:: Monday, 30 December 2002 ::
Okay. New Year's Eve.
I plan to be drinking a lot of this and eating a homemade pesto of artichokes accompanied by rosemary flavoured grissini, and a terrine of mushrooms cooked in red wine, with parsley, black pepper, peeled and skinned tomatoes, with a pistachio nut crust.
And that is just for starters.
Salute. Auguri a tutti e Buon Anno.
Ci vediamo fra un po. 2003.
:: WB 7:03 a.m. [link+] ::
What I hope for these guys is that spend New Year's Eve drinkin' and dancin' and forgetting their troubles for a while
:: WB 6:52 a.m. [link+] ::
Who knew Toronto was overrun by Jamaican gunmen?
:: WB 6:33 a.m. [link+] ::
Permanent damage to the psyche?
These activist folks think the occupants of our detention centres should set fire to those centres because being in a detention centre means you are being detained, and that is bad, and getting out of the detention centre is therefore good, no matter how you get out. Even with lungs full of smoke, having had a near death by fire experience.
They reckon that it would be wierd if detainees did not set fire to detention centres. After all, as above, detention is bad. The centre is a detention centre. Therefore the centre is bad.
Centres are being burned. Plural. Freakin' plural.
And the activists think that is good. Theirs and my tax dollars, up in smoke. Burned. A safe place for detainees to live while they use up more tax dollars on legal challenges to their failed applications for asylum. Who pays for the burning? Me and the activists. And you. With our tax dollars.
And the activists think that is good.
Arson. Is good. Apparently.
The guys who did this - for sure it was guys - have got to go. Where? Who would take a bunch of firestarters?
I know where I would like them to go...
All the detainees will have their claims and appeals dealt with fully legally and soon enough. But they prejudice their claims by starting fires. And all this firestaring malarkey is well supported by activists. Why? Because they, and the firestarters, can smell their failure. Failed appeals. And failed attempts to dismantle mandatory detention.
Pathetic. All over.
:: WB 6:15 a.m. [link+] ::
:: Saturday, 28 December 2002 ::
What is the problem with being alert?
Let the cranks make as many calls as they want. Let the guys and gals taking the calls work out what's what. When a call comes in and gets backed up by other information, or which is just a good clear call, get the anti-terrorist guys and gals out in force to crush the terrorist scum whenever and wherever they are found.
Sort through the calls. What is the problem with that?
Is the problem the fact that some people are craazy and may make calls? Or is it that some people are stupid and they too may make the calls? Maybe both. O Mo Go'!
I reckon craazy Australians and stupid Australians are welcome to participate in keeping Oz safe from terrorists. They may waste a bunch of time, but they may also actually help. Let them help. And if they do not, then all they will have done is waste some time.
Yeah, well yeah.
Who would not want us all to be alert, mmmm? Terrorists. And idiots who will not or can not understand that terrorists are actual killing scum. Christ, the list gets longer - New York, Bali, now Grozny...
Who wants for us to be alert, for sure, but for our government, with all the tax dollars we pay it, not to actually do anything to promote, explain or support this alterness by advertising, setting up phone lines and organising staff to sort through those calls? More idiots. Only this time, idiots who will not or can not imagine actually doing anything to prevent badness. These are the same types of people who, in Italy during WWII, said they were partisans, told anyone who would listen that they for sure were partisans, and even now wax lyrical about the Resistance, but who actually did not resist a single goddam thing. Chiachieroni. Talkers.
Wet idiots like this letter writer to the SMH do nothing:
The Federal Government's counter-terrorism awareness campaign is urging every Australian to be alert. Yet with people already being reported for speaking Arabic on a city-bound bus, I think we have enough lerts already.
Sanctuary Point, December30
Of course the muslim community is going to cop it hard on the calls. What do they expect? For the rest of us here in Oz just to ignore that Muslims have committed and continue to commit violence the world over? New York, Bali, and freakin' Grozny, okay?
But hey, the Muslim community might just have been given the easiest most anonymous way to purge themselves of their more shitful brothers, ever think about that? If something god awful happens in Oz, and it is carried out by a Muslim in the name of his religion, I reckon there is a good chance the 'alert' will come from a good man or woman in the Muslim community. Not their spokespeople, of course. Those guys are the Resistance, you hear what I am saying? But the regular folks.
Jeebus, I sure hope they step up. They need some really good PR.
I do not mind my tax dollars going on the ads and the phone lines.
:: WB 5:25 a.m. [link+] ::
Totally the wrong thing to do
Setting fire to the Baxter Detention Centre, that is, causing injury to the occupants and the staff, resulting in hospitalisation and evacuation. The Labor Premier of South Australia, Mr Rann, says deport the violent imbeciles who did it, if we possibly can. Amen to that.
The people inside the detention centre are there lawfully, whatever any one may say about that law. They have set fire to an Australian taxpayer funded bit of real estate and tangible property. They have injured themselves and others. Violent stupid misguided imbeciles. Imbeciles.
But wait. There is another analysis. And sure nuff it comes from a wog. A very misguided wog, too. And a bullshitter of the highest order, Marion Le.
"They probably did it out of pure frustration," Marion Le from the Independent Council for Refugee Advocacy said. "There's an extraordinary punitive environment," she said. "There should be an immediate inquiry into what's going on there. It's already getting a reputation that's equal to Woomera, if not already surpassing it."
Let me explain what she is actually saying:
"My clients will not ever behave with grace or calm. So long as their will is not met 100% by grant of asylum they will continue to profess frustration and act violently to express that frustration. My clients will not elect to free themsleves from detention by volunteering to leave Oz. Minimising the pain of their own circumstances is not something my clients will ever do. This fire was bad. I see from the Premier's statements that my clients might have gone too far. They might actually get deported. I will not acknowledge fault by my clients. Instead I will allege that firestarters are simply using a legitimate mode of expression because of mean mean detention centre staff. O why can't the government just meet my clients' claims 100%. If they do not do that soon, I will not have any clients left. Because they will probably all top themselves. Reckless idiots. Do they not see how hard and tirelessly I work for them. And without any success...".
Can you smell the fear in the advocate here? I mean, ask yourself - what do the Baxter and Woomera detention centres have in common? Oh yeah. Their occupants.
It is not the centre, Marion, that is the problem. It is your clients.
:: WB 5:41 p.m. [link+] ::
I know who I would rather believe
And it ain't this gal.
UPDATE: Severino says the French bint is a crank.
:: WB 6:43 a.m. [link+] ::
Birrell's Thesis - Skippies Decide
He must be right, because there are a lot of skippies in this sunburnt country. 'But there are a bucketload of wogs too. And they are just as bored by talk of 'social justice', 'treaty', 'sorry', 'asylum seekers' etc. The only uniting theme was the Republic, but not as led by skippy Malcolm Turnbull. He looks too much like a man who uses a knife and fork to eat his spaghetti, you hear what I am saying?
This SMH piece reminds me of so many conversations with jackass Laborites who presume wogs are like block voting forelock tuggers, grateful to the lefties for life here.
Get. Far. Away.
Wogs are deeply 'aspirational'. And they are remarkably spread out. Any talk of wholly white bread skippy communities is just bull. There are wogs there too. The heart of the matter is not the language spoken at home or the birthplace of Nanna and Nonna. It is the subject matter, the topics and concepts upon which we must all base our vote. Labor's rubbish years of big picture crapola, trying to form a society by government, are over.
Society has never been a matter for government. It is a matter for the people, the community. Best government can do is tinker. That is why they come and go. The people, however, rock and roll on.
UPDATE: Prof Bunyip says the thesis is a "sack of crap" too.
:: WB 6:18 a.m. [link+] ::
I hardly know where to start with this. Could this man's conclusions be any stupider?
As I read it, we are not feeling terrorised, but rather we have seen terrorists and we know there is no rational dealing with them, so the odds are that the terorists, being violent and imbecilic, will probably strike us, and make some incoherent demand that is all about Allah (money down, guys. No one else would bother.) And the reason young folks think war is clinical and not like Vietnam-era warfare is because it is clinical and not like Vietnam-era warfare.
Stealth. Drones. Night goggle vision.
:: WB 5:59 a.m. [link+] ::
Weighing in on Windshuttle
:: Friday, 27 December 2002 ::
Naturally, I have views. And my view is that there is a sector of Oz society that is finding it difficult to come to terms with the emerging fact that historians and academics and others, including loudmouth film-makers and artists generally, have been sold and themsleves have been selling a steady stream of implied, fudged, and in some cases downright fabricated bulldust all about Aboriginal history in Oz, or at least in Tasmania in Oz.
