Where Andrew Bolt's Deranged Polemic ... Gets What's Coming To It
You maniacs! You blew it up!
|No, we didn't. BoltWatch will remain, right here, a historical monument to three years of resigned and reluctant Boltwatching.|
But it will remain here only as a mummified corpse, with posts (and, eventually, comments) frozen in time. Nothing further will be added to it. Its task is done, and it retires with a sense of relief.
Because it has been replaced. Replaced by its zippier, more exciting, better-designed, thoroughly improved offspring -
The Blair/Bolt Watch Project.
A wondrous new world of collaborative (meaning mainly by other people) News Ltd columnist watching awaits. Where the deranged polemics of Andrew Bolt and his NSW-based counterpart, Tim Blair - note, only their deranged polemics - really will get what's coming to them.
No longer will the blogosphere's genuine political debate need to be dragged off-topic by being forced to deal with the noisy silliness of Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt. That silliness - when it can't simply be ignored - can be responded to on the new site, leaving the country's real political blogs free to concentrate on adult discussions without constantly being interrupted by Timmy and Andy's juvenile shouting and poo-throwing.
Consider it a community service.
The Boltblog view of "balance"
|Bolt has a facile go today at Mark Bahnisch for daring to pick up a pen for News Ltd. What is wrong with the HES section of The Australian? Stupidly hiring a lefty?|
Bahnisch is right - the HES is indeed off on a frolic on its own, and needs to be made as relevant, provocative, challenging, sceptical, reforming and simply sensible as the rest of the paper.
Apparently those adjectives are the ones which describe conservatives like Bolt.
"Relevant". (Where would we be without Andy's refreshingly realistic view of the Prime Minister?)
"Provocative". (In the childish hair-pulling way, anyway.)
"Challenging". (The patience of a saint?)
"Sceptical". (Don't worry, only of things our opponents argue. And then we're sceptical to the point of idiocy. But if you want to push a war - don't worry, we'll be as credulous as you like.)
"Reforming". (Although we'd prefer it if you Labor types didn't do any reforming of our reforms, thank you very much.)
"Simply Sensible". (I define "sensible" as "agreeing with me".)
The first comment from one of his fellow travellers is particularly ironic:
This boof head is of course just that - a boofhead that starts his first day biting the hand that feeds him. Get rid of him, and find someone who can at least offer a sense of gratitude for his/her employment as well as bring a balanced attitude to the job at hand.
1. It is wrong to bite the hand that feeds you; you should "offer a sense of gratitude" for your employment instead.
2. You should bring a "balanced attitude" to the job.
3. Therefore, a "balanced attitude" is defined as "doing what your employer wants you to do".
And people say Bolt isn't balanced!
Labels: fair and balanced
Compare and contrast
|Just like GrodsCorp has been taking the piss out of Brendan Nelson's Magical Listening Tour, Andrew Bolt has been taking the piss out of Kevin Rudd's world tour. Bolta's main argument has been that Rudd is doing nothing more than chasing photo opportunities with world leaders despite the fact that Rudd's out there doing very diligently what national leaders are supposed to do. The latest target for Bolta's derision is Rudd's meeting with French pres Nicolas Sarkozy.|
The great autograph hunt continues:But here's a real journalist's take on the meeting.
FRENCH President Nicolas Sarkozy has told Prime Minister Kevin Rudd that France will back Australia's bid to get a seat on the United Nations Security Council.Security council. Afghanistan war. Possible visit by French president to Australia. How utterly trivial!
I actually find it rather disgusting that Andrew Bolt can dismiss the Prime Minister of this country networking with prominent world leaders at a NATO forum as autograph hunting. Can you imagine John Howard receiving the same treatment from Bolta's poison pen?
Bolt 2/4: A columnist's tantrum
|The newspaper columnist vs the entry-level employee:|
But my last straw broke last week when I got to the register with another four books for my children, bought on impulse on the way to the movies.
Gee, I wonder why Bolt Jr was embarrassed. I'm sure his father's "huffing" outrage was expressed completely "sweetly" and "placidly".
Wouldn't you like to see the first, slightly less self-serving and carefully-edited draft of that piece?
Sue Gant remonstrates with him in the comments:
AGAIN - Andrew - it has occured to me that you were rather rude to that “overworked” lass in Borders the other day. Rather than make a humiliating public example of her (she’s probably been sacked now for bad customer service) you could have with good humor made your purchase and then written an Open letter to Border’s management eh? But it’s more fun to humiliate a low level employee. A shame really because your description of her work conditions was so eloquent and heck, I even related to it. By the way, this certain AGE - feel sorry for your kids when they reach it and have their sense of self esteem destroyed by opinionated adults who should know better.
I'm surprised Bolt's moderators let that comment through, actually.
Bolt 2/4: "Student needs help with teacher"
|Memo Melbourne University lecturers: better not sneeze in a way that could be construed as "left-wing", or your students may report you to Lord Andrew of Bolt!|
I considered asking the lecturer if he was ashamed at the end of the lecture for not being less partisan or using an example that was not political. Then I thought better of it because I am doing four courses and all the lecturers and tutors do the same. I am only 1st year and these people will be passing me or not. Dear Dorothy Bolt what do I do? I want my degree but should I have to listen to this form of partisan politicking for 3 years.
The lecturer's crime?
Yesterday I sat in a lecture at Melbourne University on Politics, Philosophy and Economics where Global Warming was used as an example and pushed by a lecturer to first year students and a definite snide remark made against our former Prime Minister Mr John Howard.
In a politics lecture, he mentioned "global warming" and, apparently, made a "snide" (but unquoted) remark "against" Howard.
OUTRAGEOUS! He mentioned global warming. He used it as an example of something! And then, to top it all off, he did not refer to our sadly rejected former leader with the respect he deserves. Clearly it's just one step from that to re-education camps.
Bolt's commenters rightly fear the rights of their younger ideological brethren being curtailed:
Everyone has their own political opinions, however, they shouldn’t be rammed down the throat of a student and he shouldn’t be penalised for having views different to that of the lecturer. Perhaps, you are not familiar with the way a university works but it shouldn’t be like a union meeting where one ideology prevails.
"Verax", calling for the penalising of the lecturer for having views different to that of the student, appears not to have noticed the irony. Was the student "penalised"? No, he just didn't like something the lecturer said and wants him to be shut up so he doesn't have to listen to opinions he doesn't like for the next three years. The poor dear!
Then "Chade" suggests one lesson the student could take on board:
How about: “learn to accept other people have equally valid but differing opinions”?
Andrew Bolt's juvenile "I know you are" retort?
Good advice for the lecturer indeed. Well done.
It's like a farce over there, it really is.
UPDATE: I did love this bizarre remark from "scotty":
Don’t bother trying to get the lefty lecturer to see another view point - they are beyond reasoned argument.
Whereas here on Bolt's blog, the righties are famed for their openness to other view points.
Portions of any work of Andrew Bolt are taken from his webpage at http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/, are copyright Andrew Bolt, and are reproduced on the basis of the "fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review" section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968. Other material is copyright by its various authors, which sort of goes without saying really.