Andrew's Is Losing It!!!

When you in the Howard governemnt and even Andrew Bolt has turned against you, you know you're in trouble:

'When the case against Haneef collapsed, Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews nevertheless ruled he wouldn’t reinstate the visa of Haneef, who had to leave Australia:

"But unless there is some material difference in the information provided to me by the Federal Police, then obviously my decision continues to stand and that is that doctor Haneef failed the character test and should be removed from Australia."

But when Haneef indeed leaves Australia Andrews concludes this must be a sign of his guilt:

“If anything, that actually heightens rather than lessens my suspicion,” he said.
Heads you lose, tails I win.

If Andrews really does have secret information implicating Haneef as an extremist, he’d better release it fast. Right now he’s looking like a dill.

And the 60 Minutes interview with Haneef last night makes Haneef seem not just an innocent guy, but a lovely man. '

Indeed he did. While watching Haneef's interview I thought that if this guy's a terrorist, I've been picturing them all wrong. Do terrorists cry over how the parents of terrorists might feel after watching their children commit, or attempt, atrocities?

And how can Andrew's suspicion be 'heightened' because Hannef chose to go home to see the daughter he's has never seen due to his incarceration? Would anybody in their right mind find such an act suspicious!?

Andrews needs to fess up with the inside info or it's time for some government accountability.

Ataturk Pulls A Shifty

I read an article yesterday in The Age about a writer called Ipek Calislar who wrote a biography on Ataturk's wife Latife Usakizade. It proved popular enough to sell 90,000 copies but once she'd written the book she was prosecuted for the heinous crime of "insulting Ataturk".

You see, the book contained a story of how Ataturk escaped a veritable siege on his home by mutinous soldiers who desired to kill him. His wife came up with the idea to dress Ataturk up in women's clothes, namely the chador (head to toe Muslim garb), in order for him to be released with the women and children while his wife, dressed as Ataturk, continued to walk past the windows thus fooling the surrounding mutiny. After a spell Ataturk returned with his soldiers and disposed of the rabble. Bloody genius I thought!!! But I was apparently wrong!!

"The idea that the father of today's secular state a) did not laugh at death, b) dressed in women's clothing and c) religious drag at that, was too much," writes American journalist Andrew Finkel, who has lived in Istanbul for 20 years.'

And here I thought I was reading a masterful plan to fool a group of determined soldiers who wished to kill the man. If this story were told of Ned Kelly I'm sure we'd think it was brilliant. How different the world's cultures can be.

So Much Manne Love

Australian conservatives hate Robert Manne. Indeed their hatred for him seems, at times, and obsession.

Andrew Bolt hates him:

Bolt wrote piece after piece on the 'Stolen Generations propagandist Robert Manne' and how this leftist intellectual was propagating the 'myth' of the Stolen Generations with zero evidence. The catalyst for Bolt's obsession was a Quarterly Essay written by Manne called 'The Stolen Generations and the Right' which dealt with the shrill denials from every conservative you can imagine that the Stolen Generation was a provable fact. The problem for Bolt was, and still is, that it is a provable a fact.

Bolt's attacks on Manne reached a fever pitch at about mid last year when he decided he'd debate Manne on the evidence for the 'myth' in question. It was a sight to behold, I know because I was there. Bolt seemed to actually believe that he could apply the same tricks and distortions he used in his columns to the debate but there was one problem, Manne would this time be allowed to reply.

By the end of Manne's speech Bolt was finished on the issue. Manne gave him a massive dossier of documentary evidence detailing the policy, including numbers of children taken and reasons why. The audience was also given an address with which to look it up ourselves. The dossier sat in front of him throughout the rest of the debate as if mocking every word he had to say. "Name ten!" he cried and Manne would just point to the papers. Bolt's been unusually silent on this issue ever since.

The Australian hates him:

For a long, long time the good people at the Oz have loved nothing more than to have a crack at Manne. A recent example is the infamous attack on the 'Psycho Left' only a couple of months ago. It was a broad swipe at a few public intellectuals who had dared to claim that certain actions performed by the Howard Government had 'silenced dissent' (Silencing Dissent being a title of a recent book). The problem with the attack was that it was pure hate rather than rational argument. The book in question holds many chapters from a range of authors which deal with things ranging from the governments vigorous plugging of leaks to it's treatment of those who criticise it publicly. I began reading it with scepticism, but finished it firmly believing that it had successfully made it's case. The Australian though, distorted it's argument and implied that the book's thesis was that leftist voices are gagged Stalin style.

Manne replied with a letter, which they unfairly edited, and they responded with this. Manne went from defending himself against their juvenile attack to an apologist, even admirer, of terrorists within one day. They'd so distorted what he'd written in the past that Raymond Gaita wrote in his defense, which they unfairly edited, and Gaita was forced to write again to clear the editing 'mistake'. Eventually Manne was allowed a full reply which exposed the ridiculous distortions made by the Oz against him.

The funny thing is that Manne only wrote the introduction to Silencing Dissent. He'd merely summarised the books arguments and had added a few minor comments of his own, yet instead of tackling the entire book, it's arguments and the many authors within it they almost entirely focused on Manne. It's an obsession.

Christopher Pearson hates him:

Recently Pearson wrote some scathing articles on Manne's apparent love of 'the noble savage' by addressing comments he'd made in a book review in The Monthly. Pearson spent two weeks on this, so it wasn't just a passing issue for him. Here, and Here. In his last one he attempted to argue that Manne had brushed over claims made in Louis Nowra's Bad Dreaming in order to paint pre-contact Aboriginal life as Utopian and assert that infant sexual abuse wasn't widespread in Aboriginal culture. The problem was that it was Pearson who had taken liberties with Nowra's work, as Manne successfully cleared up today :

'After Pearson's article appeared, I emailed Nowra with detailed questions concerning his evidence. I received an unanticipated reply.

