Friday, 23 December 2016

Polly Dunning, congratulations, or not…

Polly Dunning was shocked at learning that she was pregnant with, wait for it, a boy! What a surprise. In a world where the gender of babies can’t be controlled (unbeknownst to leftists), Polly Dunning has had to submit to the power of the world and nature. What really strikes me is that she is actually counter-productive. During her article, she acts like having a son was actually a disgusting thing to have, like she having a son was a punishment.

There were dark moments in the middle of the night (when all those dark thoughts come), when I felt sick at the thought of something male growing inside me.

Is that sexist? Is she discriminating based on sex? I thought the idea of feminism was to fight sexism against women. Maybe it's just women?

Polly Dunning with her son, Alfred.
Polly Dunning and son Alfred
On the idea of sexism, Dunning, the daughter of feminist Jane Caro, says that the world, and “even the best men (and women for that matter)” is ingrained with casual sexism. She pointed out how people say that boys are ‘easier’ to raise and adds “(casual and ingrained sexism, anyone?)”

How is that sexist? Taking the word from your friends, probably feminist, may I add, and pointing it out to the world. Aren’t e allowed to make statements about other genders, or about genders. Does Polly know that not all genders are the same? Then again, in her leftist cloud, all genders probably are the same. However, making a comparative statement about someone’s experiences is not sexist. Would Polly classify the statement that ‘girls are generally smarter than boys’ sexist? Differentiating the two genders (and yes, there are only two genders) is not sexist, it is factual, just like girls are smarter than boys (as current evidence suggests), maybe boys are easier to raise than girls.

I feel sorry for the boy. Will Polly keep this article to show how she felt after learning she would have a boy? And yes, I know she is not so happy about having his dear Alfred. As all parents do, she adores her child. But, the fact that she was feeling bitter after learning that she was going to have a boy, is plain selfish. Does she know how many people don’t have that opportunity? Who can’t have a child?

Also, doesn’t Polly know that women can break through the “glass ceiling”? In the 21st century, nothing stops women from doing anything. They can even become Presidents if the people like them. This huff about Hillary losing the election because she was a woman is absolute garbage. She lost because she was too confident on the polls, she leant on them too much, she didn’t relate to the American people and, in the end, the American people didn’t like her, end of story!
Women like Theresa May, Angela Merkel (foolish as she is), Oprah Winfrey, Ellen DeGeneres, etc can do whatever they want. It is the lazy women, the backseat drivers those who couldn’t possibly succeed (even if they had the so-called advantage of being male) that call out feminism the most. Those that say that women can’t get high positions. Those working from the preface that women can’t, and those not trying to.

The comments on Andrew Bolt’s blog hold many valued opinions.

Jane comments:
“I feel sorry for the boy already, him growing up knowing that he is inferior to his sisters because of his gender.
Wait, where have I heard that before, oh that’s right that is what feminists whinge about?”
She hits the point on the head. Dunning’s article is counter-productive. Dunning is actually going against what she is supposedly all about, gender equality (for the two genders). The son will now grow up knowing that his sisters, his girlfriends all his female associates, are superior than him because of gender.

Pat comments:
Feminism has become a dirty word - I can't write what I really think of Polly Dunning because it would raise multiple red flags. What is the Sydney Morning Herald doing by publishing this?”

Pat’s worries are completely justified. In this 18C world, you can’t say anything, especially to or about these leftists who use 18C as their shield and defendant.

David also touches on the counter-productive sexism issue saying:
“Imagine a father expressing a similar thought about having a daughter.
Oh, silly me that's different.”
This is furthered when Jan says:
“Holy moly - you can only imagine the outcry if the genders had been reversed in this article.”

Lastly and most importantly, James and Bernard touch on the point that is all important. How did Polly get pregnant?

“Surely this must be the Second Coming of Christ? After all, it seems to be a virgin birth.”

“Baffles me how on earth she got pregnant, the thought of a male appendage anywhere near her delicate female nether regions would have thrown this poor little bed wetter in to convulsions.”

So, Polly Dunning, the poor mother who was lumbered with a son. She will live ever on as being, not the mother who fought sexism, but she who didn’t want a son, but got it anyway. Will Alfred be reading her disgusting writing anytime soon?

Alfred, good luck. I think you’ll be needing it soon.

Wednesday, 21 December 2016

Turnbull backs down on opinion polls

Turnbull has turned back on effectively, the reason he came into governance, Opinion Polls. Following fairly low opinion polls, Turnbull claimed that Tony Abbott was unfit to lead and provided no economic leadership. Well, despite that being untrue, the fact is that Turnbull dismissed Abbott, in a way, based on the opinion polls of the day. Now that Turnbull has low polls, he is defending himself by stating that opinion polls are ‘unreliable’. He said that the wrong polls in the case of Brexit and Trump’s election prove that opinion polls. He said that the only important poll is that on polling day.

