:: Wog Blog ::


:: Welcome. This blog will present a wog perspective on matters. And this wog will decide what matters.:: ::bloghome:: | ::contact::
::WOG FROG(&SPAIN) 2006::
:: Day 1 of 14 - Start Here
::WOG MOG LEJOG 2005::
:: Day 0 of 14 - Start Here
::WOG ON THE ROAD 2004::
:: Day 1 of 10 - Start Here
:: Wog Blogger Profile
::A Few Recommended Oz Blogs::
:: Tim Blair
:: Belmont Club
:: Silent Running
:: Bernard Slattery
:: Tony the Teacher
:: Yobbo
:: Adrian the Cabbie
:: Andrew Bolt
:: Romeo Mike
::A Few Recommended News Sites::
:: News Now
:: Sydney Morning Herald
:: The Daily Telegraph
:: The Australian
:: The Financial Review
:: Atlantic Monthly
:: Drudge Report
:: Counterterrorism Blog
::A Few Recommended US Blogs::
:: Jules Crittenden
:: Glenn Reynolds
:: James Lileks
:: Little Green Footballs
:: The Corner
:: Matt Welch
:: Ken Layne
:: Stephen Green
:: Eugene Volokh
:: Iraq Now
:: Jeff Goldstein
:: Powerline
:: Opera Chick
::A Few Recommended Italian Blogs::
:: 1972
:: I Love America
:: Il Foglio
:: Il Nouvo Riformista
:: Wind Rose Hotel
:: Libero Pensiero
:: Beppe Grillo
::A Few Recommended UK Blogs::
:: Oxblog
:: Harry's Place
:: Theo Spark
:: Tuscan Tony
:: Biased BBC
:: Melanie Phillips
:: Oliver Kamm
:: Samizdata
:: Harry Hutton
:: Norman Geras
:: Tim Worstall
:: Freedom & Whisky
::A Few Recommended Other Blogs::
:: Gates of Vienna
:: EurSoc
:: Iberian Notes
:: Healing Iraq
:: Baghdad Burning
:: The Messopotamian
:: Mahmood's Den
:: No Pasaran!Merde in France
:: Dissident Frogman
:: The Head Heeb
November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 April 2006 June 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 May 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 November 2008 April 2009 May 2009 October 2009 April 2010 May 2012

:: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 ::


Tim Dunlop posts that his naked rooting (yes, I mean to type it that way) for the non-existence of that wog who helped Private Lynch was just a bit of scepticism on his part.

Just a bit of scepticism. Just a bit of doubting or questioning of commonly accepted truth.


It was a series of posts all overtly asserting that no such a wog ever existed or could ever exist cos every one knows wogs are incapable of selfless acts.

This is his first entry on the topic of the wog's non-existence: the entry he links to to show his scepticism. 10 April. "Where's Mohammed?"

Youse should also look at this. 11 April "Petitioning Mohammed" and all the way through Dunlop puts scare quotes around the wog's freaking name. Zif he just couldn't exist. Dunlop does not revisit this post in his scepticism link.

And then this. 16 April. "Who wasn't that masked man?" I give you the title alone. Needless to say, this post doesn't get a link in Tim's scepticism post.

Sceptical? He was saying the wog was a figment of American imagination. Read all 4 posts. Bit beyond sceptical. More like wishing and hoping Mohammed never existed.


:: WB 2:32 p.m. [link+] ::
:: Monday, 28 April 2003 ::
Arab dithering

Who would have thunk it?

Caught another of those BBC round table things the other night, featuring Geoff Hoon and Benazir Bhutto and a stuidio audience of hostile but good looking Arabs.

When is the US going to do something about the weapons of mass destruction in Israel?
What Arabs dislike is the double standards applied by the US to Arab countries and then to Israel.
What about the Palestinians?
The US didn't stop the looters in Baghdad.

See it?

Same tedious approach that gets us precisely nowhere.

Consistency? Double standards? Palestinians?

Iraq is the focus. Saddam gone. Good thing. Liberty to form new government. Time. To. Get. That. Right.

How do these people clean their houses? They see a dirty front room and instead of cleaning it, they spend their time weeping over the unwashed dishes in the kitchen.


:: WB 2:25 p.m. [link+] ::
You're a really 'up' person, Katherine

If the 1994 American intervention in Haiti is any guide, the current U.S. goal to establish democracy in Iraq is an unrealistic one.

Less than a decade after the United States proudly proclaimed the restoration of democracy in Haiti, the troubled Caribbean country is by most assessments a failed state. The Haitian government refuses to yield to the calls of the international community to hold free and fair elections. Violence and crime have risen dramatically, and the country has become a haven for drug traffickers and international criminals who benefit from its porous borders and absence of rule of law.

Haiti is no better off than it was before the U.S.-led U.N. coalition intervened.

Um, dyareckon Haitians might have anything to do with this? And, dyaseriousyreckon Papa Doc Duvalier and Baby Doc were not so bad?

The political pressure to produce results quickly meant that civilians were not consulted in developing the Haitian police force, which has proved to be entirely ineffective and corrupt. The United States and its allies also overlooked Haitian institutional capacity to accommodate certain reforms, and many changes were enacted that were driven by the international institutions, without the support or input of Haitians. Since diplomatic ties with Iraq were broken off in 1990, the challenge for the United States is to find reliable Iraqis with whom to work.

Read that again.

It goes like this: the US (I suppose) appointed a bunch of corrupt Haitians to the police force. And then, the US did not appreciate that Haitian institutions are manned by Haitians, and Haitians are retarded of course and cannot achieve any kind of reform at all, unless it is their own....but they are retarded and can't achieve reform.....urgh. Pain behind eyes.

And then suddently, Iraq is lost.


Katherine has spent a long time hating in Haiti.

The problem with Haiti? Stupid voodoo bullshit, AIDS out the wazoo and corruption.

Solution? Stop practising voodoo, quit fucking without a rubber, and be a bit more honest.

Um, kinda personal solution, eh? Not really the US's responsibility to take the chicken heads and little rocks away, or slip the rubber on the tumescence.

Kinda of a Haitian responsibility.

Maybe you could help, Katherine.

:: WB 2:16 p.m. [link+] ::
Okay second Iraq interim leadership meeting done.

This time jumbo Shi'ite council attends instead of shortsightedly boycotting, as it did last time. And Chalabi attends too, invited unlike last time. So. Upshot? Nothing on the news I can find. Gotta do some digging.

What has come out? King Abdullah of Jordan complaining the meeting was not a success. Or something. Jeez, man. Way to not be encouraging.

:: WB 5:20 a.m. [link+] ::
A Peronist second round for voters in Argentina.

Treasaigh has the goods.

That should be a top country, you know? Top.

:: WB 5:14 a.m. [link+] ::
Never after 10 in the a.m, okay?

Cappuccino, that is. Praying to San Marco D'Aviano, that is an any time proposition.


:: WB 5:09 a.m. [link+] ::
How do you make explosive eggs? And tomato paste?

That children play with?

Jeez. This is disgusting.

:: WB 5:06 a.m. [link+] ::
:: Sunday, 27 April 2003 ::
Priceless British chitchat about Galloway

This latter day Lord Haw Haw should be hanged! Orf with his head! Then shove it on a spike outside parliament.

:: WB 1:57 p.m. [link+] ::
Not good.


:: WB 1:54 p.m. [link+] ::
Would they vote for Menem? Could they vote for him?

The Argentinians make the Italians look like the English.

:: WB 1:44 p.m. [link+] ::
:: Saturday, 26 April 2003 ::
Don't bash the French when you are in bed with the Saudis

Wha'? That is just the same unconvincing argument as "Don't attack Saddam's regime, when there are other regimes that are bad" or that infuriating "Saddam used to be an ally of the US" argument that gets us precisely nowhere.

One bashing at a time. Bash the Saudis soon, but. For sure.

Bash the French now, though, cos they deserve it.

Their government, unlike the governments of Spain and Italy, chose, elected, worked for and achieved a persistent and incremental lifting of pressure from Saddam Hussein's regime. The pressure had been applied through Resolution 1441, including by the French. Blix began his reporting by slamming the Iraqi leadiership for its failure to grasp the seriousness of the process that had got underway. What happened then? A freakin' trainwreck, that's what. A trainwreck led by Blix who could not bring himself to keep the pressure on Saddam's regime, but instead fell into the trap of fencesitting, criticising and praising in equal measure, Saddam's Iraq, but always always sniping at American and British and Australian views. Always. Ultimately achieving a little, but that little being small enough to lift the pressure on Iraq.

And the French? 'We are not a pacifist nation but now, today, we will not resolve to use force. Under any circumstances. And any Central or Eastern European nation which begs to differ from our view will feel the cost of their foolishness in countering us.' Blah blah blah. Nothing Urgh.

No alternative. No solution. Just a bunch of maybe and telling us all what they would not do. And the threats to punish contrary views.

Get far away, I need to hear what you will not do.

I need to hear what you will do. And get totally far away at the treatment to the Vilnius group of nations. Really.

