Going On Holiday

I have to go to Indonesia for two weeks so play safe everyone.

Is Calling Her "Pumpkin" A Sign Of Racism?

After reading this letter in The Age I started to think that maybe this person has a point:

'WHEN an abandoned Caucasian child or infant is found it is never called "Baby-gro" or "Bonds", it is given an authentic child's name. However, when a little Chinese girl is found, the best name that can be thought of is "Pumpkin". What lies behind that decision? Even when her real name is recovered, the name "pumpkin", or "the toddler", continues to be used in the media. Why is that? '

Yeah right! It's a sign that some cop suffered from a lack of imagination not racism. And her real name is being used (albeit within the fine print) but let's face it, when a cute little girl who's been abandoned by her father in another country is called Pumpkin once, she's never gonna shake it.

Cute little Pumpkin.

What the hell is wrong with your father!?

Bolt's Bizarre Comments

Firstly, apologies to Jeremy for stepping on his toes as this is usually his department but I noticed he hadn't written anything yet so....

There's just a few comments in Bolt's piece that I've found to be just plain weird. One of them is this:

'Incidentally, for more proof, see star Labor candidate Maxine McKew, now fighting Prime Minister John Howard for his seat of Bennelong.
She’s just promised to recognise the “Armenian genocide”, hoping to thrill Bennelong’s 4000 ethnic Armenians.
The nation’s many Turks, however, will be enraged, rightly arguing that the death of hundreds of thousands of Armenians in the wars, famines and inter-ethnic slaughter of the Ottoman Empire’s last years was a tragedy, but no state-ordered genocide.'

This is exactly the kind of rash pronouncement that landed the man in hot water over the Stolen Generation for there is absolutely no way that Andrew Bolt could at all be sure that the Armenian massacre wasn't a genocide. There is much evidence to suggest it was, yet here this Australian journalist believes he can be sure enough to take the incredible step of denying the massacre was actually planned. Has he know idea of the extent of his crime were he to be proven wrong? Were he to simply say that the evidence isn't yet conclusive, sure, but outright denial!?

Then there were these comments:

'Already we can assume Labor in office will kill the federal intervention in the Northern Territory launched by this Government to save Aboriginal communities now drowning in booze, violence, truancy and unemployment.'

Can we!!? That's certainly news to me.

'Except, of course, we know Labor is infected with the New Racism, and still plays off one tribe against another.'

'Preserve the tribe! Never mind the individual. And pit one race against another. '

So it was Labor that used race as a device to win the 2001 election. Labor demonised asylum seekers in order to pit the population against these que-jumpers and potential terrorists. It was Labor who pitched the majority against Aborigines by claiming they were receiving special treatment and that the
former should be justly resentful. It was Rudd who questioned the rate of Asian immigration in the 80's.

Well once again this is all news to me.

No More Mr Nice PM

Howard flips Rudd the bird!!!

Iain Hall Supports Ritual Human Sacrifice!

I've been debating with Iain recently about his tendency to read just a tad too much into other peoples writings, or even lack thereof. Iain has this uncanny ability to see the 'implicit' meaning behind everything you write, or don't write, and is thus able to attribute opinions or thoughts to you even though you've never voiced them!!!! It's truly unnerving!!! To illustrate this shocking ability I'll give a few examples.

A few days ago Iain argued on his blog that I'd "written a piece denouncing the governments vote against this pernicious (U.N) declaration." Yet if anyone would care to look at the post below the next, I clearly affirm no position. The post outlines what I believe are the real reasons why the Government didn't sign the U.N Declaration (and the politics involved), and nowhere in it do I offer my opinion on anything else. Yet even though I hadn't expressed a view, this is a moot point to Iain because he knows what I really think!

'the reason he want’s to see the UN declaration as an instrument of justice and virtue has more to do with an over active guilt chip than any consistent principle.'

Bravo!! There goes that straw man. Well done old chap. How did he deduce this?

'I will concede that you did not explicitly affirm a position but there certainly seems to be an implicit condemnation of the governments vote on this matter'

So I didn't say it, but in order to write about it it was necessary that he attribute that opinion to me.

But this is actually a bit of a habit of old Iain's. The words he employs to stuff you into a box of his own design are 'tacit' and 'implicit'. So you may not actually say that you support terrorists, but in not expressing your outrage at them at least once a day you are 'tacitly' supporting them. Like the ALP 'tacitly' supports attacks on the indigenous intervention:

'MM - There’s been very little in the way of ALP support for any of the attacks Iain. They’ve come, in the main, from Indigenous groups and the Greens.

