:: Tuesday, 28 June 2005 ::
Urgh, I was gonna link to Media Watch, but I do not want to feel polluted.
Ah, my immune systems are up and funcitoning. I should be able to ward off a bad case of BiasedLizJacksonitis.
Here is their coverage of Doug Wood.
Nothing but a snide swipe at the Wood family for going to air with Channel 10 and keeping some editorial control.
They did another story about Iraq coverage.
Put at its simplest, Murdoch papers support the war, Fairfax papers warn that it's not going well.
"...warn that it is not going well."
Liz, ya patrol, ya prolly cannot even see how much your bias is showing in those words.
"Doesn't support the war". That would be the neutral expression to use.
Instead, you give Fairfax a soft pass.
Murdoch papers report good and bad news from Iraq and take an editorial line that sees value in removing Saddam Hussein from power. Fairfax papers report only bad news from Iraq and takes an editorial line that sees no value in removing Saddam Hussein from power.
See how it is done? Patrol.
Anyhoo, Liz and her team of feisty know-nothings put together a piece about Iraq reporting and conclude....
...that Walkley winning Paul McGeogh - he of the Iyad illawi shot 6 or folks in cold blood - is right cos he is in Baghdad.
Where Doug Woods was, as it happens. The man who is not worth respecting cos he sold his story to Channel 10.
Natch she never atchally said that McGeogh rocks. But it is there bold as brass to be understood in this stupid piece.
Urgh. Ya know, I feel like I am coming down with something? I got an ache. Oh doctor, please help me, I'm damaged. I just read the Media Watch website. And linked to it. Yetcht. I can feel a football-sized lugie forming in my lungs.
:: WB 6:20 a.m. [link+] ::
This Harry's Place post is heartfelt and a point of view, albeit flat out wrong wrong to my mind.
The notion that immigrant workers in Europe are a fifth column attempting to capture the continent for Islam is dangerous nonsense.
That doesn't mean however that one shouldn't be on guard against attempts to dilute democracy in order to accomodate Islam or any other religion. Criticising those like Falllaci does not involve being blind to dangers or being reluctant to recognise Islamist ideology for what it is.
In fact it is not only Fallaci who fails to make the distinction between Islam, the religion and Islamism, the political movement. Large sections of the left are reluctant to publicly criticise Islamists because they feel they would be attacking ethnic minorities - like Fallaci they mentally push all Muslims into the Islamist camp and give the reactionaries an assumed leadership position that they not only don't merit but in fact don't have.
If there is to be an anti-Islamist strategy in Europe it should surely be about doing the exact opposite of this - recognising that people of real or nominal Muslim faith are not the property of reactionary ideologues and working to ensure that whatever influence the Islamists do have over European Muslims is broken.
Oriana Fallaci does not differentiate between Islam the religion and Islamism the political movement cos there is not much difference at all. And before youse get all ---oooh, you are like lefties, lumping folks in together, pay attention:
Islam manages every minute of every day. 5 times a day with your arse in the air, up down, turn around, Eid, another Eid, Ramadan, what to wear, who to talk to.
It is way heavier than even the whole Catholic fish-on-Fridays, church on Sundays, stand up, kneel down, turn to your neighbour (oh, no, hang, that last thing is one of them weak Protestant things, yetcht), Saint Francis Day festas. you know?
And as practiced in Italy, in Florence, where La Fallaci is from, Islam in any variety, is a political act. Even benign nice girls being polite while wearing their idiot veils cos their men say their hair is just sooo illegal, is straight up a political act.
The dress is not chic and it is not compulsory. But still it is worn.
The food is better from Florence than anywhere but Allah forbid you should eat a Bistecca Fiorentina cut off the backside of a cow that was slaughtered not facing Mecca.
Not a painting of the Prophet to be seen in a continent filled to the rafters with portaits, nevermind how many religious paintings exist in Florence alone. Beauty is simply not applauded by Muslims the way it is by Italians and others.