It is a curse of the intellectual, and Chirac and Villepin are intellectuals. They are clever, learned, duplicitous, slippery and vain. They took a position that stood for nothing, their population seemed to roundly support it. And for their erring vanity and the clamouring sheeplike population applauding that view, we got clean path to military force.

Thanks a lot, France.

Between Blix and the French, the Americans had no opposition. 5-4-3-2-1 force.

Opposition does not mean just opposing a view. It means putting up a credible alternative.

I do not want Chirac in my house. I am not suprised the Americans do not care for him either.

Does not mean the cheese is not good, and the roads and the architecture or the women are not yummy. Just means call 'em as you see 'em. And I see capital A Anti-Americans more than I see Capital F Frenchmen.

:: WB 6:03 p.m. [link+] ::
Another chunk of useless.

Ken Layne reveals that there is a Clive Hamilton-type(see post below) Stateside, who thinks it is a bad thing for journalists who work for him on his paper to also publish personal blogs.

Dyareckon he would take that view if the personal blog was filled with "My boss is God. He is the bestest boss. Lovelove for Boss."?

I. Think. Not.

:: WB 5:57 p.m. [link+] ::

A book review in the "Spectrum" section of the weekend Australian (no link I can find) written by one Clive Hamilton, a leftie who runs a thinktank called The Australia Institute which kinda sounds like "The Human Fund", dontchathink? Anyhoo.

Hamilton reviews a book called "20:21 Vision" by Bill Emmott from The Ecomomist, a collection of essays from that magazine, about the war and stuff. And if anyone has read that magazine, they will know it is pretty evenhanded in its reasoning, and it reached a conclusion as to its own position while the UN was hard at work reaching a deadlock, that it was in favour of military force to remove Saddam's regime. It is not really conservative, so much as balanced, coming from a small government and rational position (except in its treatment of Oz and Italy, which I find to be ignorant and addicted to cliche. Harrumph, eh? Whatever.).

What does Hamilton think about this?

He thinks the book should never have been published and that the publisher made an error of judgement in publishing such a book.


He is hired by to give a review of the book, and that is his review. No 'well, the essays are well written but reveal a view which I do not hold', or maybe 'Emmott has collected a bunch of essays that could have been copied form the online archives of the magazine, so hardback publishign is just a money generating exercise'. Nope. Nothing so rational.

Get a face load of jizz from Hamilton care of his closing paragraph (any typos mine):

Good grief, eh? Clive Hamilton publishes his worthless crocks at Online Opinion, no less, but apparently it is bad bad when Emmott does the same thing in his mag or in book form. I mean, that book won't hold anything I won't have already read from the mag, right? So, it is already effectively online or in my can, right? What ckind of cretin would call for it not to ever have been published?

A leftie, of course, who would censor all views which do not comply with his own views. Even while he has no shortage of capacity to get his views published widely.

God help us. Clive Hamilton, nasty bully-boy cretin.

:: WB 5:50 p.m. [link+] ::
:: Thursday, 24 April 2003 ::
Top stuff

Vietnamese boat folks not left to wallow on their leaky vessel, some deciding to return, others to be detained by appropriate authorities.

Now, to find that other boat asap.

:: WB 9:52 p.m. [link+] ::
Top Post.

From Andrea Harris, this line: On the internet, no one can hear you scream, but they can see things about your character that you probably didn't intend to reveal.

Now the post is all about a back and forth over the looting business at the National Museum in Baghad. I for one reckon the American forces in Baghdad had the capacity to protect that spot and did not use their capacity to protect it until after it had been hit. But hey, the plunderers are the real villains. And the Americans are at fault for not preventing the plunderers' actions of plundering.

Punto. Basta.

Someone do a stocktake of what's left in the museum, and from the museum but elsewhere in Iraq, so we can work out what stuff has to be recovered from the plunderers.

I am thinking a team of Italian and Spanish shopkeepers can do this job in a weekend.

:: WB 6:52 a.m. [link+] ::
George is gettin' angry

As in Costanza. As in wog. This wog actually.

I have on the television at this moment, the show "True Stories: Diverted to Delhi". It is being screened on the ABC. It was produced by the ABC and financed by Film Commission taxpayer goldmine money. And it is all about how businesses from the US and Oz are outsourcing the work of callcentre staffers to Delhi callcentre businesses, staffed by local Indian folks. Long story short - US and Oz companies pay money to Indian folks for work performed by those folks.

This is obviously a tragedy, right?

According to Malcolm Knox, sometimes sports journo and teevee reviewer for the Sydney Morning Herald for tonight's shows, it is a bloody disgrace. Know why? Cos it is Indians making that money, dammit. See, Malcolm is one of those rascist lefties (a tautology, I know) who never met a wog he didn't like, so long as that wog was poorer than him and never looking like he will ever get ahead. Of course, Knox couches his loathing for wog success in the traditional leftie camoflage of bleeding heart concern for wogs.

But wogs are alive to this steaming bullshit and Malcolm should not imagine he has made many multiculti friends today. Some, for sure. The lefties like him. But I will wager most not.

Knox's thesis, which could have been typed by the Oz union movement, is that it is a lousy thing for Indians to have callcentre businesses and lousy for them to be staffed by Indians and doubly tripply lousy for them to be successful at their business, so they can tender for and win contracts with international businesses, from the US and even Oz. It is a terrible thing. Indians doing well, working and getting paid, why, that is a bloody disgrace in Knox's opinion.

Now, the Indians do not get paid the same hourly rates or even salaries as the Oz callcentre staff. Or the US callcentre staff. The horror. Hmm. Why would that be? It is probably because the Indian owners of the callcentre businesses are actually in it for profit, and so they do not lose all their profit by paying their staff high rates. They win the business form Oz and US companies because they offer a quality service for a lower price than Oz and US companies. And being India, they have a larger workforce to select from, that is, the labour market in Delhi is competetive, cost of living is lower than in Oz and the US and there probably is not a lot of good union influence of the anti-discrimination, unfair dismissal variety to make Indian employers offer higher rates to their staff.

Well G'uh. It is Delhi, already.

And, the Indians who do callcentre work on those US and Oz contracts that their employers have won through competetive tendering or just through plain appointment, train for that work by adopting accents and phrases as they speak english. And they do it very well. This is cultural suicide, apparently. In Knox's eyes. I mean, everyone knows that Indian culture is so weak, a few years working in a callcentre will make those poor people lose all connection with Delhi and their roots. Even though they live there. And they are Indian, dawn until dusk. Urgh. I cannot be bothered taking this point any further. Punto. Basta.

Knox is known to us all. He is the bloke who squeals 'fair trade, not free trade' down the Trades' Hall. Cretino. Trade. Trade, already. That is all. The 'fair' in 'fair trade' actually is pronounced 'completely equal to Oz union preferred conditions'. And that is where you see the perdify of a Knox. If an Oz company is going to pay a bunch of Indians the same as they would pay for Aussies to do the same work, then I, and most sentient beings in Oz, are gonna get mightily pissed that the Oz company is giving the gig to the Indians. Pay the freakin' Aussies here, for crying out loud. There is no reason not to, unless all Aussies are hopeless at callcentre work. Zif. And Knox, if he had any sense or was capable of being sane for a minute, would agree. So what he really wants is for the Indians not to get an even break from trade. 'No trade with wogs, fair or free, ever, ever', is really what he means.

And Knox is the guy squealing about how culturally insensitive it is for wogs to make money in callcentres. Zif wogs have a problem with doing work well and getting paid for it. Wogs can't use the telephone? Get. Far. Away.

Why do Oz and US and other countries use the Indians to do callcentre work? And software development? Cos the Indians are super well educated and speak english perfectly. They can take a call and sound like they are down the street from you, whether you are calling from Sydney or Chicago, and they can cut code beautifully too. And they can offer all that for a lower price than Oz and US companies. The real question has to be why wouldn't a company want to use the Indians? I cannot blame a company from wanting to go down the Delhi Road. And I for one, call me crazy, like to see wogs everywhere do well. It is just a thing I have. Call me crazy. Actually, don't.

Knox, of course, being a leftie, is an idiot and cannot think to the end of a straight line. And he hates his fellow Aussies, you beddabuhleevid. He declares in his teevee review that Aussies look upon callcentre work with 'gloom'. Well hell. If the job's that bad and the Aussies do not want to do it, but it still needs doing, Malcolm, what is your problem with giving the job to someone else? Oho. In another country? Ah ha. Wogs again. Getting ahead. Oh, we cannot have that. Not in Knox-world.

Now, Knox tries to hide his hatred of Indians by suggesting that the callcentre work is demeaning and the Indians deserve better, their culture is so proud and noble it should not be sullied by demeaning callcentre work, and Oz and US companies are awful for sullying the spendour of Delhi. Get it? Knox cares. He cares a lot. He cares so much. Why he cares more for the Indians than the Indians themselves! Let's all suck him off. We know we want to. Urgh.

In fact this is Knox: Indians are too stupid to know callcentre work is bad, they are so culturally weak any exposure to a callcentre will cause them to stop cooking with cardamom, or something. And, saving the best until last:

If you ever wanted to know why people in poor countries want to blow us up, look no further.

