BoltWatch

You maniacs! You blew it up!

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 08:55:00 +0000

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.

We do.

The Boltblog view of "balance"

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 08:39:00 +0000

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!

Compare and contrast

noreply@blogger.com (Scott) — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:24:00 +0000

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:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has held a 15-minute meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the NATO summit in Bucharest.

Hello. Pose for camera. Goodbye.

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.

France's backing gets Australia's campaign off to a good start because it is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

Mr Rudd, who launched the bid when he met UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the weekend, raised the matter during a 25-minute meeting with Mr Sarkozy before the start of the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania.

"The President indicated France would be happy to support that bid," a spokesman for Mr Rudd said.

Mr Sarkozy also indicated he may be travelling to the French territories in the Pacific later this year and if possible he would also like to visit Australia.

The two leaders discussed areas such as Afghanistan, climate change, and stronger economic ties between Australia and Europe.

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

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:48:00 +0000

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.

“Would you like a plastic bag?” I was asked, in the disapproving tones I’ve learned to accept from sales staff of a certain age and taste for studs.

Why Borders should be so down on a little plastic bag is a mystery, actually, given its business is selling stuff made of murdered trees and plasticised oil.

But, ever placid, I sweetly replied, yes, please - I would indeed like to carry those books in a bag rather than cart them into the cinema in my arms. Not that I said that last bit, of course.

And then I was told Borders now charged 10 cents for each bag.

I pointed out that the bag should be given for free as a service to customers kind enough to buy armfuls of the shop’s wares.

But the sales assistant informed me in tones sanctimonious that this 10 cents was for “the environment” - going to Coastcare, a green group I’d never heard of.

As I told her, to the increasing mortification of my 14-year-old son, if I wanted to donate to Coastcare I’d do it myself, and I do not need or want Borders to bully me into it.

As I huffed off with books unbagged, I heard her protest to a colleague that I was wrong to object because the bag levy really was for “the environment”.

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"

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:07:00 +0000

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.

Bolt (April 1) "An announcement from the seat of Higgins"

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:08:00 +0000

I do like that Andrew Bolt recognises how much of a joke his run as a candidate for the Liberal Party would be, by using the subject as his April Fools' Day prank:

This is it for the blog, at least for now. I can’t pre-empt the announcement that my local member and friend, Peter Costello, is about to make, but it would clearly be a conflict of interest for me to continue to write about politics here if I’ve privately agreed to become a player.

Wink, wink, boom, boom!

Perhaps next April Andy can write a piece about how he's considering taking up actual journalism.

UPDATE: I couldn't let this pass. From the comments:

I do not believe you even needed to write that, Andrew. You have always projected as a man of honour, and if what you have intimated above really is that you will one day take a place on the federal benches of parliament, then Australia will be a better, stronger, and more responsible nation because of it.

You have courage, knowledge, and compassion; and you know and understand the heartbeat of our great land.

I can't say Roger's fine adjectives entirely describe my experience of the man in question.

BoltAndBlairWatch

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:30:00 +0000

BoltWatch is in the process of being prepared for a relaunch. The new version will be collaborative (given my recent "dear God do I have to read the rantings of that idiot? No? Someone else is prepared to? Thank the Lord" approach to the site), will feature a better visual design (read: "an actual visual design"), and generally make the site's first iteration look embarrassingly amateurish (read: not change the way this site is viewed in the slightest).

One question which has not yet been resolved is this: should the remit of BoltWatch expand to also cover a BlairWatch?

Tim Blair, for Victorians who are only here because they've been exposed to Andrew Bolt's embarrassing drivel in the state tabloid, is roughly the NSW equivalent. Only his blog is even more disturbing. It's like Andrew's - very like Andrew's - but with more regular personal attacks on minor lefty bloggers, and considerably angrier Americans in the comments. It is also, scarily enough, one of the oldest, largest and most-read major Australian blogs.

