Andrew Bolt's Blog,10/4/15; Chloe and Bolt; Bolt is not a man according to Kipling; How acute is Shorten he wont go on the underrated Bolt Report to be not interviewed by a not journalist;
Two obituaries presented here neither by Andrew Bolt.. One is a link for money from the Australian so the writer remains unknown. The other is from Geoff Kitney of the Financial Review. Bolt claims to be a journalist that was proud to have known him. Obviously not that proud this wordsmith seems lost for words for this labor man.
An icon that will never die unless Cricket does. He had listeners in the billions.
Let it be said Firstly the Bolt Report is not an interview program. Secondly it has no ratings. So either way why should Shorten entertain Bolt? It actually shows what an acute politician he is. But lastly and more to the point Andrew Bolt is not a journalist even if he likes to think is. I doubt he's seen at the Press Club or even hangs out with journalists.
It's a bit of a bummer when Bolt's source has no date attached. Firstly Bolt is not commenting on
David Leyonhjelm suggestion at all. His only point is the 9 billion in subsidies renewables have received over 15 years. However how much in subsidies has the mining of fossil fuels received over the same period? Something we don't hear from Bolt!
"My plan will reinforce Australia's commitment to renewable energy while solving the RET problem before the time bomb goes off." DL
Bolt however doesn't address DL's message which is obviously open for discussion
Bolt's troll's are really trying to fly a lead zeppelin. They are what trying to turn Shorten's story into Billy Gordon or even more the Craig Thomson tale. If they could they'd spin their web into a Peter Slipper tale. This sort of gutter sniping is the stuff of Liberal Politics. They have a history of fabrication, innuendo and support from the likes of Murdoch media and Bolt and his trolls who are professional scum bags.
Well spotted now if only you could teach Bolt the importance of this sort of logic and apply it to where it really counts . Wherever the government speak. It just might get Abbott out his foot in mouth disease.
You don't ask the poor and powerless to become rich for a day to see how it feels. You do ask the prince to become a pauper for a day to empathise with what it's like to be poor and understand.
Bolt simply shows he has no empathy for minorities. He even doesn't show he has the intellect to understand. I suggest he go read Rudyard Kipling's poem IF about what it means to be a man he certainly isn't.
Let me say this is a tragic case and it should never have been allowed to happen to Chloe . However it's an extreme case and it's why it has gained media attention.
Bolt in his typical Quixotic way takes this exceptional case of reckless parenting and death of a child to draw some extraordinary generalizations. Bolt seems to believe it's the way of logic
While being a loud advocate for the cuts to welfare which the Abbott government has been calling for. Bolt loudly but correctly claims Child Protection is under staffed. However not only understaffed but staffed by" student social workers barely out of school trying to act as
super parents." Which isn't the case there is a hierarchy within the department and responsibility is handed out according to experience and people are supervised by their team leaders. All it does show is Bolt hasn't a clue on how the Department of Human Services operates. However the truth of the matter is it's understaffed. It's understaffed because of the Bolt's of this world demanding Welfare Departments be run on shoe string budgets in order to balance budget deficits.
Chloe
According to Bolt the rock was lifted" to expose the farcically inadequate
attempts by society to deal with the collapse of the family unit", and " the dangerous modern belief that families must be kept together almost regardless " He seems to be contradicting himself here saying the family unit is breaking down but there is a dangerous modern belief trying to keep it together. Is he for or against the family unit and either way what he is referring to we are left to guess ? We live in a lot of successful family arrangements. Knowing Bolt his idea is not about to be radical.
Children are treated as possessions it's not a modern concept it's a very traditional one and almost universal in fact. China with it's one child policy was the only society determined to make all it's citizens unrelated and to become children of the state from the cradle to the grave. Rest assured Bolt is not advocating that we be like China.
We issue licences for a dogs to get married etc but not children. Is Bolt advocating Kevin Andrews's $20 mill plan for pre -marriage counseling which was dropped to a new plan for assessing the right to have children, baby licensing? If he is he seems to be a walking contradiction, an advocate of individual rights demanding government controls.
Basically his list of myths are a bundle of contradictions. To any policy maker it would make no sense
These are Bolt's list of challenged "modern myths" -
The myth of soft parenting.... Does he want "the slap" brought back or parents arrested for taking their kids to Macas?
The myth on
challenging “authority” Bolt railes against challenging authority however only the authority of his class values. He is not a pluralist.
The myth on the rights agenda, People have no rights ?? Children have no rights??
The myth on Welfare Dependency, I agree this is not the general rule people don't want to stay and be dependent on Welfare.
The myth of “harm minimization” So Child Protection is a waste of time??
The myth on adoption as a last resort, return to the days the stolen generation and call it welfare???
The myth on children as
possessions. Bolt took his family to Bali he speaks of them as possesions. There's no collective we in his language. If children aren't posessions they have rights yet Bolt calls a rights agend a myth
Does the man have any idea what he's talking about until it's packaged for him?
No comments:
Post a Comment