Madd McColl

Excuses, Excuses

2008-02-13T15:06:00.003+11:00

For those who've stumbled back here to see if I've come back from the wilderness I've some explaining to do.

I've been gone for a while for a few reasons, some of which prevent me still from full blogging duties.

Excuse 1: I've just bought a house and it's a fixer-upperer. Don't ever do it, you'll have no spare time at all.

Excuse 2: My hand (the one I had the operation on) still bloody hurts!!!!

Excuse 3: No internet at home (as I said, too busy fixing the thing up to bother with things like connecting the internet)

Excuse 4: The crazy work season has just begun, 12hr days, 6 days a week. Would you blog?

After all of the above is behind me, I'll resume posting. I guess I'll just let you know when that is by commenting at everyone's blogs.

Peace out.

P.S: An apology! And who said he was Howard light?

Bhutto's Death

2008-01-04T13:48:00.000+11:00

I don't think the image will ever leave my head but whenever I read that Scotland Yard is on the case I picture a bunch of Sherlock Holmes types carrying magnifying glasses rushing to the scene of the crime. Much too little too late for Benazir Bhutto.

It's clear now that she was shot, at least that's what the footage appears to reveal, and that this is what is likely to have killed her. What's hard to understand is how they came to announce that she'd died from her head impacting on the car, and that she in fact WASN'T hit by a bullet. How could such a "blunder" be made? The bodies got holes or it doesn't.

If the outraged crowds of PPP supporters needed any more reason to feel suspicious about the government's involvement in the killing they need not have looked for long. Unfortunately it's most likely to have been al-Qa'ida and such "mistakes" only serve to distract anger from the likely killers:

Mr Zardari has rejected officials' assertions that al-Qa'ida was behind the assassination.

"I dismiss the Government's claims of al-Qa'ida involvement," he reportedly said.

"The officials are trying to cover up and compare it to the death of John F.Kennedy. I think soon the chickens are going to lay their eggs and we will blame them on al-Qa'ida. Al-Qa'ida has nothing to fear; why would they fear us? Are they our political opponents?"

This statement from Bhutto's widow strikes me as the height of naivety. The very fact that Benazir Bhutto was an educated women with power was cause enough for al-Qa'ida to kill her. It seems that some are still not listening to what these extremists are saying.

Brough Keeps It Up

2007-12-20T13:02:00.000+11:00

I must admit to a deep feeling of disappointment on election night. Not over the overall outcome of course, but over Mal Brough losing his seat. This I definitely did not want. Over the past year I have grown a huge amount of respect for the man as he was different to all the other Tories, he cared. He took on his portfolio in Indigenous Affairs and set out to really make a difference by attacking the fundamental problems in many communities today. He was instrumental in applying the focus of the nation on the disadvantage, abuse and alcoholism. Sure, I disagreed with aspects of the intervention, but at last something was being done and Brough was key.

So I'm not surprised that even after defeat he is continuing with his work :

'Mr Brough told The Australian yesterday he wanted his company to establish new businesses for indigenous people who had the "drive" but did not have the financial capacity or skills base.

"I'm talking with some indigenous leaders on how we might be able to work with them to realise what we are talking about," he said."We have long advocated economic independence, and the best way to achieve that is with individuals and family groups establishing themselves in viable businesses."

"I want to work in joint ventures with the aim of building the skills base and assisting people to start sustainable business and giving them the skills to stand on their own."'

Good on you Mal.

Iain Hall's Stolen Opinions

2007-12-18T10:47:00.000+11:00

What’s up gang, I’m back! Well nearly completely, but not quite, it kinda still hurts.

For the past two days I’ve been over at Iain Hall’s blog pulling him up on the terrible fallacies and horrid logic he’s been repeating about the Stolen Generation. Eventually he got fed up with being shown his errors over and over again and called and end to it, so I’m continuing here. I’ll warn you that due to the complexity of this debate this will be a long post, but it’s necessary. People like Iain (and his mentor Andrew Bolt) believe you can summarise this issue in a few catchy paragraphs and this is the problem.

He starts by attacking me for not giving him the source of my historical quotes, apparently this amounts to a “win” in Iain’s eyes:

MM: Oh sorry I got the quotes from here (the above dossier) third party. Settled?

Iain: Yeah , apart from your appalling manners and lack of good grace when you have been shown to be clearly in error here.

But the truth is, I’d previously already given Iain the link, not that this mattered, because it doesn’t appear that Iain actually reads the primary sources when he is shown them anyway:

'Considering that we are considering a very long period and numerous different jurisdictions the evidence is indeed fragmentary and Manne’s Dossier does not have anything terribly recent, after 1910 say’

Well that’s certainly news to me. The dossier to which I linked contains documents of the removal process from around 1910 up to the Post War period:

(ii) Letter by W. G. South, Chief Protector of Aborigines in South Australia, August 7 1911

In my opinion, all half-caste children, especially girls, should be considered wards of the state and, should not be left in the blacks camps after they reach the age of four years, but should be placed in an industrial school, educated and taught trades or other occupations and, kept to constant work till they are old enough to take care of themselves, after which they should be compelled to find their own living and, should no longer be considered nor treated as Aborigines.It seems to me ridiculous to bring up a lot of practically white people in blacks camps…

(vii) Inspector O. Drewry, Derby, to the Commissioner of Police, Perth, August 14 1919.

In submitting the attached report, I desire to submit that this seizing and removing of these children is obnoxious to the Police and I trust that some official of the Aborigines Dept. will be appointed to do it. I submit that behind the power of the Chief Protector to order such seizure lies the point “for cause shown”, yet, in these cases no cause has been shown, yet he can seize all aboriginal or half-caste children under 16 years of age. No neglect has been shown by the mothers in these cases that would bring these children within the clauses as regards neglected children under the State Children’s Act.