The Australian's editorial seems to me to be evidence of the discomfort beginning to be felt. Its tone is that of the common or garden variety bitch. Bitchy, right? Slight slagging of Windshuttle, constant reassertion of how important it is to acknowledge deaths in the past blah blah.
Aboriginals in Oz do not need my sympathy, my sorrow, my empathy or my rudeness or bias or arrogance or anything else. They could, however, do with a healthy indifference from the likes of their champions. The Australian is chock full of stuff (cannot find a link at this late hour but must be there somewhere) about Robert Manne and Keith Windshuttle and what it means to be imprecise and sloppy in academe over such an important subject as Australian history. And there is a slight analysis of how holey holey holey the "Bringing Them Home" report was, all about the forced removal of substantially less than a generation of half black kiddies from their olds - just to be precise, mind.
2003 will feature a lot of this stuff, analysis and public agonising about academe and false history and fraudulent worse-case- descriptions of a past that is not so remote that we cannot see that something lousy definitely did happen to our indigenous buddies.
I for one vote for the revisionist bullshitters with the their hearts bleeding all over the right place to get a good going over and be publicly shamed, stripped of tenure, stripped of awards etc etc like Michael Bellesiles in the USA (see Volokh for all that).
That takes care of the stinking lefties.
And for the rightwingers? Well, I read plenty on the blogs and not a single one of them has ever suggested nothing bad happened in Australia's colonial past. You know why? Cos bad stuff did happen. What they do suggest, is that it was not as bad as the lefties say.
And that is the point.
The point is no longer the Aboriginals and whether they died. Everyone accepts they died. The point is whether the number was x or y. And whether there is evidence to support the number. And that is where this whole analysis is a major problem for the left. Because they are the ones who have attempted to close the argument with their seminal work. And now they find it has not been closed at all.
Historians find it is still open because of shoddy lefty scholarship.
And the courts find matters still open because of utter absence of supporting evidence for claims as well as fabricated losses.
(I am referring to the Cubillo case - a profound loss by Lorna Cubillo, who asserted she had been forcibly removed from her mother and raised in brutal missions or something. She also married a drunkard dickhead and never searched for her Ma, and then claimed a lousy life all because of her eminently surmountable disadvantageous youth. Yeah, you read it right, 'surmountable'. The court, in one of its sensitive judgements, found that Lorna may have had a lousy life but it was not because of any racist government policy or even fault. I will not go into the companion case, except to say that the same claim of loss was made, this time by a bloke, but the evidence showed his mother had actually given him away. Jeebus, eh? Poor bastard. Both cases lost, lost, lost.)
Upshot? Interesting year ahead, of stuff. And with any luck, a shakeup good and proper at ATSIC.
:: WB 5:48 a.m. [link+] ::
Of course he criticises Berlusconi.
Benigni is an actor. And a communist.
This reminds me of an interview I saw with Sabrina Ferilli. Whoo. She is a honey. And pink through and through. At the time Berlusconi was getting reelected she was on one of Italy's stupendous tv shows, and she was talking up a storm about "i poveri". The Poor. She said something like "I cannot see how a rich man can know anything about the poor and you must know about the poor and care for the poor" blah blah blah ergo she would not be voting for Berlusconi.
The poor are probably wondering why she has to talk so much, cos she's getting in the way of them working and getting out of poverty.
Sabrina is a model and an actress. She is a complete babe. She is probably delicious. And on matters political, like Benigni, she is very likely dumb as a box of hair. Because, like Benigni, she has worked hard in her chosen field and made a bucket load of Euros (rough equivalent, a train carriage of lire) and no longer can lay claim to true knowledge or concern for anyone other than the usual - family, lovers and friends. She is one in a long line of artists who seem to think that, just because they say they care about the poor, that makes them helpful to the poor. And that makes them better than the ones who do not talk so much about how they care - like Berlusconi.
The alternative to Berlusconi was the reddish mayor of Rome, Rutelli, a Bill Clinton clone with no balls to take anything up to the unions of Italy, which are famous for their red banners, knee-jerk strikes at the prospect of even trivial commercial reform and habit of wanting their members to be deeply respected but without having to work for it.
Lord, save us from the scourge of artists who talk.
:: WB 11:51 p.m. [link+] ::
Pronto. Pronto. Post-Christmas newspaper readin' blues
:: Monday, 23 December 2002 ::
Those Chechen Muslim separatists are mean, mean men and women. And they are not very bright. There is a constitutional referendum next year about Chechen independence. It would make sense to be calm and show some restraint in the violence department. But no. Your Chechen spearatists prefer the overkill (literally) of the Moscow Theatre siege thing in which they were all killed, along with a bunch of perfectly innocent people who the separatists insisted on making hostages (yes, blah, blah Putin could have ordered a little less poison gas - but that is not the Russian way with terrorists).
And they prefer the overkill (literally) of 46 people dead in a suicide bombing attack.
Life in Chechnya cannot be so bad that suicide bombing and hostage taking is an inevitability. It simply cannot. By which I mean, I do not accept that life in Gaza which is indubitably shithouse, is reason enough for stupid Palestinian violence against themsleves and the Israelis.
What we have here is failure to show any restraint at all.
There is a referendum coming, for Pete's sake. These people are pigs. So are the ETA Basque pigs, the Red Brigade pigs, the Bader-Meinhopf pigs, the IRA pigs, the PLO pigs, Hamas pigs, Hezbollah pigs, Shining Path pigs, the FARC pigs, the AUC pigs, Jemaah Islamiyah pigs, and sundry others who have not made it into my memory in time for the typing.
What do they have in common? They talk too much and do not get on with living well. If you listen, you can hear the constant low hum of them all making excuses for their lousy behaviour.
:: WB 10:51 p.m. [link+] ::
Would it not be perfect if this guy had a blog?.
Anyhoo. Tantissimi auguri di Buon Natale e di Buon Anno a tutti, e tanti auguri affettuosi di buone feste.
Grazie to all the people who've checked in to read this site since it started. E Grazie to all the linkers. It is mucho appreciated.
Ciao e ci vediamo dopo Natale,
:: WB 6:31 p.m. [link+] ::
War on Terror targets Islam. G'uh.
That is, it targets Islam as practised by terrorists. And any other faith or ideology as practised by terrorists. Right? Right.
It is not rocket science.
Not all Muslims are terrorists. But many terrorists are Muslims. Cannot get away from that fact, mate. You got a problem with being lumped into the same bucket as your crazy halal terrorist buddies? Take it up with them. Or you might get off your arse and distinguish yourself from the violent imbeciles hijacking your religion by (a) condemning what they say and (b) shopping them to the coppers.
Actually, read this article to see how deluded and imbecilic these polled British Muslims are. Islam itself is under attack, even though it is not and those polled are freely practising their religion without menace.
:: WB 6:24 p.m. [link+] ::
What a headline.
:: WB 6:13 p.m. [link+] ::
Camelfecking Sand Nazis
:: WB 5:58 p.m. [link+] ::
RIP Joe Strummer.
Never had a lotta time for his band. Except for 'Rock the Casbah'. And he could not act worth a damn. But a fine clearheaded gent in his later years, it seems.
From The Corner: In November 2001, Strummer came out strongly against the 9/11 terrorists, stating: "I think you have to grow up and realize that we're facing religious fanatics who would kill everyone in the world who doesn't do what they say. The more time you give them the more bombs they'll get."
Sharp. But never sharp dressed.
Best punk rock song ever: The Saints. "Know Your Product".
:: WB 5:53 p.m. [link+] ::
Nice work at Little Green Footballs
:: WB 5:35 p.m. [link+] ::
Interesting tactic. To be more stupid than was thought humanly possible.
I give you the Palestinians. And ATSIC.
What do the Palestinian Authority and ATSIC both have in common (and no, it is not endless self-pity, misogyny and the threat of suicide bombing)? There is no opposition to the leadership. No opposition. And you know what happens when there is no opposition? There is no debate. And where there is no debate there is no challenge of ideas. And where ideas are unchallenged, they turn into bullshit. Because they can.
Like the above.
:: WB 5:27 p.m. [link+] ::
A wog point of view. One of many. And wrong.
:: Sunday, 22 December 2002 ::
This letter in today's SMH:Privileged kids have nothing to fear
Michael Burns asks what it is about the Australian Right and children that they support "keeping children in detention centres [and] ASIO's right to kidnap anyone's kid on mere suspicion" (Letters, December 21-22). The problem with the Australian Right is that its members don't believe this can ever happen to them. The majority belong to that privileged group of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Their membership ensures that they have nothing to fear in our WASP-ruled society, and renders them incapable of imagining how it must feel for those of us who can be deemed to be of Middle Eastern appearance, stand politically left of centre, and who believe that the true benefits of our multicultural society lie well beyond our range of ethnic restaurants.
