miranda-devine

“A table for two, please,” Miranda Devine said to the maître d’ of the fancy restaurant where she was meeting her old friend Mel Gibson.

“Certainly, madam,” the maître d’ replied. “Is the lady expecting her husband?”

“What’s that supposed to mean?” Miranda Devine asked. She was appalled! “Hello? Do you even READ the news? Millions of England’s fatherless youths are drinking blood from the skulls of honest heterosexual couples and having gigantic same-sex orgies in which the lesbians all rub their vaginas against each other’s vaginas and the gay men all touch each other’s penises as we speak, and no one feels even a tiny bit guilty, and you have the GALL to imply that I’m in some sort of godless lesbian relationship, you mincing little faggot? I demand to see the manager!”

“I apologise, madam,” the maître d’ said, “I didn’t mean to imply that you were a lesbian.”

Miranda Devine stared at him scornfully. “I’m not interested in your politically correct bullshit,” she snapped. “Just show me to my table.”

The maître d’ led her to a table by the window. It was a beautiful table, carved whole from the trunk of an ancient oak and decorated with ornate renderings of Christian soldiers beheading gay lovers. It was Miranda Devine’s favourite table, and she couldn’t wait to share it with her old friend and confidante, Mel Gibson!

“The usual goblet of ash and crystal meth, ma’am?” The maître d’ asked.

“Fuck off, homo,” Miranda Devine snapped, which was her way of saying yes.

Suddenly, she heard the sound of breaking glass coming from the doorway and a man’s voice screaming! “You look like a pig in heat, you whore cunt,” it screamed, and a waiter went flying out of the window and landed in the road and a truck ran over his head. Mel Gibson was here! Miranda Devine felt a little thrill of excitement. Mel Gibson stormed into the dining room and unloaded his handgun into a woman who looked a bit jew-y.

“It’s so nice to see you, Miranda,” he said, “you look good enough to be raped by a pack of white men!” Mel Gibson always knew what to say. That’s how he had become a popular and successful movie star, Miranda Devine guessed.

“And if I was, I would carry the child to term and a raise it as a Catholic,” she quipped. Both of them laughed incredibly hard!

“And I would certainly not hide my heterosexual pregnancy in the closet and I would make sure that everyone I knew and also thousands of Daily Telegraph readers I didn’t know were very happy for me and I would probably write a column about it,“ she continued, even though all of that stuff was DUH obvious and unnecessary. Everyone in the restaurant stopped eating and said "DUH” and then left immediately so Mel Gibson didn’t throw them out the window.

Mel Gibson was disappointed. “I was going to make them blow me first,” he said.

“Don’t get me wrong, I’m as tolerant as the next person,” Miranda Devine replied, “but I’m just so sick of having to put up with all these immigrants and fags getting married. I don’t think I should have to tolerate them? I am a Catholic, after all!”

“I’m a fucking Catholic too,” Mel Gibson said. “Maybe we should have a Catholic riot?” Miranda Devine agreed that it was a great idea, because she is a obnoxious jerk, so they went and had a riot and then Miranda Devine wrote another horseshit column that ended with a loathsome fucking platitude along the lines of “Individually, these things work themselves out. Allowances are made, extra effort applied. Love conquers all.” Of course she did! THE END.

youtube

Tom Ballard responds to this article.

Classic Miranda, 2006: “NOT only do Mark Latham and Heath Ledger look alike, they share an irrational hatred of the media. They have attacked and spat at photographers, and endlessly moaned about the very celebrity they sought so hungrily when they were ambitious nobodies. How could they not have known that, once embraced, fame can never be escaped. Maybe NIDA and whatever passes for ALP acting school should include a unit warning about loss of privacy and the prospect people will make a living from chronicling your life.
—  That’s the Murdoch mindset; if you’re of interest then it’s your own fault and you forgo any privacy, even if you’re a murder victim. And how do they look anything alike?
Free Media

As Australians we live in a democracy. The premise of a democracy is that we, as the people, have the opportunity to have our say on how our country is governed. So, naturally, it follows that writers employed by the media have the right to publish their views, as long as they stick to the facts when writing about actual events. This is referred to as a free media, and it is so, so important in any society. But just because our media is free does not mean it is balanced. 70% of Australia’s newspapers are owned by Rupert Murdoch, and are incredibly right-wing biased. It is through these newspapers that people like Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine have risen to prominence. Yet we see hardly any left wing opinion writers get the same air time and print space as these people do. And having a balance is just as important. I mean, you wouldn’t want to see one political party get 70% of the campaigning time, it wouldn’t be fair at all. So why does it happen in media?