Chief Protector of Aborigines, A.O. Neville, to R. Connell, Commissioner of Police, October 9 1919.

If the duty of bringing in half-caste children is obnoxious to the Police, it is strange that this Department has not been previously advised of this, in view of the hundreds of cases that have had attention.

From speech delivered by A. O. Neville, the Western Australian Administrator, to the Initial Conference of Commonwealth and State Aboriginal Administrators, held in Canberra in April 1937.

The opinion held by Western Australian authorities is that the problem of the native race, including half-castes, should be dealt with on a long-range plan. We should ask ourselves what will be the position, say, 50 years hence; it is not so much the position to-day that has to be considered. Western Australia has gone further in the development of such a long-range policy than has any other State, by accepting the view that ultimately the natives must be absorbed into the white population of Australia…Are we going to have a population of 1,000,000 blacks in the Commonwealth, or are we going to merge them into our white community and eventually forget that there ever were any aborigines in Australia …

His Honour the Administrator, Northern Territory, Memorandum, January 4, 1950

In Patrol Officer Evans’ report, dated 23rd December, 1949, on his patrol to the Wave Hill-Timber Creek areas, the following passages occur:-

Comment

The removal of the children from Wave Hill by MacRobertson Miller aircraft was accompanied by distressing scenes, the like of which I wish never to experience again. The engines of the plane are not stopped at Wave Hill and the noise combined with the strangeness of an aircraft only accentuated the grief and fear of the children resulting in near-hysteria in two of them. I am quite convinced that news of my actions at Wave Hill preceded me to the other stations resulting in the children being taken away prior to my arrival.
I endeavoured to assuage the grief of the mothers by taking photographs of each of the children prior to their departure and these have been distributed among them…
Recommendations
(1) I accordingly recommend that only in extreme cases is removal of part-aborigines affected by aircraft.
(2) That if possible the children be left with their mothers until they are at least six years of age. At this age they are beginning to free themselves of maternal ties…

So you see, Iain clearly hasn’t bothered to read any of this material in spite of being given it. I assert here that all Iain has done is steal his arguments from Andrew Bolt instead of forming his own opinion from the evidence available. This is a classic case of conservative group think. And precisely because Iain is in its grip he continues to slip up:

‘No the documents often suggest that the children were abused or neglected are trying to suggest that living conditions in the camps were some lovely picnic?’

‘How ever this was not sufficient for Gunner to win his court action now was it MM?’

‘Manne was unable to name even ten children who were stolen for racist reasons, despite having plenty of notice and the assistance many other true believers’

‘But it is As I said oh so long ago the reasons why every child was removed and especially what motivated those who authorised their removal will never definitively be known.’

Three of the above quotes are Bolt’s key arguments and Iain merely repeats them like a parrot with no knowledge of their truth whatsoever. He also parrots another of Bolt’s arguments, which I’ll address later, but for now I’ll demonstrate the man’s ignorance of the issue.

On comment one, the fact is that the documents hardly ever refer to neglected or abused children. To read Bolt you would be forgiven for thinking this were so but let’s say he has a penchant for repeating the same 5 or so cases of actual abused kiddies to throw doubt on the stories of thousands. But in total, actual reports of abused or neglected children are rare, in fact, there are many comments on the love these kids received:

(iii) William Craig, Cardwell, to Home Secretary, Brisbane, August 18 1903.

‘First—it is an unanswerable and incontestable fact that aboriginals universally treat all children half caste or full blooded or white children they come in contact with or nurse with universal kindness, and the mother and her aboriginal husband are endeared to the half caste child equally as to the full blooded, briefly because it is the child of the mother and the family group, therefore it is an act of impossibility to prove ill-treatment in this case or in any similar case as their children are always well fed if they have food, and the beating of children is unknown…’

Or from people insisting that there was no neglect shown:

(vii) Inspector O. Drewry, Derby, to the Commissioner of Police, Perth, August 14 1919.

In submitting the attached report, I desire to submit that this seizing and removing of these children is obnoxious to the Police and I trust that some official of the Aborigines Dept. will be appointed to do it…in these cases no cause has been shown, yet he can seize all aboriginal or half-caste children under 16 years of age. No neglect has been shown by the mothers in these cases…

To argue as Iain does (repeating Bolt) that the N.T test case of Gunner/Cubillo proves that there was no policy is highly misleading. If one cares to read the judgement it is clear that Judge O’Loughlin threw the case out on a bunch of legal grounds. Firstly, since it was legal at the time for the Commonwealth to remove “half-caste” children when they deemed it necessary, it was difficult to prove that they broke the law in doing so, from this the rest of the case collapsed. O’Loughlin stated:

”. Neither the evidence in this trial, nor the reasons for judgment, deny the existence of “the Stolen Generation”. Numerous writings tell tragically of a distressing past. But this trial has focussed primarily on the personal histories of two people: Lorna Cubillo and Peter Gunner. “

Cubillo’s history was mired by a lack of important information on her situation, though we do know that she was piled onto a truck with sixteen other “half-caste” children in horrible scenes of distressed kids and self mutilation (so ask yourself, was there still no policy?). Gunner was taken during a later period where the authorities would hound the mother for a hand print of approval on a form with conditions like these below:

1. My son is a Part-European blood, his father being a European.

2. I desire my son to be educated and trained in accordance with accepted European standards, to which he is entitled by reason of his caste.

Often the mothers who accepted these terms never saw their children again even though they were assured they would. But in gaining her acceptance O’Loughlin had no choice but to find in the Commonwealth’s favour. So arguing that this case disproves the “Stolen Generation” is a short cut to denial, but far from true.

