Civil authorities appear manifestly incapable of responding to this scale of destruction and all available assets of the US military should be used to start the disaster remediation process. The first act should be to declare that looters will be arrested without warrant and treated to the harshest possible punitive measures. Desperate acts aside, there is enough assistance to keep these people alive until they can get their lives back on track again. The pictures of looters ransacking businesses displayed the opportunistic whims of those who prey on the frailties of human misery with reckless abandon.
Societies and communities are built upon principles designed to keep the individuals and larger groups safe, secure and able to life in relative prosperity. Once these entities get pressured from external influences such as natural disaster, war, economic downturns etc, the usual response is a gathering of resources and marshalling the available assets to rebuild and move on. Looting and other such behaviours fracture this trust, and lead to a breakdown of the very qualities that keep groups cohesive and functioning.
Looting in time of wars past was punishable by death. Clearly that level of threat has been removed, and now exposes the weakness inherent in the system. If there is a weakness or a niche that can be exploited, then the craven amongst us will do so. The threat of death has been removed, and they know that if caught, they can argue stress, necessity or temporary insanity as a causative ameliorative. It's just not true. The looters know exactly what they are doing, preying on the vulnerable, the weak, the defenceless. People's livelihoods that may have survived one of the worst natural storms in living memory are now prone to looting by disgusting examples of humanity.
Solution? Large signs around the city and wide spread radio and TV announcements that looters will be shot on sight. Hostile situations deserve hostile responses. Problem solved.
Cross posted at Bastards Inc.
Islamic cleric Nacer Benbrika has been kidnapped and bashed, fuelling fears of a co-ordinated hate campaign against the nation's radical Muslims. Melbourne
The Australian understands that Mr Benbrika - who has described Osama bin Laden as a great man - was kidnapped and bashed last week by two carloads of men wearing balaclavas.
Mr Benbrika is said to believe that the attack was ordered by ASIO or the Australian Federal Police, a claim that has been denied by authorities. The assault, which ended in Mr Benbrika being treated in hospital, came less than 48 hours after former terror suspect Mamdouh Habib claimed he was stabbed in a
park, also by hooded assailants... Sydney
This is pure, unmitigated bullshit put forward by muslim pigs (both Benrika and Habib) to maintain that they are the victims. And the same scum around the world made false claims after 9/11 and the London bombings as well.
Yeah, ASIO are just going to drop them off back home so they can alert the police right away. And as stated in the article, any ASIO/AFP teams on surveillance would have intervened had they witnessed the attack. That says to me there was no attack.
And even if there was an attack, we all know it would be a set up. Get some of their fellows to rough them up a bit so they can run to the media with their bruises and show they are the victims.
As I stated earlier, this is nothing but unmitigated bullshit.
And let's just pretend for a moment that it is all true and it was ASIO behind it - I must say how disappointed I am in ASIO that both these two terrorists are still breathing after their "attacks". Knowing how hard it is to get into ASIO, I would expect better.
On the other side of the fence, Palestinians were celebrating, dancing and brandishing automatic weapons, Hamas and other extremists run free, proclaiming victory (by using terror) over Israel, promising more bombs and bloodshed, one suicide bomber did manage to get through since the withdrawal.
According to Victor Davis Hanson, (not his exact words), the pullout is strategic, ceding hard-to-defend ground in favour of 'digging in', in easily defended positions; the fence is being strengthened and lengthened, not dismantled. VDH offers that now Israel can sit back and say to the world and Palestinians, there you go, you can have your land back, do what you want with it, stuff it up all you want, just don't come back and blame us (the occupation) for it.
To the rest of us in the world it should be obvious, the Israelis are tired of being blown up, tired of a safe and secure world pressuring them to negotiate with terrorists. If anyone has not noticed, the Palestinians have returned the gesture of peace by calling for more bloodshed and proclaiming their terror tactics have worked. Supporters of the Palestinian cause can no longer continue to excuse the bombing of Israeli buses as desperate tactics of a defenceless people.
Bloggers, please offer your opinions on the matter, I think Sharon has figured out you can't talk to terrorists and you can't keep fighting them forever, so why not fence them off and ignore them.
The forecourt of Customs House was transformed into a colourful carnival with dance music and drums blasting throughout the tourist district. A spokesman for the protest organisers, the 30A Network, said demonstrators were angry that delegates were paying $5000 a head for tonight's dinner while millions of people went hungry.
"We are here today to express that anger not with violence," the spokesman told the crowd. "We are here in loud, peaceful protest."
About 1000 police have been mobilised to protect more than 350 of the world's leading corporate executive attending the Forbes Global CEO Conference.
The 30A Network - an anti-globalisation alliance of left-wing activists, green groups and anti-war protesters - has vowed to conduct peaceful demonstrations to highlight concerns about working conditions, the environment, the war in Iraq, human rights and Third World debt.
A spokesman for the group, Bruce Knobloch, said today he expected "many thousands" of protesters to descend on the Opera House to voice their disgust at the Australian Government's support for the free-market agenda.
"It's to make more people awake to what the Howard Government's policies are going to look like in the future," Mr Knobloch said. "Forbes stands for free-market extremism, no labour regulations, no environmental regulations." The delegates, he said, "are free-market freaks and they've been influential in setting government policy".
Well so much for the peaceful protests, I suppose the 'barricade' started it. From the reports I have heard during the day about the brave millions, oops hundreds, gathered under the brutal watch of the NSW Police Force, its not just about globalisation, its Australia's detention policy, Industrial Relations, war in Iraq, redistribution of wealth (not sure if they have modelled this on Robert Mugabe's policies in Zimbabwe), global warming etc.
The fatcat CEOs must be wondering what all this has to do with the bottomline. If the protestors are upset about the cost of the affair, they can feel free to protest to the state labour government on behalf of the NSW taxpayer.
From the footage I saw on the TV, there was dancing, placard waving, catchy songs and other such left wing activities. Contrary to earlier claims of thousands turning out, just a few hundred seem to have made it for the festivities, I thought the hated Howard government was still to eliminate voluntary unionism and hence stem the flow of funds for these festivities, maybe the left wing groups are starting to face reality and are already 'tightening the belts'.
One thing is clear, the CEOs will attend convene, talk, dine, party etc; the protestors will have a good time, make a lot of noise, provide some entertainment, create some work for the Police, achieve nothing; until the next event.
Ulema in Saudia Arabia have issued a fatwa (religious decree) declaring football an un-Islamic sport, and have urged the youth to quit it immediately, BBC radio reported on Saturday.Urge the youth to indulge in jihad and other constructive activities? Am I missing something here?