Islam the religion is an impenetrable fortress while ever it is practiced 24x7 and publicly instead of 24x7 and privately in the practitioner's own dialogue with God, as Christians have come to do. And whileever it is unable to credit women as equal and beauty as important enough to celebrate publicly.
You can keep the food and even the too-many-religious-festivals but some things are a bottom line if you want to fit in with Italy.
You gotta celebrate women and beauty.
We are talking about a Florentine here. La Fallaci.
I reckon La Fallaci does the world a great service by spitting out her heartfelt views. She is being sued in Italy. By a Muslim convert who wanted to take the crucifixes out of Italian schools.
Yah. Italian schools. That guy.
Doubtless were she publishing sufficiently in Victoria Australia she would be prosecuted there for breaching the recent law prohibiting religious vilification.
The bottom line is that Harry - who is fab - has no real solution while ever he insists on imagining Islam is one thing and political Islam another.
They are the same thing cos Islam is a fortress.
It needs to swing some doors open and I, like La Fallaci, do not mean inviting me in to a mosque to hear Friday prayers whining about Palestine.
That is no invite. That is an attempt to get me to change my position.
I mean swinging the doors open by letting Muslim daughters go bowling without having to cover their heads. And go out with non-Muslim boys.
That is the thing about a fortness.
It is locked from the inside.
:: WB 5:29 a.m. [link+] ::
Brill Bilious Provides Perfect Template
Let's all write to Amnesty as Toby suggests, eh? email@example.com
Please let me know whether Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah, who have been sentenced by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal pursuant to Victoria's religious vilification legislation to engage in enforced political speech, and who also have been banned from engaging in political speech in Victoria and Australia, will be adopted by Amnesty Australia as prisoners of conscience.
Alternately, you might use this as a suggested template: firstname.lastname@example.org
Your stupid law has been put to the test. Those 2 pastors are not playing. You gonna let them go to jail cos some stupid lefty lawyers drafted a stupid new bit of legislation and your stupid politicos passed it, and a bunch of Muslims pounced on it to silence 2 nobody pastors? You gonna let that happen? Fix this shit. Sack the lawyers and repeal the legislation. It is not too late.
:: WB 5:14 a.m. [link+] ::
:: Monday, 27 June 2005 ::
Good grief, Jane Hutcheon, why not just take the camera crew and film yourself sucking off a gypsy, if you luv 'em so much.
Jane's piece tonight is a priceless bit of ABC rubbish.
She declares - no transcript yet - that Michael Howard's action years back in the Conservative leadership of making a bunch of illegal gypsy sites illegal cos they were illegal, was responsibe, get this, for causing an explosion in the gypsy population.
Gypsies forced to breed like rabbits cos their illegal settlements are declared illegal.
Milo, give me strength.
And Jane declares that an influential Lord is in favour of the gypsies. The Lord is a Liberal Democrat Lord - like, wow, natch he likes gypsies. He is an idiot Liberal Democrat Lord - remember they were the party who thought it 'illegal' to remove Saddam Hussein from his filthy strangehold on Iraq.
Nice party. Pah.
Jane is appalled that the tabloid press would be appalled at filthy gypsy camp sites.
Apparently it was the tabloiders who whipped up a frenzy against the gypsies. Bad tabloiders.
Nice gypsies. Alls they want is welfare and plumbing and property-rights-by-stealth and special road rules just for them and their ridiculous carts. Spare me the whole 'oooh, the traditions are ancient and stretch back in time blah blah'. Centuries ago in a centuries old tradition even then, in Italy an old man would cut a sapling down the middle and a boy would pass throgh the hole in order to become an official adult man.
Note to idiots - Italians do not do that anymore. It was charming and stuff. But franky, the saplings could not take it what with the growing numbers of boyz2men. I mean, you take your old fashioned ways and shove 'em if they do not fit nowadays. Just keep the good stuff. Like the gypsy fiddle playing.
Jane interviews the obligatory wet English Anglican priest or pastor or whatever non-Roman Catholic title they give themselves. Natch he likes the gypsies. Never mind the full on clash that comes from lawlessness when it comes up against law. It's all about him.
