Just as one door closes another one opens and on this occasion I can just imagine a number of lefties, like our learned friend, getting rather hot under the collar at the prospect of Andrew Bolt getting a new radio gig with 2GB in Sydney:
Well do I recall the expressions of joy from the Pee Pee crowd when MTR closed well now they can bemoan the fact that Steve and Andrew will be on a station with a far bigger reach….
- MTR teeters on the brink
- Climate Change Australia – The Only Proper Response To A Green Is Scepticism
- No Global Warming For 15 Years. The Models MUST Be Wrong
- What the hell is going on with Andrew Bolt?
- Climate Change Australia – Mark Latham’s Puzzle Solved
- The shareholder that they love to hate
- Reframing “Black” Identity Politics in Australia
One of Jeremy’s favourite activities on his blogs is to defend Bob Brown, the leader of the Greens, of which he is a member. Jeremy even defended Brown for his outrageous comments which alleged that the Australian coal industry had contributed to the Queensland floods last year, when no scientist would draw such a causal link.
When Bob Brown delivered a weird speech at a Greens conference, which addressed the crowd as “fellow Earthians” he was rightly ridiculed. But Jeremy again leaps to his leader’s defence on his blog of intellectual
If Brown’s speech was really as “wacky”, “batty” and “barking mad” as Penbo and Sharwood claim, surely there’d be some other juicy quotes in it? Some more hilarious examples of this crazy person who’s gone way off the deep-end, this mad “UFO spotter” with his “thousands of words of madness”?
And yet… neither David nor Anthony could apparently find any.
The reason, of course, is that whilst Brown did pick an unfortunately odd-sounding opening phrase (“Earthians” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, which is presumably why you rarely hear it from anyone but bad science fiction writers and crystal-wearing hippies who relish sounding weird), the rest of the speech made quite reasonable points.
Jeremy makes it sound as though other than the opening “fellow Earthians” line, which he insists was just an unfortunate choice of words (even though it implied that there was life outside of planet Earth when there is no evidence of that), the rest of the speech was perfectly sensible.
But you only have to keep reading to find out that even Jeremy concedes that this is not the case:
The biggest problem with Brown’s speech is his call for the development of a “one person, one vote, one value” global democracy. And that is because such a global democracy is more than a little incompatible with a world in which authoritarian nation states like China contain such a large proportion of the world’s population. I don’t know if Bob has a particular proposal for tackling this problem (and keep in mind, in the speech he was calling for global democracy to be an aim we work towards, not something we impose in five years involving submission to overpopulated dictatorships: it’d hardly be a “democracy” if a fifth of the voters have their votes effectively controlled by their government) but it’s something worth asking him. It’s something worth having a serious discussion about.
There are a number of problems with a world government, and not just the fact that most nations are not democracies. Firstly, the majority of people on earth are poor, so this would necessarily lead to a massive redistribution of wealth from wealth-creating nations to poorer nations with no guarantee of long-term benefits for the developing world. Secondly, the vast majority of the world’s population have very low levels of education with very little understanding of global issues. Thirdly, the world’s population does not share the same values or political goals, when this would surely be required if nations were to unite under the one government.
So Brown’s idea of a global democracy is a joke, a leftist fantasy which simply does not stack up with reality. No wonder Brown was ridiculed. Jeremy should admit that Brown’s critics have a point rather than defend the indefensible.
Surely that would be more intellectually honest than serving up what is arguably pro-Greens propaganda.
What I love about reading the musings of our learned friend is that his posts are consistently predictable, Like this one about circumcision:
Jezza, mate, genital mutilation is mutilation no matter what the gender of the victim and the fact that you can’t see that when it comes to the circumcision of boys says heaps about your real commitment to the concept of equality. There are a very small number of conditions for which circumcision is the indicated treatment and none of them are the things you cite in your post all of those can be addressed by teaching boys to do a couple of simple things, firstly to properly clean their genitals when they bathe and secondly to discourage promiscuous behaviour.
Finally I just love the fact that you admit that it is your totalitarian tendencies dictate your moderation decisions and at the time of writing you have received or approved precisely zero comments to this post!
Oh the Humanity!!!
