Why Piers Akerman is a fuck stick

Harsh words for my first post but I feel rather strongly about this. For those people blissfully unaware of who Piers Akerman is, he is a 3rd rate 'journalist' for News Ltd's highly esteemed tabloid the Daily Telegraph.

I use the term 'journalist' here in the broadest possible definition of the word. He is no more a journalist than I am a neurosurgeon. The only difference is that I am not paid considerable amounts of money to conduct neurosurgery, whereas Piers receives at least award wage for his Opinion pieces.

Piers tends to focus on one of three conservative topics in each of his pieces, although sometimes these overlap and the reader is treated to a trifecta of hatred from his pen. Here are the topics:

1. Labor is Bad. And as leader of the ALP, Rudd is pure Satan. Rudd could dive under a bus to save the life of Piers' youngest child and he would still find nothing positive to write about him. Piers ignores statistical data, historical fact and logic in posts that attempt to portray Labor and Rudd as irresponsible children, suddenly at the helm of the nation, out of their depth, and driven not by a desire to help their fellow Australians but personal greed. Apparently Rudd wants to be UN President and is using the office of PM of Australia as merely a stepping stone on his way.
   The obvious corollary to this is that the Liberal/National Coalition are good (except Turnbull who was bad because he believes in global warming). Piers has a man-crush on Tony Abbott and you can imagine him batting off to pictures of Abbott in his speedos. And if you couldn't before, you can imagine it now. Not pretty is it.
2. Islam is bad. This neatly ties into Labor being bad because Labor leaders apparently let more Muslims into the country and in this you see the perverse circular logic Piers uses. Piers loves a good story about how some Mufti said something scary about Sharia Law. Such talk scares the shit out of his dumb-as-shit followers. Nobody wants to live under Sharia Law (except maybe some Muslims) but nobody has ever stated that it is Islam's goal to see Sharia Law enforced in Australia, except Piers and his followers. And by Islam Piers refers to all of it. Not merely fundamentalist sects that people may have a right to be scared of but all of Islam as though it is one homogeneous religion (like Christianity), which kind of ignores the fact that inter-Islamic rivalry has been far more deadly than any Islamic v Christian jihad.
3. Climate Change is bullshit. Piers is not a scientist but that doesn't stop him from deriding all of the main theories around anthropomorphic climate change. It would be fine if he spent his life seeking the highest scientific standards and tore apart any theory found wanting. He doesn't. Like many ultra-conservative selfish fucks, he merely latches on to any flimsy argument that any other, marginally more educated, conservative dickhead identifies as a minor flaw in an otherwise massive argument. Piers' dismissal of IPCC documents is akin to writing off Shakespeare as a playwrite because he misspelled his own name a couple of times or denying the Holocaust ever happened because nobody can agree on the exact death toll from it.
   Labor support action on Climate Change (as did Howard but only because, apparently, Turnbull put him up to it), so it is no wonder Piers hates Climate Change protagonists.

Sub-topics include the Australian Broadcasting Corporation being an evil off-shoot of the Labor Party and Climate Change alarmists and The Greens being even worse than Labor.

Lest you think I am being overly simplistic here. I wasted some time analysing Piers' columns so far this year. One day when I have nothing better to do, I will replicate this for all his online work. Here is the breakdown of topics covered in the 23 articles written to 15 March 2010:

• 19 of these were primarily focused on attacking Labor - with 10 purely about Labor
  
• 7 targeted climate change (6 of which were overtly attacking Labor at the same time)
• 7 also targeted Islam, with 4 hitting out a Labor in the same article, and 2 linking Climate Change as part of the axis of evil.
• Only one article didn't fit into either of the three topics, at least not directly, and this was the 25 Jan article"Cull time servers from list of heroes" in which Piers lauds the bravery of our anonymous war heroes in the obsequious manner only a Vietnam draft dodger can manage. Thankfully Piers' followers carried the flame to divert attention to how Labor have softened border control.
  

But all this doesn't make Piers a fuck stick. Well, OK, it does, but what really makes him one is his treatment of the online community that add their posts to his blogs. I used to be part of that community.

Early on, Piers would allow people to post pretty much anything other than defamatory comments that would get him in the shit. You could write in and disagree with him, he would retort with a 'witty' comment that would usually ignore the issue you were raising and instead go for a more personal attack but then you could post more to support your argument. There were debates online where people could challenge people's arguments, check their facts, make a point. I have only ever agreed with Piers on one occasion but enjoyed pulling apart his flawed opinions by introducing something novel to him - facts.

Now all that has changed. Clearly enough people are adding comments now that Piers can be selective over what he publishes. So has this improved quality of debate by getting rid of the wack-jobs that used to add their inarticulate, ill conceived comments, I hear you ask?

Not on your life. Now it is simply a circle jerk of ultra right-wing conservatives congratulating Piers on 'sticking it to Rudd again' or mocking those 'CSIRO pseudo-scientists for their latest research on global warming' or calling again for all Muslims, whether born here or otherwise, to be 'sent home.'

I don't consider myself a leftie but to the KKK-style brethren on Piers' blog I am what they would call a 'champagne socialist, latte sipping, pinko' or a Labor Party Stooge (evidently they don't understand that you don't have to be a card-carrying ALP member to not disagree with everything Rudd does). People like me don't fit into the church of Piers.

And there is a growing congregation of Piers followers who must RSS his articles and attempt to be the first to add their wisdom to the topic - here is a brief who's who from his site of some of the key pastors.

John Jay - writes short sentences devoid of fact, just personal attacks on Rudd, and written in the manner of a religious text. I used to think he was taking the piss but evidently he is serious.

Tim - Piers' biggest fan. Tim is apparently a science graduate, which makes him an expert on everything from psychology to economics. Piers allows Tim to post anything he wants, no matter how off topic it is, so long as it is slagging off Rudd, ALP, IPCC Scientists, the ABC, the Greense, Democratic Party, universities, Islam or a combination of all of the above. He treats the site like it is his own but can not win an argument against anyone capable of stringing a sentence together.

Grumpy - salt of the Earth character from Casino, the beef capital of the world. He adopts a Hanson-like simplicity that appeals to fellow half-wit Daily Telegraph readers.

Gandalf - you know anyone who takes a tag name from Tolkein studied IT. Probably a young Liberal virgin still living with mum.

DUDDY DIDDAMS - his name is in upper case which is an indicator of how aggressive he is - he is allowed by Piers to bully any dissenter - my mind's eye has him as one of the guys you find providing 'security' outside BNP conventions.

These are just a few of the main players. Sometimes I wonder whether Piers is one or more of these posters, revelling in the freedom such anonymity provides in avoiding anti vilification laws. The thing you notice now though is that posters to his site now are almost unanimous in their support for Piers' opinion.

Piers no longer posts my comments. I guess he didn't want anyone spoiling the fun for his party. I was like the one athiest at a Hillsong congregation ruining the blind faith of all the followers by introducing reasoned argument.

He lets the occasional pro Labor/Islam/Climate Change comment through but only if it is such a poorly formed argument that it merely serves to inflame a series of hate-fuelled responses from his followers.

A recent SMH article sites a study indicating that hate groups are becoming increasingly prevalent on social media sites such as facebook. But this study overlooks the danger of sites like Piers' blog. And no, it isn't dangerous just because I disagree with his philosophy. It is dangerous because it provides the credibility of News Ltd in legitimising the extremist views of Piers' followers.

And for that, Piers is a complete fuck stick.