No further than the callcentres? Who knew?

What a freakin' jackass.

:: WB 6:32 a.m. [link+] ::
:: Saturday, 19 April 2003 ::
This is a hopeful start

And the 13 points resolved by the first meeting of folks looking to organise a new Iraq?

Well, they read best of all in Italian, but I will translate:

1) L'Iraq deve essere democratico.

You cannot understand that, you probably need a machine to breathe.

2) Il futuro governo dell'Iraq non deve basarsi sulle identità delle diverse comunità.

Iraq has to be united, notwithstyanding its diverse communites. Well, g'uh, you might say.

3) Il sistema dovrà essere organizzato come "un sistema federale democratico", sulla base di una "consultazione nazionale".

Iraq needs to adopt an Oz-style federation model. Damn straight.

4) La legge deve essere al di sopra di tutto.

Law is important above all. And lawyers must be worshipped. .....kidding.

5) L'Iraq deve essere costruito nel rispetto della diversità tra cui il rispetto del ruolo della donna.

Iraq has to be a country that respects diversity and the rights of women. Thank goodness for that one.

6) La riunione ha trattato del ruolo della religione nello stato e la società.

The role of religion in society and the state is a touchy one. G'uh. But jeez, they better get that one together. I have posted before - separate mosque and state or watch no's 1-5 inclusive and 7-13 inclusive go to hell.

7) Alla riunione si è parlato del principio in base al quale gli iracheni devono scegliere i loro leader, che non devono essere imposti da fuori.

Iraq's leader is to be chosen by Iraqis, not imposed on them by foreigners. Yeah, well, yeah.

8) La violenza politica deve essere respinta e gli iracheni devono immediatamente organizzarsi per la ricostruzione, a livello locale e nazionale.

Political violence has to sotp and Iraqs have to get to work pronto to rebuild, locally and nationally.

9) Gli iracheni e la coalizione devono lavorare insieme per rispondere immediatamente alle esigenze di ristabilimento dela sicurezza e dei servizi di base.

Restoring security and essential services are what the Iraqis and coalition have to achieve, working together, asap.

10) Il partito Baath deve essere sciolto e la sua influenza sulla società deve essere eliminata.

The Ba'ath Party and all vestiges of it have to go. Completely. No exceptions.

11) Deve esserci un dialogo aperto tra tutti i gruppi politici nazionali per farli partecipare a questo processo.

All groups have to be able to participate in determining Iraq's future.

12) La riunione condanna i saccheggi e la distruzione di documenti.

Looters are scum, and the imbeciles who burn documents etc should not imagine they can ever sleep again.

13) I partecipanti alla riunione di Nassiriya hanno deciso che ci sarà un'altra riunione tra 10 giorni in un luogo da determinare e con anche altri partecipanti iracheni, per discutere le procedure di insediamento di un'autorità provvisoria in Iraq.

Meeting to reconvene in 10 days. Achmed to do the minutes and distribute.

Any person who has a porblem with these 13 items is sick in the head.

You know the persons who do have problems with it?

Islamists. Not Muslims. Islamists. Fancy boycotting this meeting, and protesting it.

I mean, really.

:: WB 10:41 p.m. [link+] ::
Damned Germans and French!


:: WB 6:00 p.m. [link+] ::
Hey, Patrol

Camille Barbagallo. Wog. Idiot.

Victory at the Baxter Detention Centre is getting past a police line. Past the police. That is all. Just Camille and her mates getting past police lines.


I wonder if her father is the fabulous iron-fellow who made our beautifully ornate front gates all those years ago? A real artisan, him. Pity this gal's such an idiot. Imagine driving all that way into the desert just to give yourself an orgasm over how righteous you are. Sarandonism, I call it. It is a disease of the spirit, whereby you imagine yourself to be the centre of the universe, where the sun follows you as you move about, and where every act you undertake is laden, by you, with importance and profundity. And where you only spend time in the company of like thinkers.

Camille is a patrol.

As in moll patrol.


Wog. Rhyming. Slang.

UPDATE: I just googled her. How embarrassing. Trades Hall Council involvement, Stop CHOGM protests. This nut is a disgrace.

Pecorona. Sheep.

:: WB 5:59 p.m. [link+] ::
This is Pilger's opinion

And, this, the opinion of the Independent newspaper itself.

How do they keep their skin from bursting with that thousand-pound-per-square-millimetre sanctimony pressure that must be going on inside their jaundiced bodies?

:: WB 5:50 p.m. [link+] ::

This is someone's opinion.

He gets paid for putting this together.

:: WB 5:37 p.m. [link+] ::
:: Friday, 18 April 2003 ::
No to America, No to a secular state, yes to an Islamic state.

I just caught some footage of the big march in Baghdad yesterday.

More than 20,000 people marched through Baghdad yesterday in the biggest anti-American protest so far, just nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Waving Korans, placards and banners, they demanded the establishment of an Islamic state and the withdrawal of the "army of occupation".
Shia and Sunni clerics urged the congregation, in fiery sermons, to show their bitterness to the Americans. The marchers came from several mosques and converged in Azamiyah, a central district, for the peaceful protest.

As they gathered in the streets, the marchers chanted: "Leave our country, Iraq belongs to Iraqis." Banners in English and Arabic declared: "No to America. No to Secular State. Yes to Islamic State", "We reject American hegemony", "No Bush, No Saddam, Yes Yes to Islam", "No Shias, no Sunnis. Yes, Yes for United Islam" and "We want true freedom, not American puppets".

Sad, really. 9 days = occupation. Puhlease. Israel is the reason for the war. Jeez. The Americans are still to finish restoring all the water and power and they should leave?


If you have to put your money down on any one outcome for Iraw, I reckon it is this: there will be no Islamic Iraq.


Know why?

Girlies. They are not about to go from Saddamite secular despotism to Islamic despotism. And that is what happens in that part of the world when Islam is made the ruling theory. There is not a single Islamic, or even moderate Muslim, country on the face of the planet that does not treat its women way worse than the poorest and most backward Western nation, much less Oz, UK and US.

Not one.

Disgusting, but true. Indonesia, Oz's neighbour is the closest thing we can get to a moderate Muslim nation and even they struggle with preposterous divorce and property laws, and home grown terrorism.

Then the outcome of those elections can be as Iraqi, irrational, fabulous, free as they like. So long as there is a separation of mosque and state we can all feel comfortable that the chador and the burka will not be compulsory - cos if anyone tried, a challenge could be mounted that such an attempt to impose Islamic modesty on women is simply unconsitutional.

Ever read the Iraqi consitution? This is important. It is worth a read. To see the reference to Revolutionary Council, and see the enshrined socialist aims. Read it. Understand it. Set it aside. Replace it.

This is where that country will start its better future.

I do not believe the imam of any mosque is in any position to advise sensibly on how that foundation document should be crafted.

And that is the thing that has to happen. And Oz in particular should step up with suggested drafting for that foundation document. Because we do federation beautifully. NO Revolutionary Council needed.

:: WB 11:09 p.m. [link+] ::
If you have not yet, you must

Lileks that is:


As for the war itself, I hit a wall Sunday morning - I was reading the editorial page, and came across a Stern & Determined Essay on the need to continue the peace protests. The first reason given: the war violated international law.

You know, if you paw through the reams of resolutions put forth by the UN, I’m sure you’ll find one that outlaws special jails for children, too. I’m no longer interested in reading the arguments of people who regard a war that empties the children’s jails as a greater evil than the jails themselves. And I don’t share their horror for the word “illegal,” particularly in the context of international law. Is the worst thing about modern-day slavery its illegality? Or the fact that it’s slavery?

:: WB 10:18 p.m. [link+] ::
Excellent work from Julie Burchill


Madonna it was who, on being photographed with her ankles behind her head, uttered the immortal quote, "If I can't do something meaningful on a photo shoot, I'd rather do nothing."

So there you have it: putting your ankles behind your head - meaningful. Being a soldier - pointless, silly and bad . We pay for and train a professional standing army. If we didn't have them, we'd have to have conscription and/or national service. The liberal countries of Scandinavia and the lowlands seem to be able to do this without feeling compelled to invade Poland twice a year, but you just know that the Brits who moan about us having armed forces would bitch and whine about this, too - probably because they wouldn't want their darling little Ben and Jessica mixing with nasty tattooed proles.
:: WB 10:15 p.m. [link+] ::
Phillip Adams is calling me an idiot again.

And here’s the rub. Here’s the paradox. In this world with its unprecedented volume and variety of data and dialogue we, as individuals and as the public, remain stupefyingly uninformed, ill-informed, misinformed and, it would seem, blissfully and wilfully ignorant.

I do wish he would suck his own dick. I am sick of him writing twice weekly begging me to suck it.
:: WB 6:53 p.m. [link+] ::
We were afraid of bombing. We never thought there would be looting.

This from an advisor at Iraq's Ministry of Culture, about the damage to the contents of the Museum at Baghdad.

