Twitter – why Stephen Fry quit


Stephen Fry quit Twitter two years ago and so eloquently explained why:

What fun twitter was in the early days, a secret bathing-pool in a magical glade in an enchanted forest. It was glorious ‘to turn as swimmers into cleanness leaping.’ We frolicked and water-bombed and sometimes, in the moonlight, skinny-dipped. We chattered and laughed and put the world to rights and shared thoughts sacred, silly and profane. But now the pool is stagnant. It is frothy with scum, clogged with weeds and littered with broken glass, sharp rocks and slimy rubbish. If you don’t watch yourself, with every move you’ll end up being gashed, broken, bruised or contused … The fun is over…

…To leave that metaphor, let us grieve at what Twitter has become. A stalking ground for the sanctimoniously self-righteous who love to second-guess, to leap to conclusions and be offended – worse, to be offended on behalf of others they do not even know. It’s as nasty and unwholesome a characteristic as can be imagined. It doesn’t matter whether they think they’re defending women, men, transgender people, Muslims, humanists … the ghastliness is absolutely the same. It makes sensible people want to take an absolutely opposite point of view.

If only politicians put as much energy into policy as they do in the bedroom


Everywhere we turn, social media is tagging another politician who can’t keep “it” behind closed zippers. It is nothing new. While not condoning extra-marital affairs, the media seems more intent on reporting infidelity in nauseating  detail than things that actually matter on the policy front. Growing deficits, unsustainable household debt, eye-popping unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities should be front and centre but the mainstream media (feeding junkies on social media) thinks it gets more mileage by pointing out bedroom antics. Who needs steamy soap operas with expensive stars? Politicians literally offer the best “bang” for the buck going for networks and media outlets. It is endless clickbait. We are also to blame for feeding this nonsense.

Perhaps that is what is meant by “moving with the times?” While we’re all told on one hand how we must behave and talk without causing offense in the new world, the thirst for reporting/sharing secrets from the bedroom seems to tell the real story of the sorry state of journalism. Our level of “being out of touch” has never been higher. We’d be well advised to wake up to the warning signs ahead. Sadly it will be too late when reality finally dawns. Watch social justice issues like climate change and identity politics slide to the very bottom as people realize prioritizing such nonsense doesn’t pay the mortgage or feed a family.

In recent times, Australian Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has been in the spotlight for getting a staffer pregnant. How he chooses to conduct his private life is his (and her) business alone. Indeed another dysfunctional family is born. The main problem seems more about giving high paying jobs  on the taxpayers’ purse to his lover with the tacit approval of the PM. If the timeline is true then the actions by the Deputy PM were unethical to be sure and no amount of song and dance to defend it will find a comforting ear. Allegations of expense abuse only adds to the growing list of reasons to ditch mainstream parties.

Consenting adults should bear personal responsibility. It is not a question of Joyce’s infidelity but politicians (not limited to himself) taking taxpayers for mugs is an issue. Joyce only recently won back his seat of New England in an expensive by-election. At the time he must have been hoping his lover’s bun could stay in the oven.

If anything the manner in which our political class is handling this scandal only re-enforces the abysmal level of moral authority our government has. Even before Joyce’s issues came to light.

Prior to this fiasco we voted in a near as makes no difference hung parliament with a feral Senate. In recent times we’ve had by-elections over dual citizenship (still it did violate the constitution although PM Turnbull preempting the High Court’s ruling was daft), the Dastyari scandal with respect to leaking secrets to China or Foreign Minister Julie Bishop frittering away multi millions in aid dollars without any due diligence on the back of pop-star Rihanna’s Twitter account.

We are being run by clowns (not limited to Australia mind you) who clearly put their own survival above all else. Despite the polls showing a clear and present danger of the incumbent government being turfed out at the next election there seems to be a level of complacency within the Coalition’s ranks that believes that being less worse than the opposition is somehow virtuous and believing a self created myth that disenchanted voters will somehow reelect them again.

Infidelity doesn’t reflect well for politicians preaching family values. However  it would be fair to say that many voters would turn a blind eye to these indiscretions if those same bureaucrats would exercise the same amount of vigor in putting through sensible policy (that betters their constituents) as they do between the sheets.