A more sympathetic portrayal of lawless nutters who have, as their life's philosophy, a contempt of lawful folks who work and pay for their property, I have not seen, since that stupid recent BBC 'Holidays in the Danger Zone:America was here' all about Nicaragua featuring hagiographies of embarrassing 4 foot tall Central American old men proud of themselves for making their country a joke with their Sandinista nonsense.
Jeez Loo Eez. Look at this cover page from the BBC and tell me, in all honesty, that you cannot smell the left-wing stench rising from this steaming pile of anti-American bullshit.
Pardon my language, Andrew Jaspan editor of The Age - I am being awfully coarse.
But really, what is it with these lousy "journalists" who cannot for the life of them put something together which is even handed?
The way to put that Foreign Correspondent show together properly, competently? Pretty simple atchully. Open by explaining the numbers of gypsies and travellers in England, and where they come from.
Having declared that most are Irish, turn to camera wearing a blank expression, and raise right eyebrow.
I mean, Irish. And frikkin' gypsies to boot.
:: WB 4:33 a.m. [link+] ::
See, this is why blogs are good.
First this in Oz. Then, all the way over in America, this.
As Seamus Milne wrote in the Grauniad of Americans on Sept 12, 2003 or closeby, I can say of Andrew Jaspan, today: He does not know how much he is hated.
:: WB 5:04 p.m. [link+] ::
What would we do without Scott Burgess?
I know I would not be reading that rubbish in the Brit leftie press. Puhlease. Thank Jeebus for Scotty.
:: WB 5:02 p.m. [link+] ::
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
If you can read this from the Iraqi Prime Minister, and maintain that Iraq cannot be democratic - you know the argument: you cannot impose democracy with a gun blah blah - then you are an unreconstructed racist. Full stop. End of story. Ho detto tutto.
:: WB 4:54 p.m. [link+] ::
See the SMH dissemble
Douglas Wood's story aired on Channel 10 on Sunday night at 6.30, late programming, and it beat the ABC hands down and came a close second to Channels 7 and 9 with their lightweight Sunday eve fare.
SMH spin? Channel 10 bought a pup. The show was a dud. Because it rated less than a show it was not even up against - a show screened afterwards on Channel 9 featuring Nicole Kidman.
Yah. It is Fairfax.
:: WB 4:47 p.m. [link+] ::
The Norm nails the UN
:: Sunday, 26 June 2005 ::
:: WB 4:44 p.m. [link+] ::
So much happening and none of it making sense
:: Thursday, 23 June 2005 ::
Douglas Woods has been freed from his digusting pig-like captors.
According to Paul McGeogh in the Sydney Morning Herald he was found by accident:
Wood is one of Iraq's more fortunate hostages. He is alive and free only because Iraqi troops, who were not engaged in the search, stumbled across him in captivity.
According to Russell Skelton in The Age the accident theory is garbage:
Hostage Douglas Wood's release was secretly negotiated by Australia about 10 days before he was "accidentally found" by Iraqi troops, The Sunday Age can reveal.
But his freedom was delayed while an elaborate plan was hatched to free him without having to pay $US100,000 ($A130,000) demanded by the criminal gang holding him.
The Sunday Age has learnt that arrangements were made by Australian authorities to fly Mr Wood from Dubai to Australia on an RAAF aircraft as early as June 6, but this was suddenly cancelled without explanation.
Between the two Fairfax newspapers no one is one millimetre closer to knowing the real deal.
What are we meant to do with all this information?
Ignore it, is probably the best course.
:: WB 4:29 a.m. [link+] ::
Work commitments is all. Back on deck this weekend.
:: Thursday, 9 June 2005 ::
:: WB 2:50 p.m. [link+] ::
This is an objectively good thing
:: Wednesday, 8 June 2005 ::
Now the Iraqis should let Doug Wood go.
:: WB 2:36 p.m. [link+] ::
What to do about the crap state of Oz films?
[UPDATED: Sacha is a man.]
Wog solution - sack all the wankers and make movies people want to see.
