Iran Celebrate

Iranian Shia celebrated the birthday of Imam Mahdi on Tuesday. The Imam 'is alive but has remained invisible since the late ninth century, and ... he will reappear only when corruption and injustice reach their zenith.' So I guess it's "good news" for Iranian Shia considering that corruption and injustice are thriving in Iran. 'This year, in keeping with the government effort to promote and enforce religious values under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the celebration is receiving plenty of attention from the state, even to the point of being extended an extra day.'

To enforce "religious values"! They certainly have been active in that department with their spies scouring the streets for inappropriately dressed women and un-Islamic behaviour.

'And there was the booth set up to warn people about “Satan worshipers.” There was a Jewish star at the entrance, posted atop a replica of what was supposed to be the Washington Monument (which also was described as a satanic symbol because it is shaped as an obelisk).'

Nice.

This is all very unnerving considering the fact that the tough guy rhetoric has been spewing from George and Mahmoud alike:

Mr Bush said: "Iran's pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.

"Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere, and the United States is rallying friends and allies to isolate Iran's regime to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late,"

and...

"The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly," Mr Ahmadinejad said.

"Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region ... we are prepared to fill the gap."

I've been reluctant to believe Bush when he's pronounced with apparent certainty that Iran is seeking the bomb, after all we've been given no evidence and his credibility in this department has been shattered. But it strikes me as fairly clear that Iran are playing funny buggers in Iraq as Bush has said previously. The statement above suggests an eagerness on the part of Ahmadinejad for U.S failure which would facilitate Iranian dominance in the region. It's a pickle of enormous concern.

If the U.S fail in installing a free democracy in Iraq and Iran begins to "fill the gap" then we have a definite problem. Couple that with the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran (remember that Iran is ultimately run by religious zealots) and the problem becomes a disaster.

It's just another reason why success in Iraq is so important.

Aust Business Predicts Union Members In ALP Gov!!!!!!!!!!

The Australian's Cut & Paste (anti-Left billboard) has decided to print a bizarre, yet brilliantly insightful e-mail circulating among Australian businesses:

'IF you're considering voting for Kevin Rudd, perhaps you should consider who would sit around a Rudd cabinet table!!
Prime minister: Kevin Rudd.
Deputy prime minister and minister for industrial relations: Julia Gillard, former student radical and AUS president.
Treasurer: Wayne Swan, former ALP state secretary. Attorney-general: Joe Ludwig, former AWU official.
Minister for homeland security: Arch Bevis, former organiser Queensland Teachers Union. Minister for trade: Simon Crean, former president, ACTU.
Minister for transport and tourism: Martin Ferguson, former president, ACTU. Minister for finance: Lindsay Tanner, former state secretary, Federated Clerks Union.
Minister for the environment and the arts: Peter Garrett, lifelong anti-American activist.
Minister for infrastructure and water: Anthony Albanese, former assistant general-secretary, NSW ALP.
Minister for human services: Tanya Plibersek, former student union official, UTS.
Minister for immigration: Tony Burke, former official Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Union.
Minister for resources: Chris Evans, former official, Miscellaneous Workers Union.
Minister for veterans affairs: Alan Griffin, former official, Federated Clerks Union.
Minister for primary industry: Kerry O'Brien, former official, Miscellaneous Workers Union.
Minister for superannuation: Nick Sherry, former state secretary, Federated Liquor and Allied Trades Union.
Minister for sport: Kate Lundy, former official, CFMEU.
And if that wasn't bad enough, waiting in the wings (if they win their elections) are:
Greg Combet: House candidate and former ACTU president.
Doug Cameron: NSW Senate candidate and secretary of Australian Manufacturing Workers Union.
Bill Shorten: House candidate and national secretary, Australian Workers Union.
Richard Marles: House candidate for Corio and former assistant secretary, Transport Workers Union.'

What a bunch of geniuses!! Fancy Union members being so prevalent in the Australian Labor Party. Businesses beware, someone in power may actually care about the little guy if Labor win.

In Trouble? Just Find Jesus

I think it's pretty clear now that if you're in America and you find yourself in hot water your lawyer is going to suggest that you find Jesus, and that you announce it, fast!

Paris Hilton found Jesus pretty quickly once she'd landed herself in jail as did her friend Nicole Ritchie. I guess finding Jesus is the perfect way to call off the dogs (oops! I've given it away) and let them know that you're on the path to redemption. But Michael Vick the disgraced U.S footballer has found Jesus in record time.

After being caught out as the financier of Bad Newz (it's got a Z so you know it's cool) Kennels ,which operates dog fights for the amusement of insiders, and in being complicit in killing six to eight dogs for "under performing" he's all of a sudden found Jesus:

“I’m totally responsible, and those things just didn’t have to happen,”

“I feel like we all make mistakes. It’s just I made a mistake in using bad judgment and making bad decisions. And you know, those things, you know, just can’t happen.”

"Dogfighting is a terrible thing and I reject it ... I found Jesus and turned my life over to God. I think that's the right thing to do as of right now."

Oh piss off! I'm all for forgiveness but we shouldn't be taken for saps with this rubbish. Firstly, Vicks didn't make a "mistake". He didn't trip over and think "oops I just financed a dog fighting ring for six years and killed six to eight dogs via hanging or drowning!" These were callous premeditated acts over a lengthy period. Secondly, why didn't he find Jesus six, five or even one year ago? And where did he find him anyway?

On further reflection, it raises questions about Jesus' character considering he can apparently be found in jails all across the U.S. Kevin Andrews would be forced to deny him a visa on 'character grounds' surely.

Who's Taking Pot Shots Now

The Australian's double standards are truly amazing. After attacking the ABC and Fairfax for 'teaming up' against News Limited and commercial TV:

'The choice of items clearly demonstrates a political nexus exists between the ABC and Fairfax that in turn fosters a culture of lazy investigations based on taking pot shots at commercial television and News Limited papers.'

The Australian two days later launches this pot shot against The Age:

'But it radiates hypocrisy to denounce the Government over nuclear energy while warning of the dangers of greenhouse gas. This appears to have escaped The Age, where the coal-powered electric lights are on but no-one seems to be home.'