While our newspapers as a whole might be biased, you won’t see it in every article. It would take a total loony to draw a parallel between a three year old taking a picture of a stick protruding from a lump of sand and Craig Thompson’s misuse of a credit card. That’s almost as ludicrous as linking a couple of lesbians having a baby with riots in London! (Yes, Miranda, I’m still on your case.) It is in the opinion pieces, people’s takes on the political happenings of the day, and other areas where the facts are not so solid that we see this skewering. On the outside, The Australian is pushing a pro-carbon tax façade. But when you look closer, they are quite clearly against it. Articles run every day about the job losses it will create, furthering the fear mongering Tony Abbott has become so good at.

Every Wednesday I get the pleasure of reading some words that Andrew Bolt has stringed together about a topic that interests him in the most offensive towards Labor and The Greens kind of way he can. And then, as if that wasn’t enough, the joy continues with Alexander Downer writing about how much better he and John Howard were than the current government and a list of fun things he got up to whilst in parliament. Which is perfect as breakfast time, if, you know, you use it to wipe up spilt milk. In that same column section there is no-one who writes about politics from the opposite side of the spectrum. In the blogosphere Andrew Bolt’s readers can comment on what he’s written, but if you try and publish a comment opposing his view, it will not get posted. That’s hardly democratic.

The fantastic thing about the internet is that it allows everyone to have a view, and for it to be posted and heard. In Australia we are blessed to not have our internet access censored, meaning that we can read any content on the internet, even if it may be questionable. What is intriguing is seeing people complaining about other people being able to share their views. While you may not agree with them, you can use articles which make confusing, irrelevant, or downright offensive points to further your cause. (Once again, hello Miranda Devine.) So it is strange to see readers of Andrew Bolt online complaining about the Sydney Morning Herald posting articles which push their Leftist-Gay-Marriage-Supporting-Pro-Carbon-Tax-Lentil-Eating Agenda. Just… don’t read it perhaps?

So it’s pretty obvious we shouldn’t be censoring our media, right? What if the comments are hurtful, offensive or condoning violence? This is a whole different matter. Having Alan Jones saying on radio that we should be throwing Julia Gillard out to sea is not the kind of thing we should be allowing said by someone so influential. If you have someone living in your community who has extreme views on either side of the political spectrum, and someone who agrees with them is suggesting violence, you

can’t then turn around and say you had nothing to do with it if violence occurred. The media can certainly play its role in tragedies similar to the massacre in Norway. With the amount of hate directed towards Islam creeping into our media we would be incredibly lucky if something didn’t happen here similar to in Norway. Through all the benefits of a free media this is the one downside, the problem that sometimes people go too far, and thing can get misinterpreted.

But how far is too far? We do not want to end up with a situation like in China where we see only some websites allowed, any with ‘questionable political content’ being banned. We want people to think, express their opinions, and make change. Which makes this really hard to regulate. But I think that any piece of writing that suggests that one type of person is lesser than another has no place in our mass media. Discrimination needs to be wiped out, not condoned by influential journalists. We see these types of articles all too often, generally brought up when talking about issues that are highly controversial. I find that the majority of people in opposition to marriage equality and asylum seeker have written some really offensive and potentially damaging to the people they are writing about.

Now perhaps this is because I am in favour of marriage equality, and want to see more asylum seekers coming to Australia, and being processed onshore, but I find it really uncomfortable to read something that is so offensive. I do not know what causes people to write such hateful statements, whether it is ignorance, a lack of education, or simply bigotry. But maybe there is a place for them after all. The more people that get offended by certain people’s articles are more likely to advocate their own views, as we saw in the aftermath of that Miranda Devine article. This is the benefit of a free media. Not only are we entitled to our own views, but we can have views of their views, and views of these views of views, and it goes on until we can’t even remember the original view. But all the while, people are taking notice of what we think. 

