Posts Tagged ‘Patti Chong’
From The West Australian last week:
First Patti Chong quits her blog at WA Today, and now her favourite furniture store and questionable source of F-grade publicity, Merrys Furniture, are packing up shop for a new location! This sequence of heartbreaking news has shocked the psyche of right-thinking people.
Patti’s paid endorsement of Merrys is so funny. Strange funny, not ha-ha funny. I mean, why her? Unlike John Hughes, she doesn’t own the store. Unlike Luigi Savadamoni, she isn’t an actual celebrity. I presume she doesn’t have any special knowledge about the benefits of couches made from real dead cows. But that ain’t stopping her!
Yet… something about this ad is so =(.
This, from Nova’s breakfast segment fuckstains “Nathan and Nat”, doesn’t help:
They are cackling at her accent, right? When Nat pronounces “Patti Chong” like a sneering teenager, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that these are a couple of schoolyard bullies with their sights on the Malay kid:
It’s scary to think about the number of Dullsvillains who straightline this sewage on the way to work every morning.
After all of that, maybe it’s time to lay off Patti for a while. Right after I get this out of the way:
What! Patti Chong is calling it quits over at The Verdict, her blog at WA Today. For realsies!
In true Chongstyle, her farewell post is a self indulgent essay packed with swipes at her detractors.
She starts off by quoting at length a sycophantic email from… some Notre Dame law student called Clarence?
…I am a university student at the University of Notre Dame in Fremantle. Throughout my course, I have noticed many issues in our legal and political system, which seems quite unjust and rigid…
I would just like to say that the things you have achieved and have fought for are indeed amazing. You have inspired me to tackle situations where the legislation appears unjust. As a Notre Dame law student, social justice has always been a common theme throughout my time at university. It may not count for much but I just want to congratulate you on your philanthropy and kind-heartedness throughout the legal and social realm (especially on Nova radio!). It may not seem like it, but you are indeed an inspiration to many law students.
Blerg. Give it a rest, “Clarence Paul”. There’s less humiliating ways to find a job. Honest.
Of course, Patti’s extended whinge about her meanie-pants critics is the real gold:
While I did not expect all readers to agree with my views or support the issues which are most passionate to me, I did not expect the vitriol and vilification from some of my detractors.
Issues can be passionate now? She goes on:
Some of the attacks on me personally, remarks about my children and my estranged husband were uncalled for, unjustified and bordered on the extreme.
While we’re on the subject of “bordering on the extreme”:
In my years of prosecuting some of the more notorious and not so notorious criminal elements of our community, they seem to be more balanced and displayed more redeeming features than some of the people who have posted comments.
I bet this one is for Skink, who’s been irritating Patti like a bad case of the crabs for yonks now. But, that aside, Lots Of Love for this! Internet commentors are the worst! They have less redeeming features than the notorious criminal elements of our community. You know, like people who abuse children.
It’s not all just a big whinge, though. Patti has some well-worn advice for the haters:
My beloved mother used to tell me that if we have nothing positive to say about anybody or anything, then silence is golden.
And from mixed metaphors to Shakespeare:
If I am able to inspire just one person or change something positively by my pieces, then I suppose it has been worthwhile to have suffered the slings and arrows.
That’s a motiviational poster, right there:
Patti Chong’s blog continues to prove what everyone already knew: this woman is a strange fig.
In her latest The Verdict post, Patti again falls back on what’s fast emerging as her favourite rhetorical device: “Won’t somebody please think of the children”. To wit, her opening paragraph quotes Helen Lovejoy Dietrich Bonhoffer:
The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.
She goes on:
There is nothing more heartbreaking than prosecuting or defending child sex abuse cases which gives the fallacy to the above saying.
The expression she’s looking for is “gives the lie” (224,000 hits on Google), not “gives the fallacy” (7 hits). And she doesn’t even mean what she writes. Patti is trying to say that child sex abuse cases prove that our society has failed the test of morality set down by Bonhoffer. But what she actually says is that child sex abuse cases prove that Bonhoffer’s statement is false.
It’s amazing that Patti Chong gets away with muddy thought and expression like this. The woman is a famous LAWYER. Logic and communication is supposed to be her game, but she doesn’t seem to get it. Her very next paragrapher is a logic-clanger that a first year philosophy undergrad would spot from a mile off:
If the test of the morality of our society is what it does for our children, then we must be living in a decaying society or one that is lacking in any moral values.