According to the report, the clerics urged the youth to indulge in jihad and other constructive activities that could help the Muslim ummah, the radio reported. The ulema argued that football wastes a lot of time and the participants wear shorts, which they said was an un-Islamic dress, the radio reported.
Meanwhile authorities have noticed an increase in the number of youth being used in suicide attacks.
On Monday afternoon, security forces arrested a 14-year-old Palestinian at the Hawara checkpoint north of Nablus, caught attempting to smuggle three pipe bombs.So let me get this straight. Football is un-Islamic but encouraging your children to blow themselves to itty bitty bits is okay? These animals don't deserve children.
In June alone, security forces arrested 15 Palestinian minors at West Bank checkpoints caught attempting to smuggle items.
At A Western Heart, every time you click on "comments", there's a message that says "Nonsensical comments and trolling will result in something you may not expect." I'm sorry that James and I were unable to follow that line as we deleted Patrick's ability to post, as he surely would have expected us to eventually block him from the site.
However, equating Stalin's repressive, authoritarian brand of an already repressive ideology with the very movement that fought - somewhat aggressively - against it is an idea that belongs on Indy Media, not A Western Heart. McCarthy understood the threat of communism. And the very history that Patrick seems to think we are doomed to repeat shows that McCarthy was mostly right on one count, and right on the other count that mattered. From his WikiPedia entry:
Though McCarthy's specific charges were unsubstantiated, material unearthed in Russian archives after the fall of the Soviet Union has proven that his general charge (that Communist spies had infiltrated the federal government) was true. The American Communist Party (CPUSA) was in the pay of the Soviet Union. Communist spies included Julius Rosenberg and Theodore Hall, who gave nuclear secrets to the Soviets, Alger Hiss, who became Secretary General to the founding charter conference of the United Nations, and Harry Dexter White, who was the founding head of the International Monetary Fund.So he's mostly right there, he just didn't have all the exact minute details. One could say that by saying Stalinism killed 20 million people you are mostly right, you just can't get the exact number. It's not something you have to be pedantic about. On the other count, McCarthy recognised the threat of communism, and history again proved he was right. Communism chalked up body counts like a never-ending Golan and Globus production. Consider the 100 million dead according to this book, Patrick, and then you might understand why McCarthy was so desperate to rid the United States of communism.
Patrick's posts will remain on the site as a reminder of why he won't be posting here again.
McCarthyism was the US incarnation of cultural and political forces that in the Soviet Union took shape in the form of Stalinism.
In the 1950s, the USSR felt itself threatened, encircled by the forces of its capitalist enemies and at risk of facing a war even more savage than the recently concluded Patriotic War (known as the Second World War in the West) against Nazism. Stalin, who was a man with deep psychological problems, reacted to this threat by taking steps he thought would strengthen the USSR internally, to make it ready to face this new, nuclear-armed enemy.
Stalin developed a strong nuclear capacity of his own - and he purged all enemies of the state, as he called them. He persecuted, imprisoned and killed anyone who was not totally with him or who could provide an alternative locus of power. Thousands died and tens of thousands, if not millions, suffered because of this mania for internal security at all costs, verging on the psychotic.
These same forces were at play in the USA, but, because of cultural, historical and personal differences - Truman and Eisenhower were nothing like Stalin - the way they manifested in the USA, McCarthyism, differed - it was less malignant, more neurotic than psychotic.
The focus in the USA was, as in the USSR, on finding and removing or neutralising individuals who were seen as a threat to internal cohesion in the face of a great external threat. The steps taken to effect this, thankfully for residents of the USA at the time, were not as drastic as Stalin's.
People were purged, yes, removed from positions of responsibility or even prevented from working all together. This happened to many, across public services and in the world of entertainment, in particular. There were deaths causeMcCarthyarthy and his cronies, but not many and always by means of suicide, not through state sanctioned killing.
With all these differences, Stalinism and McCarthyism were phenomena of a similar character, attempts to purge the body politic of the presence of the other, of the enemy alien, real or imagined. With the wisdom of hindsight, both phenomena are judged to have been wrong, ill-judged, evil. Those who participated or colluded with the main perpetrators have been judged harshly - rightly, in my opinion.
Those of us who nowadays are focusing on the threat posed by another class of enemy alien, real or imagined, should be mindful of how history will judge us, if we get it wrong.
'I believe that George lied and he knew he was lying. He didn't use patriotic rhetoric. He lied and made us afraid of ghosts that weren't there. Now he is using patriotic rhetoric to keep the US military presence in Iraq — patriotic rhetoric that is based on greed and nothing else.
Now I am being vilified and dragged through the mud by the righties and so-called “fair and balanced” mainstream media who are afraid of the truth and can't face someone who tells it by telling any truth of their own. Now they have to twist, distort, lie, and scrutinise anything I have ever said when they never scrutinise anything that George Bush said or is saying.'
What an opportunity to bash the United States. The editor of the Watermelon Weekly has clearly demonstrated a willingness to print anything if it vaguely resembles an anti-US stance. Venezualan nut case Chavez gets a free platform to spruik, in the words of Imre Salusinszky, bullshit.
'I believe it is time that we take up with courage and clarity a political, social, collective and ideological offensive across the world — a real offensive that permits us to move progressively, over the next years, the next decades, leaving behind the perverse, destructive, destroyer, capitalist model and go forward in constructing the socialist model to avoid barbarism and beyond that the annihilation of life on this planet.
I believe this idea has a strong connection with reality. I don’t think we have much time. Fidel Castro said in one of his speeches I read not so long ago, “tomorrow could be too late, let’s do now what we need to do”. I don't believe that this is an exaggeration. The environment is suffering damage that could be irreversible — global warming, the greenhouse effect, the melting of the polar ice caps, the rising sea level, hurricanes — with terrible social occurrences that will shake life on this planet.'
Philosophical disagreements aside, I think Hugo the Wonder Dog is onto something. Illicit drugs. Why is that the Giggling Lunatic Wankers of the GLW persist in their struggle? They lose money keeping their propaganda sheet in the black. More like red now, how ironic. The wider public are cynical of their motives and hostile to their agenda. Politically they have been proven to be a failed method. Pragmatically, the Green Left Weekly are gamely resorting to the eventual outcome of failed states, ideas and people everywhere. Handouts.
They may have survived for the next 12 months financially. How long before this waste of pressed paper ends up recycled as toilet paper, it's rightful role.
Cross posted at Bastards Inc.
I will start with Europe, my birthplace and spiritual home. Again and again, the conservative media, think tanks and assorted others get stuck into Europe and Europeans. The attack alternates between a contemptuous dismissal of Europe as as a has-been power and an equally contemptuous portrayal of Europe as a disunited, incoherent and directionless polity.
I differentiate between these lines of argument because I see the latter used differently from the former - Europe is tainted with those accusations when it takes a position that is not identical to that adopted by the USA. The "has-been" line is used when Europe does not take a position at all.To those who say that Europe is no longer relevant, that it is a spent power or a hopeless romantic dream held by the elites and ignored by the masses of its citizens, I say: read a book.
I don't mean just any book, although a broader reading list might benefit some on the right whose grasp of literature is weak indeed - or so it seems if one judges by the quality of their arguments and of their writing.
What I mean is, read this book, Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century, by Mark Leonard. You can get it from Amazon ( I don't get a percentage, rest assured).Who is Mark Leonard? Mark Leonard is a former Director of the Foreign Policy Centre and one of Britain's best-known foreign policy thinkers. He has spent time in the USA, which is where he wrote the book, while on a "Transatlantic Fellowship" at the German Marshall Fund in Washington DC.
The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) is a non-partisan American public policy and grantmaking institution dedicated to promoting greater cooperation and understanding between the United States and Europe.
GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working on transatlantic issues, by convening leaders to discuss the most pressing transatlantic themes, and by examining ways in which transatlantic cooperation can address a variety of global policy challenges. In addition, GMF supports initiatives to strengthen democracies.
Here is a couple of views on Leonard's book, from influential reviewers.Robert Kagan, author of Of Paradise & Power, "Fluid and original, this is an important and enjoyable book for anyone who cares about the future of Europe."Jonathan Rauch, National Journal, "Cheekily tweaking the neoconservative Project for the New American Century, Leonard predicts 'the emergence of a 'New European Century'."
The thesis put forward by Leonard is simple enough. Europe is the first network polity in a networked century. The USA is an industrial empire that thrives on industrial and military supremacy under considerations whose influence is waning.America's centralised, bureaucratised (the US public service would have to be one of the worst and most expensive in the world!) militarised supremacy, Leonard argues, has become so overwhelming that it has defeated everything, including itself.
It can impose its military power far and wide - but when its back is turned its potency wanes. Europe's reach, by contrast, is broad and deep, spreading a value system from Albania to Zambia. Europe draws other countries into its orbit rather than seeking to define itself against them, and as they come under the influence of its laws and customs they are changed forever.
The European model is so influential, among those who understand it, that it is already being copied by the rising power in the world, China. China is emulating Europe's example and reaping great political and economic returns.
It is a short book, not a taxing read. Get it, read it, critique it.
But a bitter row over the right to display sponsors' signs in schoolyards has erupted between parents – and the Education Department is struggling to find a solution.
For payment of $500 each, the P&C committee allowed 10 businesses to have advertising signs displayed in the school grounds. And space has been left for eight more potential sponsors. The scheme – which earns the school $5000 a year – has provided extra reading materials for the school's 510 children.
While the signs were approved by the Department of Education and Training and the school community, the P&C Federation said the arrangements breached its policy on sponsorships. It is understood at least one parent has complained about the presence of McDonald's on the signs.
Federation president Sharryn Brownlee said the policy banned advertising in all public schools. "That's the rule . . . there are 2250 [school] sites and if we have that number of sites with promos and marketing and advertising it's a bad message," Ms Brownlee said. "If you are selling advertising then the next thing you could be selling anything at a school.
"[Students] are a captive market, they're impressionable minds and that's why we have a policy against it.
Other government schools also have entered sponsorship deals with local businesses and display their advertising signs. Agreement usually is reached within the school community but the arrangements have to comply with council and department regulations.
Advertising in public schools to raise funds should not be the first option, preferably the funding should come from the government, but in this case the government is cash strapped and the kids need the extra funds. I'm happy for them to raise funds in this way as it means us, the taxpayer, does not have to foot the bill.
If we are so concerned about the effects of advertising material on 'impressionable minds', then we better switch off the TV, turn off the radio, throw out the computer, don't have a post box or phone, blindfold our kids, go into the room and all curl into the foetal position for the rest of our lives. Don't get me wrong I am as tired as the next person, of advertising, everywhere you turn, its an ad for something or someone trying to sell you something, but thats free markets and sometimes is actually quite useful, I hope we have learnt to cope with it.
Kids are impressionable but they are not stupid, I'm sure the kids will not be shocked and horrified when they discover the existence of one burger franchise called Mcdonalds and its jovial clown Ronald, oh my how did they miss that in all these years.
The complaining parent can always exercise their democratic right NOT to associate with the EEEVIL-CORPORATION and their clown.
Bush administration officials Tuesday dismissed Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as the remarks of a private citizen, but Venezuela accused Robertson of promoting terrorism.Of course, some left-wingers - namely Media Matters - think that Robertson should retract his comments:
A liberal media watchdog group Tuesday called on Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson to retract statements he made calling for the U.S. to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.Now while I should stress again I don't agree with Robertson, Media Matters have missed the point on so many marks that they should be forced to redo primary school comprehension:
On the Monday edition of his show "The 700 Club," Robertson said Chavez should be killed, because "it's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war." Media Matters for America President and CEO David Brock called Robertson's comments "an irresponsible use of the public airwaves.
"Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of a foreign leader is an irresponsible use of the public airwaves, as well as a call for the Bush administration to violate the executive order banning assassination," said Brock in a statement. "Responsible news outlets should think twice before providing him a platform from which to peddle his inappropriate and inaccurate claims."
1. There's nothing inaccurate about Robertson's statement: killing Chavez with an assassination is cheaper than starting a war. How much has Iraq cost? And how much would it have cost to get a group of stealth operatives in there and shoot Saddam? Exactly.
2. Pat Robertson's show, The 700 Club, is on the Christian Broadcasting Network. That's not a news outlet, let alone a "responsible news outlet". Brock is probably talking about ABC Family, who also run The 700 Club, but they don't show any more news than the lawn bowls channel. So Brock's claims are at the very least poorly researched efforts at incriminating ABC network via a sister channel, and more likely to be typical Media Matters exaggeration in order to achieve a story.
I also seem to remember lefties not having the same problem when Air America's Randi Rhodes - twice - ran skits in which President Bush gets assassinated. Rhodes even laughed after the second one. Both Rhodes and Robertson's actions are wrong. Only one side of politics appears to avoid the double standard on this issue.
(Cross-posted to The House Of Wheels.)
Having just returned from interstate, I begin to see that what I have always feared will, as usual, turn out to be 100% correct. It will take a full blown terrorist attack in a major Australian city and hundreds if not thousands of deaths before enough people pull their heads out there arses and wake up to what needs to be done.
We have our PM wasting time and money by holding a terrorism summit and then inviting the very terrorists (and more to the point, those who defend and protect them at every opportunity - such as those claiming the September 11 attack was a Jewish plot) that the summit is meant to come up with methods to defeat.
