David Penberthy and why the LCD and the prejudiced should hold sway in the land of Murdoch's minions ...

(Above: the tabloid imagination at work).

You have to hand it to the subbies in the tabloids.

See above how the header So why should we be gay swiftly turns into an even more succinct Why should we be gay inside the page. Not a question mark to be seen, of course, because it's a statement of intent ...

It is also of course, in the context of gay marriage, a completely gratuitous and irrelevant question that's not really a question. Supporting the right for gays to marry isn't a matter of being gay, but anything for an eye catching header. Meaning? Isn't that the lyrics for a song, Words without meening ...

Of course when you actually get to body of the piece, inside the digital front page, the header turns out to be Labor can't make us happy, so why should we be gay, which is even more mystifying and meaningless.

A bit like the whole Penberthy piece. Over at the punch-drunk Punch, the subbies tried a different tack in a bid for clarity, by peddling the addled thinking under the header Besieged Gillard can't afford to act on gay marriage.

When you get past this thicket of confusion, you will, as usual, find a thicket of offensive confusion running through the Penbo bear brain, as he valiantly explains how nothing can be done, and therefore nothing should be done. Lest the bears in the cave are disturbed, and come out growling ...

At the start of his piece, Penbo leads out with old news of poll results that have found a majority of people in Australia are comfortable with the idea of same sex marriage.

Uh huh. But steady, let's not assume that attention should be paid to a majority, not when attention should be paid to bigots and the prejudiced. You know, between Pauline Hanson - the world is full of wogs and Muslims and so is Britain - and anyone else, always pay due, considered, and thoughtful attention to Pauline ... lest her feelings be hurt, by all those wogs and Muslims daring to infest the world ...

Yep, let's not have any unseemly haste, or any sense of urgency. Because taking some actual positive steps would be profoundly problematic:

The irony is that those, such as Arbib, who are now pushing the issue could have the undesired effect – presuming it’s undesired that is – of setting Julia Gillard on a deeply unpopular political course.

Uh huh. You see it might be okay with the majority. But following majority views would of course be deeply unpopular.

And why would the likes of Mark Arbib push such a deeply unpopular political course, seeing as how the polls are generally favourable to such a reasonably popular political course, thereby making it deeply unpopular?

It is difficult to work out the logic behind the likes of NSW Right powerbroker Mark Arbib in suddenly championing this issue.

Sheesh. Penberthy has trouble working out the logic? Try working out the logic of Penberthy:

My personal view is that it’s got nothing to do with politics and is more about being liked. Arbib is one of the most genial and easy-going people in politics but out there in voter-land he’s regarded as a flint-hearted faceless executioner who has Kevin Rudd’s blood on his hands. His conversion to the cause is I suspect more about a very human desire not to be hated by absolutely everybody.

He wants to be liked? Isn't saying that about a politician a bit like saying a used car salesman wants to sell you a used car?

Or perhaps Penberthy is just peddling a deeply cynical, some might say profoundly despicable, view of a politician supporting a policy it seems a majority of Australians have no problem with. Without a shred of evidence as to Arbib's motives, but laden with a ton of wretched personal prejudice ...

Well I guess it's what passes for insight in the tabloid mind. Heaven help the politician who actually thinks an issue deserves an airing, attention, discussion, debate, and lordy perhaps even some action ...

Of course in the mind of Penbo all this finally devolves down to a matter of macho posturing:

The Prime Minister is walking a tightrope where she has to placate both the rural independents and inner-city Greens. If she reverses her stand on this issue and allows a conscience vote, as many within the party are urging her to do, she will look even weaker. Not only will she look weaker, she’ll end up pursuing an issue which many voters regard as an irrelevance.

Yep, she'll look weaker for pursuing a policy which allows politicians to speak their minds, because after all, it's only a minority, and who cares about a minority? Irrelevant buggers ...

Next time a farmer comes by whining about something, remind him or her that only some 320,000 people were directly employed in the Australian farm sector in November 2008. So as an irrelevant minority, they can just sod off ...

After all, it has nothing to do with prejudice, nor a matter of principle, nor even a matter of quieting down an active lobby, it's just a matter of wanting to be liked.

