What grubs they are, what a pair of grubs. Tony Abbott, the feral whinger, and Christopher Pyne, the Shadow Minister For Reckless Cruelty.
Lines For Albo (8)
Leave a comment ?
Table Talk: Bob Ellis on Film and Theatre
Published by Boban Services Pty Ltd. ACN: 001516945
About Me
Name:
Bob Ellis
Location:
Sydney,
Australia
What a pair of snivelling grubs, even.
Not as good a line as my name for Peter Reith : ‘Bilko’ the ex-minister for
Balaclavas
Industrial
Lightweights and
Kids
Overboard.
(and a passing resemblance to Phil Silvers)
Tantalisingly incomplete, isn’t it? And I am dying to see it fleshed out. But if Brough is only the person who was first told the complaint and Steve Lewis just the recipient of the leak, time will tell. We shall have to see about the “unwelcome sexual advances” and “unwelcome sexual comments”, but as was said today, “(Roxon) stressed that the commonwealth’s application remained untested in the court and would be heard on July 23”.
My interest is also keyed up by the knowledge that the ALP doesn’t muck about with these things, the sacking of a staffer/whistle-blower in NSW for daring to actually go to the police about a paedophile was a good example of the “NSW ALP way”. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/orkopoulos-found-guilty/2008/03/14/1205126170243.html
“The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline. The principles on which the Conservative political position is based have been established by a process that has nothing to do with the social, economic and political landscape that changes from decade to decade and from century to century. These principles are derived from the nature of man, and from the truths that God has revealed about His creation. Circumstances do change. So do the problems that are shaped by circumstances. But the principles that govern the solution of the problems do not. The Conservative approach is nothing more or…[less than religious nonsense dressed up as ideology"] (ok, the last phrase is not a quote
)
Santorum or Romney 2012? No, Goldwater 1964
Romney has the best chance since Goldwater in 1964 to lose by (pro rata) about 25 million votes.
Quote me.
Suck it up, conservatives. It is coming here too.
For over a year Tony Abbott was considered by you to be a fine chap – you know the adjectives you used to describe him, they don’t bear repeating here – and now you refer to him as a “grub” and as “feral whinger”.
I’d like to know Bob, as a staunch member of the Left, what it was exactly that turned your mind on this matter. Could you please tell us what it was and the exact moment/circumstance you stepped through the looking glass.
I’m fascinated.
It was the metho
Dear Molly, I don’t know what the Bob Ellis view is of Tony Abbott today, but what his view apparently was, going by your quotes and certain ABC pieces of his, only echoed what most of the old major ALP figures and machine men think about Abbott (the ones who tell the Gillards of the world what to do next). As in a famous northern view of Robert E Lee “Oh. I wish he was ours”, Albanese must be feeling a bit lonely right now with all the lack of another good headkicker in the old ALP-mould. Maybe Bob is just getting with the Narrative of today.
MRyutin – Lincoln, Meade, Sherman, Grant and others may have thought that about Lee – but I’m glad that Abbott is “one of them”.
My interest however is a little more particular. I really would like to know the exact time and circumstance of Bob’s change of heart. These things interest me. I guess you could say that any “narrative” change is worthy of investigation; discovering its source, trajectory and purpose I find quite revealing about one’s character.
My guess is this: Bob, seeing the perilous situation of Labour, is pulling no punches where Abbott is concerned. He (Ellis) is rightly gripped by the “Whatever it takes” fever. About time too, I would add.
Or, Bob has suffered a personal slight at the hands of Abbott and now it’s payback time.
I hope that it is the former – but it will not surprise me if it is the latter.
Just as an aside, and for me an incredibly important one.
I found myself in the company of Kevin Rudd on Tuesday as he did his lightning tour of schools in the greater Newcastle area (north of Sydney).
As it is with these things it was quite an unremarkable outing; handshakes, tea and biscuits, smiles, the usual routines are played out.
