:: Tuesday, 28 October 2003 ::
"It's not hard to get a boat from Libya to Europe," said a young Sudanese man called Suleiman, squatting in a derelict railway shed in Rome. "Just ask a Libyan policeman."
What an awful thing.
Not that I credit Popham for getting his facts straight here. But part of it must be right. There's a lot of quotes.
:: WB 3:39 a.m. [link+] ::
Words Fail Me.
:: Friday, 24 October 2003 ::
The Pope is on the teevee every Sunday.
It is Italy.
We got a pub on every corner, they got a church! Jeebus, why have you forsaken reason in L'Aquila?
Gino would have something to say about all this, though. Something learned and objectively true, like:
"Look. You have to understand. This man is Scottish. And the Scots were the only people the Romans ever came across who they could not be bothered to conquer. They were not worth the effort. Poverino, he hates himself. And why shouldn't he? He's a Scotsman who could lose a few pounds, who converted to Islam. Poverone."
Like I said. Learned. And objectively true.
:: WB 3:13 a.m. [link+] ::
Gotta watch 'em.
:: WB 9:37 p.m. [link+] ::
Yet another General Strike in Italy. Lordy, this is tiresome and embarrassing.
But wholly understandable.
If you've never been to Italy it is gobsmackingly gorgeous.
It is not wonder at all that bunches of folks will decide to take a day off work (and a Friday too - how convenient for a long weekend) to wonder around fabulous Italian cities enjoying the fabulous art, architecture, engineering, and culinary delights of the Bel Paese.
Heck, if I was there right now I'd be on strike too.
And I don't even have a job there.
:: WB 9:30 p.m. [link+] ::
7 Red Brigaders shopped....by a Red Brigader
I like it when criminals sing like canaries. Which is what Desdemona has surely done.
I printed off the Manifesto from its internet site back when it was issued, but can't seem to find it anymore. It really did rant against 'imperialist bourgeoisie'.
No really. It did.
:: WB 9:09 p.m. [link+] ::
:: Sunday, 19 October 2003 ::
:: WB 8:38 p.m. [link+] ::
Terry Lane. Priceless. If by priceless you mean .02 cents worth o' junk
This opinion piece is right up with Adams's dirge posted about below.
- everyone knows Oz is in more peril now because of our relationship under Howard with Bush, more peril than Canada, New Zealand, Costa Rica and Switzerland face, nations which do not have the same relationship with Bush.
- Muslim extremists are not motivated by envy of American success and prosperity. Instead they "hate America because of its arrogant neo-colonial, imperialist ambitions to rule the world. And also because of its unqualified support of Israel with its concomitant humiliation of its Islamic neighbours".
- Oz would be safer if it treated America with a certain wary disdain.
- since everybody knows all this, how come 70% of folks do not act by distancing themselves from the US? After all, NZ has, etc etc. And everyone knows the US does not care about Oz.
Terry Lane. A man who thinks Sept 11 were undertaken by folks who are rational. A man who thinks the best thing for Oz to do about those rational Muslim extremists (read 'islamofascist violent venal misogynist jackass thugs') is to stay the heck away from whatever they are gonna bomb next. That means America.
Bali. It happened in Oct last year. The press has been filled with anniversary material.
It happened to us way before Iraq.
Lane must therefore be saying that Oz deserved Bali because we were a sychophantic ally of the US back in 2002. Timor could not have caused Bali, or been a cause. Nooo. And them planes that went into the Sept 11 buildings and earth, they were flown by Chileans and Vietnamese furious at America's neo-colonial arrogance. Ooops. No. And we deserve more Balis while ever we are an American ally who does not behave like NZ and Costa Rica.
The man is a disgraceful man. I know it is his opinion. He can have it, but he can shove it. Cos it is not well thought out at all. It is blurted out. Does he even hear how he blames Oz for Bali. I'll bet he does not. But it is there, bald as brass (to coin a wogism).
:: WB 3:09 a.m. [link+] ::
Blogs From Iraq.
:: Saturday, 18 October 2003 ::
Worth checking out regular like.
Berry berry interesting.
:: WB 2:20 a.m. [link+] ::
Grazie tanto to Bernard Slattery for getting the image thing up about Jan 7 1946 LIFE Magazine declaration that US was losing the peace in Europe.
If we extrapolate, perhaps Iraq can rock as hard modern Italy 20 years after war.