"I have now read Pearson's article. I thought my position was clear. All sources, from the First Fleet marines onwards, right through to the anthropologists, pointed out that Aboriginal children were treated so well and with such loving that some white commentators thought their upbringing was too libertarian ... The important thing is this: the horrors that are meted out to some poor Aboriginal children (both girls and boys, from the age of mere babies) were totally unnatural in pre-contact Aboriginal life. My point was that some sexual abuse and violence towards women is a pathological distortion of pre-contact life. As for the abuse of young children it has no traditional base."

Following Nowra's email, Pearson has two alternatives. He can accept that concerning my critique of Nowra, his case is completely false. Alternatively, he can claim that Nowra has failed to understand the argument of his own book. '

Ouch! So what is it about Manne that draws such derision from the Right? Why is it that when Manne simply writes a review he is attacked. Why can he not write an introduction to a book and not be stomped on by the usual suspects? There's just too much Manne love on the Right these days.

More Logic From Planet Janet

Janet is quoted in Cut & Paste today railing against those fools who think The Australian has a right-wing bias:

'ONE of the problems with those peddling the line that there's some sort of wicked bias at The Australian is that they've really failed to grasp that there has been an incredibly important political realignment over the last decade over a range of issues.
We're now questioning multiculturalism, we're talking more openly about what it means to be a citizen, on education, on economics and on welfare and, indeed, on indigenous welfare and politics. There has been a huge shift, and I think that those who rail against The Australian have simply failed to catch up.... '

'The Australian reflects very much those mainstream Australian views. And I think the people on the Left who constantly rail against some sort of nasty bias emanating from The Australian newspaper simply haven't caught up with what's happened in Australia over the last decade.'

What breathtaking logic! Let's put aside the fact that The Australian has played an active part in swaying public opinion to the Right on the very issues Janet mentions and focus on the rationale. By using this logic, it would be quite alright for the ABC or The Age to demonstrate a left-wing bias as long as the majority of the population is left-wing. Indeed, she doesn't even try to defend The Australian against such allegations she merely attempts to justify it's slant by claiming that since Australia is a right-wing country, The Australian should be a right-wing paper. Anyone who disagrees with this view has simply 'failed to catch up'.

Since those at The Australian appear proud enough of their Janet's defense to quote it in Cut & Paste we can expect to see more editorial attacks on left-wing 'psycho's' and 'coalitions of the whining' and a continued unbalanced Cut & Paste and Opinion because after all, it's merely representing the majority view.

.........Oh and they've got Philip Adams!!

Albrechtsen In A Bind

Janet Albrechtsen's column today was a pisser.

She's clearly uncomfortable with the way the Haneef case is unfolding, yet appears even more uncomfortable with being on the same side as the civil libertarians:

'ONE need not venture anywhere near the intellectual wasteland of civil libertarians and their academic, legal and media boosters to believe that there is something dreadfully wrong with the unravelling case against detained terrorist suspect Mohamed Haneef.'

And in case you had any doubts:

'If the Howard Government fails to grasp that the growing unease over the handling of the case against Haneef is not confined to the lunatic libertarians, it risks undermining the case for anti-terrorism laws, destroying the Government's credibility on national security and weakening its claim on the next election. '

So she agrees that in this instance they have a point and that the case has been a travesty so far, but she's at pains to remind us that she despises the 'lunatic libertarians'. Her usual audience need not fear because her siding on this with such lunatics is an anomaly. Once again she hammers it home:

'Australia was on the verge of becoming a totalitarian state, said the civil libertarians who appear more concerned with the liberty of terrorists to go about their bomb-making business than the right of the rest of us to go about our more mundane pursuits.'

What's this got to do with Haneef? Nothing! But it reminds us that she hates those civi libis.

'But for progressives, the "out of control" Government was "exercising a monstrous abuse of power and public faith". Recalling parliament was, said Greens leader Bob Brown, "a black day in prime ministerial abuse of the people of this nation. It is disgusting." '

Again where's the connection? Nowhere! They're crap that's all.

'So far we have Haneef's SIM card, which authorities claimed was used in the failed Glasgow bomb attack, turning up hundreds of kilometres away in Liverpool, and other major inconsistencies between the police record of interview, leaked to The Australian, and material presented by the Australian Federal Police to a Queensland magistrate during Haneef's bail hearing. And, ouch, Britain's Metropolitan Police is laughing at the AFP for overseeing such a "major cock-up". '

Oh that's right you agree with the lunatics on this one don't you Janet.

'The same goes for the headline-hunting and opportunistic band of lawyers who peddle schlock horror stories about anti-terrorism laws. After all, these guys would be the first to launch class actions against the Government and authorities in the event of a terrorist attack. You can't win these people over. They have been waiting to dance on the grave of Australia's terrorism laws since those laws were enacted. '

Yeah we know, but you hate them anyway.

Mugabe's A Legend......

...ary wanker!!




Zimbabwe is clearly on the edge of complete collapse with poor locals fleeing the declining conditions into South Africa where they are hunted down and sent back, only to turn straight around again. A local explains the situation succinctly:

'"We paid someone 100 South African rand ($A16.40) to take us from the Zimbabwean side to the South African side, but then we met robbers and they took all our money," said Mr Vandira, 20, a jobless builder who wants a job to support his elderly mother back home.
"They had a pistol and clubs and they beat my friend, so his tooth has been knocked loose," he said. "Yes, it's a risk, but it is better than being in Zimbabwe."

Meanwhile the tyrant Mugabe keeps the craziness coming by forcing retailers to slash their prices causing shops to empty without the ability to re-stock. The situation appears to be reaching it's dire end:

'I snatched up two packets of bacon. I don't eat bacon from one year to the next.
We are all behaving abnormally. Because we all know that before long there will be nothing left in the shops and there will be no fuel and we will have to hunt around the black market for food and fuel, and even that is bound to dry up and then everything will stop.
Everyone knows that what the Government of Robert Mugabe is doing is not just bungling, not just senseless -- but mad.
It feels as though we are slipping, out of control, God only knows into what.'

With all the noble statements regarding the need to intervene in Iraq in order to help Iraqi's (albeit after no weapons were found), I'm sure Zimbabweans wonder where we are on this one. Or the Sudanese for that matter.

Haneef So Far

This story has been incredible so far. Let's go through the events and false claims, let me know if I've missed any.

