:: Saturday, 29 November 2003 ::
:: WB 5:51 p.m. [link+] ::
:: Sunday, 16 November 2003 ::
Julie Burchill's splendidly ascerbic goodbye to The Grauniad
A left-wing Bush-hater alleges Bush's Thanksgiving Dinner with troops in Iraq took place at breakfast time and not at dinner time at all - and he is wrong. Jackass, how embarrassment.
Very anti-American blogger from Iraq about Eid and Bush's visit to the troops.
Pro-American (not without criticism) blogger from Iraq about Bush's visit to the troops.
Wha'? Palestinian Human Rights Group?
:: WB 5:47 p.m. [link+] ::
Blogging off for a couple of weeks
:: Tuesday, 11 November 2003 ::
The pointless blast that killed Italians and Iraqis has pretty much tipped me right over the edge.
Yes, Italians matter to me more than others. G'uh. I am Italian.
Australians matter to me more too. Bali matters a lot to me. G'uh. I am Australian.
And this sounds to me about right:
Al-Qaeda has certainly reached out its long arm recently in this bloody Ramadan, what with the bombing in Istanbul, the attack on Italian headquarters in Iraq, and the attack in Riyadh. I'd like to ask antiwar folks this question: don't you think we should be fighting these guys who are going around sowing terror and hate? Or should we bail out now, leave Iraq in the lurch, let Saddam take over again, and then deal with the consequences of a tremendous loss of American credibility? That's what we've got for choices, guys, and you know in your hearts that somebody's got to stomp terrorist gangs and rogue states right now before they do another Istanbul or Riyadh or 9-11. I hate to have to say this because some of our people are going to get killed fighting the enemy. And some more innocent Iraqis are going to get killed in the crossfire. All I can say is I wish that weren't true. But, it's tragic to say, their deaths now will save maybe millions in the future if this actually winds up working, with a democratic and peaceful and stable Iraq as the beacon for the rest of the Middle East.
Cose Turche has quality coverage and so do other Italian bloggers. Hit links at left.
Here in Oz everything is as usual. The left wing has its head firmly up its arse. That goes for its journalists too, who are universally incompetent at reporting and who sadly fill the Fairfax pages, and on the topic of unauthorised arrivals, the Aus too.
They think standing on a boat yelling 'refugee' is some sort of valid application for asylum. Simple minded. Let's take it to it's conclusion then, shall we?
What does NOT yelling 'refugee' mean? Having fled persecution in Turkey and landed away from persecution in Indonesia, what does it mean not to seek asylum?
Does it mean you do not need it? I guess it must do, by the left's own definition. Cos if you needed asylum, well, you'd need it everywhere, right? And you'd say so, right? Until the persecution risk had ceased, right? And by definition to not seek refuge means you are safe.
So, 14 Turk blokes saying 'refugee' in friggin' Martin Place, Sydney, having not said 'refugee' anywhere between Turkey and Oz, ie not said it in Indonesia at least, must have cut their own trail of persecution into pieces.
They must, by definition, no longer be persecuted and in need of refuge. Their applications likely to fail.
See, that is what the left does. It suffocates wogs by the left's own forceful patronising idiocy. Someone should have told these wogs to seek refuge in Indonesia first, get turned down (as they would be cos the Indonesians do not play the compassion game.....Timor....) and THEN and only then seek refuge in Oz.
If they cut their own trail of persecution, is it any wonder Oz citizenry looks at 14 Turks as just 14 blokes demanding something from us that they have no right to get? That they are just after nice Oz life? Everyone knows and understands viscerally that that is what these 14 blokes were after. And natch they want it - it is great.
But painting it as some flight from persecution and need for asylum, for refuge, is tactically appalling. It is a position supported by Greens and by soft-in-the-head compassion junkies who never met a wog they didn't like to think of as needy.
14 Turks turned away. Thanks very much Carmen Lawrence. How does it feel to be such a user?
See you when I calm down about the jackasses who killed the carabinieri. What the fuck for, eh? For nothing.
