BoltWatch

Dedicated to those who can tell the difference between A. Bolt and a nut.

Where Andrew Bolt's Deranged Polemic ... Gets What's Coming To It

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Bolt 28/2: "Labor to the Max" and 26/2 "McKew against Howard. What's new?"
Scott Bridges at GrodsCorp snorts ironically at Andrew's recent outrage about Maxine McKew leaving the ABC to join the ALP WHICH PROVES THAT THEY'RE A BUNCH OF COMMUNISTS AS I'VE SAID ALL ALONG.

In a spirit of blatant theft* community, BoltWatch is pleased to reprint Scott's pieces below.


One side of story reveals clear bias

Andrew Bolt, after exhaustively examining one transcript, thinks he has proved beyond all doubt that Maxine McKew was biased towards the Labor party while working as a journalist on ABC TV. You see, McKew — wait for it — asked hard questions of politicians appearing on her shows.

How dare she.

Bolta brings us a condensed version of some of the questions she asked John Howard in one interview on 13 August 2005. They were hard. Made Howard squirm. You know, like all leading politicians — regardless of political affiliation — should do when being interrogated by the press on behalf of citizens in a democracy. So in the interest of balance, here is a condensed version of some of the questions she asked now Labor leader Kevin Rudd on 11 August 2003.
Kevin Rudd, first of all to the news out of Brisbane this afternoon, the planning for joint military training for interdiction of — potentially, of course — North Korean vessels. Does the Labor Party support this?

OK, but if both those matters can be dealt with, do you agree with this? Would you agree that we can’t afford to do nothing when it comes to North Korea, particularly in the wake of the news that’s come out of South Korea in the last 24 hours?

But hang on, where is the truth in doubt here? The PM said correctly today that the Government’s case for being part of the coalition did not rest on the uranium question exclusively?

Hang on, Kevin Rudd. At the time when the PM made the statement to Parliament in early February, he was acting on the known information at the time. It wasn’t a month later, it wasn’t until March, rather, this year, that the IAEA went to the UN and said, “These documents are forged,” and equally, the PM today cited the fact that there was separate British intelligence about this.

Again, John Howard said not a key piece of information, he says, that in fact, what ONA had in January was one sentence in an 86-page document.

By the way, you didn’t disagree with that. Alexander Downer said on this program last night there was an international consensus about Saddam’s arsenal and you were part of that?

But can I say that’s a very loose allegation. What is it you are really claiming?

Bloody hell! Kruddy got it real easy there.

Shouting to be Heard

Andrew Bolt bemoans (does he ever do anything but moan?) the “information class talking to itself” while outsiders must “shout to get a word in”:
The number of journalists, for instance, who regularly switch from reporting politics to being politicians or their flunkeys is extraordinary. I speak, of course, as someone who twice worked for Labor himself.

But add to them the other members of this cultural elite - the teachers, preachers, ad men, lawyers, broadcasters, political flacks and other species of word-wranglers - and it’s clear politics is increasingly run by a same-same class of chatterers.

Take Victoria: Our last three premiers have been, in order, a teacher, an ad man, and another teacher. Our last five Opposition leaders include three former teachers and a real estate agent.

It’s the same story around the country. Of our eight state and territory leaders, three once were journalists, two lawyers, one a teacher and two union officials and political advisers. Words are their business.

Too much of this can be suffocating. We have now a collective of politicians whose colleagues and advisers sound just like them, and whose doings are reported by people who sound just like them, too.

Here is the Information Class talking to itself, while outsiders must shout to get in a word.

Bolt’s inference is that only dirty, latte-drinking lefties are members of the information class while poor righties like himself must shout to be heard.

Of course, Bolt has lots of trouble communicating his message to his adoring public. There’s his twice-weekly, full page column in Australia’s largest selling newspaper, his blog, regular appearances on ABC TV’s Insiders, and in the last few days he has featured on Seven’s Sunrise, 2UE with Alan Jones, radio 3AW and radio 6PR. There’s even a rumour — that Bolta is talking up — that he’s about to be given his own show by ABC TV.

Poor Andrew. It must be so hard to make oneself heard above all that lefty latte-sipping.

*Not really, Scott's given us permission.

|
Monday, February 26, 2007

Bolt 24/2: "Howard fights back in PR offensive"
Where BoltWatch slacks off, others fill the void.

Larvatus Prodeo calls "WTF?!" on Andy's spin last week regarding News Ltd's excited revelations that Howard Jnr has snagged himself a "bikini babe":
However, if Andrew Bolt has his way, apparently the PM’s son’s new girlfriend is a secret electoral weapon for daddy’s campaign.