I wouldn’t be a proper left wing, gay marriage supporting blogger if I didn’t weigh in on Miranda Devinegate. I’ll try keep it short and sweet, not only for your benefit but for mine also as the more I think about it the more I want to stab someone. And now, with today’s comments from Bob Katter and Barnaby Joyce, us of the ‘Marriage Equality Leftist Agenda,’ or whatever our totally official and real group are called, are going to have a field day. A field day discussing a topic that we believe in. How dare we.

First to Devine. If you didn’t read the article, due to your current inhabitence under a rock or your general good sense, let me recap it for you. Penny Wong is having a baby. Baby will have no father. No father is bad. No-one is allowed to have a husband or wife anymore. I am a catholic. You know who else has no father? English rioters. Therefore, using my supreme logic skills, Penny Wong’s baby will riot. No-one ever talks about people’s babies anymore! Babies are cool! But not gay people’s babies! Penny Wong will be a good mum! But for people to praise her is wrong! And then, just for good measure. She gets lashes out, on twitter, at ‘intolerant bigots abusing a verballing’ her. So, hang on, you can abuse a whole group of people, for no reason, but as soon as you get it back, we’ve gone too far? You’ve lost me there. Well, you would have, except you never had me.

So now we have the ever delightful Bob Katter on the issue. Katter reckons that same sex marriage should be ridiculed, not taken seriously. “Truly this proposition deserves to be laughed at and ridiculed. It doesn’t serve any serious treatment.” Which makes sense, because, you know, all the gay people that kill themselves because they’re not accepted were joking. Right. Instead he wants us to use ‘gay’ to describe happy people, as we used to. You know what Bob? If you weren’t so set on making them feel like they are worthless, maybe someone who you called gay would be happy. Just maybe.

And then it just gets better, thanks to our favourite friend, Barnaby Joyce. When I start a paragraph like that, you know it isn’t going to go well. And it’s really not, trust me. A common argument for gay marriage is simple, really, and it’s that thought that if you’re not gay, it won’t affect you. Unless you are a marriage celebrant in which case you will get more work, more money, and a little bit more fabulousness. But back to the point. Barnaby here thinks that his four daughters WILL be affected. Yet none of them are gay. How, you ask? Well, I think it’s fairly obvious. Not.

“We know that the best protection for those girls is that they get themselves into a secure relationship with a loving husband and I want that to happen for them.
I don’t want any legislator to take that right away from me.”


Say what, Mr Joyce? Do you think that your daughters will turn lesbian and marry a girl, just because they can? You, sir, get an A+ for logic. End sarcasm. I just… I cannot believe anyone would say that. It is so flawed. But then, we’re not just talking about anyone, are we. I don’t expect much more from Barnaby Joyce, I really don’t. I just don’t see what he hopes to achieve from making these hurtful comments public. What he will do is lead to more gay hate, more prejudice, more inequality. And more angry blog posts, somewhat similar to this.

Classic Miranda, 2002: “We should be seeking solutions to the refugee issue, not building conspiracy theories, writes Miranda Devine”
—  She then proceeds to use the term “illegal immigrants”, argues the majority of asylum seekers are middle class (if they have money why are they risking their lives on rickety boats?), claim that asylum seekers get on boats because of greed for the Western life (instead of the fact that they mostly come from violent countries full of persecution), children are put on boats to trick authorities into sympathy (rather than the fact that the families of the children probably could only afford to save the children) and then says the solution is being tough on asylum seekers rather than people smugglers. If you are going to get on some shitty boat packed to the walls with people, I’m going to say you’re desperate and willing to tolerate anything. That doesn’t mean they should have to, we should be trying to help these people rather than making their lives that much harder. But no, Miranda thinks the real victims were the Howard government, which makes as much sense as offshore detention.
You write, and I quote, “It is politically incorrect to say so, but the ideal situation for a child is to be brought up in an intact family with a father and mother.” Seriously mate, what the fuck are you talking about?! You offer zero evidence, ZERO EVIDENCE, to support that claim. Support your contention with evidence, that’s like year nine debating basics. You can’t just like, write shit and expect people to believe it. Who do you think you are? The people who wrote the Bible? (EDGY!)
—  Tom Ballard

– CHORTLERS IN COURT ON DOUCHEBAG VILIFICATION CHARGES

– CHORTLING MOTHERFUCKERS NEVER SAW THIS COMING

– THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD CHORTLE AT THE OUTCOME OF ANDREW BOLT’S COURT CASE AND THE LONG ARM OF THE LAW WOULD NEVER DRAG THEY RAGGEDY AZZES INTO A COURTROOM