There's of course nothing new in this, but given that this jibe has been written two days after it's recent whinge it would appear that the editors over at The Australian don't even know they're doing it anymore. It's like eating now, or going to the toilet. They must arrive at the office and automatically begin to ponder the various topics through which they can lambast Fairfax, the ABC, the Left and Robert Manne because this would simply be the only way for them to deliver any comment at all. Otherwise they'd be lost.

Governments Caught Wiki Watching

Don't you just love the new WikiScanner, it's really showing the world how petty and pathetic our governmental departments really are. The C.I.A have been caught out changing inconvenient details in the U.S:

'WikiScanner showed CIA computers were used to edit an entry on the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. A graphic on casualties was changed to say many figures were estimates and were not broken down by class.'

'Another entry on former CIA chief William Colby was edited by CIA computers to expand his career history and discuss the merits of a Vietnam War program he headed.'

And now it's been revealed that staff in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have dabbled in some Wikipedia editing to improve the government's Wikipedia image:

'A new website, WikiScanner, which traces the digital fingerprints of those who make changes to entries in the online encylopedia, points to the department as the source of 126 edits on subjects ranging from the "children overboard affair" to the Treasurer, Peter Costello.

On June 28, an employee of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet modified Mr Costello's entry to remove a reference to the nickname "Captain Smirk".

WikiScanner also identifies employees of another federal department, Defence, as the most prolific Wikipedia contributors in Australia. Defence computers were found to have made more than 5000 edits to Wikipedia, including the Australian Defence Force Academy and even Vietnam-era Pentagon Papers.

In the Prime Minister's office last year, an employee edited the entry on "Mandatory detention in Australia" to add "allegedly" to a sentence claiming immigration detainees were subject to "inhumane conditions".

Modifications were also made to claims that mandatory detention of asylum seekers helped John Howard win the 2001 election.'

What little people they must be to bother making these alterations. That last one is particularly troubling considering the fact that we all know that the Howard Government's demonising of asylum seekers was a huge contributing factor to his 2001 victory. You only need to look at the polls prior to, and after, the Tampa incident to realise how influential it actually was.

Grow up people.

UPDATE:

Denials. Were assured that the changes were made made by another customer of their ISP. So it's simply a matter of some loyal Australian citizen making sure the Gov looks squeeky clean.

The Australian Strikes Back

After Media Watch had a stab at The Australian on Monday night the editors must have decided that that's enough and decided to go out all guns blazing. Pieces were written for the opinion page, the media section, and the editorial to lambast Media Watch for it's crime. These articles did present many sound points, and many bad ones, but the efforts of The Australian just came across as sour grapes. Media Watch has picked up some of their journalists on some strange reporting, the editorial states:

'Or if Fairfax journalist and former Media Watch presenter David Marr had broken all the significant stories on the Australian Federal Police treatment of Gold Coast doctor Mohamed Haneef that Media Watch would have devoted half a program criticising him for one obscure point of his coverage, as it did with The Australian's Hedley Thomas?'

This incident was not an 'obscure point', it was a matter of Thomas removing a key sentence from a section of the first Haneef transcript to make it seem as though the Police had made yet another bungle. It's hard for anyone to look at what Thomas wrote, and what the transcript says, and come to the conclusion that it wasn't deliberate. This is exactly what Media Watch should be looking for. The editorial goes on:

'The Pachauri matter is merely symptomatic of a bigger Media Watch malaise where there appears to be an entrenched institutional bias of which the perpetrators may well not be aware. It is a bias that is quick to believe and reinforce a view that this newspaper is hostile to Labor and gives the Government favourable treatment. But this view is contrary to the fact that there are few complaints from senior Labor Party officials and politicians about the treatment they receive in our news pages. '

Note that it's careful not to include it's opinion page as this is where The Australian's own entrenched institutional bias resides. One only needs to look at it's pages throughout this week to note the imbalance. Yesterday, not one lefty, today, one, maybe one and a half, but this is typical. I'm sure they've heard complaints about this as I've listened to Labor politicians mention it myself during broadcasts of Parliament.

'The choice of items clearly demonstrates a political nexus exists between the ABC and Fairfax that in turn fosters a culture of lazy investigations based on taking pot shots at commercial television and News Limited papers.'

Because The Australian simply never takes pot shots at the ABC and Fairfax.

The fact is that The Australian has a point in that Media Watch suspiciously dodged some important issues this week and went after some banal events. But their efforts at payback are ridiculously over the top, three pieces on three different pages? Just one article in the media section would surely suffice. Poor babies.

Ouch! A Bad Day For Andrews

It's a double whammy for Kevin A. First it turns out that Haneef's "contact" in England probably had no prior knowledge himself of the attacks and now a judge has ruled that Andrews was wrong to cancel Haneef's visa on character grounds (you know, because he knew his cousins who were involved in a crime).

Time to leave Andrews.

And So It Comes To This.

It seems that the whole unwholesome business regarding Rudd and the girly bar is one big beat-up after all. The owner of the club has come out with the "saucy" details of Rudd's "sexy" escapade:

'"I remember we got a call from I think it was the owner of the Post, or the editor of the Post, saying that he was coming in with some political figures from Australia, some bigwigs," Mr Osher recalled.

"It was only a one-time thing 'cos I remember that was the only time the editor of the Post came in.

"They came in, we took them to the Champagne Room which is on the main floor and they only stayed for about 15 minutes.

"When you walk into our club, you walk down a long corridor and you don't really know what kind of club it is until you've been inside."

"I guess when he sat down, he realised it was a strip club, and he said, 'Oh no, this won't do' and he really wanted to leave but the editor, the Post guy, he wanted to stay.

"The guy from the Post wanted to stay, not the Australian guy, he wanted to go."

Mr Osher also denied newspaper claims that Mr Rudd had to be cautioned for inappropriate behaviour.

"I saw a couple of stories about people grabbing, touching dancers - nobody in the party grabbed anybody. Nobody was thrown out of the place, they ordered a round of beers and the Australian guys acted like gentlemen.

"He didn't even have time to drink (the beer) he just said, 'Oh no, this won't do'.

"''Cos you're looking at the screen and you just see like a soccer game or a boxing match, and all of a sudden a girl's taking off her dress, and he's like 'Oh no, this won't do'."