Perhaps the media should be doing more biopsies on things that truly matter. That way there will be fewer autopsies. As it stands delving into the privacy of others seems far more important to ratings.

Zip It or be Zapped


It seems that everywhere we turn these days someone else is raising a flag to suggest “we need to move with the times.”  What are “the times?” Whose times are we required to move for? Mine? Yours? Theirs? A chat on social media the other day raised the conversation of an HR director saying that he would not sign off on a hire who didn’t agree with his subjective view over a trivial subject. He argued that it was for the best interests of diversity and inclusion not to hire someone who wasn’t offended by said subject. CM retorted “so if I don’t agree with your thinking on a topic which is completely unrelated to the job task that I might be hypothetically the most qualified for, you’ll sink it on that alone…sounds like a totalitarian power trip.” This confirmed the ‘unconscious bias, conscious bias‘ piece on HR last week.’ 2+2=5. HR departments are becoming all powerful autocrats.

It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry! The conversation went further to suggest that I simply must accept change on the grounds of diversity. That word is chucked around as loosely as a Casanova saying “I love you” to his multiple conquests. It simply seeks to force compliance. Surely all things work better when there is mutual buy-in rather than threatening to burn people at the stake. Why is my subjectivity any more or less valuable than someone else’s?

The idea of forcing conformity is dangerous ground. As long as one’s views don’t openly impact others why should it matter? Why should HR apparatchiks use bullying behaviour which goes against the grain of every appropriate workplace behaviour training seminar staff are required to take? Well it is only “some” behaviour. So much for equality in the workplace.

Just like the same sex marriage (SSM) debate. Anyone with a rainbow screen saver could proudly display it in the office without attracting a whimper because they were ‘on message’. Anyone that didn’t believe it and had a “Vote NO” as a computer screen background would have been summoned before HR for hate speech and reprimanded or worse, sacked. Is that freedom of opinion? Is that diversity? Or inclusion? Accept or face the consequences is hardly a way to encourage it. Diversity and inclusion only creates division and exclusion because only some people are allowed to voice free speech.  When the government funded Diversity Council tells Australian workers that the use of the word ‘guys’ is offensive then just how far are we willing to trade everyday freedoms and cultural norms? If one is triggered by the use of the word ‘guys’ or a preferred pronoun then they need a shrink not an HR department to help them.

The sad reality is that diversity should be won on the grounds of the argument rather than legislation. Just like the F1 race queen ban from this year. It doesn’t much matter to CM personally on what the F1 wants to do. Go on the MotoGP website and there is a “Paddock GirlssectionTo suddenly reverse a decision it so actively promotes would be utter hypocrisy. While the need to halt the objectification of women argument is bandied about, the women who do it are clearly happy to be objectified for a price. Instead of viewers being told to “get with the times” shouldn’t they be hammering the message to the umbrella girls to tell them they’re letting down their own side? Could it be they can exploit their beauty for some decent coin because they don’t share offense over the issue? Their looks are a virtue in their eyes. Are they wrong to use it their advantage? Would a Harvard MBA graduate apply to McDonalds for a cash register role so as to check his or her privelege to those that weren’t so lucky to study there?

Whether one likes it or not why not let sponsors decide how they want to spend their ad dollars and let consumers bury them if they find the use of advertising across a cleavage as “not with the times”? Why state control? Casey Stoner ended up marrying his pit girl and has a wonderful family now. If 10% of teams decided to keep pit girls but got 75% of the TV coverage before the start of the race could you blame them? Advertising is literally all about ‘exposure’. Or would race control demand the camera operators avoid them?

Further to that, perhaps F1 should ban the popular cockpit radio transmissions of drivers like Kimi Raikkonen who drop the F-bomb every other lap. Or is profanity now ‘in with the times’?

Should the forthcoming Tokyo Motor Show ban the use of scantily clad women standing next to cars? Last year Porsche, VW and Audi had several slick cut male models parading their products. Ladies were lining up to take selfies with these foreign himbos. If not for objectification, then what? Girls could be heard saying “cho kakkoi” (so handsome). As a male was I feeling insulted and triggered? No. I figured it was time to sign up for the gym, visit Hugo Boss for a sharp suit and book an appointment at a $300 hair stylist after I got back in shape. If I had made a song and dance about feeling uncomfortable at handsome men being treated like slabs of meat would I be granted the same rights to being offended? Not for a second.

