Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Andrew Bolt’

Over at Catallaxy, Jason Soon has this to say about Watchmen:

Incidentally whoeever it was who played Kissinger was uncanny but did they have to give Nixon that horrible prosthetic nose?

Bolta will be spewin’ about this latest distortion from the Hollywood Leftists. Look forward to a column correcting the record about the reality of Nixon’s nose.

UPDATE: Michelle has a review of the film as well – perhaps not surprisingly, she scrubs all mention of the defamatory nose from her evaluation of the film.

Read Full Post »

Bring back the Slatts

It’s time.

Read Full Post »

Andrew Bolt asks:

Will the Left now demonise Kevin Rudd as it did John Howard?

Yes, yes, yes. Each and every time he does something that warrants it.

Read Full Post »

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme White Paper will be released tomorrow, and the cynicism is palpable. Michelle Grattan discusses the political tensions pointing the Rudd Government toward a low target for 2020 emissions reductions. Peter Wood has a cartoon that illustrates the problem with that “sensible centrist” approach. And Robert Merkel notes a pre-announcement that seems to be aimed at reducing the outrage that might be anticipated if tomorrow’s announcement does include a soft target.

Meanwhile, the Bananas in Pyjamas of the Australian commentariat are covering the big issues with their typical enthusiasm and scientific rigor. For instance, it’s cold and snowing in Poznan, Poland during December – obviously, that must be because Al Gore is fat (and nothing to do with an average maximum temperature of 3° and 17 days of precipitation). Meanwhile, I don’t think the word “may” means what Andrew Bolt thinks it means. While looking it up in the dictionary, he might also want to see whether he can find “shivvers”.

Read Full Post »

A lesson in the Dirty Words

Honorable Shit For Brains = acceptable, civilised debate.

Nasty little twat = “undergraduate and vile abuse”

Read Full Post »

It’s been a good week for psephologists. Across the Pacific, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com took my evil twin John to pieces. John Ziegler, a former talk radio host who has put together a web site, documentary and polling data to support his argument that Barack Obama was elected through the ignorance of Americans, spoke to Nate in an interview that ended like this:

NS: Thank you, have a good day.

JZ: Go fuck yourself.

Why is teh Right so angry?

Meanwhile on the home front, Possum has injected himself into Andrew Bolt’s tussle with “gossip site” Crikey. Following on from a dispute between Bolt and Jonathan Green over what Victoria’s crime statistics actually show about crime by African refugees, Possum has presented the evidence against Bolt’s assertions that (i) the rate of crime committed by African refugees is higher than among the general population of Victoria and that (ii) statements to the contrary by Christine Nixon helped to turn the electorate against Team Howard.

Both analyses are well worth reading – there’s nothing like watching the weight of evidence fall on clowns from a great height.

UPDATE: I would imagine most of my regular readers also follow TBBWP but, for those who don’t, here is my effort to get Andrew to take a serious look at what appear to be some shifty moderation practices on his site. So far, his only real response has been to label me a troll and suggest I pal around with racists.

Read Full Post »

Still not sorry

… yet still a pathetic fucking liar.

Read Full Post »

As we saw the Liberal Party do last year, the Republicans begin the process of apportioning blame. And suddenly, Andrew is willing to listen to bad words spoken about Sarah Palin – even from anonymous sources.

Read Full Post »

Teh Right

Credit where it’s due to the Bolt and Blair audience – they have largely been graceful and accepting of the election result. While Andrew started out handling the defeat pretty well, his inability to keep from injecting snippy remarks into every update. My favourite came right at the end:

Now he’s doing his “yes, we can” riff, and it’s draining away into slogans. He finishes on this limp note, but the music is soaring. On walks his wife, Michelle, pumping a clenched fist with a fierce grin. Hmm.

A “fierce grin”? Is that like a terrorist fist jab?

Andrew also picked up on one of the hot themes from the conservative commentators – Obama won because his race helped him. That’s right – black people are racist. Bastards. Even Janet says so.

But the angry right has come out a bit further on other sites. Trawl the comments at Little Green Footballs for some good examples. Not my President. America is doomed. Israel is doomed. I’m leaving the country. Time to secede. And that’s after the more dramatic comments have been deleted.

Of course, there’s  bound to be plenty more to come from bitter conservatives. GrodsCorp is on A Western Heart watch. Kudos to those who have taken it on the chin, but I’m going to reserve the right to have a laugh at those who have fulfilled their own caricature of Teh Left.

Read Full Post »

Andrew Bolt is gunning for Krudd (if I may use the vernacular). He has been running a series of blog posts calling on the media to investigate “Rudd’s betrayal of Bush“. I have had several thoughts in reaction to this:

  • What a shame that Bolt apparently doesn’t have the skill or motivation to perform his own investigative work and has to rely on getting real journalists to take his ideas seriously.
  • Bolt flatly asserts that Rudd leaked the information. Isn’t this a terribly flawed assumption? The Bush administration has denied that Bush said what the Australian alleged. Rudd has denied that Bush said it and rubbished the notion that Bush isn’t well aware of the G20. What’s more, when asked whether the “leak” came from his office, has given an answer that approximates, “buggered if I know.” Yet Bolt still seems to be acting as though the “leak” gave information that would only be known to someone involved in, present during, or who had accurate information about, the Bush-Rudd conversation. If the information was false, then anyone could have made it up, so long as they knew the conversation took place and the general topic.
  • The phone conversation happened while there was a dinner party going on at Kirribilli house. Present at that party was one Chris Mitchell, editor of the newspaper formerly known as the Government Gazzette, currently known as the Opposition Organ, which has been using its editorial content to attack the Rudd Government’s policies and conduct. Now, this paper has published the “leaked” information. If the fact that it made Rudd look like a bigshot is enough reason for Bolt to conclude that Rudd himself was the “leak”, isn’t the fact that this made Rudd look like a blabbermouth enough of a reason to suspect Chris Mitchell?
  • If we take the idea of investigation seriously then, based on the information we currently have, someone fed the Australian false information about the Bush-Rudd conversation. Does the journalistic obligation to preserve confidential sources apply to a source who tells lies? Shouldn’t the investigation begin with the Australian revealing who gave them dud information?

Malcolm has been getting in on the act as well, and making some of the same errors of reasoning as Bolt. He says that the leaking of the conversation is embarrassing and a national security risk – which it might be, if the leak was accurate. Otherwise, it’s just bullshit spread by someone and believed by a newspaper who didn’t check the credibility of their sources well enough. But Malcolm adds in a call for the Australian Federal Police to head an investigation. Now I’ve never been shy about discussing the limitations of the AFP, but I would still contend that they are, in fact, a law enforcement body. So if Malcolm wants them to investigate something, should it perhaps be an allegation of some illegal activity? Just saying.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »