The Daydreaming Australian Is In For A Big Surprise

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

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

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

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

Robert Manne again!? The obsession continues.

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

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

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

Again, Manne muses correctly.

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

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

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

Itchy itchy! How can they stand it!?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One More Time: KG Spells Out The Mission

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

Posted by KG

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

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

UPDATE:

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

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

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

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

And is given this in reply:

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

And the idiot doesn't get it:

Bawaaahahaha! what a devastating comeback.

What a moron!

Windschuttle Tackles The Big Issues

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

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

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

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

I might rethink my subscription.

A Pack Of Whingers, Or The New McCarthyists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, Oh No!!! A Labor fundraiser!

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

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

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

A fucking worm.

Hall, The Greatest Acrobat There Is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wormy Troubles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning.

The Oz Kicks An Own Goal

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

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

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

Bravo!!!

Pop quiz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts On Rudd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That last sentence is now fairly popular.

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

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

Robert Manne sums it up nicely:

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

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

Five Words From Honesty

Of course this news doesn't surprise us anymore:

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

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

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

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

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

Hypocrites.

The Final Events (of bible prophecy)

Though I've spoken out many times before against religious fear mongering and the bigotry it can inspire, it should be stated that I hold quite a lot of respect for a great deal of religious individuals. So I try to keep my criticism leveled firmly at actions that most people would consider wrong and deserving of it. If a guy blows himself up in Israel in order to kill civilians believing, through religion, that it is God's will and he'll be rewarded for it, it clearly deserves derision. When a preacher tells poor people in America that God thinks they must give their hard earned money to him so he can buy a Gulfstream II it clearly deserves derision. And, albeit a far more minor offense, when adherents of a religion consistently try to scare the shit out of you so you'll convert, I believe, it also deserves derision. So it was with annoyance that I opened my letter box today to find yet another attempt at scaring me shitless.

A while back I received the DVD: THE FINAL EVENTS on my doorstep and I thought, bugger it I'll have a look. It was predictable rubbish, the end is nigh, the signs are here, it is written, if you don't convert etc...... What shocked me the most was that by the end God had committed worldwide genocide not once, but twice! I was being asked to convert to this religion, believe these events were coming and to actually love the God who would carry out the killing. It was a tall order, too tall in fact so I threw the DVD onto the step where I'd found it.

Jump ahead 1 year (to today) and there's a FINAL EVENTS pamphlet in my letterbox telling me that someone's preaching this drivel locally and that I should come along. It's an exciting program:

Night One: See how Bible prophecy is encoded in symbolic imagery and how the Bible has predicted all the major world empires of history down to our day

So in short, some genius has "decoded" the Bible's "symbolic imagery" to predict world empires. Not off to a good start.

Night Two: What are world events telling us? Why is there an increase in natural, social and political disasters? Are these signs of a greater event?

I wasn't aware there was an increase! History's positively chock full of natural, social and political disasters.

Night Three: What did Jesus mean when He said He would return to the earth? How and when will He come? What is the Rapture? How will this affect the world?

Clearly you've just gotta believe to attend night three.

Night Four: How did this world become so sinful? Who started the rebellion against God? What is it all over? Where will it end?

Did it become more sinful? What do they mean by sinful? Of course having watched the DVD I already know what they mean, "moral decline". This is code for: there are too many gays and too many people fail to realise that they're an abomination. Nice.

Night Five: The Antichrist 1

Scary!!!

Night Six: The Antichrist 2

The Antichrist gets two nights in a row in case the first doesn't sufficiently frighten the hell out of you (literally).

Of course I'll probably go if I've got nothing better to do.

Me Tooism All Round

Today must be a painful day for Rudd's critics after Howard's announced support for symbolic reconciliation, a stance long held by Labor and consistently rejected by the conservatives champion John Howard:

The Prime Minister has overturned more than a decade of opposition to reconciliation involving symbolism, reviving the idea of a constitutional recognition of the achievements and the place of indigenous people in Australia.

"I believe we must find room in our national life to formally recognise the special status of Aboriginal (people) and Torres Strait Islanders as the first peoples of our nation," he said last night.