I am punting so. But I'll each-way it a bit, and say if Iraq doesn't rock in 20 years, that will be down to the Iraqis.
:: WB 10:18 p.m. [link+] ::
Nature's glory. And man's.
Sometimes it is important to take a moment to look at things that make you happy.
:: WB 9:52 p.m. [link+] ::
Jeebus Mary and Joseph, This Bush visit is getting out the loons
Matt Price and Annabelle Kiddybody on The Insiders are just appalled that security measures will be put in place around Parliament House Canberra when George Bush attends next week.
Apparently Committee rooms won't be open for business.
Except they are open for business and meetings will go ahead.
And 20 school groups will be prohibited from visiting Parliament that day.
Except they can before 1 p.m.
Oh, and there is going to be an unprecedented 'lock down' never before in the history of Oz. Except the same security arrangements are in place as for every visiting head of state, just heightened this time from Clinton's visit, for example, but only in the closing of Parliament from the Bush address.
Such a beat up by these journos. Ackerman's there and they are making him look like a voice of reason. As if he isn't partisan himself. Sheesh.
Matt Price reckons Howard went to Bali and was hugging folks, and that sort of easy security should be the deal for Bush. Oh yeah. No one wants to hurt the President. That whole burning effigy thing and flag burning stuff and violent protests everywhere with the signs and the big puppets, well they are completely non-violent, there is no violent element at all in any of that...willful idiot.
And Annabelle reckons that there should at least be some public seats available in Parliament because it's the public, you know. As if the public is wholly civilised when it comes to Bush and can be relied on to be courteous and kind. No violent idiots with a hate-Bush thing going on.
And they both reckon that it is just awful that politicians and members of the public are not going to be able to act how they like because they do disagree with Bush.
Do they both want some shouting, some back turning, some heckling, maybe some flag burning? What do they want?
Standing up and turning your back on a speaker is a selfish and impotent gesture, inarticulate except as a statement of the self-importance felt by the back-turner for his or her own world view.
Protesting by heckling, or, as Bob Brown, Green, is going to do, bringing as his guest the wife of Mamdouh the guy in Guantanamo Bay with Hicks, is gesturing only. Makes the folks feel good about themselves. Changes life not one bit because the focus is so internalised - it's all about Bob and the back-turners - nothing will come of it. Not a thing. It is, literally, a wank. Spilled seed for nothing more than the wanker's pleasure.
The Speaker was on the show pricking the hot air balloons of Price Matt and Annabelle, and he ended with a nice line on civilised behaviour and politeness:
If Bob Brown was coming into my home I wouldn't put a chainsaw into the middle of the loungeroom as some sort of protest. I would greet him courteously.
He has got it in one.
Courtesy. Civility. A Parliament that is not treated by its participants as some sort of student hall.
Tanya Plibersek, Labour, was just on saying the whole standing sitting thing is irrelevant and the issues are more important - pre-emptive strikes, dictatorship etc etc. She is quite right the issues are important. But Bush is not here to debate the issues with her. He is here to address Parliament and meet with Oz's elected leadership and GG.
Showing her backside to the US President is as articulate as Tanya will be on those crucial topics while Bush is here.
If she thinks that's addressing the issues then we know exactly how hard she works. Exactly enough to make her feel like she has moved her arse.
No actual results.
Tanya Plibersek and Bob Brown will never free Hicks or Mamdouh from Guantanamo. Too busy worrying about how they feel, to bother getting down and working for an actual outcomes.
They are, I reckon, all hat, no cattle, as they might say in Texas.
Listening politely, standing to applaude is not selling your soul. Bush is not the heart of the matter. The role of President is the heart of the matter. But as you see from Matt and Annabelle and Tanya and Bob, he is the heart of the matter.
They are none of them good at their jobs if they cannot see the difference.
And they can't see the difference.
:: WB 4:53 p.m. [link+] ::
Top Post on Mahathir's Speech thing
The thing about the whole speech is that Mahathir was praising Jews for their smarts, and encouraging Muslims to get smart, but the point of getting their getting smart is to advance themselves over the West, over Jews.
It is a philosophy that measures itself wholly by what others are doing. It is not a philosophy that measures itself against how good it can be ie against infinite advance.
I have a real thing about that sort of negativity. Being anti-McDonald's instead of being pro-InandOut Burger, you know what I mean? Being anti-Fast Food instead of pro-Slow Food.
