Brough Keeps It Up

I must admit to a deep feeling of disappointment on election night. Not over the overall outcome of course, but over Mal Brough losing his seat. This I definitely did not want. Over the past year I have grown a huge amount of respect for the man as he was different to all the other Tories, he cared. He took on his portfolio in Indigenous Affairs and set out to really make a difference by attacking the fundamental problems in many communities today. He was instrumental in applying the focus of the nation on the disadvantage, abuse and alcoholism. Sure, I disagreed with aspects of the intervention, but at last something was being done and Brough was key.

So I'm not surprised that even after defeat he is continuing with his work :

'Mr Brough told The Australian yesterday he wanted his company to establish new businesses for indigenous people who had the "drive" but did not have the financial capacity or skills base.

"I'm talking with some indigenous leaders on how we might be able to work with them to realise what we are talking about," he said."We have long advocated economic independence, and the best way to achieve that is with individuals and family groups establishing themselves in viable businesses."

"I want to work in joint ventures with the aim of building the skills base and assisting people to start sustainable business and giving them the skills to stand on their own."'

Good on you Mal.

Iain Hall's Stolen Opinions

What’s up gang, I’m back! Well nearly completely, but not quite, it kinda still hurts.

For the past two days I’ve been over at Iain Hall’s blog pulling him up on the terrible fallacies and horrid logic he’s been repeating about the Stolen Generation. Eventually he got fed up with being shown his errors over and over again and called and end to it, so I’m continuing here. I’ll warn you that due to the complexity of this debate this will be a long post, but it’s necessary. People like Iain (and his mentor Andrew Bolt) believe you can summarise this issue in a few catchy paragraphs and this is the problem.

He starts by attacking me for not giving him the source of my historical quotes, apparently this amounts to a “win” in Iain’s eyes:

MM: Oh sorry I got the quotes from here (the above dossier) third party. Settled?

Iain: Yeah , apart from your appalling manners and lack of good grace when you have been shown to be clearly in error here.

But the truth is, I’d previously already given Iain the link, not that this mattered, because it doesn’t appear that Iain actually reads the primary sources when he is shown them anyway:

'Considering that we are considering a very long period and numerous different jurisdictions the evidence is indeed fragmentary and Manne’s Dossier does not have anything terribly recent, after 1910 say’

Well that’s certainly news to me. The dossier to which I linked contains documents of the removal process from around 1910 up to the Post War period:

(ii) Letter by W. G. South, Chief Protector of Aborigines in South Australia, August 7 1911

In my opinion, all half-caste children, especially girls, should be considered wards of the state and, should not be left in the blacks camps after they reach the age of four years, but should be placed in an industrial school, educated and taught trades or other occupations and, kept to constant work till they are old enough to take care of themselves, after which they should be compelled to find their own living and, should no longer be considered nor treated as Aborigines.It seems to me ridiculous to bring up a lot of practically white people in blacks camps…

(vii) Inspector O. Drewry, Derby, to the Commissioner of Police, Perth, August 14 1919.

In submitting the attached report, I desire to submit that this seizing and removing of these children is obnoxious to the Police and I trust that some official of the Aborigines Dept. will be appointed to do it. I submit that behind the power of the Chief Protector to order such seizure lies the point “for cause shown”, yet, in these cases no cause has been shown, yet he can seize all aboriginal or half-caste children under 16 years of age. No neglect has been shown by the mothers in these cases that would bring these children within the clauses as regards neglected children under the State Children’s Act.

Chief Protector of Aborigines, A.O. Neville, to R. Connell, Commissioner of Police, October 9 1919.

If the duty of bringing in half-caste children is obnoxious to the Police, it is strange that this Department has not been previously advised of this, in view of the hundreds of cases that have had attention.

From speech delivered by A. O. Neville, the Western Australian Administrator, to the Initial Conference of Commonwealth and State Aboriginal Administrators, held in Canberra in April 1937.

The opinion held by Western Australian authorities is that the problem of the native race, including half-castes, should be dealt with on a long-range plan. We should ask ourselves what will be the position, say, 50 years hence; it is not so much the position to-day that has to be considered. Western Australia has gone further in the development of such a long-range policy than has any other State, by accepting the view that ultimately the natives must be absorbed into the white population of Australia…Are we going to have a population of 1,000,000 blacks in the Commonwealth, or are we going to merge them into our white community and eventually forget that there ever were any aborigines in Australia …

His Honour the Administrator, Northern Territory, Memorandum, January 4, 1950

In Patrol Officer Evans’ report, dated 23rd December, 1949, on his patrol to the Wave Hill-Timber Creek areas, the following passages occur:-

Comment

The removal of the children from Wave Hill by MacRobertson Miller aircraft was accompanied by distressing scenes, the like of which I wish never to experience again. The engines of the plane are not stopped at Wave Hill and the noise combined with the strangeness of an aircraft only accentuated the grief and fear of the children resulting in near-hysteria in two of them. I am quite convinced that news of my actions at Wave Hill preceded me to the other stations resulting in the children being taken away prior to my arrival.
I endeavoured to assuage the grief of the mothers by taking photographs of each of the children prior to their departure and these have been distributed among them…
Recommendations
(1) I accordingly recommend that only in extreme cases is removal of part-aborigines affected by aircraft.
(2) That if possible the children be left with their mothers until they are at least six years of age. At this age they are beginning to free themselves of maternal ties…

So you see, Iain clearly hasn’t bothered to read any of this material in spite of being given it. I assert here that all Iain has done is steal his arguments from Andrew Bolt instead of forming his own opinion from the evidence available. This is a classic case of conservative group think. And precisely because Iain is in its grip he continues to slip up:

‘No the documents often suggest that the children were abused or neglected are trying to suggest that living conditions in the camps were some lovely picnic?’

‘How ever this was not sufficient for Gunner to win his court action now was it MM?’

‘Manne was unable to name even ten children who were stolen for racist reasons, despite having plenty of notice and the assistance many other true believers’

‘But it is As I said oh so long ago the reasons why every child was removed and especially what motivated those who authorised their removal will never definitively be known.’

Three of the above quotes are Bolt’s key arguments and Iain merely repeats them like a parrot with no knowledge of their truth whatsoever. He also parrots another of Bolt’s arguments, which I’ll address later, but for now I’ll demonstrate the man’s ignorance of the issue.

On comment one, the fact is that the documents hardly ever refer to neglected or abused children. To read Bolt you would be forgiven for thinking this were so but let’s say he has a penchant for repeating the same 5 or so cases of actual abused kiddies to throw doubt on the stories of thousands. But in total, actual reports of abused or neglected children are rare, in fact, there are many comments on the love these kids received:

(iii) William Craig, Cardwell, to Home Secretary, Brisbane, August 18 1903.

‘First—it is an unanswerable and incontestable fact that aboriginals universally treat all children half caste or full blooded or white children they come in contact with or nurse with universal kindness, and the mother and her aboriginal husband are endeared to the half caste child equally as to the full blooded, briefly because it is the child of the mother and the family group, therefore it is an act of impossibility to prove ill-treatment in this case or in any similar case as their children are always well fed if they have food, and the beating of children is unknown…’

Or from people insisting that there was no neglect shown:

(vii) Inspector O. Drewry, Derby, to the Commissioner of Police, Perth, August 14 1919.

In submitting the attached report, I desire to submit that this seizing and removing of these children is obnoxious to the Police and I trust that some official of the Aborigines Dept. will be appointed to do it…in these cases no cause has been shown, yet he can seize all aboriginal or half-caste children under 16 years of age. No neglect has been shown by the mothers in these cases…

To argue as Iain does (repeating Bolt) that the N.T test case of Gunner/Cubillo proves that there was no policy is highly misleading. If one cares to read the judgement it is clear that Judge O’Loughlin threw the case out on a bunch of legal grounds. Firstly, since it was legal at the time for the Commonwealth to remove “half-caste” children when they deemed it necessary, it was difficult to prove that they broke the law in doing so, from this the rest of the case collapsed. O’Loughlin stated:

”. Neither the evidence in this trial, nor the reasons for judgment, deny the existence of “the Stolen Generation”. Numerous writings tell tragically of a distressing past. But this trial has focussed primarily on the personal histories of two people: Lorna Cubillo and Peter Gunner. “

Cubillo’s history was mired by a lack of important information on her situation, though we do know that she was piled onto a truck with sixteen other “half-caste” children in horrible scenes of distressed kids and self mutilation (so ask yourself, was there still no policy?). Gunner was taken during a later period where the authorities would hound the mother for a hand print of approval on a form with conditions like these below:

1. My son is a Part-European blood, his father being a European.

2. I desire my son to be educated and trained in accordance with accepted European standards, to which he is entitled by reason of his caste.