I would have run the summit as follows:
Personnel from ASIO, the AFP, and the SAS, would round up all these “moderate” muslim leaders and clerics in the middle of the night and take them to some undisclosed location. There it would be explained to them that they will actively seek and provide information as to who the extremists in their societies are, and when/where/what/how they are operating/planning. They are to do this as soon as they have any information that might indicate some extremists are operating in their societies. Failure to do this, or failure to do this before we find out this information, will result in their lives being made very unpleasant by gentlemen such as those who had brought them to the summit. They would then be told to go back to their societies and spread the word about this new, non-negotiable arrangement.
Anyway, there I was having my hand luggage scanned, and the only one monitoring the screen and seeing what was in all our bags was a young muslim woman. Now granted, she herself is probably a low terrorist risk (but as those palestinian pigs have illustrated, that is not always the case) but that is not what I am getting at.
Given that women are treated like shit by muslims, how hard is it to conceive of her husband/father/brother/uncle/cousin coming up to her with a group of his mates and saying “We plan to hijack plane. We come through when you on shift. We have weapons in hand luggage. You let us through or we rape and kill you.”?
Hell, not even a family member. What’s to stop any muslim coming up to her and threatening to kill her and her family if she doesn’t help them? Given that muslims the world over haven’t shown the slightest interest in helping us infidels root out terrorists amongst them, are we to believe she would be any different, especially when facing torture and death herself if she doesn’t do as she is told?
I only noticed one would-be terrorist on my flight and was glad to have my stainless steel pen in my bag as it makes for a suitable stabbing implement in a pinch – especially around the soft flesh of the neck and throat (assuming any sky marshals that might have been on board didn’t get to him first) but it turns out I didn’t need it.
We get told of all this money being spent on upgrading security at our airports and yet there is this glaring security risk. Something as simple as having one of the two guys putting the luggage on the conveyer belt into the scanner around the other side watching the screen as well - both to keep an eye on this woman but also in general to watch the screen in case she (or anyone else) does accidentally overlook something could alleviate this.
It is stupid things like that which make me believe it is going to take an attack to snap people into the mindset they need to be in to actually win this fight.
Because who do you talk to? And what do you talk about? Which of course leads into the most obvious question: what on earth is the point?
Islamic group blames Iraq troopsResentment? Resentment about what? What’s the gripe, then? Seriously? One says this, the other says that: a grab bag of who the hell knows what. And we’re to take any of this even moderately seriously? What the hell is wrong with these people?
AUSTRALIA'S military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan was the primary cause of alienation of the Muslim community, one group attending today's terrorism summit said.
. . .
But another conference delegate, Yasmin Khan, founder of the Queensland Islamic welfare group I-CARE, said Australian involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan was only partly responsible for Muslim resentment. "I don't know that you could necessarily say, `Well, let's pull our troops out of Iraq and everything is going to be fine tomorrow,"' she said to ABC radio.
A conference participant, however, puts my concerns fairly effectively:
"That's part of it and I don't necessarily think that that's just exclusive to Muslims either. There are plenty of white mainstream Australians that are saying pull our troops out.I think the last sentence says it all. And I’m most curious to hear from any stray Lefties out there: what would you be prepared to do? How much are you prepared to concede in the name of ‘peace’ (assuming you even get it, which is far from guaranteed, given the rate at which Muslims tend to kill each other, let alone us nasty Infidels)? And who are you going to listen to. And why?
"Let's not just brand the one cure that is going to fix it all for us. That is a small part of it."
'COLOGNE, Germany, Aug. 20 -- Addressing Muslim leaders in Germany, Pope Benedict XVI delivered the strongest rebuke of terrorism of his nearly four-month-old papacy, asking Muslims to join Christians in trying to combat its spread and "turn back the wave of cruel fanaticism" behind it.'
It just sounds stupid when you try to put a "moderate" [Ed: Scare quotes are out already] Muslim leader into this role. I'm sure they all sat there and nodded for the cameras, but were thinking of ways to subvert the message, or counter it's effect on the estimated 3.5 million walking bombs in Germany. Not being able to read German, I have been unable to find a news report of ANY Muslim leader condemning the single man charged with a crime over the Septermber 11 2001 suicide bombings in the US.
Imagine the Dalai Lama being lectured by a local imam to give up his vicious reign of terror and fanaticism? Neither can I. The Pope's message although admirable, will fall on heads more accustomed to the exhorting of a violent end to western society.
Cross posted at Bastards Inc.
"GREENS candidate for Chatsworth Elissa Jenkins has accused the Labor party of deliberately trying to deceive the voting public by handing out confusing how-to-vote cards. Ms Jenkins, who's fate will be decided during one of two Queensland by-elections today, said the ALP cards looked the same as the Greens, but with one important difference.
"They look the same as the Greens, but they're sort of saying if you're thinking of voting Green make sure you put Labor second," she said. Ms Jenkins said the Greens were livid about what they saw as a deception, because they adamantly did not want their preferences to go to the ALP. In fact, they didn't want anyone to profit from their preferences."
The Greens candidate may have even had a chance, that is if the seat was Maleny and not in a suburban area that hates hippies and agitprops at the best of times. What is not surprising is the level of deception that Beattie will stoop to defect attention from an issue that will possibly damage his government even more.
"The Labor Party produced a card which said vote 1 for the Greens which is all they're recommending, if you're worried about the environment vote 2 for Labor. I think that's fair enough, I mean we're not asking people to vote us first if they vote green, we're simply saying if you vote green give us your preference." Mr Beattie said he believed the Greens were being "a bit precious" about the whole thing.
"The card's properly authorised, we're not hiding it, I'm happy to defend it, I don't have any problem with it at all, and I don't think any fair-minded people would either."
What the grinning idiot ISN'T saying is that basic structure and colour of the ALP card was very similar to the Greens card, and in Queensland with the optional preferential voting system,you don't have to mark a second choice. Beattie was aiming to cash in on naive voters not willing to commit to the government again, and gain a preference vote by proxy. Beattie then goes to put the other foot into his mouth, and looks to be borrowing other people's feet to fill the available room.
Mr Beattie said the Nationals were also handing out green-coloured how-to-vote cards, but no one seemed concerned about that.
Which seems interesting, seeing as the Queensland Nationals aren't fielding a candidate in either of these seats, so as to focus the effort on the Liberal party candidates.
VOTERS in Redcliffe and Chatsworth will not face three-cornered contests after the Nationals announced they would support Liberal candidates in the August 20 by-elections. State Nationals Leader Lawrence Springborg yesterday confirmed his party would not run candidates in the two electorates in a move which is expected to help the conservatives win the long-held Labor seats.