That last one is a real interesting phenomenon too. Slow Food started in Italy and it has a manifesto because it is a full on left-wing society. It's manifesto is that it has been set up pecifikly to counter fast food.
Imbeciles. Commie imbeciles.
It should have been set up pecifikly to celebrate indigenous authentic season ingredients and recipes.
That is all.
And that is enough.
Instead it goes the idiot step too far and immediately presumes the badness of anything else.
Last time I looked, McDonald's was not advertising the horror of Slow Food.
Why bother? People who run McDonald's franchises know that there is money to be made in their meals, even if all people don't eat all McDonald's all the time. There's room enough in this big ol' world for money to be made even if some folks never eat McDonald's.
Not something you can credit the Slow Food folks for. They are, sadly, lemon lipped fools Casandras who cannot contemplate of a world where a Slow Food enthusiast might grab a burger and fries from time to time. Which is peculiarly insane because that's the world they actually live in.
I am living proof.
[Does it have an apostrophe? Urgh. I don't care.]
:: WB 3:53 p.m. [link+] ::
Adams is calling me an idiot yet again
A whole column about public cynicism, railing against the public for their lack of concern over the following:
Tampa, children overboard, refugees,
Ruddock and Ministerial Discretion for visas
War in Iraq
A whole column, part of which he devotes to complaining that these two uselessly one-eyed books were not taken as gospel by the whole of the Oz public:
Helen Trinca's book 'Waterfront' about...the whole Waterfront dispute
David Marr & Marian Wilkinson's "Dark Victory" about Tampa.
A whole column during which he reveals clearly that he expects the public to share his world view and that if it does not the public is at fault.
A whole column that does not once even obtusely allow for the existence of a rational world view which says of all the above:
- fat waterfront unionists needed to start working for a living like the rest of us, and the government needed to do whatever they needed to to get that happen, including Dubai forces, dogs, balaclavas and losing court actions. And they won in the end cos the waterfront works hard now, harder that it ever did before.
- wogs who pay people smugglers should not get into Oz, no matter how badly they behave and how much they threaten to hurt themselves and who ends up in the water and the Norwegians should never have turned the boat around but they did and for it we get the Pacific Solution and Nauru can make some money.
- Ruddock did not make any money out of exercising his discretion. No story.
- detention centers are only hell if you jump into the barbed wire while your lawyer is working on your case.
- SIEV-X did not happen on Oz watch. It happened on Indonesia's watch.
- no more Saddam because of Howard, Bush, Blair, Berlusconi, Aznar and Eastern Europe is a good thing.
- any book by Trinca or Marr or Wilkinson is per se a waste of time and money because their entire lives have been spent promoting a left-wing world view and that is a permanent prism through which they fabricate recent history, always always always with a view to making themselves the arbiters of good morals and all others the devil incarnate.
Adams has a written a column that could have been parsed into just this:
The ends achieved by the right-wing never justify their means. Anyone who disagrees is an idiot.
I reckon ends do justify means, when the ends are - thwarting venal criminality.
Waterfront unionists, they used to be truly the scum of Oz. They are not any more. They are waterfront workers, and they work for a living. I got no beef with them. Not now. But I sure did then, as they decided to go slow and hold up my overseas packages just for another rostered day off.
Wogs entering Oz illegally threatening mayhem if they don't get their way, they used to be the scum of Oz. They are not any more because they have stopped coming and have for the most part stopped behaving like idiots.
Saddam used to be the leader of a fucked country responsible for some of those wogs referred to above. The scum of the earth. He's not anymore. Well, not leader. That's a good thing.
:: WB 3:14 a.m. [link+] ::
As my mother would say "Milo, give me strength"
:: Tuesday, 14 October 2003 ::
[UPDATED: Sacha is a man. My bad.]
Read the SMH today. Lordy, it is a terrible terrible newspaper.
And the sky is blue.
But we have Mike Carlton urging Parliamentarians to drop silent but deadly farts when the US President addresses parliament next week. We have Alan Ramsey blabbing in too many words about something, you know, bad about Oz under Howard. Margo Kingston...urgh, what can anyone say? Pilger features in the magazine blurting about Afghanistan. Coverage of Asian reaction to the 'sheriff', and the American general's private religious remarks and Rumsfeld's cover of it, burial of Mahathir's jew-hating clumsiness at the Islamic States' Conference thing, death in Iraq. Failure of US to get UN voters for support to Iraq to actually give any support (as if that reflects badly on anyone other than the states who put their +ve vote, then immediately declare they won't follow through - France, Germany, Russia, Syria I am looking at you).