This recent statement is illustrating that Turnbull is still set on being Prime Minister, his ego-maniacal sense is still in him, although, admittedly, fading somewhat.

So, he has proven that the ousting of Abbott was on a false basis, set on quicksand. Shouldn’t Turnbull then give Abbott at least a portfolio? Put him back into a position that he earned and deserves?

Well, no matter what happens, Turnbull keeps amazing with his hypocritical statements, like this one, and is proving that the ego-maniac is not ready to give up leadership yet.
Image result for turnbull claims polls not effective indicator
Turnbull says opinion polls can't be trusted anymore

While making his statements, Turnbull also took on his political enemies, calling out Bill Shorten for his ‘shameless lies’. At least Turnbull can still do something. While he may not be doing much, maybe Turnbull is improving. Maybe he is tackling the opposition in a way that can put the Liberal party back on its legs. We will have to wait and see, and as Turnbull so correctly said, wait until polling day, for everything else is simply filler that is incorrect and shouldn’t be used as to base political decisions or reforms. Maybe Turnbull has learnt to run the country not to get elected again, but to run the country?

Universities and schools alike, where is the government run education system going?

If a teacher is to provide a political insight to a student, it should be done by giving the student both sides of the issue and letting the student make a decision based on fair and accurate information. It should not, however, be done by forcing bias information down children’s throats. It should not be done by wearing T-shirts with political slogans or by forcing students to write messages to politicians in Year 3 when students can barely make decisions of their own.

There is an age where you can drink, there is an age where you can drive, and age for consent and most importantly, an age where you are legally bound to vote. There is an age for a reason. People have decided that people under that age, especially students in Year 3, don’t have the baseline of maturity or knowledge to deal with the facts or the consequences. That is why people in Year 3 cannot vote. So why are teachers at schools preaching politics to the vulnerable and impressionable young children who can’t be trusted to tick a box on a voting form? Why are these teachers breaking the code of conduct by giving a bias opinion to these impressionable children? Why are these leftist teachers brainwashing these students with facts that half of the time, aren’t true?

Helensburgh Public School features teachers walking around in T-shirts (talk about high staff standards while on the job) bearing the political slogan ‘Teachers for Refugees’. Now, besides the facts about illegal immigrants, and yes, most in detention centres are illegal refugees, teachers shouldn’t be forcing bias and one-sided information down children’s throats. Teachers also shouldn’t be making students write letters to politicians or draw/write captions about the unfairness about detention centres. Where does this fit into the curriculum or is this just another of the Teacher’s Union’s leftist ploys?

The petitionYear 3 students from Helensburgh Public School wrote to local politicians describing the ‘Sovereign Borders’ scheme as ‘cruel’. Students obviously (sarcasm) wrote from the heart about an issue that they are obviously geniuses on. Stella featured saying that refugees should ‘be free like us!’. Stella added that her ‘heart is broken’. I bet that Stella wouldn’t know anything about refugees, nor about terrorist attacks. I bet she wouldn’t know about the deaths that happen when ‘boat people’ travel to Australia. Would that wrench on her heart-strings? Why hasn’t she written about that? Or has she not been told about those deaths? About the people that die at sea trying to get to Australia? What about the downgrading financial effects of thousands upon thousands of refugees that would occur should all these refugees in detention centres be allowed into the country? Would those Year 3 students be fine with their parents losing their job to refugees? Because more people and the same amount of jobs means lots of people will lose their jobs, and more people will rely on Centrelink which means that those students whose parents do keep their job will have to pay more tax. Will Stella be happy with that?

Don’t get me wrong, I am sure not targeting Stella, I am just pointing out how these impressionable, young and immature children are being used as puppets to accentuate a cause held dear by the teachers. Those students wouldn’t have a clue about what is going on. Wait, let me correct that, they know the leftist point of view, but the middle ground? Not so much.

But it’s not just Primary schools riddled with the disease of bias and misuse of power over vulnerable souls. Universities have also succumbed to this preaching of political ideals.

At the Queensland University of Technology, Brian McNair warned that Trump is the modern day Hitler. He stated that:
“Trump’s democratically endowed seizure of political power as of November 8, is very similar to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis in 1930s Germany.”

As Andrew Bolt correctly asks, Do all professors have to be leftists? Or are they brainwashed by the Teacher’s Unions like their students, like zombies? I don’t want to make any big statements, but the imagination wouldn’t have to stretch very far to imagine the same sort of scare political teachings occurring at La Trobe University.