Should pretty women be banned from starring in adverts?  Cosmetics companies have products that are pitched pretty much solely toward women but no one bats an eyelid when Giselle pouts a lipstick. Luxury goods stores also cater predominantly to women. No shortage of flesh showing off shoes, handbags or miniskirts. Why no outrage? Should Subaru be raked over coals for targeting same sex couples in its adverts? No. If it feels that is a market it wishes to tap then it should feel free to push for it. If I was offended then I could simply refuse to buy an Impreza WRX. I shouldn’t have a right to tell Subaru who it can and can’t sell to. That’s accepting diversity. Not enforcing my view of the world on others with respect to Subaru. Choice.

Put simply why should the subjective opinions of people (within reason) be such that we must comfort the wowsers at all times? Yarra Council is telling it’s 1,000 staff it mustn’t use the word “Australia Day” to refer to Janury 26, a Day celebrated since 1815! Aussie nurses and midwives are being told to check their white privelege and admit their colonial roots should a patient demand so. Shouldn’t the safe delivery of children be the only priority than have a “code of conduct” to force behaviours that have probably never if ever been an issue in decades? Bad bedside manner for healthcarers is one thing less likely to do with race, gender or sexual orientation than individual attitudes.

Still the message is zip it or be zapped. Next time you’re being told it is for diversity start running for the hills. Your subjective opinion is as equal as anyone elses provided you don’t disagree with the Marxist’s definition of ‘with the times


A vote for Palestine or a vote against America? Double standards hidden in other votes


Why is anyone surprised by the UNGA vote on the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?  At the UN General Assembly emergency meeting on Thursday to “null & void” the move – 128 votes in favour and nine against, while 35 countries abstained. While it can’t be vetoed it is not legally binding in any way. If one was to break down the vote of the permanent members then without question most of those issued from Russia or China are to stick it to the Americans more than support/reject the cause itself and vice versa . When Turkey’s foreign minister starts talking of not selling out democratic rights of others perhaps he should look to his own boss and question the dictatorship, the lack of freedom of press or an independent judiciary that exists in his own country?

People can stick it to Trump all they want, but a decision was made in mid 1990’s by US Congress, with a clause that had to be signed every 6 months by whomever was President to delay invocation of this act. Between 1998 and 2017, there have been 37 presidential waivers, with the last one expiring a week ago. Trump has just put the ball into motion. After all Presidents Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama have all explicitly said on record that “Jerusalem has and always will be the capital of Israel” The irony of chastising the current president for doing what others said speaks of the hypocrisy of bashing a politician for fulfilling a promise. If only the global political class could catch this disease?!?

While it is hardly a surprise to see Trump’s reaction ‘to take names’ the flip side is that he should allow each UN member state to vote how they wish – period. He would be better off not pointing out the obvious. Indeed if “he doesn’t care” he should just act silently. The message will ring louder. All this posturing only seeks to make him look like a spoilt kid taking his toys home (then again one wonders if that is half the reason he does it. UN votes are meaningless to begin with and seldom have they ever achieved anything worthy.

The UN needs to be defunded in order to reform. It has promised many times to streamline yet it continues to expand into irrelevant quangos. The bloated tax free salaries, retirement packages and living allowances are obscene. Is there any wonder that the UN needs more funding, given 80% of the budget is swallowed up on remuneration alone? No wonder they don’t want progress.

While the truth may be that the US ‘pays’ a lot which ends up in the pockets of many countries, the US will likely go ahead and build the embassy in Jerusalem regardless. Political capital is often ‘bought’. It doesn’t make it right although one who gives to charity hopes that the money ends up supporting favorable causes. Indeed Nikki Haley when criticized for “bullying tactics” responded, “So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American people, about where to locate OUR embassy, we don’t expect those we’ve helped to target us…The free money train doesn’t go on forever.