And a letters page with not a single +ve entry for anything to do with Bush or Iraq.
A whole paper that does not reflect my world view at all.
And a whole paper that does not even begin to make me question my world view in the way that say, Michael Totten's website does.
Right down to the teevee guide.
I mean get this, a review of a 1984 movie "Red Dawn".
About 20 years ago. Obligatory snobby reference to US then under 'gunslinging actor named Ronnie Reagan' and now, with 'risible perform(er) George W. Bush' and blah blah blah. A whole review which ends with "I reckon paranoid patriotism has never been funnier. Highly recommended." A positive review, then. But in the laughing-at-it vein.
Sacha Molitorisz, teevee reviewer for SMH, was against the war in Iraq.
Why should I find this out about him? He has a measly teevee guide and instead of getting off his fat arse to blog his own views, he publishes them.....in his teevee guide!
Why do I even care?
Because the move he picks is on at...........I cannot get over this....... it is on at.......half past midnight.
He could have done actual teevee viewers a favour a picked out a show at 8.30 p.m., like "The Scarlet Pimpernel" or the Rugby Union with freakin' SAfr v Eng bigger-than-Ben-Hur game.
See, that is the SMH in one. Go out of its way to publish one world view.
Including the world view that is bad bad bad for wogs to be noticed as the wogs they are.
That makes my blood boil. Cos wogs are not soft. They can take a criticism. Soft skippies are the only ones who reckon that wogs are soft - skippies are the only ones who actually think it is important not to mention that a wog is a wog. See this whole article on the shootings in Greenacre, right? Wogs behaving badly.
I think they are Turks. But I dunno, and the SMH will not tell me. So I guess it could be Lebs.
Hmm. The SMH probably decided that it is best for the wogs that their woginess not to be mentioned. Ahem. Ziad Abdulrazak. Oh, a fiery hotblooded feud-driven ... blue-eyed Norseman fer sher.
Instead, the SMH's editorial decision is not to report reportable facts - actually. Not to report them. Have them. But do not report them. Facts about the background of a victim including his ethnicity. And this decision is made for the most patronising toerag reasons - that it is important not to notice the woginess of wogs involved with crime cos, to do that means wogs not involved in crime will cry foul about how they are all as an ethnic group being singled out for ethnic labelling and prejudice, blah blah even though it is 100% true that 100% of the shooting in Greenacre was done by one ethnic group.
Whatever it is, we do not know cos the SMH won't tell us.
But this silence, is just leaves readers thinking hey, it's easier to just reckon alllll wogs shoot up their neighbours, then, eh?
Stupid SMH cannot think to the end of a straight line. You gotta report who dunnit and who got done - you gotta report their background. Because wogs form a part of the whole community.
But that wog part has parts too.
And for sure Calabrians are not responsible for this shooting.
.....although that is not a bet I am prepared to take across the board for all shootings.
Anyhoo, the SMH sucks.
:: WB 2:37 a.m. [link+] ::
Graffiti, Dumped Cars, Abuse from Truanting School Children, Abuse of Fireworks = Yob Culture
British PM Tony Blair now on the telly about new laws in Britain to curb yob culture.
Now, I do not like yobs. They do not like wogs, as a rule.
But wha'? A Britain wivout yobs? Is it possible? The Brits have always struck me as romantically attached to their yobs. Anyone who's ever watched European and World Cup soccer knows this.
Anyhoo, good excuse to recycle some great Brit Yob Poetry c/- Ian Dury and the Blockheads - 'Blockheads'
You must have seen parties of Blockheads
With blotched and lagered skin
Blockheads with food particles in their teeth
What a horrible state they're in
They've got womanly breasts under pale mauve vests
Shoes like dead pigs' noses
Cornflake packet jacket, catalogue trousers
A mouth what never closes
You must have seen Blockheads in raucous teams
Dressed up after work
Who screw their poor old Eileens
Get sloshed and go berserk
Rotary accessory watches
Hire-purchase signet rings
Of beauty to the bully boys
No lonely vestige clings
Why bother at all about Blockheads?
Why shouldn't they do as they please?
You know if it came to a brainy game
You could baffle a Blockhead with ease
How would you like one puffing and blowing in your ear-hole?
Or pissing in your swimming pool?