Sacha Molitorisz of the Sydney Morning Herald has a solution too:
THE WAY FORWARD
Tax overseas movies and reinvest in the local industry
Subsidise the upkeep of domestic art houses
Share costs and risk with film/TV co-production
Institute tax breaks for feature filmmakers
Focus on substance, not the bottom line
Don't make Hollywood clones - address your own culture
Promote - funding is only the beginning
I shall paraphrase;
Funding funding funding and stop worrying about whether there is even an audience for this funded shite.
You have got to read this article.
It is the single most misguided stupid approach to the malaise of Oz film making ever written.
Mille Grazie, wog, you have completely misunderstood the country you live in.
He reckons, get this, we gotta be like Germany and France.
Ooh, oooh, why not throw Italy in to the mix, Sacha? And Spain too? You got a problem with them countries Sacha?
What Sacha actually means is that Oz, as an English speaking nation, has little to learn from the British and American cinema industries, after all, they are just industries inside english speaking democratic countries enjoying vastly similar cultural history.
And Americans are eevil anyway. Hollyweird, you know the drill. He does not write it but it is dripping from the page.
Nothing to learn there, eh?
And no possibility of cross-cultural ties expanding the potential audience for our films, eh?
What a maroon.
The concept of english speaking stuff being good is not explored by Sacha til the very end of her piece and then it is left to a quote from a wog - asian director Wong Kar-wai.
Absolutely zero analysis of the crap wankerdom of Oz film making and how most writers have their heads up their arses and would not know an interesting story to tell if they fell over it.
Sacha gives a list at the end of his piece of Oz films coming up at the Sydney Film Festival and others.
I ask you, does even one of them sound interesting?
Take a minute.
Yeah, I did not think so.
Once again, for the hard of thinking - make good movies. Make it worth $12 for a punter to spend two hours in the dark watching the movie.
Do not make punters pay twice - first with their taxes and then agan with a ticket price.
And for goodness sake do not make them pay three times, by bumping up the ticket price so part of it can be kept for even more funding.
Jeez louise, if you are gonna have that 'hand out' attitude why bother making the movies at all - why not just pay Oz's untalented writers and actors to not make crap. That would be achieve a perfect balance - the arts wankers would make a living and Oz punters would not have to be embarrassed by the crap of the Oz film industry.
Funding is the problem. Too much of it with no accountability to audiences at all.
We do not even feature in Sacha's "analysis".
I think there should be an amnesty - any Oz film which is boring and not watched by Oz punters should entitle the punters of Oz to find the film maker, the actors and actresses (look I am using gener - how European of me)in the film and the agents of those folks, plus the folks in the film funding place....
...and beat them in the street
without fear of criminal or civil prosecution.
Complain about cruelty all you like, but you know deep in your heart that the folks responsible for The Bank - an unwatchable joke of an anti-corporate movie - and Three Dollars - more of the exactly the same - would not make the mistake a third time.
In fact, ya know, I think i just done a synopsis for a movie that I would actually wanna see - a movie about beating movie makers.
:: WB 2:35 p.m. [link+] ::
"The business I'm in just went out of business"
:: Saturday, 4 June 2005 ::
Here is The Times obituary of Anna Maria Italiano, aka Anne Bancroft, really top actress.
Incredibly the obit neglects to mention one of her bestest performances, as the wonderful wife of craazy Jack Lemmon in The Prisoner of Second Avenue and the line above is one of the bestest delivered lines in the movie business, I do reckon.
"I banged for you. Why won't you bang for me?"
I say 'incredibly' about The Times cos they are famous for their obits. But this one is flat. Still it is nice to remember all the good stuff Annie done in her career.
I never was a big fan of the Mrs Robinson stuff. Always preferred that line "Put your money in plastic, boy" or whatever. Plus the car, natch.
Anyhoo, vale a lovely lovely AmerItalian actress.
:: WB 2:23 p.m. [link+] ::
Terrific Post on the EU Referendums in France and Holland voting 'No'
By wonderful Harry.