At the end of the day, it is not a teachers place, as a huge influence in a child’s life, to make political statements, especially biased, or political slogans or ideals to vulnerable young children. It is a teacher's duty to inform a student of both sides of a matter and allow the student to make their own decision. If education is a compulsory matter, then at least allow students to make decisions of their own, as they will have to do in the real world. And what is school if it is not preparation for the real world.

Lastly, I have a fact that most readers wouldn’t find shocking at all. The headmaster of this Helensburgh school is a Labour former deputy-mayor. What a surprise that his views, or the views of his former party, is now the views of his nine-year-old political activist students. And lastly, people of Wollongong, beware. This Chris Connor is a current councillor at Wollongong council.

Turnbull seems to be growing up, Shorten on the other hand, can’t be saved

Image result for turnbull at arm 25th anniversary
Malcolm and Lucy Turnbull arrive at the 25th anniversary of the ARM
The former head of the Australian Republican Movement and current Primer Minister Malcolm Turnbull addressed movement members at the 25th anniversary of the launching of the cause. Now, I’m all for opinions, I’m all for individual beliefs. Just because I don’t believe in a republic doesn’t mean that others can’t. But should a prime minister of a Commonwealth country believe in a republic? Should someone else be on the job? All that is for certain is that diplomatic relations must be hard.

However, in this cause that seems to be agenda filled, Turnbull did seem to make some sense, that the Australia managed to blow out of proportion. The Australia article entitled:
‘Malcolm Turnbull: Republic must come after Queen Elizabeth’s reign.’
The fact of the matter is that Turnbull was much more subtle than that. He suggested that should a plebiscite on a republic come, it would not come, and would not be supported during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and would have to come afterwards, if it were to eventuate.

However, what did catch my interest was this line in the article which, if true, shows that Turnbull is learning to leave his agenda at the door and get on with running the country.

“However, Mr Turnbull admitted a republic is less an issue now than it was at the time of the last referendum.
“All of us have to be pragmatic in acknowledging it’s not something that keeps most of us awake at night,” he told Saturday’s audience.”
While Turnbull may seem to be wanting to fill his agenda and become the Head of State in the role of ‘President of Australia’, it seems he has given up on it for some time, and should he be right about the timing of a plebiscite, then he would be well gone should the opportunity of Head of State arise.

However, he could show more enthusiasm for the running of the country. With the Mid-Year Economic Fiscal Outlook due the day after his speech, should he really have been speaking about a topic far from the interests of Australia or should he be ensuring that Australia maintains its AAA credit rating?

Whatever the outcome, The Australian reader ‘Rick’ was certainly right when he said:
It might be a good idea to keep the monarchy going - we could need a dismissal down the track...”

However, on the other side of politics, Bill Shorten tweeted this:

Climate change, marriage equality, housing affordability, now Republic too hard for Turnbull. Time for the PM to lead his party, not follow.

What is worrying is that he places Climate Change, Marriage Equality and a Republic at the top of the most important issues at hand for our country. This explains why he isn’t Prime Minister. Hasn’t he learnt from his experience at the election? The majority of people don’t care about those minor issues. They want to live in a country which can sustain itself economically. They want a country where they can have a secure job, get a good education and not be run to the ground with tax and debt.

Despite the laughably implied importance of these issues, it is pleasing to see that Turnbull has put down the issue of a republic, at least for now. Now, hopefully, we can try to get Australia back on track and keep the country running, at least for a little longer.

Monday, 19 December 2016

Peter Fitzsimons illustrates himself as a hypocritical fool.

Image result for peter fitzsimons gorilla
55 year old Fitzsimons called a Sout African official a 'gorilla'
 On national television, Peter Fitzsimons called a black sports official a “gorilla”.  On national Television. Two years ago, Peter Fitzsimons condemned a 13 year old girl after she called Adam Goodes at an AFL game an ‘ape’. After being portrayed the face of racism for many months, this young and innocent girl faded into the depths of media hype until now. While Fitzsimons was quick to realise his mistake, his blunder illustrates how certain rules apply to him and his leftist companions only.

Why was a 13 year old girl not allowed mention an ‘ape’ in front of a AFL payer but Fitzsimons can call a South African a ‘gorilla’? Why do certain rules apply in certain circumstances?

Now, I am not calling the 13-year-old girl innocent, but she certainly isn’t guilty. And 55-year-old Fitzsimons, 42 years older than the girl, should have known better. He after all, knows the standards, doesn’t he? He is the one who call’s other out on their blunders. Well, for Fitzsimons, this is a wake-up call. Maybe he should review who he calls out on for their blunders, because no one is free of the guilt.

Lastly, as Andrew Bolt so correctly commented: "If he were a 13-year-old girl from a broke home he'd be crucified."