A little empathy would go a long way in the Australia we live in today.
How stupid is this thinking? Pretty stupid.
First, there is an Australian Right and it is in favour of the ASIO Bill and it is made of skippies and they run our world. G'uh. Talk to Ken Parish. He is a skippy rightie, he does not run our world and he is not in favour of the bill. And anyway, the letter writer is really trying to slag off Howard voters - zif they are all right-wing. So, first stupid assertion blown.
Second, the Australian Right is mostly skippy and mostly rich. Hello. Hello. Are you mental? There are rich skippies in the Australian Right, for sure. But there are rich and poor wogs too. If wogs are known for any unifying characteristic it is a universal loathing of taxes - small government folks. Right-wing, if you must. Yes, even the swarthy ones. Cash money, ring any bells? So, idea number two is flushed.
Third, and this is priceless - 'all skippies know about wogs is that they can cook'. Or something.
You ever heard such anti-skippy and even anti-wog self-pitying bulldust all at the same time?
The letter writer is 'Singh'. A leftie. A wog who looks like an Arab. A wog with no respect for skippies who do not share her politics. A wog who has no respect for wogs who work in restaurants. And a wog with no respect for wogs or skippies who do not share her hysteria over the ASIO Bill.
This is not a letter to the editor. It is a spit in the eye of every reader who hates violent imbecile terrorists and terrorism more than they hate the concept of helping ASIO to catch the violent imbecile terrorists. And who can enjoy a Lebbo feast at exactly the same time as calling Hezbollah a bunch of violent imbeciles.
But most importantly, what is wrong with working in a restaurant, eh?
:: WB 5:15 p.m. [link+] ::
This makes me smile
Why? 'Cos its a great bit of short sharp writing about some jackass. And a bunch of goodly comments to boot.
:: WB 8:35 p.m. [link+] ::
But the facts alone have little to tell us. "How tall is this pile of bodies?" is not the only question. We need to be asking why are these people dead. What has brought about these acts of violence? And, now, what do we think about it? What can we learn from it?
Like judges, historians need to give reasons for their claims. This is the purpose of the footnote - the subject of recent skirmishes on this page - which tells us what authority the historian has used to support his or her claims. We also need to know why the historian is pursuing the inquiry. What are the motives?
Interrogating history forces us into conversations. Our disagreements about the interpretation of facts urge us to speak with each other. We should not pretend that we are automatons, seeking out law or truth or facts without them ever touching our conscience. Both law and history are disciplines embedded in justice and ethics. In engaging them, we demonstrate that we care about each other, and the world in which we live with the other.
We bring values to our interpretations because we hold beliefs and ideals. Our values should be apparent if we are to evaluate each other's claims, and to decide whether or not we trust another's judgement. The point is not to face the other with eyes closed and arms folded. The point is to speak with each other, endlessly.
We must remain vigilant against those who seek to have the final word. Because the final word is followed by silence.
So writes Kathryn Biber, in today's SMH. Her thesis? History is subjective. If someone says there was a massacre of Aboriginal's in Tasmania, do not argue. Just accept it as a truth. A. Truth. One. Of many. A Truth. But the best one, oooh yeah. The better truth.
Have you ever heard such bullshit?
There is such thing as a bottom line. Objective and correct. There was no massacre. There were deaths. But no massacre. There was never a stolen generation. There were forced removals of some half-black kids from their whole-black mothers. But it was never a generation, and you cannot steal someone's culture, even the culture of people of who do not make up a whole generation. Culture is a matter for you. You either learn your parents' language(s) or you do not. You either learn how your parents and their parents lived, or you do not. Culture is wasted. Not lost. And never stolen.
The author of this bullshit is a former law lecturer, Christ wept. She thinks it is okay to be imprecise, inexact, wet, weak, patronising and stupid.
:: WB 5:54 p.m. [link+] ::
Is there anyone more bloody-minded than an antiwar liberal? They all seem to think the goal of war is killing, rather than winning.
Instapundit is good.
:: WB 3:40 p.m. [link+] ::
:: Saturday, 21 December 2002 ::
Well, yes. if by 'rounded up' you mean the exact opposite. And if by 'wind(ing) up handcuffed and behind bars' you mean lawfully arrested for violations of immigration law and other offences. I cannot be bothered linking to Reuters right now. This sort of rubbish is annoying. But I think Volokh has something on this.
Profile It Under "Anti-Terrorism"
HUNDREDS OF MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS ROUNDED UP IN CALIF.
Hundreds of Iranian and other Middle East citizens were in southern California jails on Wednesday after coming forward to comply with a new rule to register with immigration authorities only to wind up handcuffed and behind bars. Shocked and frustrated Islamic and immigrant groups estimate that more than 500 people have been arrested in Los Angeles, neighboring Orange County and San Diego in the past three days under a new nationwide anti-terrorism program.
:: WB 3:34 p.m. [link+] ::
Cultural Stereotype no.157 - The Scotsman
This restaurant review has it all. Nice writing style, some good literary association (the Bourdain thing). And the traditional Scottish stingyness over cash. Perfect.
:: WB 7:21 p.m. [link+] ::
Oh fer crying outta loud
Stop with the bombs already.
:: WB 7:12 p.m. [link+] ::
:: Friday, 20 December 2002 ::
The flavour of Christmas.
:: WB 6:18 p.m. [link+] ::
Quality Blogging v Anticipatory Leftie Hysteria
Tim Dunlop has read a New York Times article about 'monitoring the internet'. He is preparing to blog more about the threat and calls out to all bloggers to consider the topic.
Read this about exactly the same article to counter any hysteria that may follow.
:: WB 10:09 p.m. [link+] ::
I do not know what to make of this
:: Thursday, 19 December 2002 ::
The tremendous El Sur blog has got Venezuela covered, and Colombia and Argentina a lot of the time too. El Sur's blogging is mirrored in much of cable news of BBC, CNN, Fox, Sky. So when NarcoNews comes along and argues that the whole Venezuela "strike" thing is not actually happening as it is being reported, you kind of have to sit up and ask 'Wha'?' Not knowing many wogs in the South American community in Oz, I cannot say.
Interesting. NarcoNews is probably more off target than on. But probably not wholly off target, you know?
Truth is always somewhere imbetween.
And for Argentina stuff, the lovely Treasaigh.
:: WB 9:51 p.m. [link+] ::
You cannot make this stuff up
A TURKISH man died after eating two kilograms of sweets following a bet with a friend, Anatolia news agency reported.
Necati Ceylan, a 45-year-old father of five, died in hospital in the southern city of Gaziantep after spending three weeks in coma, the agency said.
Ceylan was hospitalised last month after eating two kilograms of baklava, a traditional Middle Eastern dessert with heavily sugared syrup.
He won the bet.
A coma? Jeebus.
:: WB 6:51 p.m. [link+] ::
Baby Kidnapping by the Super Rich
This has it all.
"Argentine judges are investigating whether a systematic plan existed for the illicit adoption of more than 200 children born to captive dissidents during the military's campaign against leftists and political opponents. The children's mothers are among at least 9,000 Argentines who vanished during the ''dirty war.'' Human rights groups say the figure is closer to 30,000."
Say what you like about Argentina. The men are stupendously good looking. The women are hot for it all the time.
The joint is wierd. Bad wierd in a lot of ways.
:: WB 5:38 p.m. [link+] ::
What are you talking about?
Okay. Trucks of one sort or another can drive all through Italy, but once they reach Austria's borders the driver has to jump out and he has to get himself and his load into another type of truck? Or something? I am with the Italians on this.
All trucks, all the time.
:: WB 5:29 p.m. [link+] ::
The Tele answers its critics
David Penberthy writes a spirited response to criticsm of his recent front-page splash titled "Five Star Asylums" all about how well set up most detention centres are nowadays. He notes:
One of our critics, Jane Buckle, made this succinct point: "Even if you were staying at Hotel Intercontinental, not being allowed out would drive you insane, wouldn't it?"
And then he writes this:
Most of all, it is a question of balance – balance here in the form of, we thought, a long-overdue counter-attack on the concentration camp line.
In relation to deprivation of movement, it is the voluntary actions of the asylum-seekers which have denied them that right. Their defenders present them as such lost innocents as to deny them the faculty of reason – the ability to anticipate and accept the risk of detention in entering a country by breaking its laws.
What appalling, offensive crap that is.
Concentration camps, as far as I can tell, involve the active pursuit and internment of people on the basis of their ethnicity or religion with a view to their permanent removal from society, usually through execution.
