How many of you knew that Andrew Bolt made an appearance in a shitty comedy pilot late last year?

Andrew’s complete lack of comedy nous makes me long for the days of jokes about terminally ill kids. I never thought I’d say this, but I hope he stays in “social commentary” because he has no talent here. To think everyone has been beating up on the Chaser when they could have been beating up on this shit.

From the Twitter of “Ting Tong” Ray:

Yes, Ray thinks he was a Leftist. Which makes me wonder - with MK openly supporting the anti-Semetic BNP, wouldn’t that make him, and the party, left-wing in Ray’s view? How does he feeling sharing the blog with a battle hardened leftist?

MK is all upset that Nick Griffin was pelted with eggs, but didn’t bat an eyelid when Dr. Tiller was gunned down:

Dare you anger the leftist gods of gaia and satan with your paltry one day of mourning? Think about it you heartless bastards, the bwave, bwave Tiller, went out each day, bwaving, bullets, snipers, bombs, fire, missiles, pestilence, earthquakes, tsunamis even, to offer American women the option to fornicate, then slice & dice the consequences away! How can just one lousy day be enough?

That his hero Nick Griffin doesn’t believe six million Jews were murdered is of little importance to him. What are the lives of six million people compared to that of a child whose birth could put the mother’s health in serious danger?

MK might (not) be interested in reading this:

The white supremacist gunman who shot dead a guard at the Holocaust museum in Washington D.C. had attended meetings of the American Friends of the British National Party, it emerged today.

I need to get this straight - an anti-semetic Leftist attended meetings of a left-wing party that MK supports because they are against the Muslims who the left-wing also support.

Is it any wonder MK is so confused?

Great article about what Tim Lambert calls “The Australian’s War on Science” in the SMH:

Less well documented so far has been the industry’s influence on the media. Take the powerful News Corporation, which publishes two-thirds of our remaining newspapers. Despite a spectacular about-face on climate change in 2007 by News Corp’s chairman Rupert Murdoch, no media group can match the Murdoch press for consistently fomenting global warming scepticism and arguing against climate change mitigation measures.

News Corp’s tabloid provocateurs Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt rail against greenies every other day but don’t have the attention to detail to influence national debate on climate change science, emissions trading and reduction targets, and international negotiations on global warming.

The Australian - Rupert’s baby and local flagship - does. But nothing you read on climate change in The Australian can be taken at face value. Its coverage of the issue is effectively sponsored by the resources industry.

Read it.

Another week, another inevitable backlash.

Despite what some people say, this sketch isn’t making fun of children with terminal illness, but rather our attitudes towards them. Are the kids in this the target of ridicule, or the faux terrible charity?

In the end though, the sketch is a failure for comedic reasons, not for moral ones. Like most ad parodies, it’s very by-the-numbers. The moral outrage this morning is the result of the sketch failing to make anyone laugh. As a result, everyone missed the point and it appeared as though the humour in the sketch came from lambasting dying children, which it wasn’t supposed to.

It was clumsy comedy that they simply should have handled better.

Incidentally, it’s almost a virtual re-write of a McDonald’s House charity parody they did on CNNNN for Fungry’s, and I don’t remember anyone complaining then. Why? Because the sketch hit its satirical mark and there was no question as to where the comedy was aimed.

But to all the people complaining - how many of you even saw the sketch go to air? Mia Freedman didn’t. Like the obituary song, most of the outrage will be generated by the current affairs and morning shows who will gleefully replay it in a cheap grab for ratings.

Seriously, wowsers, go back to The Wedge.

What is it with The Right and “what is it with The Left and…”?

Discuss.

Update: Darryl Mason gives us a small smattering of examples from Bolt’s blog:

What is it with the Left and violence?

What is it with the Left and vomitously vindictive snobbery?

What is it with the left and not being normal????

What is it with the left and censorship?

What is it with the Left and their purely derivative style?

What is it with the Left and Jew-hating, full stop?

What is it with the left and sticking their noses in other peoples lives?

What is it with the left and a complete failure to be witty?

What is it with the left and zero comprehension skills?

What is it with the left and denying undeniable fact?

What is it with the left and excuses?

What is it with the Left and crazies?

What indeed?

A few days ago, pants were bursting open all over News Ltd. A clip of a pretty girl just telling it like it is was blowing the lid off so-called “political correctness”. The lefties were meant to be outraged. We weren’t, and, in fact, we even joined in the fun. Then it was all revealed to be fake. Ho hum.

Suddenly, the people  who were so keen to blog about the Girl Who Was Sounding The Death Knell Of Political Correctness were backing away. And those (on the left, naturally) who continued on with the fun were accused of that modern day scourge - racism!!1!

Despite what those with odious blogs no-one reads would have us believe, there is no difference between this:

“There were these two wogs fighting. The fatter wog said to the skinnier wog: ‘Oi bro, you slept with my cousin.’ And the other one said: ‘Nah man, I didn’t for shit, eh’, and the other one goes: ‘I will call on my fully sick boys, eh.’ And then pulled out a gun and went ‘chk-chk-boom’.”