You mean to say that Peter Beattie is pointing childishly and saying 'Look, they're doing it too!'? So what does Peter think of the way the ALP select their candidates for election?
"I told the Labor Party I didn't want a party hack or a dud and that I wanted a candidate who lived locally and who was contributing to the community. " Interesting concept. The election writ is due for return by 19 September, so it will be several weeks before a definitive result is known. A litmus test of Beattie's debacle. If the Libs pick up both the seats of Chatsworth and Redcliffe, as Beattie is expecting them too, then it may auger well for the future of conservative political forces in Queensland.
Cross posted at Bastards Inc
UPDATE: Beattie has conceded defeat in at least the seat of Chatsworth, with Redcliffe being claimed by the Liberals. Both seats have voters giving a clear swing against the incumbent government, in defiance of previous polling within the electorate. Beattie blames the health crisis and the Morris inquiry for voter frustation and backlash against his government. I reckon people are just sick of seeing the smug git on the telly. He'd turn up at the opening of a beer if there was a camera there.
Moderate leaders said yesterday that Mr Howard had made a mistake by cold-shouldering fundamentalist leaders such as Melbourne's Sheik Mohammed Omran, whose congregations were more at risk of becoming radicalised.
Mr Howard said the summit would work on strategies to promote shared values and investigate how Islamic leaders could help prevent intolerance and the promotion of violence. But Mr Butler said the leaders attending the summit had no authority over the more radical religious and community clerics and preachers.
"These people don't have any authority whatsoever over the imams accused of making inflammatory remarks. If they come out of the summit and say 'Hey, imams, stop saying those things', they will just laugh," he said.
Other leading moderates warned that excluding fundamentalists risked marginalising them. Former Federation of Australian Muslim and Youth president Zachariah Matthews said fundamentalists needed to be confronted with debate about their ideas to make them understand how they differed from the rest of Australian society.
But a leading moderate who is attending the summit said including Sheik Omran, and Sheik Abdul Salam Zoud from the Belmore Mosque in Sydney, would lead to the talks becoming bogged down amid accusations and argument. "We don't want those people there. The whole thing will just go haywire. We want something positive out of this," said the moderate, who did not wish to be named.
I have to agree with the Prime Minister, the extremists have to be marginalised and excluded, otherwise its an indication that their hatred has earned them an audience.
Everytime you switch on the TV its the extremist that gets all the air time, when some pathetic coward releases a video promising death and destruction, a tape or e-mail about jihad for whatever obscure reason, we fall over ourselves to broadcast it around the world and then rush off to find our leaders to ask them when are we going to bow down and run from Iraq and elsewhere.
The haters must be given no audience, no airtime, no quarter, no medium to spread their evil. The other day we heard of multiple bombings in Iraq on the same day, they were well timed with the most cruel of intentions, the first two bombs killed as many as possible, then when the first ambulance was approaching the nearest hospital the third bomb goes off to finish off the suffering. And yes its Muslims that are being slaughtered, men, women and children, indifferently murdered, the devil himself would be proud.
This is the evil that these extremists are sanctioning, what is there to debate with them, how much further can you be radicalised, what are we talking about, further marginalising them, have we gone mad with understanding, what the hell do you mean showing them how they differ from Australian society, they don't differ from Australian society, they differ from humanity itself. In America the anti war movement is using the mother of a dead US soldier to push for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the more the terrorists kill, the more we want to bow down and negotiate with them, run away and hide hoping it will go away.
I say we should marginalise, radicalise, exclude, shut out, ostracise, isolate and ok, debate, argue and confront them out of Australia and civilisation.
We should not underestimate the Prime Minister, he knows there is no point talking to them.
. . .but I just adore cases like this:
Black and white law clash over rape caseBull! It’s grubby; it’s nasty; this man should have been put away for a very, very long time. The horror of what this poor 14-year-old girl went through aside, the beauty of this case, and so many others like it (and there are many), is that it’s a classic example of what happens when the idiot Left actually manages to get its way. Now watch these absolute fools all scatter for cover whenever their demand that we ‘respect traditional Aboriginal law’ (and demands like it) meets the reality of what that ‘law’ actually is (and does).
A legal decision which has taken into account customary Indigenous law has sparked outrage in the Territory’s Parliament.
The case involved a 14 year old girl who was held for four days against her will, sexually assaulted by a 55 year-old man and beaten with a boomerang.
The man was convicted, but the judge in sentencing the man expressed sympathy for him and jailed the offender for just one month.
ANNE BARKER: Under traditional customary law, a 55 year old respected elder at remote Yarralin in the Top End was allowed to have sex with a 14 year old girl.
She’d been promised to him in marriage when she was four years old and her own grandmother had forced her to submit to her future husband but under Northern Territory law it was a clear case of aggravated assault and sexual intercourse with a child and for Chief Justice Brian Martin, who spoke on Darwin radio, it was an extremely difficult decision.
BRIAN MARTIN: There’s no question there will be people in the community who will find it difficult to understand and who will say the penalty is too light. That’s an individual choice. I must deal with the law as it is and one of the criteria is to look to the individual’s culpability and the court has said over many years that we need to take into account those matters which arise peculiarly from the ethnic or the Aboriginal background.
Want to see the duck and cover in action? No problem. Cop this next bit:
It’s a recognition of the difficulties that are facing Aboriginal people and particularly in this case, a traditional man who did not know that what he was doing was contrary to the Northern Territory Law.Lies!
Read the rest, but only if you can constructively let off some steam afterwards, or you’re otherwise happy to hurl your monitor through the window. . .
In pouring rain, the Australians returned fire with platoon weapons and artillery which was firing from the Nui Dat base, some five kilometres to the west. Close air support was also called for but couldn't be used because the target was unable to be identified accurately in the conditions.
At 5pm D Company's commander, Major Harry Smith, radioed for ammunition resupply. Two RAAF Iroquois helicopters which happened to be at Nui Dat to transport a concert party were tasked and flew at tree top level into the battle area where they successfully delivered the sorely needed boxes of ammunition.
The combination of aggressive fire from D Company soldiers plus devastating artillery fire from Nui Dat had swung the battle in the Australians' favour but the Viet Cong continued to manoeuvre to gain the upper hand. Meanwhile, A Company of 6RAR had been ordered to move to the support of the beleaguered D Company. They did so mounted in armoured personnel carriers from 1st APC Squadron which forded a flooded stream and then shortly afterward encountered a substantial enemy force. 2 Platoon of A Company dismounted and advanced on the enemy who fled.