Iain - I did characterise said attacks as being tacitly supported by the ALP MM'

So they didn't actually support the attacks (meaning they didn't say anything about them at all) they 'tacitly' supported them. Why Iain would expect the ALP to defend the Coalition while it's being attacked I'm not sure.

Iain has taken the use of 'tacit' and 'implicit' to great new heights and now deploys them wherever he finds himself in a pinch. Hap and Jeremy, 'tacitly' support Jihadists for example (in fact Iain probably thinks we all do) because they don't argue for the annihilation of Muslims like his friends at A Western Heart and Crusader Rabbit do, therefore they 'tacitly' support Islamic terror:

'Read Osama’s latest anti-west rant and tell me if it is that far away from any number of far left bloggers, like my old pal Jeremy for example (another rich kid gone bad, sigh) or perhaps my fairly regular visitor Hap. Like the Islamists the far left are great haters who wish death upon all of those who would stand against them.'

My reply was predictable, 'WTF!!!!' and so was Iains:

'I was not making any allegations of explicit support for Jihadists in relation to either Jeremy or even Hap but I was pointing out that they both have been willing to make excuses for them none the less.'

Iain can even be threatened implicitly:

'However when you have threats explicit and implicit against you or your family, which accompany the publication of your home address...'

As you can see it's full of endless opportunity.

In fact it's so full of opportunity that I'm starting to believe it's a valid call. So while exploring the potential of my new found ability at Iain's blog I made a startling discovery. Iain tacitly supports ritual human sacrifice!!! Not once did I find a single post in denunciation of it!!!! As you can imagine I was blown away by this discovery and had to immediately write of it.

But while writing I realised that I've also been tacitly supporting ritual human sacrifice, and many other grievous crimes!! So to make sure I'm not denounced as a hypocrite let me make one thing clear.

I DON'T SUPPORT RITUAL HUMAN SACRIFICE.

But on the my points concerning the U.N Declaration, it seems that my reading of the said document was fairly on the money as this article in The Australian showed today:

'Professor Sampford said the declaration could raise concerns among some governments because it appears to require the consent of indigenous people to approve projects on their lands and raise the issue of compensation for lands taken.
He also said the tone of the declaration was not "particularly consistent" with the Government's legal framework for its Northern Territory intervention.
The fast-tracked intervention, backed by Labor, aims to fight alcohol and child abuse in indigenous communities.
But Professor Sampford said he was less convinced of the argument, used by Mr Brough, that the declaration could give customary law precedence over national law.
"That would be an unlikely interpretation by any sovereign government," he said'

If you didn't notice, Professor Sampford 'tacitly' supports ratifying the Declaration as well.

Bolt's Oft Repeated Disgrace

Andrew Bolt is about as regular as clockwork, though I'm sure we're all very aware of that fact. After reading this in The Australian:

'A MAGISTRATE seeking to preserve an Aboriginal toddler's "cultural identity" ignored warnings from child protection workers and put him into the care of his violent uncle, who four weeks later tortured and bashed the boy almost to death.
The 26-year-old uncle was sentenced to six years in prison yesterday after admitting to beating his 20-month-old nephew so severely that the toddler was fighting for his life in intensive care for three days.'

I knew without a doubt that Bolt would use it shamefully as another stick with which to beat his enemies in relation to the Stolen Generations. And viola, he did:

'As I’ve said many times, the stolen generation is a myth killing black children:'

What simple minded, partisan nonsense his argument is. Since his been destroyed by a mountain of historical evidence this has been his most recent, and most ridiculous, tactic. To convince Australia that the Stolen Generations should be denied he precedes to guilt them into disbelieving it, because as he says, regardless of the evidence for it, 'it kills black children'. So we're asked to not bother researching the evidence for ourselves because in doing so we'll simply be complicit in their deaths. This argument is tantamount to telling Armenians to stop mourning their past genocide if they would prefer better relations with Turkey. Just deny it no matter what happened, and all will be well. But let's look at this case as it happened:

'The boy, whose father was in jail for child rape, had been left homeless after the murder of his mother.
The decision of the Children's Court magistrate in October last year came despite the opposition of the Department of Human Services, which had raised concerns about the uncle's long criminal history and inadequate accommodation.
Indigenous leaders Boni Robertson, a professor in indigenous policy at Griffith University, and Warren Mundine, the former national president of the ALP, attacked the magistrate's decision to ignore the uncle's criminal and drug histories.
"It makes a mockery of the whole concept of child protection," Professor Robertson said. "Whoever made the decision to put that child in the care of that person with a history of known violence, they should be held culpable for what has happened to that child."'

No shit!!! What an immensely stupid decision! But if we are to follow Bolt's logic the magistrate can be absolved of his stupidity because the "myth" of the stolen generations is the real underlying culprit. The fact that this point would appear convenient for Bolt after his shrill denials of the Stolen Generations is of course of no consequence. To illustrate the magistrate's exceptional stupidity once more:

'The court heard yesterday that the uncle -- who lived in overcrowded conditions in the outer-southeast Melbourne suburb of Dandenong and was battling addictions to various drugs -- told police he "lost it" and started hitting the child in the head with an open hand because the boy was playing with his food.'

U.N Declaration On Indigenous Rights

Howard may have received his long sort after wedge yesterday with Labor vowing to ratify the new U.N declaration. I think we all know where this is going. The government decided not to ratify it because they believe it legitimised customary law '...including practices "not acceptable in the modern world"'. Now I'm no lawyer, but after trolling through the draft of the U.N declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples it's appeared to me that there may be more to their rejection of it than they're letting on. The prospect of violence or abuse being legitimised is pretty slim at first glance:

'States shall take measures, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, to
ensure that indigenous women and children enjoy the full protection and guarantees
against all forms of violence and discrimination.'

Not to mention the fact that it is all non-binding.

What I think may have alarmed the Howard Government more are articles such as these:

Article 23
Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and
strategies for exercising their right to development. In particular, indigenous peoples
have the right to be actively involved in developing and determining health, housing
and other economic and social programmes affecting them and, as far as possible, to
administer such programmes through their own institutions.

Article 26
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources
which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.

Article 28
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include
restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for
the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise
occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or
damaged without their free, prior and informed consent.


2. Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned,
compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality,
size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress.

I think that it should be fairly clear that this government was never going to ratify such a declaration. With reference to Article 23, the government's current intervention, with its zero consultation with indigenous people, would appear to already be in violation of the declaration, as is its disbanding of ATSIC.

UPDATE: If you would like to see Iain Hall's ridiculous beat-up of this post go here.

I Don't Get It

Can anyone tell me what the point is to the bizarre refugee exchange program we have struck with the U.S? I mean if refugees are fleeing persecution and wish to find sanctuary in the west what difference will it make whether that sanctuary is here or in the States? The whole thing is just confusing!!

After seventy-two Sri Lankans were deemed to be genuine refugees:

...the men will not be allowed to come to Australia and could instead be sent to the US under a controversial exchange arrangement that would involve Cuban refugees from Guantanamo Bay being resettled here in return.'

Great, how incredible spiteful Australia has become. If conservatives need any more proof of the long argued nastiness of the Howard Government here it is. I've long found our treatment of genuine refugees (because most of those who've arrived on boat have been found to be so including the vast majority of those on the Tampa) to be the most embarrassing aspect of current day Australia. The deliberate attempts to demonise them since 2001 have been transparent and appalling, they've been called everything from "que jumpers"and "illegals" to potential terrorists. But now things are just getting pathetic.

"The reduction in the number of people seeking to enter Australia unlawfully has been a direct result of the Howard Government's clear policy that persons who seek to enter Australia illegally will not be settled in Australia," Mr Andrews said.

They have no idea whether asylum seeker levels have dropped because of their "clear policy". The fact is that world asylum seeker levels declined immediately after the U.S invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, so in announcing their policy as victorious they've deliberately ignored large and important parts of the equation knowing full well that the vast majority of Australians won't bother to look up the whole truth. (I was hoping to show a graph here but I can't seem to get it working, see the above link) Nor am I certain that refugees entering Australia are actually "illegal".

The government's continuing line on asylum seekers is an echo from its 2001 election shame where it pitted Australians against desperate refugees using misinformation and smear, and it's just ridiculous that they continue to carry on in this fashion.

Does The Palestinian Israeli Conflict Even Shock Anymore?

While reading of yet another Palestinian attack on Israel, and the subsequent Israeli response, I noticed how tired I am of the whole thing. Most of us have spent our whole lives knowing of nothing else but conflict between the two camps, which makes you realise how utterly hopeless the situation is. Worsening the problem is the relatively new division between Gaza and the West Bank, with Hamas is control of Gaza and Fatah the West Bank. And when the rockets into Israel just keep on a coming what hope is there?

'At least 57 soldiers sleeping in tents were wounded when the homemade rocket landed smack in the middle of the Zikim base in southern Israel not far from the border with Gaza, an army spokesman and medics said. It was the bloodiest rocket strike from Gaza in months and came days before the start of the Jewish new year, increasing the pressure on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's cabinet to take action to stop the fire. Many of the troops were conscripts due to complete their basic training the following day. Thirty-nine of the soldiers suffered only light wounds, with those suffering more serious injuries evacuated to nearby hospitals by ambulance and helicopters, officials said. In Gaza, the military wing of the radical Islamic Jihad group - which launches the majority of rockets from the territory into Israel - claimed the attack.'