1) Haneef's arrested apparently fleeing the country with a one way ticket without informing his place of work.

False. He did inform his work after all and gave the completely acceptable explanation that his wife had just given birth and he wanted to see his family. His father had booked the one way ticket as well, and this was after Haneef had called police in Britain to explain why they had his SIM.

2) His SIM was found in the car which crashed into Glasgow airport. The accusation was hence made that the SIM was intended to trigger a bomb.

False. The SIM was found in his cousins apartment with the person Haneef admitted giving it to. He had also explained that the reason he gave the SIM to his cousin was because it was still active and he did not want to waste it. Also, it appears there's no evidence that it was at all intended for use in the attack, let alone Haneef actually being aware of this possibility.

3) Police made the claim that Haneef used to live with his two second cousins in England.

False. As Haneef had informed them in the interview he had never lived with the two men.

4) The Murdoch tabloids splashed all over their front covers that Haneef was surveying a possible target on the Gold Coast. Pictures of buildings foundations were found etc....

False. As Keelty informed everyone yesterday this accusation is wrong.

5) Police claimed that Haneef had Kafeel Ahmed's details in his diary and asked Haneef the hand writing was his own.

False. The hand writing wasn't his and neither were Kafeels details in his diary. Keelty has recently come out to deny that police had written in the diary which makes it an odd exchange. I can't for the life of me grasp what that conversation means given this denial.

Haneef may be guilty of something, but this episode so far is just ridiculous. It surely isn't instilling faith from the public in the AFP or our new terror laws. Gerard Henderson attempts explain it all:

' The events which took place in Britain are of utmost seriousness. There could have been many hundreds or thousands died as a result of those attacks, which didn't succeed.
At a time of acute awareness about national security both in Britain and also to some extent in Australia, it's not unreasonable that the federal police should act cautiously in relation to these matters, should put someone up on trial, they have to produce the evidence. This is not unusual. In the criminal jurisdiction, these matters go on every day. There are people being put away tonight, against whom there is some evidence and some disputed evidence, they'll go up on trial, have a bail application. There's nothing unusual about Mohamed Haneef, except he's created a lot of media attention. '

Also except he was granted bail then had his visa revoked as a consequence but other than that he might be right. A good explanation for this circus was given by Waleed Aly today:

'Only last week, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock neatly encapsulated this democratic impulse when interrogated about the fairness of Haneef's treatment, responding: "You would be asking me different types of questions if we found out later that there were avenues of inquiry that could have been pursued ... and some terrible event happened in Australia."
Ruddock is undoubtedly correct, which only demonstrates that it is politically safer in the face of a terror threat for a democratic government to overreact, even if it is strategically unwise. Even the Opposition is hamstrung, and supports the Government's conduct at every turn. It wouldn't dare do anything else.
Western politicians assure us of their toughness on terror. They have little choice. It is harder in a democracy to show strategic restraint. If only politicians were rewarded for being smart on terror. '

Crusader Rabbit Warns Against Debate

A few days ago I travelled over to Crusader Rabbit to have a look at what was going on over the other side and presumed that debate would be encouraged, I was badly mistaken.

What followed was an aggressive string of comments from the Rabbit team because I'd committed a cardinal sin, I argued with them!!!!!!!!! This egregious crime had them so riled up that KG obviously felt that he desperately needed to put an end to this debate business and posted this as a new topic:

'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.'

Fair enough I thought. Who'd dare to call these guys fascist, huh?

So because of this amazing example of the fundamental tolerance and all round goodness possessed by the Right I'm going to put these guys in my links. If ever you feel like some fun I suggest you jump on over and give them my regards.

Twisty, twisty

Sometimes you can hear Sheridan think. In the case of Dr Haneef he's written a detailed defense of....Oh... go on...... guess:

'If any part of our system has performed badly here, it is the courts for refusing to implement the intention of the legislation, which is that bail should be rare in terrorism cases. This judgment of the legislature is shared by Howard and Rudd. So is the civil liberties section of the legal profession telling us not only that they are well motivated, whereas the politicians are malevolently motivated, but that they, the lawyers, understand the threat of terrorism better than the political system understands it?'

I'd say that in this case the lawyers understand the law better than the 'political system' understands it. As far as I'm aware, bail in a terrorism case is able to be granted in exceptional circumstances. Well I'd call a fundamental lack of evidence pretty exceptional, as did the magistrate when she noted that no evidence was provided that implicated Haneef with a terrorist act. But that doesn't matter to Sheridan:

'These included that Haneef was charged with a serious crime and was a known associate of people Andrews had reason to believe were engaged in criminal activity. There were also reasons Andrews could not disclose, but we know that these involved AFP investigations that showed Haneef was in frequent and elaborate contact with people at the centre of the British terrorism investigations. There is other material that, despite the best efforts of a robust media, we have not yet found out.'

So he was charged with 'recklessly' giving his SIM to his second cousin because it still had credit, though there's no evidence this SIM was used, or intended for use, in a criminal act. He 'was a known associate' of people 'Andrews had reason to believe were engaged in criminal activity'. In other words he's known to have known his second cousin who may have been involved in a crime. There's also some other unreleased 'reasons' that we'll have to just take Andrew's word for, but we know he kept in 'frequent and elaborate' contact with his second cousin, the last such time being after the birth of his child and prior to that in March or April.

As you can see, the case is open and shut.

Thankfully Mike Steketee talked some sense:

'When AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty announced on Saturday that Haneef had been charged with providing resources to a terrorist group, he said: "The specific allegation regards recklessness rather than intention, the allegation being that he was reckless about some of the support he provided to that group (in Britain), in particular the provision of his SIM card for the use of the group." In other words, the allegation against Haneef is that he didn't know but should have known that he was dealing with terrorists.'

'Even if you accept that, the resources that he provided were not bomb components or a suicide vest: it was a British SIM card, left behind when he came to Australia.
The group or organisation mentioned in the charge refers to brothers Sabeel Ahmed and Kafeel Ahmed, who are Haneef's second cousins and two of the suspects in Britain. Haneef effectively stands accused of failing to be his cousins' keeper, a notion that should frighten relatives everywhere.

One of the documents used by Andrews says that Haneef and one of the brothers corresponded in online chat rooms, most recently "following the birth of Haneef's child" on June 26. The previous occasion had been in March or April. That hardly suggests active involvement in a terrorist plot.

As reported on Tuesday, Cameron Stewart of this newspaper was told there had been more frequent contacts. Keim says police did not put this to Haneef in interviews. "There can be no operational reasons to keep it secret," he says. "Why would you keep secret evidence that you have showing that there are greater links between the two brothers and the cousin when all of them are in custody?"

Keim also points out that when Haneef tried to leave the country, he was travelling in his own name and he was going to Bangalore, where his wife and newborn child live.

The Andrews documents add that he informed his employer at Southport Hospital where he was going. Even if the timing of his departure raises suspicions, his actions were hardly those of a person desperate to avoid detection.

As Donald Rumsfeld once famously put it, perhaps there are things we don't know we don't know. Haneef's lawyers are appealing to the Federal Court against Andrews's decision and the Government has the option of providing further information. Although this opens up an avenue of independent review, it is on the narrow grounds of whether Haneef passes the character test under the Migration Act. The court will not rule on whether he should have received bail on a criminal charge, let alone on the merits of the charge against him.

So far, the prosecution has constructed a case based on guilt by association. As we learned in the McCarthy era, when many innocent people were smeared as communists, that is a slippery slope. Sometimes democracy does not provide an adequate safeguard against sliding down it, as Kevin Rudd's unwillingness to say boo about any aspect of the handling of this case demonstrates.

Virtual Johnny

This should get those kids interested and voting Liberal.

He kinda looks like a superhero!

For How Long Can We Take It?

Must we accept from now on the constant abuse of power shown every election year in the funding of partisan political advertising with tax payer funds? State Labor do it, federal Labor even did it, but no government in the history of the country has spent even close to the amount the Howard government has. Their new add to counter possible voter backlash against their new industrial relations laws is a disgrace.

We're greeted by a public servant who's been put in, what is clearly, a partisan position telling us that what we've been hearing about the new laws isn't true. They're good, fair and she's there to protect us, but isn't this yet another step further? Not only must we pay for this Liberal party advertisement but we must endure a public servant preaching a Liberal party line. Do they think we're stupid? Hockey thinks so:

'Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey last night rejected Labor's claims, with a spokeswoman saying it was appropriate and responsible for public servants to explain government policies. '

Yes Joe it's fine for them to explain government policy but this isn't all she's doing. Workplace authority chief Barbara Bennett states at the beginning of the add:

'"The biggest myth is that employees are alone and unprotected, and that's just not true." '

This is clear tackling of a political issue, had she simply spoke of her job and what the authority does then she would have remained impartial, though even had she done just this it would still have been a tax payer funded Liberal party advertisement.

My question is what will the catalyst be? To what heights will the government be allowed to go before this ridiculous practise is ceased?

Crap!!! He Got Out On Bail!!! Oh Well, Put Him In Villawood

Australia is the lucky country. Because it's lucky that when the courts fail us and don't lock up what are obvious terrorists we can always fall back on our immigrant detention system.

After being granted bail in a court Dr Mohamed Haneef has had his visa revoked because he failed a 'character test' and is now being removed to Villawood. Apparently, even though the court determined that 'there was no evidence to suggest Haneef had any direct association with a terrorist organisation, or that the SIM card he had given to the brother of one of the accused UK bombers had been used in a terrorist attack' he's still such a threat that he must be instantly dealt with and shipped to detention.

Immigration Minister Andrews said:

'"Based on information and advice I have received from the Australian Federal Police I reasonably suspect that Dr Haneef has had or has an association with persons involved in criminal conduct namely terrorism,"'

I'd better watch out considering that I've had an association with someone who later became involved in criminal conduct, though I wasn't aware that he was planning it when we were 5 years old and unlike Haneef we weren't related so there's no excuse!!!!! Not that that helped him any.

This is a joke. Either he's committed a crime and they've evidence of this or he hasn't and they don't. They've thrown everything at this guy, they've sack his house and held him for days without charge, the media's spread many a false fact concerning the manner of his arrest and thrown his face around the nation and this is what it comes to.

What's becoming of the West? Are we sacrificing our long held liberties on the alter of security?

UPDATE:

For those who watched Andrews on the 7:30 report last night it was devastatingly clear that he was far from certain whether Haneef's association with his second cousin was 'sinister'. This is terribly illuminating.

UPDATE 2:

They've figured it out. Ms Payne is one of those magistrates!!!!! A judicial activist maybe? A possible 'lefty' with a history of disagreeing with police! Shocking!

UPDATE 3:

This is what's it all comes down to:

'ALA national director and Perth barrister, Tom Percy, QC, said when the Government was able to usurp the decision of a magistrate, the rule of law no longer applied.
"A judicial officer has heard the case in regards to Dr Haneef and has granted him nominal bail," said Mr Percy.
"The magistrate heard both sides of the case and the minister should not circumvent that.
"The separation of powers must apply. If there was any evidence presented to the court that this man was a significant risk at any level he would never have been granted bail.
"If the prosecution disagreed with the decision to grant Dr Haneef bail, they could appeal that decision in the Supreme Court but we have seen no evidence of that taking place.
"Instead, the Federal Government has taken away this man's right to a fair hearing."'

No doubt those of us who've expressed concern at the government's actions will be labelled as terrorist appeasers of the 'chattering classes' (you know who you are), but it's not about whether he's guilty or innocent. It's about the precedent in that any migrant may now be deported once any tenuous link is found between themselves and possible criminals. How is this fair?

Can We Leave?

I've never been convinced of the case for leaving Iraq as it is. I was against the war as it was my opinion that a unilateral U.S invasion would compound the problem and affirm the crusader image that Al-Quaeda likes to proliferate, but is leaving now the correct option? Don't we hold great responsibilities as the invading countries to ensure that Iraq doesn't descend into more death, and more mayhem?

Some question whether it could be worse, but I believe it could be a great deal worse if security were to suddenly decline to allow these people to hold sway:

'Gunmen in a second car, seeing Hassan on his phone, pulled forward and fired two fatal shots into Hassan's head and neck.
The murderous turmoil in Baghdad has reached a point where many families never know the killers of their loved ones, or their motives. Sunni insurgents? Shiite militias? Killers that mimic one or the other, while pursuing private motives of greed, spite, or revenge? Or, in Hassan's case, the nature of his employment, which placed him doubly at risk: as an Iraqi journalist, and as an Iraqi working for Americans?'

These stories are by now common in Iraq, it's a horrible situation, but if we leave what's in store? What's the prediction for it's future from those who want forces to quit Iraq?

I realise that many in the U.S.A are sick of the lives lost on their side and would rather their people home and safe, but this desire doesn't include a thought for what's best for Iraqi's trapped in a dilemma of our design. Is it moral to be the catalyst of this kaos and then leave it all to them?

Eight Random Facts

Polly's thrown down the gauntlet and tagged me to write eight random facts about myself. So considering that my profile is so secretive and boring I'll take a break from the politics and barneys and give this a go.

1) Everyone's probably got this one but for me it takes a central role in my life and that's music. I play guitar and write songs and have done so since I was 14. I've been in several bands of varying styles including punk and what I call rock but others find it heavier than that (It's not Cold Chisel put it that way). I still write music (I can't stop) and play with random friends while I get a project under way.

2) I'm married!!! Which is something I thought I'd never do! We grew up in the same town and went to the same highschool, though we didn't know each other then and hooked up, broke up, hooked up again, broke up again, hooked up again then got married.

3) I'm at three and struggling!!! So this is a variation of one. My favourite music is performed by Mike Patton the former front man from Faith No More. He's involved in a load of projects with a load of artist and it's all good!!!! To me it's all good anyway as most just find it weird.

4) I love reading books, magazines and newspapers. I started by consuming history books on all topics as since I was little I always wanted to be an archaeologist like Indiana Jones. I couldn't get enough information on Egyptians and Vikings etc.... then it became world political history, then current politics and early Australian contact history.

5) I'm an atheist! I was never brought up in religion and I can't help but view it as odd and fantastic. To me, with all the knowledge and evidence we have on how the world and life began I can't understand how some still believe what is written in these archaic books, or that everything was created 6,000 years ago. As science encroaches on religion I can't help but find Christianities constant revising a tad silly, and stern religious fundamentalism's even scarier.

6) I work in a winery laboratory. It's not an area that I hold much interest in but I'm content for now. I peck away slowly at online university units out of interest and maybe in the hope of something bigger but we'll see.

7) Nearly there! Love to travel, especially OS. Mostly been around S. E. Asia (bloody hot) and Japan (bloody cold at the time). Loved Laos, Thailand, Vietnam and didn't mind Cambodia but loved Angkor Wat!!!! I recommend everyone see it if you haven't already.

8) Thank god (I guess that's ironic)! How about a description? I'm sandy blonde with blue eyes (Hitler would have loved me) pretty tall and pretty slim.

Pheeewwww!

The Great GW Swindle

I just love a controversy and tonight is gonna be full of it!

Just so you know, I don't really know where I stand on GW. I'm not a scientist (though funnily enough I work in a lab) so I feel that I don't know enough to make a concrete judgement, but I'm willing to deploy the precautionary principle and be mind full of my habits. If I had to choose between denial or belief, I'd say that so far I've found the case for man made GW stronger than that against. But what's really interesting about the whole GW debate is the politics.

Conservatives appear to hate the very suggestion that unfettered consumerism may have such a large flaw, therefore they're reaching for every shred of evidence they can find in order to deny it. Some on the Left, on the other hand, have resorted to doomsday scenarios and what seem to be gross exaggerations at times as they discover a new calling in rallying against this enormous perceived hole in capitalism. It's a shame it had to be polarised in this way but in hindsight, obvious.

The Age today ran two pieces, one for and one against, in preparation for tonight's viewing and I think they demonstrated why I'm more inclined to believe. Ian Simmonds is a believer and as you can read, he deals with the errors and does so effectively.

Then on the other side we have Ian Plimer and unfortunately we get too much rant and too little facts:

'TONIGHT'S airing of The Great Global Warming Swindle and the associated discussion on ABC TV should be a hoot. The ABC has structured the panel to try to get their preferred political position aired. The panel composition will minimise scientific discussion. It contains journalists, political pressure groups and those who will make a quid out of frightening us witless.
Three scientists with a more rational view to the doomsday hype were invited to appear on the panel and have now been uninvited as they do not dance to the drumbeat of disaster. There is a VIP section of the audience with loopy-left greens and social commentators. We have the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (BAMOS), which was in such a hurry to publish a critique of The Great Global Warming Swindle that it contains schoolboy howlers and a lack of logic intertwined with politics.'

If you're gonna debate this subject, you just can't start in this way. He lost me at 'loopy-left greens'. Culture war lingo is such a turn off.

UPDATE:

Unfortunately for Ian Plimer it appears that none of his predictions came true. The ABC neither structured the panel to denounce scepticism, nor stacked the audience with loopy-left greens. In fact, the audience was stacked with the opposite denomination who piped up with many a wild eyed accusation. And if we really think about it, the whole two hours was at least three quarters consumed with scepticism from the one hour doco, to the sceptical claims made by some on the panel and in the audience. The usual din seem merely upset that they were effectively rebuked on every point. This isn't bias, it's just sad.

Australian Hypocrisy

I honestly now don't know what to think.One minute I think I've got these guys pegged, the next I'm floundering in confusion. In retaliation for slack given it recently over it's appraisal of newspoll The Australian now asserts that 'bias is in the eyes of the beholder':

'THE measure of good journalism is objectivity and a fearless regard for truth. Bias, nonetheless, is in the eye of the beholder and some people will always see conspiracy when the facts don't suit their view of the world. This is the affliction that has gripped, to a large measure, Australia's online news commentariat that has found passing endless comment on other people's work preferable to breaking real stories and adding to society's pool of knowledge.'