Although the Viet Cong could still be seen massing in failing light at 6.55pm as the relief force arrived in the D Company area, the enemy force melted away as darkness descended. The battle of Long Tan was over.The Australians consolidated their position for the night and then commenced evacuation of their wounded using the lights from APCs to guide in helicopters. During the night the Viet Cong cleared many of their wounded and dead from the battle field. A number of the wounded Australians lay there all through the long terrifying night, as the Viet Cong moved around them.
Morning revealed that the Viet Cong force, estimated at 2,500, had been badly mauled. 245 Viet Cong bodies were found in the battle area. It was apparent that the Viet Cong commanders had failed to appreciate the effectiveness of artillery fire and had paid dearly as a result.
The Australians had lost 18 killed, 17 from D Company (including the young platoon commander of 11 platoon) and one from 1st APC Squadron, and 24 wounded.
39 years ago today. Lest we forget.
(Courtesy Anzac Day web site and George Odgers)
Cross posted at Bastards Inc.
Enter Deborah Johns. She is the mother of a US Marine who tells a much different story and is getting ready to take her show on the road as well.
The anti-war protest by a Vacaville mother outside the president's Texas ranch is galvanizing some who support the country's continued involvement in Iraq. One of those is a serviceman's mother who feels now more than ever the country must stand strong behind the troops.Go get 'em Deborah.
Roseville resident Deborah Johns' son William is a Marine stationed in Iraq. She sympathizes with Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war protester who lost her son to enemy fire 16 months ago. However, Johns believes a pull-out now would negate what troops are fighting for in Iraq. She takes exception to Sheehan's protest and plans to do something about it.
"It absolutely mushroomed, but that's our liberal media," said Johns. "They continue to like to hear the negative and not the positive that's going on." Johns is organizing what could be hundreds of others to participate in a caravan leaving San Francisco on Monday. The caravan is destined for Crawford, Texas, in a gesture of support for President George W. Bush.
The above story also contains a video report. If for some reason the link to the video doesn't work I have a copy.
The Hack from TSSH picks up on one of those nasty virulent memes that are going around nowadays. Australia's Big
"Well I’m tipping there’s going to be a few halfwit leftie bloggers’ noses out of joint tonight, with the Big Bogan prize money going to the redneck Logan twins – not their man Pinko “that’s not my mouth, someone stitched a cunt to my face” Tim. You see, the halfwits thought that just because Timmy doesn’t like John Howard, he was therefore deserving of a million dollars. I don’t care much for our fearless leader, does that mean I deserve a million bucks? Fucken oath! But its not about to happen.
Typical of lefty bloggers, they can take something as inane as a glorified popularity contest and try to turn it into some sort of fucking crusade against the evil Tories. And like they did with Gough in ’75, they’ll be bitching and whinging that their man went down quicker than Ms Fits on a Channel 7 programming executive."
With no hint of irony, aforementioned Ms Fits does indeed have her nose out of joint about the decision. And amongst her loyal club, she seems to be the rational one.
"You know what? You're right. You're so right. These guys on the left and right are champeens. They are buff and smart as hell and do things that are sweet!
WAY TO GO YOU PEOPLE OF THE AUSTRALIA!!"
That's Ms Fits aka Marieke Hardy. She of Last Moron Standing fame. No wonder she had an affinity for Brunero, she wrote ALL her male characters like this pathetic mangina. Ever the gracious loser. See, the homily is TRUE. Nice guys do finish last. And by "nice" I mean 'simpering, gormless, sleazy, creepy cunt' (Thanks to The Hack, yet again). How about some more loser bitterness? A sample of comments from the very aptly named 'Reasons You Will Hate Me' blog.
I'm completely with you, Fits.
In fact, I'm currently composing my own rant on the subject, which will be on my blog by the end of the day. (I'm much angrier than I thought I'd be!) Which tossers out there voted for these tossers??!
I hope Channel 10 discovers the votes were miscounted and has to award Tim the same prize money!
we must ring Andrew Bolt and see if this means we don't discriminate agains white, anglo saxon twins? or are we back to being rasist? in fact are being doubly rasist? bugger, bum pooh. but hang on why do i care, i didn't watch so much as one minute of this fucked up shit. goes back to sleep
The Student said...
You know whats sad? This decision has filled me with the EXACTLY the same sense of alienation from the will and direction of this nation as last year's federal election result.
I shit you not.
I cannot belive people voted for exactly the same sort of guy you'd hate to have to work with, trading on his good looks, always talking about the chicks he pulled on the weekend.
I'm shattered. I have been an obsessed watcher of every season and this was the first year I felt compelled to vote - because I love Timmy so much. I just wanted to jump up on stage (if I had actually been at Dreamworld) and give him a big hug and tell him he's the thinking woman's sex symbol!! Sometimes I despair of this country - why do so many seem to prefer footy playing blokes over intelligent, sensitive MEN?
Kranki, the Aussie version stank like pigs guts nailed to a shithouse door. Which is why lefties who watched it, me included, should feel pretty good about the result. Plenty of "Tim voters" wouldn't have been watching, some wouldn't have TVs. The viewing public is overwhelmingly bogan, and for someone like Tim to get to the final is fantastic. Anyway, if he'd won that skanky homophobe might have found him newly attractive, and that would just mess with his head.
Then it goes on into a little pissing contest, whilst slightly amusing, won't benefit the readers here for the guns or the booze. Still, it's a good day when commies lose their shit completely over the result of a show that defines capitalism in all it's glory. Just like a good game of foos-ball, Big Bogan/Logan was the winner on the day, and really, isn't that all that matters?
Cross posted at Bastards Inc.
Mrs. Sheehan should stop what she's doing because she is going to get more soldiers and marines killed. She is asking the President to surrender. Let's call it what it is. She is asking for the surrender of the United States. She's asking us to declare defeat. And that is not going to happen. Not with this president. Given that we are not going to surrender, her continued protest will result in more deaths.
Thanks to the breathless coverage her anti-war allies in the media have given Mrs. Sheehan, the enemy is getting the impression that they can win if they can only kill more U.S. troops in the sneaky, cowardly way they've been using. People like Sheehan and her fawning fans hate this country, and they would love to see another Vietnam style defeat because they think America deserves defeat. i think that's evil.
If Sheehan really wants the troops to come home, she should be doing everything she can to break the will of the enemy, so our men and women can do their jobs and get out of there as soon as possible. Instead she's fueling the enemy's impression that they are breaking our will. And if her actions lengthen this "occupation" (as she so tellingly calls it) one day longer than necessary, any extra blood spilled is on her hands.
So i'm not going to tip-toe around the subject of Mrs. Sheehan just because of her son's sacrifice in a noble cause that i believe will keep me safe. No, Mrs. Sheehan is deluded and as long as she's helping the enemy, whether intentionally or not, to her i say Fuck You.