Clearly whoever Glenn Milne got the story from, was engaging in some artistic license with the details. The big question now is where did all the bullshit surrounding this incident come from? Any thoughts?

Not the government of course.

The Right On The Rise

Who would have thought that one of the biggest threats facing Russians these days comes from the Right, that's right, not the Left, the Right. The Partisan was right (confused yet?), Neo-nazi groups are growing ever more radical and committing constant violent abuses against migrants. One of these crimes was filmed recently:

'The video, viewed by the Reuters news agency, shows two men with their mouths gagged and hands tied behind their backs, kneeling in front of a swastika flag in a forest.
To a backing track of heavy metal music, the video appears to show a masked man hacking off the head of one captive with what looked like a hunting knife. In another section, a man could be heard shouting "Glory to Russia", then firing a handgun at the head of a second captive kneeling next to a shallow grave.'

This sickening scene is reminiscent of the now infamous Al-Quaeda videos that have circulated the globe time and again. What's interesting is the similarity of cause to some popular and regular Australians:

'Neo-Nazis have been involved in at least 92 murders and 760 attacks on immigrants in less than two years, according to an independent group that monitors racially motivated crimes.
The youngest victim was Khursheda Sultanova, a nine-year-old Tajik girl who bled to death on the outskirts of St Petersburg after being stabbed by skinheads chanting "Russia is for Russians". '

And Cronulla is for Aussies!!!!!! Pauline would no doubt blush, but where does she think her anti-immigrant politics will eventually lead? And similarly, what do all those lovely anti-Muslim blogs think their tirades will produce? Take this from Crusader Rabbit:

'So in the interests of muslim awareness...The man is a Hindu and he's being beaten to death.His crime? To have been walking past a mosque after Friday prayers, when the faithful have been whipped into a frenzy.The Religion of Peace.To the organisers of the awareness week: fuck you! You're apologists for this filth.'

Can you see the rationale? Extreme Muslims elsewhere behave violently and aggressively therefore the whole religion and all within it are to be blamed and their friends abused. I'm sure this flawless reasoning also resides in the minds of Russia's Neo-Nazis but do CR even notice the similarity? The bashing of a hindu man for such a 'crime' is deplorable and there's no reason to think that all Muslims would support such a thing but this fact doesn't matter to such minds, all Muslims are guilty by association, full stop. This is not dissimilar to fascist attitudes towards Jews in Hitler's Germany, yet once again, they don't realise how close they are to the line. Instead they believe the Left are closer merely because it's the "National-Socialist" party (don't you know?). So without fear they post things like this:

'"Muslims are being put on trains and sent to concentration camps, gassed and buried in mass graves I suppose."

We can only dream.'

And still they fail to see the connection. Incredible.

So as you can see, it's not the Left killing migrants to keep Russia pure, or lumping all adherents of Islam in the same bag for discrimination, it's YOU Crusader, it's the Right.

Saint Kev

Hawke was able to occasionally get toasted as PM without a care because Australian's were never lead to believe that he was a Saint. Were Latham to have been found to have been drunk in a strip club three years ago (this may have happened though it was never proven to my knowledge) I'm not sure many would have been surprised, but Rudd's different.

Here's someone who has crafted a god fairing, family man image and it's come back to bite him. Not to say that he's not either of those things still, but people undoubtedly would have forgotten that he's probably still just a bit of a nerd who, when pissed, may turn into a monster. At least he wasn't found in a seedy hotel with a hooker and cocaine, alla the Italian minister recently, but it's still bad enough to dent the Saint Kev image. It's hypocritical.

It's the strip club that really gets me, I hate bloody strip clubs and I don't even understand them. Why stand there and watch a girl strip if they can't be touched? Not that I think they should be touched (though Kevin seemed to think so), but if that's what you want, go to a hooker. They're also exploitative places in my opinion.

Kev's given us all a heartfelt apology:

"I have never claimed to be perfect but I make no excuses. I take full responsibility for my actions."

And the Herald Sun (as it does) made sure to state:

'The trip cost taxpayers $18,000. '

So was it our money going into the panties of some NY stripper? If not, is this relevant?

At least it hasn't occured while he's been opposition leader and it's probably a good time to remind people that the world record for the fastest sculling of a yard of beer belonged to Bob Hawke and the second act of political violence in Federated Australia was Billy Hughes punching a protester. We've gotten incredibly precious of late.

UPDATE:

The plot has thickened with Warren Snowdon claiming that the whole thing is a media beat-up and that Rudd was never warned about touching the dancers:

'"It's just not true, it's a beat-up, someone's creative imagination and there's nothing in it,"

Meanwhile Rudd's hinted at who he believes is behind the touchy feely part of the story:

"It's a question you should put to Mr Downer and his staff".

Downer On Fire!!!!

I think Downer's such a Liberal party liability that every time I hear something from his mouth I wonder why he hasn't been sacked. Just take this exchange printed in The Australian's Cut & Paste today:

'HOST Tony Jones: How damaging is that story (Michael Brissenden's report on the Peter Costello dinner)?'

'Downer: Well, Peter Costello's denied the story and it's a story about some journalist claiming that he said this -- and he denies it -- two years ago. To be honest with you, I think the public are sick of this sort of stuff. I think the public are much more interested in their own welfare (and) whether we're going to keep unemployment down, whether we're going to continue to create jobs, whether living standards can rise....'

Nice dodge, and well manoeuvred onto the party line.

'Jones: Well, it's three senior journalists who were at a dinner with Peter Costello, all now corroborating each other's stories and revealing their detailed notes of conversations, the specifics of which Mr Costello has now denied twice. It's going to be a question of who the public believes, isn't it?'

Damn!!! He's persisted!

'Downer: You think the public would believe journalists over Peter Costello? Well, that's an interesting proposition, by the way.'

Pheeeeewww!!! Good come back Alex, Bravo (sound of clapping within brain).

UPDATE: Apparently Downer's comment wasn't as obviously stupid as I'd previously thought. Take these comments from Insiders today:

WOMAN (red jumper): If I had to choose between trusting three journalists and Peter Costello, I'd definitely trust Peter Costello. He's in a much better position as far as a public eye, three journalists - hmm, where'd they come from?