As opposed to the short-term detention of people who have broken our laws – in conditions which are not as bad as has often been claimed, certainly nothing like the camps in the developing world – where their bona fides are assessed with a view either to their repatriation or arrival into Australian society as refugees.
For my money, the Daily Telegraph is doing more honest and better work about Australia's unauthorised non-citizenry, or illegals or asylum seekers or pretend refugees or refugee wannabes or whatever you want to call them, than any other paper.
:: WB 4:37 p.m. [link+] ::
Moving into common parlance
Ken Layne explains a great word "Jeebus" for the uninitiated. This is not a wog thing at all, but it could catch on. For example, "OhmyGod Jeebus, I can' believe it."
:: WB 4:28 p.m. [link+] ::
He does not screed often
But when he does it is compulsory reading.
:: WB 4:02 p.m. [link+] ::
Ballsy Italian Former-Babe Super-Journo tells Arab bloke (natch) hate mongers where their mothers, sisters and daughters work
:: Wednesday, 18 December 2002 ::
You can guess where.
:: WB 4:01 p.m. [link+] ::
Your point being?
:: WB 5:16 p.m. [link+] ::
150 are okay with the concept of negotiating direct with their employer. 444 do not want to talk to their employer about their work. They would rather that their union representatives talked to the employer instead. Even though what the union represetnatives in this case know about being reasonable and understanding how to negotiate and make businesses profitable is zero, zip, nada, nothing. And even though the workers themselves are more than capable of contributing to their own deals with their own employer.
444 Big Pathetic Sheep.
And most of them wog sheep, at that. G'uh. I am totally with Dan Grollo on this. And I hope he maintains his fabulous dark eyed chain wearing wog-accented struggle.
:: WB 5:10 p.m. [link+] ::
Well, well, well.
:: Tuesday, 17 December 2002 ::
Newspapers reflecting my views about stuff and things. Not incredible. But unusual enough in these quantities.
The new appointee to the High Court comes across as a clear thinker. Miranda Devine gets all righteous on Robert Manne's ass. A three-part editorial in The Australian that nails terrorist appears, anti-globo imbeciles and applaudes the new High Court appointee. And to cap it all, a nice call and response letter thing in the SMH to set things straight:
Those who support extra powers for ASIO are most likely people who don't think they will ever be arrested. For anything. Probably the same people who rattle on about the world being changed forever: it hasn't. Or that we are not living in normal times: we are.
Gary Frances, Bexley, December 18.
Brian J. Sewell (Letters, December 18) is worried about the potential loss of democratic freedom in ASIO's search for terrorists? Hasn't he realised terrorists don't have "democratic freedoms" on their agenda? Besides which, there are no democratic freedoms for the recently murdered anyway. Clearly terrorists have more to do with any loss of civil rights and democratic freedoms than the powers that be. Go complain to them. I for one am happy for ASIO to try its hardest to prevent the murder of myself, my loved ones and my fellow Australians.
Dr. Jocelyn Lowinger, Bondi, December 18.
And WebDiary of course is full of rubbish.
Thus nature balances itself.
:: WB 2:50 p.m. [link+] ::
It makes good sense.
Prepare to be bored by law. But since the Australian High Court's decision got Prof Reynolds and Tim Blair all bothered, this bit of American reasoning - about a US individual injured using an Italian machine that the Italians never ever intended to sell to the place where the individual came to use it (see where I am going with this?) - is interesting. Because it reflects the High Court's own reasoning in the Gutnick case. You do not like the law? Who cares.
:: WB 6:26 p.m. [link+] ::
Whoo. This is some mess
A woman, a Russian woman, who has a hard time of it in her life, no doubt about it, has no legal right to stay in Oz. False passport, failed appeals. Nothing left. Time to go. Right?
Maybe. There is a kid.
While all the application and appealing business has been going on, she had a kid with an Australian bloke citizen. Unsurprising. Moments of passion do occur. Even to "unauthorised non-citzens". The Department of Immigration can deport her. Legally. But someone has made an application to the Family Court, presumably the woman. And presumably arguing that mum should not be deported because the kid needs his mum. And the kid needs his dad. And dad is here in Oz. So mum should be able to stay in Oz too.
The Court, led by Justice Nicholson, thinks maybe the Family Law Act, with its focus on the rights of the child, should trump the Migration Act about the absence of rights for "unauthorised non-citizens" even to be in this country.
He reasons that this woman should be allowed to remain in Oz, at the very least until the outcome of her Family Court case - which have something to do with custody, I would reckon. And the Department of Immigration will not guarantee she will not be deported before then. Fair enough - they got laws says she's got to go. But if they did deport her, that would make a bit of a mockery of the Family Court case, now, wouldn't it? So of course, the Court will decide that it is important and should still be involved. I reckon maybe the Department should be prepared to hold off to let the case get decided. After all, the kid is half Aussie. And he does need his mum. Right now. But I also reckon the Court should not find for mum because she is an "unauthorised non-citizen". They should find for dad.
She gave the kid life, but she has no legal right to be here, where the kid is. The Aussie bloke who is the father does not care for her enough to marry her, because if he did she would be an "authorised non-citizen" and none of this would be an issue.
So much for passion, eh? You reckon he hates her guts? You reckon the feeling's mutual?
Who made this application, anyway? Urgh. I do not think I want to know. This is so complicated. I am not even sure I agree with what I wrote 10 seconds ago. Urgh.
:: WB 6:04 p.m. [link+] ::
:: Monday, 16 December 2002 ::
:: WB 5:25 p.m. [link+] ::
Ben Stein is not an 'up guy' at this particular moment in time
Frankly, I reckon he nails a bunch of stuff, especially about the lawyers. But. What can you do? It's the society. (Kudos to anyone who gets that quote. But do not contact me about it).
:: WB 9:12 p.m. [link+] ::
He has got a hook hand and one eye
Like some sort of super villain, eh?
:: WB 6:50 p.m. [link+] ::
There is a pizzeria ristorante in Modena called Jolly, or something. Upstairs is a gym of the same name. Lileks would like the pizza there. Lileks is jolly and jolly-making. Great man.
:: WB 6:27 p.m. [link+] ::
Congratulations Pablo and Juan
You go girls!
:: WB 6:17 p.m. [link+] ::
Coconut Carving Class?
:: WB 6:07 p.m. [link+] ::
Yesterday Robert Manne writes this:
No even remotely precise figure for the killings of Aborigines in Tasmania will ever be known.
Today, Lyndall Ryan writes this:
The history of the Tasmanian Aborigines cannot be definitively written.
What have they both got in common? A acknowlegded lack of certainty on their historical topic of choice? No way. They are both certain that, even though nothing can be known definitely or quantified properly about Tasmanian Aboriginal history, there is one objective truth - anything Keith Windhsuttle concludes must be flat out wrong.
There is one truth about Aboriginals in Tasmania. It can be known. And it probably falls somewhere imbetween Manne and Ryan on the one hand and Windshuttle on the other. What is that truth? Zif I can tell you. I so do not care. But my papers are full of this stuff.
:: WB 6:04 p.m. [link+] ::
Oh Please. Stop acting like you are in the Resistance.
:: Sunday, 15 December 2002 ::
The ASIO Bill does represent an unacceptable intrusion into basic freedoms in a liberal democratic society. It must be universally opposed by anyone who believes in a free, democratic civil society (as must Bob Carr's NSW "search without warrant or accountability" legislation).
So writes Ken Parish. He can think what he likes. And I am free, in this liberal democracy with my basic freedoms, to think otherwise. I do not think it is an unacceptable intrusion into basic freedoms in a liberal democracy for my tax dollars to be used by ASIO to question people with a view to finding out and preventing some terrorist act that destroys part of Oz or gives our economy a nasty whack. (I am thinking New York, Bali, right?) Quite the opposite. I think it is not a bad use of my money.
And, actually, I do believe in our free, democratic civil society here in Oz. I believe it is robust enough to cope with the ASIO bill and still be free, democratic and civil.
Who is ASIO going to question, you reckon? Probably those nice folks who spirit away asylum seekers (see post below) or maybe their kids, and probably those spokespersons for Australia's various Muslim communities, and maybe the nice anti-globo kiddies, and maybe some accountants who know about some Saudi money trails. All good in my book. All good. You know why? Because none of those folks are terrorists. But they might be able to help stop something real bad happening to this country. And they might not even know that they can help. Or maybe they do, but they do not want to, some of them. Shitheads. But those should be able to be compelled to help.
That is what the bill is for. Terrorism. Sorry, that word again, eh? It is a bugger to be reminded that that is why the bill was drafted. You want to argue that terrorism is not important enough to warrant a bill like this? Be my guest. But do not be surprised when you get called 'soft' on terrorism, okay?