EXCEPT for this: every parent M Ryutin, EVERY parent that I saw extended their hand in a genuine display of gratitude for the BER. I saw parents thank him, personally, for his involvement in providing their children with new/updated facilities. Even the parents who, without a doubt in my mind were Coalition supporters, gave what appeared to be a grudging affirmation at the visible results of the BER.
It was quite a remarkable indicator of the grassroots level of support that the BER garnered. (In my recount I offer no hyperbole or exaggeration to make the point – I’m trying to relay as objectively as possible).
I think it was also quite clear to those present that the argument of “waste” was simply a political strategy – quite successful – but one that bore no relation to the tangible infrastructure that stood before them.
I left the scene with this impression M Ryutin: that people, above all else, will acknowledge, however reluctantly, the good that comes from social programmes like the BER. The expenditure, no matter its size, will NEVER trump the sight of one’s child learning the alphabet on a new SmartBoard.
Never.
As I said, it was, as befitting my pseudonym, a epiphany.
A pleasure to chat with you. Let’s keep it up!
Looking at those angry faces of older Aussie males in the latest Q&A audience, just confirmed my belief that I’m right: older Oz males do not like females as their leaders.
Those angry old men in the audience were not all Liberal.
We don’t have a monopoly on party supporters not liking the leader; how many US southern Democrats are keen on a black man in the White House?
Heard from opposition parliamentary benches –
(adoringly) Hey Cisco.
(endearingly) Hey Pancho.
Re: Grubs.
Can someone here explain what Gillard’s talkfest in Brisbane achieved?
I can’t find any policy outcomes in the press. Nothing. What was that all about?
Do explain it to me.
Also
The announcement of a big Marine Park around Australia that will destroy fishing jobs.
Whats all that about?
How will the government police it?
How will they enforce it?
Explain it to me. They like to talk big. But as usual it all ends in tears.
Could the Marine Park announcement and the Carbon Tax be related to Gillard swanning off to the Rio 20 Summit in Brasil next week to bask in some Green Glory?
Is this what it all comes down to?
A moment of glory in the Sun?
Is this what Labor is all about these days?
Pretty shoddy wouldn’t you think?
Grubs.
I always thought of Abbott as Howard’s cur anyway, so what kind of troglodyte that makes Pyne I daren’t say.
I read the greatest description possible, coined by some wit on the Drum, as to the character of Pyne.
It went something like this:
Pyne has the mincing look of someone who stepped in something…vaguely humanitarian.
I thought it fantastic!
Molly, you are very interested in why Bob Ellis changed his mind about Abbott. Personally I find it a tad obsessive…
I’m slightly curious about why do you change your pseudos so often, we all know who you are, your style of writing stays the same, so do your views….so why bother with name changes…also why so often a female disguise
As I said above, only slightly intrigued…
Helvi, I would have thought the answer obvious.
Very obvious.
I make no claim nor pretense to secrecy – clues are littered everywhere. Have you noticed that none other than Pancho here are threatened by it?
Ask yourself why.
Go on Helvi, ask yourself why.
In answer to your first question – you will no doubt have noted that the question has been asked several times. Not one of those times has an answer been given.
That, to me, is important.
Not as important as the question and answer itself, but important nontheless.
“Slightly intrigued” are you Helvi?
Well, I saw your mocking reference to me at that other place.
I was both astounded and disappointed.
You may well be “intrigued” Helvi, but I am appalled.
No, my reference was not mocking,I was only referring to your and DQ’s ongoing discord on these blogs…
I don’t have a problem with either of you,I’m not on any-one’s team…
The only one ever causing me grief online has been R1 under many disguises which I recognise easily.
I’m happy to have everybody here, jim, you, Marilyn and others,any blog needs many different voices to survive…
I found it mocking.
Now, on the other two matters:
(i) do you now understand why I pursue Ellis on this question?
(ii) have you asked yourself why none aside from Pancho care about the pseudonyms – not you nor allthumbs, MRyutin, Marilyn, Frank, jim, Terrance, MaryEllen, David, Tiny, Hudson, Bull, Terry,Verily, Polybius, Umberto, Alistair, William, F.I Kendall, Chris, Cuchulain, Reader2, dawson, Frank, John, Ginny et al ?