Ouch! There is of course good reason to feel cynical about the timing of such a turnaround, and many already do, but in the main such an announcement should be welcome. Symbolic gestures can go a long way toward putting the past behind us eternally by recognising it, then moving on, and I think Howard may have now realised this, albeit after 11 years of saying the opposite and on the eve of an election in which he faces defeat, but are there really any votes to score from it? I'm doubtful.

What will of course be fun to watch is what his barrackers will now do. Will they continue to denounce symbolism as they always have, or will they now tow Howard's line? I can't wait!

UPDATE:

I found this possibility expressed at Larvatus Prodeo very interesting:

'Howard is trying to get both Labor and the broader progressive left talking about apologies, treaties, land rights, shared sovereignty, …and scare some “cultural conservatives” who switched to Labor because of WorkChoices back into the Coalition camp. At worst for Howard, Rudd clamps down on any such talk within Labor ranks, thus sending people who care about such issues (and, perhaps, things like opposition to the death penalty) into further despair.'

Since I'm not at all convinced that his turnaround is a vote grabber I find the above, as an alternative to him being honest, far move believable.

UPDATE 2:

Some evidence of LP's theory is arising. The debate on apologies has been revived to a degree with Howard making this statement this morning:

"From my point of view and the point of view of millions of Australians, to go down the apology road, is simply to try and deal with the matter through apportionment of blame and guilt," he said.

"And impliedly at the very least, a repudiation of a history of a nation which I believe has been profoundly positive."

This is old, yet effective, ground for Howard. If he can keep this going as an issue for the entire election campaign it may indeed prove to be disastrous for Labor. And, if it grants them victory, after the dust has settled Indigenous Australian's will realise that winning was all it was about. For their sakes, and the for the harmony of the country, I hope this is wrong.

WTF?: The Death Penalty 2

To view more evidence of the acrobatics performed by some conservatives on the death penalty one only needs to read Alan Howe in today's Herald Sun:

'Unless the Indonesian Government wavers, marksmen will, one morning soon, dispatch Bali bombers Imam Samudra, Ali Ghufron and the giggling Amrozi to meet the many virgins that are theirs by Koranic promise.'

'I have opposed the death penalty previously, but this is different. Indonesia is an unsettled democracy in which there is a resentful Islamic push for it to become a theocracy.
Should that happen, a living Bali bomber would likely be liberated, hailed a hero and doubtless given some senior official post in which they would set to work on murdering more of us.
The three of them need to be killed.'

So Howe's reasons for wishing the death penalty on the Bali bombers are different. He believes it likely that an Islamic theocracy will spring up in Indonesia and thus these criminals will be given an official post, Ministers for the Killing of Infidels maybe.

After spending the last two weeks there talking to locals and reading much of the media this suggestion strikes me as hilarious. Exactly how did Howe come up with this pathetic appraisal? It seems to me that his lust for their deaths warranted an excuse considering he's previously opposed capital punishment, and this is the best he can come up with. Rather than outwardly state that he is now pro-death penalty he prefers to amend his position to accommodate his call for their killing. It's just weak.

You're pro-capital punishment Alan, just say so.

The Labor Loathers And The Death Penalty

It's only been two and a bit weeks but I fell like I've been missing out on all sorts of commotion. Andrews and the Gov have further disgraced themselves by ceasing to accept African migrants (just what is going on there!?) and now the death penalty is back in the headlines. So rather than play catch up on everything, I'll only comment for now on that last, and more recent, issue.

For the record, I'm totally opposed to the death penalty. Not only am I not convinced that it works as a deterrent, but I view it as barbaric, an echo from a less civilised time when raw emotion dictated punishment rather than cool, calm consideration. Some view it as a just punishment for killers considering that they themselves have killed, in short, an eye for an eye. But not only is this view too close to Biblical or Koranic dictations for me (therefore stuck in the past), it doesn't actually make sense when considering where it take us, an assault for an assault? A rape for a rape maybe? Clearly this position isn't well thought through for not only does state sanctioned murder stand alone as a punishment inspired by the crime, but it makes the punisher a killer also. So death creates more death and death alone.