Well they're getting better you might say as the victims were nearly soldiers this time, but geeez, what do they think this will achieve!? Their lot will never improve as long as they continue these attacks. The constant attempts to kill civilians (or whoever they can) merely highlights them for what they are, murderous, and it'll never win them any concessions from Israel. The only path to their own viable state is through dialogue as violence has given them nothing but violence in return.

And has anyone noticed that Israel just can't seem to hit the right targets:

'Hours later, a Palestinian man and three of his children were wounded when an Israeli tank shell landed on their house in the northern Gaza city of Beit Hanun, medics said. The army said it had struck an area in northern Gaza from where the rocket that hit Zikim was allegedly fired, but it was not immediately clear whether this was a separate incident.'

Either the Palestinians have an impressive propaganda machine or the IDF is bloody hopeless!!

When Someone Is A Little TOO Pro-American

I lament the fact that so many these days express a knee jerk anti-American opinion, although I do believe that conservatives have successfully exaggerated this phenomenon and have applied "anti-American" to anyone who disagrees with them. But I also think some Australians lean a tad too far the other way, take "Aussies For ANZUS".

This site is just great. Take this:

'Why is it that Australians who are old enough to remember the 1940s are almost always staunchly pro-American? Its because in early 1942 Imperial Japan had conquered ALL of Asia and Australia was next.'

It goes on to tell of the Battle of the Coral Sea yet they've already, in my opinion, made a serious error. I've never met one old Australian soldier who is "staunchly pro-American". In fact I've found the opposite to be true. I've suffered tale after tale about how crap the Americans were compared to the Aussies and how those Yankee bastards stole their women. Whether or not these tales are true is beside the point, what matters here is that they never appeared to be "staunchly pro-American". In fact, my grandfather was involved in a famous incident on a train in Australia where Australian and U.S troops began shooting at each other for a short period!! Such love.

The site goes on and on twisting and twisting the truth, from the Vietnam War to the Australian Labor Party:

'The Australian Labor Party has been, is and probably always will be home to many who despise America. They will turn a blind eye to the world’s most brutal and corrupt dictators yet leap out of bed to attack the United States.'

I'd say, as I've just recently said, that this is a tendency of the Australian far-Left (including the Greens) but I'd hardly put the ALP in this category. In fact the ALP have always been strong supporters of America but these guys seem to believe that when a party disagrees with it's ally it "despises" it. So far Australia has come from thinking independently, to towing the U.S line, that any deviation is now perceived as hatred for the U.S. But when looking at this photo do you think these people could ever think otherwise.

Demonstration Fun

What an interesting spectacle the APEC demonstration appears to have been. Containing all sorts of bizarre groups from both sides of the spectrum as well as a weird group of men and women called "Billionaires For Bush":

'But just nearby a small group of young men and women calling themselves “Billionaires for Bush” and dressed in black tie and mock fur jackets chanted, “One, two, three four, we don't care about the poor. Five six seven eight, give us tax cuts, we can't wait."They also chanted: “The Billionaires, united, will never be defeated.”'

It's gotta be a piss take, and quite an amusing one at that!!

There also appeared a far-right group called the "National Anarchists" (sounds like an oxymoron) who it seems were just plain morons:

'The National Anarchists, who described themselves as the New Right, were all dressed in black hooded jackets. Some of the group wore dark sunglasses and all had bandanas around their faces.Inside the National Anarchists' lines was retired Macquarie University constitutional historian Andrew Fraser. He said he was a supporter of the National Anarchists because "globalisation is destroying my people, the Anglo-Saxons who are the core ethno-cultural identity".'

Because us Anglo-Saxons are just so damn oppressed. Predictably this created some problems for the socialists within the "Stop Bush" brigade:

'The National Anarchists were confronted by left-wing groups who called them neo-fascists and chanted "Anti-racists, call police” and “You are not a part of this", pointing at the black-hooded demonstrators. A group composed mainly of women marched in front of the National Anarchists, chanting, "No race, no war, that is what we're fighting for."'

What fun!

What was conspicuously missing was a demonstration against the Chinese delegation and all the grotesque human rights violations within China. Or the Vietnamese delegation and all the horrible political discrimination continued by the corrupt government in Vietnam still to this day. It remains an exploitable fact that the Left seem to only demonstrate in any sizable numbers against America lately, how is this at all right? I don't mean to imply that they shouldn't protest against American foreign policy where they disagree, but why are these notorious human rights violators given such an easy ride in comparison?