Hang on, hang on a second, this just in. It seems that it's got everything to do with prejudice:

There’s a casual view in some sections of the party that the only people who would be outraged by gay marriage are all rusted-on Liberal enthusiasts who would only ever vote for Tony Abbott anyway.

This flawed analysis not only ignores the many thousands of Catholics who traditionally back the ALP. It also dismisses the views of those voters in marginal seats who might not be prejudiced, but simply want their government to be focussed on issues which affect their lives.

Uh huh. Remind me next time not to give a toss about interest rates and mortgages and wheat prices and the rabbit plague. This isn't a commonwealth, it's my wealth that matters and the rest of you with your petty personal issues that affect your lives, not mine, can all get stuffed.

But apart from showing a total lack of generosity of spirit, what to be done about those who might be prejudiced?

Indeed, it also dismisses the views of those voters in regional areas and poorer suburbs who are prejudiced. Another poll published yesterday showed that in 10 of the nation’s federal electorates, three of them held by the ALP, around 40 per cent of all voters agreed with the fairly unpleasant assertion that “homosexuality is immoral”. Conversely, in 10 of the most affluent inner-city electorates, the same assertion was supported by around 15 per cent of people.

Well as a scribbler of a mealy mouthed, weasel worded, fairly unpleasant column, full of fairly unpleasant assertions, perhaps Penberthy should pack his bags and head out to the bayou so he can feel at home with Pauline ...

Why should we be gay? No reason at all, really, and how irritating that a few of them came out of the closet way back in the seventies, CAMPING away, and made life unpleasant for everyone ever since ...

The end result of reading this tossed up salad of prejudice mongering? Well forget principle and purpose as cynicism reigns supreme.

Was it a good thing that Kevin Rudd managed an apology to the stolen generation? Not really, according to Penberthy, because he lost power ...

Just as Kevin Rudd was “proud of the fact” that he’d said sorry to the stolen generation and, ummmmm, a couple of other things, Ms Gillard could find herself giving a similarly regretful one-term goodbye speech where the symbolic gesture of legalising gay marriage is the one thing she actually managed to do this term.

Using this logic, any politician who does anything will find themselves on sorry street. Because in the end, they lose power ...

Still I guess John Howard could always give a regretful goodbye speech where the symbolic gesture of locking up boat people could be mentioned as the one solid way of torturing people that he managed to achieve in his term of power ... (or was it helping out in a couple of bloody wars?)

How deeply cynical can a Murdoch hack get in his approach to policies and politics? Well behind it all lies a deep and dark threat, a boojum to scare the bejesus out of faint hearted Labor party, Green and inner city leet liberals:

In addition of course to making way for a prime minister who makes the Pope look progressive on a number of issues.

Yep, children, if anyone makes a stand on gay rights, the boogeyman will get you. Or perhaps Tony Abbott. Who makes the Pope look progressive ...

Well I guess that's the end of social justice issues in Australia. Penberthy has spoken. Politics isn't about holding matters of principle to heart, it's just about being liked, and it isn't about fairness towards minorities. Who gives a flying fuck about them.

Which reminds me, why do I give a flying fuck what a minority of scribblers, minions of Murdoch all, think about the issues du jour?

Sadly, because they use the same kind of logic that has been deployed for years by conservatives in search of reasons to do nothing. And if their thoughts stand unchallenged, strangely, nothing happens ...

Yep, in a world where Catholic (nominally 94% of the population) Spain has had gay marriage since 2005, here, and Catholic (nominally 89% of the population) Argentina since July 201o, here, all Penberthy can see is the need to pander to prejudices, and do nothing. Pathetic really ... Catholic countries with a wider view of the world than the blinkered Penberthy ...

It will of course happen in due course, and all that is required is that somebody hire a metaphysical steamroller and drive it over the craven, backward looking, musings of minions of Murdoch ...

Strangely, Penberthy's pronouncements - cowardly, expedient, and inert as they are - and based on notions of politics as merely a matter of being liked - reminded me of all those pontificating experts who once offered up reasons to do nothing: it'll never fly, no, the world will only ever need five computers, and so on.

And so to a few readings from those backward looking folk:

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
-- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
-- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."
-- Western Union internal memo, 1876.

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
-- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

Why should we be gay

David Penberthy, 2010.

And plenty more here.

(Below: now get yourself a decent T shirt and wear it with pride).