And this:

My friend and I came out of the bagel shop and there were these two hymies fighting. Anyway, the fatter kike said to the skinnier kike, “Oy vey, you slept with a goy on the Sabbath”, and the other one said, “No I didn’t you schmuck”. The other one goes, “I will call in my fully meshugeneh cousins and my constipated uncle Moishe”. And then they pulled out a cash register and went “chk-chk DING”, and claimed usury off each other.

Both are hilarious, fake, and based in ethnic stereotypes. Like it or not, you laughed.

But, according to The Right, only one is funny because it was spoken by a pretty girl (and if there is one thing society has taught us it’s that pretty women aren’t smart enough to lie - Schapelle Corby anyone?) so therefore it must have been true. Out of the mouths of babes, so to speak.

The other one was published on a left-wing humour blog and is therefore the product of vile left-wing hatred of humanity.

As of  now, anyone who dares to continue with this theme is being labelled by The Right with that most tiresome of epithets - racist!

Why?

It’s simple. Being politically incorrect is basically all The Right has. When you’re as intellectually bankrupt as Andrew Bolt and That Other Guy, making jokes about Palestinians having sex with goats is seen as refreshingly anti-PC, so it’s then easy to counter the inevitable complaints with that other tiresome epithet - “political correctness”. “Get a sense of humour” they say, and then blog endlessly about the death of humour on the Left.

But with his post Guy Rundle (bless him) has effectively swept The Right’s ground out from under them. Now who’s being humourless and sad by waving the “racist” flag? Because anyone who thinks that Clare’s testimony wasn’t as based on ethnic stereotypes as Sexington’s Jew parody is probably their own grandpa.

Ah, anything to make a cheap political point against the left, eh?

Dear Right - lighten up you humourless sods.

The Gentle Right like to preach that global warming is “Leftist alarmism” despite the fact it’s based on sound scientific evidence (and why will no-one debate me? Oh, that’s right! I keep winning).

Alarmism obviously isn’t this:

When I grow up I want to be a principal or a caterpillar!

Nothing alarmist about that.

GrodsCorp has been struggling with the Mac vs. PC question for a while now. I’d like to announce that the war is finally over, and the all-conquering winner is Gateway 2000.

I have one of these and it still serves me well. I can spreadsheet on Lotus 123 before playing some Wolfenstein 3D with its incredible graphics and lifelike sound.

Gasp in horror as Michelle Bachmann completely denies Co2 is harmful in any way, before recycling the “trace gas” meme.

Click here for a neat little summary as to why she is wrong.

(Thanks to GrodsReader Andrew.)

Not content with denying global warming, Bolt’s brave commenters have blown the lid off another “green con” - ozone depletion.

Who could forget the insidious leftist plot to kill off the aerosol can industry? Luckily, we will always have brave science warriors to point us in the right direction.

So, GrodsReaders, which scientific battleground will The Right be fighting next? “Carbon is a leftist myth”? “Newton’s second law of motion is a leftist myth”? “Oxygen in the atmosphere is a leftist myth”?

Suggestions in comments.

A Bolt commenter contemplates a terrible alternative reality where he might have to think for himself:

What I want to know is when the largest news outlet in Australia stopped being part of the “main stream media”.

Just when you thought that the award Australia’s stupidest political party had been taken by Family First, along comes a party so ludicrous all you can do is laugh.

Presenting - the Climate Skeptics, noble crusaders against alarmism of all kinds (emphasis below mine).

Anthropogenic or man-made Global Warming (AGW) alarmism is the biggest con, fraud, hoax, swindle, deception and mass hysteria in the history of modern civilization, because climate changes naturally.

As discussed previously, the words “con” etc suggest that scientists are deliberately hoaxing the folks - presumably to introduce communism, I’m sure. A great start.

They are a party firmly rooted in common sense:

In their marvellous “child abuse” page, they liken teaching children about science to sending them off in the Children’s Crusade.

The Climate Sceptics object in the strongest possible terms to the kind of child abuse being inflicted on children by AGW alarmism in school classrooms. It is not science. It is religio-political indoctrination. It is a drive to sweep up children in one of the most fanatical movements the world has ever seen.

The Children’s Crusade of 1212 C.E. was one of the most shameful events in the history of the Christian West. After four Crusades had failed to wrest the Holy Lands from the Mohammedan powers, many thousands of children were swept up by the mass hysteria and religious enthusiasm of the day to do what the armies of Christendom had failed to do – repossess the Holy Lands.

Oh boy! A crusade!

Their climate change page is as sparse, selective and unscientific as you’d expect, and contains every meme and rambling, incorrect quote that has already been dispelled at actual scientific sites.

Their ABC page is hysterical:

The Climate Sceptics will have the following Policy for ABC programming about AGW:
POLICY

1. The IPCC will not be treated as an indisputable authority about AGW
2. Statements and predictions about AGW from IPCC, the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO will be subject to critical analysis and not accepted at face value.
3. Equal time will be given to sceptic scientists and spokespersons in response to announcements and media releases in support of AGW.
4. Sensationalist and alarmist language should not be used in the reporting of AGW predictions and statements of alleged consequences of AGW.
5. The ABC will undertake a measured and thorough analysis and presentation of what AGW is and the alleged evidence to support it.