:: WB 2:52 a.m. [link+] ::
Top Post on Arafat and His Stinking Venal Criminality that Keeps His People in Despair
:: Monday, 10 November 2003 ::
:: WB 2:28 a.m. [link+] ::
Lame and maybe even not on the money.
But sooo very Sun.
:: WB 2:56 a.m. [link+] ::
Marking Time [, M, PIC: Frequent coarse language, drug use and adult themes]
Hal's relationship with Randa is becoming more intimate. He decides it's time to introduce her to the Brackley crowd. September 11 has a profound effect on the town. CAST: Abe Forsythe, Elena Carapetis, Bojana Novakovic
Ha ha ha ha ha ha..........ahhh...ha ha ha ha ha ha ha HA!.....ahhhhh.
This is the funniest bullshit Oz artz experience you will ever see all year. I totally tell you.
It is incredible.
"Do you have Santa?"
"No, we have Ramadan. A spiritual time, of fasting."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha, ahhhh.
And the only wog they could find to play the Afghani girl ... is a Serb
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ..... HA!
Wogs are all purpose in the ABC World.
And Sept 11 is no big deal either. The Americans deserved it, don'tcha know, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a redneck warmonger drunken yob or rightwing tightarsed horror. And liberated nations well, they hardly count now, do they?
God help us. Our tax dollars peddling PC rubbish that would make a Greenie weep. But no thinking person.
At the outset, the town and the country are intoxicated with the spirit of the Olympics, and the Centenary of Federation. Hal gets his licence, first car, the right to drink, the right to vote, and falls in love with Randa, a young Afghani refugee. But there is a shifting of consciousness in the town and the nation about refugees, border protection and their place in the world. Hal's heart is broken when he realises that his town is one in which he no longer belongs. MARKING TIME is the coming of age of a boy and a nation.
MARKING TIME is the coming of age of an insufferably patronising wanker who likes a bit of Muslim gash.
Ha ha ha ha ha ....HA!
The Aghan dad is played by a Polish man.
And he does a good job too, as does the girlie, with an appallingly juvenile script.
One more time for the hard of thinking. Secure borders is good. Temporary Visas are good. And temporary. Refugee status can change depending on what's goin' on back at the place you fled from to begin with. And country Australia is not an embarrassing hicksville of dags and yobs.
There are plenty of wogs there.
And some of them, brace yourselves Greenies, are not here as refugees.
Christ almighty. The lack of nuance is worthy of a Robert Manne, Phillip Adams, Margaret Pomeranz, John Howard (the Good One), Judy Davis etc etc.
Election Day. There's no doubt how this electorate is gonna go. I've no choice but to vote for the Greenies.
Oh, and the car the teen boy lead buys? His first car?
A Mazda 121.
:: WB 2:08 a.m. [link+] ::
SMH Runs Maureen Dowd today.
:: Sunday, 9 November 2003 ::
Nah, I'm not gonna link it. You think I'm nuts?
Here's Sullivan's reaction.
I'm with Sully.
:: WB 1:37 a.m. [link+] ::
Added some Iraqis to the links left.
:: WB 2:30 a.m. [link+] ::
Hey. Amemba that Palestinian stuff in Rafah with the tunnels and the Israeli incursion and the flattening of homes and the homelessness?
Posted on it back in Mid-Rocktober.
Thought I'd just do a quick newsnow check. Found this Christian Science Monitor piece:
The Rafah Governorate says Israel has completely demolished more than 1,200 houses, including 266 in this month's incursion. Israel's tally for this month is closer to 45, the officer says. "Wherever we found a tunnel, the house was demolished. Every house that was involved in shooting against the forces was demolished."
And the tunnels are run by mafia apparently.
Keeping an eye on it.
:: WB 2:24 a.m. [link+] ::
A Fisk of Bush's Speech
For not being all it could be.
Fair point of view. And terrific writing.
:: WB 2:01 a.m. [link+] ::
14 Turks on a Boat
25 words or less - people smugglers paddle 14 wogs on a boat all the way from Indonesia to Melville Island where, just before landing, or having landed or something, the boat is got by 3 Oz naval vessels, big ones I think or maybe not, whatever, and towed or escorted back to Indonesia.