Bigger brained Blockheads often acquire
Black and orange cars
Premature ejaculation drivers
Their soft-top's got roll-bars
'Fill her up,' they say to Blockheads
'Go on, stick it where it hurts'
Their shapeless haircuts don't enhance
Their ghastly patterned shirts
Why bother at all about Blockheads?
Superior as you are
You're thoughtful and kind with a well-stocked mind
A Blockhead can't think very far
Imagine finding one in your laundry basket
Banging nails in your big black dog
Why bother at all about Blockheads?
Why should you care what they do?
Cos after all is said and done
You're a Blockhead too
Lord, what a great song.
Black and orange cars.
Mostly Cortinas, really, when that song was written.
:: WB 4:45 a.m. [link+] ::
Science that Really Counts
Sleep easy readers. A conundrum of millenia solved.
A cheeese conundrum.
:: WB 4:32 a.m. [link+] ::
Quality posting at Cose Turche
:: WB 4:18 a.m. [link+] ::
:: Sunday, 12 October 2003 ::
Further to the post below, we are down to 'more than 1000 homeless' and '114 homes' flattened, from 1500 homeless from 300 families because of the flattening of 'up to 120' homes.
300 families in 114 homes?
I do not think so.
114 homes with more than 1000 people living in each? Average occupation say 10 people per home.
I do not think so.
I am thinking less than 114 homes. With maybe five per home.
You see where I am heading.
UPDATE: We are back at 300 homes, but we have a total of 1240 homess, 140 people whose shops (how many shops, not known) have been destroyed. And $1000 compo each from the Palestinian Authority. But 232 families homeless.
Something still is not adding up.
Rafah is a refugee zone. 232 familes in 300 homes? 68 familes have 2 homes? In a refugee camp? wha'?
I will keep an eye out for all this as it goes on. Needless to say Amnesty condemns the war crime action blah blah and UNHCR says it's the end of the word.
:: WB 4:13 a.m. [link+] ::
Another Jenin "massacre"?
One to watch.
Up to 120 Palestinian homes in refugee camp flattened. Therefore up to 1500 innocent Palestinian civilians homeless. Eight dead in hospital. 50 injured. And approx. 41-49 tanks seen.
That is culled from the whole BBC piece. And the sources are natch from the Pals and their UN guy booster. Nobody else.
Now, the Jenin rubbish was that a whole refugee camp (refugee my arse - you cannot be a refugee if you never lived where you reckon you've had to seek refuge away from.....tortured syntax but you get the pikcha, yes?) was flattened and 500 civilians massacred.
The truth was 10% camp flattened, and 52 guilty combatants targetted deliberately and killed by Israeli military.
Soooo, let me consider the current situation in just the same way as the UN guy - ie pulling figures out of my arse but starting with basic Pal architecture as my guide.
We already know that 'hundreds of tanks' has become somewhere between 40-49 tanks now (cannot remember where I saw that). So we already know the traditional blurting of excess so favoured by Pals and UN has begun and is getting backtracked.
Now, we have in this BBC piece, 8 dead and over 50 injured (meaning somewhere between 51-60 incl injured).
We have somewhere between 40 and 49 tanks used
And we have 250-300 families each made homeless by destruction of apartment blocks which gives us 300 x 5 members of each family = 1500.
250-300 families in apartment blocks in Palestinian a refugee camp. Some camp, eh? But I digress. Let's talk the 300 families. Apparently they live in 120 'homes'. Apartments more like.
So we got 1500 people from 300 families living in 120 homes. That's two a half families in each home.
I know they are wogs and they like the whole extended family thing, but not the one and a half of not your family. Puhlease. They are wogs. Not coral.
Now, we have all seen the footage of Pal refugee camps. Pal refugee camps are not highrise heaven, so say each apartment block is 8 floors high. 120 apartments at 8 floors high, with, say, 4 apartments on each floor. Now we are at 4 apartment blocks of 8 floors high each with 4 apartments on each level to get to 120 families making up 1500 people.
Getting closer to the IDF figure for destruction of apartment blocks. Except 8 floors high is way too high. We are talking max 4 floors. We've all seen the footage.
So, it is more likely to be 4 blocks of flats of 4 floors high max with 4 flats on each floor and 5 people per family with 1 family per flat.
So we gotta 64 flats. 5 people each. 320 people say.
BBC world news is running hard with the 1500 figure. I have come to 320. Using Jenin as a guide I should come down to about 150 - 10%.