I suppose Catalyst will be presented by Andrew Bolt?  Will the news be running non-alarmist items about global warming child abuse?

I don’t like to use the word hypocrite (okay, I do!) but it is hypocritical to complain about “alarmism” from one quarter (and “alarmism” in itself is not an argument against global warming) while calling for the censorship of the ABC and accusing schools of “child abuse” for teaching real science and not hamstrung political ideology.

More on this party when my housemate isn’t pining for the PC.

Weasling coward and runner-up for Stupidtwon villiage idiot J.F Beck gives us all a lesson in comedy:

PP isn’t some hobby blog, it’s a commercial site. And here we have a commenter dutifully reporting a supposed moderation problem at Bolt’s blog but the commenter screws it up. When he realises the Bolt comment has been posted his first thought is to ask that his false allegation be canned before it’s posted. It’s frickin’ hilarious.

Whatever you say there. His post is quite possibly the most pathetic, cough, pwning Pure Poison has sparked yet. Not that he’s desperate for material or anything.

Melissa Doyle is a wise speaker of The Truth:

I will never tolerate another negative comment about her again. The woman is an angel.

This email hit my box yesterday afternoon, subject “not (sic) tolerated”, and sent by one Tim Blair:

Hi, John.

You mention in comments at Andrew Bolt’s:

“Maybe Blair will enlighten us to where this mystery comment is? Being a contributor to the site, I can confirm that any such comment gets moderated as they aren’t tolerated.

“Nice try though, Andrew. But a failed one.”

You’ll find all relevant comments in this thread:

http://www.grods.com/post/2698/#comment-22018

Cheers,

Tim

Fair enough. I didn’t realise Tim Blair was so sensitive, so I shot him back this reply:

Thanks Tim,

I apologise heartily for my error and retract the statement.

Wah’s comment was out-of-line, and denounced instantly. But would you have found it funnier if Wah had suggested you have sex with goatsinstead of dogs? How is Wah’s comment any more offensive than the comments in your thread? And do you endorse them?

Just so we’re clear. We can’t have you complaining about being the butt of bestiality jokes when you’ve encouraged such comments at your blog. That would be hypocritical.

Regards,
John

If you thought he’d respond “by avoiding the issue”, you’d be right.

And you’ll be retracting your statements at Bolt’s and at Pure Poison? Good.

By the way, I’m not complaining about these remarks. Nor did I complain when they were posted. I merely noted them in response to Scott’s email. The issue today is simply whether the comments exist (and they do, in greater amount than you mention — scroll that entire thread for others).

Cheers,

Tim

Apparently this email rattled him because he didn’t even wait for me to get home from work before crowing that I hadn’t retracted. Not being home and all, it was kind of hard.

Looking through the thread that so saddened him, I see lots of people taking the piss. Does Tim Blair really think they’re being serious? Apparently he does.  Maybe he actually thinks I think he enjoys whaling - how are we to know? I never realised Tim was unable to tell between people having a laugh and vitriol.

And then another thing hit me. Tim Blair refused to condemn Beck for insinuating that Scott had peadophilic thoughts because of a comment not left (and in fact denounced) by Scott which suggested that Tim Blair enjoyed bestiality. Tim Blair must have been pretty upset by it. It’s an awful thing to say.

It didn’t stop Tim Blair from hinting about Palestinian man-goat love a couple of months later. Naturally, when called on his double standards, Tim Blair is suddenly back-peddling like mad and claiming he isn’t complaining. Which is fine. If you’re not at all upset about it, Tim, why bring it up in the original email to Scott? Why mention it at all? Why would a comment that doesn’t bother you stop you from denouncing Beck’s dross?

It’s either that or you’re lying, and the comment did upset you. Which is it, Tim?

And if Tim Blair really isn’t complaining it’s just a hop, skip, and a jump to denouncing Beck for his sleazy insinuations.

Go on Tim. We all make mistakes. Be a man and admit yours, and denounce Beck. There’s a lad. I know your pride probably gets the better of you in these situations, but do the right thing.

Update: There are already amusing comments at Tim’s:

Meh, lefties hate being called out on their mistakes and errors, in large part because their egos can’t handle the concept that they might be wrong.

Except I admitted I was wrong. Don’t let that get in the way of your rabid hatred, JeffS. Only on the blogosphere can admitting you made a mistake lead to this kind of nonsense.

PS. Tim Blair would have also noticed that I’ve also been demanding proof re these inflamatory racist comments that Pure Poison have apparently encouraged. Still waiting. Care to prove me wrong again? Please do.

Update #2: GROUPTHINK!!!

Update #3: Gracelessness itself - Tim still refused to denounce Beck’s comments despite Scott deleting a comment about his niece as per Blair’s request. I suppose some people are mature human beings, and others are immature children who choose political ideology over human decency.