A Most Befuddling Puzzlement

I am, I confess, confused. I was reading, as is my wont, Andrew Bolt's latest musings on the mores and manners that shape us as a people, in order to get a feel for the zeitgeist and become better-informed on the trends and dominant paradigms in our post-structuralist community, when I came across one certain article entitled:

HYPOCRITES HARM GAY MEN AND WOMEN

Now I found this interesting, as a fan of news, and I naturally read on to discover exactly what said hypocrites were doing to gay men and women. Beating them with sticks? Tripping them with wires? Hurling insults at them which can be very harmful because as Cher said words are like weapons they wound sometimes?

Imagine my surprise when I discovered none of these were the case. In fact Bolt was not exposing a worrying social trend of roving hypocrite gangs attacking stray gays at all, but rather commenting on a philosophical tug-o-war. To wit:

CONTRAST. In March, Australia's Human Rights Commission boasted it had entered a float in Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in "its campaign to allow same-sex marriage".


No fuss.
Last week, a board member of Victoria's Equal Opportunity Commission signed a petition "to oppose moves to 'same-sex marriage' ".
This time: screams, protests, outraged media and a resignation.
Pardon?

Ah, I saw the complaint being put forward by Australia's most-read columnist. He is actually complaining about the hypocrisy exhibited by so many members of the Australian left, in that they will happily acquiesce, or even applaud, when the Human Rights Commission engages in activities to promote human rights, but when a member of an Equal Opportunity Commission speaks out against equal opportunity, they howl in protest.

And it is indeed fair enough that Bolt - who has dedicated his life to exposing hypocrisy and humbug in all its forms - should highlight the inconsistency here, that so-called "politically correct" folk only protest against discrimination and people whose beliefs and actions are diametrically opposed to their jobs, but refuse to utter a peep against anti-discrimination and people who believe and act in accordance with the purpose of their positions. How, Bolt asks, pithily and with style, can the modern Left so fervently celebrate inclusiveness while utterly refusing to celebrate bigotry? What is it with the Left and its repellently brazen embrace of equal rights, so at odds with its fascistic opposition to unequal rights? How can one say he is in favour of equal rights if he opposes equal rights for inequality?

DOUBLE STANDARDS.

So in summary this was a very well-written article. But there is one part that troubles me, and I'm hoping that with your help we can unravel the mystery it poses. At one point in the piece, Bolt writes:

"After all, broadening the definition of marriage is not a question of equality, since gays are as free as anyone to marry anyone of the opposite sex."

Which is fine. As I am not a Leftist I am not trying to repress his freedom of speech, so write that sentence as much as you like, Mr Bolt, says I. But it raises a conundrum for me, which is: why did he write it? I am always interested in first causes and motivations, so the question of "why" is very important to me. My curiosity rages - there must have been a reason he wrote that sentence, and I've narrowed it down to the most obvious possibilities. I welcome any further suggestions in the comments.

Bolt wrote that sentence because:

a) He had recently suffered a severe blunt force trauma to the head, but was on such a tight deadline he had to complete and file his column prior to seeking medical attention.

b) Having suffered a crippling bout of writer's block, he sought to release the artist within via use of powerful hallucinogenic drugs, not realising such substances can have deleterious effects on one's perception of reality, causing the taker to believe in non-existent objects, sounds, or logic.

c) Bolt had recently triggered an ancient curse which caused him to swap bodies with a nearby five-year-old, and was forced to write a column using the mental capacity and personality of the child.

d) Bolt was toasting a fallen comrade in arms immediately before starting work but, unable to find any liquor in the house, had instead drunk several litres of lead paint.

e) Bolt is a merry prankster playing funny jokes with his readers by seeing if they're savvy enough to spot such sentences even when they are cloaked in the guise of something written by a functioning adult human being.

f) Bolt's parents were closely related by blood.

g) Bolt does not exist and is simply a nom-de-plume for a team of trained elephants who write his column by periodically sitting on a Macbook.

h) Bolt is very very very very very stupid.

Those are the potential explanations I've come up with for why he might have not only written the above but actually allowed it to be published in an actual newspaper, but I know there might be more. What do YOU think, readers? Let me know!

