Cut & Paste This

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?)

The Interest Rates Rock

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"?

The Daydreaming Australian Is In For A Big Surprise

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

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

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

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

Robert Manne again!? The obsession continues.

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

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

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

Again, Manne muses correctly.

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

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

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

Itchy itchy! How can they stand it!?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Windschuttle Tackles The Big Issues

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

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

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

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

I might rethink my subscription.

Thoughts On Rudd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That last sentence is now fairly popular.

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

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

Robert Manne sums it up nicely:

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

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

Is Calling Her "Pumpkin" A Sign Of Racism?

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

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

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

Cute little Pumpkin.

What the hell is wrong with your father!?

U.N Declaration On Indigenous Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

When Someone Is A Little TOO Pro-American

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

This site is just great. Take this:

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

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

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

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

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

Is Australia Racist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More understanding is needed and less outright hate.

Iran Celebrate

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

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

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

Nice.

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

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

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

and...

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

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

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

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

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

In Trouble? Just Find Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greens Watch Get's Wierd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kudos wankers, Kudos.

'Family Values'

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

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

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

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

Sure Ted. This is what Mike had to say:

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

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

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

Sure mate.

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

The Telegraph vs Media Watch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To name a few.

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

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

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

No Smoking!!

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

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

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

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

Digby then comes up with this beaut:

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

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

Tipping

Beware, this may be a sensitive issue for some.

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘But they have to deal with people as well’

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

‘But they aren’t paid much’

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

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

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

‘You’re just a tight-arse!’

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

‘Look, I’ll pay your part then….’

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

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

Now be gentle guys.