Sheehan wants to know what the "noble cause" is that her son died for. i wonder where the American spirit went, which was articulated so well by Robert Kennedy when he said: "Some people see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say why not?"
The noble cause is a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq. That's the thing that never was, and we should all be asking "why not?" If only Sheehan and her fans could put aside their Bush hatred, their shame at being American, and ask themselves: if we could only be successful in Iraq, wouldn't that be a good thing? And if the answer is yes, shouldn't we all do whatever it takes to achieve that goal?
How could anyone say that surrendering to the terrorists would be better than standing up to them? The thing is, while most Americans are growing tired of this war, we do not want to surrender. That's a question the polls are not asking. "Do you want to surrender to the terrorists?" If the polls were phrased that way, you'd see a much different picture than the anti-war crowd wants you to believe.
i just don't get these people who have so little faith in the power of Americans to achieve what they set out to do. We can be successful in Iraq. i have no doubt of it. If they think the goal of a free and democratic country in the heart of the middle east would be a bad thing, that's different. But who could say such a thing? And if they were to admit that success in Iraq would be a good thing, then get on board and help make it happen.
[cross-posted at annika's journal]
1: an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction, [syn: lip service]
2: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have,
3: the act of indignant outrage perpetuated by numerous Greens politicians in the Australian Senate.
The perpetually outraged Senator from Hobart, Bob Brown, fails to acknowledge the blatant hypocrisy of his position with regards to an alleged breach of protocol by a government Senator in the chamber last week. Senator Brown has alleged that the pillars of democracy are under threat of being toppled by Senator McGuaran's obscene gesture on the floor of the Senate. I've no doubt that Bob has seen larger things pointed in his direction which he wasn't upset about. Perhaps the homosexual environmental socialist should cast his tiny mind back to October 2003, on the occasion of President Bush's visit to the Australian Parliament.
"First Brown interjected on the President: "Mr Bush, this is Australia. Respect our nation's laws. Return our Australian citizens from Guantanamo Bay. If you respect the world's laws the world will respect you."
The Speaker ordered him from the chamber, but he did not move. Shortly afterwards Kerry Nettle also piped up, was likewise ordered out, and stayed put. Now they will be barred from the address today by Chinese President Hu, where they planned to protest about human rights violations."
It's acceptable for Greens senators to defy the instructions of the Senate President and Sergeant-At-Arms, but not to accept the ruling of the Senate President on other issues of procedure. McGuaran raised his index finger and gesticulated non-verbally at the Greens as he re-took his seat in the Senate chamber. Brown consequently went into apoplectic fits and paroxsyms of rage at the effrontery of the man. Is that all it takes to upset Bob Down, a raised finger?
"McGuaran gets off scot-free. The government-nominated President first rules that McGuaran was not in contempt of the Senate, next that his behaviour does not deserve reference to the Privileges Committee and, next Monday, government numbers will protect him from Lyn Allison's motion dissenting from his ruling. The Prime Minister says McGuaran's behaviour is 'unacceptable' and 'wrong', but his government makes sure there is no penalty.The episode underscores the new Senate reality: on the one hand the government will use its numbers to shelter misbehaviour within its own ranks and on the other hand it will avoid penalising such misbehaviour to ensure no member crosses the floor," Senator Brown said.
Kerry Nettle, October 2003
"It’s fantastic that our actions provoked such community debate – like President Bush said, we love free speech."
No they don't. They just love the Greens version of it.
Cross posted at Bastards Inc.
Rippon Yarns is a blog by a left-leaning mystic, but don't let that keep you away from Soldiers of Flesh - Soldiers of Kevlar, his thoughtful essay on the future of military technology. Apart from an overview of likely developments, it examines the thorny question of military machines making their own decisions to kill.
Callimachus from Winds of Change posts a reflection on war propaganda, both past and present, that presents some interesting perspectives and comparisons.
At Hirsefeathers, Stephen ponders facts and those who hate them, drawing a parallel between chidhood development and the reality-denial of leftist ideologues.
A Guy In Pajamas links to a news report rather than an essay, but it's a charming story about a US Army Staff Sergeant who became an Iraqi Sheik.
Also in non-essay mode, Heavy Metal fans shouldn't miss this music video made by a US Marines unit fighting in Fallujah.
(Cross-posted at Evil Pundit of Doom!)
I wasn't going to post this but all the leftist scum out there trying to drum up sympathy for this traitor has forced my hand.
Last Sunday was a good day – it was David Hick’s 30th birthday. He was 26 when captured by
That is four years that this treasonous piece of shit is not out there killing innocent people. Four years that this piece of shit has not been out there planning more terrorist attacks against civilians. Four years that this piece of shit has not been out raping and beating and stoning women to death with his Taliban buddies.
And hopefully it also means four years of being beaten like a little bitch every single day.
Speaking of beatings, his father needs a good one. Face it, your son is the lowest of lowlife traitors. Not only is he a traitor to his country, but he is a traitor to his civilization by aligning himself with one of the most vile death cults in history. Stop whining about his “unfair trial.” A trial is more than he deserves.
The media also needs a good beating. When first arrested, we all saw the picture of him with an RPG launcher. That was a truthful picture because that shows him exactly how he is now and what he was doing when captured. That is what he was really like.
Now, however, you see the photo of him as a little kid, and the one from about 10 years ago with him all smiling wearing a queer looking jumper. I call BULLSHIT on that. That is not how he is. That is an out and out lie of what he is. If he were all innocent like the guy in that photo, he wouldn’t have become a traitor and aligned himself with muslim scum and tried to do his part to bring down Western Civilization.
While I am glad the
As for Hicks – let’s just get this thing out the way. I will even be happy to donate the bullet or the rope or the sodium cyanide pellets or whatever.
Student organisations across Australia’s Universities provide approximately $250 million dollars in campus services, amenities, clubs and societies, sporting facilities, student advocacy, childcare,
entertainment, online services, social programs, mentoring, catering, debating and more. These are
services paid for by students for students. These services will be cut unless this legislation is withdrawn or amended. To provide these essential services, student unions, like governments, cannot operate with a user pays system.
And there you have the money quote. This statement is taken from Sydney University's student Central Committee propaganda directive to the federal government outlining why university students should be forced to continue paying for services they may never use. For the stupider uni students around, feel free to let them in on a secret of working life. Essential services are those that either keep you alive or you can't do yourself and are provided by government. Police, defence, hospitals,education amongst some. I have no doubt that university coffee shops and subsidised entertainment would not fall under the umbrella of 'essential services'. Essential services are funded by taxes, and even though we hate paying taxes, we understand that society as we know it would crumble if we didn't contribute towards it's upkeep.