How Carbon Tax Made Me An Idiot

(NB: this piece is dedicated to Erin Riley)

For a while now, I’ve been increasingly convinced of the need to have an opinion about various subjects such as politics, in order to be a normal thinking human being. But I was torn: my belief in thoughtful, sober reflection and reasoned argument as a path to enlightenment made me lean towards having intelligent opinions, while my love of reading tabloid newspapers and listening to talkback inclined me more towards the gibbering imbecile end of the spectrum.

It was a difficult decision, made more so by the enormity of the consequences. I knew that whether I decided to be smart or stupid could determine my future career prospects, the course of my intimate relationships, and how loudly I could talk on trains.

But with the announcement of the carbon tax, the decision was made easy – the only possible response was to become unbelievably stupid.

To be honest, to call it a “decision” is almost a misnomer: the announcement of the carbon tax really leaves those of us who desire to avoid the unexamined life with no option: it is a compulsion, a calling, and yes, a duty, that we transform ourselves into morons, for the good of our country.

It happened almost without my noticing it: I was just toddling along the day after the carbon tax announcement, and suddenly I realised that for the last three hours I’d been telling people that the tax wouldn’t decrease temperatures by a single degree. Not just like that, of course: what I’d actually been saying was, “Did you know the so-called carbon tax won’t lower temperatures AT ALL? Do you? Do you know? So much for ENVIRONMENTALISM!” Sometimes I’d poke them in the chest.

And it felt liberating. I knew I’d followed the correct path. If I’d decided to be intelligent about the carbon tax, how could I ever have derived the deep emotional fulfilment that can only come from inserting “(dioxide)” into sentences? You have no idea how satisfying it is to do this – you should try it. If you thought it was fun complaining about the carbon tax, you will be practically orgasmic once you start complaining about the carbon (dioxide) tax. That’s why Terry McCrann always seems so happy.

Quickly I began to expand the scope of my idiocy, exploring the creative possibilities of using the word “socialism” in as many disconnected contexts as I could possibly think of. I found that once you get into the swing of things, “socialism” can mean anything, really. Pricing carbon, taxing the rich, giving money to the poor, taxing the poor, giving money to the rich, preferring market mechanisms to a command economy, being a woman – all these and more are socialism, once you make a true commitment to stupidity. I’m hoping that in time, I’ll be able to call every policy of every political party socialist without even breaking a sweat.

Of course it’s not that simple, being an idiot. You can’t just scream “socialist” and expect to be taken seriously in the stupid community. You also need to say things like, “the carbon tax will completely destroy our way of life” and “we need an election NOW to get rid of the worst government since Federation” and “I am the shadow Treasurer”. If the carbon tax really riles you up, you can go the extra mile and start delving into advanced mental degradation, for example: “Carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant it is a necessary element for life on earth”. Not that you want to over-reach. It’s wise to warm yourself up, stretch your stupid-muscles with some thank-god-for-Tony-Abbotts and we-shouldn’t-move-before-the-world-doeses before you go the full Thank-God-we-have-Andrew-Bolt-to-stand-up-to-the-Green-groupthink.

Not that you have to stick to an anti-Green line. That’s the beauty of the carbon tax – it gives us scope to be idiots in any direction we choose. You can call up 2GB claiming that Bob Brown wants to put 90 percent of Australians out of work, or you can call up 3AW claiming that the carbon tax will create six million new jobs in geothermal energy and Great Barrier Reef curating. It’s up to you! As a matter of fact you can do both of those things – it’s the advantage of choosing stupidity over intelligence, you don’t need to be consistent at all (refer to discussion of socialism, above).

And so I’ve found that the carbon tax has really allowed me to be me, to free the spirit within, to release the latent intellectual atrophy that had been inside me all along. Much like a baby bird who, taking its first tentative steps out of the nest, suddenly finds itself able to swoop and soar and slam headfirst into windows, I am finally able to express myself as nature intended. To leap like the salmon, to run like the gazelle, to ride a tractor like Bob Katter. I am free to stand on the rooftop and cry to the world, “Yes! I am stupid, and I am proud! Furthermore the earth has not warmed for 12 years!” I am free to write letters to newspapers. I am free to refer to wealth distribution without even the slightest sense of irony or shame or basic understanding of reality. God, life is sweet when you’re a dullard.