Incredible. What planet is this guy on? He and others from his Ministry are charged with responsibility for the care and presentation of priceless antiquities, they watch a military buildup for months, watch as bombing begins and military action continues for several weeks, and they do not imagine that those priceless antiquities would form a target for theft? That is what looting is, theft. Theft under cover of chaos and upheaval, practiced by pigs in the gamble that the chaos and upheaval will cause them to avoid detection.

I do not believe that Iraqi advisor for one single second.

This man is asking me to believe that he and his colleagues are so uncaring of the history in their care that they do not perceive risk in a time of war, are so lazy that they are satisfied just to write letters to the Americans demanding no bombs as the way to minimise the risk, and are so incompetent that they do not actually move the contents of that museum around to secure the really important stuff. That is what he is asking me to beieve.

I do not believe him. I believe he is complicit in the theft. Either expressly, or by his obscene negligence.

I believe he was caught by surprise at violence and wanton destruction by his compatriots, because, like persons who work in the arts and cultural fields the world over, he has no idea how some people just do not give a fuck about art and histroy and what he does for a living, and some people see art and history as nothing more than money on a stick.

And I believe he is not absolved one iota for the loss we now all sustain at the damage done to Baghdad's museum.

And the Americans. How fucking hard is it to drive a fucking tank into the goddam grounds of the museum, and put the place up in lights, on the day that statute fell? Before it got attacked.

The Americans knew that spot needed their protection, knew the Iraqi Ba'athists would play dirty and make the museum hard to protect, knew the Iraqi Ministry of Culture would be as incompetent as every other Iraqi Ministry under Ba'athist rule.

This whole business was avoidable, and it was not avoided. Credit where it is due - the museum is secure now and people are giving some stuff back. Americans doing their bit and Iraqis doing their bit too to right the wrongs of the past few days.

And criticism where it is due too. The Iraqis should never have plundered their own museum, and the Americans should have acted to stop or at least minimise that plunder earlier.

Disgusting. Who do I loathe more? Well, the plunderers of course. The ones who are to blame. Pigs.

:: WB 6:49 p.m. [link+] ::
Excellent screed from the impossibly handsome Matt Welch.

All about Cuba. Nation of great baseballers, way too much fried food, good music (in small doses) and, a niggly little annoyance, where it is illegal for the citizens to leave and deadly to even complain about it.

Illegal to leave.


:: WB 1:08 a.m. [link+] ::
Good Grief.

I have just caught up with the Tim Blair v Media Watch Smack Down. (Scroll.)

This is how my tax dollars are used? By some jackass at Media Watch defending the show from the charge that it overattacked the Daily Telegraph about the flaggy Penatgon/Captain Ed Chin (wog)/Statute story?

Media Watch did overattack the Tele. I watched that Media Watch show. Marr called the whole Tele piece a crock. He said the Tele was lying about the whole piece. He said the Tele was lying. He did not say the Tele was incorrect about one part of the piece having to do with a flag being recovered from underneath debris at the Pentagon on September 11. He said there never was a flag at the Pentagon that ended up in Capt Chin's hands. He said that. Clear as a bell.

Now on the website, Media Watch is saying that all Marr ever did on the show was say that the bit about the gflag being under the debris at the Pentagon was not true.

That is bullshit. I watched that show. Debris did not feature. It was a slag of the whole Tele piece, lock, stock and barrell.

The person writing for MW on the ABC website actually admits as much, and writes: "So the claim (of the Tele) is true except for the bit that's false."

Oh. Pain behind eyes. He is indignant at fair criticism and is attempting to get out of it by pointing to one mere discrepancy. That is a scoundrel argument - I know. I am lawyer, and I do that when I am on the ropes myself.

Why doesn't Tim Blair write in response: So the smear (by Marr against the Tele) is right, except for the bit that's wrong.

Who bears the freakin' onus here to get things right?

The Tax Payer Funded ABC Show which holds itself out as being the arbiter of all things good and bad in Oz media?
The private enterprise Daily Tele which holds itself out as a Tabloid Newspaper, that frequently overstates things?
The popular blogger writing his website for free?

Media Watch - just apologise to Tim Blair and the Daily Tele. And to me, for crying out loud. You are using my money to engage in this bullshit snippiness.

:: WB 12:50 a.m. [link+] ::

A big piece in the Fin Review, this time actually about anti-Americanism. Except, like many attempts at analysis, it is just an excuse to get a screed in - against the Yanks, natch.

This is the opening.

Americans wanting to understand how they appear to the world today should consider the sport-utility vehicle. Oversized and overweight, the SUV disdains agreements to restrict atmospheric pollution. It consumes inordinate quantities of scarce resources to furnish its privileged inhabitants with supererogatory services. It exposes outsiders to deadly risk in order to provide for the illusory security of its occupants. In a crowded world, the SUV appears as a dangerous anachronism. Like US foreign policy, the SUV comes packaged in sonorous mission statements; but underneath it is just an oversized pickup truck with too much power.

The simile may be modern, but the idea behind it is not. "America" has been an object of foreign suspicion for even longer than it has been a beacon and haven for the world's poor and downtrodden. Eighteenth-century commentators .......

And it goes on, and it is worth a read. For sure. It is not all bad.

But the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph, the whole opening, therefore, is a crock of shit, empty-headed gratuitous slag of America. And if it had not appeared, the article would be an excellent example of criticism of the US that does not warrant the label 'anti-American'. But instead the piece is marred by that opening.

SUV's as metaphor for a country with a gigantic Mexican population. O yeah. That metaphor really fits.


And then nestled in the middle of this piece we get this corker:

In the early years of the Cold War anti-American demonstrations in Europe took their cue from Soviet-financed "peace movements", but the political and economic elites were firmly in the American camp. Today, no-one is manipulating mass anti-war protests and West European leaders are breaking with America on a major international issue. The US has been forced to bribe and threaten in unprecedented public ways, with embarassingly limited success.


I imagine the International Socialists and the Greens would be a bit pissed off to hear their efforts given absolutely no recognition. And bribery? Get far away tha Americans are the only ones engaged ina bit of offering stuff to get a vote their way. You think the French too upstanding to stoop to this? Their bribes just worked better. That and the anti-Americanism they were peddling.

See what I mean? Stupid, clumsy anti-Americanism. Sigh.

And before the simpletons fill my email box with slurs of 'anti-French' at me, I will educate them: Firstly, G'uh. I am Italian. Secondly, I will point out that French diplomacy is not something about which France should be particularly proud. It has resulted in France cosying up to a bunch of Arab despots.

Not something you can say of the Italians.

Or the Spaniards.

Or the Portuguese.

Or the Australians.

Sure, those some of those guys left ruin in colonies and other lousy things, but they have not done not the cosying up to dictators thing. For that there is only the French. And the Americans and the Russian of course.

Love the cheese, the women, and the Peugot cars. Do not think much of Messieurs de Villepin, D'Estaigne and Chirac.

Being anti-French is as ridicolo as being anti-American.

UPDATE: Check out this blog - EuroPundits, on the topic of Anti-Americanism (scroll down to the piece titled "The Mistake"). This is interesting analysis from folks on the ground in Europe, and particularly France.

:: WB 12:32 a.m. [link+] ::
Who is Dierdre Macken and why is she trying to do me out of job?

So ask Jim and Bob and Harold.

Further to the last post, here is Dierdre, fouling up the Fin Review pages with what passes for thought, but has the stinky viscosity of a blurt after a night on the turps (Oz influence, language like that.)

Her....thesis (rhymes with):

We can no longer create flinty spearheads, tend our gardens, repair our own homes, because we have grown soft....through...through....through 2000 years of civilisation (which, as every right thinking person know, began in Rome) .....and that is bad. No really. And teevee is all to blame.

Or something.

And blokes like Jim (a wog, possibly) should not have jobs.

I think.

I mean, what do you do with such an irrational perspective:

Obviously, the pioneering spirit is redundant. The ability to improvise with a string and a nail isn't likely to impress when your mates have a plasma screen. The mucking-in mentality isn't necessary when you have a leaf blower and Jim on speed dial. And it seems a waste to veg out under a tree when you have so many toys waiting to be plugged in. But we'll have to watch the TV show to find out what else we've lost.

You have to be perverse to think this.

The pioneering spirit is alive and well and living in every country home, and every city home, in its own way. I personally am unable to create a flinty spearhead. I believe I do not need one. And if I do, I believe I do not need to make it myself. Not any time soon, anyways.

But can I make my own focaccia and pasta? Yes. Wogs have not stopped being pretty nifty with the gardening and food thing. Many many wogs are into the labour thing of building their own houses. Many. Many skippies too.

Do I know how to survive in the woods? In theory, yes, cos I saw it on the "In the Woods" series about survival, featuring that gorgeous English SAS fellow Brummy.

Can the teevee be a good thing?

Yes. Yes it can. Without the teevee I would not have seen hundreds of films made before I was born.

Dierdre Macken is an idiot.

:: WB 12:20 a.m. [link+] ::
Casual Anti-Americanism. Nothing serious. Just a pain in eyes

Just been reading the Fin Review Easter Edition and here we have Diedre Macken, jackass.