What I can't understand is why it's in the eyes of the beholder when the accusations are directed at them, and not when they direct them at others:

'As The Australian has observed on many occasions, the ABC continues to be afflicted by what seems to be almost an endemic bias.'

Indeed, on the very same page today they're having a go at the SMH for biased reporting. So how can we ever take these guys seriously?

The Telegraph vs Media Watch

Media Watch has had another go at The Daily Telegraph for it's blatant hypocrisy this time concerning a silly, although harmless comment made by Anthony Mundine:

“A black player would have to do three or four times more than any other bloke to be a chance in NSW”. — ABC Sports Desk website, Choc's warning: get out of NSW, 10th May, 2007

The Tele has decided that it's so outraged by racism that it'll now boycott Mundine for his supposed racial attack. It's a pity it didn't act earlier against such speech as Media Watch demonstrated by showing comments moderated and allowed on their website:

'In 32 years I'm yet to meet a good Leb, whether they be drunk sober or doped. — The Daily Telegraph online, Racist pub bans Arabs, Islanders, Readers' comments, 3rd May, 2007'

'I used to teach at a all girls highschool where 84% of the students are lebanese muslim & they were the most obnoxious people I have ever come across...I dont know why they bother even going to school, barely any of them end up going to university or even working, they end up barefoot & pregnant by the age of 20 & then collect welfare for the rest of their lives to support their 6 kids who grow up to be complete terrors to society. This guy will probably end up being a terrorist anyway in one way or another…Posted by: Piss of Lebs— The Daily Telegraph online, 'Terror' pupil: I was stressed, Readers' comments, 11th December, 2006'

'Hey Mundine, go and eat some Coon Cheese and run it off around Nigger Brown Oval.— The Daily Telegraph online, Backlash over Mundine attack, Readers' comments, 10th May, 2007'

'…Howard Government rescued them and if they don't remember this act then they are worst than dogs. — The Sydney Morning Herald online, Muslim immigration. Is it is fair to discriminate?, Comments, 16th February, 2007'

To name a few.

David Penburthy, editor of the Tele defends posting them by using the old freedom of speech excuse. But seriously, if I wrote on the Tele's blog that David is a f#*king wanker with no f#*king brains and all of his f*$king race are pigs, do you think it'd get posted? This isn't freedom of speech at all. If language like I've used would be considered too offensive to post then why isn't racism? Surely it should be considered far more insulting than naughty words.

Tim Blair got served as well for posting similar tripe and attempted to defend it by pointing out some anti-Semitic Islamist nonsense posted elsewhere that media watch 'missed'. But was this a defense? Can you really just say 'they do too, you're just biased!!!!' and that's that?

Surely we can all agree that these comments are insulting and racist. If we allow these, then why not a whole bunch of naughty words and personal jibes? Why is deleting racist comments censorship, yet deleting my 'David is a f#*king wanker with no f#*king brains and all of his f*$king race are pigs' isn't?

Polls And Me

There must be something wrong with me. Every time I read a poll I seem to come to the wrong conclusion, or according to the editors at The Australian that is. Today's newspoll shows a clear desire from the Australian public to leave Iraq, 31 to remain, 63 to leave (in varying ways) and 6 uncommitted, but I must be missing something considering that the editorial had this to say:

'the Opposition Leader used a foreign policy speech last week to call for Australia to reconsider its military objectives to favour a more regional focus. In doing so, according to Newspoll, Labor risks putting itself on the wrong side of the Iraq debate, with its proposal to withdraw 500 combat troops after a second rotation in mid-2008 the least popular option, with only 14 per cent support.
While public support remains split on the issue, the Government's position of staying as long as the Iraq Government wants us there was the most popular individual option, with 31 per cent support. Twenty-six per cent of respondents supported a definite timetable for withdrawal and 23per cent wanted Australia's troops withdrawn immediately.'

Is it just me or is this an odd reading? Considering that Labor want to withdraw, and the majority of Australians want to withdraw also, then isn't it the Government that's on the wrong side of the Iraq debate? If anything, Labor are against the tide for not wanting to withdraw soon enough.

No Smoking!!

As a former smoker I feel oddly compelled to live up to the stereotype and get stuck into smoking. While reading Quadrant I came across Matthew R. Digby's 'Tobacco, Seduction and Puritanism' and was disturbed by what I'd found.

Page after page delivers the history of tobacco and how great it is until the end where he embarks on an attack on the anti-smoking lobby, and attempts to connect the, in my opinion, un-connectable. He claims that the rise of fundamentalism and growing stability have seen the retreat of secularism and tolerance therefore, since cigarettes are 'symbols of the bohemian and the creative... draconian smoking laws are passed with...little argument'. And here I thought that 'draconian' smoking laws were passed because cigarettes kill the smokers themselves and, incidentally, possibly those around them.

He then takes issue with workers having to smoke outside rather than in their tea rooms, and how cold and wet they become as a consequence of our hysterical attitude to smoking. As a non-smoker I resent having to sit in a room full of smoke because someone feels that they're so important that their wishes override mine or anyone else's. Since smoking is a choice one makes, then why should the non-smoker be subjected to that choice purely because they have the misfortune to work with a smoker. If you choose to smoke, choose to go outside.

Therefore I'm relieved with the new smoking laws. No longer will I have to wash my clothes because I stepped into a bar for an hour, and just maybe, maybe, the odd old lady at the pokey machines will step outside for a cig and rethink how she's spending her money.

Digby then comes up with this beaut:

'The carnage is almost inconceivable-in 2006 around five million people died of tobacco related disease. Every person should know the dangers of smoking, and they do.
But we have demonised tobacco.'

Doesn't it appear that he'd just explained why it's demonised?