Ask yourself Helvi.
And get back to me.
Well, Bob has written previously of his friendship with and affection for Abbott and now calls him, amongst other things, a grub.
My view on friendship is that friendship should be able to survive political differences. If a friend does a wrong to you or your family, or perhaps to those whom you love and cherish, then that is a valid reason for the friendship to end. But if all that there is are differences in political perspective or disagreement as to political strategies, surely that is no reason to change from friend to bitter enemy.
I have friends with whom I strongly disagree on politics, on religion, on bringing up their kids, on their life styles and life choices, but they remain my friends and I remain theirs. I have a good friend who went to jail for embezzlement and one who went bankrupt. They did nothing to me or mine and we remain friends.
So, I find Bob’s changed attitude to Abbott hard to fathom. Sure, Abbott is playing politics very hard indeed but surely no harder than the ALP and other political parties play the game.
“I find Bob’s changed attitude to Abbott hard to fathom.”
Thank you for that complementary post dawsonb.
Perhaps a response to this pressing question from our host will assuage our curiosity.
Fairly obvious Helvi – it seeks to silence me (best of luck!) and make it appear that several people disagree with me and criticise me , when in reality there is only one troll – known as JG Troll (oops “JG Cole”) and also known as “Stagger Lee” “Mary Ellen” “Eleanor of Aquitaine”, “Molly Bloom” “Patrick Dignam” Glinda etc etc etc and it is 99% certainly female.
There are probably other alters and it needs help, but I think I will routinely send it up whenever it appears.
It has made more farewells than Melba and Farnham combined. Wilson has eradicated it; Bob needs some Zyklon B at toxic levels.
A cockroach of the internet, and of this blog in particular.
DQ, how do you track this down or do you just analyse the styles?
I am not disputing what you say but does this person have nothing better to do with his/her time?
Through long experience of the style, language and content of what it says, dawsonb.
She – 99% sure it is a she – has a distinctive style; much as I can hear a song I have never heard before, and say “that is a Leonard Cohen song” or a piece of music and say “that is Vivaldi” or see a person 400 metres away and know by their walk “that is XXX”.
I find the idea of a perfect disguise totally absurd, by the way; it may fool a stranger, but if a well known friend (say, “Fred”) walked into the room in a John Howard mask, I would say “Good day Fred, what’s with the mask?”
In short, given a reasonable passage I can tell it is Cole, though its disguises are sometimes better than at other times.
“Utterly appalling!!!”
To dawsonb:
Your Honour, I object!
Leading the witness.
Sustained.
dawsonb shall refrain from handing the witness a Dixer.
To Pancho:
I don’t “seek to silence you” – I seek to keep the argument to you so as to continually, and successfully, expose your puerile turn of mind.
I do so because you are an ignoramus of the worst kind.
Look at your exchange with MRyutin, David and Terry yesterday morn.
It was a palpable example of that inanity I speak of. You hardly need me here at all!
These chaps found you repulsive and, dare I suggest it, they are not me.
Or, are they?????
And I know my tactic to be be working, and this fact brings me no end of joy, because you do not engage in direct argumentation. I repeat, you DO NOT engage. What you do is glib puerility – ‘suck it up”, populist platitudes – “mad monk”, and simple, blatant evasion.
Aside from your…ahem…monthly excursion into Shakespearean authorship you offer no direct dialogue.
And even on that question you refused open interrogation on points of argument and simply reverted to regurgitating what you had read that morning from the Oxford apologists site.
I used to see about 6 or 7 of you each term.
Every term.
And each one with the identical arguments and claims.
You see dawsonb, Doug and I go back, way back…
He sought to remove me from conversation…..not by argument, logic or persuasion, not by discursive prowess nor by the strength of his will or emotion, BUT by saying the unthinkable; by suggesting that which should never be uttered.