To repeat that Robert Manne was unable to name ten stolen children is another favourite of the Bolt gang, and Hall affirms his commitment to group think by arguing this also. But this is a lie, Manne gave Bolt 230+ names from which Bolt attempted (and failed) to disprove 10 only:

‘Eventually, I sent him some 250 names. After a silence, Bolt agreed to the debate. Bolt has a Herald Sun blog-site. He appealed on it for help in discrediting my first 12 names. There was no mention of the other 230-plus. Bolt presented the results of his research assistants at last Sunday's debate. The omissions and distortions took my breath away.’

Manne is correct to label Bolt’s appraisal’s as distortions:

‘One of my names, Margaret Tucker, was raised by a loving mother, who also had to work, and by a completely devoted uncle and aunt. In her wonderful autobiography she reveals that she was with her mother when she was seized. Her mother was so distraught that she was discovered by the uncle and aunt lying in the bush "moaning and crying" like "an animal in pain". Here is Bolt's version: Margaret's mother "had gone to Sydney and some auntie was looking after her-sort of".’

As shown above Iain tries at least once to think for himself on this issue and makes the claim that the intentions of those behind removals will never be known. Unfortunately for Iain he shouldn't have bothered as the documents time and again prove him wrong:

'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,'

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Administrator
Darwin, September 12th 1911
No 1861/11

Sir,
I have the honour to refer to your telegram of the 8th instant with reference to the suggestion of the Chief Protector of Aborigines regarding the establishment of an Aboriginal settlement.
The number of aboriginal children that would be provided for in the proposed institution would depend upon the policy of the Government in regard to half caste children. In my opinion one of the first works to be undertaken is to gather in all half caste children who are living with aborigines.
The police could do most of this work. No doubt the mothers would object and there would probably be an outcry from well meaning people about depriving the mother of her child but the future of the children should I think outweigh all other considerations.'

(iii) Extract of letter from Dr Cecil Cook, Chief Protector of Aborigines, Northern Territory, to Rev. W. Morley, April 28, 1931

The Halfcaste problem has received deeper consideration and more advanced and enlightened treatment in the Commonwealth Territories than in any other part of Australia. The Commonwealth which you must recognise is trustee of the White Australia Policy, has viewed this matter nationally, and has framed its policy accordingly...In the Territory ... the preponderance of coloured races, the prominence of coloured alien blood and the scarcity of white females to mate with the white male population, creates a position of incalculable future menace to purity of race in tropical Australia, and the Federal Government must so regulate its Territories that the multiplication of multicolour humanity by the mating of Halfcaste with alien coloured blood shall be reduced to a minimum. Halfcaste females in centres of population where alien races are prominent unfortunately exceed males in number. If this excess is permitted to mate with alien blood, the future of this country may very well be doomed to disaster. The Commonwealth has therefore endeavoured to elevate the Halfcaste to the standard of the white, with a view to his ultimate assimilation, encouraging the mating of white male and halfcaste female, thereby gradually eliminating colour and reducing one contributory factor in the breeding of Halfcastes...Briefly, the Halfcaste policy in this Territory embraces the collection of all illegitimate halfcastes, male and female under the age of 16 years for housing in institutions for educational purposes.

(iv) From N T Administrator, Telegram to Department of Interior, Canberra, 26 October 1932.

...HALF CASTE CHILDREN ARE NOT TOTALLY SEPERATED FROM MOTHERS UNTIL WEANED OR AT LEAST TWO YEARS OLD THEREAFTER FOR OBVIOUS REASONS REMOVED FROM BLACKS CAMP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE STOP PRESENT POLICY IS TRY AND RAISE HALF CASTES TO WHITE STANDARD WHICH IMPOSSIBLE IF ALLOWED REMAIN IN CAMPS TOO LONG

ADMIN

(ix) Report on the Northern Territory by J. A. Carrodus

Half-castes:

179. It is the policy of the Administration to collect all half-castes from the native camps at an early age and transfer them to the Government Institutions at Darwin and Alice Springs.

180. The Darwin Home contains half-caste girls only. Half-caste boys are sent to the Alice Springs Home, but girls are sent there also.

(i) Letter from C. E. Cook

In the Territory the mating of aboriginals with any person other than an aboriginal is prohibited. The mating of coloured aliens with any female of part aboriginal blood is also prohibited. 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.

(ii) Memorandum from J. A. Carrodus

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.

Poor Iain is the victim of misinformation. Furthermore, he is the victim of conservative group think, a malady he is eager to maintain. Not only are intentions clear, but it is obvious that a policy of "half-caste" removal was being carried out.

Last, but not least, Iain has vigorously argued another of Bolt's positions, that is that cases of abuse in Aboriginal communities today, whereby welfare workers refrain from removing abused children because of sensitivities over the SG, prove that people like myself have blood on their hands due to arguing our case. So it is claimed that we should shut up and start denying along side them lest we cause more pain:

'I hope that you do feel some guilt here MM because it is you and your fellow leftards have laid the foundations for the current suffering of indigenous women and children, at THAT is the topic of this post.'

'Look MM I have given you a very good run here and you still have no answer to the truth that the NOTION of the “Stolen Generation” is not something that brings anything but suffering to contemporary indigenous people ,in particular the women and children who have been and continue to be abused because of the fear, instilled by leftists like you MM, that to remove a child who is being abused is worse than leaving them with their abusers. ALL leftists are complicit in this and you should hang your head in shame because of it.'

etc...etc...