– WELL NOW IT’S GOT ITS FINGERS IN THE WAISTBAND OF THEIR PANTIES AND THE CHORTLING IS WELL AND TRULY FINISHED

– JUST LIKE MIRANDA DEVINE CORRECTLY PREDICTED - AS USUAL

blogs.news.com.au
Time’s up for deadly dogs - Miranda Devine

EVERY time a mere human is killed or mauled by a pit bull-type dog, all the professional apologists line up to declare: “It’s not the breed, it’s the deed…

Unlike Miranda Devine, I almost didn’t post my rant in response to hers. I thought about it all day, stewing on it, reworking it until it got to the point where I simply couldn’t hold it in much longer.

Lets for a moment, ignore the fact that the daily telegraph is a farcical tabloid publication and recognize that it unfortunately influences the masses, those who consume the news like they consume a McValue Meal, with very little thought or criticism.

This ‘article’ is essentially a rant and has no place within the mainstream media. Such an inflammatory opinion piece is dangerous and attracts vigilante attention and by making sweeping, outrageous and unsubstantiated statements like

“Pit Bull-type dogs are inherently dangerous" 
and
"Pit bull is a term generally used for the American Pit Bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier and staffordshire bull terrier. Along with similar breeds they pose a clear and present danger to humans" 

Miranda not only shows her ignorance, but will also be responsible for the mass purchase of rat poison and the death of animals even she deems innocent, and, quite possibly, a child will get poisoned.

It gets worse…

"It’s time for a dog buyback, similar to John Howards gun buyback. There can be an amnesty of a few weeks before the owner of every pit bull, or similar vicious breed, is required to relinquish their dogs to the local council” she justifies what is essentially a breed genocide by allowing the owners of the relinquished dog to “choose a safer breed from the tens of thousands waiting for a new home in pounds and animal shelters…saving a dog on death row" 


Her final sensationalist comment made me sick to the stomach

"surely the death of a thousand dogs is worth the life of one child”

Okay Miranda, you have my attention.

Here are some facts, if anyone who reads this is unaware of the truth of the matter or the nature and history of “pit bulls”.

I tried to comment on the article, in fact I wrote and submitted a comment, but it seems as if discussion has been banned from this particular article. While I can’t remember what my exact response was, it was something along the lines of this…

The death of any child is a tragedy beyond words or comprehension, but the genocide of an entire breed of animal, many of them being innocent family pets who would otherwise live out their life providing joy and happiness to those around them, is going to prevent the death of children.

If this is your argument then must we ban backyard pools? Make them illegal? What about stranger danger? How do we end that in such a draconian manner? Or road accidents, falls, fires… all things that in most cases are preventable with a little commonsense and education.

All large dogs have the potential to kill. Does this now mean that all large dogs should be killed because essentially that’s what you are saying.

The answer does not lie in the banning of a breed that is, on the whole, a great family pet. The answer is in education.

Blacktown Council has a great initiative (and my local vet is the one behind it) and has employed an officer to go around to the schools and educate kids on dog safety and responsible pet ownership. Much like kids are educated about pools, roads and electricity.

So Miranda, I’m sorry that you are filled with so much hate and ignorance and you have never experienced the joy and loyalty that comes from owning a dog…perhaps you simply aren’t responsible enough to own one. In that case, it’s probably for the best.

Regards,

Animal Do-Gooder.

Classic Miranda, 2009: “The ideologues who have fostered the road-sharing lie must think a few dead cyclists and pedestrians are a small price to pay for getting cars off the road, because that is their ultimate aim: to make driving so unpleasant, slow, expensive and fraught with hazards that motorists give up.”
—  The RTA is evil and irrationally hates drivers clearly.
youtube

Tom Ballard - Kicking ass and taking names, mainly the name of Miranda Devine.

ILYBBY

youtube
dailytelegraph.com.au
Pregnancy of Penny Wong's female partner no cause for mass celebration

Same-sex couples and single mothers are to blame for the London riots.. as well as this opinion, Miranda Devine also criticises artificial insemination and explains how the push for marriage equality “is simply a political tool to undermine the last bastion of bourgeois morality - the traditional nuclear family.”

This article made me so angry I felt physically ill.. ughh.