It’s only been a few days, of course – barely time to form an opinion on the carbon tax at all if I weren’t so stupid – and I foresee a lot of strong, enriching dumbness permeating my life moving forward. I see myself poring over graphs and declaring “see? It’s a myth!” I foresee writing pompous and lengthy political analysis pieces about the government’s inability to sell its policy. I foresee tuning into Channel Ten on Sunday mornings a lot. I foresee quoting Ian Plimer. I foresee feeling powerful pangs of sympathy for people earning over $100,000 a year. I foresee saying “Ju-LIAR” and spending the next 20 minutes touching myself with pride at how witty I am.

It is indeed a golden age for the idiot, and I’m grateful to Julia – oops, I mean Juliar, ha ha! – for allowing me this opportunity to realise who I really am. Stop this great big new tax, remove this illegitimate government, STOP LYING, and up with morons. Join me, stupid brethren, and together we will make this country a true paradise for all of those of below-average intelligence and below. It’s time to stand up against this unjust tax and the people of normal intelligence who want to discuss it. Jump on board, idiots!

We can start in the comments of this post.

No, REALLY Hitting the Big Time

There are many kinds of success in this world.

There's financial success. There's career success. There's the success of raising a healthy, loving family.

But all of these are as scraps of pig slops to a strawberry cheesecake when compared to being publicly thanked by Andrew Bolt.

The fact that he later found out who I actually was, and is no longer even slightly positively-dispositioned towards me, does not diminish the honour. Neither does the fact he never really regarded me with any gratitude in the first place. Unfortunately the details are private. I'll tell you at the bar.

Incidentally, Bolt eventually did acknowledge the rather obvious error that in that post he had refused to acknowledge. I mean, he sort of acknowledged it. I mean, "I was wrong" is an acknowledgment, even if the post itself ends up being "I was wrong but still much more right than anyone else".

By the way, "reader TQS", Bolt may have thanked you, but you will never have what he and I have. It is special.

And then, of course, he has his "final last thought" (ooh, promise?) on the subject. Not quite sure what he's doing here. A few different options?

1. Bolt is suggesting that Pope Pius XII would have had his head cut off if he'd spoken out against the Holocaust.

2. Bolt is suggesting that because Dawkins won't speak out against Islamofascists, he is morally equivalent to someone who won't speak out against the Holocaust. He does this by referencing a quote wherein Dawkins speaks out against Islamofascists. He could have picked any quote of many, really. Dawkins slams Islamic extremists all the time.

3. By referring to Richard Dawkins as "the atheist al-Qaeda", Bolt is suggesting that promoting a petition asking for someone not be made a saint is morally equivalent to threatening to cut someone's head off.

You decide. I guess.

Today's homework: In 1000 words or less, compare and contrast the labelling of a Nazi-supporting Pope "Pope Nazi" with the labelling of an atheist scientist "atheist al-Qaeda". Extra points for those students who accurately ascertain the relative levels of barbarism present in each.

Incidentally, a round of applause for Bolt's work ethic: he started blogging at 7:01 am and didn't stop till 12:09 pm. You can't deny he's prolific. And if you did he'd call you a terrorist.

Handy Hints for Non-Terrorist Muslims

In the latest development in my lifelong struggle to get humourless people to send me death threats, I give you:

Tasteless jokes about Muslims!

To Conservative Columnists Everywhere

I mean you, Robyn Riley, Paul Sheehan and Andrew Bolt, among others:

Please stop whining like little bitches about how mean Perez Hilton was to Miss California. He was not in any way denying her right to free speech. This is what free speech is:

Free speech is when you have the right to say any bubbleheaded, fundamentalist Christian idiocy that pops into your spacious little skull, and when you do, anyone else has the right to call you the homophobic retard you are.

That's free speech. Giving your opinion of someone else's opinion isn't anti-free speech, it's the very definition of free speech. Get over it.

Oh, and also, the bimbo posed topless. It was against the rules. Nobody made that up to bring her down; the pictures are on the internet. Get over that too.

Oh, and also: I KNOW Perez Hilton is an insufferable dick. That doesn't mean he's not right about this little twit.

Musing...

The thing about the issue raised in the last post is...

Andrew Bolt rails against the tragedy of allowing this poor girl to change her sex, on the basis that she was not born a "boy in a girl's body", but was somehow "twisted" into this state of mind by the abusive behaviour of parents.