The ridiculousness of this is obvious. I'm just as aggrieved by the fact that these welfare workers have not correctly done their duty as Iain is, but I won't use child abuse as a moral bludgeon to win a debate about the veracity of the Stolen Generation. Quite frankly I think this tactic is repugnant. Unable to defeat the mountain of evidence I threw at him this is his only response. He fails to address the proof, fails to tackle the arguments and subsequently loses the debate, but he attempts to snatch the moral highground by claiming it's MY fault children are left in such circumstances. How can an episode in history be debunked because a child is let down today? It can't, this is self evident. This is just another desperate attempt at guilting the people into denial, and it's disgusting.

So what do we now know about Hall when it comes to this issue? He is the victim of conservative group think (willingly so). He refuses to do any independant research before forming an opinion. He prefers his opinions to be made for him over at Bolt's place and merely regurgitates them at his own and he's willing to take advantage of abused children to win debates in the culture war.

Bravo Iain, bravo.

Cut & Paste This

2007-11-29T09:45:00.000+11:00

The Australian, Editorial, August 3 2007:

'Compensation payment shows that apologies are cheap'

'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...'

'...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.'

The Australian, Editorial, Today:

'The Australian has not had a problem with saying sorry to indigenous Australians, but we have always considered it to be a second-order issue compared with the need to improve living standards for indigenous Australians. Saying sorry would have been a sign of good faith but would not, in itself, make things better.'

And who said it would, 'in itself', make things better? As The Oz struggles to drag itself out of the pit of the culture war in the wake of Howard's demise it also struggles with understanding (after a decade) what proponents of saying "sorry" believe it will acheive.

I'm getting the distinct feeling that even the stalwarts of Australian conservatism are at least trying to call a truce in their culture war as they sense the potential for alienation if they continue down the hardline path of the last 11 years.

(Still injured, just couldn't help but comment. Oh, and I sent the above in a letter to the Oz, reakon they'll print it?)

Disabled

2007-11-22T12:28:00.000+11:00

I haven't been in action since Monday and won't be for a while yet due to an operation on my right hand. You can imagine how hard it was just to type this!

Bad timing considering recent scandals I know. What a beautiful week it's been.

Bye.

My Earliest Clear And Distinct Memory Meme

2007-11-16T16:24:00.000+11:00

Christ this is hard, but Art Vandelay AND Mikey have tagged me so here goes.

I've got to:

Describe my earliest memory where the memory is clear, and where "clear" means I can depict at least three details.
Give an estimate of my age at the time.
Tag five other bloggers with this meme.

I think my first memory goes as follows:

I'd been naughty for some reason and he (my Dad) was pissed off. He was chasing me around the pine dinner table, that I remember being positioned almost in the middle of the kitchen, and as he out-manoeuvred me I dived under the table. Each time he reached to grab me I ran to the other side. My Mum and brother must have thought this was hilarious because all they were doing was laughing until he started laughing as well. I still wasn't sure if I was in the clear or not though, I was hopeful.

If I think about it I remember my Dad looking really 70's but I'm not sure if I've attached photos I've seen taken of him back then to the him in my memory. I think I was......about........four????? Maybe???? I mean, could a four year old put up a chase (obviously I'm childless)? Or was he just messing around? I'll have to ask him. It's a tad dramatic but I seriously can't remember anything that, I think, came before then.

I'm tagging Lad Litter, Miss Politics (who has the cutest daughter BTW so maybe she'd know the answer to the above question), John Surname, Hap and....??? (to be decided later).

Memo To Labor, Your Advertising Sucks

2007-11-14T16:55:00.000+11:00

If Labor do actually get over the line this coming election it won't be thanks to their election advertising. In short, it's shit. Every time a program is interrupted by that whining housewife complaining about this, that and everything else I cringe and (for some weird reason) hope that whoever else is in the room has tuned out and isn't really paying attention.

Don't get me wrong, I think all election advertisements are shit, but while we all accept this, we can still rate them in order from the shittest to the less shit and the whining women, this year, rates as the shittest by far. She makes me pine for those glory days when Latham would appear on the screen preceding every sentence with "Labor is ready..." (and I found THAT annoying).

When they call her 'Whinging Wendy' they aren't lying. Thinking about it has put me in the awkward position of agreeing with Janet Albrechtsen today:

'The perception, however, is governments are somehow responsible for "mortgage stress" and the so-called housing affordability crisis. But let's face it. The price of continued prosperity is that many people have simply abandoned financial responsibility, racking up debt to buy bigger homes than they can afford, pumping more money into the housing market and driving prices higher.'

'It won't win you votes to say so but notions of financial restraint and thrift have been replaced with a "have it all now" mentality driven by easy access to debt. The Howard Government has only fuelled that mentality. As The Sun-Herald reported on Sunday, the Government's original first home buyers grant of $7000 is being accessed by those buying million-dollar houses. And then, when interest rates rise off the back of a booming economy, those ungrateful sods cry foul.'

When the Saturday Age runs a profile on a "typical" family previously on a combined income of 140,000 now "struggling" after the arrival of kids on just one income of 120,000 you know something is up. I found it particularly hard to sympathise with the fact that they were forced to sell the Porche for a RAV4. During a boom as large as this where most people's troubles are that they have too much I find Whinging Wendy a bit hard to swallow. Give me the dodgy profiles coupled with slamming door noises are dark music any day.

(On a side note Albrechtsen completely contradicts herself when she later attacks Clive Hamilton's criticisms of today's mentality, they're very close to her above comments)

Oops, I Did It Again!

2007-11-13T17:54:00.000+11:00

'And we're supposed to show respect to those Maori who treat these gifts (by "gifts" he means European accomplishments, science, philosophy etc...) -- and the descendants of those that brought them--with contempt and hostility. We're supposed to show the remnants of the primitive culture they ought to have been glad to put behind them with some kind of reverence, to pretend that Maori beliefs and social attitudes are somehow worthy of respect.Well, they're not.'