In downtown Helsinki, the kitchen of American capitalism churns out Big Macs, fries and Disney characters. Two doors along, Finland's answer to fast food, Hesburger, serves up ruisfilehampurilainens, ranskalaisets and Lasten ateria forest creatures. Finland may have adopted the hamburger but it hasn't surrendered to McDonald's, neither the brand, nor the menu, nor its variety of capitalism.


That is the opening paragraph to her piece. Incredibile, no?

What country has surrendered to McDonald's? No country, you idiot, Macken. No country at all. Not one. It does not happen. Culture is not that weak. Culture can stand a McDonald's franchise near a family run burger enterprise, or pizzeria, or laska stall or whatever. Macken.

Just more soft-headed anti-Americanism, this time from a woman who thinks wogs are just life's victims whose special culture is crushed by the mere scent of beef patties and pickles.


:: WB 12:03 a.m. [link+] ::
:: Thursday, 17 April 2003 ::
A grievous nation?

...Pearson suggests, they are the obligations of a grievous nation. They should win the support of even the toughest opponents of native title. It's about honouring a basic compromise: "The whitefellas keep all that is now theirs, the blackfellas get whatever is left of their original territories, and in most cases not even that."

Apparently, I am a whitefella. That would be news to my parents.

I have decided not to go on with this, but you can probably imagine how I feel about that remark.

And apparently I am a whitefella and I live in a grievous nation. I live in a grievous house, in a grievous street, in a grievous inner-city suburb of a grievous capital city in grievous State - of a grievous nation.

Peter Botsman.


Noel Pearson. Good man. Careful thinker.

Careful to leave wogs out of his argument.

See, when you mount an argument about native title in Oz, about rights to land, arising because of dispossession of indigenous population, you have to understand that wogs go: wha'?

Go ahead and get what you can from the government. So long as my taxes are not profligately wasted on Aboriginal issues about which I neither bear responsibility nor carry the slightest bit of interest, and so long as my property is not at risk of having a change of ownership by government fiat, all because of guilt over some past I had nothing to do with, rock and roll, mate. Rock. And. Roll. I like to see folks do well. That includes Aboriginals.

But do not imagine for one minute that anything Pearson said has to do with my Oz.

Whitefellas. Pftt.

:: WB 8:43 p.m. [link+] ::
Another stupid question.

"...why isn't it permissible to criticise America?"

It is permissible. G'uh.

What she is really asking is this: Why, when I criticise America, do I get a really nasty response? Why do I get called anti-American? Why are people I do not know able to guess my politics purely from hearing me talk or reading my blog for just a second and half? Is my use of language, like using the word "permissible", in a free country like Oz, a give away?


:: WB 8:28 p.m. [link+] ::
Ah. You might like to rephrase that, eh?

"Under what conditions is it possible to criticise anything American and not be called Anti-American?"

Criticise anything American? Just anything at all? Just pick anything of the air to do with America and give a good old criticising? Jesus, man. Are you awake? That is a freakin' definition of anti-Americanism. That you can pick whatever you like and have a go. Never mind that it might actually be unworthy of criticism, that is might actually be a good thing about America.

Stewart probably meant to use the word "something" rather than "anything", but his prejudice got the better of him.

What he is actually asking is this: Under what conditions should other people not be allowed the opportunity to call me out on my anti-Americanism? Or even just to call me anti-American?


Never. That is the answer. There are no conditions in which I, for example, should have be quiet, that I should have to let Stewart or anyone else spout theirr idiocy without making any comment, without engaging in a robust exchange.

Now, the question: "Under what conditions is it possible to criticise something American and not be called Anti-American?" has a simple answer.

Under any conditions which see the criticiser bringing some clarity and sense of scale to bear in his or her criticism. Credit where it is due and criticism where it is due too.

Phillip Adams. Anti-American. It is not enough to say, "I like jazz and Steinbeck but....". That qualification will not get you out of anti-American territory.

Alan Ramsey. Terry Lane. Guy Rundle. Brian Toohey. Et al.

Christopher Hitchens. Not anti-American. Criticiser of American stuff out the wazoo. Why not anti-American? Because he picks his targets, he gives them a thrashing and his collected works cannot be read and understood as a full-on hatred and dislike of the place. Credit where it is due.

It is a matter scale. Proportion.

:: WB 8:21 p.m. [link+] ::
Great piece from the Professor

It is a worthy exercise - read, review, and when necessary, criticise bullshit published by thinkers in the regular media. Guy Rundle gets it from Professor Bunyip, and deservedly so, all about Orwell.

I will add that Guy Rundle never met a wog he did not feel he could patronise.


:: WB 7:43 p.m. [link+] ::
Ooooh, Horrible! Oooohh, Terrible!!

If you live in the West and you live in fear, you have a problem.


You are fearful. No one is making you afraid. You feel fear. Because you are mad. People disagree with you and call you an idiot to your face. They call you out on your prejudices. Your response? To be afraid.


What kind of thin skin do you have to have to feel fear, just because there are people on this planet who do not think like you?

Christ almighty, eh? This collection of quotes from Tim Robbins, actor and lay of Susan Sarandon, is perfect to detail the self-obsessed mania of the left.

There is no climate of fear. Not here. Not in the US. There is just a bunch of lunatic fearful idiots.

Plenty of people in Oz blog world do not agree with me. Are they crushing my dissent? Are my rights being infringed? Is fear a rational reaction to their disagreement with me?

Ah, no.

:: WB 7:35 p.m. [link+] ::
:: Wednesday, 16 April 2003 ::
How many Palestinians does it take to make sense?

Honey, there are not enough of them on the face of this planet to even reach common sense.

I remember the Achille Lauro terrorist highjacking by Palestinians wanting to be treated with respect and get their own country, and seeking this respect by acting like violent imbeciles and killers, by highjacking an Italian ship.

Oho. The ship, she is Italian.


And the killing, it is of a wheelchair bound American Jew. Are you mental, Palestinians?

If you listen carefully you can hear: "Why, yes. Yes we are. Gobble gobble gobble"

I mean, the thing for the Palestinian authority to do right now is to comment on Abu Disgusto's arrest, by saying:
1. his actions were violent and imbecilic and lead to death and we refuse to support them;
2. his actions harmed Palestinian relations with the US, setting back the peace process for years, maybe decades;
3. he has lived in exile in the state of a despot who crushed his Arab compatriots, never once acting to liberate his Arab compatriots;
4. he has not lifted a finger for Palestinians for years - so we wash our hands of him.

Zif, eh. Instead, they want him to 'come home' and they want him to get the immunity from prosecution under Oslo which they never honoured as to their own obligations.

Could they be any more offensive to the Italians?

Hand him over to Rome, who will gladly make up for the mistakes of ever releasing the freak in the first place.

Thus nature balances itself.

:: WB 5:24 a.m. [link+] ::
That is not going to happen.

No public figure hysteric who overplayed their hand during the build up and at the formal start of the military campaign in Iraq will ever backtrack from their dire predictions of death in the tens or hundreds of thousands. Instead they will do the slippery thing of changing the subject to argue that the casualities of war are psychological and longterm, and that way, by redefining the terms, they can stand by their inflated figures of doom.

It is ploy, my friends, and easily detected if you follow the debate. The fairest reaction is to glass the purveyor of this bullshit. It will hurt you more than it hurts them. But it has to be done.

:: WB 5:13 a.m. [link+] ::
You know how sometimes you see or hear a person and you wish they would get stung by a bee in the eye....or something else natural but hurty

Susan Sarandon.

Look at that face. See the dripping self-satisfaction. The million dollar dress covering the titties she showed us all in Atlantic City. The pious know-it-all saddened yet wearily defiant air - when there has been no effort at all put into her anti-war stance. So weary defiance is, like her, an act. Her anti war stuff is like turettes syndrome (whatever, I have not got the disease and I do not care to learn how to spell it...f*ck, c*nt) it just sort of spurts out of her.

She lived in Rome for a long time. And she does have great tits. But she is a friend of Fidel Castro and objectively pro-Hussein.

Her judgement is off. To put it politely.

:: WB 4:59 a.m. [link+] ::
:: Monday, 14 April 2003 ::
Volokh is on song. The whole blog's worth a read.

'Specially the stuff about sneer quotes and the Guardian's incessant negativity.

Last night on BBC World News Radio service I heard a correspondent from Baghdad do a report, the whole report, with that inflection of the indignant - know what I mean? Going up at the end? All the time? The whole time?

It is a wonder the presenter did not think to say "Calm down jackass and just give us the news. Your opinion is worth as much to us as a dinar to an Iraqi right now."

Ah. Some poeple can not see the good in anything.

:: WB 2:03 p.m. [link+] ::
Irrational is the word

Caught a bit of a BBC World roundtable talkfest this a.m. on cable. It was moderated by a girlie and featured and Iraqi gent, an American columnist based in England, a French journo and Yasmin Alhibai-Brown or whatever her name is, columnist for the Guardian. She is a Muslim, but I forget if it is Shi'a or Sunni. Whatever. The Iraqi gent is a Muslim too. The Frenchman doubtless to sophisticated to believe in God and the American playing the diplomatic line so well, that who knows what evil of delight lurks in his heart.