The misplaced wedding bouquet blues, or our learned friend keeps flogging that poor dead gay marriage nag
What is it about Gay marriage that so rings the bell of our learned friend?
The nub of the issue that drives him to write post after post about it?
It can’t be anything practical because one of the few things that Brother Number One did while in office, that I fully endorse, was to remove 180 or so instances where federal law discriminates against same sex couples. Perhaps its the rather desperate prospects for the Labor governemnt and the inability of the Greens to forceto move on the issue no matter how close such a change is to the heart of .
So having worn out all of his arguments based upon any sort of logic he resorts to a sort of dark sarcasm which of course in his usual style does not quite hit its mark:
You would have thought that a Sensitive New Age Lefty would think twice about using the quite sweet story of two people in their twilight years finding love for his own political agenda, Ah no, not our Jezza, he will grind the bones of any story if it helps further the cause of same sex marriage.
There is an irony here though insofar as our learned friend has been twice married and has not as yet produced any offspring (well some of us should be thankful for that 😉 )so were his sarcastic scenario to be real he himself would be denied the joys of state sanctioned nuptials, maybe that is why he feels such empathy for those who now can dare to speak the name of their love?
- Archbishop warns clergy gay marriage is a ‘radical step’ (independent.co.uk)
- ‘Gay marriage is madness’: Catholic cardinal slams government’s plans for same-sex weddings (mirror.co.uk)
- Gay marriage is now the issue through which the elite advertises its superiority over the redneck masses (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
- Kirk Cameron Tells Piers Morgan Homosexuality is ‘Unnatural,’ ‘Destructive’ (inquisitr.com)
- Cardinal Keith O’Brien: Same Sex Marriage Is A Grotesque Subversion, A Great Wrong! (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
Jeremy on January 30 at 7.43am:
The police and bodyguards choosing to act? So someone can be determined to be rioting based on someone else’s behaviour? If the AFP overreacts that automatically makes it rioting? Good thing you don’t work with clients accused of crimes, Leon. “Hey, the police charged you – you must be guilty of the crime! The police don’t overreact or get it wrong!”
Jeremy on January 30 at 6.05pm:
“People were assaulted. Police officers and security for instance. ”
Really. And the reason why the AFP thinks there are no charges that can be laid?
As a matter of fact, the AFP have been considering charges.
All this from the fellow who says that arguing with me “is like participating in the Special Olympics”.
Can you bear it?
This blog has previously noted that Greens supporter Jeremy Sear has a far more favourable view towards left-wing protests than he does right-wing protests for no real reason other than that they belong to the same political tribe as himself.
True to form, Jeremy in his latest post disputes that the Australia Day Aboriginal ’embassy’ protest, apparently inspired by the Prime Minister’s office, involved violence.
Let’s look at the facts of this protest:
– the angry mob barricaded the PM and Opposition Leader inside a function centre, yelling obscenities and acting aggressively.
– there was pushing of and jousting with police.
– Julia Gillard’s bodyguards deemed the situation dangerous enough that they grabbed and moved the Prime Minister off.
– Protesters followed the PM and Opposition Leader to their cars, forcing police to push them off. One even jumps in front of their vehicle.
If Jeremy disputes the meaning of the term violence, perhaps he should consult a dictionary:
1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
That last definition would seem to cover what unfortunately occurred on Australia Day.
Presumably, Jeremy’s view is that there’s no violence unless someone is seriously or wilfully assaulted. What an absurd position to take.
I bet that if an angry mob presented itself outside the home of Mr and Mrs Sear and carried on in such a manner, that our friend would be quick on the phone to the police, as any sensible person would.
Here’s an indication of the calibre of some of Jeremy’s readers:
Don’t you know Jeremy: Angry people = riot = an excuse not to do anything about what made the people angry in the first place. Unless the angry people are Coalition voters of course.
It’s called realpolitik or political opportunism. Take your pick. The neocons are world class practitioners of it.
The optics of this situation are not good, but can you blame them? Abbott was being a dick, like usual, speaking without thinking
Unlike the objective intellectual dishonesty debunker that Jeremy imagines to be, he is little more than a partisan observer who cannot see things as they are if they conflict with his world-view. No wonder his readers are all of the left, and similarly blinded by their one-eyed view of things.