Guest post by The Happy Revolutionary
Bolt has plumbed new depths of ignorance today with an attempt to draw parallels between the Federal ALP’s new ‘alcopop’ tax, and Soviet Russia. Apparently, since the tax was introduced, there has been a ’surge’ in thefts of the alcopops, leading Bolt to deduce that the ALP policy ‘not only fails to stop the boozers, but drives some into thievery.’
Clearly, there are many reasons to be sceptical about a tax curbing a purported binge-drinking epidemic. That aside, however, Bolt has done a remarkable volte-face here for a vulgar Tory, and has gone so far as to attribute criminal behaviour to social conditions. Gone is the moralising rhetoric of ‘responsibility’, favoured by Bolt and other hacks and shock jocks. Apparently, social conditions and government policy are to blame for crime when this is ideologically convenient.
Let’s see how long it takes for Bolt to back-pedal from this position in a future post. I cannot recall Bolt ever displaying such ‘understanding’ when it comes to the property crimes of Aboriginals, for instance. When drug users feel compelled to steal to support their habit, does anybody seriously expect the likes of Bolt to attribute this to the government policies that keep such drugs illegal (and expensive)?
Finally, in a kind of inverse-Godwin piece of stupidity, Bolt invokes the spectre of Soviet Russia to dramatise his hypocritical observations. This might have been well and good if it didn’t directly undermine Bolt’s point, and betray his profound ignorance of some basic facts.
Since the fall of communism (1991), consumption of alcohol by Russian men has tripled, making Russians the highest drinkers of spirits in the world. Since Putin was in power, and capitalism was embraced, the rising cost of vodka in Russia has led some impoverished citizens to resort to cleaning fluids, and other dangerous alcoholic material. Since the Iron Curtain was lifted, alcoholism is the primary reason why the life-expectancy for the average Russian male has dropped to just 58 years.
The lesson of all this is to get your lackeys to acquaint you with some basic logical and historical facts before launching into overblown, melodramatic comparisons.
18 Comments
9 May, 2008 at 12:25 am
Bravo Revolutionary, a great post.
And you have…*strains to pronounce the word*…EVIDENCE…for your claims. There are REFERENCES. Egad, is this the spectre of journalism looming?! Bolt would be very confused right now…
9 May, 2008 at 9:41 am
The increase in theft means that evil doers are capable of risk-reward calculation. The greater the price means that the reward is greater. To restore balance, increase the penalty for theft or the chance of detection.
The point that the policy itself is a failure (just like communism) is well made. It is a vignette in the never-ending story of misconceived idealism.
9 May, 2008 at 11:04 am
Great post THR, I would love to hear Bolt’s or his commenters’ response, although it would probably be something along the lines of “Why don’t you go and live in communist China if you love it so much.” Or some such asinine comment.
9 May, 2008 at 12:36 pm
A solid takedown, THR.
9 May, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I read about this in his article about the ‘nanny state’ on Wednesday. He banged on for several columns about how he hated rising taxes on junk food and alcopops etc…and didn’t offer any ideas of his own about curbing binge drinking or obesity. Prick.
9 May, 2008 at 5:19 pm
He’s reversed his philosophy on such issues without acknowledging it anyway. He used to call for pokies to be banned.
9 May, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Andrew bolt writes THE vultures (Al Gore) are circling over Burma’s dead.
hhhmmm Of course Bolt isn’t trying to make any “mileage” out of the current crisis in Burma? Oh No!
Gore makes one point on climate change, Bolt makes a retort. So why isn’t Andrew apart of that group of vultures that he speaks of. Irony is a wonderful thing.
Where’s Bolt’s link to the Redcross. Oh that’s right, the Burmese regime are playing hard ball so why bother. Is that how it goes Andrew. Just ummmm give up? I supsect he doesn’t give a f$%k! Change that I know he doesn’t care.
Bolt is a pure scumbag!
9 May, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Memo to Bolt. You sir, have been pwned.
10 May, 2008 at 10:40 am
Hardly a takedown here dudes.
I think you miss Bolts fundamental point.
He is comparing the increase in tax, (the default policy of the left), to Soviet Russia not the raise in crime.