MAN: The three journalists said they wouldn't do it. So how can they be trusted?

Three journalists with the same recollection of events and one politician? Apparently not as easy as it seems.

Greens Watch Get's Wierd

For a while now there's been a bit of a hoo haa about Greens Watch but for some reason I haven't bothered to venture over until today. 'HarrangueMan' and 'An Onymous Lefty' have both posted jibes at this new site, and Iain Hall (unsurprisingly) made it his blog of the month! But I found it unremarkable, in fact, boring, so I thought I'd find something funny in the 'Creepy Greens' section but alas, most were just dumb. Take their attack on Greens member Leanne Daharja Veitch for being the leader of 'a sinister cult based on the Occult and Witchcraft.' Nowhere in the piece do they provide evidence of this 'cult' as being 'sinister', in fact when I followed the links (when they worked) I discovered something quite different. Greens Watch states:

' Leanne founded a secretive coven she calls "Akasha"'

'Her sect has over a hundred followers who perform rituals involving swords and knives as part of the sect's occult ceremonies.One can only assume these Witches are under Leanne's orders and are ready to muster in support of the Victorian Greens when commanded.'

But all the link provided was an explanation about 'Akasha' which was all quite above board and very typically pagan. Greens Watch, it seems, had merely decided to embellish when it added words like 'sinister' to it's description. Greens Watch doesn't stop there in it's attempts to slime her:

'Leanne has an Amazon reading list of Pagan Reading for Kids. Greenswatch fears her children will be raised subjected to this sinister occult brainwashing.
Her children are named "Dragon" and "Dawn Star".'

Firstly, who gives a shit what she calls her kids. Secondly, if you follow the link to her list you'll see this beat-up for what it is. Leanne states at the beginning:

'These books contain real truths - love, friendship, family. They show characters overcoming adversity, questioning what they see around them, and struggling to overcome what sometimes seem to be insurmountable odds. All throughout, the natural world is cherished, valued and respected. These are Pagan values in the deepest, most real sense.'

Wow!! She sounds scary!!!!!! And just look at the list itself, let's hope her children won't be subjected to:

1. The Very Hungry Caterpillar board book by Eric Carle
2. Petunia's Christmas by Roger Duvoisin
3. The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien
4. Charlotte's Web by E. B. White

You get the picture. What a terrible parent, and what poor children they are!!!!! But it doesn't get any better for Greens Watch, over and over they distort the truth to sustain the unwarranted attack:

'When not worshipping satan, Leanne runs a Green Group/Witch Recruitment Front called "Greenripples" '

WITCHES DON'T WORSHIP SATAN DICKHEADS SATANISTS DO!!!!!!!!!

Maybe they already knew this, maybe not, but I'm sure they didn't really care how truthful they were being. And after all this rubbish printed in their pleas to the ignorance of others they finish with this:

'This person is a dangerous influence inside the Victorian Greens and should be expelled immediately. The greens have called national inquiries for other organisations and cults yet fail to hold their own members to the same level of scrutiny.'

What cheek! To assert that someone is 'dangerous' surely you must provide something to prove the accusation but Greens Watch failed to provide any evidence for their claims. How can they be taken seriously?

I've got a tip for Greens Watch. There's another bizarre 'sinister' cult whose members are well represented in Australian politics, especially the Coalition and the ALP. It's followers believe the world is 6,000 years old and that a guy died 2,000 years ago and was miraculously resurrected!!!!!! They believe that when you die, if you're good, you'll go to a place called Heaven but if if you're bad you'll go to a place called Hell and burn for eternity. This 'cult' has presided over wars, slavery and all sorts of crimes against humanity and is still used to discriminate against minorities!!! Does this sound any less creepy?

To tell you the truth I do think Leanne's kooky, but no more kooky than any other religious believer. For Greens Watch to even bother with this is a serious black mark on their whole 'mission'. It seems that Greens Watch has now bullied Leanne sufficiently enough for her to have blocked her web site, which is interesting considering the treatment they give the Greens for 'silencing dissent' within another section of the site.

Kudos wankers, Kudos.

Coalition "Weak" On Iraq

Who'd have thought that Labor would find themselves in a position to call the coalition "weak" on Iraq. But now you have it:

'LABOR has accused the Howard Government of delivering a weak and poll-motivated warning to the Iraqi regime over its failure to end sectarian violence and political deadlock.'

'Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland said yesterday John Howard's warnings, delivered to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in a letter two weeks ago, were shallow because they contained no threat of withdrawing troops from the country if Baghdad did not deliver on its promises. '

Of course the coalition have pulled a bit of an about face on this issue after sensing all of a sudden that the war may be unpopular within the electorate, and that means nasty stuff in an election year. The fabled letter sent to al-Maliki recently has left poor puffed-up Downer in a bit of a fix considering that his favourite pastime has been to lay into Labor for wanting to "cut and run":

'"What the Prime Minister's letter says, and what I said to Prime Minister Maliki, is look, you know, a number of governments have made a commitment to keep troops there and provide ongoing assistance in Iraq, but to be absolutely honest, and we know this only too well in Australia ... the public's patience is wearing pretty thin on this issue. "

From memory Alex, the public's patience was wearing thin on invasion day.

"And not that our governments are committed to just walking away from Iraq,"

Meaning, we're still tough and all that.

'but you will get people electing governments that do just want to walk away from Iraq."

Like those pussies over in Labor.

I love watching a politician wiggle.

I actually agree with what the PM's done, it's become pretty clear that more pressure needs to be applied on political figures within Iraq to settle disputes and move forward in governing the country. What I'm unsure about still is whether announcing a deadline for troop withdrawal is the best thing. I can certainly appreciate the argument in that this would apply the ultimate amount of pressure on the Iraqi government, but I can't see anything good coming from leaving Iraq to fester and I've so far not heard any predictions from those on the Left who advocate it, of what troop withdrawal may mean for Iraq's immediate security. This is, in my opinion, a large failing.

Religion And The $1,000,000 Note

There are many reasons why I'm an atheist and no doubt in the course of time I'll tread my way through them all. A key reason is because of the way some believers of theistic religions, in particular Christianity and Islam, use 'scripture' to, in my opinion, justify their deep bigotry. While fundamentalists will always espouse the most intolerant views, even a moderate level of belief can foster discrimination.