Given how often Tim and Andrew like to write about each other, and given that the whole point of BoltWatch is to help quarantine the rest of the blogosphere from having to constantly taint actual adult political discussion with responses to this sort of right-wing tabloid drivel, dealing with both of them here seems appropriate. Don't bore your readers by exposing them to the Bolts and Blairs of this world - deal with it here, amongst the sympathetic company of people who similarly can't resist reading their rantings, even though they know they'll regret it. What Australian blogger hasn't faced, slightly shamefacedly, comments from readers along the lines of "Why do you write about that idiot? I didn't even know they existed until you pointed it out!" I know I have. And I know I'm sorry.

That's why I started BoltWatch, and readers of An Onymous Lefty have been relieved over the years to barely have to read anything about Andrew Bolt at all. Would they jump at the chance to have the Blair posts also disappear? I suspect the answer rhymes with "oh, f*ck yes". (I suspect the answer actually is, "oh, f*ck yes".)

I note that Timmy Blair is very proud to have had his American fans name an internet "law" after him:

Blair's law. Coined by Australian journalist, Tim Blair as -

"the ongoing process by which the world's multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force."

1. The alliance between the radical Left and extremist Islamists is an example of Blair's Law.

The fact that the above example does not in any recognisable way describe the real world in which the rest of us live, doesn't counter the trend Blair has noticed and, with Bolt, ironically illustrates. And which this -watch site could, conceivably, also highlight.

"BoltandBlairWatch - tackling the multiple idiocies of the Australian blogosphere's most giant, useless forces."

Or should we stick with Andy, and Andy alone? Your feedback is ~~important~~ of at least marginal consequence.

Cross-posted to An Onymous Lefty.

UPDATE: Name? "The BoltBlair Watch Project" has been suggested, although I think it might work better as "The BlairBoltWatch Project". Other ideas?

One eye closed

noreply@blogger.com (Scott) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:28:00 +0000

Despite appearances I am actually quite understanding of bias. I'm biased, my site is biased, and bloggers in general are biased -- that's what blogging is all about. But there's bias and then there's bias.

The latest bulletin from Kevin Rudd’s Excellent Adventure:

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has announced he will speak with all three US presidential election candidates during his trip to Washington.

Wow! And?

The Prime Minister is visiting seven countries, meeting the US President and the UN Secretary-General, touching base with NATO, the EU and other foreign leaders. It is hardly a holiday and it is exactly the kind of job that the PM should be doing. But what does Bolta do? Dismiss it as spin, spin and more spin when Rudd announces that he has secured meetings with each of the three potential next US Presidents. John Howard used to schedule overseas trips to ensure he was in London for the cricket.

Surely Andy is taking the piss with these articles. Surely.

Name just ten! (reprise)

noreply@blogger.com (Scott) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:22:00 +0000

Our mate Andy is famous for shrieking "name just ten" at anyone who'd listen while arguing that the stolen generation was a pernicious lefty lie. Of course, when ten stolen children were named he'd start shrieking "name just one hundred" without missing a beat.

Now Bolta has shrieked his famous line in a new context.

Could Steffen name, say, just 10 of the species that have so far been wiped out by this “human-induced mass extinction event” in the 40-odd years of alleged human-induced global warming?

Perhaps my green critics on this blog could help him. Just 10.

Of course, Andy thinks he's being ironic by using his "name ten" line but we all know that it's being shrieked with spittle-flecked lips just as seriously as it was during the stolen generations debate.

26/3: "Don't boycott China's shame"

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:23:00 +0000

Andrew Bolt is not always an apologist for authoritarianism. If it's authoritarianism he can lay at the feet of people he thinks are representative of "the left", he's happy to sink in the boot. Which is good, because that's where we can finally agree on something.

His column today, arguing that the Olympic Games are a fine opportunity to make Beijing choke a bit on the contempt the rest of the world has (or should have) for its outrageous human rights abuses, is fairly reasonable.

Yes, he can't resist trying to have a go at lefties:

Our own protesters like to scream abuse at the West, but at least Western countries and institutions insist that when they give money to foreign nations it’s in exchange for promises to be less corrupt and more democratic.

(I think he's saying here that protesters shouldn't criticise the West because its institutions are at least not as bad as China's. Otherwise I can't for the life of me see the relevance of that remark.)