One to watch.
:: WB 6:05 p.m. [link+] ::
Thinking of Bali
Discrete. Good Blog Cover and Link.
:: WB 1:37 a.m. [link+] ::
It is not funny news. But the headline, wellllll.....
:: WB 1:31 a.m. [link+] ::
Hey Hey Hey. It's a Mediterranean Solution.
:: WB 1:22 a.m. [link+] ::
Anything for an obelisk?
I prefer columns myself. Obselisks are just so, 3000 years ago, you know.
:: WB 1:16 a.m. [link+] ::
Now this is a school
:: Saturday, 11 October 2003 ::
:: WB 1:13 a.m. [link+] ::
Sovereignty Shmovereignty - Wog views of the Syria Israel thing and stuff
:: Friday, 10 October 2003 ::
If Syria is busy suckling violent Palestinian jackasses on its side of the border and then letting them go out of Syria and into Israel to do their worst then you are interfering with the sovereignty of Israel.
If Israel lobs a bomb on one of your Syrian Palestinian armoury/terror-training camps then that is defence.
Get it, Syria? You are messing with the sovereignty of another nation by harbouring, feeding and then releasing stinking violent pigs.
Right? Your sovereignty has been put at risk by you because of your habits of fostering interference in Israel's sovereignty.
Stop doing that and your sovereignty is not at risk. Keep doing that and it is.
And in Gaza and the West bank? Same applies. Smuggling tunnels in houses.
Do you really think that that is not an interference with Israel? It is.
And immigration is an interference too. Running a country so badly that people flee it, lobbing onto leaky boats that have to get saved by Norwegian ships and then demanding that the Norwegian ship be pointed at Oz, just for one small example, is an interference with the sovereignty of the nation where the fleeing folks end up. It is.
The whole UN 'must respect sovereignty' thing is an absurdity today. Just absurd. There is so much connectivity today between bits of the world that the whole idea cannot be sustained, I reckon. Alls you can hope for is that your own sovereignty is not interfered with - and it won't be, so long as you straighten up and fly right - stop with the fostering of the violence.
And before any left-wing special kiddie blurts me an email about how 'Amerikkka' has been interfering with other people's sovereignty and Britain's colonialism and Oz muscles and blah blah I will put this out there:
after all that interference of the past (and it has been going on for millennia if you think about it), you must be thick as to be still running a fucked country. I mean, you gotta be bobbing and weaving out of the way of good ideas to be a fucked country these days. You gotta be making some lousy choices these days. Cos it is not as though you have not come across folks from countries that are not fucked, and had a chance to see what it is about them that makes them not fucked. After all, they were interfering with you - interfering with your sovereignty.
Property rights, intellectual property rights, no corruption (including transparent business and transparent participatory democracy), separation of church and state and the rule of law, that last one now including the big category of rounding up terrorists so they cannot terrorise.
These are the big deal ideas that will turn any country into a non-fucked country.
Syria cannot get to grips with the no corruption. The Palestinians cannot either. The Iraqis couldn't. The Iranians cannot get to grips with the separation of church and state.
Fucked countries. And they are trouble for everyone. And their sovereignty is not something that should stop us non-fucked country folks from caring enough to make 'em better.
Cos if we stop caring, well.....what? You know whatever it is, it will involve violent jackassery.
:: WB 4:19 p.m. [link+] ::
If you are not moved by this bloke and what he ahs seen at 22 you are sick.
I know a beautiful man who also survived the blasts. A Turkish Cypriot who lost brothers. A Top Wog. He has astounded doctors and himself at his recovery to return to work, where I know him from. He is a better person than me. He has endured more. He has not turned violent or disgraceful as a response to the violence and disgrace imposed on him, inflicted on him and so many others. Neither has Jake.
Salt of the earth. Oz. Turkish Cyprus. Bali. Everywhere.
:: WB 6:26 a.m. [link+] ::
Okay. Let me get this straight. An anti-Bush anti-war idiot (Wilson) is appointed by a bunch of idiots (CIA), on the strength of Wilson's own wife recommending him, to go to Niger for a week and find out categorically if Iraq was trying to source uranium from there, as British intelligence indicated.
Wilson goes there to Niger, does no looking around and concludes he has done a good job and comes back to the US to tell the CIA that there is no truth to the Niger uranium link as far as he is concerned.