Fancy Sydney Bishops declining to an invitation to the Lambeth Conference because the U.S Episcopalians have ordained a gay Bishop and some have blessed gay unions. These U.S Bishops should be cheered for their progressive and tolerant outlook that would no doubt do religion's image some good. The U.S Episcopalians have largely been terrific in this area for some time, producing forward thinking leaders such as John Shelby Spong whose books have attempted to coax Christians to cast off such discrimination and have highlighted the threat of fundamentalism for decades. All we need is a Spong of Islam and maybe reason has a chance of winning the day. So it's a shame that Sydney's Bishops have to be so narrow minded and continue to tacitly support bigotry from behind that ever present shield, the Bible.

But on to something else:

A few weeks back, my wife found a $1,000,000 note in an elevator. The discovery was no doubt a tad exciting even though we all know there's no way to cash it in. The picture on it's front was that old criminal legend Ned Kelly and it's likeness to what one might imagine a real $1,000,000 note was quite striking. But when you turn it to the back there's a problem:

So this note had a message to preach, and that message is that she was going to Hell. Even though she's a good person in every way and wouldn't ever set out to deliberately hurt a soul (except me in a fight), she could still expect to face fire and damnation at the end of her life for maybe 'looking with lust', or god forbid using 'God's name in vain'.

God Damn I thought!!!! (oops!) Can't they just let others be? Why must they attempt to guilt us, or scare us into religion, and how is that a good way to be inducted anyhow? It's on Hellfire where I agree with Dawkins the most. Those poor children raised within these religions will grow to believe that their thoughts can land them in Hell and an eternity of pain. Is this not child abuse?

The note held a web address which I visited, and can I just say that you won't find me at Evangelism Boot Camp this year.

The Backlash Effect

While reading this article in The New York Times I was reminded of an essay I once wrote.

My argument at the time was that due to such large amounts of financial support, as well as weapons, given the Israeli government by America, whatever Israel does is viewed as being inseparable from what the U.S desires. So you get the situation where Israel may attack, or retaliate against, it's neighbour, and this act is inevitably connected to the U.S. Hence why during the last incursion into Lebanon it's not uncommon to hear such statements as President Ahmadinejad's:

'Britain and America, as the main associates of the Zionist regime... should answer for their crimes in Lebanon'

Of course we know that Ahmadinejad simply never misses a chance to blame everything on America, but there's reason to believe that many instantly make the same connection. Bin Laden once said:

'America will not live in peace before peace reigns in Palestine'

Their stocks in the Middle East clearly aren't as high as they think. So when they have a problem getting the candidates they back into government, such as in the Palestinian elections, and now a by-election in Lebanon, I don't think it should be at all surprising.

If I were the American President, I'd just shut up and let democracy do it's thing. Clearly the practice of openly supporting one side against the other isn't working:

“It’s the kiss of death,” said Turki al-Rasheed, a Saudi reformer who watched last Sunday’s elections closely. “The minute you are counted on or backed by the Americans, kiss it goodbye, you will never win.”

Bolt Digs A Little Deeper

It's become abundantly clear that Andrew Bolt spoke too strongly and too early on the Stolen Generations and now has no other option other than to keep on digging. With each attempt at proving it to be a myth he inadvertently spins himself out of all credibility.

Today he argued that the Trevorrow judgement proves the Stolen Generation to be a myth 'at least ...in South Australia'. That last remark is important to Bolt I think because so far his argument that it's a myth Australia wide has been devastated (though he'll never admit it which I go into later) and from this, we can only hope, he's learnt a lesson or two. Bolt's response to the case in question has been dealt with elsewhere and as Larvatus Prodeo demonstrate he has a weird problem with dates, but I want to address something else.

Bolt claims that since the judge deemed it illegal for Trevorrow to have been removed then this can only mean that a racist policy of removals never existed in S.A. He asks the question:

'So, was there really a government policy to steal Bruce Trevorrow from his parents just because he was black? Just to keep white Australia “pure”? '

The important thing to remember is that removal policies shifted constantly within states and were thus implemented with varying justifications. There is certainly much evidence of the implementation of racist removal policies across most states but in the 50's Australia had grown considerably. Removals began to be seen differently and policy reflected changed sensibilities hence why they may have continued for the old reasons, though this may have been technically illegal by then. Earlier on it was clearly a different story, this is from 1910 in S.A by the Chief Protector W. G South:

'During the year several Half Caste children have been removed from the blacks’ camps and placed under the care and control of the State Children’s Department, with most encouraging results, the children are thriving and happy and will, I feel confident, grow up self-supporting members of the community, as they will know nothing of the habits of the Aborigines and will be given an occupation.
Several letters have appeared in the press in opposition to the removal of these children from their cruel surroundings, but I think the writers have failed to grasp the seriousness of the problem now facing South Australia and some of the other States.
Take the case of New South Wales, for example. There, according to the report of the “Board for Protection of Aborigines” dated May 1910, the Aboriginal
135
population consisted of 2123 full-bloods and 5247 Half Castes. Between the years 1882 and 1909 the full bloods decreased from 6540 to 2123 and the Half Castes increased from 2379 to 5247.
In this State a similar state of things is occurring as in 1901 the Census shows there were 502 Half Castes but in August 1909 from information supplied by the Police Officers it was found there were at least 766, and later records have brought the total up to about 800.
At Point Pierce there were on 30th. June 1910, 145 Half Castes and 17 full-bloods, at Point McLeay River Murray and the Lakes there are about 350 Aborigines, 75% of whom are Half Castes.
These figures, I think, prove the necessity of steps being taken to convert these people into useful members of the Community, instead of allowing them to grow up in the Camps where they acquire the lazy habits of the Aborigines, which unfits them for any regular occupation, and I am still firmly of opinion that the very best way is to treat them as neglected children, and have them placed under the care and control of the State Children’s Department until they reach the age of 18 years by which time they should be able to earn their own living and should no longer be considered nor treated as Aborigines. '

Clearly a racist policy was being enacted in the early 1900's in S.A, and this policy was supposed to halt the rise in "half-caste" numbers by blending them into the community where they could forget their ancestry. Indeed, 'neglect' doesn't appear to be the main concern at all. Does Andrew ever mention or try to explain such talk? Never. Instead he makes the disingenuous claim:

'South Australia never had any laws—or policies - authorising anyone to steal Aboriginal children for racist reasons.'

