And indeed there are twerps to the left as well, but lately one side has been absolutely fabulous in form! I think particularly of Bones and Jolt and their respective lucubrations on the matter of Adam Goodes. See Jim Belshaw’s post Adam Goodes, sporting behaviour, stereotyping and the importance of manners and respect – Jim is much more polite than I might have been.
Moult and Cones
Supplementing what Jim had to say, I refer you to the editorial in this weekend’s Saturday Paper. It ends on a part of the “Goodes and the little girl” story that I certainly recall but many seem to have forgotten.
… The other argument, made by helpful white commentators, is that Goodes brought the treatment by fans on himself. Alan Jones is a particular exponent of this theory: that Goodes is being punished for complaining that a small girl called him an ape. This, of course, has nothing to do with racism.
“They just don’t like the fellow,” Jones said this week. “And Adam Goodes can fix all this by changing his behaviour. But what’s he say today? ‘Oh, I’m going to leave. I may have to resign. I can’t hack it.’
“Ask the little 13-year-old girl how she handled that. She was paraded over the national media as a person who really had to apologise.
“She wrote a letter and apologised. I mean, the poor little thing, 13 years of age, disabled mother. I mean, give me a break…”
The little girl who Jones mentioned, who called Goodes an ape, wrote a letter after the incident. It was brief, but it said more and made more sense and served a greater purpose than did all the ink that would tell you Goodes is the problem.
“Dear Adam. It was good to talk to you on the phone. I’m sorry for being racist. I didn’t mean any harm and now I’ll think twice before I speak.’’
Meanwhile we have the saga of Bronwyn Bishop and the long-delayed apology. That she is now a running sore in the government’s standing is obvious. Her days are well and truly numbered. It is a fact, rather than an opinion, that she has been a bloody awful Speaker of the House of Representatives: see Australia needs a truly independent Speaker.
Of course BB’s recent sins have generated quite a deal of internet and social media fun too:
Lately people have been dragging up all sorts of little gems about BB. Peter FitzSimons today:
There is a wonderful yarn in Stephen Loosley’s latest book Machine Rules, highlighted by Laurie Oakes yesterday, about a dinner attended by Loosley, Peter Costello and Bronwyn Bishop in the late ’80s, just as Bishop’s star was on the rise.
“I bet your thinking,” Costello reportedly said to Loosley, leaning over the table to him, “it would take you only 10 minutes to demolish Bronwyn as Liberal leader. Well, you’re not going to get the chance. It will take me only five minutes.”
Let the record show, John Howard also spotted the flaws early. Circa 1993, I was MC-ing a function at the then Regent Hotel, at which Mr Howard – then in the very depth of his wilderness years – was the guest speaker. Over pre-dinner drinks I asked him whether he thought Ms Bishop – then at the height of her popularity – would take the Liberal leadership. He looked at me, leaned in close, and said out of the side of his mouth, with great emphasis: “Over … my … dead … body.”
And The Gadfly in The Saturday Paper reminds me that BB started at Sydney University the same year I did – not that I ever knew her.
Reaching for David Leser’s authoritative biography, Bronwyn Bishop: A Woman in Pursuit of Power, we find this:
“How was it that Bishop never graduated [in law] with the class of ’65? What kind of student was she? Her own explanation is that marriage intervened. ‘I actually didn’t take my degree because I got married instead,’ she told the Australian Magazine in March 1989. In 1993 she told the Sydney Morning Herald: ‘I think I missed a few subjects. Lots of people did, you know.’
“Bishop failed a total of 11 subjects over six years. In her first year, in 1960, she failed all four subjects and was required to repeat the year. She then passed the next three years before stumbling once more in 1964 when she failed all four subjects again. In 1965 she repeated those same four subjects but ended up failing three of them. The university had a rule at the time that a student had to show cause why he or she should be allowed to repeat for a third time. Bronwyn Setright was deemed ineligible to continue.”…
One source reports that Old Kero inveigled herself onto the organising committee of the law school reunion dinners that are held every 10 years for those who graduated the year she should have, if she hadn’t got married, or missed a few subjects – or whatever.
Finally, just to note that Chris T, Persian Danny and I will be indulging in absolutely delicious halal food again next Saturday. Cory Bernadi: the folks at the Australian Institute of Sport should be so lucky! But then Cory is a dead-set twerp, eh!
Well the twerps never stop, do they? See the latest on Dolt: Andrew Bolt’s claim Stolen Generations a ‘myth’ spurs Press Council complaint. Of course Volt can then indulge his long-standing love of being persecuted, and does: A sinister attempt to gag debate on the “stolen generations”.