Virtue has and never will be rewarded in politics. To make the point made by the UN’s very own website, some nations lose their right to vote because “according to Charter Article 19, cannot vote because the amount of their arrears equals or exceeds the amount of contributions due from them for the preceding two full years.” So in short if you don’t pay your dues, you lose voting rights. So the UN is basically a ‘club’. Don’t pay your dues, don’t get a vote. Simple. By the same token, some clubs give special treatment for members that pay more. Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze etc.

Here is a telling part of the hypocrisy. Look at the efforts made by these unelected UN representatives when exploring the number of abstentions on certain issues such as “Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly“ So claiming victory and gloating about the embarrassment caused to the US, why  were there 77 abstentions in 2017, 73 abstentions in 2016, 75 in 2015, 79 in 2014, 75 in 203 and 72 in 2012? Notice a pattern? Surely if the evil Israelis don’t rightly deserve to call Jerusalem the capitol and are constantly attacked by the UNHRC for human rights abuses against the Palestinians, why are so many nations abstaining when it comes to investigating these crimes? Surely such evidence would justify the actions of rejecting Israel.

Claiming yesterday as a triumph for the world, the UN is still exposed for what it is. Few bother to look at how nations truly feel when exploring one derivative deeper. The lack of international will is telling. Then again when we only need look at the track record – WHO appointing Robert Mugabe as an ambassador, the proposal to  send in the blue helmets to quell crime in Chicago and the multiple scandals, the complete lack of governance and accountability with respect to the IPCC.

So until all those that vote to punish Israel don’t stick to the script on every vote then the truth is indeed told. Virtue signal on the surface and hide behind abstentions where it matters to ‘keep the funds coming’. Sorry, what was this about principles?

Hypocrisy of the Mayor of Sydney


It shouldn’t surprise but in the self-serving interests of the Marxist Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore has vowed to make venues in Sydney’s prominent places free for 100 days for any gay weddings if SSM is legalized. Yes, if marriage equality is approved, the first thing Moore intends to do is promote “inequality”. I sincerely hope that gay couples reject her offer should the legislation pass because it would only serve to prove the height of double standards. Gaining equality should not mean getting an advantage. Love is love. Money is money. Loony progressive logic.

Hollywood hypocrites exposed by the Weinstein scandal


Most Hollywood celebrities are a hypocritical mob, a claim CM has made countless times. Grandstanding about all of the social injustice in the world but in most cases doing nothing personal about it, Whether it be Leo DiCaprio telling us that climate change is the biggest threat of our time as he flies his eyebrow stylist half way around the world on a private jet to Meryl Streep speaking of her utter disgust at the President and his lack of respect for women. Now we have a thermonuclear scandal within their own ranks  – Harvey Weinstein. His career now appears so sullied, all celebrities can act (being the operative word) as paragons of virtue and exemplary behaviour because he has lost his career-influencing mojo and now serves no purpose. He is a sacrifice.

True to form celebrity double standards come shining through. All of a sudden, Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, Cate Blanchett and others come out of their bubble and condemned his actions of which they claim they had no idea. Of course his actions, if proven true are abhorrent. Presumably in all of the drug and alcohol fueled benders that in and out of rehab celebrities – who spend their lives boasting, boosting then denying self made rumors to gain the spotlight – attend, not one of them got a whiff of what was going on? Puhlease. How obvious is it to spot an office romance at your company Christmas party? Doesn’t take an Einstein to work it out.

After all these celebrities are the most switched on of all enlightened beings when patronizing us with their wisdom on politics, refugees to the environment. Many would never let a moment pass to provide their guidance or opinion. Yet, they somehow managed to miss what must have been a pretty obvious behavioural pattern if it has been as widespread over decades as reported. Not one of these up and coming fame seeking stars confided in one of the established Hollywood A-listers that they were pressured to watch him supposedly pleasure himself or presumably participated in sex acts or became victims of rape?

So who has come forward?

ANGELINA JOLIE (1998) Jolie said she rejected Weinstein’s sexual advances in a hotel room during the release of 1998’s Playing by Heart.

GWYNETH PALTROW (1996) Weinstein met 22-year-old Paltrow for what she thought was a work meeting at a Beverly Hills hotel. He suggested they head to his bedroom for massages. She refused.

HEATHER GRAHAM (early 2000s) Graham says Weinstein called her into his office and said he wanted to put her in one of his movies. He mentioned an agreement he had with his wife where he could sleep with whoever he wanted while he was out of town.