Often the mothers who accepted these terms never saw their children again even though they were assured they would. But in gaining her acceptance O’Loughlin had no choice but to find in the Commonwealth’s favour. So arguing that this case disproves the “Stolen Generation” is a short cut to denial, but far from true.

To repeat that Robert Manne was unable to name ten stolen children is another favourite of the Bolt gang, and Hall affirms his commitment to group think by arguing this also. But this is a lie, Manne gave Bolt 230+ names from which Bolt attempted (and failed) to disprove 10 only:

‘Eventually, I sent him some 250 names. After a silence, Bolt agreed to the debate. Bolt has a Herald Sun blog-site. He appealed on it for help in discrediting my first 12 names. There was no mention of the other 230-plus. Bolt presented the results of his research assistants at last Sunday's debate. The omissions and distortions took my breath away.’

Manne is correct to label Bolt’s appraisal’s as distortions:

‘One of my names, Margaret Tucker, was raised by a loving mother, who also had to work, and by a completely devoted uncle and aunt. In her wonderful autobiography she reveals that she was with her mother when she was seized. Her mother was so distraught that she was discovered by the uncle and aunt lying in the bush "moaning and crying" like "an animal in pain". Here is Bolt's version: Margaret's mother "had gone to Sydney and some auntie was looking after her-sort of".’

As shown above Iain tries at least once to think for himself on this issue and makes the claim that the intentions of those behind removals will never be known. Unfortunately for Iain he shouldn't have bothered as the documents time and again prove him wrong:

'Inferior races will have to go and, in my opinion, Governments, sooner or later, will have seriously to consider the question of sterilization of the half-caste.

W.J.Gall, Under-Secretary, Home Department, Government of Queensland,'

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Administrator
Darwin, September 12th 1911
No 1861/11

Sir,
I have the honour to refer to your telegram of the 8th instant with reference to the suggestion of the Chief Protector of Aborigines regarding the establishment of an Aboriginal settlement.
The number of aboriginal children that would be provided for in the proposed institution would depend upon the policy of the Government in regard to half caste children. In my opinion one of the first works to be undertaken is to gather in all half caste children who are living with aborigines.
The police could do most of this work. No doubt the mothers would object and there would probably be an outcry from well meaning people about depriving the mother of her child but the future of the children should I think outweigh all other considerations.'

(iii) Extract of letter from Dr Cecil Cook, Chief Protector of Aborigines, Northern Territory, to Rev. W. Morley, April 28, 1931

The Halfcaste problem has received deeper consideration and more advanced and enlightened treatment in the Commonwealth Territories than in any other part of Australia. The Commonwealth which you must recognise is trustee of the White Australia Policy, has viewed this matter nationally, and has framed its policy accordingly...In the Territory ... the preponderance of coloured races, the prominence of coloured alien blood and the scarcity of white females to mate with the white male population, creates a position of incalculable future menace to purity of race in tropical Australia, and the Federal Government must so regulate its Territories that the multiplication of multicolour humanity by the mating of Halfcaste with alien coloured blood shall be reduced to a minimum. Halfcaste females in centres of population where alien races are prominent unfortunately exceed males in number. If this excess is permitted to mate with alien blood, the future of this country may very well be doomed to disaster. The Commonwealth has therefore endeavoured to elevate the Halfcaste to the standard of the white, with a view to his ultimate assimilation, encouraging the mating of white male and halfcaste female, thereby gradually eliminating colour and reducing one contributory factor in the breeding of Halfcastes...Briefly, the Halfcaste policy in this Territory embraces the collection of all illegitimate halfcastes, male and female under the age of 16 years for housing in institutions for educational purposes.

(iv) From N T Administrator, Telegram to Department of Interior, Canberra, 26 October 1932.

...HALF CASTE CHILDREN ARE NOT TOTALLY SEPERATED FROM MOTHERS UNTIL WEANED OR AT LEAST TWO YEARS OLD THEREAFTER FOR OBVIOUS REASONS REMOVED FROM BLACKS CAMP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE STOP PRESENT POLICY IS TRY AND RAISE HALF CASTES TO WHITE STANDARD WHICH IMPOSSIBLE IF ALLOWED REMAIN IN CAMPS TOO LONG

ADMIN

(ix) Report on the Northern Territory by J. A. Carrodus

Half-castes:

179. It is the policy of the Administration to collect all half-castes from the native camps at an early age and transfer them to the Government Institutions at Darwin and Alice Springs.

180. The Darwin Home contains half-caste girls only. Half-caste boys are sent to the Alice Springs Home, but girls are sent there also.

(i) Letter from C. E. Cook

In the Territory the mating of aboriginals with any person other than an aboriginal is prohibited. The mating of coloured aliens with any female of part aboriginal blood is also prohibited. Every endeavour is being made to breed out the colour by elevating female half-castes to white standard with a view to their absorption by mating into the white population. The adoption of a similar policy throughout the Commonwealth is, in my opinion, a matter of vital importance.

(ii) Memorandum from J. A. Carrodus

With reference to the memorandum of the 7th February, by the Chief Protector of Aboriginals of the Northern Territory, the policy of mating half-castes with whites, for the purpose of breeding-out the colour, is that adopted by the Commonwealth Government on the recommendation of Dr. Cook.

Poor Iain is the victim of misinformation. Furthermore, he is the victim of conservative group think, a malady he is eager to maintain. Not only are intentions clear, but it is obvious that a policy of "half-caste" removal was being carried out.

Last, but not least, Iain has vigorously argued another of Bolt's positions, that is that cases of abuse in Aboriginal communities today, whereby welfare workers refrain from removing abused children because of sensitivities over the SG, prove that people like myself have blood on their hands due to arguing our case. So it is claimed that we should shut up and start denying along side them lest we cause more pain:

'I hope that you do feel some guilt here MM because it is you and your fellow leftards have laid the foundations for the current suffering of indigenous women and children, at THAT is the topic of this post.'

'Look MM I have given you a very good run here and you still have no answer to the truth that the NOTION of the “Stolen Generation” is not something that brings anything but suffering to contemporary indigenous people ,in particular the women and children who have been and continue to be abused because of the fear, instilled by leftists like you MM, that to remove a child who is being abused is worse than leaving them with their abusers. ALL leftists are complicit in this and you should hang your head in shame because of it.'

etc...etc...

The ridiculousness of this is obvious. I'm just as aggrieved by the fact that these welfare workers have not correctly done their duty as Iain is, but I won't use child abuse as a moral bludgeon to win a debate about the veracity of the Stolen Generation. Quite frankly I think this tactic is repugnant. Unable to defeat the mountain of evidence I threw at him this is his only response. He fails to address the proof, fails to tackle the arguments and subsequently loses the debate, but he attempts to snatch the moral highground by claiming it's MY fault children are left in such circumstances. How can an episode in history be debunked because a child is let down today? It can't, this is self evident. This is just another desperate attempt at guilting the people into denial, and it's disgusting.

So what do we now know about Hall when it comes to this issue? He is the victim of conservative group think (willingly so). He refuses to do any independant research before forming an opinion. He prefers his opinions to be made for him over at Bolt's place and merely regurgitates them at his own and he's willing to take advantage of abused children to win debates in the culture war.

Bravo Iain, bravo.

