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

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Bolt 12/6: "Killing killers does work"
I think Andrew's warming up for a piece on the death penalty, because today he tests the waters on his blog.

He reproduces an article from some CLEARLY AUTHORITATIVE website called "PR Inside" which reports that there's been AN ACADEMIC STUDY on whether the death penalty reduces murders (conducted by "an economics professor"!). Bolt reprints parts of the article which support his title ("killing killers does work") and excludes the bits that don't, eg:
The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications

Uh, I just want you to hear that there have been "studies". I don't want you to read that they're derided as being crackpot. I mean, sure, I'm giving you the link - but if you're actually going to follow links and check sources then you're lost to me anyway.

And then Andy does what he's becoming famous for doing - he gives his trademarked disingenuous cop-out line, where he can later pretend (if his readers turn out not to agree with him, for example) he wasn't saying what he is clearly saying. Here it is:
That said, I think the consequences of the death penalty go beyond its effect on crime.

See? I won't elaborate, because that's not my point, but I've got that vague little caveat for later if I need it. In case you've forgotten my point, though, I'll get you back on track with:
And yet...

*Wink* *Wink*

Did his readers get the dogwhistle? They did, but, surprisingly, they don't appear to be jumping on board. Lucky he left himself that sneaky little out then, isn't it?

Labels:


- posted by Jeremy @ 12:13 PM |

Bolt 11/6: "Not silenced, just irrelevant"
Amazing that Bolt would enjoy yesterday's farcical Australian editorial, bashing a fictional strawman version of the Left that only exists in the minds of hardened cultural warriors like himself. Didn't raise any questions or issues for Andrew, just confirming (sorry, in his words "analysing") his own prejudices about anyone who doesn't agree with him. Raised a question for me though - Who writes this drivel?

Labels:


- posted by Jeremy @ 12:10 PM |
Friday, June 08, 2007

Bolt 8/6: "They Come To Praise Me"
Bizarrely ironic column from Bolt today in which he excoriates people on the "left" (by which he means anyone to the left of him, so that's a fair chunk of the Australian populace) for their sudden "support" of him when he recently suggested Howard should retire.
And when you trade in anti-Howard goodies as a conservative, the world is not short of buyers who suddenly praise the excellent taste they never suspected you had...

If I finally do buy respect, let it be through my reasoning, and not my choice of approved target.

Which is completely different from Bolt's continual refrain that he'd be happy to support the ALP if only it were more conservative. That they could have his respect if they stopped being so damned left-wing. Why can't there be TWO major conservative parties? WHY? People to the left of Rupert Murdoch having some kind of representation in parliament is NOT THE KIND OF COUNTRY I WANT TO LIVE IN!

Anyway, let's just see if I've got this right.
  • Bolt condemns the ALP whenever it does something he sees as "left"; praises it whenever it does something he likes. This is fine and principled.
  • Some ALP figures condemn Bolt whenever he writes something they don't like; praise him when he writes something critical of Howard. This is contemptible and shallow.

Yup, that's perfectly consistent.

Labels:


- posted by Jeremy @ 12:35 PM |
Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Bolt 6/6: "The ABC with commercials"
Andrew Bolt on the startlingly good news that Channel Nine is getting rid of that vicious little halfwit, Alan Jones:
Naturally all this gets Nine the ratings it deserves. Imagine what Rupert Murdoch could achieve with the station instead.

*Sluuuuuuurrrrp!* I'm sure, if he noticed, that Bolt's boss was more than pleased.


Good boy, Andy!

Labels:


- posted by Jeremy @ 11:23 PM |

Bolt 6/6: "See Europe while it’s there"
The other day Bolt was calling Peter Garrett a hypocrite for referring to John Howard's "Garrett will SINGLE HANDEDLY DESTROY THE ECONOMY AND BRING ON THE APOCALYPSE" argument as "scaremongering". Ha ha, mocked Bolt, what gall! And he linked to some article from nutjob site A Western Heart resident crazy-with-too-much-time-on-his-hands, John Ray which purported to show Garrett being a scaremonger. (But didn't.)

So I'm greatly amused by Rusty's effort this morning:
I’m off next week to show the children Europe, where the Europeans used to live.

"Where the Europeans used to live." You know perfectly well what that's code for (Bolt links to someone else saying it) - TEH MUSLIMS ARE COMING!!! OMG! WTF! RUN FOR THE HILLS!

Oh, Andy. Such effortless self-parody. You know, you're almost making this site redundant.

Labels: ,


- posted by Jeremy @ 8:22 AM |
Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Bolt 5/6: "Rudd promises to let the ABC party on".
Bolt's effort today is breathtaking in its disingenuousness. He argues that the proposed ALP plan for ABC board appointments - a bipartisan model whereby the opposition leader has veto power over a candidate - is somehow MORE biased than the existing one, where the PM simply appoints whoever he likes.
All of which means that governments - Labor or Liberal - will be less able to tackle an ABC cultural bias which already suits Labor justs fine.

Prime Ministers don't appoint politically-biased people! Only bipartisan bodies do that.

It's the same line that contemptible liar Sophie Mirabella (then Panopolous) ran at the republic referendum - that somehow a model where the governor-general was appointed by a 2/3rds majority of MPs, was more a "politicians' republic" than one where the G-G is simply appointed by the PM.

Through which of the two processes are you most likely to get a political G-G? The one where he or she has to be approved by both sides of politics, or the one where he or she only has to be approved by one? Mirabella, and others on the constitutional monarch side (and those saboteurs on the direct election side, who wanted to ENSURE we got a politician through having a public election), successfully ran the absurd line that the bipartisan model was somehow more political than the alternatives.

As Bolt's doing here.

How stupid do they think people are?

Labels:


- posted by Jeremy @ 2:37 PM |

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.