Even assuming that Bonhoffer’s test is true, Patti’s argument here goes something like this:
I have seen a lot of child sex abuse cases. Therefore, society accepts child sex abuse.
I called Patti out in a comment on her blog:
Patti, by the nature of your job you are exposed to allegations of this sort on a magnitude that most other people are not. How does it follow that “we must be living in a decaying society or one that is lacking in any moral values”?
Come on. If our society had no moral values, we wouldn’t prosecute these people at all. That statement is either shady inductive logic, or hyperbole. So which is it?
Of course, Patti responded with an absolute corker:
what I meant about ‘ living in a decaying society or one that is lacking in moral values’ is a reference to the proliferation of alleged perpetrators.Why are there so many people who think it is alright to sexually abuse children?
Child sex cases are so common that no member of the public is ever in court to see how such cases are tried. It is embarrassing and people like to sweep it under the carpet and pretend it does not happen.
She should have answered with a simple “Dick, it was shady inductive logic”, because she pulls some shockers in her answer by baselessly claiming that:
- there has been a “proliferation” of perpetrators (a subsequent commenter named Harold thoroughly puts the lie to that by pointing out that the number of cases has been steady for the past decade);
- a lot of people think it is “alright to sexually abuse children” (Sure they do, Patti); and
- child sex cases don’t get public attention, and in fact people like to pretend that it does not happen(!).
And look who it is!
Shut up, Patti.
Patti Chong is Dullsville’s own “celebrity” lawyer, an ostentatious F-lister whos public persona recalls an opinionated echidna.
Patti is a small-town media creature, more famous for her “flamboyant” dress sense and party-going than for her legal practice, “Patti Chong Lawyer”. Presumably, her practice relies on defending victims of the fashion police:
As someone who can’t help but wax lyrical to a semi-indulgent Perth press, Patti’s fatal flaw is that when she does so, she comes out with the dumbest shit. Here’s Patti on the separation with her husband, prosecution-reptile and Andrew Mallard victimiser Ken Bates:
The separation hasn’t been easy. It’s been worse than a death in the family.
Wo-oh! But that ain’t nothing compared to her view of the Mallard debacle, in which senior public prosecutors, including her ex-hubby, and police collaborated to send an innocent man to jail for 11 years:
What Andrew Mallard went through was bad enough, but what Ken and my family went through is bad, too…
I still stand by him. What the CCC has done to Ken is a travesty of justice of profound consequences…
If there have been any mistakes, it was purely human error. It’s just like a surgeon who accidentally may cut an artery instead of a small vein.
Zing! I’m no doctor, but cutting an artery instead of a small vein?! That’s some Dr Nick Riveria shit, ain’t it?
And I thought Patti was a litigator – wouldn’t an error of those proportions be a medical negligence gold mine?
(In the meantime, Ken Bates still has his taxpayer funded job (salary: almost $300k) despite the 11 years of shower-rape Mallard will never get back, the CCC finding that Bates engaged in misconduct (two counts) and the CCC statement that there were grounds for his sacking. Travesty of justice of profound consequences, anyone?)
Which brings me to Patti’s blog at WA Today, The Verdict. In Patti’s latest instalment, she manages to leech even more play from the twin babies death non-story (read Zhu’s excellent piece on the story here). The title of this post has got to win the Logie for most inappropriate use of an exclamation point:
Hush baby, please don’t cry!
Even though the title was probably imposed by an overzealous editor, it accurately foreshadows the petty non-insights that follow:
The heartbreaking news of the deaths of twin seven-month-old babies in a Perth suburb this week found with their unconscious mother, in an apparent overdose, has shocked the psyche of right-thinking people.
How horribly Orwellian a phrase is “right-thinking”? The premise: If your “psyche” wasn’t shocked by the deaths, you are wrong-thinking. Call the Thought Police.
Patti goes on:
The mother remains in a critical condition and the cause of the twins’ deaths no doubt will be revealed in an autopsy.
Um, no Patti. The result of the autopsy went public (including on WA Today) the day before your post. It was inconclusive.
Patti then spends a few long paragraphs sharing her opinions on motherhood, mental health and post-natal depression (because lawyers are experts on this stuff?) before ending the post like this:
In the meantime, women with post-natal depression suffer in silence, sometimes with tragic consequences. They sing their lullabies ‘hush, baby please don’t cry, mummy is just going to put you to sleep peacefully.’
Because chronically depressed mothers always sing twisted perversions of lullabies before murdering their offspring?