'For Maori shit-stirrers to posture and babble on about "sovereignty" while they prance around in fucking grass skirts with painted faces, all the while accepting welfare payments and going home in their Japanese offroaders to watch Coronation Street on their taxpayer-supplied plasma televisions is laughable.Well, it WOULD be laughable, if so many of us weren't working our asses off to pay the taxes that fund this crap.'

And, on reading how a protester was violently attacked:

'Oh boo-hoo, should have kicked his bloody teeth in as well, it's the only language they understand anyway...'

'...I love it when boots are put to moonbat's asses.'

Do I even need to tell you who said the above? That's right, my favourite anti-racist KG from Crusader Rabbit doing his best to create a "liberal" society. Sorry, I just had to post it.

Gerard Henderson Has Some Nerve

2007-11-13T11:31:00.000+11:00

Henderson lambastes those who wrongly predicted a Labor win in 2004:

'This served as a reminder as to what McKew was up to about this time in the election cycle three years ago. In an extraordinary interview on ABC Metropolitan Radio on September 30, 2004, the then ABC presenter declared that the then Labor leader Mark Latham "will make it" as prime minister. She even fantasised that "the inevitability of the Latham ascension" was such that he "might" become prime minister by April 2005, even if he lost the election in October 2004. Really.'

'All it demonstrated was that McKew lacked judgment and engaged in wish fulfilment, at least where Latham was concerned. She was not alone, in ABC circles at least. '

Henderson relays this detail (with obvious relish) while arguing that to wrongly predict something doesn't make one a liar, which is his main argument. But who can help but see the joy with which he points out McKew's folly. It's not the first time. He once got into Matt Price for predicting a Latham win in 2004 also. This has made me consider this exchange:

TONY JONES: George is not going to give us the figures, quite rightly, but what he was suggesting is that the lead on that is actually narrowing, so it's going back towards Labor's way there as well, even on the economy.

GERARD HENDERSON: Well, it might have narrowed but it would have narrowed from a substantial margin for that kind of figure. But we'll see and I don't know, I'm not a prophet unlike Mr Bolt in Melbourne. But it's not good news.

ANDREW BOLT: Hello Gerard, Gerard we know your game, you'll sit on the fence, not say anything. You're paid danger money to predict, and at the end of it all you'll run your little essays every election, pinging those who had the guts to say something, but were wrong. Now come on, you're paid danger money to make a prediction, make one.

GERARD HENDERSON: Andrew, all I... the only... all I know is that all the prophets I know have been foul prophets, all of them. And I don't run down the...

ANDREW BOLT: ...and I'll say 10 seats, I'll say 10 seats how about you?

GERARD HENDERSON: I won't get into that.

TONY JONES: Fair enough. Let's...

ANDREW BOLT: Reserve the right to be smart arse afterwards.

TONY JONES: Let's...

GERARD HENDERSON: No, I was smart before. I think not making predictions is pretty clever actually.

Who the hell does Henderson think he is attacking others for their wrong predictions while refraining from making any himself?

"Me-Tooism" All Round 2

2007-11-12T17:46:00.000+11:00

Well, well, it appears that the much hyped "me-tooism" that Rudd's consistently accused of is actually a contagious bug:

'Mr Howard announced there would be a tax rebate for education expenses, beginning with kindergarten through to the end of secondary school, covering fees, excursions, text books, tools and computer equipment.'

Me-too!!!

'The home ownership plans will involve several schemes for boosting savings, The tax-free home saver account, available from next financial year, would allow $1000 tax deductible contributions with all earnings tax free.'

Me-too!!! And let's not forget:

'Mr Howard went through a number of commitments already made: measures to combat climate change, but not at the expense of the coal industry, the proposed constitutional recognition of aboriginal people in the Constitution.'

Me-too, me-too!!! He also added this complete fallacy:

'The Prime Minister praised Peter Costello describing him as the principle architect of the economic achievement.'

"Principle architect"??? Howard's always been fond of revisionism but this is a bit much. Costello had nothing to do with the early economic reforms made by Labor, which most economists agree, were far more instrumental in the current boom, leading Howard to say in 1996:

'I inherited an economy in not bad shape, not bad shape at all.'

Nor has he any responsibility for China's immense growth which has had such an impact here. (He did give us the GST though)

But back to their sudden breakout of "me-tooism".

It leads me to wonder, who will the government copy when Rudd's not around???

You've Got To Admit It, The Old Farts Have A Point

2007-11-12T17:05:00.001+11:00

It's become abundantly clear these days that ministerial accountability is a thing of the past. Never do we see a minister fall for even the most obvious of wrong doings or mistakes, and we are worse for it. Thankfully two ex-PM's have spoken out in condemnation at today's decline in standards:

'IN the past two decades the constitutional principle that ministers should be held accountable for the failings of their policies or administration has been seriously undermined. No matter how grave their failings may be, ministers no longer resign.

This principle is the bedrock of responsible government. In its absence, the capacity of the parliament and the people to hold a government to account for its actions is substantially weakened.

It is 31 years since the last official inquiry regarding the principles of ministerial accountability at a federal level. That inquiry framed the doctrine for simpler times. It could not anticipate the major changes in governance that have occurred since then.

These include an enormous growth in the power of the executive, the now pivotal role of ministerial advisers, the outsourcing of many crucial government functions and the expanding influence of the lobbying industry.

The Freedom of Information Act, an important safeguard introduced in 1982, has also been undermined significantly by the practice of recent governments and restrictive interpretation by the courts.

The Canadian and British governments (of different political persuasions) have recently taken steps to strengthen ministerial accountability.