"Just the news to revamp the image of John Howard when he’s under such assault from a younger, fresher rival"

Wtf? How does this make any sense at all?

Good question. LP commenters suggest that maybe Andy has succumbed to "Fuhrerbunker" syndrome.

|
Saturday, February 24, 2007

Bolt 21/2: "Deathly Green"
Guest post by Alex at Dead Roo:

Shocking news: Andrew Bolt is a source of misinformation

Far right-wing hack, Andrew Bolt, regularly invokes Goodwins Law by comparing his political adversaries to Nazis. In his latest smear attempt, he recycles one of the most stupid of all anti-environmentalist myths.

In an attempt to enhance their own fragile egos, right-wing ideologues will stop at no lengths to discredit any cause that they believe is related to ‘leftism’. Unfortunately for their great grandchildren, environmentalism falls into this category. Of course they are wrong - Environmentalists are the original conservatives, but that’s an discussion for another day.

Bolt recyles the myth that due to environmentalists, Sri Lanka banned DDT spraying in 1964, subsequently leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

The real reason spraying ceased was because the incidents of malaria had dropped to only 17, making continued spraying unnecessary. When Malaria reemerged, DDT was reintroduced, but failed to make an impact due to the fact that agricultural use of DDT had continued during this time and the mosquitoes had subsequently developed resistance. When this was discovered, an alternative, malathion, was used with good results.

Super sleuth Tim Lambert, takes great pleasure in exposing wingnuts for the vacuous imbeciles that they are, and I recommend you read this post which goes into great detail about this issue.

Also, keep an eye on his site for an inevitable response to Bolt’s post.

Cross-posted at Dead Roo

|
Tuesday, February 20, 2007

No, it doesn't work both ways
Those who've been following Andrew Bolt's powerfully insightful contributions to the global warming debate will have come across the following brilliant argument, whenever the mercury drops, paraphrased as "it's cold outside, therefore there's no such thing as global warming". Truly, the man's grasp of the climate debate is without peer.

However, those of you in south eastern Australia might have noticed that it's been bloody hot this week.

And I just want to help clarify what this means: absolutely nothing.

Of course hot weather is not evidence for global warming. Only a total idiot could think that hot weather on one day, or over a week, could somehow be meaningful evidence on the subject of global climate change. Yes, true, cold weather is indeed extremely strong evidence against the theory, but hot weather is completely different. You see, hot days like today are just irrelevant aspects of the natural climate and are statistically meaningless. On the other hand, freakishly cold days like Christmas day 2006 are specific and incontrovertible proof that global warming is a lying communist plot.

Okay? Glad we've cleared that up.

Elsewhere: Crikey reveals Andrew's juvenilia (free registration required) and Irfan Yusuf has some comments about Bolt's attitude to Muslims.

|
Friday, February 16, 2007

Andy's green screen challenge and excitement at the exposing of a rock star
Andy is now conducting his own version of my "green screen challenge" (itself shamelessly stolen from Stephen Colbert). Is the Green Screen Challenge the new "Friday Cat Blogging"?

Meanwhile, Bolt is thrilled by the Liberal Party's discovery yesterday that Peter Garrett was in a rock band called Midnight Oil, ridiculously bravely opining that "Garrett's bruises mark the end of Rudd's honeymoon". That killjoy AnonymousLefty retorts to Andrew's eminently sensible argument here, in his usual sniping, sarcastic way.

|

Righty Groupthink Watch
Noticed Andy Bolt and Timmeh Blair linking to each other a great deal lately?

Whilst "groupthink" is, obviously, a crime committed by lefties, not conservatives, nevertheless GrodsCorp was sufficiently struck by the love-fest between the two News Ltd righties that it's started a Righty Groupthink Watch.

Of course, the feature will starve for content, proud individualists that Timmeh and Andy are.

|
Friday, February 09, 2007

Bolt 9/2: "Kicking the bucket"
Bolt's column today speaks for itself. I'm even going to directly link to it:
Kicking The Bucket [or: I clumsily poured water over myself and it's Steve Bracks' fault for not building a dam!]

Have a read. Reckon Andrew's finally lost it? I don't think I've ever read from him a more self-pitying, pathetic rant.
There went the phone inside, and me still stumbling out in the dark with another two buckets of the kids’ bath water for parched plants I can barely see.

Back inside for yet another load, my pants drenched and feet trailing slush from back door to bath...