Sorry. Read the article again.
10 May, 2008 at 1:18 pm
So let me get this straight petty theft under Rudd is up yet race riots at Cronulla are down.
10 May, 2008 at 4:04 pm
There’s something else that’s completely insane in Bolt’s line of reasoning. The tax hike on alcopops doesn’t apply to other forms of alcohol, right? So why would anyone be so desperate for Breezers that nothing else would do, and they would steal instead of just mixing themselves a drink? Is there Smirnoff Ice-specific alcoholism? It’s weird.
10 May, 2008 at 7:43 pm
bolt sees russian (or any form of) communism in anything the government does.
my prediction is he will soon be shown to be the ignorant fool he is when the budget is brought down.
is this man deliberately dumb or is the herald sun just desperate to sell papers, anything that can raise revenue? he’s getting like tim blair, i.e. childish, rantish, foolish.
10 May, 2008 at 11:24 pm
I must admit to being confused and confounded when it comes to Andrew bolt.
I can’t avoid the disdain that I feel for his “journalism”.
But, then again, I have to remind myself that it’s the same feeling that I have for the “cuisine’ of MacDonald’s and the “music” of MilliVanilli.
It gives me the shits, but it is ultimately, and demonstrably, worthless with the exception that it sells tabloids to people who’s opinions can be described with the same term.
11 May, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Tom, he says that there is no binge drinking epidemic – so therefore need not offer solutions to it.
I find it amusing that alot of the left now go for tabloid beatups like the alleged binge drinking epidemic, merely because the ALP are in office. If it was John Howard putting up taxes on alchopops, you’d all be saying that it was just a cheap electoral stunt aimed at demonising young people.
11 May, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Would anyone like to defend the previous policy of giving preferential tax treatment to alcopops? Isn’t it just simple common sense to tax them at the same level as other drinks? Binge-drinking epidemic or not, it still makes sense. It’s yet another example of Bolt’s kneejerk oppositionalism with regard to anything Labor does. No wonder he’s so fond of Lexy Downer. They share the same childish, petulant spirit.
11 May, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Blair has done a big boo boo
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/05/tim_blair_lost_in_the_stratosp.php
Seems he got his warmining and coolinling mixed up.
What a tard.
Yes, its is cold in the stratosphere.
25 May, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I don’t care if it’s a the policy is flawed and a tax grab or whatever, it’s highlighted the binge drink issue which is real. Only a person who lives with their head in the sand would be ignorant of the reality and strain alcohol abuse puts on the entire health system and not to mention all the other social problems that go hand in hand with teenage drinking. Ah McCaine you’ve done it again.
26 May, 2008 at 9:15 am
Melbourne city council justified a lift to parking fees in the city. Apparently it was to discourage road users to come into the city. It would decrease congestion and help reduce CO2 emissions. . It’s just a tax grab claimed the drivers and the green groups. Why?
Raising the price buy a couple of dollars a day, most people can absorb that price. People find it an inconvenience but learn to live with it.
The green groups and transport users group shouted out saying that to have any meaningful affect the increase should be made bigger so that the average person can not afford to drive into the city. The council did push through, necause of a fear of a voter backlash by the majority of the population who would not be able to afford to drive into the city.
That case scenario is no different PM Rudd’s alcopop tax. The ‘tax’ increase only inconvenient. The costs will be absorbed by those teens and young adults who drink alchopops. (More adults drink alchopos than the targets group). To offest these young ones will simply go with out dinner for the night they wish to get blotto (like many of my mates do) which makes the situation worse, ask their parents for more money (if it’s not their parents already buying it for them) or simply work that extra half an hour at work to pay for the small increase in price.
To really dissuade people from drinking alchopops a huge increase in the prices is neccissary, say over $20 for a six pack. Watch sale drop! But if that were to happen i guess these troublesome teens will just move to the wine based mixed drinks, which generally have a higher alcoholic content and are not taxed the same way as ‘alcopops’.
the whole stunt was cotton candy politicts made by a newly elected government who wish to appear to be doing something while doing nothing to offend the voters.
Comments are closed.