Sheridan At His Best

Good old Greg Sheridan has come out of the wood work again to give us his expert assessment on recent defense statements from the government and Labor. It's more or less what one would expect from Greg, glowing praise for Howard and itty bitty nit-picking for Rudd, but let's see some highlights:

'On Iraq he (Rudd) says that Labor will withdraw the 500 Australian combat troops in Iraq but this will occur in deep consultation with Washington and over two troop rotation periods, which means they may not come out for another 12 months, by which time, though he doesn’t say it, anything could happen. He says that in committing to Iraq, Howard has made “the greatest failure of Australia’s national security interests since Vietnam”.
This line of rhetoric plays well in some parts of the media, which is why Rudd uses it, but he makes no effort to sustain the argument. '

Does Rudd really need to make the effort? The war in Iraq has cost around 66,000 to 73'000(this always varies) civilian lives, some 3'500 U.S military lives, has badly consumed resources as to make a more determined focus on Afghanistan impossible, affirmed the image of the U.S Al-Quaeda tries to encourage in every Arab mind and made it nearly unthinkable for us to send forces to help people in countries like Sudan. It's a disaster! Clearly everyone except Sheridan realises this.

'The only specific disadvantage to Australia that Rudd cites is that “we have become a greater terrorist target than would otherwise have been the case because of our participation in the war”. '
If Rudd really believes that, then surely he should withdraw troops suddenly, decisively, with a flourish, a la the Spanish. Not only will he sensibly not do that, but he will keep the rest of the Aussie forces - another 900 troops - in the Persian Gulf as part of the Iraq theatre in support of the US-led coalition. '

It would be incredibly naive to believe that we have not become more of a target from venturing everywhere with our ally. Yes, we were already a target. No, I'm not saying that we should let fear dictate policy and not do what we believe is right, but, let's be honest, the more we tag along the more an attractive target we become.

Sheridan also doesn't seem to take into account the possibility that Rudd doesn't want to do a Latham and alienate himself from the U.S, hence the slow withdrawal. Also, let's be clear, Labor were against the war, they were right and the government wrong, but we're there now and consequently hold responsibilities to which Rudd is profoundly aware. This is not a contradiction at all, one can acknowledge that the war made us a bigger target and accept our current obligations.

'This all speaks well of Rudd’s essential centrism and conservatism in security policy, but it demolishes his argument about the increased terrorist threat to Australia. Can you just imagine Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri in their cave at al-Qa’ida central, just inside or just outside Afghanistan, saying to each other: well, we did have those infidel kangaroos high on our terror target list when they were in Iraq but now that they’re only fighting us in Afghanistan, where we are, and supporting our enemies throughout the Persian Gulf, we’ll give them a free pass and not send any more terrorists after them. '

Here Sheridan must be assuming that Al-Quaeda are actually responsible for the latest attacks. We all now know that the most frightening terrorist threats are home grown extremists, or those who've merely grown bitter over our recent folly in Iraq with no Al-Quaeda connection at all. Indeed Sheridan knows this as well, so I'm confused with why he's suddenly so Al-Quaeda focused.

And what does Sheridan have to say about Howard?

'Howard’s speech was bold, strong and one of the best he has given on strategic issues. The defence update was certainly the best written such document - or at least its first two chapters, which provided its overview - in many a year. '

Could we have expected anything less?

On another note, Sheridan gets a cameo in this months edition of conservative magazine Quadrant. David F. Mosler had this to say:

'Historically both Left and Right have produced critics of America but today the Right argues the U.S.A does nothing wrong (Greg Sheridan, for example, the foreign affairs editor of the Australian) while the Left argues the U.S.A does nothing right. The Right view is simply silly but the Left view is a more complex problem.'

Getting bagged from your own side, poor "scooter".

Tipping

Beware, this may be a sensitive issue for some.

Frequently I’ve enjoyed a fine meal out with friends, a few naughty drinks and cheeky laughs to only have it all fall horribly flat when the bill comes crashing down on the table. The good banter turns to deafening insults because my friends can’t seem come to grips with the fact that I don’t tip! I don’t mean to sound like Steve Busheme in ‘Reservoir Dogs’ but I just can’t do it.

You see, I’m not one for following social etiquette when it can’t be justified and tipping in Australia, I’ve discovered, can’t be justified. If I were in America where it’s part of the system I can accept the unfortunate position that that system puts some workers in, and therefore I can justify tipping. But here?

The first criticism I want to deal with is that I’m not tight. I give to buskers, beggars, charities and little Adi in Indonesia once a month. So I feel that such a charge isn’t fair, but more on this later.

I’ve found that most people haven’t even thought about this and how tipping slowly became the norm in many places. Therefore when I object, they always produce the same arguments. I’ll address these in their usual order:

‘They have to work at night, so tipping is how we reward them for their sacrifices’

Firstly, this makes them sound like Jesus except he, in all his glory, wouldn’t have wanted a reward. Secondly, who tips the night shift worker or the truck driver who delivers your petrol at night so you can conveniently fill your car and get to where you want to go? Also, didn’t these people accept the job knowing that they would be working at night?

‘But they have to deal with people as well’

So does the guy behind the McDonalds counter, who incidentally is probably paid less, yet no one feels compelled to tip him. Nor do people tip call centre workers who are consistently abused, or night shift service station employees who deal with the drunks once they’re kicked out of the bars.

‘But they aren’t paid much’

This is wrong in many cases. I have friends who’ve worked in hospitality and have been paid far more than me while having their incomes supplemented, by those paid less, due to the tipping etiquette. I’ve known people on the barest wages who’ve thrown in money to tip those paid nearly double their own salary.

‘What if you get good, even exceptional, service?’

So what you’re saying is that I should pay them more to do their job properly, otherwise they’ll feel compelled to treat me like crap? No one pays me more to do my job properly. Also, if you receive exceptional service should you be guilted into paying more? Maybe the menu should have options so that you can have a choice of whether you really want to pay more. Like: Chicken Parma $15, Stir-Fry Noodles $12 and Exceptional Service an extra $10.

‘You’re just a tight-arse!’

At this point (and it always gets to this point) I know I’ve won the debate. Unable to successfully justify tipping they predictably reach for insults. Then someone will always pipe up with:

‘Look, I’ll pay your part then….’

If I may psychoanalyse this, they’re really just saying ‘I’m so generous that I’ll even pay double!’ and the masses are supposed to view them with reverence. It’s more about them than the argument.