They have recognised its fundamental importance and the need to re-evaluate and fortify it so that representative democracy may function as it should.

We believe it is critical that this issue is addressed in the forthcoming national election and then acted upon by whichever party forms the new government.

We take this opportunity to urge all political parties to commit to the establishment of an independent and comprehensive review of the operation of ministerial accountability so as to modernise and strengthen it.

This is a matter that transcends party politics. It goes to the very heart of the way we are governed.'

Gough Whitlam, Sydney

Malcolm Fraser, Melbourne

Of course, off the top of my head I can easily think of a few who should have gone by now. Alexander Downer can count his lucky stars that he's part of a government which cares very little for ministerial accountability after failing to act on 20 warnings that AWB was bankrolling Saddam Hussein for example. Kevin Andrews can also consider himself charmed after the whole Haneef affair, which incidentally gets worse and worse as time goes on. And Amanda Vanstone can also praise today's decline in standards after escaping the chop when her department wrongly deported an Australian citizen and detained another due to a culture of suspicion within immigration (geez, I wonder how that grew?).

So all in all, the old farts have a point wouldn't you say?

The Interest Rates Rock

2007-11-09T11:43:00.001+11:00

I'm so confused right now, and considering the amount of conflicting messages coming our way on interest rates who could blame me?

Originally the Coalition argued that it must remain in office in order for interest rates to remain at "record lows". This at least suggested that government held some control of rates through its use of "economic levers", and that these "levers" would be wrongly tweaked by a Labor government. Argument = government IS responsible for high or low interest rates. So when rates are low, the government can claim credit, and when they're high this logic suggests that the government can be blamed.

Yet now, according to Howard, this sixth rate rise since 2004 is actually not their fault, rather it's the product of a strong world economy, high oil prices and the drought. This may all be partly true but it also leaves one asking why, if it is out of their control, did they campaign that they would keep interest rates at "record lows"? Howard's denial of any responsibility for rate rises since 2004 directly contradicts the Coalition's last campaign theme. But then, Costello isn't buying it:

'The Treasurer said yesterday unemployment was at its lowest level since 1974, but this may be having an effect on inflation.'

"Because unemployment is so low and employers are in some places competing with each other to get employees, that's putting upward pressure on wages," he said.

So it is their fault now, even though the argument he's making is that the government is just too damn good for its own good, he is admitting some blame. You've got to love Costello here as he attempts to turn the rise into a positive for the government, but doesn't this acknowledgement hint at what Labor's been attacking them for all along, ignoring the skills shortage? This has to be one of the key problems for inflation these days and it is something that the government does have some responsibility for. So why did Howard bullshit us? Or was it just semi-bullshit?

With Australians in so much debt it's predictable that politicians will try to use things like interest rates to scare votes out of us. So the layers of lies concerning what's behind rate rises are products of our own making. We need to stop living out of our means, shed some of our excessive materialism and relax. Why be slaves to "things"?

Is The Oz Admitting Its Mistake?

2007-11-06T11:51:00.000+11:00

In its editorial 'Reality Bites The Psychotic Left' of June 11th this year The Australian launched a scathing attack on Australia's "Left". Of particular focus were the economist Clive Hamilton and intellectual Robert Manne (the last of which the paper in question is quite obsessed with). The editorial had this to say about 'Silencing Dissent', a book edited by Hamilton and Sarah Maddison and introduced by Manne:

'This is the institute after all that believes in a vast corporate conspiracy to stall action on climate change, accuses David Jones and Myers of "corporate pedophilia" and claims that Australia is becoming an increasingly authoritarian state where dissidents are silenced.'

'This last thesis, expounded at length in Silencing Dissent published earlier this year, would seem difficult to sustain at a time when the marketplace of ideas has never been so crowded. In newspaper opinion sections and magazines and on radio and televisions and increasingly online, Australians are engaged in intelligent conversation about the issues of the day great and small. Blogs and internet chat rooms have given everyone a seat at the debating table. Technology has lowered the barriers to publishing. A host of new periodicals online and in print including The Monthly, New Matilda and The Australian's own Australian Literary Review are providing new platforms for discussion while established journals such as Quadrant and the Griffith Review are reaching new readers and providing a home for new writers.'

As I've argued before, this is a dishonest distortion of the main thesis of 'Silencing Dissent'. The book doesn't ever try to claim that people aren't allowed to express their opinions publicly, the main point of the book is that the Government has shown contempt for public debate by vigorously prosecuting whistleblowers, plugging leaks and politicising the public service and all this without a word of objection from its barrackers, until now that is.

A coalition of concerned media companies began a campaign a while back called 'Australia's Right To Know', of which News Ltd is a key supporter, and they commissioned a report to look into the state of today's freedom of information laws, the prognosis sounds familiar:

'The report's findings show how little dissent the federal Government is willing to tolerate when it comes to the unauthorised disclosure of information'

What's that you say!?

'In each of these cases, the disclosure of the information caused no damage except political embarrassment for the Government'

'Moss accuses the federal Government of harbouring a cold and calculating attitude to whistleblowers, criticising its "dogged refusal"to provide them with legal protection and a "relentless determination to track them down"'

Moss' comments appear to me as though she is actually reading straight from the pages of 'Silencing Dissent', these are two of its core criticisms after all. So where does this put The Australian's editorial position after lambasting Hamilton, Maddison and Manne for daring to say such things not 6 months earlier?

'News Limited, publisher of The Australian, long ago grew weary of the erosion of press freedom and appealed all the way to the High Court for the right to know. It lost the battle, but still fights the war. In May last year, a coalition of media organisations known as "Right to Know" -- led by News Limited and including Fairfax Media, FreeTV Australia, commercial radio, ABC, SBS, Sky News, ASTRA, West Australian Newspapers, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, AAP and APN News and Media -- funded an independent audit into media freedom.'