What the hell was he doing? He tells us he's spent $2500 on a sprinkler system and it hasn't occurred to him to put up some lights?

It's like he's figured that the only way to convince his audience that water recycling is terrible is to put on a Mr Bean-esque slapstick routine.
I’ll be only too glad to put them down for an hour so I can tell you exactly what I think.

Just call.

So, we have Andrew, standing there in the dark in his wet trousers, shaking his fists angrily at the sky and cursing greenies. That's the image he's described. To be honest, I don't think he's doing his dignity any favours.

In fact, though far be it from my place to offer any suggestions to the Greatest Controversial Columnist of our Time (TM), if I might, Andrew - perhaps you ought to reconsider publishing columns about yourself. You come across as, well, not to be unkind, a bit of a buffoonish crank. (We're laughing at you, not with you.)

You've got to feel for poor Andrew. Working in an office without air conditioning (apparently), so uncomfortable that he has to sneak into The Age offices for a bit of respite; struggling outside at night without any lighting, pouring buckets of water all over himself; gradually having to concede that there is fairly good evidence that we're inducing climate change - he's not having a good summer. And he's such a nice bloke! He deserves better.

|
Thursday, February 08, 2007

Bolt 7/2: "Aircon is uncool" and Bolt 8/2 "Too cold to measure warming"
One thing about Bolt recycling his drivel is that it allows BoltWatch to do likewise. (Uh, recyling posts, not drivel.)

His post today, "Too cold to measure warming"? Here's a response we prepared earlier.

And his newspaper column on Wednesday, "Aircon is uncool", in which he lambasted The Age FOR HAVING AIR CONDITIONING (the HWT offices don't? Really?) is just a variant of his old "leftists want you to live in a cave BUT THEY DON'T LIVE IN CAVES THEMSELVES" line. Which, conveniently enough, has also been responded to by BoltWatch already.

Gee, that was easy.

|
Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Bolt 5/2: "Wasn't every terrorist once a lovely child?"
Andy responds to the "bring David Hicks home" television campaign with outrage at the decision to try to provocatively humanise Hicks by showing a photograph of him as a child:



This strikes me as fundamentally dishonest. It is not a nine-year-old boy that is awaiting trial on charges of carrying unlicenced freckles, but an adult who has openly acknowledged he trained with al Qaeda.

We've spent all this time and energy demonising the man, and now they want to humanise him? Seriously?

Now, I agree that it's sad that it appears to take images of an Australian citizen as a child to prompt the community to stand up and demand that our government actually insist on the release of one of our citizens who's been held in an American prison for five years without charge... but if that's what it takes, then it's no more unfair than, say, showing pictures of September 11 in an attempt to dishonestly imply Hicks had something to do with it.

Frankly, I don't care whether Hicks is a sweet Adelaide lad who was just adventuring around the world or if he's the biggest anti-Semite arsehole we've ever produced: the fundamental principle, that you either charge someone with a crime or RELEASE THEM, is far more important. If Hicks were guilty of breaking the law, it wouldn't have taken five years to charge him. They wouldn't have had to invent NEW laws with which to charge him retrospectively. I'm not demanding his release because I think he's a nice bloke: I'm demanding his release because locking people up for any longer than the short period of time it takes to determine what they've done for which you intend to prosecute them, is the act of a police state, not one governed by the rule of law.

It's an outrage, and - advertising campaign or not - Australians are finally starting to wake up to it.

Appropriate Henry Mencken quote someone linked to on AnonymousLefty today:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

If only Andrew understood this.

But he's not giving up without a fight.

Andrew Bolt now tries the two stupid arguments you'd expect from a gutter-dwelling polemicist, starting with this:


"The image Adolf Hitler’s family hopes will set him free"

Yes, he compares Hicks with Hitler. He quickly and unconvincingly tries to cover his backside -
Let me make a few things instantly clear. I am NOT suggesting David Hicks is like a Hitler, despite his avowed dislike of the Jews he’s claimed run the world. Hicks has not, to my knowledge so far, killed a single person, and may well have served long enough already in jail, even if much of what is alleged against him is true.

No, I am not trying to compare Hicks to Hitler...

Sure, Andy, I believe you. Who would think you were comparing Hicks with Hitler? Only people who can read.

That's amusing enough, but what tops it is Bolt's suggestion of REALLY appropriate images for any discussion of Hicks:



and



See? Unlike Hicks' anxious family, Andrew Bolt is ABOVE using manipulative and irrelevant imagery to influence the Hicks debate. It's simply something he would never do.