See, the thing about living in a liberal democracy is that you do not have to have a masters degree in history to know that, in every liberal democracy there are shitheads who are driven by ill-will. They rely on turned cheeks and averted eyes and studied ignorance and weak legal philosophy. They also rely on the government of a liberal democracy not having sanctioned any agency or department to be licenced kill. That is the civility part of the civil society.
The ASIO bill would not sanction killing anybody. Or harming them. Not a hair on an Australian citizen's head.
The ASIO bill talks about questioning. For long periods of time. Yeah. Even young people. Uh huh. Without lawyers. Oh my god.
To argue against this. I mean, really. This?
What parliament was offering the Howard Government last Friday morning was a tough new questioning regime for ASIO with equally strong protections for Australians who might find themselves subject to those powers.
John Faulkner. Labor. Allow me to paraphrase. "Terrorists have rights too."
And before anyone goes off on a "he did not write that"/"that is not what he said" line, read the whole piece, start to finish. What does it boil down to? Eh? What? This. It is equally important to protect citizens from questioning as it is to protect citizens from terrorism. 'Equally'. See, I reckon that is mistaken. Because I do not think it is equally important. I think it is less important. Less. And I think my liberal democracy can take it. I mean, just imagine refusing to answer ASIO questions, on the grounds that the questioning 'undermines liberal democracy' and 'abuses basic freedoms'. Can you picture it? Do you hear yourself say those words? After Bali? Or do you think you might actually want to help ASIO. Eh? Actually participate a bit in keeping Oz clear from terrorists and alert to terrorist threats.
Ken and Tim Dunlop seem to find that concept appalling. Ken has gone so far in one comment post someplace to saying anyone, like me, supporting the bill must be authoritarian conservative reactionary. No mate. Just a wog citizen of Oz. Who does not find the bill appalling. I tend to think, when it comes to terrorism (That word again. Damn. I do keep bringing it up, eh? Because it is the point), it is our goddam duty to give information. Rather than the abstraction of 'liberal democracy' and 'basic freedoms' my mind turns to the Red Brigades and Italy. Actual terrorists operating within an actual liberal democratic society (and you know where you can stick your jokes, okay? Italy rocks no matter how many governments). Italy went through this home grown terrorism decades ago. Happened again recently. Struggled and struggling with it.
I do not want that happening in Oz. At all. Or at least, not much. I want troublemakers found in Oz and then I want them sent away from Oz. And I reckon the ASIO bill can help find them.
Ken has another interesting post up. This one about Bill Hayden's essay about Howard, and how he is transforming Australian ideas and views. On this ASIO thing, I reckon Johnny How-are-you may well be doing the same. Because in my opinion, so long as Labor and the Greens and blah blah blah whoever, puts an equal emphasis on protecting civil liberties and protecting actual living breathing life from terrorism (that terrorism killing thing again. Sorry), then I say bring on the goddam double dissolution, jackasses, and lose.
Lose your arses off. Red Brigades, New York. Bali. This is not an essay question. And you are not part of the Resistance.
:: WB 1:02 a.m. [link+] ::
Great ABC tv
:: Saturday, 14 December 2002 ::
Compass has just shown the second part of its 'Son of God' series, a BBC production presented by mid-East corrspondent Jeremy Bowen. It is great tv for the graphics and the no nonsense thoroughness of the presenter about its compelling subject matter.
Why am I posting about this? Because the folks who are sheltering the failed applicants for legal authority to be in Oz, known variously as asylum seekers or unauthorised entrants or whatever, may well think themselves deeply Christian for their acts. Their generosity and effort are not for reward. I cannot say they are bad people. I do not believe they are. I believe they are good people. Kind. To those they help. But I do believe them to be mistaken.
The guys without the visas or other permission to be here are acting without care or concern for our laws our society our system. They are demanding a peculiar treatment that the rest of us cannot demand. They are underground and have to stay there otherwise they will feel the force of our laws. So they are on a path which, except if there is an amnesty or something, will not lead them anywhere but underground. And so long as they are here, where they fled from will not be improved by them. And if that joint, wherever, you know, is not improved then more will flee. And more could end up here or elsewhere. Without authority. It cannot last.
To help these folks by organising free medical care and even schooling is a good kind Christian gesture. Or just plain kind, for those who are not Christians. But it taps into goodwill and blind eyes and turned cheeks. And that cannot last. I, for one, cannot tolerate the lawlessness of it all. The complete disregard for our laws. They are not bad laws in my opinion. To see them so flagrantly disrespected, but by good people, makes me think. But it does not make me think my laws are bad.
I have thought about my laws. And I have thought about the folks who disobey them. And I have done a bit of thinking about Jesus.
I am in favour of the laws. Roman Catholic, see.
Urgh. Anyway. Late at night God-thinking is not good for anyone. Enough.
:: WB 4:38 a.m. [link+] ::
Keep your eyes on it
The Gary Coleman image top left on this Italian blog, that is.
:: WB 9:27 p.m. [link+] ::
Let me see. Dunlop writes a post that indicates pretty clearly to me that, even though he writes that he does not think people are stupid, his anlysis reveals that he does think people who have different views to his, are stupid, because they are being kept that way by evil right-wingers. I write a post setting out my views. Ken Parish shares my views. Dunlop comments on Parish's site on this topic, about Humpty Dumpty and that I have put words in his mouth and blah, blah bad will. Then he writes a sort of ironic or maybe just sarcastic piece about how he isn't a rich elitist. Wha'?
Who cares if you are rich or not, mate? It ain't the money in the bank and the opera ticket that makes one man think every other man is less smart than he. It's the thinking. And that can be done by anyone. Rich or poor.
I have always found this "I'm not rich, so I can't be an elitist" argument pretty funny, coming from lefties who get called 'elitist' a lot, mostly by our PM. I reckon the lefties miss the point. He uses 'elistist' to just mean 'snob'. And as a wog, I find Tim's irony piece priceless because my father came to Oz with nothing. No rich elitist he. But he always made sure he had his season tickets to the opera. And he got himself some fine Italian cars too. It's a wog thing, Tim.
:: WB 4:40 p.m. [link+] ::
:: Friday, 13 December 2002 ::
Okay. I want a hat like this, and then I want a whole lot of this delicious stuff and lots of these unbelieveably great things and I want this guy to cook all of that for me while I am sitting in this Piazza, and while he is cooking I want to be drinking this stuff, and I want to have arrived at the Piazza in this car, and I while I am eating I want to be listening to this woman singing live somewhere nearby and I want to be able to see this woman somewhere nearby too, and this man as well. And in order to have arrived in beautiful downtown Roma for all my Christmas cheer, I want to have used a passort from this place. You know why. Because it is great.
Oh, and I want it to be somewhere between 18 and 22 degrees celcius with low humidity, okay? Gotta look after the hair.
Okay. Don't just sit there.
:: WB 3:39 p.m. [link+] ::
Yorta have capitulated...
:: Wednesday, 11 December 2002 ::
Ken Parish expresses surprise more bloggers have not blogged sooner on the relevant High Court case and the stupid hysteria from the loser claimants. The answer is simple - some bloggers are self-censoring when it comes to Aboriginal matters, some are lazy, but most of us just do not give a shit about this particular case. We could not care less. Yorta Yorta. Please.
I will blog about this because I have views. And my views are essentially Ken's views on the law side, but I will put my position on the cultural side briefly and bluntly.
If you are no longer doing whatever it is that your ancestors got up to, in the same longitudinal and latitudinal locale where your ancestors got up to whatever it is they got up to, that does not mean you are no longer related to the past.
Hear what I am saying?
Losing this case as profoundly as they did, does not make the claimants any less Yorta Yorta people. The claim for entitlement to the land fails. The decision does not even try to take away Yorta Yorta Aboriginal memory. It does not even attempt to sully memory. It simply says, you Yorta Yorta folks now ain't what your folks used to be. Well, g'uh. I ain 't what my folks used to be either. Thanks be to my good Roman Catholic God.
For one thing, I got electric windows in my car.
Some may lose their savings over this decision. Maybe lose homes too. Because of the court costs. Ken might be able to correct me, but I cannot recall many Aboriginal native title claim cases where the losing side, when Aboriginal, has been ordered to pay costs. If I am right, and that sort of costs order does not happen very often, then this case is not just a loss for the claimants. It is a gobsmacking profound loss. Sad all over, really.
I wonder who did the legals.
:: WB 5:16 a.m. [link+] ::
I cannot understand this man.