And he notices the new Prime Minister's (the new MANDARIN SPEAKING PRIME MINISTER WTF OMG) kowtowing to Beijing, in a way he never noticed John Howard's:

Our own Mandarin-speaking Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, for instance, can furiously vow to do “everything within our power” to stop Japan’s “slaughter” of whales, but dares only murmur that China should “exercise restraint” in slaughtering Tibetans.

(Strangely enough, Bolt never applauded the Greens for being the only Australian political party willing to stand up to the Chinese leader when he spoke here in 2004.)

But at least he didn't try to argue that we should leave politics alone and come together to celebrate what the Olympic Games are really about - world-class ~~advertising contracts~~ athletes. His article seems to suggest that, no matter what the IOC says or demands of participants in the Games, they (and we) should stick to our guns. The Chinese are certainly going to stick to theirs - which are, of course, not metaphorical guns.

And so what if he tried to turn this into a bit of a bash-the-left exercise? He's got a particular audience, they expect him to at least play some of his favourite hits when they go to his show. So what if he doesn't apply these standards to less convenient targets and in fact goes to some lengths to use this article to apologise for them? I don't expect him to suddenly oppose Western-friendly governments passing draconian legislation - not when he has the handy "at least they're not as bad as China/Mugabe/Saddam" comeback.

The fact is that on this issue, it doesn't matter - we can unite in being appalled at the autocrats in Beijing and wanting to do something about it. China is a brutal, dissent-crushing dictatorship, and it deserves all the condemnation and unfavourable exposure we can give it. Those who oppose authoritarianism in all its forms; and those who oppose it only when it's from a "communist" regime. Together.

Andrew Bolt: shameless

noreply@blogger.com (Scott) — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 05:21:00 +0000

We reported yesterday about Andrew Bolt's dodgy use of blockquotes, editorialising and selective reporting to make a point about the delegates selected to the Australia 2020 summit and smear The Sunday Age in the process. (By the way, he has today added to his list of delegates, deliberately using the same style of bullets to make a point.) In his post he labelled nutritionist Rosemary Stanton as an "anti GM food campaigner" which is bad, you see. She's a filthy lefty hippy, or something like that. One of Bolta's commenters took the bait and wrote the following.

What?????

This is the woman who, and I kid you not, in her book Food for Life, defines nursing as “standing with light activity”

*slams head on desk again*
-- Nemesis12

This comment triggered the kind of response you'd expect until Rosemary Stanton herself dropped into Bolt's blog-of-shame to set the message straight.

Before damning me, you might get your facts straight. I have written many books but none titled Food for Life and none that say that nursing is ‘standing with light activity’.
-- Rosemary Stanton

Without having read any of Stanton's books this seems like a pretty open-and-shut case. It's unlikely that Stanton would make such a statement unless it were actually true. But Bolt's response to this clarification is stunning in its arrogance and lack of ethics -- even for him.

UPDATE

Rosemary Stanton replies - kind of - in comments below.

Can you imagine Bolta's response if he were misquoted, defended himself, and then had his defence dismissed as such? You'd hear the screaming at the Southbank HWT building all the way from Brunswick.

UPDATE (6:45pm): Norbett in comments at GrodsCorp provides further info that seems to weaken Stanton’s denial but still leaves the fact that Bolt supports his commenter’s inference that nurses do no work.

Bolta quotes selectively (and makes the rest up)

noreply@blogger.com (Scott) — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:40:00 +0000

BoltWatch is pleased to welcome The Editor as a regular contributor.

(This item is crossposted at GrodsCorp)

I'm not a huge fan of the government's planned Australia 2020 summit, but Andrew Bolt's hatred of the idea makes me look like a fanatical supporter. I think it's an idea with merit but the way it's been setup and will be run will ultimately lead to very little useful discussion and no real generation of ideas. But Bolta thinks it's a pernicious lefty groupthinking love-in, and perniciously twists The Sunday Age's words to make his point.