But they clearly did do it Andrew, not only in early S.A but Queensland:

‘the rearing of half-caste children amongst aboriginal children is a mistake, and tends to retrogression rather than to progress, and that, consequently (d) a valuable asset is being lost to the State. …
A half-caste under sixteen, whether male or female is legally a “neglected” child, and as such can be sentenced to an industrial school (sec.6, subsec. 7, of the “Industrial and Reformatory Schools Act of 1865”), most of the aboriginal missions being now so proclaimed. After sixteen years of age, unless he or she is habitually living or associating with aboriginals, the half-caste cannot be removed to a reserve under the order of the Minister. ‘‘Acting under these powers, at least 126 half-caste nomads under sixteen years of age – 45 boys and 81 girls – have been brought under the controlling influences of the Northern missions during the quinquennium ending June, 1905. Another 41 half-caste children – 13 boys and 23 girls – have been similarly dealt with in the Southern districts during the eighteen months immediately preceding the same date.’

Again, what does Andrew say about such talk? Nothing. (though once he tried to claim that they were deemed "neglected" therefore they were neglected forgetting that all "half-caste" children were legally "neglected" under the Act, a dumb argument) I predict that he'd merely exclaim that this isn't evidence that the goal was to keep Australia pure but, as I said, the policy always shifted gears though the removals remained constant. Also, Andrew can't seem to come to grips with this:

'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, ‘'

Or this in the N.T:

6. (1.) The Chief Protector shall be entitled at any time to undertake the care, custody, or control of any aboriginal or half-caste, it, in his opinion it is necessary or desirable in the interests of the aboriginal or half-caste for him to do so, and for that purpose may enter any premises where the aboriginal or half-caste is or is supposed to be, and may take him into his custody.

And on and on it goes for pages and pages yet not once do you see a response to any of it in his articles, why?

He has a few generic response to such evidence and they are far from sufficient. One is that some of this evidence was reviewed by the judge in the Cubillo/Gunner case in which the judge determined that 'no policy existed' (though he also stated that it wasn't his job to determine whether the Stolen Generation is a fact, he also made many remarks about a distressing past). So Andrew thinks that a judge may become an historian, and once this 'historian' has made such a statement then that is that. Does he accept such finality from all judicial decisions on all topics? No. Of course it's all a matter of convenience for him because now he can disregard most of the evidence with one sentence. Another trick is to show some cases of mistreated children and assert that since he's discovered some sickly kids in the bunch, then surely the other 500 or so were similarly afflicted. Genius.

The ever present denial that any racist removal policy was ever in place is further demolished by the historical record when one reads an exchange like this:

'. 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.
(C.E. Cook).
Chief Protector of Aboriginals, February 7 '


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
MEMORANDUM:
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.

So how does Andrew reconcile the enormity of the documentary record with the sheer numbers of "half-castes" removed over the decades? Simple, he barely addresses the record at all. Instead he reverts to his generic replies, as mentioned earlier, and picks at the edges of the later, less damning cases such as Trevorrow's so he can pronounce that no policy ever existed. And no doubt those who can't be bothered to look at the evidence themselves, and like what they're reading, are utterly convinced.

It's some indication of how Andrew Bolt deals with the truth.

"The Left" Are Not An Homogenous Group

It really shits me when I come across an article in which someone cannot grasp that "the Left", just like "the Right", comes in many different forms. Amir Taheri wrote a piece today about how "the Left" have been supportive of the Iranian regime, but first he draws his longbow back.

'American leftists such as Michael Moore, Sean Penn and Noam Chomsky have persuaded themselves that anyone who shouts "Death to America!" is fighting for repressed humanity. The champagne-and-caviar socialists of Paris and London, meanwhile, claim that the only Iranians who oppose the mullahs are middle-class intellectuals who often have dual Iranian-US citizenship and, thus, deserve to be tortured in Tehran as hostages. '

Let me get one thing straight, I hate the Iranian regime. It is one of the most oppressive, borderline fascist regimes in the world and I believe that if some leftists did support it then they are undoubtedly true turncoats who've turned their backs on cornerstone beliefs. It's for this reason that I can't see what Amir claims to see, apparent broad support for it amongst the Left. I doubt that Amir actually has evidence that leftists in Europe think that those opposing the mullahs 'deserve to be tortured in Tehran as hostages'. But who needs proof of such things when the goal is to create an enormously evil strawman Left and tape it to anyone espousing left-wing thought.

'In fact, the most serious challenge to the new ruling class comes from what the Left labels "the popular masses". Spearheading the fight are groups of urban workers who have started to flex their muscles in the past two to three years.

Starting this week, these workers will confront President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's administration through a series of one-hour strikes to show solidarity with imprisoned trade unionists. The regime began a crackdown on independent trade unions last April.

The Workers Organisations and Activists Co-ordinating Council notes that more than 600 labour leaders have been arrested or "made to disappear". Another 4500 workers have been dismissed, often without pay, on vague charges of "fomenting unrest" at various state-owned projects. The largest number of arrests came at the May 1 International Labour Day marches organised by the WOACC, representing independent trade unionists, in defiance of state-sponsored ceremonies.'

Clearly what Amir is talking of here is of it's very essence a left-wing movement against a right-wing ultra conservative police state. How anyone on the left could speak out against these trade unionists is beyond me, but if some do I doubt that they are anything more than a minority.

'The good news is that Western trade unionists are beginning to pay attention to the struggle of their fellow workers. Several European unions have called for Iranian trade unionists to be released. There is some hope that American labour organisations will follow suit.

Somewhere along the line, the Western Left may realise that it has been duped by a few anti-American slogans into supporting a regime that is dedicated to destroying whatever progressive ideals it once espoused.'

Newsflash Amir, the unionists you speak of are most likely of the Western Left variety therefore your claim that 'the Western Left' are supporters of the mullahs is self evidently wrong. That is unless trade unions have become right-wing over night, in which case Howard's got his strategy all wrong.

