Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Blogging » Boltwatch and Jeremy

Category Archives: Boltwatch and Jeremy

The million hit Blog


If you are reading this it means that the hit counter for the Sandpit has ticked over the one million hits milestone  which is worthy of note in anyone’s  language, more so in the case of this blog because for most of its existence there has been a sustained campaign to harass and denigrate yours truly and the other authors who post here.


I started blogging on a whim mainly because I needed to register with Blogger to comment on an Anti Andrew Bolt  blog, I have  changed the name and the platform on which this blog is published several times until I settled upon the current title and I am  very happy to n0w share this blog with three other regular contributors who ad greatly to the diversity of  the posts published here. The heart of blogging is not so much the posts themselves but rather it is the comment threads that those posts inspire and over the years we have had some very lively discussion threads that have given their participants lots of fun.


You see fun is what this blog is all about. Even when we have covered the most serious issues I like to think that we can do so with enough levity to keep it friendly.


So in the style of an awards night I have to offer a very sincere thank you, firstly to my fellow authors Ray Dixon (and his alter ego SockPuppet),  GD and to  Leon Bertrand, further I want to thank our readers for coming back on a regular basis to enjoy the musings on this page especially those of you who disagree with what I and the other authors write because without that disagreement we would not have the lively arguments in the comment threads. I also want to thank my wife and family for putting up with this sometimes grumpy blogger on a daily basis and last but not least I want to thank our family dog Bonnie for reminding me on a regular basis that I am only human and that nothing is more important than “walkies “

Cheers to all of our Comrades



The media landscape when the sheep begin to meow

As someone who has taken a stick to the minions of Fairfax journalism on a regular basis I find the panic among the Latte sippers rather amusing. Watching Dave and Jezza’s sycophants having conniptions in the soon to be closed Pure Poison comment threads just makes me roll with laughter. The biggest joke of all is this notion of “editorial independence” that is thrown around by the fans of Fairfax with gay abandon as if it means anything worthwhile. In the age of the internet if you want “independent” journalism then you have only one option and that is to turn to bloggers who do it for love rather than “journalists” who write for a pay cheque. I think that the age of professional interlocutors between the political action and the public is in serious decline, especially when just about very person with a fancy phone and an internet connection can upload footage of events in real time well ahead of the professionals who massage the story to suit their own agenda.

Of course I may well be a bit ahead of the wave here and it may be a while before the old media has its machine that goes ping turned off and it ceases to make any money at all for its proprietors so in that indefinite interim we will see some big changes like the takeover of Fairfax  by Gina Reinhardt who I suspect sees the possibility of making a quid out of its digital service rather than its big city mast heads in Sydney and Melbourne. With the move to a more digitally focused service does anyone want to bet that we won’t see more of its journalism being casualised or that they will be paid on piece work basis rather than them being on an expensive salary? Remember though that a casual worker who wants to earn has to try harder to please their boss…

If my scenario is correct, and it could be, what does it mean for the people in terms of them getting  clear and factual information? I certainly don’t think it means that we will be totally at the mercy of Gina’s personal agenda  quite simply because the voices that she sponsors through her  media interests will certainly be a long way short of any kind of a monopoly on the eyes and ears of the people. I am sure that for most of us who are interested in politics these days no longer rely entirely on any one source as it was in the golden age of the newspaper. Therein lies the problem for anyone who wants to make a quid from news and reporting it in world with every person can be the eyes and ears of the world even if its just once in their life time what value is there in paying large amounts of cash for someone to, for example, watch fuzzy wuzzy   twitter and write silly articles that no one wants to read?

I think  that the angst felt by many of my friends form the left at the decline of newspapers boils down to a very simple idea from totalitarians of the past, namely if you control the information that gets to the people then you can herd  them towards your desired ideological standpoint. However if you can’t have a monopoly on their attention because there are so many voices vying for it in the internet age, then  it becomes less like herding sheep and  more like herding cats and anyone who has tried to corral them knows that it is another thing altogether.

  Cheers Comrades

Bolt bounces back onto the radio waves

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:

Click for source

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….
Cheers Comrades

Jeremy Sear (again) defends Bob Brown the clown

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 dishonesty:

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.

Our learned friend fails to meet the cut in circumcision debate

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!!!

  Cheers Comrades

Photobucket Pictures, Images and Photos

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 force Gillard to move on the issue no matter how close such a change is to the heart of Bob Brown.

 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:

click for the source if you must

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?

Cheers Comrades

Compare and contrast the two Jeremys

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?

Lefty can’t see violence at lefty protest

No violence to see here. Moving on folks.

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.

5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.

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.

%d bloggers like this: