The Loony Right

Now we're all familiar with that favourite phrase of the Right 'the loony Left', but what else could we call this other than evidence of the existence of a loonier Right.

Norman Podhoretz proclaims that the Iraq war has been: '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.'

Amazing stuff. Unfortunately the claim that Saddam shipped his WMD to Syria is a popular one and well proliferated on aggressively patriotic U.S blogs, but come on......I mean really?

Let's say you're Saddam Hussein and you've just pissed off the most powerful country in the world, do you quickly send away your best defences, or do you use them? It's a no brainer.

The loon goes on:

'For somebody who declares democracy to be his goal, he is remarkably blase that 80 per cent of Iraqis want US troops to leave their country, according to the latest polls. "I don't much care," he says, batting away the question. He goes on to insist that "nobody was tortured in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo" and that Bush is "a hero". He is, like most people on this cruise, certain the administration will attack Iran. "I keep telling people we are in world war four," Podhoretz declares.'

Now don't try and tell me that the Left have a monopoly on the title 'loony'.

The Aboriginal Blueprint Debate

Noel Pearson writes again in The Australian today on Howard's new blueprint to tackle abuse in Aboriginal communities. It's once again a heartfelt piece from Pearson, and although the first byte The Australian presented on it's front page was very misleading, it was pretty straight down the line.

'Whatever view we take, my thought is this: what policies do we need so that all avoidable suffering is avoided in our society? We cannot remove evil from the world and I am not basing our hopes of escaping avoidable suffering on supra-human powers. I am asking us to use our considerable human powers to escape avoidable suffering.'

'This is a question for social policy: are our policies maximising the avoidance of such suffering? My answer is no. There is too much misery - chiefly endured by the disadvantaged in our society, the lowest classes - that is avoidable. And we do not need to achieve a socialist nirvana to relieve this suffering.'

Questions still arise though as to whether we are going about this in the right way. There are mixed feelings in Aboriginal communities, and Pearson certainly doesn't speak for all of Indigenous Australia. Lumping each community in the same bag will prove to be a mistake, I believe, if they choose to take a hard line position across the board. Some seem to just need the extra resources rather than teams of soldiers and police. It's amazing that an "emergency" had to be called for them to realise this.

But in some communities the fear is real and the security most welcome. I fail to see how a boost in security in these terrified communities is a bad thing. When crimes are occurring right now, police are needed right now, this is as plain as day.

On another note The Australian seems to have completely about faced!!!!!!!!

'It is crucial that debate not be shut down by suggesting that anyone who critiques any aspect of the Government's actions is, ipso facto, supporting child abuse or maintenance of the status quo.'

Considering that they were becoming the pioneers of this action, I find this incredible, good, but incredible. They can listen to reason after all.

Chavez, No Hero.

If there's one thing that really annoys me about a few folks on the Left, it's the praise some will heap on people like Hugo Chavez, or Fidel Castro for that matter.

These people are certainly NOT the great men some try to make them out to be.

Take this story for example:

"The Brazilian President (Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva) has declared his atomic energy initiatives, and Brazil has a right to do that as well. Who knows, maybe Venezuela will ultimately follow suit."

I'm sure that many of his fans aren't very keen for any more countries to be building nuclear industries, and I can't help but wonder what statements such as this, if coming from someone like Howard, would draw in the way of criticism from the those same folks who cheer Chavez on. It's the inconsistency that bothers me.

Also: 'Mr Chavez said he wanted a "multi-polar" world in which "real freedom" was possible as opposed to "American freedom", which he characterised as the right to "threaten other nations and destroy cities".'

Well I think American freedom may be a little more than that. Yes, the U.S has been aggressive of late but they certainly hold more freedoms than Chavez's Venezuela.

Where's The Outrage?!

While reading some of the recently released details of the C.I.A's 'family jewels' even I'm a tad shocked. In The Australian today an article ran on what the files called a 'potentially embarrassing Agency activity':

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21980496-2703,00.html

Apparently, aquiring a four year old child so they could be " ...tested, trained, and used in various ways. Electroshock, drugs, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, and other types of trauma were used to make me complain and split my personality (to create multiple personalities for specific tasks). Each alter or personality was created to respond to a post-hypnotic trigger, then perform an act and (I would) not remember it later" is only 'potentially embarrassing'.

So were we the good guys?

At It Again?

Today Greg Sheridan, in The Australian, has a go at all the usual evil Lefties who dare to query the new Howard plan:

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/gregsheridan/index.php/theaustralian/comments/ditch_politics_when

Apparently to question the detail is to politicise the issue. Funny how attacking the NT for not acting quick enough isn't a politicisation of the issue. Considering that the reality of these camps has been known well before this report, haven't all governments, state and federal, not reacted quickly enough?