Where to begin.

The Muslims were mad. The American was reasonable, the British presetner was just trying to keep it all on track and the Frenchman was a goodam waste of space.

Incroyable, really. Generalisations 100% on the money, trust me.

There was the obligatory 5-4-3-2-Palestine remark from the Iraqi gent - like he sould give a stuff about them, when his country's leadership has just been rolled. He was all 'right of return' before both the presetner and the American managed to get the discussion back on track - the presenter by stating gently she did not want to 'down that path' in the few minutes left of the show, and the American cracking slightly and sort of snapping "Look, there will be no right of return and that is that. It cannot be achieved and to keep demanding it is absurd".

And Yasmin. Well. She was ridiculous. Ridiculous. "Do we have to just follow?" She cried, and it really was a cry, from what she thinks of as her heart but which is just a bloodsoaked muscle in her chest just above the bile sack she replenishes daily with thoughts of her hated Americans. Just because a brutal dictator is removed, do we really have to follow?

Get that?

The answer of course is yes. Yes you do have to follow. If you want to think of it as following, that is your problem. But 2 + 2 = 4. What goes up must come down. Italians are the best looking folks on the face of the planet. Some laws of nature are irrefutable. if you think you are following, you have real sick in the head problem. Sometimes, there is a right thing to do. Agreeing to do it is not following the folks with the idea to do it. It is agreeing with them.

Not following.

Standing shoulder to shoulder. That is what it is.

God help us when the best reaction anyone can mujster even on the Beeb is a hysterical Muslim woman and an idiot man who still smarts over Israel.

Then tonight, I catch a bit more of the Beeb, or maybe CNN. Whatever. The Syrian Foreign Minister or some minister, who is a woman of equally hysterical reactions to Yasmin. Israel is the greatest threat to us all. Israel attacks us all. We are one culture, one civilisation, one language. Syria has not chemical weapons. Of course we do not. We would never do such a thing. We would never harbour Iraqi Ba'athists even though we are Ba'athist. Blah Blah Blah.

Remind you of anything? See a pattern here?

Afghanistan's violent idiot Taliban, after September 11, when asked to hand over Osama Bin Laden respond as follows:

We do not have him. You have no proof. Show us the proof.

And eschewing the proof thing, because it is wholly unnecessary in matters which are a bit more serious than mere criminal law, the Taliban got the battering they deserved.

Now Iraq. After the Blix farce. When asked to disarm, Hussein responds as follows:

We have no weapons. You have no proof. Show us the proof.

Same deal.

Syria? Already denying Iraqi's are there. And pointing at Israel. Wha'? Dammit. Shut up with the Israel shit and shut up with the empty demands for proof and empty denials.

Hear what Bush and Powell are saying, do not take immediate offence and just respond to their statements. It is not good enough to claim that Israel has weapons too. God.

UPDATE: Ms Alibhai-Brown has just penned a piece in the Guardian. And Tim Blair addresses its shortcomings. Scroll down.

:: WB 5:36 a.m. [link+] ::
:: Saturday, 12 April 2003 ::
Interesting post about lefties

By a leftie.

Seems to me that this is the big deal philosophical debate or argument or whatever, for this year and probly well into the future - on what basis does the left, say a Gary Sauer-Thompson or a Tim Dunlop, purport to be more caring and rational that the right, say a Tim Blair or Prof Bunyip, when the left resolutely makes its stand against things, rather than for things? I did a post about Seamus Heaney a bit below and how he is motivated by his dislikes and hates and not by his likes and loves. That is the crux of the matter for me - who could you actually rely on to help you out of a jam - a leftie? Or a rightie? Who is into actually doing something instead of just whining about why it's better not to do anything.

I believe deep down at the very root of my being that Dunlop and Thompson and Gianna and Kelly and Corr and Carita and Adams and Ramsey and Rundle, Toohey and Kingston and Lane and Horin and Wilkonson and Fiztsimons etc etc are all exactly the same - "What do we hate? USA. When do we hate it? Now."

Well, you can see the pointlessness of that, can't you?

I mean. Can't you?

Zif a position like that will change anyone's life one iota.

And yes, I am including the UN weapons inspection regime in the 'doing nothing' category. Blix just would not admit Iraqi leadership failure to comply in strong enough terms to actualy cause real change to occur. His first report started out strong but he back tracked a beaut from every report thereafter. He did. "The current activity of giving us letters could be evidence of compliance..." that is a phrase I will not forget in a hurry. I mean, it could be evidence that the regime has a great recipe for Pasta Carbonara too. But I do not think we need to hear about all the things it could be. Hows about telling us what it is? Non-freakin' compliance. Urgh.

It is not going to lead to actual action, actual activity through which improvement will come.

As I type this I am wondering if the anti-war marchers are at it in Sydney. God. I mean, I cannot think of another way to describe those folks other than delusional. Every step a step against removing Hussein, every step a step in favour of leaving Hussein alone from real consequence. Military consequence. And very step a step too too late - so, at the end of the day, every step a step of ego, self-satisfaction and utter pointlessness.

I had a beer on Friday with a Russian woman. Talked a bunch about the war. The Russian described how her thoughts changed from its all about oil and its not our business and the US armed him anyway...you know the drill. But she changed when she saw folks on the ground in Iraq, from Iraq, declaring they were glad to be rid of the brutal despot jackass Hussein.

I described my own journey from real ambivalence to general disgust with the French routine in the US Security Council and ultimately to a Jose Ramos Horta position - sometimes war is a good thing. Good can come of war.

The Russian described older folks in Russia who would honestly assess that things were better for them under Communism than now. But then again, she said, she could probly find some really old folks who would argue things were better under the Csars. And of course today many folks are young and simply do not really remember the communist regime of the Soviet Union, so they will not even bother to wax nostalgic.

The point?

You can find folks who will complain about stuff, even objectively good stuff like democracy, everywhere. They have a point of view and you have to learn to live with it. It might, to your mind, be a point of view which is as stupid as the day is long, but whatever. If someone wants to hold it, they can.

Same goes for the marchers.

But what is going to happen from now on, and I reckon September 11 is the true start date, is that people who disagree with the left, who previously have just not gotten into it, are going to stop hold their tongues. I reckon real disagreement will flow and will continue to flow in the most robust way. It is already starting and the weakest link - celebrities - are feeling the discomfort, constantly complaining of censorship when in reality what they are engaged in is a hostile reception to their points of view - and they have to justify themselves, instead of just presuming their view is agred. Real robust debate.

This weekend's SMH is a full on bile driven anti-war tract. The Aus editorial grapples with this. There is an example of the debate right now here in Oz in our own newspapers.

Good stuff.

This is big picture stuff. And I find I am really unwilling to sit idly by while idiots come into range and spout their nonsense.

Which is a good thing. Cos if all I did was sit and gripe to folks who agree with me, that would not get us anywhere, now would it? Just like being a leftie.

:: WB 7:17 p.m. [link+] ::
Ken Layne is on song

This has made me laugh outta loud.

'Bunch of Hitlers' indeed.

:: WB 7:14 a.m. [link+] ::
She thinks she's the compassionate one.

Oh Yeah

It was electric, so frightfully hectic
And the band started leaving, 'cause they all stopped breathing

Cannot get this track outta my head.

And you know what it is called.
:: WB 6:55 a.m. [link+] ::
:: Thursday, 10 April 2003 ::
As Lyndall Ryan, Aboriginal dreamtimer might say - there are many truths.

There is this truth, about what happened in Baghdad yesterday. The writer, a wog, concludes it is a good thing for the Iraq capital to be freed of a tyrant and for that tyrant's self-aggrandising symbols to be destroyed. And it does not bother him that Americans are involved.

Love the line about how Saudi's 'Arab News' runs heaps of 'Independent' pieces. G'uh.

And there is this truth from an Irishman - the Irish are so not wogs - who concludes it is a terrible thing that the Americans have succeeded in removing a tyrant's grip on a foreign capital because....because.....they said would do it, and they did it, damn it, and he just does not like to see American's succeed at anything at all. Damn it. And what about weapons of mass destruction and what about the children and what about the fact it is Americans, people. Can't you see them. Ewwww. Aren't they
awful...horrible horrible piece of writing.

Just recall, Seamus Milne was the boy who penned a column the day after September 11 2000 with the title "They do not know how much they are hated". Basically, a "they asked for this rape because they wear revealing clothes" opinion piece. I will never never forget that one. The sentiment disgusting and the timing maximally offensive. He really did offend me. So long as Americans copped something horrible, he was fine with that. So long as the skimpy dressed girle gets raped, he is fine with that. That is his thinking. Not driven by anything other than dislike. Not driven by like. Not driven by reason. Just dislike. Hate. Incredible, really. I cannot read
him any other way, and I do not think any right thinking person in society can help but conclude that Milne is a man to be shunned and avoided. If he ever tried to sue anyone anywhere for defamation, I will so put my hand up to give evidence for the defence as to the thoroughly revolting character of this stinking jackass.