The Chaser At APEC

How angry many conservatives and ministers are. How eager Today Tonight was to attack The Chaser once again merely because they excel at exposing the show as the pathetic beat-up vehicle it is. How outraged is the NSW Police Minister David Campbell:

'He said the prank was inappropriate and he "did not see the funny side at all''.'

In fact, they could have been SHOT!!! But at least it:

'showed the security system worked.'

And black is white. The fake motorcade passed through at least one police checkpoint where the crew showed their fake security passes, which clearly stated so, and contained their real names. Furthermore, the only reason they were found out is because Chas got out looking like Osama bin Laden alerting the police that something was up.

So I guess if this is the definition of our security system working then, yeah, it worked. Why don't they just admit that they're embarrassed that The Chaser exposed such flaws. Funnily enough The Chaser has had some fun with this glaringly obvious fact:

'Yesterday, three members of the Chaser team, Craig Reucassel, Chris Taylor and Dominic Knight, were taken away by police after they "drove" through a police line at the APEC forum wearing black cardboard cars bearing Canadian flags and wheels made of paper plates.'

What a pisser!

Is Australia Racist?

I know, it's a far too general question. But even though it's a question that can't be answered with a simple yes or no without generalising, it's a question commonly asked and answered definitively. You get your garden variety conservatives drawing on their evidence of choice to prove it's not, then you get some on the Left doing the same to claim it is. But it's not that easy. Furthermore, are we supposed to compare it to other countries to formulate our opinions or judge ourselves what would make it deserving of the title?

A new study has shown that racism against kids of Islamic or Arabic parents has been common in our schools:

'Research by Deakin University's associate dean of research, Fethi Mansouri, found that since the 2001 terrorist attacks, students of Muslim or Arabic background had increasingly become associated with such negative things as terrorism and war.

This had had a detrimental effect, with students not only feeling more ostracised at school, but experiencing higher absenteeism and lower academic achievement.

He said racist behaviour had increased since 2001,and included verbal taunts, humiliation, exclusion and physical aggression.'

This is terrible news, and surely if most Australians can agree that it is then we are on the right course. The horrible thing is that I'm not so sure it would be universally agreed upon. These days so much rubbish is circulating about Islam, and Muslims (what they believe) that some Australians have been radicalised against them. Who would actually think that those behind blogs like Crusader Rabbit or A Western Heart would lament this poor treatment and it's detrimental effects? I'm not jumping to the conclusion that Australia is an especially racist place, but to ensure it doesn't head that way attitudes like those at the above mentioned blogs should be ridiculed as the simple minded rubbish they are. Take this:

'Speaking at Kanal D TV’s Arena program, PM Erdogan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP and said, ‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Crusader has used this quote to denigrate all Muslims as somehow extreme. In doing this they have demonstrated a terrible lack of understanding. As Waleed Aly has explained in People Like Us "Moderate" and "fundamentalist" are Christian terms that don't apply effectively to Islam. Erdogan is insulted by "moderate" because it implies that he is somehow half a Muslim, not because he is a "fundamentalist" or that Muslims are an homogeneous group of extreme fanatics who all follow the same course. This example is typical of where many seem to be going wrong.

More understanding is needed and less outright hate.

$2 Billion On Telling Ourselves How Great Howard Is

The Howard Government has nearly reached the $2 billion mark in spending on taxpayer funded propaganda:

PRIME Minister John Howard has spent nearly $2 billion on government advertising and information campaigns since coming to power 11 years ago.

A Sunday Age investigation has found that just weeks from calling an election, the Government has 18 advertising campaigns on the air, with a $23 million climate change campaign to air after this week's APEC conference.

The Sunday Age investigation has also shown that since the last election in 2004, Mr Howard has spent a record $850 million of taxpayers' money on government advertising. The Government disputes this figure. "It's probably closer to $400 million," said Peter Phelps, chief of staff to Special Minister of State Gary Nairn.

Spending this year is expected to peak at $200 million before Mr Howard calls the election.'

But don't you feel better for it? Doesn't it reassure you that we have the greatest government in the world? And surely if they feel like telling us this with our own money then who are we to argue, right?

Even though Howard railed against such abuses of taxpayer funding in 95:

In 1995, Mr Howard promised that if elected he would instruct the Commonwealth Auditor-General to draw up guidelines on appropriate use of taxpayers' money for advertising. "There is clearly a massive difference between necessary government information for the community and blatant government electoral propaganda," Mr Howard said at the time. "Propaganda should be paid for by political parties."

Here, here!!!

And conservatives still act so outraged at suggestions that Howard is somehow dishonest.