It was on that day that I discovered that he was bound by no humane propriety or moral decorum.
That he combined these deficits with his two ruling motifs, Ignorance and Hubris, to produce a perverse and putrid amalgam, jar my mind, my sensibilities and my sense of honour, morality and intelligence.
There’s your answer dawsonb.
By the way, I am only 2 of those listed pseudonyms. And the third has made no showing here.
Pancho includes it to make his list seem larger.
Poor desperate, shrill, fellow.
Dawsonb, As a final illustration I offer this.
Watch closely.
Doug, please provide evidence of you “sending up”, that’s “send up” as in comic parody or comic imitation meant to reveal, of me, or anyone, in the pages.
Any evidence.
Anywhere.
Anytime.
Ta.
Also, and here I borrow from Bob, I will debate Pancho anytime anywhere, for free!
Now watch Dawsonb, sit back, popcorn in hand and watch Doug break the land speed record.
My guess?
He will go straight to Bob, tongue extended, and wait for the inevitable guillotine,
Or, he will ignore with his well worn litany of excuses.
What he will not do, I guarantee you, is answer in any adult, mature manner those two questions.
Like I said, we go way back……
And we have much further to travel,
A message from another thing :
‘ Appalling! All my characters and alters have asked all sorts of semantic questions and all of them intended to derail the discussion and divert attention from the issues of the day; and why? because WE are so fucking clever aren’t WE?
Watch us ask all sorts of clever questions as we seek to cross-examine Bob Ellis, Doug Quixote, Reader1, Helvi and anyone else who mildly disagrees with our collegiate questioning! And they won’t answer our clever questions.
Appalling!
A partial list of evasions :
“Why, when and in what way did Bob Ellis change his mind over issue 15 in the indictment?”
And no answer given!
“As regards issue 215, did Doug Quixote answer my cute and clever question hidden in paragraph 14(3) of the indictment?”
No he did not. Clear evasion.
We are perfectly entitled to ask every silly question we can think of in our many and various muddled minds, and to insist on a proper answer immediately.” ‘
Now how does that sound? Hmmm?
Bang!
Usain St. Leo Bolt at 9.79sec has got nothing on our doug here!
Case closed.
You could not even, NOT EVEN, rise to the challenge of your own accusation – “send up”.
How utterly appalling is that??
Let me tell you “how that sounds” you Blithering Idiot.
It sounds like puerile evasion. And here’s how and why.
“Semantic” questions, aside from demonstrating your obvious ignorance, are essential for any sensible discussion aimed at uncovering meaning.
The intention is never to “derail” it is always to flesh out and uncover meaning.
If you understood the meaning of “semantic” you would realise that.
The question that I posed Ellis regarding his change of heart toward Abbott is both a normal, everyday question AND one that highly revealing of his (Ellis’) frame of mind, his intent, his method, and his future strategies. All of these being, one would have thought, quite an interesting topic for discussion.
The fact that he has NOT answered the question on multiple occasions only serves to heighten one’s curiosity and increase the urgency of the question.
The fact of Ellis’ evasion speaks volumes – and it would only be fair for him to address the question to alleviate any untoward conclusions on the part of his readers.
That’s the way to answer a question – with clear explanation, pointed examples and an indication of purpose.
Or, if you prefer, you can use your discursive gem – “suck it up”.
You are out of your depth.
Every response you give simply confirms that.
“Utterly utterly appalling! Never been so appalled in all my lives! And neither have my alters!”
Still peddling that shite Quixote, you fucking idiot?
Cole’s not me. But you don’t care about that do ya? Figuring out the truth of things never really concerned ya much, did it?
Look Doug, I’m 42year old man, married with 2 kids. I work at the Private Hospital at Ashfield.
Come up and see me sometime an we’ll have a quick chat about these accusations you making.
Ok?
Look forward to seeing ya.
Abbott and Pyne. The mad monk and his maddening monkey.
I’m baffled why Pyne, Morrison and Bishop always look so angry…what are they angry about?
Because they are not in government.