And this truth from Fisk, who does go on about how the whole country and even city has not fallen - well, g'uh. And he is so insulting about Arabs, Americans, freakin' everybody. He is disgusted by everything. No battle makes Fisk a sad man. 'Disappointed' we can almost hear him cry.

I have done a cruise of the Arab News and some other whacked out MidEast pretend press sites and they are full of shit.

And from the streets of Jakarta, capital city of the world's most populous Muslim nation, there is this.

Kinda puts it all in perspective.

It is not over at all. There will be continue terrorist attacks of the suicide bomb variety and even some courageous proper military fighting by Iraqis in uniform. But yesterday was great. Credit where it is due, eh? Well done, Britain, Australia and the US.

:: WB 2:58 p.m. [link+] ::
:: Wednesday, 9 April 2003 ::
This is a good thing.

But no gloating.

:: WB 5:34 a.m. [link+] ::
:: Tuesday, 8 April 2003 ::
Laffs with Lileks

:: WB 3:36 a.m. [link+] ::
:: Monday, 7 April 2003 ::
A Roman gentleman

Love love for Giancarlo Fisichella in the Brazilian Grand Prix. Well driven.

:: WB 4:14 a.m. [link+] ::
What the... ?

You gotta ask, what is a mosque in Cremona doing with a bin Laden letter from 1996?

Huh? What?

:: WB 4:08 a.m. [link+] ::
Fingers and toes crossed. Everybody.

Venice is stupendous. So odd, so beautiful, deeply sexy in a sort of superurgent kind of way. Laughing you head off in a bar after too many wines and stumbling home is not really a Venice thing. As you can imagine. But Venice is needed - the world needs strange cities. She must not be allowed to drown.

:: WB 4:06 a.m. [link+] ::
Islam allows wrestling

Religion of the Sleeper Hold.
Religion of the Full Nelson.
Religion of the Missouri Crunch? I am not sure that is a wrestling hold. Whatever. This grand prix of the finer art of grappling sounds fantastic, don't you think? FOX should play it.

:: WB 4:00 a.m. [link+] ::
:: Sunday, 6 April 2003 ::
Fantastic. 5-4-3-2-Jackass!

Gary Sauer-Thompson rides in on his electric-moped of social justice to smackdown the uppity wog who dares not be a lefty. (no links - cannot be bothered)

His thesis? Wogs wouldn't have got anywhere in Oz if it wasn't for the lefties going in to bat for them. So wogs should suck lefty-dicks. Geeeettt suckin'.

Bullshit, Floyd, as they say in the classics.

Wogs of every description get where they get in Oz by hard work, not giving too many people the shits and not getting all busted up from nasty taunts from imbeciles or brutal acts like smashing records etc etc.

Just. Like. Skippies.

Al Grasby is not responsible for my parents' success in this country. End of story.

And apparently real courage comes when wogs acknowledge that they too are racists, and not just victims of racism from skippies, or as Gary likes to think of the regular population of this country - 'Anglo-Americans'.... Wha'? Urgh.

I know the man is from Adelaide, but has he ever been in a room with a Croat and Serb?

G'uh, wogs hate other wogs. Who do you think invented this hating stuff?

And how do we feel about Aborigines? Like normal people. Fine, if they are actually Aboriginal. But not if they are whiter than us. And not very happy with Aboriginal leadership like ATSIC. Know why? Well, firstly cos a bunch of 'em are whiter than us, and secondly, Aboriginal leaders do not seem to like wogs very much - we keep coming and coming. And arriving in droves to this country, and that dilutes the % presence of Aboriginals in the community. Immigration policy of ATSIC? Nil.

Thanks a lot.

And isn't it precious that superlefty uses the word 'ethnic'.

Would have been so catchy if I had used 'ethnicblog', eh? Maybe 'newaustralianblog'......

Whitlamite attitudes in 2003. Another lefty with a suffocating superiority complex when it comes to wogs.

:: WB 9:25 p.m. [link+] ::
:: Saturday, 5 April 2003 ::
They do okay now. But they will rock. Just not soon.

It will take longer than the Italians.

By which I mean, getting it together to be a functioning part of Oz society that is not super apart, not so distinct. 'Equal but different', as that cool 80's song goes, that I can't really remember that well. Right ow, but, they are super apart and very distinct. And for lousy reasons which I will get to.

I am talking about the Lebanese community in Oz.

On Stateline Friday night, there was really sad segment about Punchbowl Boys' High, which is a perfectly okay school with a perfectly okay student body, a bunch of whom happen to be from Lebanese background, or even Lebanese born themselves. And while plenty get along okay, there are profound problems that occur for them, which should be minor bumps on life's highway. Going on school camp should be as easy as getting a parent signature on a slip of paper, packing an ugly sleeping bag and a change of clothes, and getting on the damn bus to Portland Petrified Forest or wherever it is that kiddies go these days. Skiing, maybe. Whatever.

But a bunch of Lebanese parents really object to letting their kids go away on shool trips. Really object. For whatever reason - too protective of their boys, too untrusting of their boys, too untrusting of other non-Leb boys, too untrusting of the school, too uninterested in Oz. Whatever. This is self-inflincted hamstringing of the worst variety. Cos it makes wierdos of the Lebanese boys over something that is so run-of-the-mill in Oz. So run-of-the-mill that it cannot even be thought of as particularly skippy.

You are not more of a skip for being allowed on a school trip. But you are for sure, with wheels on, more of a wog for not be allowed to go.

And that is bad. That's the stuff that makes you hate your parents. And the skips at the same time.

It is not un-Lebanese to get on a bus and stay over on a school trip. It may not happen a lot in Lebanon but it could easliy do so. They have buses. And legs to get on the buses.

Sheesh, they have sleeping bags too. For sure. Some sort.

Whether or not it happens a lot in Lebanon, it happens to be part of Punchbowl Boys' High extracurriculum stuff and Leb boys are invited and should be allowed by their parents to accept that invitation. They really should be. It will not dilute them as Lebanese kiddies one iota.

The reason I felt the show was sad was because it was. It showed a group of Lebanese parents who simply would not countenance the thought of their boys going away on a school trip. Mothers - young mothers - just closed minded. Why? I dunno. I am certain they have a reason. But I am equally sure it is not a good one.

What really moved me was a gorgeous Lebanese gent. Grey haired, balding, slim, handsome. His son, a chubby youth was named Sulimaneyah - after Suliman - cool. Deeply Arab cool. Wog on wheels, for those of us who haven't got a problem with that word. That term.

Now, that was a proud father of a son who he loves to pieces. That is great. Pa's who love their kids are great. And he said, in his beautifully accented english, that it is hard to change a culture quickly. It's hard. And while it's changing, things are difficult for everyone - for him and his son and the school his son attends. God, how true.

How true.

Change will happen, no matter how hard the process. He will find he does some changing anyways, as Sulimaneyah grows up. It is unavoidable. When you live in whole new place - in Oz. And that change will not be so much the losing of Lebanese culture, as it is the gaining of other stuff - skippy stuff - and the shedding of Lebanese habits that are not culture at all.

See, there is a difference.

Italians came to Oz in large numbers from Italy after the WWII. Most from the south, but plenty from all over. And many people spent some time in Bonnegilla camp and many, like my father, did the thing with the cane cutting in Queensland. Now my father, not much money, no english language at all, just a handsome man willing to work hard, worked hard. And in the course of his troubles, long sad story, a bunch of skippy know nothings broke all his 75 records that he'd brought from Italy, of opera singers that he loved. That was and remains my Pa's thing - opera. Broke 'em - smashed 'em all up - 'cos Pa was playing them to some Oz woman. And the skippy blokes did not take kindly to that sort of uppity wog behaviour.

Now, I have never doubted for one second that Gino was putting the moves on.

But that is not the point.

See, Italians coming to Oz as part of the wave of invited (yes, that is important) definitely faced hardship - rel prejudice, real dislike - skippies with less than zero knowledge of what it meant to eat good food. Less than zero knowledge of what it meant to produce good opera worth applauding. And some really stupid nasty skippies, calling all Italians 'wogs' and meaning 'filthy, garlic munching wierdos with wierdo music' etc etc. Not giving them jobs. Not crediting their education undertaken in Italy.

But Italians encountered the very same race of skippies, with heaps of knowledge about how to live well in a hot dry country with barely two seasons, and laugh a lot, how not to be uptight about the kiddies, how to feel as comfortable in the members enclosure at Caulfield as at the trots watching Pale Face Adios - no mean feat, and a brilliantly Australian knack, that.

Italians faced hardship. The hardship of trying to fit in to a community, when you do not entirely respect the Oz members of that community and the Oz members do not respect you particularly either. And the had to grapple with some serious matters - like how far to take their disapproval of divorce, of mixing Italian and Australian in a couple. And whether it was worth all the explaining that had to go along with the salami-making-tomato-bottling-extravaganzas. Jeebus wept.

And I reckon some Italian parents shat themselves about letting their kids go on a school camp to. But that just is not happening so much today. I will wager the number of Italians refusing point blank to let their kid out of their sight is that exact same number as skip parents.