'The report, launched by News Limited chairman and chief executive John Hartigan yesterday, finds that journalists are struggling to gain access to court documents for no apparent reason. Sometimes, nobody in the court has any idea who is allowed access to what, and all tend to err on the side of secrecy. There is too little protection for whistleblowers, and none at all for journalists such as Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus, also of the Herald Sun, who today have criminal convictions because they refused to reveal the source of a story about planned cuts to veterans' benefits.'

'If you, as a reader, care at all for the exhausted, crumbling pillar of democracy that is a free press, demand at this election that both parties breathe life into the Freedom of Information legislation, protect whistleblowers, provide the media with a shield law so journalists can protect their sources, and open the courts to scrutiny.'

It doesn't acknowledge it and proceeds to paint itself as a pioneer on these issues. Are they admitting a mistake? Hell no!

Stormin' Norman Podhoretz At It Again

2007-11-03T14:41:00.000+11:00

It seems that Norman Podhoretz is intent on spinning himself completely and utterly out of all relevance, as his recent debate with Fareed Zakaria has demonstrated. I'm sure that we're all familiar with Podhoretz; he's the one who had this to say about the Iraq War:

'it's an amazing success' and.. 'There were WMD (weapons of mass destruction), and they were shipped to Syria ... This picture of a country in total chaos with no security is false. It has been a triumph. It couldn't have gone better.'

And when probed about the fact that (at the time) polls were saying that 80% of Iraqis wanted the U.S out of Iraq he replied:

"I don't much care,...nobody was tortured in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo"

Now Norman is having his say on the next mission, Iran, and as you might imagine, considering how well the Iraq War has gone, he's all for an attack:

'...only one terrible choice, which is to bomb those facilities and retard their program, or even cut it off altogether, or allow them to go nuclear. US senator John McCain is right to say: "The only thing worse than bombing Iran is to allow Iran to get the bomb." '

Zakaria replies:

'Well, there is a third choice, which is the choice we have used for pretty much every other country that has developed nuclear weapons. That is deterrence. We allowed Mao Zedong to get a nuclear weapon and have used deterrence against the Chinese. We allowed the Soviet Union to get nuclear weapons and used deterrence against the Russians. We've allowed the North Koreans to get nuclear weapons and have used deterrence against them.'

Podhoretz responds in a manner that's become far too predictable for U.S foreign policy hawks:

'This attitude represents an irresponsible complacency that I think is comparable to the denial in the early 1930s of the intentions of Adolf Hitler, which led to what Winston Churchill called an unnecessary war involving millions of deaths that might have been averted if the West had acted early enough.'

The attempts at painting all opponents as potential Chamberlains has always been tempting for such Hawks, but it's a massive twist of today's reality. Saddam may have been an evil son of a bitch but he was no Hitler. Hitler, Stalin etc... were the heads of major powers in their day representing a colossal threat. Saddam and Ahmadinejad were, and are, leaders of minor powers by international standards. The threat wasn't, and isn't, even comparable to Hitler's Germany. Iraq was a basket case before it was made into a.......well.........basket case.

Of course Podhoretz makes the claim that Iran's Islamic rulers may be fanatical enough to use the bomb regardless of the repercussions:

'The reason deterrence can't work with Iran is that there's a different element involved here than was involved with Mao or Kim or Joseph Stalin, and that is religious fanaticism. With a religious fanatic such as Ahmadinejad and the "mullahcracy" ruling Iran generally, there is no assurance that the idea of self-preservation or the protection of the nation will deter them.'

Zakaria destroys this position by looking at the history:

'"If the worst came to worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain, while imperialism would be razed to the ground." This is what Mao said. And it wasn't just his words. It was his actions. He was actively aiding revolutionary movements and killing Americans all over the world. So the question about Iran's rationality rests on this: The mullahs have been in power for nearly 30 years. What have they done? Iran has followed a pretty rational, national interest-oriented foreign policy. Look at how they opposed al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, another Islamic revolutionary movement. You'd think that they would have been sympathetic, but no, the Iranians were the sworn enemies of al-Qa'ida and they helped the US depose the Taliban in Afghanistan. They've been fairly calculating, they have followed their national interest. When it has bumped up against the US, they have worked against us. When they have thought that our interests were in common, as in Afghanistan, they've worked with us.'

Iran's Ahmadinejad is a racist wanker, and the Mullahs rule is tyrannical, but Zakaria's reply above is correct which makes Podhoretz's appraisal rubbish.

The scary thing about Norman Podhoretz isn't that some still take him seriously after his comments on the Iraq invasion, it's the fact that he's a foreign policy adviser to Republican Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani. The world simply can't afford another one of these nut jobs whispering into the ears of another stupid President.

Those Poor Muslim Men

2007-11-02T15:55:00.000+11:00

Sometimes words just speak for themselves......you know what I mean:

Attacking the appeal of modern Malaysian women, Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat - a fundamentalist Muslim cleric who controls the main opposition party and one of the country's 13 states - said provocative clothes were a form of "emotional abuse".

Clothes that are modest by Western standards were, he said, stopping the country's men getting a good night's sleep.

"We always (hear about) the abuse of children and wives in households, which is easily perceived by the eye but the emotional abuse of men cannot be seen," Mr Nik Abdul Aziz said.
"Our prayers become unfocused and our sleep is often disturbed."

So I'm a victim here! I've suffered abuse my whole life and all at the hands of evil women who dare to show their flesh.

DAMN YOU BIKINI!!!!!!