Kevin Rudd announces more delegates to his 2020 summit love in. As predicted, the latest confirm that most invitations are going to people who share the Left’s agenda

Here's a list of summit delegates on The Sunday Age's website.

And here's the layout Bolt used in his blog post.

See how he's placed The Sunday Age's list in a blockquote, suggesting that it's a -- you know -- quote? But he's also added names to the list that were in the paper's story text but not in the list. And see how he's selectively added his own extra notes to delegates' bios to emphasise the evil leftiness?

The Sunday Age:

Rodney Dillon, former ATSIC commissioner.

Bolta:

Rodney Dillon, former ATSIC commissioner, stolen generations activist and campaigner for the return of Aboriginal remains.

Campaigner for the return of Aboriginial remains? Evil man!

The Sunday Age:

Waleed Aly, a member of the Islamic Council of Victoria executive and a lecturer in the global terrorism research centre at Monash University who will join the committee dealing with Australia's future security.

Bolta:

Waleed Aly, Islamic Council of Victoria executive member ~~and a lecturer in the global terrorism research centre at Monash University~~ and “war on terror” critic (to go on group discussing security)

"War on verbs" critic and Muslim? He must be a terrorist who wants to bring down Western civilisation!

The Sunday Age:

Rosemary Stanton, nutritionist.

Bolta:

Rosemary Stanton, nutritionist and anti GM food campaigner.

Anti-GM food? Hippy.

But here's my favourite. The Sunday Age:

Ana Kikkinos (sic), best known for the TV series The Secret Life of Us and Young Lions and the film Head On

Bolta:

Ana Kokkinos, director of TV series The Secret Life of Us and Young Lions and the gay cult film Head On

Gay? Cult? Gay cult? Aaargh! Sound the moral alarm! Teh gays are in a cult and they're attacking! They're going to make our kids join the cult and give them teh gay and make them vote Green!

Bolta also inserted some delegates into the list who weren't in The Sunday Age's story.

Andrew Denton, Left-wing TV presenter

Evil, evil lefties!

Fiona Stanley, paediatrician and fierce Bush hater

Evil, evil Bush haterers!

Michael Tate, former Keating justice minister.

Paul Keating? Evil!

Christine Nixon, Victorian chief commissioner who’s project has been to feminise the force and make it "non-authoritarian"

Evil, evil women. Get back in the kitchen.

Sara Haghdoosti, member of the International Women’s Day organising committee and a former women’s officer for the Sydney University Student Representative Council

Women organising? Evil!

But the most telling part is the way that Bolta hasn't added any information to the following delegates.

Bolta:

Professor Joshua Gans, Melbourne economist.

GrodsCorp:

Professor Joshua Gans, right-wing Melbourne economist.

Bolta:

Lachlan Murdoch, media investor.

GrodsCorp:

Lachlan Murdoch, media investor and son of the owner of the largest and most right-wing media conglomerate in the world. Oh, and also the son of the man who pays Bolta's wages.

Just another sly and dishonest effort from Australia's shrillest journalist (sic).

UPDATE (11:50am): Blogger Gummo Trotsky pointed out to Bolta in the comments of his blog his dodgy use of a blockquote and italics...

Nice use of italics to suggest that the list, with descriptions, is quoted verbatim from one of your two sources when in fact the editorialising is all your own work.

...and got a terse response from a clearly rattled Bolta.

There is no intention to mislead, Mr Troll, and a quick click on the links I provided would make clear the facts. But if it makes you feel happier, I’ll take the words out of italics.

That'll make it much clearer, Mr Journalist (sic).

UPDATE II (12:00pm): My response to the removal of italics.

UPDATE III (2:00pm): An angry commenter threw down a challenge to the above comment...

Oh for heaven’s sake. Grow up and make a comment on the actual content of the post or go away.

...so I replied that I had made comment on the substance of the article and provided a link to this post. Unfortunately it seems at this point that I've been SNIPPED.

UPDATE IV (2:40pm): Bolta has responded to my comment about the blockquote and copied bullet points. I believe he has perfected the skill of shriek-typing.

Oh, and my comment with a link to this post is still SNIPPED.

