People often ask me, how do you decide what to write about?

Well, when I say often, I actually mean that somebody once asked me why I write about politics when it’s so boring and another person asked me how I picked what to sendup from all the material at my disposal.

I do have to admit that some weeks it’s pretty hard. For example, last night I was listening to SAD (Sky After Dark)… I should add that I don’t often listen to the Murdoch Minions, but I felt that I needed to work out which story they’d be most outraged about so that I could add fuel to the fire. Anyway, I was listening to the SAD commentators on Paul Murray and I was amazed to hear them rejecting the age of criminal responsibility. Yes, apparently Greta is just a sad, confused little girl who doesn’t know what she’s doing, but kids younger committing crimes are clearly adult and mature and sensible.

Of course, when someone says that we shouldn’t be letting a sixteen year old dictate our climate change policies, I totally agree. However, unlike those MAMs (Middle-Aged Men) on Sky, I also don’t think that anyone who’s only claim to expertise is that they have access to a microphone to be dictating our policies. In fact, the whole idea that policies should be dictated, rather than carefully thought out, is a rather strange concept.

Speaking of dictators, has anyone else noticed the attempt to pretend that the Nazis were left-wing, just because they were the National Socialist party. I mean, Liberal Party! Need I say more? Although the Liberal Party are quite liberal with the truth…

Anyway, the simple answer to the question about deciding what to write is this: I try to pick the biggest contradiction between someone’s stated position this week compared to some time ago. This used to require a good memory. You’d need to remember that the Coalition responded quite differently to Sam Dastyari when compared to their position on Gladys Liu which meant you had to remember back over a year. Or you need to remember that Jo Cox was an anti-Brexit campaigner to fully understand the sheer offensiveness of Boris telling Parliament that the best way to honour her memory was to get on with Brexit.

But these days, you often get people contradicting their stated principles within days. Actually sometimes, they apply a different principle in the course of the same speech or interview.

I’m not talking about something like Scott Morrison announcing $150 million for a space mission and then a few days later expecting the farmers to be grateful for another $100 million in drought relief. No, I’m talking about things like many of the same people who’ve been attacking Thunberg and saying we should listen to the scientists, are the very same people who’ve been telling us that the scientists are part of some hysterical fear campaign.

Take Amanda Vanstone who regularly writes for The Sydney Morning Herald/Age. Ah, ain’t it the Liberals don’t have to take out an ad to get their views put into the paper. Anyway, Vanstone begins her column with:

Then, there’s Andrew Bolt.

Again, I’m never quite sure whether to ignore a man who thrives on drawing attention to himself or whether that just allows his rantings to go unchallenged. He wrote the other day: “Fearmongering. It’s time for our government to man up and tell children there isn’t a climate emergency.” Interesting though it is that this is what Scott Morrison was telling us, to me it’s the use of the phrase “man up” that gives away Bolt’s agenda of trying to push buttons and get noticed at all costs. Surely, he expects to be attacked for the explicit sexism in that comment. Then he can move the conversation to political correctness killing free speech, completely ignoring the fact that if criticism of what one says kills free speech, then isn’t that exactly what he and his cronies are doing to Greta Thunberg?

Yep, some weeks it isn’t easy…