MIRA SORVINO (1995) Sorvino said Weinstein “harassed her” and pressured her to have a sexual relationship while she acted in Miramax films, massaged her shoulders and chased her around

ROSETTA ARQUETTE (1990s) Arquette took a business meeting with Weinstein that escalated into her being sexually propositioned.

ASHLEY JUDD (1990s) Judd was summoned to Weinstein’s hotel room to talk about roles in his movies. Instead, Weinstein asked her for a massage, and after she declined, he asked her to watch him shower. “I said no, a lot of ways, a lot of times.”

ROSE MCGOWAN (1997) McGowan had reached a $US100,000 settlement with Weinstein after an unwanted encounter in a hotel room during Sundance Film Festival in 1997.

LAUREN SIVAN (2007) Weinstein trapped the journalist in the hallway of a restaurant, tried to kiss her, then blocked her path and masturbated.

TOMI-ANN ROBERTS (1984) Roberts was waiting tables in New York and hoping to start an acting career. Weinstein urged her to audition for him saying she would give a better audition if she were comfortable “getting naked in front of him”.

LOUISE GODBOLD (1990s) Godbold, co-executive director of the non-profit Echo Parenting & Education said during an office tour she got trapped in an empty meeting room, where Weinstein begged for a massage.

LAURA MADDEN (1991) Madden, a former employee of Weinstein’s said he would ask her to give him massages in hotel rooms.

KATHERINE KENDALL (1993) Actress Kendall said Weinstein gave her scripts and invited her to a screening, which turned out to be a solo trip with him. He emerged from the bathroom in a robe, asking for a massage and chased her and asked to at least see her breasts.

LIZA CAMPBELL (1995) The British artist and writer started working with the Weinstein Co in 1995. He invited her to his hotel room and suggested they take a bath together.

JUDITH GODRECHE (1996) Weinstein invited Godreche to breakfast at the Cannes Film Festival in his hotel suite to see the view and discuss her film’s marketing campaign. Instead he asked for a, started “pressing against me and pulling off my sweater”.

ROSE MCGOWAN (1997) McGowan reached a $US100,000 settlement with Weinstein after an encounter in a hotel room during Sundance Film Festival in 1997.

ASIA ARGENTO (1997-1999) The Italian actress was 21 when she met Weinstein, whose company was distributing her film. She said she entered a “consensual” relationship afraid of what would happen if she refused. During the first encounter he forced her legs apart, and performed oral sex on her as she repeatedly told him to stop.

ROMOLA GARAI (2000) The British actress claimed Weinstein had her privately audition for him in a hotel room while he was wearing a bathrobe. “I was only 18. I felt violated by it, it has stayed very clearly in my memory.”

DAWN DUNNING (2003) Dunning met Weinstein when she was waitressing and he offered her a screen test. When she arrived, he was in a bathrobe and said he had contracts for his next three films, but she could only sign them if she would have three-way sex with him.

LUCIA EVANS (2004) Actress Evans said she was forced to perform oral sex on Weinstein. She says she tried to resist but was overpowered.

EMMA DE CAUNES (2010) At Cannes Film Festival, Weinstein told the French actress she would be perfect for an adaptation of a book he had in his hotel room. He emerged from his hotel bathroom naked and demanded that she lie on the bed. She left petrified.

JUSSICA BARTH (2011) Barth met with Weinstein in his hotel room for a business meeting. Instead, the meeting “alternat[ed] between offering to cast her in a film and demanding a naked massage in bed”.

EMILY NESTOR (2014) Nestor was an assistant at Weinstein Company when Weinstein offered to relocate her to the London office so she could be his girlfriend. The two got coffee, which Nestor said was “the most excruciating and uncomfortable hour of my life”.

AMBRA BATTILANA GUTIERREZ (2015) Gutierrez filed sexual assault charges in 2015 after Weinstein grabbed her breast during one of their meetings. The charges were dropped by NYPD, but initially, Gutierrez worked with the police to try and catch Weinstein confessing to the crime on tape.