I agree with the vast majority of what Pearson has to say, I think it's hard not to, as do many who question parts of the plan. Anyone who objects to sudden and dramatic intervention has to reflect on the decades of failure and the product of that failure, but to lambaste 'The Left' as Sheridan does (because they always speak in generalities) for raising questions is itself a politicisation of the issue. It serves to merely drag the whole thing into the swamp of the culture war. Such as these remarks:

"His genuine moral and intellectual clarity show the utter feebleness of what passes for intellectual life on most of the Left."

"Disciples all of the Robert Manne school of Howard as the ultimate incarnation of evil in government, they are not only morally but intellectually and analytically blinded by their detestation of Howard so that anything he proposes, they oppose and demonise.
Anyone who thinks Howard all good or all bad is nuts. He’s a normal politician, just like Rudd, who will generally try to govern in the national interest as well as his political interest. Pearson doesn’t suffer under the delusions of the Australian Left. Though he craves and needs no accolades, the integrity of what he has said on this occasion may well be one of the most important political statements in our history."

Well let's say that Sheridan couldn't help himself, it is The Australian after all. Over there they like nothing better than to stick the boots into Robert Manne. He's made the whole paper look quite foolish on many occasions. Manne doesn't like Howard this is true, but to claim him as blinded by his "hatred" of Howard is just hyperbole. Manne's writings don't come within a inch of the aggressive, tormented attacks performed by some of the more notorious conservative commentators. They hate him because he hurts, simple. Furthermore, I'm not aware that Manne has said a thing about this plan.

Then Sheridan becomes confused when he admits that it's possible that Howard is acting in his own political interests??? Isn't this where most have taken issue with what some on the Left have said? Including yesterdays editorial?

And of course todays shocking editorial:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21980508-7583,00.html

" Those who would rather see children continue to suffer than for the Howard plan to succeed should be ashamed of themselves."

Of course in true Australian editorial fashion zero evidence is provided that those who question would rather see the plan fail, this is unfortunately common for this particular paper. Nor is any evidence provided for this:

"This time, however, the divide is not along party-political lines, with the Opposition under Kevin Rudd maintaining bipartisan support. Instead, the dissenters represent a coalition of people united by their blind hatred of the Howard Government."

Really??? United by their blind hatred of the Howard Government???

You dare not raise an iota of criticism against this plan people of Australia, or you're merely displaying your blind hatred of the Howard Government. Just shut up!!!!!

Looks May Be Deceiving

With all this drama concerning the governments radical new plan to address sexual (and general) abuse in Aboriginal communities I can't help but feel that we're being invited to double think. Ever since the 'Children are Sacred' report was handed to the government, it appears that only now are they aware of the disgraceful situation in some of these communities. Weren't we always aware?

This question leads me to do what's become in the conservative press the ultimate taboo, and that is to question the timing. No, they didn't commission the report, but it's incredibly naive to think that Howard wasn't aware of the political advantage such action may present. After all, we are talking about a government that showed no qualms in using desperate asylum seekers as political footballs during the course of an election year, so keeping this in mind, is it so inconceivable that this action may hide at least an iota of an ulterior motive? To simply muse on such a thing now appears to be completely outrageous. Howard's suddenly above politics, and to question the long term sincerity, or any of the fine details for that matter, is to be condemned.

I mainly read The Australian, a Right-wing rant of a paper if there ever was one. They've been characteristically aggressive in their attacks on all criticisms of the plan, no matter how small. Starting with Glenn Milne on Monday bashing all those who dared to dissent, then followed up by yesterday's editorial: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21966369-7583,00.html

"The very notion of seeking political opportunity by exploiting the tragic circumstances exposed by the Northern Territory's investigation into sexual abuse in indigenous communities is repugnant."

It's certainly a repugnant thing for a politician to do, they have that right, but isn't it strange that the Pacific Solution never drew such a statement from the majority of those on the Right. In fact it drew cheers even though it was so transparently done for political gain. What's the moral difference? It goes on in typical Australian fashion:

"For critics of the Howard plan, indigenous disadvantage is less a debate about rights and responsibilities than a clamour to wallow in what is portrayed as the superior virtue of the oppressed."

The attention on the abysmal circumstances that these people live in is excellent news and well overdue, but to attack those who question aspects of it as somehow morally bankrupt is ridiculous. Personally I support the plan, something dramatic must be done, but using desperate people as pawns unfortunately has a precedent in the Howard government.