Bolt 20/3: "Rudd's Chinese Friends"

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:45:00 +0000

Andy's desperately hoping the Liberals will be able to fashion a scandal out of Rudd's having Chinese campaign donors.

Still nothing sinister, but ever more interesting:

"Still" nothing sinister? Not yet, but we're sure there must be! Somehow! Sinister! It will be! Just wait! He has Chinese friends!

Fairly shameless hackery (not that Bolt's exactly been covering himself in glory this week), clearly direct from Liberal Party HQ.

Still, fortunately for Andy, the Prime Minister did do something harsh and socially conservative the other day that he could praise (announcing cutting off the baby bonus from parents suffering from drug and gambling addictions) - the News Ltd polemicist presumably thinks that post makes him look balanced and fair. Hey, I said "good on" the guy! I'm an objective commentator, who just happens to be desperately hoping he can get the word "sinister" associated with the Prime Minister.

Bolt 19/3: "A lawyer's tantrum"

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:56:00 +0000

Ignoring Bolt's fatuous attempt to try to attack me through my job today, he does make one very good point: that ancient photograph on my bar profile really needs to be updated. It's appalling. Thanks for reminding me, Andy.

Bolt 17/3: "Grab that man!"

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:13:00 +0000

He loves him, he loves him not, he loves him again...

Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of America’s National Review Online, discovers a big political talent... Maybe we could use him.

There you are. Andy has forgiven John Howard for not handing over to Peter Costello. And so long as Howard retains an adamant, unshakeable, stubborn belief in a certain magic-bubble fantasy view of his Premiership, he and other people who desperately wish it were true will grab on with both hands.

Such as in this classic "the voters' voice stopped counting when they kicked out my candidate" comedy quote from Bolt's comments:

Not just Americans, but people all over the world are now laughin’ at us for dumping such a great government.

That's the spirit, Gordon! If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

Bolt 24/2: "Students roasted for ravenous planet"

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:06:00 +0000

Trinity Grammar is getting rid of energy-chewing air-conditioners in the interests of doing its bit for climate-change. (Of course, I'm assuming the ruling doesn't just apply to students and teaching staff, but also to the admin and school board people making the decision.)

But to Andrew Bolt, this is merely self-flagellation. Why? Well, cutting down energy use has "zero" effect on the planet!

Effect on planet? Zero.

Yes, according to Andy, energy consumption has precisely "zero" environmental effect. The energy we produce by burning brown coal? That extra CO2 in the atmosphere does NOTHING! It just magically disappears to space. It certainly doesn't have the long-established effect of increasing the atmosphere's ability to retain heat! No, energy consumption has "zero" effect on the planet.

And even if it did, the use of air-conditioners has precisely "zero" effect on energy consumption, anyway! It's not like they use a lot of energy whenever they're turned on. It's not like they operate by the energy-intensive processes of compressing and decompressing air and moving it around tubes to bleed off the heat. It's not like their use is one of the primary drivers of summer-time "brown-outs" when energy demand exceeds supply. Not at all.

And, finally, one school declining to use air conditioners has "zero" effect on the total amount of air conditioner-related energy consumption, anyway. Unless EVERYONE stops using their air conditioners at exactly the same time, there's absolutely no reason for anyone to do so.

"A journey starts with a single step"? "From little things big things grow"? "You've got to start somewhere"? Where did you GET those hippy freaking sayings?

Wait a minute - I know! You got them from a teacher! From reading! Aha! I knew it!

Unpleasant thing to come back to

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:21:00 +0000

Eugh. I return from holiday, check out the RSS feed reader, and guess how many Andrew Bolt columns it's picked up since I last checked?

199.

Oh, the huge manatee!

I suppose I should have a look. The site is BoltWatch, after all. Although I can guess what Andy's been ranting about this week.

Let's see... (going in reverse chronological order because that's how they appear in the feed):

Rudd's like a communist dictator (Rudd’s great leap forward);
Child protective services taking an abused child is somehow just the same as deliberately taking children from impoverished families rather than providing them with assistance (Baby ‘stolen’ from under PM’s nose);
"Encouraging" staff at a university to attend something is really "obliging" them to do so (The Melbourne University of Group-Think*;
Opposing the badly thought-out, carrot-light but stick-heavy "Intervention" is the same as "demanding an end to black help" (Whites demand less help for blacks)...