Are we to believe that these were the only ones affected by his indecent proposals? In all the time she worked with Weinstein, Kidman never came across his lecherous advances? Are we to think that nothing happened just because he is not into redheads? If these shenanigans had been going on for over a decade in Hollywood, one cannot help but think that such a high profile person’s antics weren’t just urban myths by a long shot. If indeed some of these Hollywood stars in the making were true victims of sexual impropriety, surely many of the production crew, managers, other stars and make up artists must have noted changes in their behaviour or manner off set.

Sexual harassment and/or assault are serious crimes. Let us make no bones about this.  Should Weinstein be found guilty in a court of law for his actions then may the book be thrown at him with full force. Not even the best actors can hide the side effects of such despicable behaviour.

Yet, the celebrities who had a chance to expose Weinstein in public since 20 years ago for his supposed actions chose not to. Presumably chasing stardom for multi millions a film ended up more important than raising a red flag and protecting multiple other people from a fate they need not have faced at the risk of their own careers. Hypocrites indeed.

On the flip side as much as we might not like to admit it, it is also not hard to believe that some will gladly sell their souls for fame and fortune. With power comes inevitable corruption and false belief in one’s own infallibility. Perhaps Weinstein thought his elevated status granted him the ability in his own mind (however warped) if a few responded positively to his advances? An intoxicating drug which kept him in a state of continually seeking reconfirmation of his massive ego. That does not excuse any claims about what he did in anyway but I won’t be the least bit surprised if the psychological assessment in any trial confirms this mental state.

We don’t condone violence but we want to fund the guy that headbutted the former PM because he deserves it


Talk about double standards. This is the chap who has already pleaded guilty to headbutting former Australian PM Tony Abbott yet fellow ferals want to fund his court costs. Of course for the left, it is not the principle but the side. Unsurprisingly the Twitterati have  applauded his actions however if he was the true hero they make him out to be he wouldn’t resort to the type of cowardice he did. Then again it speaks volumes about their willingness to fight with foreheads rather than facts.

Read the rationale for the  gofundme campaign for yourself.

I propose we raise some funds which will most likely be needed in the near future for court fees and lawyer fees plus any possible fulines coming the way of Astro Labe, the gentleman that gave Tony Abbott a little bit of what he deserves.

This GoFundMe nor the creator in no way condone any violence, but do believe the politician did recieve a little if what he deserved after causing so much mental anguish for so many Australians over the years.

Below is an article explaining the situation:

Hobart resident Astro Labe this week allegedly attempted to smash Tony Abbott’s face. He’s since been charged with assault – and naturally became a hero to gentle, pacifist, left-wingers. Labe, 38, claims his alleged attack was not associated with his support for same-sex marriage. Rather, it was all about mere idiotic malice: “It was nothing really remotely to do with that. It’s just about Tony Abbott – the f***ing worm that he is,” the man told News Corp Australia. “All it was is I saw Tony Abbott and I’d had half a skinful and I wanted to nut the c***. “I want to divorce myself [from the same-sex marriage issue] — not because I disagree with their stance — but this was nothing to do with that. That’s just my personal hatred.” He admitted he had a same-sex sticker on his jacket, but said that was a coincidence. “It was purely because a friend of mine had walked past handing them out and had stuck one on my jacket,’ he said. He said he had been drinking at a Hobart waterfront hotel when he had seen Mr Abbott walk past. His version of what followed was almost identical to Mr Abbott’s. “I was like ‘Tony, Tony’, I kind of trotted up behind him. I trotted up behind him, ‘I just want to shake your hand’ and just went bang. Kind of missed it. Gave him a fat lip. “He got off pretty lightly. He’s just lucky I’m not a violent c***.” Obviously. The barista and bartender says he returned to the pub and had a couple of shots of scotch. He said he would apologise for his actions when he appeared in court, but his opinions had not changed. “I’m an anarchist, he’s an evil c**.” Er, who allegedly attacked who? Labe also spoke to Fairfax: “[It] was just a lifelong ambition to headbutt a fascist because I’m a skinhead that likes ska music and hates fascism. He’s an evil c—, I’m an anarchist and I believe in human rights … “I headbutted him quite piss-poorly because I was quite pissed,” Mr Labe said. He said he had no remorse but acknowledged his actions had harmed the “yes” campaign and said he was “really f–king embarrassed by it”.