Call An Inquiry

2007-11-02T15:37:00.000+11:00

The dirt on the Haneef affair appears to be leaking with the contents of an e-mail revealed today. The key passage of the document reads like this:

"Contingencies for containing Mr HANEEF and detaining him under the Migration Act, if it is the case he is granted bail on Monday, are in place as per arrangements today."

What an incredible revelation! So the fact that Andrews' decision to revoke Haneef's visa coincided with the magistrates decision to grant him bail actually wasn't a coincidence!

I feel so violated.

The Daydreaming Australian Is In For A Big Surprise

2007-10-27T17:41:00.000+10:00

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

2007-10-26T18:34:00.000+10:00

'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

2007-10-24T17:04:00.000+10:00

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?

2007-10-24T16:21:00.001+10:00

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

2007-10-23T17:28:00.001+10:00

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

2007-10-22T18:22:00.000+10:00

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

2007-10-22T17:36:00.000+10:00

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!!!

2007-10-19T16:40:00.000+10:00

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

2007-10-17T17:00:00.001+10:00

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

2007-10-17T16:37:00.000+10:00

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)

2007-10-15T17:03:00.000+10:00

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

2007-10-12T09:38:00.000+10:00

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

2007-10-11T12:51:00.000+10:00

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

2007-10-10T14:29:00.000+10:00

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.

Going On Holiday

2007-09-22T12:24:00.000+10:00

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

Is Calling Her "Pumpkin" A Sign Of Racism?

2007-09-20T19:04:00.000+10:00

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

2007-09-19T17:55:00.000+10:00

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

2007-09-18T08:55:00.000+10:00

Howard flips Rudd the bird!!!

Iain Hall Supports Ritual Human Sacrifice!

2007-09-17T17:49:00.000+10:00

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

2007-09-15T11:32:00.000+10:00

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

2007-09-15T10:59:00.000+10:00

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

2007-09-13T16:58:00.000+10:00

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?

2007-09-11T18:15:00.000+10:00

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

2007-09-09T10:58:00.000+10:00

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

2007-09-09T10:24:00.000+10:00

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

2007-09-08T11:55:00.000+10:00

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?

2007-09-05T17:52:00.000+10:00

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

2007-09-02T13:28:00.000+10:00

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.

Iran Celebrate

2007-08-30T17:35:00.000+10:00

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!!!!!!!!!!

2007-08-29T18:05:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-28T17:39:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-25T10:45:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-24T16:13:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-23T17:08:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-21T18:14:00.000+10:00

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.

2007-08-21T17:21:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-20T17:41:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-19T11:00:00.000+10:00

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!!!!

2007-08-16T17:36:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-15T19:16:00.000+10:00

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:

The Very Hungry Caterpillar board book by Eric Carle
Petunia's Christmas by Roger Duvoisin
The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien
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

2007-08-13T17:24:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-11T11:12:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-10T16:11:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-08T16:52:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-07T17:04:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-06T17:51:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-03T13:34:00.000+10:00

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.

2007-08-02T20:02:00.000+10:00

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!!!!!

2007-08-02T17:05:00.000+10:00

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'

2007-08-01T17:42:00.000+10:00

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!!!!!

2007-08-01T16:21:00.000+10:00

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.

2007-08-01T13:11:00.000+10:00

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!

Andrew's Is Losing It!!!

2007-07-30T20:57:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ataturk Pulls A Shifty

2007-07-29T10:43:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

So Much Manne Love

2007-07-28T16:58:00.000+10:00

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

Andrew Bolt hates him:

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

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

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

The Australian hates him:

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

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

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

Christopher Pearson hates him:

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

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

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

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

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

More Logic From Planet Janet

2007-07-26T17:12:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Albrechtsen In A Bind

2007-07-25T17:29:00.000+10:00

Janet Albrechtsen's column today was a pisser.

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

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

And in case you had any doubts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah we know, but you hate them anyway.

Mugabe's A Legend......

2007-07-23T17:59:00.000+10:00

...ary wanker!!

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

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

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

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

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

Haneef So Far

2007-07-23T17:15:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crusader Rabbit Warns Against Debate

2007-07-21T14:17:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

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

Twisty, twisty

2007-07-19T19:15:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thankfully Mike Steketee talked some sense:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Virtual Johnny

2007-07-18T17:18:00.000+10:00

This should get those kids interested and voting Liberal.

He kinda looks like a superhero!

For How Long Can We Take It?

2007-07-17T16:39:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-07-16T17:56:00.000+10:00

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

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

Immigration Minister Andrews said:

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

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

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

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

UPDATE:

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

UPDATE 2:

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

UPDATE 3:

This is what's it all comes down to:

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

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

Can We Leave?

2007-07-15T15:56:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

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

Eight Random Facts

2007-07-15T15:03:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pheeewwww!

The Great GW Swindle

2007-07-12T18:41:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE:

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

Australian Hypocrisy

2007-07-12T17:10:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

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

The Telegraph vs Media Watch

2007-07-10T16:50:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To name a few.

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

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

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

Polls And Me

2007-07-10T16:26:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

No Smoking!!

2007-07-07T12:47:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

Digby then comes up with this beaut:

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

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

Sheridan At His Best

2007-07-07T09:14:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what does Sheridan have to say about Howard?

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

Could we have expected anything less?

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

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

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

Tipping

2007-07-06T18:26:00.000+10:00

Beware, this may be a sensitive issue for some.

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘But they have to deal with people as well’

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

‘But they aren’t paid much’

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

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

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

‘You’re just a tight-arse!’

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

‘Look, I’ll pay your part then….’

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

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

Now be gentle guys.

The Left Are Lazy

2007-07-05T17:00:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

Spooky!!!!

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

2007-07-04T17:24:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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