Not familiar with the context, but I can think of no end of Brit politicians your brilliant line could apply to!
It wasn’t Meade or Lincoln who said that( “Oh! I wish he was ours!”)about Robert E. Lee. It was a young townswoman who cried out as the Confderate Army marched through her Pennsylvanian town, led by its charismatic leader.
Sometimes, real people
can rise above the hatred generated by their own leaders and see the good in the other side’s.
Tony Abbott is a fine human being, with a wider life-experience than most politicans have. Infantile cracks like “the Mad Monk” and “Mister Rabbit” are the resort of the political class and their hangers-on.
David, my understanding is that the sentiment was expressed by those in the Lincoln Administration after he had refused the command of a Union army.
And it was, again I stand to be corrected, that from the Burns “Civil War” series came the report that a young girl from a Maryland town uttered those words.
“my understanding is…”
wrong
Quite probably MRyutin.
But a lonesome “wrong” will hardly convince me otherwise.
When people complain about things going “off topic” I regret that an appropriate sentiment from the past has just wasted more space, but for those who are really interested in the man Robert E Lee there are multiple works, the standard biography of whom by Douglas Southall Freeman is the one from which the quote is taken.
MRyutin, it was a minor deviation, an interesting cul de sac for those that chose to take it. Hardly worthy of your approbation when the overwhelming bulk of writing here tends toward “wasting space”.
One would think that your scorn would have found more legitimate targets. There are certainly plenty to choose from.
You have cited the definitive work but withheld the source of the quote.
Why?
If you know it, reveal it.
Another message from JG Cole Molly Bloom :
“Answer the question M Ryutin, it was a minor deviation, hardly worthy of your scorn when more worthy targets can be found – do as We do and attack Bob Ellis with invective whilst we try to further derail the discussion and annoy the other contributors enough so they won’t interfere with our interminable and vaguely condemnatory posts.
How dare you cite the seminal source yet fail to reveal the source of the quote? Why? And in what way did your reference mean “wasted more space” when We can waste all the space, time and exhaust everyone’s tolerance all We want?
Answer all those questions if you don’t want to be accused of evasion. There will be several supplementaries.”
I do believe, correct me if I’m wrong, that the last memorable exchange you had with MRyutin was a glorious showcase of your intellect. It went something like this:
“we do not, so we will not”.
Bask in the glory of that.
“Utterly appalling! M Ryutin you have failed to answer ! Evasion!! Case shut.”
PS “All my alters think so too!!!”
I loved Shelby Foote.
Me too.
Molly, that amazing man attracted admiration from everyone he encountered. Any one of those sources could be the real one. It was a pity that he served such a rotten cause.
Lines from Albo: Interesting to draw the comparison between Slippergate and Watergate as its somewhere near the fortieth anniversary of the latter.
As if it really matters whether a little girl in downtown Richmond or a washerwoman in upstate New York first said “I wish he was ours” or words to that effect.
The facts remain that Robert E Lee was regarded in 1861 as the best available general and Lincoln requested that he take command of the Union forces, as a loyal American.
That Lee eventually decided to join the Confederate army and lead it so capably is a matter of record. During the first two years or so of the Civil War the South out-generalled the North, as the latter went through the likes of Scott, McClellan, Halleck and finally settled on Grant. (McDowell, Pope, Hooker, McClellan, Burnside, Meade and Grant at different times had operational control of the army.) One problem the North faced was that Lincoln had little military training and experience, as opposed to Jefferson Davis who had graduated West Point and had served with distinction as a soldier.
Lincoln had to learn on the job as it were, and his interference in military matters may have contributed to the length of the War. An example is that he insisted McClellan take action, at a time when McClellan was not ready to do so, and egged on by the Press and the public sentiment rather than military considerations. Needless to say, it did not work out well and the North fully expected Lee to march into Washington shortly after Manassas/Bull Run.
Obviously the North emerged triumphant in the end, and Lincoln’s assassination sainted him so far as the North was concerned; any inquiries into the conduct of the War were necessarily circumscribed. And history is written by the winners.