:: Tuesday, 10 December 2002 ::
What is Tim Dunlop trying to argue? He is having a go at Gareth Parker about how Gareth has identified that the left, as beautifully represented by Dottoressa Carmen Lawrence, are addicted to thinking that everyone on earth would have the leftie world view if only they were not so stupid, and if only they had more information and if only they knew as much as the lefties. Tim is trying to argue that the left does not think people are stupid. Incredible. That is about the only thing that unifies the left.
He writes this:
The people are not stupid.They are busy and rightfully self-interested and, in most cases, have less time than is ideal to devote to the consideration of policy issues. The disrespect to them comes not from those who argue that perhaps they might change their mind if they were given more or different information, but from those who pretend that at any given point "the people" know all there is to know. The irony is, it is the former sort who tend to be characterised as "elitist" and it is the latter sort, those who wish to keep people in the dark, who are often characterised as "populists" and champions of the common person.
I will paraphrase:
Imbetween going to work and thinking about their hair and their cars a lot, the poeples do not have enough time to spend thinking about leftie things. The peoples might agree with leftie thinking if only they actually did some thinking. The peoples do not think enough (see where I am going with this?). But it is not lefties who keep them in the dark. It is rightwingers. Rightwingers keep the peoples in the dark. That is way worse than thinking that the peoples are stupid.
Who wants to keep anyone in the dark? Can anyone even find the dark these days? You have to do some serious driving to get out of information overload. Newspapers, movies, tv, magazines, books, travel, people in bars with things to say, art, advertising, theatre, comedy clubs, buskers, workmates, people who you hate at work, etc etc.
The people are not stupid. You got that right, Tim. They do get information, and they do change their minds. There is no disrespect in leaving people alone to reach their own conclusions. Lefties like to spoonfeed. That is because they think only they know how to hold the spoons.
:: WB 4:30 p.m. [link+] ::
Oh, God. Why are they so addicted to violence?
Exploding bombs in Genoa to commemorate the memory of a violent imbecile who died trying, with this violent thug friends, to throttle an armed Italian policeman trapped in a car. That is pretty rough on Genoa. And saying that the bombings are a reaction to ''the torture and systematic violence perpetuated in the streets and police barracks in a vain attempt to repress the people's response against the G-8 summit.'' (Torture. By which they mean, lack of torture. And systematic violence. By which they mean, arrests by an authorised police force.) That is pretty rough on logic.
:: WB 6:35 p.m. [link+] ::
Too many words. All of them stupid.
:: Monday, 9 December 2002 ::
This is what passes for thought on the agonised left. Does this cretin even know any wogs? If he did, rest assured, they would slap this stupidity out of him.
His argument is an impenetrable triumph: you said that, not me. As in 'you called me a stupid terrorist appeaser, I did not call myself a stupid terrorist appeaser'.
So, what? So, you are not a terrorist appeaser because you do not admit to yourself that that is exactly what you are? G'uh. Incredible.
All his agonising rubbish gets us precisely where? Nowhere. All he knows, the sum of this idiot's knowledge, is that a lot of poeple think he is an idiot. And he finds that confusing. That would be because he is an idiot.
And what is it with skippies and this Hobbit stuff, eh? Hobbits cannot drive.
:: WB 6:09 p.m. [link+] ::
Geoffrey Robertson. Three time loser. Actually, ten times.
:: Saturday, 7 December 2002 ::
Do not turn away just because this post is about judges. Pay attention. This is really good.
Our High Court has handed down a unanimous judgement today. And it is a beauty.
I will give you the short sharp summary: a bunch of rich yanks defame a jew on the internet in Australia and do not get away with it. Fantastic.
(And before Ken Parish gets all high and mighty about this characterisation, I know that the defamation case actually has to run. But so what? Let us presume it has already been run and won. Or run and lost. The same fantasticness of this High Court case applies.)
Why fantastic? Because. The moral of this story is:
1. just because you put your stuff on the internet thing, whether you are skippy, wog, yank, jew, etc etc, does not mean your business is so superspecial that the law should somehow be changed to suit you;
2. when you put your stuff on the internet, you have to understand that it might defame somebody, that is, it might hurt somebody's reputation, far, far, away. Get over it. That is what it means to run an international business;
3. when you sell the stuff you put on the internet to subscribers who you know live far, far away, then you really better get off your arse and learn a little bit about who you write about before you write about them. This is not censorship. That is good business practice;
4. just because someone you know reads something about you on the internet which makes you look stupid, pathetic, imbecilic and/or idiotic, does not mean that you can now sue the author of the piece. Remember, to be defamed, your reputation has to be hurt. And we are not talking about the reputation you think you have. We are talking about the reputation you actually have. Okay? Chances are, most people already think you are stupid, pathetic, an imbecile and an idiot;
5. never ever ever hire human rights lawyers to run a simple defamation defence for you. They are no good. They are too hysterical about everything and as a direct result, they lose. Imbeciles.
Now, many of the blogosphere have asked the Wog to explain what this means for all of us. Nothing new. I draw your collective attention to point 4 above.
Skippy Tim Blair has begun the chorus of hysterics. Oooh. The internet is ruined for everyone. We will never be able to post on blogspot again because of the gripping terror that someone somewhere may sue us. Oh my God. No one will ever send internet things to Australia ever again. Blah, blah, hysteria.
He has even got Prof Glenn Reynolds to write an article for Australian newspaper about how awful the decision is. I will wager Prof Reynolds will write a piece which finds that Australia's highest court has made a terrible terrible mistake which will crush creativity the world over. Oooh. The humanity. It will also completely fail to address the alternatives. Money down.
You can ignore his argument with comfort. And ignore Blair while you are at it.
Instead, simply consider this. When you blog (if you blog) do you accuse people with otherwise good reputations, of criminality? Do you write truly hurtful things about people here in Australia, or maybe anywhere else in the world? Or do you simply publish your views, for example, you call people like Phillip Adams 'fat arsed idiots'? Relax. That is not defamatory. It is not truly hurtful, either.
Now, if you were the Wall Street Journal or some other big deal publisher, like Prof Reynolds, would you accuse people with good reputations, of criminality? Would you do that without checking about where the subject was living and asking yourself whether he or she might get upset about this? Of course you would check.
I have been reading Prof Reynolds, Andrew Sullivan and even Tim Blair, for ever. They are hard. But they are fair. Mean, even. Cruel on occasion. But never ever less than sharp and to the point.
The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, was sloppy. How hard can it be to check where Joseph Gutnick lives. He lives in Australia and has connections with Israel and the US. That is three legal systems. Out of how ever many in the world. If the Wall Street Journal is too lazy to get a lawyer to look into defamation law in those three countries, then they should shut down their ISP's for Australia. But not because our laws are stupid. No. Because they are not smart enough to carry on business here.
Anyway. Geoffrey Robertson acted for the WSJ. Do I have draw you a picture, Timmy?
:: WB 7:28 p.m. [link+] ::
Thinking like a wog.
Threatening to kill terrorists does nothing to stop the terrorist, who is happy about dying. Because he is a terrorist. Or she, if she is a Palestinian or Tamil terrorist. Now, this is not a reasonable magazine. It is over the top a lot of the time. And this headline. Whoo. We hear you, mate. But it makes a good point. Terrorists are mad. Mad. They do not operate sensibly, rationally. They like death. But they are deathly afraid of pork. That imbecilic world view can and should be used against the freaks who would kills us all. Us.
It is important not to be too skippy about the war on terror, by which I mean, not too. It is also important, at the same time, to be very skippy about it, because our institutions, our courts, parliament, society, civility, are the measure against which we can determine how low the terrorists have fallen when they do their dirty deeds. But as the most excellent Indonesian and Australian efforts after Bali (but mostly Indonesian) showed, thinking like a wog gets you closer to catching them.
Two cases in point.
Some years ago there was an incident in Italy when a mafioso was being sought. He was bugged, but got away from surveillance with the bug still functioning. This meant that police could hear the mafioso but could not locate him precisely in town. Thinking fast and beautifully, they got a Vespa, sawed the exhaust down to give it a distinct sound, and sent an officer out into town, just tootling away for hours and hours until finally, on their bug, they heard the distinctive Vespa and then they knew where their man was. And then they caught him. Smart thinking.
And the Russians, too, are smart, if brutal and brutally effective. As Europe endured sundry kidnaps, Russia only endured one. (Maybe more, but who cares. I like this story.) Some terrorist outfit kidnapped a politician and duly sent their stupid ransom demands. Stupid because the Russians do not care for demands. Not a bit, as the Moscow Theatre nonsense recently demonstrated. In the face of stony silence from the Russians, the terrorists increased their demands and continued to make them. Until. Until they received, at the place where they held their captive, in the post, the genitals of the nephew of the leader of the kidnappers. End of ransom demands. End of kidnaps.
