industry which, like television, favours young and sassy over old and mature. Name one woman aged over 50 on a major FM station.

Jo's Twitter backdrop includes pictures of her in a tight hugging dress, with high-heeled pornstar style stilletos. Such is her concern for sexism that she objectifies. Irony?

High heels and stilletos have done more damage than any mean old conservative with a "sexist" mouth.

Stanley is the kind of PC, groovy, fashionable politics gal who never grew out of 20s. She takes the PC view of things like asylum seekers and gay marriage, and becomes shocked, astounded when a conservative gives an alternate take on these issues. Andrew Bolt's appearance on The Project was a great example. Stanley, in a guest appearance on the panel, seemed genuinely shocked that a person would have differing views to her. She seemed astounded that, outside of her chattering class and circle of hairdresser gossip politics, there was a whole world of ideas and opinions.

Stanley is the kind of person who doesn't realise that their fringe ideas are not part of the mainstream.

And there with have the moral superiority of the Left.

Tuesday 13 August 2013

Er... Rodney... They Ain't Going to Vote Liberal Anyway


Rodney Croome has no idea what he is talking about if he thinks inner-city seats are going to vote for Tony Abbott regardless of his gay marriage stance. Croome, the director of Australian Marriage Equality, says Abbott risks inner-city seats because of his decision not to allow Liberal Party MPs a conscience vote on gay marriage. Um, Rodney, the Liberals are not going to win those seats anyway; and that's not being apathetic, or saying that they shouldn't try to win those seats; but the political animosity towards Abbott, by the inner-city voters, goes just a little further than the issue of marriage rights. The Liberals aren't going to win Sydney, Melbourne or any of the inner-city seats like Batman or Melbourne Ports.

The serious issues of the economy, border protection and standards of living, are the issues that most Australians care about. It is the suburban heartlands where elections are won and lost: Western Sydney, Melbourne's southeast, Brisbane's suburbs, and semi rural seats.

It is manufacturing and factory workers in Dandenong and new parents, first time home owners in Parramatta who will be the heart of the support for either Labor or Liberal. The inner-city is home to the fringe dwellers who vote with their hearts, not their heads.

Thursday 1 August 2013

Government Has No Place Using Tax Payer Money in This Way

Dave Faulkner can call Andrew Bolt a "blowhard"; but I'm a 28 year old film student, and I too think excessive tax paying funding of art and music is wrong.

Yeah. All those who want to be able to spend their own money are "blowhards."

What evil right wing culture haters.

Making people pay for something they won't see, and probably aren't a fan of, is the same as forcing them to endure ideas of which they dissaprove; it is akin to an intellectual version of forced labour.
Hey, Dave, that makes you kinda like Pol Pot.

If live music is so popular and "big", as you claim, it doesn't need government support. What is it about capitalism you don't understand. Popularity equals demand. Demand equals customers and patrons. Patrons pay money. Are leftists allergic to an understanding of basic economics?

So I ask again, why should people who will never go to see live music, or people who are not fans of indie rock and live music, have to pay to prop it up?

The Dave Faulkners and Marieke Hardys of this world have an automatic reflex that sees them turn to government the minute their industry or livelihood finds itself in dire straits.

Maybe if they stopped making annoying, navel gazing hipster garbage then people would pay to listen