Because it would be, as he says, "fundamentally dishonest".

|
Saturday, February 03, 2007

Bolt v Lambert
Bolt thinks he's got one up on Tim Lambert:
Tim Lambert writes to me on October 6: [The new IPCC report] does not predict sea level rises of 14-43cm. You seem to be relying on an inaccurate story in the Australian.

Which Bolt, attacking Lambert for his "howler", counters with:
The IPCC report has since been released, and gives six possible scenarios of sea level rises, the highest of which predicts a maximum rise of 59cm, not 43.

Question for Andrew. If a report gives six possible scenarios of sea level rises, is it predicting all six? Could one particular of those scenarios be called its actual prediction?

If not - wasn't Lambert right?

PS I haven't and won't read through his comment thread. Debate over how many centimetres the sea levels are going to rise bores me rigid.

The climate change deniers are like creationists, who pick at debate within the scientific community as to the exact mechanisms of evolution as if it were debate over the reality of evolution. "Scientist A says it worked this way; scientist B says it worked a slightly different way; therefore the scientists can't agree and evolution is false!" Idiocy. And people like Bolt are attempting to confuse the climate issue with misleading drivel so as to delay action for as long as possible.

It's very tedious.

UPDATE: Lambert explains the issue.

|
Thursday, February 01, 2007

How Bolt would make the rain come: build a dam!
Andrew Bolt is convinced that building a dam would, somehow, have solved our water problem. (I've speculated on why he's so fixated on this "solution" previously.) Anyone who doesn't agree with him? The drought is their fault:
We'd rather die than build a dam

Well, I’m really speaking for the green-obsessed Labor Government, of course, which is fiddling while Melbourne’s gardens burn:

[Terrible statistic about how little water we have because of the drought]

For four years or more this Government has been warned to dam well do something. Now it’s close to too late, if no good rains come.

1. WE MUST DO SOMETHING.
2. Building a dam is doing something.
3. Therefore, we must build a dam.

He's a fricking genius.

|

Bolt 1/7: "Picking a Bone with the Left"
Bolt quotes Pamela Bone's recent silly anti-liberal rant enthusiastically, appending his own facile "Besides, I’m not even sure that excusing mass murder and the killing of liberty is really so new for the Left, either" and asserting that lefties have always been pro-totalitarianism.

His idiotic and ridiculous sledge barely deserves acknowledgement, let alone response, but Pamela's does need a little:
WHY is it, asks British journalist Nick Cohen, that apologies for a militant Islam, which stands for everything the liberal Left is against, come from the liberal Left?

They don't. No-one genuinely on the liberal Left would "apologise" for militant religious fanaticism. There may be a few idiots coming to the conclusion that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but they'd be abandoning liberalism to do it. And there are others who point out that in our conflict with the fanatics it doesn't help to start implementing similar philosophies on our own side; only a Bolt-esque fool would interpret that as "apologising" for fascists. (Sadly, Andrew Bolt is a Bolt-esque fool.)

An example of what precisely she's talking about would have been helpful.
Why are you as likely to read about the alleged conspiracy of Jews controlling American foreign policy in a literary journal as in a neo-Nazi hate sheet?

Not sure what she means by this. If she's trying to argue that there isn't a well-funded Jewish lobby in Washington, then she's being silly. Of course there is. It's not a bloody secret; it's so overt you couldn't really call it a conspiracy. Of course there's a strong pro-Israel influence in American foreign policy; both parties receive extensive donations from wealthy pro-Israeli Americans (of whom there are obviously more than wealthy pro-Arab Americans). Of course there are lots of lobby groups in the US; the Jewish lobby is just one of them. Denying it is like saying there's no evangelical christian lobby in the US Republican Party.

To recognise the lobby's existence is hardly neo-Nazi-style anti-Semitism - it's just being aware of a fairly non-controversial reality of American politics. Duh.
Why, after the bomb attacks in the London underground, did left-leaning British newspapers run pieces excusing the suicide bombers, these same young men who were motivated by “a psychopathic theology from the ultra-Right”?

"Excusing"? Show me the article to which you refer. That's ridiculous. The so-called "left-leaning" British newspapers ("left-leaning", ha) may have published pieces attempting to gain some insight into the minds of the bombers... but it's only idiotic conservative over-simplification to turn that into "excusing" them. Understanding a threat isn't capitulating to it; it's being bloody sensible.
Why, in short, have Left and Right changed places?

They haven't. Your attempt to argue that they have is incredibly weak.

|


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.