How perfect is that.
To win this war on terror we will need creative thinkers. And I do not mean Judy Davis and Tom Kenneally.
:: WB 5:36 p.m. [link+] ::
Phil Noyce. Shut up and point your camera
:: Friday, 6 December 2002 ::
Fabulous Phil was on Asia Pacific Focus this morning, talking about the Greene novel "The Quiet American" and his film of the same name. He made the film just before 11 September 2001, you remember that day. When violent imbeciles attacked New York, Washington and Pennsylvania (the last was not in the plan). The day nearly 3000 citizens of the world, including some Australians and Italians were killed without cause. Without cause.
Phil's film has been released in the US. Its release was intended for two weeks, to qualify it for the upcoming Oscars, but it has proven good and popular enough to get an indefinite season. It is not showing all over the country. Just New York and Los Angeles. Just them. The fact that film is showing, however, does not interfere with Phil's gymnastic reasoning that censorship might had the film permanently shelved, except that it did not. Nor did it prevent him from asserting that he could never get the film made now, after 11 September 2001, because of the 'mooood' in America.
To hear artists talking is objectively bad. Little or no good comes of it. Ever. But when they talk about politics it is downright infuriating. Because they are always so stupid. Phil's nonsense reminded me of a nice neat baloon-pricking piece posted by Matt Welch. Make your own minds up whether Phil and every other Phil-type, whether author, actor, film-maker, tv-producer or other artiste, is full of it.
I know what I think.
:: WB 5:03 p.m. [link+] ::
Italia. United. Divided. Always Italia.
Regions of Italy may soon be able/required to take on more responsibility for their own success, if a measure passes through the parliament shortly. This is a very controversial matter for Italy. Its poorer south has been subsidised out the wazoo by the more financially successful Central and Northern regions for ever. Why is the North more successful? Why have Central regions like Abruzzo and Le Marche become more successful while Campania and Molise, right next door and on the way down to Calabria and Puglia and Sicily continued to lag? Why?
This is the question to ask of lots of places around the world. Probably the most obvious similar example is in Central and South America. Why do Mexico and Chile do okay and Argentina and Colombia fall apart? Some say culture matters. Others say the presence of left wing idiots acts as a hindrance to progress. I say, in the case of Italy, both views are right.
No body ever got ahead thinking they were poor because somebody else is rich, an idiotic idea expressed by the communist Claudio de Fiores in the article linked above - "make rich regions ever richer and poor regions ever poorer". Stupid. And a stupidity shared by the Church, all too often. But that is what a lot of people think in the South of Italy.
And culture? We can use Siciliy, with its obvious cultural cancer of the Mafia, as a clear example of a region which is objectively less successful than the North. But Sicily is slowly but surely ridding itself of a cultural hindrance and progressing.
Arguments in favour of actual disintegration of Italy as a nation are stupidly extreme. "Italy" existed long before it actually came into existence, if you follow, but that is no reason to just let unified Italy disappear. I am optimistic that the South will get it together sooner than many think. By letting go of the lousy cultural practices and the dumb leftist thought. And their success will take care of the disunity silliness.
:: WB 11:06 p.m. [link+] ::
:: WB 10:26 p.m. [link+] ::
Justices Phillips Buchanan and Batt administer a unanimous skippy smackdown to Justice Eames in the McCabe smoker case. There is a lot of technical boring stuff about this case, to do with keeping documents and destroying them. That is not the important angle to this case. The important angle is that, just because someone somewhere destroyed a bunch of documents, does not mean that a smoker should get a bunch of money for failing to quit. Failing to quit. That is what Rolah McCabe, now deceased, did. Every day. She failed. Herself and her family and every responsible smoker who knows what he or she is doing and does not hold any one else responsible for it. She said it was not her fault. It was.
For decades she knew it was bad for her, even if she did not know at age 12 when she started. Her family knew. I will wager they begged to stop. For years. She did not care to listen to her family. But she sure liked the sound of Peter Gordon, solicitor at Slater & Gordon, a law firm driven by a desire to take big cuts out of big settlements from big business. He is still at it, talking about 'justice'.
The 'Justice' is question is Justice Eames, Mr Soft Touch of the Victorian Supreme Court who stupidly (for him) decided that a sick woman should get $700,000.00 for not quitting smoking, all because someone somewhere shredded some papers. For sure, shredded papers can never be read or used by Slater & Gordon in the retrial. That is true. But what do they think would be in there? A diary, maybe, with page after page that reads: "Attended house of McCabe. Strapped subject to chair while she slept and administered three soft packs of 16s and half a carton of lights."
Her family has lost her. And their major memory of her last moments with them is of a dying woman playing the innocent in a court room. Surely she was made of stronger stuff than that.
:: WB 10:21 p.m. [link+] ::
It is about respect? Respect for what?
:: Wednesday, 4 December 2002 ::
For a union addicted to patronising wog members and intimidating successful wog business people, that is what. Certainly not respect for the hard earned super successful building business started and run by Italians in Australia which gives jobs to Italian workers. No. No respect for them.
The CFMEU is terrified that its members, who enjoy employment because of the success of Grocon, will shortly enter into a non-union organised Enterprise Bargaining Agreement. Terrified. Because if the workers find out they can have a decent agreement with an employer without any union help, the union will be revealed as a useless bunch of stand-over bully boys. Nobody with any sense respects unions any more, because they act like idiots. I will paraphrase so you can enjoy the gist:
How dare you call your own employees after hours to discuss this non-union opportunity. Who do you think they are? People? Just 'cos you employ them does not give you the right to talk to them. Not without the union present. They are wogs. They are stupid. They need the union. You are also wogs. But you are the wily manipulative kind. Wogs are either stupid or bad. Only the union is good. 'Cos it is not run by wogs. Do not dare to go around the union. The union is compulsory. In the union's opinion. Wogs must be controlled.
They are the problem, those unions. They stop workers actually taking an interest in their own work, livelihood and future. They stop workers thinking. That can never be good.
:: WB 9:58 p.m. [link+] ::
:: WB 11:43 p.m. [link+] ::
Well done. Way to protect us all, mate
Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, (where else) about the proposed ASIO bill which is not even law, we get this as an alternative proposal:
Under the proposed regime, questions could be asked for no longer than 12 hours, the maximum time allowed under federal criminal law. A majority of the committee supported a provision ensuring that a person is free to leave once questioning is over. In the event of an imminent terrorist attack, a person could be questioned again for another 12 hours, but then not again for the next seven days.
By which the author means: if Australians are under imminent threat of terrorist attack, the terrorists can be held up for 12 + max. 12 hours. Then free to remain unmolested for 7 days, plenty of time to do their terrorist work.
This is not a smart response to the bill. A smart response would say: "In the event of an imminent terrorist attack, a person could be questioned again indefinitely until everyone was happy that the person was not going to do anything violent. Full stop. End of story.
UPDATE: I am confused
Ken Parish has published a spirited response to my observation. He and I do not see eye to eye on this topic.
He writes: Wogblog completely misunderstands what the ASIO Bill is all about. The ASIO Bill provisions in question are not about detaining terrorists, or even terrorist suspects. They're aimed at authorising ASIO to detain people who aren't even suspected of any wrongdoing, and who haven't been charged with anything, but who ASIO thinks might have some useful information, to be detained secretly by ASIO for up to 7 days, with only very restricted access to a lawyer. Wogblog might think this is a great idea. I don't. Nor does George Williams or any of the Liberal, National, Labor, Democrat or Green Senators who've looked at the issues involved. That's why George Williams described the Bill as "rotten at the core".
See, there it is. Apparently ASIO will spend 7 hours in the company of "people who aren't even suspected of any wrongdoing and who haven't been charged with anything but who ASIO thinks might have some useful information".
Run for your life, Mamma. Zif.
ASIO is not made up of hundreds of thousands of men all working in hives under the ground. ASIO will, with its limited resources, question people who they most certainly suspect of being terrorists, or knowing terrorists or just plain helping terrorists. In my book, they are all worth questioning. And if it takes 7 hours so be it. Could be a lot shorter. They will not be using up resources talking to people with nothing to say and nothing to contribute to doing ASIO work. Sheesh. In Ken's book, the fact that a bunch of hysterics (mostly lawyers) decry the bill is good enough for him. As I said, we must agree to disagree. The day he gets questioned, I will revisit my views. I am much more likely to be questioned than Ken, being a "New Australian" and all.
And it does not bother me a bit. As for misunderstanding the bill, I think I get it, Ken.
:: WB 5:42 p.m. [link+] ::
Patronising Toe Rags
Mark Day is a skippy journalist of some repute. Some. He does not speak Arabic. He was a Walkleys board member, the journalism award thing that nobody cares about. And he voted for an SBS radio piece that was not in English. His reasoning?
Also raising a few eyebrows was the radio feature, documentary or broadcast special category, which was won by Ghassan Nakhoul of SBS Radio for a report called "The Five Mysteries of Siev X" which was entirely in Arabic. "None of us could understand what was being said," Day confirms. "But we could clearly hear that it was being said with a great deal of passion and vigour by those being interviewed, and we could follow the transcripts and we all agreed it was a wonderful piece of journalism."
Unblievably stupid. He will not win any wog friends for this.
:: WB 3:05 p.m. [link+] ::
A Series of Quotes
:: Monday, 2 December 2002 ::
From yesterday's Daily Telegraph. Incredible.
... Australia's Muslim leaders warned Prime Minister John Howard their community was at "breaking point" over his "abandonment" amid a growing climate of "fear and suspicion". ...
... the Australian Muslim community with its leadership warning the Prime Minister had been "callous" and had alienated Muslims by failing to defend them. Sydney's Muslim community was "not on speaking terms" with Mr Howard.
Muslim leader Jamal Rifi said the Prime Minister was being "dangerous" by playing one group in Australian society off against another and multiculturalism was in dire need of "resuscitation".
"We are more than angry," Dr Rifi said.
"Alienating our community does not help." ...
"We have been systematically targetted," ...
"We feel alone ..." ...
"We need more positive support from the Federal Government ... we are Australian citizens."
... Ali Roude the head of the Islamic Council who said ..."All public suspicion presently falls upon Muslim Australians and it falls
equally and unfairly on all Muslim Australians."
The spiritual leader of Australia's Muslims Sheikh Taj Eddin El Hilaly said Mr Howard ... "He is playing on people's emotions to win popularity and votes," ...
"All Muslims feel tense and they feel that the PM is leading Australia in a dangerous tangent and is also placing Australia in a position of conflict with its neighbours."
If I understand all this rubbish properly it seems Australia's Muslim community as a whole (who knew they were such sheep, eh?) feel that they are being:
1. systematically targetted (presumably by the media, police and government, and for everything from rape to terrorism;
2. alienated (presumably from the rest of the Australian community who lives and works with them every day, and this has been achieved either by the rest of the Australian community acting in unison or by media and government);
3. unsupported by government + abandonned by government + lacking support from government + callousness from government (How much support do you need? Just vote. 'Not on speaking terms", g'uh. How full of themselves); and
4. subjected to unfair suspicion (presumably by media, police and government, and presumably it is unfair because they are being suspected of all Muslim AND non-muslim criminal or terrorist activity....I think not. I think, just me I know, but I think it is just suspicion of Muslim actions.)
The result is that they are:
fearful + at breaking point + more than angry.
Sound familiar? The traditional irrationality of the craaazy which pre-absolves themselves of all responsibility to get along with everyone. I have blogged on this before.
I do not know who does their PR but the Islamic Council and Australian Arabic Community Council do a disservice to all Muslims and particularly Arab Muslims in Oz. They make every single Muslim they purport to represent appear to be a greasy jackass with an unhealthy sense of self-pity, wearing a burka done up with a suicide belt.
Fools. The younger kids are not at 'breaking point'. They care about cars and jobs and food and good music and money and real estate and love. Some of them are backwards, sure. Most of them are forwards. Most of them would tell the police in an instant if they suspected a 'brother' of anything criminal or dangerous. Most of them are great Australians who just happen to like hummus and
tabouli a lot.
But you would never know it from their "spokesmen". You would think the police had rounded up every Muslim in town and whipped them ragged. Pathetic.
:: WB 12:14 p.m. [link+] ::
Genoa, wait and see...
This is a good result from the prosecution investigation. (To appreciate this you must understand the Italian legal system. I am a blogger. Not a teacher.) Now we must wait and see what happens in the case. If you remember the footage from Genoa, the dead guy could have avoided dying. He just needed not to throw the extinguisher into the stranded car and at the armed policeman in the car. Simple really. I wonder why he did not think of it at the time. Oh, yes, because he was demonstrating .... like an idiot.
And calling him an idiot is not censorship or chilling debate or infringing democratic rights to gather and protest. It is merely observing nature. Anti-globo protesters are idiots. And the one's in Italy are double-idiots. You do not attempt to injure an Italian police man. They are armed.
:: WB 7:45 p.m. [link+] ::
Just plain crooked
First it was 'sanctions are starving our babies', now it is, sure we tried to get around the sanctions' ... but not to feed the babies. How can the people in charge there look at themselves in the mirror? Do they not see that they are incapable of standing straight?
:: WB 7:30 p.m. [link+] ::
Hmmmmmnm. What are they getting at? Oh yes. I know. It is Labor.
Labor has just announced its new immigration policy or something.
It will involve:
1 - keeping mandatory detention, but only for 90 days...unless it needs to be longer;
2 - letting the kids out to stay in homes, but not the women and men (I think - maybe women with kids and men locked up);
3 - a special detention centre will be built on Christmas Iasland for all the asylum seekiers;
4 - increasing the number of asylum seeker positions in Oz, but decreasing other types of positions, to avoid an immigration blowout;
5 - inroduction of a 'US style green-card' to make sure people cannot work illegally in Oz; and
6 - appointing caseworkers from private organisations for every single person in detention.
And then, get this, when an application fails and the claiming guy gets sent home to wherever, Labor will do followups to make sure the guy has not been killed, as he claimed he would be when he first arrived in Oz.
That is nice.
Let us apply some clear thinking to this:
1 - Immigration lawyers always vote Labor, so mandatory detention will go on, as now, so the lawyers will not be interrupted until they are quite finished with their appeals, thankyou;
2 - parents in detention are just stupid wogs, so it is okay to take their kids away, and make them stay away from their parents, or just their father....until the lawyers are finished;
3 - Australian taxpayers will pay to build ANOTHER detention centre, this one cleaner and newer and with better SBS reception than many Australian taxpayers' homes;
4 - too many free-thinking smart wogs have entered the country and they will not vote Labor like sheep, so the number of under-educated or non-educated, but grateful, wogs will be increased because they are easily manipulated and will vote Labor and Labor will win, yey;
5 - unions do not like illegal workers because they cannot declare the union dues that they collect (and you know they do), and this is showing a deflated number of unionised people in the workforce, so a 'green-card' will legitimise that. Can you hear the call for an amnesty? Listen...there it is;
6 - Labor has no power to coerce private organisations into acting caseworkers, so taxpayer money will probably have to be used, either as an incentive, or to pay for actual caseworkers when the private organisations say "bugger off, I am busy".
And then that followup call I mentioned above. I have no more to say about that. I mean, g'uh. Either the guy will be dead or he will be making money running a shop. Either way, a followup is going to make Labor look stupid.
Incredible. I do not believe Crean and Gillard are badly motivated. I believe they suffer vitamin W deficiency. You know what I mean.
:: WB 6:46 p.m. [link+] ::
Which lawyers? 'Cos I say they need a slap.
In detention because his parents put him there. In detention for two years because his parents, and more importantly their lawyers, take two years to get their case right. And now with the hands out for taxpayer money. Where do they think $70k comes from? Phil Ruddock's Family Trust?
Unbelieveable. Cases can take much much much shorter than two years. But usually those short cases involve calm wogs, who recognise that, sure they may be in detention and it is not great, but it is infinitely better than where they came from. So they just get on with making a good case. And their lawyers can win their case because it is a good case. And the Refugee Revue Tribunal can grant refugee status because a good case for it was made. Everybody happy.
This case is not smart.
:: WB 4:34 p.m. [link+] ::
How is it possible to be this stupid and still be alive?
You read some of these letters and ask yourself if these anti-Howard people even listen to what the man says. Who said anything about invading Asia? If there is no alternative, that is, the terrorist-filled country, whether in Asia or not, cannot or will not stop the terrorists, then a pre-emptive strike would be good. I mean, as if Asian nations particularly are not going to do anything about terrorists. Of course they are. They are not stupid or lazy. This whole matter was a hypothetical scenario and response. The letter writers as usual misunderstand.
I expect the PM to protect me, and my car, from terrorists. I want that. I think it would be a good thing. I am not alone. Many in my company are "New Australians". Many are not.
UPDATE: "Pwe-erptrv Bwf"
A whole post about how PM John Howard should be seen and not heard. A whole post.
The Left. It is as if their thoughts get jammed. Or something does. Somewhere.
:: WB 4:08 p.m. [link+] ::