And this line seems to assume that if someone is not born into a certain state, that state is not actually genuine.

Let us suppose that Bolt is right (God forbid), and that yes, "Alex" was not born with gender dysphoria, but instead developed the condition later in life. Does that mean her condition is not genuine? If she was not born this way, does that make it any easier for her to keep living as a girl? Does it make her need to be a boy any less urgent? Does a desire lose its legitimacy because it arose in the world and not in the womb?

The whole nature versus nurture debate is inherently flawed. Take the issue of homosexuality. Sure, if you can convince a fundamentalist that gays are born, not made, you might get them to stop trying to convert them back, but in reality it doesn't matter. If a gay person isn't born gay, but becomes gay as a child, as a teenager, as an adult, it doesn't make it wrong to be gay. If scientific evidence came to light tomorrow, proving beyond doubt that homosexuality is definitely a matter of upbringing or environment, it wouldn't change one bit the acceptability of homosexuality, or the importance of gay rights. It wouldn't make homophobes right.

So sure Andy, maybe "Alex" was made into who she is, not born that way. But that doesn't make her any less miserable now, and it doesn't make her any less entitled to try to be happy.

Is there anything the man can't do?

Andrew Bolt this week writes about the case of "Alex", a 17-year-old girl who wants to be a boy, and who was given permission by Chief Justice Diana Bryant to undergo a double mastectomy to allow her to do so.

Bolt says:

"I have not spoken to Alex. Bryant has. I am not a psychiatrist. Bryant, I presume, has consulted those who are."

And yet, it is a measure of the man's perspicacity, wordly knowledge and polymathic expertise that despite this, he knows the decision is wrong, why it's wrong, and what everyone should have done instead.

Bravo, Andrew, your mighty brain leaves us stuttering in awe

The Definition Of Irony?

It might be Andrew Bolt, a columnist for the HERALD SUN, writing a column complaining about the whipping up of unnecessary panic.

It's like Kyle Sandilands complaining about declining standards in entertainment.

Andrew Bolt: Traitor?

Andrew Bolt demonstrates his loyalty to a foreign power.

Mick Keelty, get your surveillance team onto this man straight away. Soon or later, he must make contact with his European masters

Where did THAT come from?

Andrew Bolt is angry about sharks. So are his commenters. So angry about sharks are they that they express it in the time-honoured way - by calling me a mental retard. It's tight down the bottom of the first page, which is convenient.

I suppose it's kind of a privilege that out of all the leftist scum he could have name-checked, he chose ME!

The Magical Universe of Bolt

Andrew Bolt provides us all with his take on the political issues surrounding the Victorian bushfires, viz:

1. It is disgusting and despicable for Greens to be crowing over the fires in order to push their political agenda.

2. The fires prove how I was right and the Greens were wrong.

Ta-da!

Blow, Girls, Blow!

Probably-respected Aboriginal academic Mark Rose has slammed the publishers of the Australian version of The Daring Book For Girls, because it shows girls how to play the didgeridoo.

Is this out of a negative assessment for the female lung capacity? No.

Is it a Jerry Lewis-style assertion that not only are women not funny, they're not gifted with woodwinds either? No.

Is it just brainless sexism wrapped up as cultural mystique? No.

The truth is far more terrible. Mark Rose is stricken with fear for poor girls who may attempt to carry out the Daring Book's instructions, because...

Playing the didgeridoo causes women to become infertile.

Yes! A barren fate awaits those girls who feel like quick tootle, says Dr Rose, demonstrating the calm reason and scientific thinking that marks him as a giant of academe.

The issue's got him in an absolute panic, so concerned is he for the fairer sex. Teaching a girl to play the didgeridoo is like encouraging her to play with razor blades, he says, although I must take issue with him here. If my daughter is to become infertile, better she do it with a didgeridoo than with razor blades. The didgeridoo, after all, won't cause flesh wounds, and at least she'll be able to amuse herself with music as she lives out her childless life and dies alone.

Rose says the publishers committed an "extreme cultural indiscretion". But I say it is YOU, doctor, who have committed the extreme indiscretion: you have caused Andrew Bolt to sound reasonable.

And that's unforgivable*.

*although I still can't quite see why Andrew thinks talking to whales is "oppressive"...