Bronwyn Bishop, the Heiner affair, spiking the punch, and maintaining the rage about Brylcreem

(Above: what's the above image got to do with what follows? Perhaps something to do with the intellectual underpinnings of Bronwyn Bishop? Not really, nothing much, except I like it, and it's on the cover of the October 5th New Yorker, a magazine which does provide an intelligent conversation. But then they pay their contributors, and you can these days get a cheap subscription thanks to the strength of the A$. Is there a message here for Chairman Rupert? Go here).

Some days you wonder why the editor of The Punch bothers to get out of bed.

What joy can there be in formatting the ramblings of the likes of Bronwyn Bishop, offered up free because Chairman Rupert is too canny to fork over his cash for decent digital content?

Bishop really should be thinking of retiring, but instead is a persistent contributor to the dearth of any intelligent conversation in The Punch.

Her latest outing sounds like she's donned the garments of Piers Akerman over at the Daily Terror. Because she once again tries to rake over the coals of the Heiner affair. You can read it all here in Seeking justice for a forgotten victim, but beware, it could disturb your mental balance.

This at a time when the Wilson Tuckeys of the world - as mad a mad uncle as any family would care to have call around at Christmas for a slice of plum pudding and a glass of sweet sherry - are making merry hell for Malcolm in the middle, and the cranks and lunatics are in charge of the asylum.

The tone of asinine self-congratulation in Bishop's piece is remarkable:

It’s not everyday, as Chairman of a Committee, you get an award like the one given to me in 2004 as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

The inscription reads - Whistleblowers Action Group (Qld) - Whistleblower Supporter of the Year 2004.

I was presented for the work we did in formally taking evidence and reporting on the infamous Heiner Affair.

Bishop then goes on to trawl through that affair, without ever managing to shed any new light on it, and then ends with a clarion call:

The case is however now part of legal history and the Goss Cabinet, and those around him at the time, identified as abuses of the law and clear evidence.

If we don’t continue to prosecute this case we set a most dangerous precedent.

Yep, maintain the rage. Never no mind what Chairman Rudd is up to this week, let's trawl through Queensland's history, in the manner of lefties still outraged by Joh Belke-Petersen when the brown paper bags have long ago given up their cash and been used to shroud the secrets sent to bulk up the land fill.

Sadly it seems those few dedicated souls who read The Punch are not in the same demographic as those who read Akker Dakker in the Daily Terror, long trained to respond like Pavlov's dog and slobber at the merest hint of a conspiracy.

Of the seven who bothered to respond by time of writing, six were disdainful, the general message to Bishop being to let it go, because no one was listening, as she flogged a head horse in a way similar to the embarrassment otherwise known as Piers.

Which makes it hard to have a conversation, let alone participate in Australia's best, as The Punch proposes. Here's one comment:

Great Bronwyn. Now you’re revealed to be not only a party dinosaur selfishly clinging to a safe seat that could go to someone with a future, now you’re also revealed to be a subscriber to the nutty Heiner conspiracy. Never mind that there have been several inquiries, including I believe two conducted by the Senate in which your party had a majority, that could find no wrongdoing by any politician. Why don’t you mention that? At the top of the article it says ‘file under Heiner Affair’. I’d say file under ‘vexatious conspiracy theories’.

Here's another:

Bronwyn, you and the people you name are not whistleblowers nor their supporters. Instead, you are group of political partisans who are using the alleged victim of sexual abuse from20 years ago as a pawn in a failed political witch hunt. You are not seeking justice but political scalps. Your supporters are conspiracy theorists with a track record. That you are among them shows what a liability you are to the party. RT is right. The Senate looked into this a couple of times and decided there was nothing in it.

There was one response - from someone going as Jolanda, writing up the conspiracy and offering a link to further evidence - but she also got short shrift:

Jolanda, I was wondering when one of the Aker-lites and Heiner-nuts would pop up. You didn’t fail to spot the opportunity. Go back now to your mentor, Piers.

Well as for the actual affair, let's say no more about it. If you want the whiff of the full fledged conspiracy, you can do no better than google up Piers Akerman on the subject, or follow other links to devotees who make UFO-ologists sound lacking in passion and conviction and hard evidence.

The real question is this ... well actually there's a couple:

1. Why on earth does The Punch continue to publish the doddering scribbles of the dinosaur Bishop? Sure they can generate laughs, or act as a bit of sand in the oyster, but is there any expectation that out of the process, we will end up with a pearl?

2. Why on earth does Bronwyn Bishop keep posting on The Punch? Sure it's free and it's an avenue to get out hard hitting messages about the current failings of Chairman Rudd and his government.

So why do we get old war stories, complete with tales of heroic battlers getting awards - with inscriptions! - together with injunctions to maintain the rage. What next? Comrades crawling out of the woodwork to maintain the rage at the dismissal? Even Gough Whitlam's over it.

The end result is that in certain arcane areas of The Punch, the tone feels a bit like a cross between an old folks' home and vanquished doddering dinosaurs still seeking relevance by burrowing deep back into the past.

Time for Chairman Rupert to bring out the cheque book? Golly, what about the red back spiders that have built a nest in his wallet?

Time for the Liberal party to make some sensible pre-selection choices, with Bishop, Ruddock and Tuckey high on the hit list? Golly, what about the howls of anguish from retirement homes not ready to cope with the deluge?

I keed, I keed, their parliamentary pensions will allow them to gab on like Peter Costello, long after we've all tired of them. All we can hope someone will give them an overdose of spiked punch, so they'll toddle off into the corner and have a snooze.

Editor, do your duty! Spike the punch!

(Below: the Heiner affair being so obscure, its interests and concerns obscurantist, I thought I'd use another example of maintaining the rage. Yes, all these years later, I'm still outraged at the use of Brylcreem in men's hair. It's like being affectionate with the tar in an asphalt road on a blazing hot day. So sticky and yukky).