Not over here.
Notice how little the boat was? Like a change of tack is going on at people smuggling Indonesia HQ, like "Hmmm. The big boats with the sinking is not working for our business. Let's try to adapt to the market difficulties we face, which is that our destination market has rather loudly stated it does not want to play. Let's get a little boat through and then can advertise that success and build up our profile again and get more business."
Cos it is a business.
A stinking illegal business built on lies told to 14 Turks about how they can get 'em into Oz.
Nice try. The Minsiter, she is chubby. But she moved like greased lightning to get Melville out of Migration Zone.
I am sounding like a wog booster for stopping wogs into the country, eh? A perverse wog-hating wog.
Have a look at the other way of looking at this fact situation (and there is only one other way and that is Labor's way. Cos the Green way of endless compassion for wogs is idiotic, cos it is like giving the finger to every wog who is here legitimately. A fact which the Greens will never understand because deep down, wogs for them are not people. They are hive minds with nice food. Suffocating patronising toerags, the Greens, who play favorites with wogs, and right now their favorites are Iraqis and Afghanistanis especially unauthorised arrivals. I say, if you hold yourself out as caring about wogs, you have to care about us as people, and not play favorites and not gloss over the bad stuff of which there is, natch, plenty).
Labor's Shadow Attorney-General Robert McClelland:
LAURIE OAKES: You don’t think that Australians will be pleased that these people are gone? That they didn’t land in Australia?
ROBERT MCCLELLAND: I think to be frank, in the general community that would be an issue – they would say well, that’s – that’s a good outcome. But what we’ve got to look at is the future, and in particular Amanda Vanstone has effectively said by excising the islands, the target now becomes Australia’s mainland – in this case about another two hours sailing would have got them to Darwin or its vicinity.
So what we say is, it’s no use saying you can’t protect your borders, as Amanda Vanstone has effectively said. We’re saying what you really need is a full-time dedicated coast guard to patrol the massive beat we have around our country.
LAURIE OAKES: But she’s also said there are hundreds of vessels this side ducking between Australia’s islands on ordinary business all the time. I think she said 500 sightings a month. Now how’s – how’s a coast guard going to tackle that?
ROBERT MCCLELLAND: Well, quite frankly we’ve got to. I mean, these boats could be carrying drugs; they could be carrying arms. They could be at the behest of people-smugglers. Indeed, they could be carrying terrorists. To say to a boatload look, if you’re a terrorist and you want to come into the country come in to one of the small islands to the north of Australia, because we really can’t protect it, is quite frankly surrender.
1. The target is now Oz because the earlier territory, the islands, is in the no-migration zone, so landing there is nice, if you want to look at birds but not if you want a new car in a nice house with a job in the second greatest country on earth. So the Indonesian people smuggley guys will chug along for 2 more hours to Oz.
The target is always Oz. With a no-migration zone or not. Nothing has changes. Oz is better than Indonesia.
2. We are admitting we cannot police the water of the no-migration zone, because if we could police it, it would not need to be a no-migration zone. We'd simply get the boats before they land....and presumably tow 'em back to Indonesia....just like...oh, nevermind.
And anyway, if the Turks get to Island one, and there is no no-migration zone in place, then they get rights. This is precisely what way majority Oz citizenry does not want to happen. No rights for getting here. Entry to Oz is not as insignificant as stealing home plate. Or tagging someone. Jeez. It is a serous business and it can and is achieved by thousands every year as refugees. Who fly in.
3. There could be guns, drugs and terrorists on some boats, so it is important not to give up on the policing of the waters and Labor will have coastguard kings to do this.
Well, a no-migration zone is not going to stop Oz citizenry expecting that the gunrunning drug running boats also do not get through. Walking and chewing gum at the same time is something we rather expect of our politicos and if they cannot do that, they do not get our votes.
McLelland is no insane Green zealot. Read the whole thing, cos I've just taken a chunk. Is he worth a vote? Nup.