Wilson hears Bush's State of the Union speech. He hears Bush say that Brit intelligence indicates the thing about Africa and uranium. Being an idiot Wilson thinks that this is contrary to his finding which was about US intelligence in Niger only. But what he knows about Brit intelligence in Africa you could write on the head of a pin. No, make that, a fatpawed labrador could write in Cyrillic script longhand on the head of a pin.
Wilson leaks his own report to the CIA which was not for public consumption - g'uh it is the CIA that he was working for - by writing a slag opinion piece of Bush on the whole Niger thing for some newspaper. Idiot. He tells the world he was working for the CIA in Niger.
Wilson and his wife are already in Who's Who. Vain idiots. So it is easy to know quick that Wilson is married to someone and Wilson did the Niger gig for the CIA.
Columnist Robert Novak writes a piece about Wilson's slag piece, and spills that one 'administration source' told him it was Wilson's wife who got Wilson the CIA Niger gig in the first place. Because she works for the CIA. And I think he names her. Or maybe not yet.
Now, she was previously a spook or something. So by naming her maybe people she used to be connected with can get in trouble if some folks put two and two together and think - Wilson Wifie spook, she talk to x, therefore x is spook too.....or something. Serious stuff. But her name is in Who's Who.
Then somehow Wilson's wifie's name gets out definitely. From two sources in the 'administration' I think is the deal. And this is thought to be a bad bad thing and anti-Wilson and all that.
But how is publicising a wife's name hurtful per se to a husband? Cos that is what folks are saying - the leak about wifie was done to hurt Wilson.
He does know her, right? It is not as though the revealing of the name is going to actually cause concern to the husband - like surprise or anything.
Maybe it is hurtful because the whole thing makes him look like a loser who needs his wife to get him a job (and even then he's too stupid to perform it well).
Maybe it is hurtful .....nope, that's it for hurtful.
Or maybe Wilson's wife is a bigger idiot than her husband. After all, she is married to the man who caused this whole fuss by leaking his own CIA report, and by being wrong wrong wrong about Niger. The Brits say the Africa (not just Niger) connection is there.
The whole thing is idiotic. Makes the CIA look horrible. Makes Wilson look like a duplicitous shithead who would not report evidence of uranium/Niger/Saddam's Iraq even if he found it because it would not suit his agenda, and makes his wife look like a moron for being with the guy.
Watch that marriage split up sooner rather than later.
:: WB 6:07 a.m. [link+] ::
Wog Views of Anti-Success media coverage of the goings on in Iraq
Basically stuff is not bad but media coverage is shite. But then journos are all shite, right? No exceptions. Good for beers, but. But, jeez, you would not want to live with one.
And while I think about journos, what ever happened to Mr Paul McGeogh of the Sydney Morning Herald - he of the 'proud Iraqi resistance' or some such? Hmmmm? He has not written anything I do not think for a while. Maybe he is disappointed that the shitheads he mistook for reasoned resistors are shitheads only.
:: WB 5:35 a.m. [link+] ::
Wog Views of Ahhnold's Cahleeforneeah
Just so youse all know what I am thinking:
I am thinking:
Did you notice in the voting that 3 something million folks voted against the recall - meaning they voted to leave Gray Davis in office - but only 2 something million voted for Democrat candidates as Governor in the event the recall went ahead (ie the important second part of their vote).
And did you know more people voted for Ahhnold and Tom McLintock the other Republican candidate than voted against the recall.
Looks like a convincing win to me.
Now the 1 million or so folks who voted against the recall but then did not vote for Democrat candidates to be Governor were either too stupid to do the second part (unlikely) or somehow crazy in the head enough not to want a recall but then to admit that, if it happened, maybe Ahhhnold etc should get the gig.
Whatever happened to the Democrat vote, but, one thing is sure. It is not disenfranchising to have to travel a bit further to a polling booth. Jesse Jackson declared briefly that Democrats were disenfranchised (by which he means black people because for him they have a hive mind for voting......ziff) because polling booths were in different places to the places 11 months before, when the actual last election was held.
Imbecile, patronising idiot.
It is not "disenfranchising" of a vote to have to haul your lard-arse to a voting station. It is "where the voting station is".
Hopefully, this vote will shake up America's awful left-wing that thinks wogs (ie blacks, Latinos, Asians etc) have no other political destiny but to suck off left-wing politicians and vote for 'em for ever.
That is what I have been thinking about the recall.
:: WB 5:31 a.m. [link+] ::