The worst development in bars in recent times has been the tip jar. There’s no room in a bar for exceptional service, and barely any time for interaction. You order your drink, they get it, you pay, they move on. Why should anyone feel they must tip for this meagre exchange?

Now be gentle guys.

The Left Are Lazy

Pauve Sarkozy, he just can't win! First he's threatened by militant wine producers who apparently can't trust a president who doesn't drink wine, then he draws fire from the French Left for jogging!

'Worst of all, say these heirs of Sartre and Saussure, the very act of le jogging - or le running as it is now more fashionable to call it - is a cultural humiliation. It is, in the first place, an offence to national honour, they say, that the President of the Republic should totter back into the Elysée Palace looking like a sweat-drenched miniature version of Sylvester Stallone.
But as you would expect of French philosophers, they make a deeper point. Jogging, they say, waving their Gitanes angrily at the camera, is a Right-wing activity. It is all about the management of the body; it is about performance, and individualism, and the triumph of the will.'

But here in Australia we know that's all wrong. Jogging's really more of an elite, chattering classes, inner city, chardonnay set, latte belt, guilt industry sort of affair. (did I forget any?) What's really right-wing is walking!

Or maybe all exercise is right-wing. That must be why I'm so lazy.

Spooky!!!!

ABC vs The Australian Part 2 (gotcha!!!)

Yesterday The Australian clearly believed that it had caught the ABC in the act. Following Liberal MP Tony Smith attacking Labor, and a byte with Michael Costa arguing "the folly of climate change zealots". (that's balance in The Australian, he is Labor after all). Cut & Paste featured an interview on Fran Kelly's show with some "Indigenous leaders":

'Tjakamarra: Mate, I agree with John Howard's message, you know. That's good. I'm happy to see the army. Army people to come and talk to us.'

'Kelly: The men who are hurting the children and hurting the girls, will they be scared of the police?'

'Tjakamarra: They will. That's good ... It's right for the Government to step in and help the kids for, like, you know, child abuse and kids not going to school ... If they wanted to help Aboriginal people with substance abuse, they're welcome, you know. We'll help them, as the leaders from the community.'

Then they showed what they must have believed was our lefty aunty at her lefty best on AM 20 minutes after the interview:

'From the introduction to yesterday's ABC radio AM program 20 minutes later: PRESENTER Peter Cave: There's growing resistance in indigenous communities to the federal Government's interventionist emergency plan in the Northern Territory.'

Wow! Apparently The Australian has trouble with the idea that a handful of Aborigines in an ABC studio can support an idea, while resistance against it simultaneously grows in the wider community.

It's a tough stretch of the imagination I know.

ABC vs The Australian, the bias war.

I know, why didn't I call this blog The Australian watch? But anyway.

The Australian decided to wish the ABC a happy birthday today by slagging them off in timeless Australian fashion:

'At age 75, it is time Aunty abandoned its adolescent mindset. It is a misallocation of taxpayers' money to fund shows such as Spicks and Specks while neglecting news and current affairs coverage in Darwin or Hobart. While hit programs such as The Chaser's War on Everything would be unlikely to be funded by the commercial sector, quiz programs would be happily taken over by commercial broadcasters, freeing up funds for news, current affairs and investigative journalism.'

I like Spicks and Specks, so do many people, and it doesn't seem to have dawned on The Australian that maybe the ABC's funding troubles are directly tied to.....I don't know.......the lack of funds given it by the federal government. Ever keen to see the ABC go into privatisation The Australian can't even envisage the most obvious solution.

'As The Australian has observed on many occasions, the ABC continues to be afflicted by what seems to be almost an endemic bias.'

Yet, The Australian seems completely blind to it's own. This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. As has been demonstrated recently, The Australian is quite partial to outbursts against the 'Psycho Left' or 'The Coalition of The Whining' where the Left is castigated, misrepresented and dually shat on. Cut and Paste acts as a bulletin board where Right-wing pundits are sourced from around the world to coax us to the dark side, and the Left are quoted at their very worst. The opinion page is made up of conservatives of varying degrees and the odd Labor party member for 'balance'. It's a joke. Oh, and there's Phillip Adams, they don't let you forget that.

'What they fail to acknowledge is that the mainstream parties they criticise are supported by 90 per cent of taxpayers, while the left perspective they adopt is shared by the remaining 10 per cent.'

Really!!!! My god people they aren't only Left, they're green Left!!!! And if you had any doubts as to where The Australian stands on the issue of the ABC's future funding:

'SBS, like many public sector broadcasters around the world, has shown that it is possible to generate income from the private sector without becoming its captive. The ABC should channel its creativity into developing original funding arrangements and focus on its core business as a provider of accurate, balanced information.'

Accurate and 'balanced' just like The Australian....Oh please. And never mind the fact that the overwhelming majority of Australians don't want the ABC to reach for the private sector to generate funds.

Sure the ABC is publicly funded, but if you're going to attack it for bias you'd better look in your own backyard first and make sure you're at least aware of where the centre is. These constant Murdoch media attacks appear as nothing more than silly attempts to redefine the middle.

'

Ideological Sleeper Cells

What the hell is an "ideological sleeper cell"?

A Mr Kara-Ali was quoted in The Australian today as stating that he believes there are up to 3'000 Muslims in Australia in "ideological sleeper cells".

No it's not people who have infiltrated Australia lying in wait until triggered when they'll attack us with new political parties, freshly penned letters to editors etc.... He clarifies:

"I believe in Sydney alone there's about 2000 and 3000 young Muslims vulnerable to being radicalised," he said.

"There are ideological sleeper cells waiting to be completely radicalised. Because radicalisation ... is to act upon your extremist teachings."

Now there's clearly nothing funny about what he's saying if it's true, but "ideological sleeper cells"? Either they're in real sleeper cells or they aren't. The general community are already scared shitless at the prospect of there being real sleeper cells amongst them, so do we really need to create sub-categories in order to keep them vigilant?

The Australian's editorialists clearly love the idea:

'He estimates there are between 2000 and 3000 radicalised Muslims in Sydney alone and possibly double that in Australia, who are ideological sleeper cells and who could become extremists.'

You think it'll catch on?