And so on. That's enough. I don't really feel like wading through any more of that sort of drivel.

Elsewhere: the apologetic commos at New Matilda direct their "Sorry" to one oppressed columnist who really deserves it, pleading "Andrew Bolt, Please Forgive Us".**

* In case you were confused, Andrew Bolt's definition of "Group Think" isn't "like-minded people agreeing with each other", it's people Andrew Bolt doesn't agree with agreeing with each other. If you like what Andrew Bolt says, a negatively-charged epithet like "group think" simply cannot apply.

** I'm a bit nonplussed that New Matilda thought they really needed to preface the piece with the headline "SATIRE". They thought someone might miss the (IRONY) incredibly subtle point? (QUESTION) Seriously?

Bolt tries to cover tracks; fails

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:19:00 +0000

Andrew's only been back a few days, and he's already made a complete elbow of himself.

Take Sunday, when he sauntered back to his blog and smugly declared the Iraq War "Won" (again), and derided critics for not recognising how right he and his fellow supporters had always been. "It's easy to publicly back George Bush now that the war in Iraq is won," he mocked.

A few hours later, he pulled the post and deleted all traces of it - but not before it was caught by Google (and RSS readers). Then he pretended that all he was really saying was that the war was "going well".

The Orstrahyan has the details.

Bolt 21/12: "Goodbye"

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:00:00 +0000

This blog doesn't usually comment on Bolt the man, largely because the subject is irrelevant. A polemicist could be a lovely fellow with his family and friends, and still write toxic drivel in the newspapers. Alternatively, he could be a total arsehole to everyone around him, and still make sensible arguments in his writing.

Bolt's personal character has little to do with this site's critiques of his newspaper column and blog, in other words.

Still, since he brought it up - his last blog entry for the year did include a rather ironic description of his plans for the holiday, given that this is a man who regularly attacks supposed "left wing elites" and likes to pretend he's a man of the people:

For me there will be a few other things to attend to, like playing the Bach cello suites recommended to me by a friend. Finding some more bottles of that Green Point reserve Pinot Noir.

Truly, Andy is the salt-of-the-earth, and a genuine anti-elitist. Wouldn't you love to have a ~~beer~~ Pinot Noir with him?

PS: Oh, and to make you throw up a little, "Skye" follows a paragraph claiming that Bolt has "a sea"* of admirers with this apparent non-sequitur:

It’s great to have an Australian George Orwell.

It certainly would be. Oh, wait - she doesn't mean Andrew Bolt, does she?! My God, I think she does. Oh, the humanity. Mr Blair's corpse is rolling about in its grave so quickly that the headstone is now engulfed in a cloud of smoke.

*Is "a sea" the correct plural? Of "drips", I suppose.

UPDATE: I couldn't let the following eloquent comment by one of Andy's enthusiastic readers just disappear into the aether, and reproduce it here exactly as it was uploaded to news.com.au:

Well its good to see that some people have common sense and can see that thereis something wrong with all these lies and to think that they are giving our money to the un and ureopean union who are again under investigation for fraud as well as cohorting with taliban is discracefull,im so incensed by this rip off im starting up a new movement against the greens so stay tuned ,im going to make sure the truth is heard by banding all the real science together ,i hope andrew has a great xmas and you forgot to mention in the election everyone seems to forget that labor changed the boundaries in the election to include more labor voters in the marginal seats so they could win ,typical and of course there were a lot of chinese in the mix ,no doubt about the far far left labor motives ,1stthe internet like china,and the green rubbish and next of course the unions who will again ruin the country as usual.

Wow! Perhaps Andy should get "jack" to write a few guest posts while he's away.

UPDATE #2: Also this remark from long-time Bolt obsessive (and Blairville regular), "Alan of Sydney":

You’re unique Andrew. Thank God.

I'd thank God if there were only one of him too, Alan - except sadly that's clearly not the case.

Bolt 21/12: "Hear it from Hicks, Tracee"

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:04:00 +0000

He's certainly got the wackos fired up over David Hicks at his blog today. So fired up, in fact, that the keyboard warriors are sending in death threats, and (despite the "moderation" process) having them published on news.com.au.

Some examples.

From "Ross of Kew":

So David Hicks, that immature, snivelling apology for a man, wants to die a martyr.

Well Mr Hicks, I can, and am willing, to accommodate your wishes.

From "gomadsfr of Kirwan":

Perhaps Rule .303 should apply. Or is it now Rule 7.62 or Rule 5.56?

From "BC of Brisbane":

Hicks is a complete nutter - when he gets out he should be watching his back.

Andrew Bolt and News Ltd might like to note that - whatever his sins - David Hicks is an Australian citizen, and serious threats made against another such person can actually have legal consequences. Including for any organisation which publishes them.

Bolt 14/12: "Beware those whackers"

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:09:00 +0000

My god. He's finally cracked. Friday's column:

THIS may be my last column. If you don't see me again, you'll know the Pinata Left has whacked me, too, writes Andrew Bolt.

You see, Kevin Rudd's victory has unleashed a horde of haters with sticks who are trying to sack conservative commentators and close down debate.

Their demands are simple. They won. So shut up. No more of these "culture wars". No dissent.

I knew it would get this ugly, of course. The Left does hate best and is still the chest for the totalitarian heart.

He goes on, getting more paranoid, more shrill, more insane as the piece progresses.

THEY ARE OUT TO GET HIM.

Like Pauline Hanson's "if you're watching this then I am dead" video, Bolt's Friday rant is a fascinating look into the mind of a man with a staggering lack of self-awareness and a surprisingly poorly-developed sense of irony.

Fellow Australians, if you are seeing me now then it means I have been murdered.

Pretty much everything he throws back at "the Left" (as represented by one or two people getting a bit carried away in their triumphalism) could just as easily have been thrown back at "the Right" when they were ascendant politically.

I did like the way he tried to reinterpret what happened last time the government changed:

Compare. When John Howard's Liberals beat Paul Keating's Labor in 1996, I saw no hooting mob dancing on skulls and demanding an end to all argument. But with Howard's fall . . .

"Ding dong, the witch is dead," screeched Jill Singer on this very page.

Yeah, no-one on the conservative side screeched with joy at the slaying of Paul Keating. No, there was no loathing or contempt for that man. Keating haters? Couldn't have been. Keating's name starts with a different letter!

Of course, 1996 was a long time ago and there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then. No wonder Andrew's memory's a little rusty.

Still, I suspect (very strongly) that an identical piece, with the names reversed, could have been written in 1996 when the Liberals were crowing about their first victory in thirteen years. Because unlike Andrew's simplistic worldview - lefties = totalitarian thugs; righties = freedom-loving libertarians - the reality is that there are decent people and total douchebags aplenty on both sides.

Decent people, who enjoy openly and honestly discussing politics with people having opposing views in a spirit of open debate. And those who seek to misrepresent, slur and otherwise use their prominent positions to try to shut down debate with bullying and thuggery.

And although he's a freedom-loving righty, I'm not absolutely certain that Andrew Bolt fits in the former category.

UPDATE: Sorry, I missed this - as apparently did his editors - but he does actually begin the piece by referring to himself in the third person:

the Pinata Left has whacked me, too, writes Andrew Bolt.

Andrew Bolt appears to have lost his mind, writes Jeremy Sear.

Bolt 11/12: "Pack-raped girl sacrificed to the “stolen generations” myth"

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:18:00 +0000

My god he's shameless. Bolt uses the raped 10 year old story to push his line on the Stolen Generations, in a balanced and well-reasoned piece entitled "Pack-raped girl sacrificed to the “stolen generations” myth".

If she'd been "stolen" earlier, he argues, none of this would have happened. Therefore, well, it's good to take aboriginal children from their parents.

Unbelievable. (Wonder how much better Andrew would have turned out if he'd been stolen from his folks?)

He then blatantly misreports the details of the case -

This is the girl who was pack raped at 10, with a judge letting her nine rapists - one a 26-year-old - walk free because the girl, she said, had consented.

That's not what the judge said at all. According to Bolt's own link, what was actually found was -

the sentencing judge saying the child victim “probably agreed” to have sex with them.

"Probably agreed" is a finding of fact differentiating the rape from one in which force was involved (the previous sentence in the judge's remarks, which News Ltd excluded). It is not a finding that she consented, which is flat-out wrong - and impossible, because she was ten years old. (Consent is a defence to rape, "probably agreed" is a mitigating - or at least non-aggravating - factor.)

Of course, Bolt's commenters leap on this misreporting as evidence that the judge doesn't know what she's talking about.

Funnily enough, he hasn't corrected it yet.

Bolt 28/11: "Will he keep listening?"

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:54:00 +0000

Shorter Andrew Bolt: the crushing defeat of the conservative party on Saturday does not mean Australians disagree with me. It does not mean anything should change. I am still right! THE ELECTION RESULT MEANS NOTHING!

Here are two election "promises" that contemptible Kevin Rudd has broken already! Okay, that's a huge stretch, neither of them have actually been "broken", but I am really desperate. (When he was talking to Kerry O'Brien he said he'd apologise to the aborigines! Now he's indicated he might use the word "sorry"! WHAT A LIAR!)

Now I will make bizarre claims that climate change is not only not anthropogenic but it's not even happening, and bang on about my not in any way crackpot "Rabbit Proof Fence was a conspiracy of lies" theory.

Becks. Good lie down. Talk to you later.

Bolt 25/11: "Howard's Grace"

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:42:00 +0000

Andrew Bolt gets started on the eulogising of our ex-Prime Minister, before the Liberals realise the completely miserable position in which he's left them, before they realise how badly he's gutted the party and poisoned the well - before it's too late.

John Howard has always conducted himself with great personal courtesy and dignity. Whether you liked his policies or not, his personal behaviour was impeccable and his courage beyond question. He honored the office...

I think he’ll be remembered with a great deal of respect and fondness. A great man.

I echo the response of one commenter at his blog to this drivel:

What absolute rot. He may have shown the forms of politeness, but his actions were contemptible and low - right up until the last election, where he struck voters off the rolls and squandered unprecedented millions of taxpayers’ dollars on spruiking himself.

I’m not talking about his policies of the last 11 years, the ones where he built surpluses on the reforms of his predecessors, the mining boom over which he had no control, and with a GST which hit the poor the hardest, and which surpluses he never used to build infrastructure, only to buy votes at election time.

I’m talking about the way he played the “game” of politics. Consistently low and dirty.

He will thus be remembered with contempt by the progressive side of politics, and - because of his naked selfishness in staying on when his party was desperate for him to go - by many on the conservative side as well.

“Respect and fondness”? In his dreams, Andrew.

(Unsurprisingly, Bolt's tory fan club hangers-on were mortally offended by that comment and responded with a whole lot of "you're just JEALOUS" and "you are!" childishness.)

Bolt also specifically praises the rodent's exit speech:

All of those qualities were on full show during his concession speech, which - for those who missed it - is worth viewing.

Why? This is a new conservative meme, that Howard's exit speech was dignified and beautiful and generally "great" - and I really can't see it. The writing's been on the wall for a year, so he's had time to prepare something memorable, but there was nothing in there that attempted to bridge the divide he's chiseled into the national psyche over the past eleven years. That showed he understands and genuinely accepts why Australians have rejected him and his government. It was self-indulgent touting of his bullshit "economic credentials", and some "ra ra Australia is the greatest country in the world" playing to the crowd. What was so great about it?

I may write on this more at An Onymous Lefty.

His words says no, but his embedded advertising says yes

noreply@blogger.com (Jeremy) — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:45:00 +0000

Talk about incongruent:

Interesting use of campaign dollars by the ALP, though, since I can't imagine many of Bolt's readers are in the "swinging voter" camp.