What gets me is that I see far more evidence everyday in the media of an homogeneous Right rather than Left. When was the last time anyone saw Akerman criticise the government (let alone Bolt etc... or vice versa), or heard Sheridan say "I actually think the Bush administration is wrong on this one"? These things are bloody rare yet time and time again you'll read Adams let loose on Rudd, or see a split on various issues such as the Iraq war (Cohen, Bone etc...). Even I'm against troops being pulled out of Iraq which is a common , though far from universal, desire of many on the Left.

It's becoming clear that "Left" and "Right" are insufficient titles and maybe this is part of the problem.

Hizb ut-Tahrir

Hizb ut-Tahrir attacked it's critics recently at a London conference and demonstrated why some are concerned about their message:

“They say, ‘You preach hate,’ ”

“I preach a hatred of the lies of people in this country that send soldiers to Iraq. I preach a hatred of torture.”

So far so good. Most people couldn't be criticised for hating lies and torture but this isn't their only message. They want the caliphate installed in all Muslim countries because:

“There is no Islam as a way of life without a Khilafah,”

The problem is that maybe not everyone wants the bloody Khilafah and indeed it's this that they don't seem to get. One explains their reasoning:

“If you look at the political structure in the Muslim world, it’s a police state,”

“You have the public opinion underground, and then staged public opinion in the media.”
Most people in the Muslim world want Shariah, the code of Islamic law based on the Koran, he said.

“Our feeling is: what gives Western governments the right to impose a set of values on a people who don’t believe in them?”

And similarly what gives fundamentalist Muslims the right to impose a set of values and a political structure on people who may not want them? This attitude underscores why democracy and a secular society are so essential, everyone's free to determine what to believe and how to live, the only annoyance being the constant attempts by the market at molding your "needs". The kind of society they're referring to is so tyrannical and backward that it should send shudders down all our spines, especially women, but no:

Rubina Ahmed, 33, a mother of four who came on a charter bus from Manchester, said, “It’s the in-depthness of the caliphate that I like.”

Go figure. It's a shame that these attitudes have to taint so many Muslims worldwide who want nothing more than peace, and love the freedoms that western society has given them. It's a damn shame that these attitudes will further radicalise the Islamaphobes around the world who love nothing more than speaking in thoughtless generalisations by pronouncing that ALL muslims want us dead.

Saying "Sorry" Is Not Cheap Or Hollow

Bruce Allan Trevorrow was recently awarded a decent sum in damages as a member of the Stolen Generations (you know....that generation that doesn't exist) and while The Australian had no issue with the case in particular, it took the opportunity to vent on some aspects of what "the Left" argue on this issue:

'This paper sees no merit in using blanket terms like "Stolen Generations" when, in fact, only a small percentage of Aboriginal children were unlawfully removed from their parents. '

There is no reason why there shouldn't be a "blanket" term to refer to a group of people (at best estimates around 20,000) who fell victim to a string of heartless government policies. The term the 'Stolen Generation' is far from perfect in it's description of each case but not that far, and nor is 20,000 a 'small percentage' as the editorial claims.

The key word here is "unlawfully". It was lawful to remove these children at the time in most cases, but that doesn't mean it was just, or fair. Such sneaky distinctions are constantly used by the Right in their denials of this historical fact. Furthermore, I don't know why it would be relevant, were it true, if it were a "small percentage", or why this would remove the need for a collective description such as the 'Stolen Generation'.

'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. On May 28, 1997, with much fanfare, the South Australian Government expressed its "deep and sincere regret at the forced separation of some Aboriginal children from their families and homes". Yet the same South Australian Government fought for nine years to avoid paying compensation to Mr Trevorrow. '

This is evidence of a government being hypocritical but nothing else. I can accept that the S.A government has a duty to verify a Stolen Generation members story and not hand cash out willy nilly, but nine years is a long time and somewhere within that period they would've realised the story was legit though chose to proceed anyway. This example hardly encapsulates the general behaviour of "the Left" anyhow, merely the Rann government. And I don't know how they deduce from this that an apology would be cheap and hollow.

'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. Is it to acknowledge the wrong that had been done by unlawfully removing some Aboriginal children from their families or is it an acknowledgement of all mistreatment of Aboriginal people since 1788? '

I'm buggered to really find the difference. Nor am I able to understand how this concocted muddle has made the hypocrisy they speak of possible. An apology surely should be all encompassing, an expression of regret at past policies such as those that lead to the Stolen Generation and for the dispossession and frontier violence but in lieu of none, either would suffice. Though, how one can believe that we should pick and choose between these things is beyond me, but the editorial appears to think this a perfectly acceptable position.

'Endless wrangling about apologies has done nothing to improve the conditions of Aboriginal people in Australia, whether they were indeed stolen like Mr Trevorrow or whether they have remained with their families but live in Third World conditions in remote, rural or urban Australia. The way forward for the latter is to develop practical workable solutions as is Noel Pearson.'

And here's that old furphy again. The one where the "Left" merely want words and zero action but the "Right" are all about 'practical' solutions to today's problems. This rubbish just affirms, each time they repeat it, how uncomfortable they are with facing up to our past.

The strong belief, often repeated since the early debate on the Stolen Generation, is that repeated by Howard, that one shouldn't apologise for something they haven't personally done. It appears reasonable to most people at first (even myself) because in day to day life no one is expected to say sorry for things which they've played no part in. But when we're talking about larger events influenced by many many people in the history of a nation of which we're a part, things are very different. No one objects to Germany's apologies for WWII and the Holocaust, nor would anybody jump to shut Japan up if they began to apologise for their past crimes because these things were done in the name of the Nation and for the Nation.

It is also quite an inconsistent position. When our leaders refer to great aspects of the Nation's past they never bother to distinguish between those who were actually there and those who weren't, hence we fought at Gallipoli and we won 20 gold medals, because these are things everyone can, and do, take some pride in. Our leaders would never deny us this, yet when it's something bad or shameful all of a sudden the Nation disintegrates into those who were actually there and those who weren't. If you weren't there and you didn't do any of these terrible things then suddenly you've no sense of collective responsibility. Then along comes the next Olympic Games and viola, it's back. Such a stance cannot surely be sustained, but thus far Howard and gang have managed to trick us all into thinking that we can have our cake and eat it too.