It matters in that it encapsulates a northern opinion of Lee which reflected a view not only expressed in northern newspapers while the war was going on, but a view maintained after the war too.
Whilst far more interesting than ‘Albo’, I hesitate to state the following here, even though study of ANY civil war is very rewarding. However, for personalities – even greats such as Lee – flaws are also present. His place in history is assured and nothing really needs to be said, except to show some of the ‘grey’. Lee was not an instant or inevitable choice. He was a personal favourite of Winfield Scott the ageing head of the army but had never held field command and, apart from the relatively small incident at Harpers Ferry with John Brown had not even been in command of combat troops in any great number, certainly not a field Army. Scott’s recommendation, therefore, should be seen in that light. Secondly, even with Jefferson Davis, Lee was not chosen as the leader of the Army of Northern Virginia until Joseph Johnstone was wounded prior to June 1862, though Davis backed Lee in spite of criticism of his earlier “work’’ in West Virginia battles. It was only then that Lee’s talents started the legend, when the famous series of battles forced federal forces from the suburbs of Richmond to behind defences in Washington DC in a mere two months whilst Lee then invaded Maryland. His life is very interesting and so many testimonials to his good qualities are available that I hesitate to mention any. Criticism is also valid and not just on military grounds, especially with attitudes towards black troops (on his own side), slavery and so on. However, any of them and, I particular, from my point of view, Lee: Recollections and Letters is invaluable. His mistakes in the field are always to be seen with the limited resources available to him as the context (as was said, even at the fall of Richmond in 1865, twice as many federal casualties were caused as the size of the barefoot, starving and ill-armed Confederate army facing Grant). Lee was let down by his subordinates on a number of occasions (Longstreet a few times, especially at Gettysberg, but also JEB Stuart and Stonewall Jackson) and unwilling to enforce his views on them could be a fault but, as a later, well known military historian Sir Frederick Maurice pointed out “it is probable that, if his character had allowed him to be more assertive, he would not have inspired in those he led the devotion which made them endure as men have rarely endured”.
His character as a person is well documented and I invite anyone to do their own searching. The period immediately after the conclusion of the war and the bringing together of the country was greatly assisted by the actions and recommendations of one Robert E Lee. I can also recommend not only ready reading material available, but that the USA has a marvellous knack for preserving their history. Virginia is a great state to visit anyway, but it is where Manassas, Appomattox Court House and railway station, ‘Lee’s retreat’ and multiple other sites are there to explore for this rich history. None more so than Lexington (Jackson’s home) where not only is Lee and Traveller buried, but Stonewall Jackson’s memory is well preserved.
Thank you, I agree with nearly all of that. Lee was one of the best, and one of the best testimonials to his greatness is that he was still supported by his own side despite the reverses of 1864/65 and the imminent loss of the War.
His desperate throw at Gettysburg (Pickett’s Charge”) seems an aberration; perhaps his information (military intelligence : an oxymoron?) was lacking.
All in all, a great man.
A wonderful post MRyutin; lucid, informative, suggestive and rewarding.
I must ask: is the Civil War an area of study, a hobby, or a vocational pursuit?
I’m afraid to say that my knowledge of the whole affair extends only to the more general studies – in my case, Foote, MacPherson, Faust and Grant.
Too many books, not enough time.
It is my experience that cul-de-sac’s are rarely a waste of space.
This is just one of many interests people have. A single (relatively small) volume on the war leads you inevitably to Robert E Lee and the question: “why”. Why this man? You can look at others, even a military master like Nathan Bedford Forrest, but easily see him as a person that nothing else can be gained from it, military expertise is just about his only good quality. If you are in the USA and can pick up ‘Recollections and Letters’ for $7 why wouldn’t you? And so it goes. Someone makes a comment on a line about him and the whole person comes back into focus. Luckily Lee had plenty of Boswells around him and his views, thoughts and actions have come down to us from many direct sources. They do not diminish him in any way. The man is of great interest to me as a man.