Are Italians perfectly at home in Oz? For the most part yessiree. More and more so, with each generation, yessiree. Not entirely - g'uh. That should come as no shock - a bunch of Italians in Oz are just that - Italian. Not half-Italian, or Australian-Italian. Juts full on A-grade 100% Italian. And why would they want to lose that? They would not. Being Italian is deeply cool. By any objective measure. But especially to Italians. Natch they do not want to get too Australian. Too far away from Italian. Natch.

But being Italian is not mutually exclusive from living well in Oz. And getting along well in Oz.

That's the thing.

Now, the Lebanezeers face the same stuff Italians went through after the war, with the Lebaneezers are doing it from 1970's on. Not so much invited into the country, as let in on a lot of immigration requests. Different timing. Much more advanced Oz society. Oz after WWII was all Menzies and country scone baking lamington drives, you know? Italians made a super easy mark in Oz on the food alone, never mind the fashion, music, cars, art, lifestyle etc.

Lebaneezers gotta compete with a bunch of other wogs. Very well settled wogs. That's not easy.

They are not about to win Oz over on the cooking in a hurry, but it's getting there. There are no cars but there is a truly wierd subculture of Lebanese car mods that is interesting from a mechanical engineering point of view, if not aesthetic - actually, it is not aesthetic.

They are facing the same problems the Italians faced. And the Italians, with their own very firm ideas about culture and habit, got through it. Without losing their Italianness. But by taking on more Australianess - an inevitability if you live here. A good thing. You live here.

The Italians kept their cultural stuff - the salami-making-tomato-bottling-first-communion-extended-family-stuff etc etc and shed the habits of disapproving of relationships with skippies, or divorce, or single careerist daughters over 30.

That's what the Lebanese will go through too. It is inevitable. Keep the fabulous names, and the cooking and the extended family stuff and the poetry and song. Shed the habits like refusing permission to kids to go on school camp.

That gentle man, and he really was, a beautiful man, is grappling with culture and future and past. And so is his son, albeit one step removed.

I am certain he will be as happy as an Italian can be in Oz. Cannot ask for more than that, eh?

And as a closing point no - I am not going to address religion. Christianity and Islam are faiths of the Lebanese. The former is the predominant faith of Oz. Easy cultural fit. The latter is not - Oz is open for business on Fridays and when Aussies work, we do not stop to worship. But faith is not a habit. It is not for shedding. For muslim Lebanese, faith will remain the hardest part of their life in Oz.

I reckon it was the faith that stopped those parent permissions for the school camp. How else to explain the uniformity among Lebanese Muslim parents.

It has to get better, as I say above. But it just won't be soon.

:: WB 9:33 a.m. [link+] ::
:: Thursday, 3 April 2003 ::
Part II to the post below

Only this time it is Gary Sauer-Thompson. Nah, for sure. Go ahead and read this rambling pointlessness about the Columbia jackass who wished publicly for American defeat - "a million Mogadishus". And then watch as Gary tears off on a tangent of his own making.

And check the comment thread for Yobbo's sensible query and Gary's nonsense response.

Here is the modus operandi:

(1) Defend the Left! That must be the first thing that Gary thinks as he wakes, and as he takes each breath throughout the day. Defend them all! Even the Jackasses! Never never never just admit they are appalling!


(2) And always always, as you are defending an indefensible statement by one of your own - a leftie - muddy the waters (of the charge that you are defending the indefensible) by introducing an unattainable motherhood-type desire. This gymnastic debating style should win you enough time to turn and run. In this case, Gary is against the coalition because he is afraid the outcome of their efforts will not be some perfect self-determined democracy and honeydripped chocolate fantasy life for Iraqis after the military action formally comes to a close. Or something.

Pathetic. All cloaked in a great concern for Iraqi people. But this is a person who does not give a shit about actual change for wogs.

:: WB 4:46 a.m. [link+] ::
Okay now, see, this is not reason. This is cornered grasping to support your empty argument

The delicious looking Gianna has posted Who would have thought Iraq would defend itself? and then a 'Yay Kerry' over O'Brien's recent "How many killed kiddies are okay in your book?" query to the PM on the 7.30 Report.

First things first. Iraq is not defending itself, okay? Ba'athist Iraqis are fighting not to lose their rule.

There is a difference. A bloody huge difference. Markets are open. Iraqi citizenry drive around. People all over the counrty bake bread...and eat it. With their families. Know why Iraqi citizenry is not defending themselves? Cos they know the difference. They are not being attacked. They live right next door to the Ba'athists, work alongside them, have to listen to their shit day in, day out. Have to remember people they know who have been killed or hurt or terrorised etc etc. The Ba'athists are getting it good and rude, every day and every night. The citizenry is not.

600 non-combatant citizens dead by Iraqi Ministry of Information calculations and some 6000 wounded. That is not evidence of a citizenry under attack. That is evidence of dead citizens and wounded citizens, dead and wounded by coalition force military actions aimed at Ba'athists, some of those actions missing their mark out of stupidity, hairtriggeredness and lousy aiming.

The title to the post should be 'Who knew some sickinthehead Ba'athists would fight for Saddam?" And the answer would be - G'uh. Everybody.

See, Ba'athists are like mafia in Sicily to the power ten. And the Sicilians, to their immense credit, having been shopping the mafia to the coppers for the last ten years regularly. The Sicilians got sick and tired of mafia jackassery. "Basta" was the cry. "Enough".

Good Sicilian people grappling with the crap Sicilian people in their midst.

And they needed Milanese judges and independent policemen to help that cry of "Basta" have real meaning.

Ba'athist rulers in Iraq, and the Iraqi military which is the military of the Ba'athists, have got something to lose. Their grip on the counrty they have driven into the ground for at least the last twenty years.

Of course they will fight. The mafia fights too.

You like the mafia, Gianna? I did not think so. So start to think clearly for a change and drop your insane prejudice that all Iraqis are devoted lovers of their brutal leadership, simple little brown wogs that they are.

Yes, dear, I am calling you out on your suffocating superiority complex.

And then the PM thing - what sort of thinking leads someone to the conclusion that it is a good quesiton to ask a PM? "How many kiddies is it okay to kill?" You know? Cos I for one saw that show and I blushed - for Kerry - he looked like an idiot, like Philip Adams.

Bring our troops home.

Good grief. No Oz troops should ever be involved in helping out some wogs in trouble?

Get. Far. Away.

:: WB 4:28 a.m. [link+] ::
:: Wednesday, 2 April 2003 ::
Dyareckon he has fled? Or dead?

Two tv appearances by proxies suggests Saddam is not presentable. For whatever reason.

This has got to work in favour of the invading infidels with their doglike snouts and cloven hangnails or whatever nonsense the Iraqi leaders spout, right? I mean, no big guy is good news for everybody, right?

:: WB 3:57 a.m. [link+] ::
:: Tuesday, 1 April 2003 ::
An anti-war argument that is not idiotic.

Interesting. But not convincing for me. Strikes me as a bit arch to argue conservativism means not rolling the sleeves up to clean up a godawful mess in what should be a good part of the world but is not and has not been for centuries.

And I do not think of myself as conservative. I might be a rightie about some stuff but I am not wedded to it as a philosophy.

:: WB 1:04 p.m. [link+] ::
Well, it certainly is not bocce.

Ian McPhedran writing for the Daily Telegraph has been expelled from Iraq by Iraqi authorities for not following the rules.

What the heck is the game?

Hmmm. Let us play 'cryptofascist overbearer and simple chubby Oz reporter on location in warzone'.


:: WB 12:58 p.m. [link+] ::
Mystic Wog

Gaze longingly at my crystal balls, my friends.

I predict a rise in pro-war opinion following this, and even more after tomorrow when the kiddies get out for their unauthorised (no permit) protest - which will doubtless include irascible Arab blokes, mostly of the Leb variety, behaving like.....well, Lebs. More is the pity, my friends. Pity pity pity. That they do as they do.

A whole goddam community whose reputation is mud. And they made that mud all by themselves.

Students no one cares about. Tomorrow is Wednesday. Well, g'uh, of course they are protesting.

But the wogs - man, why do they have to overwog everything?

Further to the post below, I do not respect their, or the students, points of view either.

:: WB 4:24 a.m. [link+] ::
Oh fer crying outta loud

Tim Dunlop is mad as heck that the PM has not let Kerry O'Brien get away with snidely suggesting we are more at fault than Iraqi scum Ba'ath murdering scum - actually, that the PM is personally worse than those scum - without arking up about it. Or something. Maybe Tim was trying to pay some sort of compliment to the PM. But it is so dripping with insincerity it is not more than a snide aside on its own.

And Tim Dunlop is mad as heck that somehow the Guardian, notoriously unbalanced unrealiable and unprofessional, is not taken as gospel by the whole ding dang world. About stuff. To do with Dick Cheney. And weapons inspections to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

We are where we are because of Saddam.

To paraphrase from today's Daily Telegraph cartoon (no link - which is a goddam travesty) - The war would be over real quick, if Saddam would just freakin' blow himself up already.

I cannot find an anti-war type with arguments I can respect.

:: WB 4:03 a.m. [link+] ::

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?