Cut & Paste This

The Australian, Editorial, August 3 2007:

'Compensation payment shows that apologies are cheap'

'Many on the Left of politics, including the Labor Party, have made much of the need to say sorry to Aboriginal people but Mr Trevorrow's case highlights just how cheap and hollow an apology can be...'

'...This sort of hypocrisy is possible because the "Sorry" brigade has never made it clear, even to itself, what we are all meant to be saying sorry for and what it is meant to achieve.'

The Australian, Editorial, Today:

'The Australian has not had a problem with saying sorry to indigenous Australians, but we have always considered it to be a second-order issue compared with the need to improve living standards for indigenous Australians. Saying sorry would have been a sign of good faith but would not, in itself, make things better.'

And who said it would, 'in itself', make things better? As The Oz struggles to drag itself out of the pit of the culture war in the wake of Howard's demise it also struggles with understanding (after a decade) what proponents of saying "sorry" believe it will acheive.

I'm getting the distinct feeling that even the stalwarts of Australian conservatism are at least trying to call a truce in their culture war as they sense the potential for alienation if they continue down the hardline path of the last 11 years.

(Still injured, just couldn't help but comment. Oh, and I sent the above in a letter to the Oz, reakon they'll print it?)

Disabled

I haven't been in action since Monday and won't be for a while yet due to an operation on my right hand. You can imagine how hard it was just to type this!

Bad timing considering recent scandals I know. What a beautiful week it's been.

Bye.

My Earliest Clear And Distinct Memory Meme

Christ this is hard, but Art Vandelay AND Mikey have tagged me so here goes.

I've got to:

1. Describe my earliest memory where the memory is clear, and where "clear" means I can depict at least three details.
2. Give an estimate of my age at the time.
   
3. Tag five other bloggers with this meme.

I think my first memory goes as follows:

I'd been naughty for some reason and he (my Dad) was pissed off. He was chasing me around the pine dinner table, that I remember being positioned almost in the middle of the kitchen, and as he out-manoeuvred me I dived under the table. Each time he reached to grab me I ran to the other side. My Mum and brother must have thought this was hilarious because all they were doing was laughing until he started laughing as well. I still wasn't sure if I was in the clear or not though, I was hopeful.

If I think about it I remember my Dad looking really 70's but I'm not sure if I've attached photos I've seen taken of him back then to the him in my memory. I think I was......about........four????? Maybe???? I mean, could a four year old put up a chase (obviously I'm childless)? Or was he just messing around? I'll have to ask him. It's a tad dramatic but I seriously can't remember anything that, I think, came before then.

I'm tagging Lad Litter, Miss Politics (who has the cutest daughter BTW so maybe she'd know the answer to the above question), John Surname, Hap and....??? (to be decided later).

Memo To Labor, Your Advertising Sucks

If Labor do actually get over the line this coming election it won't be thanks to their election advertising. In short, it's shit. Every time a program is interrupted by that whining housewife complaining about this, that and everything else I cringe and (for some weird reason) hope that whoever else is in the room has tuned out and isn't really paying attention.

Don't get me wrong, I think all election advertisements are shit, but while we all accept this, we can still rate them in order from the shittest to the less shit and the whining women, this year, rates as the shittest by far. She makes me pine for those glory days when Latham would appear on the screen preceding every sentence with "Labor is ready..." (and I found THAT annoying).

When they call her 'Whinging Wendy' they aren't lying. Thinking about it has put me in the awkward position of agreeing with Janet Albrechtsen today:

'The perception, however, is governments are somehow responsible for "mortgage stress" and the so-called housing affordability crisis. But let's face it. The price of continued prosperity is that many people have simply abandoned financial responsibility, racking up debt to buy bigger homes than they can afford, pumping more money into the housing market and driving prices higher.'

'It won't win you votes to say so but notions of financial restraint and thrift have been replaced with a "have it all now" mentality driven by easy access to debt. The Howard Government has only fuelled that mentality. As The Sun-Herald reported on Sunday, the Government's original first home buyers grant of $7000 is being accessed by those buying million-dollar houses. And then, when interest rates rise off the back of a booming economy, those ungrateful sods cry foul.'

When the Saturday Age runs a profile on a "typical" family previously on a combined income of 140,000 now "struggling" after the arrival of kids on just one income of 120,000 you know something is up. I found it particularly hard to sympathise with the fact that they were forced to sell the Porche for a RAV4. During a boom as large as this where most people's troubles are that they have too much I find Whinging Wendy a bit hard to swallow. Give me the dodgy profiles coupled with slamming door noises are dark music any day.

(On a side note Albrechtsen completely contradicts herself when she later attacks Clive Hamilton's criticisms of today's mentality, they're very close to her above comments)

Oops, I Did It Again!

'And we're supposed to show respect to those Maori who treat these gifts (by "gifts" he means European accomplishments, science, philosophy etc...) -- and the descendants of those that brought them--with contempt and hostility. We're supposed to show the remnants of the primitive culture they ought to have been glad to put behind them with some kind of reverence, to pretend that Maori beliefs and social attitudes are somehow worthy of respect.Well, they're not.'

'For Maori shit-stirrers to posture and babble on about "sovereignty" while they prance around in fucking grass skirts with painted faces, all the while accepting welfare payments and going home in their Japanese offroaders to watch Coronation Street on their taxpayer-supplied plasma televisions is laughable.Well, it WOULD be laughable, if so many of us weren't working our asses off to pay the taxes that fund this crap.'

And, on reading how a protester was violently attacked:

'Oh boo-hoo, should have kicked his bloody teeth in as well, it's the only language they understand anyway...'

'...I love it when boots are put to moonbat's asses.'

Do I even need to tell you who said the above? That's right, my favourite anti-racist KG from Crusader Rabbit doing his best to create a "liberal" society. Sorry, I just had to post it.

Gerard Henderson Has Some Nerve

Henderson lambastes those who wrongly predicted a Labor win in 2004:

'This served as a reminder as to what McKew was up to about this time in the election cycle three years ago. In an extraordinary interview on ABC Metropolitan Radio on September 30, 2004, the then ABC presenter declared that the then Labor leader Mark Latham "will make it" as prime minister. She even fantasised that "the inevitability of the Latham ascension" was such that he "might" become prime minister by April 2005, even if he lost the election in October 2004. Really.'

'All it demonstrated was that McKew lacked judgment and engaged in wish fulfilment, at least where Latham was concerned. She was not alone, in ABC circles at least. '

Henderson relays this detail (with obvious relish) while arguing that to wrongly predict something doesn't make one a liar, which is his main argument. But who can help but see the joy with which he points out McKew's folly. It's not the first time. He once got into Matt Price for predicting a Latham win in 2004 also. This has made me consider this exchange:

TONY JONES: George is not going to give us the figures, quite rightly, but what he was suggesting is that the lead on that is actually narrowing, so it's going back towards Labor's way there as well, even on the economy.

GERARD HENDERSON: Well, it might have narrowed but it would have narrowed from a substantial margin for that kind of figure. But we'll see and I don't know, I'm not a prophet unlike Mr Bolt in Melbourne. But it's not good news.

ANDREW BOLT: Hello Gerard, Gerard we know your game, you'll sit on the fence, not say anything. You're paid danger money to predict, and at the end of it all you'll run your little essays every election, pinging those who had the guts to say something, but were wrong. Now come on, you're paid danger money to make a prediction, make one.

GERARD HENDERSON: Andrew, all I... the only... all I know is that all the prophets I know have been foul prophets, all of them. And I don't run down the...

ANDREW BOLT: ...and I'll say 10 seats, I'll say 10 seats how about you?

GERARD HENDERSON: I won't get into that.

TONY JONES: Fair enough. Let's...

ANDREW BOLT: Reserve the right to be smart arse afterwards.

TONY JONES: Let's...

GERARD HENDERSON: No, I was smart before. I think not making predictions is pretty clever actually.

Who the hell does Henderson think he is attacking others for their wrong predictions while refraining from making any himself?

"Me-Tooism" All Round 2

Well, well, it appears that the much hyped "me-tooism" that Rudd's consistently accused of is actually a contagious bug:

'Mr Howard announced there would be a tax rebate for education expenses, beginning with kindergarten through to the end of secondary school, covering fees, excursions, text books, tools and computer equipment.'