:: WB 6:21 p.m. [link+] ::
Congratulations to the SBS
This week they finallly programmed some shows that fully support the liberation of Afghanistan after September 11, by the Americans and sundry other international allies including Oz.
This is quite a coup for the SBS who have been relentlessly programming every bit of footage they can get to slam the Americans about Iraq and everything else as well.
They screened a show called Afghan Alphabet which was an hour of watching full burqa'ed girls telling how Mullah Omar forbids them to show their faces, and finally one appallingly covered girl gives up to relentless nagging and shows her face to the class. It was moving. But pathetic.
Needless to say the Sydney Morning Herald's teevee critic sees the US as part of the problem. Exsqueeze me, but Mullah Omar is the problem morning noon and night, okay?
It was followed by the film Kanhahar, made by the same fellow who made the Afghan Alphabet. Totally weird and without laughter, like much woggy film making. Revealing yet more about the horrors of a backwood society which treats its women like shit.
Natch the SMH review cannot just name the problem. Not online so I will quote:
See it and rage against the wilful insanity - and those in whose name it is perpetrated.
Just name them, you wanker. You only have to remember two names so name them and do not hjide being "those" which is a cop out and code for "US too":
Mullah Omar and the Taliban.
I feel energised in my loathing for Islamic retards who think women have to be covered and kept oppressed.
:: WB 5:57 p.m. [link+] ::
Maginifico Matt Welch hits an atypical sour note with this thesis.
At a time when Washington is passing laws to intervene in individual medical cases, and self-described federalists want to amend the Constitution itself to prevent individual states from experimenting with marriage laws, "Deadwood's" skepticism of government and celebration of individuality couldn't be timelier. And its viciously profane yet pragmatic demonstrations of tolerance feel more stiff-spined and American than an anti-defamation industry that has been enthusiastically adopted by the same conservatives who once mocked it.
A filthy cesspool filled with cowardice and uncontrolled violence where all the women are treated like shit, run by a two bit mafioso with a crazy religious man thrown in for good measure and Brad Dourif a better actor than all of the others put together with an embarrassing Carradine as Wild Bill Hickock?
Apart from the fact it is unwatchable for any length of time without thinking of Ian McShane as Lovejoy and taking it up the ass in that embarrassing Kubrick Kidman Eyes Wide Shut rubbish, the real deal is that this actually is where the Democrats are heading.
Empty violence and cursing mistaken for art. (The Turett's Syndrome use of 'fucker' and 'cocksucker' at every turn is boring. Boring, alright, not to mention factually bullshit.)
Repulsive violence and dupicity mistaken for ballsy character. (Al Swearengen should be shot. By one of his awfully mistreated whores if by no one else.)
Unforgiveable self-congratulations and accompanying cowardice mistaken for girtty real life. (The Calamity Jane role is drawn as a psychiatrist's wet dream of horror femo-masculine behavior and weak-kneed girlie fear in the presence of an unarmed Al Swearengen. Jane was a shooter, for Cripes sake. This appalling show has castrated her.)
The Democrats are not Deadwood. But headed there.
Where they already are at, but, isCarnevale, that show about.......um, I think the devil, but, um, there was fat slag and some murders and a blind guy, and, um.....oh yeah, a midget.
A trainwreck of a teevee show about freaks and horror that made no sense at all, starring, if you can believe it without spitting, Adrienne Barbeau.
That is your Democrats right there.
B-grade and pointless, with no tether to the earth and reality at all. Anarchy. Madness.
If they ever get to adopting the Deadwood approach of perfectly sane anachy, venal and violent with the blah blah rugged individualism thing, they will be steppin' up.
At least it is an attempt at revealing actual history, however earnest and misguided. Far as I can tell the Democrats are mired in fantasy where all judges have to come from the ACLU and Robert Byrd, former Klansman Kleagle or whatever, is a respectable figure, and John Kerry, the horsefaced horse's ass, is a credible candidate for President.