:: WB 1:57 a.m. [link+] ::
Dripping Sarcasm at the Arab News directed at the Committee for the Prevention of Fun and the Promotion of Stoning.
And check out this followup.
Reckon the 'storm of controversy' included many letters threatening to shred the man's knees for his sarcastic apostasy?
Who cares, but Jeebus, eh? The whole problem is in the date, right?
14 Ramadan 1424.
:: WB 1:22 a.m. [link+] ::
Long but interesting transcript - Johann Hari v George Galloway.
:: Saturday, 1 November 2003 ::
It got me to thinking.
I am pro-democracy now. I never used to give a damn about anywhere on earth except my car, my kitchen and my bedroom. The left was always around to care about that, enough for me and them both. September 11 changes that for me and Bali cements it.
Now the noisy left is isolationist, anti-American, anti-Semitic and cannot give credit that wogs everywhere might like a little liberty in their lives so they are anti-pro-democracy for Iraq and for Afghanistan and for anywhere that Blair and Bush has ever noticed.
The left used to be right. Now they are wrong.
The right used to wrong, now it is right.
If we have really changed places, then do we not have to admit that the otherside was right about this stuff once upon a time?
I know we do not have admit any such thing. But quietly, to myself, I think I have just worked how I can have a beer with Pilger and Fisk.
Cos they used to be right. Now they are wrong as the day is long. But they used to be right?
I know when I got it together to be right about being pro-democracy.
I wonder if they know when they started to go wrong.
:: WB 1:16 a.m. [link+] ::
Quality work over at Cose Turche
This link goes to a post about Islamophobia and how it is a charge used to silence criticism (skippies scroll down for English translation).
This link goes on with it, but extracts from a French feminist site.
Gotta say, I reckon this is all right. Correct. Specially that stuff about language and its twisted use.
I bin pondering this stuff a lot, cos wogs are nothing if not flowery in their use of language. That has been the deal for ever. From Virgil to Alighieri to Calvino.
But there has to be a point when you say what you mean and you mean what you say. And most importantly, the use of language is correct. And that point should be your law: constitution, legislation, regulation.
Get it right. Cos once it is right - boring, clear, precise - arguments can be had about whether it is good or bad. But you never need bother with arguments about what it actually means.
Now your Arabs are the floweriest of all in use of language. And why not? They got a tremendous tradition of poetry - from the Epic of Gilgamesh, to A Thousand and One Nights to the 'mother of all battles'.
Trouble is, that floweriness gets into the law.
So there is a need to argue about what it all means well before you can ever grapple with whether or not it is good or bad.
You gotta read the Oz constitution (brace yourselves - it is boring) and then the Iraqi constitution.
The people and their will is the dull but perfect basis for the Oz constitution.
It is not possible to tell what the basis of the Iraqi constitution is - it just seems to be a pronouncement of rights with constant qualification to laws, but no indication of the philosophy that will drive those laws.
You could drive a bus through it. And I understand Saddam did - and right up over the top of some Iraqis too.
You see, you gotta keep your law clean and clear. The language of it can be grand and stirring. But first and foremost it has to be clean and clear. Grand and stirring does not mean senseless gobbledygook about dignity and God.
Grand and stirring means what is says. "We shall never surrender". Straight up. "Peace in our time". What the fuck does that mean? Another time no peace?
You can keep your flowery stuff for the yartz.
Now, to get back to the posts, to say - criticism means phobia or veil means equality is flowery bullshit.
criticism means that you are critical - that is what it means. Get past that and we can get down to brass tacks - does the criticism make sense and is it valid.
But if you are stuck back arguing about whether or not you are actually criticising - or whether you are being phobic - then you never get to the bit about the actual criticism. The actual solving of the problem, if there is one.
Use is badly and you will never sort out any problems because you'll always be arguing about the meaning.
Like you don't say Stolen Generations when you cannot establish even 1 generation was stolen. You say 'forcibly removed folks'. It is correct. And it does not diminish their situation one iota.
You don't say genocide, when you cannot establish a generation has been killed. You say 'cultural connections lost over time through forcible removal (see above) and failure of the participants to bother to search out and embrace that culture.