Me-too!!!

'The home ownership plans will involve several schemes for boosting savings, The tax-free home saver account, available from next financial year, would allow $1000 tax deductible contributions with all earnings tax free.'

Me-too!!! And let's not forget:

'Mr Howard went through a number of commitments already made: measures to combat climate change, but not at the expense of the coal industry, the proposed constitutional recognition of aboriginal people in the Constitution.'

Me-too, me-too!!! He also added this complete fallacy:

'The Prime Minister praised Peter Costello describing him as the principle architect of the economic achievement.'

"Principle architect"??? Howard's always been fond of revisionism but this is a bit much. Costello had nothing to do with the early economic reforms made by Labor, which most economists agree, were far more instrumental in the current boom, leading Howard to say in 1996:

'I inherited an economy in not bad shape, not bad shape at all.'

Nor has he any responsibility for China's immense growth which has had such an impact here. (He did give us the GST though)

But back to their sudden breakout of "me-tooism".

It leads me to wonder, who will the government copy when Rudd's not around???

You've Got To Admit It, The Old Farts Have A Point

It's become abundantly clear these days that ministerial accountability is a thing of the past. Never do we see a minister fall for even the most obvious of wrong doings or mistakes, and we are worse for it. Thankfully two ex-PM's have spoken out in condemnation at today's decline in standards:

'IN the past two decades the constitutional principle that ministers should be held accountable for the failings of their policies or administration has been seriously undermined. No matter how grave their failings may be, ministers no longer resign.

This principle is the bedrock of responsible government. In its absence, the capacity of the parliament and the people to hold a government to account for its actions is substantially weakened.

It is 31 years since the last official inquiry regarding the principles of ministerial accountability at a federal level. That inquiry framed the doctrine for simpler times. It could not anticipate the major changes in governance that have occurred since then.

These include an enormous growth in the power of the executive, the now pivotal role of ministerial advisers, the outsourcing of many crucial government functions and the expanding influence of the lobbying industry.

The Freedom of Information Act, an important safeguard introduced in 1982, has also been undermined significantly by the practice of recent governments and restrictive interpretation by the courts.

The Canadian and British governments (of different political persuasions) have recently taken steps to strengthen ministerial accountability.

They have recognised its fundamental importance and the need to re-evaluate and fortify it so that representative democracy may function as it should.

We believe it is critical that this issue is addressed in the forthcoming national election and then acted upon by whichever party forms the new government.

We take this opportunity to urge all political parties to commit to the establishment of an independent and comprehensive review of the operation of ministerial accountability so as to modernise and strengthen it.

This is a matter that transcends party politics. It goes to the very heart of the way we are governed.'

Gough Whitlam, Sydney

Malcolm Fraser, Melbourne

Of course, off the top of my head I can easily think of a few who should have gone by now. Alexander Downer can count his lucky stars that he's part of a government which cares very little for ministerial accountability after failing to act on 20 warnings that AWB was bankrolling Saddam Hussein for example. Kevin Andrews can also consider himself charmed after the whole Haneef affair, which incidentally gets worse and worse as time goes on. And Amanda Vanstone can also praise today's decline in standards after escaping the chop when her department wrongly deported an Australian citizen and detained another due to a culture of suspicion within immigration (geez, I wonder how that grew?).

So all in all, the old farts have a point wouldn't you say?

The Interest Rates Rock

I'm so confused right now, and considering the amount of conflicting messages coming our way on interest rates who could blame me?

Originally the Coalition argued that it must remain in office in order for interest rates to remain at "record lows". This at least suggested that government held some control of rates through its use of "economic levers", and that these "levers" would be wrongly tweaked by a Labor government. Argument = government IS responsible for high or low interest rates. So when rates are low, the government can claim credit, and when they're high this logic suggests that the government can be blamed.

Yet now, according to Howard, this sixth rate rise since 2004 is actually not their fault, rather it's the product of a strong world economy, high oil prices and the drought. This may all be partly true but it also leaves one asking why, if it is out of their control, did they campaign that they would keep interest rates at "record lows"? Howard's denial of any responsibility for rate rises since 2004 directly contradicts the Coalition's last campaign theme. But then, Costello isn't buying it:

'The Treasurer said yesterday unemployment was at its lowest level since 1974, but this may be having an effect on inflation.'

"Because unemployment is so low and employers are in some places competing with each other to get employees, that's putting upward pressure on wages," he said.

So it is their fault now, even though the argument he's making is that the government is just too damn good for its own good, he is admitting some blame. You've got to love Costello here as he attempts to turn the rise into a positive for the government, but doesn't this acknowledgement hint at what Labor's been attacking them for all along, ignoring the skills shortage? This has to be one of the key problems for inflation these days and it is something that the government does have some responsibility for. So why did Howard bullshit us? Or was it just semi-bullshit?

With Australians in so much debt it's predictable that politicians will try to use things like interest rates to scare votes out of us. So the layers of lies concerning what's behind rate rises are products of our own making. We need to stop living out of our means, shed some of our excessive materialism and relax. Why be slaves to "things"?

Is The Oz Admitting Its Mistake?

In its editorial 'Reality Bites The Psychotic Left' of June 11th this year The Australian launched a scathing attack on Australia's "Left". Of particular focus were the economist Clive Hamilton and intellectual Robert Manne (the last of which the paper in question is quite obsessed with). The editorial had this to say about 'Silencing Dissent', a book edited by Hamilton and Sarah Maddison and introduced by Manne:

'This is the institute after all that believes in a vast corporate conspiracy to stall action on climate change, accuses David Jones and Myers of "corporate pedophilia" and claims that Australia is becoming an increasingly authoritarian state where dissidents are silenced.'

'This last thesis, expounded at length in Silencing Dissent published earlier this year, would seem difficult to sustain at a time when the marketplace of ideas has never been so crowded. In newspaper opinion sections and magazines and on radio and televisions and increasingly online, Australians are engaged in intelligent conversation about the issues of the day great and small. Blogs and internet chat rooms have given everyone a seat at the debating table. Technology has lowered the barriers to publishing. A host of new periodicals online and in print including The Monthly, New Matilda and The Australian's own Australian Literary Review are providing new platforms for discussion while established journals such as Quadrant and the Griffith Review are reaching new readers and providing a home for new writers.'

As I've argued before, this is a dishonest distortion of the main thesis of 'Silencing Dissent'. The book doesn't ever try to claim that people aren't allowed to express their opinions publicly, the main point of the book is that the Government has shown contempt for public debate by vigorously prosecuting whistleblowers, plugging leaks and politicising the public service and all this without a word of objection from its barrackers, until now that is.

A coalition of concerned media companies began a campaign a while back called 'Australia's Right To Know', of which News Ltd is a key supporter, and they commissioned a report to look into the state of today's freedom of information laws, the prognosis sounds familiar:

'The report's findings show how little dissent the federal Government is willing to tolerate when it comes to the unauthorised disclosure of information'

What's that you say!?

'In each of these cases, the disclosure of the information caused no damage except political embarrassment for the Government'

'Moss accuses the federal Government of harbouring a cold and calculating attitude to whistleblowers, criticising its "dogged refusal"to provide them with legal protection and a "relentless determination to track them down"'

Moss' comments appear to me as though she is actually reading straight from the pages of 'Silencing Dissent', these are two of its core criticisms after all. So where does this put The Australian's editorial position after lambasting Hamilton, Maddison and Manne for daring to say such things not 6 months earlier?

'News Limited, publisher of The Australian, long ago grew weary of the erosion of press freedom and appealed all the way to the High Court for the right to know. It lost the battle, but still fights the war. In May last year, a coalition of media organisations known as "Right to Know" -- led by News Limited and including Fairfax Media, FreeTV Australia, commercial radio, ABC, SBS, Sky News, ASTRA, West Australian Newspapers, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, AAP and APN News and Media -- funded an independent audit into media freedom.'

'The report, launched by News Limited chairman and chief executive John Hartigan yesterday, finds that journalists are struggling to gain access to court documents for no apparent reason. Sometimes, nobody in the court has any idea who is allowed access to what, and all tend to err on the side of secrecy. There is too little protection for whistleblowers, and none at all for journalists such as Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus, also of the Herald Sun, who today have criminal convictions because they refused to reveal the source of a story about planned cuts to veterans' benefits.'

'If you, as a reader, care at all for the exhausted, crumbling pillar of democracy that is a free press, demand at this election that both parties breathe life into the Freedom of Information legislation, protect whistleblowers, provide the media with a shield law so journalists can protect their sources, and open the courts to scrutiny.'

It doesn't acknowledge it and proceeds to paint itself as a pioneer on these issues. Are they admitting a mistake? Hell no!

Stormin' Norman Podhoretz At It Again

It seems that Norman Podhoretz is intent on spinning himself completely and utterly out of all relevance, as his recent debate with Fareed Zakaria has demonstrated. I'm sure that we're all familiar with Podhoretz; he's the one who had this to say about the Iraq War:

'it's an amazing success' and.. 'There were WMD (weapons of mass destruction), and they were shipped to Syria ... This picture of a country in total chaos with no security is false. It has been a triumph. It couldn't have gone better.'

And when probed about the fact that (at the time) polls were saying that 80% of Iraqis wanted the U.S out of Iraq he replied:

"I don't much care,...nobody was tortured in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo"

Now Norman is having his say on the next mission, Iran, and as you might imagine, considering how well the Iraq War has gone, he's all for an attack:

'...only one terrible choice, which is to bomb those facilities and retard their program, or even cut it off altogether, or allow them to go nuclear. US senator John McCain is right to say: "The only thing worse than bombing Iran is to allow Iran to get the bomb." '

Zakaria replies:

'Well, there is a third choice, which is the choice we have used for pretty much every other country that has developed nuclear weapons. That is deterrence. We allowed Mao Zedong to get a nuclear weapon and have used deterrence against the Chinese. We allowed the Soviet Union to get nuclear weapons and used deterrence against the Russians. We've allowed the North Koreans to get nuclear weapons and have used deterrence against them.'

Podhoretz responds in a manner that's become far too predictable for U.S foreign policy hawks:

'This attitude represents an irresponsible complacency that I think is comparable to the denial in the early 1930s of the intentions of Adolf Hitler, which led to what Winston Churchill called an unnecessary war involving millions of deaths that might have been averted if the West had acted early enough.'

The attempts at painting all opponents as potential Chamberlains has always been tempting for such Hawks, but it's a massive twist of today's reality. Saddam may have been an evil son of a bitch but he was no Hitler. Hitler, Stalin etc... were the heads of major powers in their day representing a colossal threat. Saddam and Ahmadinejad were, and are, leaders of minor powers by international standards. The threat wasn't, and isn't, even comparable to Hitler's Germany. Iraq was a basket case before it was made into a.......well.........basket case.

Of course Podhoretz makes the claim that Iran's Islamic rulers may be fanatical enough to use the bomb regardless of the repercussions:

'The reason deterrence can't work with Iran is that there's a different element involved here than was involved with Mao or Kim or Joseph Stalin, and that is religious fanaticism. With a religious fanatic such as Ahmadinejad and the "mullahcracy" ruling Iran generally, there is no assurance that the idea of self-preservation or the protection of the nation will deter them.'

Zakaria destroys this position by looking at the history:

'"If the worst came to worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain, while imperialism would be razed to the ground." This is what Mao said. And it wasn't just his words. It was his actions. He was actively aiding revolutionary movements and killing Americans all over the world. So the question about Iran's rationality rests on this: The mullahs have been in power for nearly 30 years. What have they done? Iran has followed a pretty rational, national interest-oriented foreign policy. Look at how they opposed al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, another Islamic revolutionary movement. You'd think that they would have been sympathetic, but no, the Iranians were the sworn enemies of al-Qa'ida and they helped the US depose the Taliban in Afghanistan. They've been fairly calculating, they have followed their national interest. When it has bumped up against the US, they have worked against us. When they have thought that our interests were in common, as in Afghanistan, they've worked with us.'

Iran's Ahmadinejad is a racist wanker, and the Mullahs rule is tyrannical, but Zakaria's reply above is correct which makes Podhoretz's appraisal rubbish.

The scary thing about Norman Podhoretz isn't that some still take him seriously after his comments on the Iraq invasion, it's the fact that he's a foreign policy adviser to Republican Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani. The world simply can't afford another one of these nut jobs whispering into the ears of another stupid President.

Those Poor Muslim Men

Sometimes words just speak for themselves......you know what I mean:

Attacking the appeal of modern Malaysian women, Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat - a fundamentalist Muslim cleric who controls the main opposition party and one of the country's 13 states - said provocative clothes were a form of "emotional abuse".

Clothes that are modest by Western standards were, he said, stopping the country's men getting a good night's sleep.

"We always (hear about) the abuse of children and wives in households, which is easily perceived by the eye but the emotional abuse of men cannot be seen," Mr Nik Abdul Aziz said.
"Our prayers become unfocused and our sleep is often disturbed."

So I'm a victim here! I've suffered abuse my whole life and all at the hands of evil women who dare to show their flesh.

DAMN YOU BIKINI!!!!!!

Call An Inquiry

The dirt on the Haneef affair appears to be leaking with the contents of an e-mail revealed today. The key passage of the document reads like this:

"Contingencies for containing Mr HANEEF and detaining him under the Migration Act, if it is the case he is granted bail on Monday, are in place as per arrangements today."

What an incredible revelation! So the fact that Andrews' decision to revoke Haneef's visa coincided with the magistrates decision to grant him bail actually wasn't a coincidence!

I feel so violated.

The Daydreaming Australian Is In For A Big Surprise

Did everyone read today's editorial in The Australian? It's been at least three months since the anonymous twit over there has had another explosion so this one was long over due.

'THERE is the real election campaign in which a centre-left challenger is fighting to regain the middle ground from a centre-right pragmatist. And then there's the fantasy election in which a left-liberal socialist is fighting to end 11 dark years of despotic rule by a scheming far-right culture-warrior.'

It must be getting itchy over there with all the straw men they've created over the years so why they're intent on creating more is a mystery. Considering that Rudd has himself denied being a socialist I'd be very amazed if anyone on the left believed he were one. Not that he needs to deny it, when one claims to be an economic conservative one need not denounce socialism as well, it's implied. As for Howard being a culture warrior, let's call a spade a spade here. The man has stood firm against symbolic reconciliation, "black armband" history, denounced all forms of leftism and spoken out against so-called left wing bias in all areas. What the hell is a culture warrior if not Howard?

'In an essay in The Monthly, Robert Manne details the manifesto of the fantasy Labor leader.'

Robert Manne again!? The obsession continues.

"If Rudd is elected, the kind of mimetic foreign policy that followed our blank-cheque endorsement of the US in every twist and turn of policy in its war on terror, which led us into the catastrophe of Iraq, will be reversed," Manne muses.

And considering Rudd's different approach toward Iraq, I'd say that Manne muses correctly.

"If Rudd is elected, the industrial relations laws will be softened and humanised ...'

Again, Manne muses correctly.

'universities will most likely be more generously funded ... some elements of the former independence of the public service and of the former vigour of the parliament (may) be revived ... the gulf between the government and the country's creative artists will be bridged." Well dream on.'

Dream on about what exactly? And since when was "dream on" a rebuttal?

'The banal truth is that Howard's Australia was never the nightmare of the Left's imaginings and Rudd's Australia would not be the liberal utopia of its dreams.'

Itchy itchy! How can they stand it!?

'These must be dull times for the class warriors who refuse to accept that the use-by date on Das Kapital is well and truly passed. Kevin Rudd does not look like Che Guevara and, prudently for a candidate who sees popular election rather than a proletarian uprising as a route to power, he is fundamentally conservative.'

WTF!? Exactly what is this anonymous twit talking about? They must have a serious crow problem over there to need so many straw men.

'He is delivering on his promise in an interview with The Weekend Australian's Christine Jackman earlier this year to "mess with Howard's mind", but his secret has been to outflank the Prime Minister on the Right rather than attack him from the Left.'

No shit Sherlock, this guys a genius. After painting us as guerrilla fighting revolutionaries he skillfully provides us with the truth about Rudd, and what a shock it is folks.

'A sober analysis of the Howard years, however, does not support the portrayal of the Prime Minister as a culture warrior. If indeed he has been waging war against the insidious forces of liberalism entrenched in universities, public broadcasters and publishing houses, Mr Howard has lost.'

Again, what the hell constitutes a culture warrior if not Howard? He's fought on every key conservative cultural concern during his stint, and on a regular basis. And losing the "war" doesn't instantly mean that he hasn't been fighting it. Who do they think he is, the John Rambo of culture warriors?

'As Christopher Pearson wryly observes elsewhere in these columns, Australia's universities are still, in effect, 37 publicly funded leftist think tanks. No fair-minded listener of Radio National or viewer of The 7.30 Report would conclude that Mr Howard's culture offensive, real or imagined, has made any more progress at the ABC.'

These guys are nuts!!! The 7:30 Report? These new McCarthyists will obviously stop at nothing to out the "reds" in the system. For ages now they've attacked Kerry O'Brien as uneven in his interviewing, but no rational minded individual could come to any other conclusion than that O'Brien is an evenly hard interviewer. Both Labor and the Coalition cop it in his studio in even measures. Did anyone see Latham do the rounds at the last election? Geez!

'The agenda of a Rudd government is likely to be much closer to the position advocated in the editorial columns of this newspaper than the outdated, soft-left manifesto supported by our broadsheet rivals.'

ooooh! What utter bullshit! I doubt Rudd was cheering on The Oz's past editorials like, "The Coalition Of The Whining Got It Wrong", or "Psycho Left...etc (forgot the rest)". These guys are clearly worried that they may lose their poster boy culture warrior Howard, so now they're taking credit for Rudd. What else explains such a concoction of fallacies and straw men?

One More Time: KG Spells Out The Mission

'More and more I see posts and comments lamenting the fact that the divide between the left and right side of politics is getting greater, that attitudes on both sides are becoming more entrenched and less open to compromise.I say "good". As someone who leans very much to the right, I don't want compromise with the kind of crap that infests the left. I want the left seen for what it is, the Enemy and I want to see it crushed by whatever means possible and as ruthlessly as possible at whatever cost.No price would be too high, since the price of not acting will be our civilisation itself.'

Posted by KG

Hyperbole? Or KG's not so secret desire? Whatever it is it ain't pretty. This quote clearly demonstrates KG's brand of "liberalism".

As I've been repeating on Hall's blog, all that he needs to do is to get KG to personally clear the air and let us all know that he holds no animosity towards Muslims generally, merely the fanatics. You'd think this would be simple, after all Iain's been adamant that KG does separate the two and is therefore not a religious bigot. I really would appreciate some closure on this, I mean wouldn't everyone?

UPDATE:

KG's gotten wind of my request for clarity and has decided not to comment. You've gotta admit, that's wierd. But check out the reply:

'ROTFLMAO! Well, there ya go--I'm apparently summoned to some kind of juvenile Star Chamber hearing to account for myself. Wish I'd found out about this sooner, it could have provided endless entertainment.Now, eff off kiddies and go back to squeezing zits and ogling your sisters through the bathroom keyhole, eh?"The wolf never worries about how many sheep there are."'

And with that guys lack of intelligence I wonder what he thinks he would have done were he to have found out about it sooner? Provided constant confirmation of my suspicions? Look at how stupid this guy is, he posts this in an argument:

"The Jewish populations of any country are overwhelmingly law-abiding and an asset to their societies. The same can't be said for the muslim populations of Western countries--they're little more than incubators for radicalism and anti-Western activists.When was the last time a synagogue was exposed as a haven for hate-sermons directed at the host country? Or a repository for explosives? When was the last time a Jewish bookshop was found to be selling anti-Western literature which advocated murder?I could expand that list into a full post and still not cover all the ways muslim immigrants and refugees threaten our societies and still the multiculti idiots refuse to see what's happening.The doctors who tried to blow up an airport terminal in the U.K. weren't Presbyterians or Catholics yet multiculturalists and lefty bleeding-hearts still speak of "moderate" muslims. Those docs were fine professional moderate muslim immigrants right up until the moment the bombs went off.There's nothing heartless about refusing to import people who are adherants of a proven, murderous ideology. It's commonsense and simple self-preservation. What you dress up as humanity and compassion is a protracted act of suicide."

And is given this in reply:

'I'm more than happy to let the above comment from KG speak for itself."'

And the idiot doesn't get it:

Bawaaahahaha! what a devastating comeback.

What a moron!

Windschuttle Tackles The Big Issues

As a subscriber to Quadrant the subject of who will be its next editor interests me. There's nothing I love more than reading Paddy McGuiness getting all a fluster about this and that, or the varying rants from the 'don't call me an intellectual' intellectuals. So it was without surprise that I discovered today that renowned culture warrior Keith Windschuttle would be taking over, with a new mission:

'Keith Windschuttle, scourge of leftist historians, will campaign against decadence in the arts when he takes over as editor of Quadrant magazine next year.
Consider Wagner's Tannhauser, that myth of the sacred and profane now on show at the Sydney Opera House. "There's a guy painted in gold (who) stands there with a giant erection - symbolises lust or something," Windschuttle said yesterday. "That kind of gratuitous offensiveness is almost everywhere."'

'But if McGuinness, an atheist, has had a soft spot for religious debate, Windschuttle is not feeling charitable towards luvvies. "I've become concerned in recent years about the cynicism and decadence that you get in the opera, in the theatre, in other parts of high culture - even the dance companies," he said.'

Wow, how exciting, how dare art offend. It seems as though Windschuttle is the kind of guy who arrives in a South East Asian country looking aghast at all the wooden erect penis' lying in caves (as I've found previously in Thailand) or on statues. Sounds like Quadrant's going to be heading into a seriously boring phase as it attempts to beat art into being less naughty and offensive.

I might rethink my subscription.

A Pack Of Whingers, Or The New McCarthyists?

If there's one issue of interest to today's conservative commentariat that consumes more of their time than any other it's bias, or "left-wing" bias to be more precise. They see it everywhere, on T.V, on radio, in newspapers, even in worms and it drives them nuts. Some evidence was on show this week when Andrew Bolt, Gerard Henderson and George Megalogenis got together (two aggressive conservatives and one purely economical one) on the lefty ABC (fancy that) where the first two got stuck into the worm and that champion of the left, Ray Martin:

ANDREW BOLT: That said, I suspect there's something dodgy about that worm. I accept what George said that perhaps it's measuring a voter boredom with John Howard, but for Kevin Rudd to simply draw breath and the worm goes skyrocketing upwards which literally occurred, suggests that Channel Nine wasn't quite honest in saying that this was a group of uncommitted swinging voters split right down the middle. I don't think that was the case and I think Channel Nine polluted the discussion of this debate and influenced poorly I think, the reception that that debate got.

GERARD HENDERSON: As I saw it, the worm sort of stood on its tail and gave Kevin Rudd a standing ovation even before he had started talking. I mean, this was not a group of swinging voters, unless you're talking about voters who are swinging for Kevin07. I mean this... and I think Channel Nine and those who put together the group have got some explaining to do. We don't really need lectures, unprofessional lectures from Ray Martin who is making serious allegations about the Liberal Party and the Government on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. I mean, if you went before Ray Martin and made that comment in an interview, he would ask you what your evidence is. But Ray Martin is making all these allegations about improper...

ANDREW BOLT: Hear, hear, Gerard, right on.

GERARD HENDERSON: ...about improper influence. There's no evidence of improper influence. What there is evidence from, is growing incompetence of Channel Nine, which I think a couple of years ago was the leading current affairs organisation in the country, and it's now slipping very rapidly. And if that's the best they can do, then they ought to have their act looked at. And then what then happens is when John Howard has got a very anti... a very hostile media, that kind of very unprofessional gig with the worm then runs into papers like The Age, which are hostile to the Government. 'Rudd's decisive win, 65 to 29'. Well, I thought John Howard didn't do badly.

TONY JONES: Your own main organ of record, the Sydney Morning Herald, did pretty much the same thing?

GERARD HENDERSON: No, much more professional, it didn't run that at all. have a look at the front page. I think the Sydney Morning Herald handled it well...

So what are the implications for Channel Nine now that they've upset the culture warriors? Well Bolt explains today:

'Attention, Ray: The issue at stake is not that of the right to speak, but of the right to a fair hearing. A hearing free for just a few minutes from Nine’s spin - and yours.
Nine’s disgraceful and, in my opinion, deceitful behaviour this past week also raises other issues.
Here’s one: How honest is this Left-lurching station, and how trustworthy its most famous face?'

Oh No! It seems that now Nine joins the ABC, SBS, Fairfax and countless journalists on the naughty naughty bias list.

'As the journalist-run club told the TV stations: “Clean feed of the debate to be available to all media outlets on condition live broadcast is not ‘wormed’ or otherwise changed . . .”
Why? Because the Liberals wanted viewers to be free to watch Howard (and Rudd) debate and draw their own conclusions, without some TV station first trying a stunt to manipulate opinions. '

Is Bolt serious? 'to manipulate opinions'? The most rational reason why Nine wanted a worm is because it's a commercial television station, hence why they love corny gimmicks like these to draw in the crowds. This is far from evidence of a left-wing conspiracy, it's evidence of what the ABC would be like were these guys to get their wish for it to be privatised. The conspiracy continues:

'You’d think Martin would have been pleased, given we read only last month he’d agreed to host a Labor fundraiser.'

Again, Oh No!!! A Labor fundraiser!

'It’s also true that for half the debate the Canberra journalists on the panel steered him on to topics of raging interest for Howard haters - reconciliation, global warming and Iraq - and well away from more practical concerns, such as hospitals, water and jobs for the next generation.'

Once again Oh NO!!! Those dam lefties in the panel! Who put comrade Paul Kelly there? What's alarming is how low Bolt appears to rate the Iraq war, global warming and reconciliation. "let's do away with such rubbish and get to more practical concerns" he cries.

And after all this whinging and alluding to a conspiracy of reds what in the end was the catalyst? A fucking worm. A bullshit gimmick of the sort we're all now very used to from commercial television. Their McCarthy-like behaviour has reached brand new heights all because of a little, silly, tiny worm. Of course Bolt's argument is completely overshadowed by the fact that the National Press Club pulled the feed to Channel Nine, intending for viewers screens to go black, because it had offended a political party.

A fucking worm.

Hall, The Greatest Acrobat There Is

Every now and then there is a man, a man so absolutely blinded by his politics and hatreds that he'll fail to see a bigot when it's before his very eyes. That man today is Iain Hall.

For a long time I've been pointing out to Iain that his association with blogs such as AWH and Crusader Rabbit isn't wise as these particular blogs belong to bigots of many varieties: religious, sexual and racial. But alas, he has never seen "proof" I was told. So even though I was able to provide comments such as these from KG at Crusader:

'You dishonest, slimy piece of dog excreta--the "stormy times" we're going to have are due to people who hate the identity your culture has (well, what's left of it anyway) and what you're saying is that you want to see the little that's left handed over to the primitive goat-humpers on a platter. Why not bend over and beg 'em to do to you what they do to goats? *spit*'

'Tell the whole goddam story about the "honour" killings and the radical imams and the vast army of primitive bastards who are living on welfare even as they destroy your culture--that's the only story that matters. You cowardly piece of shit.'

'Introduce an islamoloathing award, you retarded goat humpers and a lot of us would be lining up for one.'

Iain would cry NO!, this wasn't bigotry: 'In the context of the post KG’s anger is directed at the author he is critiquing and I’ sorry to say the Goat humping epithet is clearly not focused upon every Muslim at all, only those who want to re-create the world in a seventh century idiom.'

If he's not focused on every Muslim then what is this "vast army" that KG refers too? And considering that KG believes that there are no "moderate" Muslims then why would he differentiate between them? Iain had no answer.

Of course this is just one exchange in a long string. Iain has had to perform many a triple back flip to explain the behaviour of these friends he appears intent on defending to the end. The problem is that the problems just keep on a coming for Hall's position as demonstrated devastatingly by Hap recently.

Hap easily pulls back the bullshit "libertarianism" that people like KG and John Ray at AWH use to justify continually pushing the boundary deep into the realm of bigotry. These guys have abused the liberalism, as voiced by old conservative Gods like Hayek, by peddling overtly racist drivel in it's name. It's a telling feature of these people who've bent over backwards to out Hitler as a leftist that they, as rightists, have come so close in manner to the blatant bigotry that so epitomised The Third Reich. Billions of people are denounce due to their religion just as a whole race was dehumanised by Hitler. They peddle a vicious form of anti-leftism which can only be equated to that of Adolf. Anyone who strolls onto these blogs to give a dissenting opinion is abused and booted. They're lovely places.

Now I'm no appeaser of Islamic terrorists, but to distinguish between Islamic criminals and innocent Muslims is absolutely essential, yet I can't find a single entry at either of these blogs that does this. On the contrary, though Iain argues otherwise, they clearly state their belief that ALL Muslims are suspicious. In an environment where political correctness is so intensely loathed the forum is one where he who offends the most, garners the most praise. So if one feels hatred towards Islamic terrorists then why not accuse Islam in general? Why not accuse it's followers? Why not call them names like "goat humpers"? Why not blame everything on them (just as Hitler did with the Jews) and denounce every feature of their culture, religion and being? I mean, why not? It's is an expression of freedom of speech after all and they do hate them.

But the funny thing is that they don't appreciate liberalism at all. Just look at Crusader Rabbit's header:

'Radical islam has two allies here in the West - leftism and political correctness. The fight is with all three.'

So essentially the fight is against "leftism" and "PC", which are thrown in with "radical Islam" (it's amazing considering the content that they didn't just say "Islam", maybe they were more moderate in the beginning) as things which need to be equally fought. Which means that the fight is against divergent views as well as terrorism. I found out first hand:

'There's a lefty in comments seething and whining that we don't like debate.He's right, at least where lefties are concerned. This blog wasn't established to debate with leftists, it was founded to expose them for what they are, to ridicule them and heap derision on their empty heads.Comments by the occasional leftist are tolerated until we lose patience with them and that usually doesn't take very long.We've seen you lot for what you are--the enemy. As much as the jihadist with a bomb or the scumbags of Beslan. I'd be as happy to see you swinging by the neck as I would any other traitor or terrorist, since you lot have done more to undermine Western society than anything or anybody else in history.Now, piss off.'

Hitler would be proud as I'm sure Hall is.

Wormy Troubles

Things are definitely fishy when a channel loses it's feed of a political debate simply because it uses a worm. Conveniently for the Gov, that worm appeared to be cold on them that night:

'Nine Network news boss John Westacott has criticised the National Press Club and the ABC for "doing the bidding of the Liberal Party" when it pulled the network's election debate feed last night.

"It was a disgraceful performance," Westacott told ninemsn.
Westacott said Nine was warned twice — first by the public broadcaster's production chief and then by the Press Club's chief executive — that its live feed would be pulled if it continued using the worm, an interactive graphic that measures audience reaction to the speakers .'

'Westacott described the eventual decision to cut Nine's feed to the debate between Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition leader Kevin Rudd as "the most disgraceful act of censorship I've seen in 40 years of journalism".'

It's all a bit odd. Why should the ABC care if Nine uses the worm?

Press Club vice president Glen Milne said the political parties set the terms and conditions of the debate.
"We were chosen as the neutral venue and provider and the broadcasters, of their own free will, entered into agreements about those constraints as well," he said to the ABC.
"Now when Nine walked away from that agreement and used the worm, it breached an agreement it had with the parties, not with the National Press Club."

Concerning.

The Oz Kicks An Own Goal

The Australian's Cut & Paste decided today to give a sample of John Hartigan, chairman of News Limited, talking up the diversity of journalists at News Ltd papers. It hasn't appeared on the website for some reason (maybe someone panicked after giving it a good thought) but I tracked down the whole speech. Here's the section that was given:

'I read our newspapers every day. I look at the coverage of politics across the group, the tone and treatment of stories, the leaders, the views of our columnists and our contributors. There is no evidence of a blanket order from the top. Because there simply isn't one. What you will see is our people completely at odds with each other. Piers Akerman giving The Australian a spray and getting one back. Or Malcolm Farr, Denis Shanahan and Christopher Pearson separately taking a different stand from Paul Kelly, Janet Albrechtsen and Andrew Bolt. If we are following a script we are doing a very bad job.'

Geez! Would Rupert even need to give these guys a script!? Sure, they may disagree on minor details here or there but we can rest assured that they'll still all be voting for the Coalition this coming election. They certainly aren't "completely at odds with each other" as John argues, in fact they're pretty much completely behind each other.

Bravo!!!

Pop quiz.

1) An adviser of which government made the following statement?:

'Jews are the source of deadly diseases such as the plague and typhus.'

2) Which president consistently denies the Holocaust and once held a convention for Holocaust denial?

3) Which president vowed to 'wipe Israel off the map.'?

Of course the government is Iran's and the president is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A more openly anti-semitic bigot you are unlikely to find as the leader of a nation, and well deserving of the charge of incitement to genocide.

The article that got me thinking about it (as I figure that I must have been OS when this subject was debated) was Dore Gold's today in The Australian:

'As the horrors of the Holocaust sank into the conscience of the newly formed UN, this resolution evolved into a binding international treaty. The resulting convention, however, was conceived to punish the crime of genocide and to prevent genocide. To accomplish this goal, article three of the convention stated that "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" was a punishable act.'

There's no doubt that Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term 'genocide' and pushed for so long for the U.N to adopt the 'genocide' convention, would've believed Ahmadinejad to be the exact kind of leader that the convention was supposed to stop. It's ridiculous that he rails against Jews in the same way Hitler did, yet continues to be treated seriously.

'Actions in Canada against Ahmadinejad are particularly interesting. Irwin Cotler, Canada's former attorney-general, undertook legal proceedings in Canada against Rwandan Hutus involved in incitement to genocide. According to Cotler, Ahmadinejad's rhetoric was "as direct and public, clear and compelling" a case of incitement to genocide as he had seen, even in comparison with the Rwandan case. He did not leave this as a rhetorical judgment alone.'

What's interesting about this in the Australian context is who raised it:

'THE debate in Australia - kick-started by Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd last month - over the applicability of the genocide convention to the threats of mass murder made by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not only welcome. It is part of a larger global movement to find effective ways of stopping Iran from carrying out its declared plan to dominate its neighbours and wipe Israel off the map.'

So "stand for nothing" Rudd (who incidentally stands for varying policies in IR, health, communication, climate change and education) took a stand against someone who is clearly tyrannical. But, as with everything else, this went over their heads also (we know who they are).

Thoughts On Rudd

Every election time it's interesting to watch commentators barrack for their chosen sides. We all know that someone like Piers Ackerman will write himself into a frenzy of anti-whoever's in charge of the Labor Party vitriol, but usually the others remain more subdued in their attacks. Of course we all know who they'll be voting for, but they generally don't preach the Coalition line as transparently as Ackerman.

Janet Albrechtsen, as we all know, just adores this government. The hardest piece she's ever had to write entailed her advising the Liberal Party to drop Howard as leader, it was a real tear jerker and I'm sure one she'll never forget. Today she seems to have read straight from Howard's speech:

'The Prime Minister is undaunted by a presidential campaign. Indeed, on the day the real election campaign began, Howard pinpointed Rudd's weakness. As he said on Sunday when announcing the November 24 election, love him or loathe him, voters have always known where the PM stands on an issue and what he believes in. During the past decade he has earned himself a reputation as a conviction politician, tackling issues unfazed by the howls of opposition from some quarters. Witness his long-time involvement in the culture wars, his sponsorship of gun controls, the introduction of the GST, Australia's involvement in the Iraq war, the intervention into indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. Each was pursued because of Howard's conviction on these issues.'

Of course this is all presented in order to highlight that we know little about Rudd's convictions which is the latest Liberal Party line.

'By contrast, Rudd risks being labelled as a craven politician of convenience. That came to the fore last week with his opportunistic rebuke of Labor's foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland for stating Labor Party policy on its opposition to the death penalty.'

'Rudd's pursuit of me-tooism also reeks of opportunism. Rudd has pitched his copycat commitments as the sign of a sensible leader who will not oppose for opposition sake.'

And on it goes. Not just in the pages of The Australian but in the Herald Sun also with Andrew Bolt:

'He also copied Howard’s policy to send troops to Afghanistan, keep training troops in Iraq, and maintain logging levels in Tasmania. He even did a me-too on Howard’s May Budget.
How much of that was sincere? Take Rudd’s most recent me-toos - on the Government’s decisions to take in fewer African refugees, approve a pulp mill and keep up funds to private schools. Was that politics or principle?'

'Here’s a more troubling example. Just before last week’s Bali bombing anniversary, Rudd ran into strife over his policy to lobby everywhere against the death penalty, even for terrorists.
He responded not only by junking his policy, but by waving a Liberal document on TV, and protesting: “The Liberal Party’s policy, like Labor’s policy, is identical.”
Identical to Howard’s? That’s all right then. But who will Rudd copy when Howard is gone?'

That last sentence is now fairly popular.

What's evidently clear here is that Rudd's strategy is driving these people mad. Howard has had many attempts at wedging Kev but he simply will not bite, and he's smart not to. Howard's past is full of these little stunts and they've nearly always worked, so it would seem that Kev has been paying close attention. Now he may not be please with some of the decisions he's had to make, but politics sometimes requires such sacrifices from those in charge of major parties. What everyone should be aware of is how far to the right Australian society has swung under Howard. A Paul Keating simply wouldn't get in now, let alone a Bob Brown.

But before the Iain Hall's of the blogosphere cry "so he's a liar then!" they should consider Howard (the conviction politician) when he's been at work in the past. Does he really now believe in AGW, or is it politically necessary for him to now accept it and act? There's simply no difference in behaviour here, the same people lambasting Rudd for recognising what's politically safe acknowledge (with some relief) that this is all Howard is doing in regards to AGW. So this provokes me to ask, so what?

Robert Manne sums it up nicely:

“I think that we will only know what the Rudd government will do in three or four years time because at the moment the Rudd government is avoiding the kind of polemical stoushes with Howard because it knows it can’t win ... when he gets into government then we’ll begin to see the differences again.”

When you read what Rudd has written in the past (his Monthly essays) you realise that this will be the most likely outcome. Does anyone seriously believe that Rudd would pull a Tampa? Does anyone seriously believe that Rudd would dream up Work Choices? Does anyone seriously think that Rudd would be as hostile to symbolic actions when addressing reconciliation? Clearly Rudd is very far from another Howard.

Five Words From Honesty

Of course this news doesn't surprise us anymore:

'UP to $61 million of taxpayers' money has been allocated by the Howard Government to promote Work Choices over the past four months in a bid to neutralise the ACTU campaign against the workplace laws.'

'A government spokeswoman would confirm only that the latest figures showed $23 million of the $61million allocated had been spent by August 8. Since then, there have been countless government ads on television and other media.'

When we all know that this is just more of our money being wasted on partisan political propaganda the Government conveniently comes just five words from admitting its crime:

'But the Government insisted the spending was necessary to rebut the ACTU "scare campaign".'........ to improve it's election chances.

What other reason could there possibly be for such a frenzied spend fest prior to an election? Where is the disgust from conservatives over this behaviour? (....crickets)

Hypocrites.