:: WB 4:45 p.m. [link+] ::
More Sunday Shows
The super dooper fabulous Noel Pearson is on the ABC Insiders and he has just smacked down the imbecility of folks like Pat Dodson - Dodson has apparently said of the proposals to grant leaseholds to Aboriginals on native title lands recently 'the elevation of the individual over the community and over traditions forged for 50 thousand years' or some such.
Noel is polite and diplomatic. He says he sees no conflict between individuality and community.
He's got that right.
I mean, g'uh.
It is perfectly possile to be your own person, and to be part of a community.
Cripes, every nation on earth has grappled with this and found a balance.
And Aboriginals can too. They just can. And they will.
And when they do no thanks will be due to Pat Dodson, a foolish man who mistakes collectivism and community for culture.
Collectivism is just a away of organising. It is not culture. It is habit. There is a difference.
And if I am wrong and there is no difference, then the Abos have got themselves some lousy culture. That can be fixed, but. Harder to do, but doable.
:: WB 4:19 p.m. [link+] ::
Just caught Mandy Vanstone on the Channel 10. She was being challenged on immigration stuff by some coke-bottle-eyed and I will wager fat assed feminist journo (you can just tell she is a feminist by the too slutty shade of lipstick and the short yet somehow filthy looking hair, you know?) and Brian Tooehy.
The girlie declared the immigration department a 'shambles' cos of Cornelia Rau and Vivian Alvarez Williams Solon Shabadoo, or whatever her many names are.
Mandy smacked down the 'shambles'. It is as excessive and stupid a reference as is gulag to Guanatano Bay by the imbecilic Irene Khan of Amnesty internation.
It is not a 'shambles' if most everything goes right. It is a problem and a failure but hardy a 'shambles.
Then Toohey launches into habeus corpus.
A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences.
He was obviously referring to the fact that some folks in mandatory detention, who have entered Australia without legal authority and have been caught out at this illegal activity which spits on our law, are being held quite legally without being able to go anyplace else cos no one else wants them.
Or maybe he was not.
After all, like most worthie luvvies he confuses legal detention and persistent detention at the election of the detainee as a result of continued legal appeals, with a habeus corpus matter.
Mandy did not smack this down hard enough. I am guessing that this is because there are not enuff hours in the day, days in a year etc to ever explain to a close-minded leftie, that it is no bad thing to lock up folks who shit on our law.
Even if they have little kiddies with them.
And before youse fill the email box with expletive laden rubbish about how you are shocked, shocked, that as a wog I have so little sympathy with wogs of other stripes who are in detention, ask yourself what the hell you mean?
Is that what you think of all wogs? That we are all just illegal and here only cos of your largesse, your luvviness, the largesse and luvviness of our skippy overlords?
We're here cos we are Australians too.
Then she was asked - how come 2 Aboriginal folks turned their backs on you at your speech this week? To which she politely lied and said she had not noticed them, thus closing off the question.
But the real answer would have been "How the hell would I know? Maybe they do not like fat white chicks. It is not as if turning your back is particuarly communicative of an idea or concept or suggestive of a solution for change. It is just a selfish petulant 'look-at-me-look-at-my-back' gesture that gets us precisely nowhere."
Reconciliation as it gets treated in the media is so earnest and boring. I mean, fancy asking about the two folks with their backs turned, and not asking about the hundreds who sat up straight and listened and had stuff to say.
That was one dud panel, Pauly Bongiorno - you know it. Never ever have that dull woman or Brian Toohey on again.
Anyhoo, next on the show was a unbuhleevable boring union hack called Bill Shorten.
What a tedious and earnest n........
Oh, pardon me. I nodded off. Something about how the tax cuts are unfair and rich people who pay a lot of tax should not get a tax cut cos poor people .....oh, I cannot fathom such rubbish. And the questions were few and far between although I think, through my sleepy eyes, Toohey might have said something about 'four elections lost in a row, is it not time to pull the finger out' about the Labor party.
But he was talking to a union hack.
If that doesn't make your eyes glaze over, you are made of stronger stuff than me.
Now, off to the other shows.
:: WB 3:49 p.m. [link+] ::