So when one is against the death penalty one should stand by it as a principle and voice their opposition to it whenever the subject is raised as you would in regards to any fundamental principle, and this is all Robert McClelland said. For some to take issue with the timing of his comments is fair enough, but some of the criticism directed at Labor by the usual suspects has bordered on the ridiculous. Take the predictable Labor loather Iain Hall for example:

'The Labor party are without doubt far too soft when it comes to justice for terrorists'

This is quite simply an absurd comment often repeated by other conservative parrots. Because Labor wish to speak their opinions on the death penalty whenever the subject arises they are "soft on terror". Hall's eagerness to see more death in the name of "justice" and his hate for Labor have blinded him to the silliness of his comment.

'...they are far to soft when it comes to the idiots who have been caught trying to smuggle drugs from Asia.'

Here he appears to be suggesting that death is an appropriate sentence for drug trafficking even, and that Labor are now soft on drug trafficking because they similarly oppose capital punishment for the Bali nine!? This may not be what he meant by his comment but it at least shows tacit approval for their deaths. He goes on in this vein but I'll spare you the pitiless rationale. Hall's firmly of the opinion that death is an appropriate punishment at times, indeed sometimes he even relishes in a slow death:

'The revelation that there have been further arrests in relation to this latest bombing campaign certainly is good news. As is the news that one of Glasgow’s would be bombers has burns to 90% of his body. People with such extensive burns seldom survive their injuries and usually have a slow and very painful death, usually succumbing to shock and infection. It could not happen to a nicer bloke now could it?'

How can Hall distinguish himself as the opposite of these criminals when he makes comments like this?

Today in The Australian on another brilliantly balanced opinion page edited by culture warrior Tom Switzer, James Allan has a go at Labor even though, strangely enough, he opposes the death penalty:

'The same holds if, for most Australians, capital punishment is in all circumstances considered to be unarguably the most obnoxious of the many practices on offer in neighbouring countries: worse than female genital mutilation, say, or chopping off hands for theft, or shooting monks who want democracy, or building nuclear weapons, or whatever your pick is from the fairly extensive list on offer.'

Here he's playing that old conservative card where you point out a bunch of other horrible crimes and say "why aren't you campaigning against these also" with the intention of belittling the campaign against crime one. Firstly, some of them aren't state sanctioned activities and are outlawed already. Secondly, Labor do speak out against many of them consistently eg: shooting monks, nuclear weapons. Thirdly, chopping off hands for theft is comparable to capital punishment in that the crime dictates the punishment. So if Allan thinks this is beyond the pale then why isn't the death penalty on his list also?

'For one thing, there is nothing inconsistent in saying you support capital punishment for murder (and even more so for terrorists who detonate bombs in bars, thus murdering hundreds), but not for drug smuggling or indeed anything short of murder. On that basis there is all the difference in the world between the Bali bombers and the Australian drug smugglers.
Second, it is not inconsistent to say, "We don't support capital punishment even for murder here in Australia, but at the same time we do not condemn it elsewhere where it is used against murderers who were given a fair and open trial." '

What a confused position!! Allan is clearly having trouble defending Howard's stance here as to oppose capital punishment is to OPPOSE IT!!!! We don't say "well we don't like it but if you guys want to kill people then we'll support you". Coming from a Howard fan such relativism should strike all other conservatives as worrying.

And finally The Australian's pathetic editorial:

'Kevin Rudd was quick to criticise Mr McClelland's speech yesterday as insensitive on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Bali bombing. Yet the fact is that Mr McClelland was articulating Labor policy. Mr Rudd did not support the death penalty for Saddam or for the Bali bombers, and on October 10 last year shadow health minister Nicola Roxon said that "Australia needs to continue to strongly and clearly state its opposition to the death penalty, whenever and wherever it arises", and not just when Australians are involved.'

And so what!? Labor OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY. This is what you do when you oppose capital punishment.

'While there is bipartisan opposition to the death penalty in Australia, Labor's notion that the Government should state its opposition every time someone, somewhere in the world, is executed is absurd. With more than 1500 executions last, year that would amount to four or five representations every day.'

What a ridiculous comment! Labor don't propose to state it's opposition every time someone is executed, merely every time the subject arises. A consistent position is what they proposed not the rag tag flexible ground we currently occupy. This editorial is a perfect example of the weak conservative stance on capital punishment. In order to look "tough" it's required of them to not mention too sternly that they don't support capital punishment, rather they add it as a side comment before they rail on about the justifications for it.

Just let us know guys, death or no death? Don't duck and weave with your pussy footed anti-Labor moaning.