And you don't say sorry or reconciliation when wogs have nothing to do with anything to do with Aboriginals.
That misuse of language has held up Aboriginal advancement is Oz, I reckon, for a good 10 years. Bad bad.
Now we got a bigger picture to deal with:
You don't say martyr to describe a person who kills himself in a way that kills others. You say killer.
You don't say militant to describe a person who is a killer and terroriser pure and simple. You say terrorist.
You don't say resistance to describe violent actions against a liberating force. You say violent jackasses who have nothing in common with the Partisans in Italy or the Polish and French and Hungarian Resistances in France during WWII fighting against their oppressors the Germans.
You don't say facile rubbish like 'one man's terrorist is another freedom fighter' to avoid actually calling the terrorists terrorists. You say between these two bunches of folks I pick these guys because they are less violent than those guys and less likely to kill me.
You don't call someone a moderate just because he is standing next to a man who advocates killing, but he is not actually advocating it himself. You call him a appeaser for terrorism.
You don't say that Osama Bin Laden is admirable on some level because he gave up his riches to fight his jihad rubbish as a violent terrorist. You say he is mad bad man who has to be fought.
You don't say a veil is a symbol of culture and religion. You say it is physical imposition that is applied just to women so it must be a symbol of man's culture alone. You say the veil is a symbol of oppression of women, and when women chose to wear it it is a symbol of some women imagining themselves to be more chaste and more worthy than others who do not wear the veil.
You do not say I am afraid of where this country is heading after Sept 11 with civil liberties at risk. You say I am afraid fucked in the head terrorists might kill me in this country or when I am travelling so we had better do something to prevent that.
You don't call criticism censorship.
You don't say wedge politics when you mean that party x has one position and party y has a choice whether to take another position of whether to agree. You say party y has a choice and so do people.
You don't say arselicker when you mean shared point of view and shared conclusions.
And you do not ask 'why do they hate us?' when your folks are attacked in Bali or anywhere else. You don't ask 'what can I do to stop them hating me?'. You ask who did this? And then you go get 'em and you tell you don't give a shit what they think about anything cos they are just killers.
Call it like you see it.
For the really big picture stuff. That stuff is for clarity.
That stuff is for stepping up and speaking clearly.
And before the email box gets plugged with stuff about Howard's weasel words about bulk billing or core promises or whatever. The same applies.
The flowery misleading flattering stuff - your shoes will be ready Tuesday stuff - that is fine. That is life's rich tapestry.
:: WB 5:02 p.m. [link+] ::
Top Interview with Carr on the Sunday show
All about the kerfuffle over Hana Ashrawi and the award of the Sydney Peace Prize to her over objections from some parts of Sydney's Jewish community.
Bottom line, Carr says the approaches to him have been unfailing polite. Simply seeking his views and his thinking as to why he would award a peace prize to Ashrawi. Bottom line, he maintains that the presence of a Palestinian should not excite folks in the way they have been excited.
But while that is nice and it is even right, and it could apply to the Greens - the persence of Bush should not lead you inevitably to undertake a very public wank in Parliament - seems to me that it misses the point.
This Palestinian is one who does not encourage peace. To having her here to get a peace prize is appalling.
Not just having her here. Carr is quite right about that. I could not care less where she is. I am unlikely to bump into her in the back bar of my local pub. She is unlikely to be invited to the Pelham Street burnouts. Any speech she gives is unlikely to take place in my own loungeroom. Ergo, the fact she is here in Oz will not excite me per se.
But the fact she is here to get given a peace prize by an elected representative when she is not peaceful will excite me - enough to blog anyway.
And enough to excite other clear thinkers on this point.
Bob Carr has his view. And it is not the end of the world that Ashrawi gets the prize. But it is a prize given in error in my view and the view of plenty of others.
Robust democracy is right.
But, really, what is the point? It is a suck up to Palestinians in a misguided drive to be even-handed over the P/I battles.
Why be even-handed?
:: WB 3:39 p.m. [link+] ::