An apology is right, and it's long overdue.

Welcome To The Next Wedge.

So far the federal government has tried water, health, the ever potent fear of the 'other' and now it seems homosexuals:

'THE Federal Government has put itself on a new collision course with the States by proposing a ban on gay couples adopting overseas.
THE federal government has indicated it would legislate to stop same-sex Australian couples adopting a child from overseas, in a move that would over-ride state and territory laws.'

That last sentence is becoming increasingly common isn't it. Now it seems that whenever the government actually does anything, that thing inevitably 'over-rides state and territory laws'. It should be enough to make most real conservatives shudder.

It's clearly early days concerning this proposed ban on gay couples adopting overseas, but it appears that this government is getting increasingly desperate. They've been blowing the whistle constantly, but the dogs have heard it so many times they've grown conditioned to it's ring. I guess the Howard pack are all out of tricks and the advisers ran out of material back in 2001. They were lucky in 2004 due to a self destructive yobo in charge of the ALP, but this time prim and proper Kev's at the wheel and he hasn't been biting.

Who knows what's next, maybe well head back to single mothers and doll bludgers.

A Response To Darfur.....FINALLY!!!!!

After years of civilians being massacred in Sudan the U.N have finally gotten around to giving a shit. Let's hope they'll actually intervene to stop killings this time.

'The UN Security Council voted 15-0 to begin sending a joint UN-African Union force of as many as 26,000 troops and police to Darfur before the end of the year to quell violence that has killed more than 200,000 people and displaced more than 2 million in four years.'

Now you can see why Rwanda occured uninterupted. It's takes four years before they can agree to send a decent peace keeping force.

'Family Values'

Why is it always those who preach 'family values' that end up caught in seedy hotels with prostitutes and drugs?

A while back anti-gay marriage campaigner Pastor Ted Haggard was found out to have paid for sex with a gay prostitute and of having bought methamphetamine:

'"I bought it for myself but never used it. I was tempted but I never used it,"

Sure Ted. And when responding to the admission of Mike Jones of Denver that Haggard had paid him for sex repeatedly he denied it though admitted that he'd received a 'massage'.

Sure Ted. This is what Mike had to say:

'"It made me angry that here's someone preaching about gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex," '

This is all old news though, but a similar thing has occurred in Italy with a conservative 'family values' politician caught in a hotel with an overdosed prostitute. He denied that all was as it seemed by arguing that he didn't know she was taking drugs, nor did he know she was a prostitute:

'Asked if he had paid the girl for sex, Mr Mele replied: "Not exactly. I spontaneously gave her a present."
Pressed further, he admitted that the present had been a sum in cash, "though not excessive". He denied reports that he had taken part in a threesome, saying that while there had been another woman present she had only chatted to the first woman in the suite's sitting room while he lay in bed watching television.
"I think I fell asleep while they were talking," he said. "Perhaps that was when they took drugs." '

Sure mate.

The moral of these stories is keep your inner conflicts out of the lives of everyone else. If you're gay and you can't stand it, deal with it, don't push your hypocritical prejudices onto others. Or similarly if you love dope and hookers, don't expect everyone else to toe the Christian line.

Keelty's Losing It!!!!!

Mick Keelty earlier today:

'"For all that's been said about the SIM card, the SIM card is still in the vicinity of London at the time that the devices were attempted to be exploded,"

"The SIM card is still at Glasgow, at the airport at the time that the attempted bombing happened there. There's been a lot of focus on exactly where the SIM card was, as I've said, in these sorts of investigations, information changes very quickly, there's a high volume of information to be got through very quickly. "

What!? In two places at once! And not one of those places is where Scotland Yard said they found it. A spokesman later clarified:

'"The SIM card was considered significant in the UK investigation and was identified as being in contact with individuals alleged to have been involved in both the London and Glasgow attack."'

So what!? Don't we already know all this?

It just demonstrates how desperate everyone is to paint Haneef as guilty, of anything at all. This whole episode is becoming hilarious!

Andrews Gives Us The 'Goods'......Sorta.

Kevin Andrews has given us some of the 'secret' information he based his decision to cancel Haneef's visa on, and it doesn't seem to have impressed many. Once again even Andrew Bolt isn't swayed by this attempt at political resuscitation:

'Of course, even these tidbits prove little against Haneef, even if Andrews said it made the Australian Federal Police "highly suspicious". As you'd expect.
After all, the brothers seemed confused about what their second cousins had really done, and how they'd used Haneef's card.
As Andrews himself told it: "The brother added that, 'Auntie told him brother Kafeel used it; he is in some sort of project over there'."
It seems the card was not used for the bombing.
But if Haneef -- a Muslim foreigner in Australia with mad cousins who'd gone bombing - felt it was a good time to go back home, I'm not surprised. '

Only those determined to see him gone regardless of evidence, or lack there of, have cheered the 'new' revelations, but let's look at them.

Hannef's brother appears concerned for him when he writes: "Tell them that you have to (leave) as you have a daughter born. Do not tell them anything else." If I'd just found out that my brother had been linked via his SIM to a crime commited by my family members I think this kind of talk would be typical, it certainly doesn't implicate Haneef with the crime. He also says: "Aunty told me that brother Kafeel used it: he is in some sort of project over there." This sentence suggests that the attack had caught them both off guard, meaning that they knew nothing about a planned attack. It also shows that Kafeel's mother is merely recycling public information, incorrect information, as the SIM was not used by the brothers.

The further nail in the argument that these exchanges are evidence of prior knowledge or guilt is the fact that after this exchange Haneef called Scotland Yard four times to clear up the matter. Would he have done this were he guilty?

The exchange proves that they were nervous of the connection that police had drawn between the attackers and Haneef, but not much else. If you knew you were going to be attached to a crime such as terrorism while in another country wouldn't you try and leave?

Andrews seriously needs to give us the full evidence. These selective tidbits released for the sole purpose of vindicating the minister and incriminating Haneef aren't good enough, in fact he's made it worse for himself. If Haneef's guilty and they have evidence to prove it, release it!