I just witnessed on the ABC news, NSW Police attempting to break up a violent protest by university students in Sydney. I watched a police officer get shoved over in a melee while his peers attempted to wrestle another from the grip of an officer on the ground. What I didn't see was the batons and pepper spray. In case they haven't figured it out, civil disobedience is still disobedience. I didn't see some large police officers make the point abundantly clear to the snot-nosed little fuckers that the next raised hand on a student belongs to someone spending time in prison for assaulting police/resist arrest.
It is the fear of numerous student councils and vice-chancellors around Australia that the 250 odd million dollars continually drip fed into their coffers annually will vanish overnight if these fees are made voluntary. You know, services paid for as required by the end-user. A user pays system. Like in a capitalist democracy. That obscure concept they teach upstairs in those boring nerd classes like 'Economics 101'. If students don't need the service and it closes or fails, it wasn't worth having anyway. If it is needed, it will continue to function. This is the underlying concept of capitalist society. If you don't like this idea, move to Cuba. I hear they just love protestors in that workers paradise.
Cross posted at Bastards Inc.
Guantanamo Bay: "Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day, one of which is an MRE (Meal, Ready to Eat)." Not one Guantanamo prisoner has suffered from malnutrition, let alone died.
North Korea: The average North Korean receives only half the minimum acceptable energy from food rations. Over 1 million have died from famine.
Freedom to leave
Guantanamo Bay: Prisoners are released if there is found to be no case against them.
North Korea: "North Korea does not allow its citizens to leave the country to resettle in another country." Refugees are routinely recaptured and imprisoned.
Reasons for being in Gitmo/North Korea
Guantanamo Bay: "According to one report, to qualify for transfer and detention at Camp Delta, Guantanamo, prisoners taken in Afghanistan must meet any one of the following criteria: (1) Be a foreign national; (2) Have received training from Al-Qaeda; or (3) Be in command of 300 or more personnel." These reasons are all a matter of personal choice - going to Afghanistan during a war, commanding an army, or choosing to be a terrorist.
North Korea: Being born in North Korea - a matter entirely out of your control.
Guantanamo Bay: Gitmo's library is stocked with books about Jihad and the Islamic faith, catering to the "needs" of its inmates. These books include a variety of views that are contrary to the American stance on terrorism and foreign policy, and encourage and justify acts punishable by life in prison or death in almost every corner of the globe.
North Korea: All foreign news sources and opinions contrary to the official Government line are banned.
Freedom of the press
Guantanamo Bay: Interviews are monitored and tightly controlled, but allowed with certain limits. This is fairly standard for high security prisons. Only the most rabid moonbat's descriptions of restrictions of press-related freedoms are on the same scale as...
North Korea: "North Korea consistently ranks last among the world's nations in international ratings of press freedom."
Guantanamo Bay: "Each detainee's cell has a sink installed low to the ground, "to make it easier for the detainees to wash their feet" before Muslim prayer, Saar reports. Detainees get "two hot halal, or religiously correct, meals" a day in addition to an MRE (meal ready to eat). Loudspeakers broadcast the Muslims' call to prayer five times a day. Every detainee gets a prayer mat, cap and Koran. Every cell has a stenciled arrow pointing toward Mecca. Moreover, Gitmo's library -- yes, library -- is stocked with Jihadi books."
North Korea: "Autonomous religious activities now almost nonexistent; government-sponsored religious groups exist to provide illusion of religious freedom." More on their repression of religious freedom here.
Health and wellbeing
Guantanamo Bay: "Military doctors say prison inmates have gained an average of 2.3 kilograms since their incarceration." Detainees are checked by doctors four times a year.
North Korea: Access to accurate information is difficult, but we do know that one-in-25 North Koreans who were alive in the 1990s died from famine, and their hospitals cannot adequately deal with survivors of train crashes.
I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Guantanamo Bay may be blasted by the communists, but even a high security prison for mass-murdering terrorists has better conditions, more freedoms and a better standard of living than a Stalinist country.
(Cross-posted to The House Of Wheels.)
I wonder how much larger the figure would be with a simple Act of Parliament, banning the worship of Islam?
AN outspoken British-based Islamic cleric has left the country in the wake of the government's pledge to crack down on radical Islamists.
Syrian-born Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, who lived in Britain for 20 years, left for Lebanon on Saturday and does not plan to return, said a close associate.
"He left voluntarily because he believes the government is stifling Muslims and making it impossible for them to fulfil the message of Islam," Mr Choudary said.
The cleric has become a hate figure for the British tabloid press, which has urged the government to rein him in.
One down. Anywhere up to a million to go. . .
For all the arguments about the way the Senate protects our rights, the regular role of the chamber has been to deny governments the right to govern they acquired by winning a majority in the House of Representatives, and to conjure up political storms of sound and fury signifying sod-all. The important role of the upper house, reviewing legislation and using the committee system to keep an eye on what ministers and their bureaucrats get up to, has been too long prostituted by political nay-sayers who blocked reforms for no better reason than because they could. The ability of fringe interest groups to massage the Senate election system springs from an electoral system so complex and capricious that senators can be elected on tiny primary votes.
From an outstanding editorial in today's Australian. Guaranteed to have latte froth being blown out of nostrils all over Melbourne and Sydney. This is surprising reading, particularly in light of the majority of Australian media's political persuasions. There also a reminder about the ability of Australia's Test cricketers to actually play cricket when required. Be surprised yourself.
The Australian Senate has always been a political target of this government. This statement is from October 2003.
JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER: There are many pieces of legislation that we believe have been patently part of our program through successive elections, and I quote in particular the unfair dismissal law, which have been rejected despite the patent mandate we have obtained in relation to that.
Now the Howard government has the ability to get it's legislative agenda through parliament it's all doom and gloom over on the socialist side of politics. It's always amusing to see people's showbags fall apart in public. Like the ALP's.
Cross posted at Bastards Inc.
Entry Word: former
Text: having been such at some previous time
Synonyms: erstwhile, late, old, onetime, past, sometime, whilom
Related Words: bygone, dead, extinct
Comments by former CDF Peter Cosgrove have led to a frenzy of fulminating and ridiculous rhetoric. At the head of the list of bleaters is the ALP, quicker to jump on to any chance to harangue faster than Kim onto a baked ham. Before I continue, I'd like to point out that as a former commander, his views have about as much creedence now as mine. If it was so important to outline a timetable for the removal of Australian troops from Iraq, why didn't he do it 2 months ago when he really did have the chance to influence policy?
Peter Cosgrove, former CDF;
“I think weve got to train the Iraqis as quickly as we can and to a point where we take one of the focal points of terrorist motivation away, and that is foreign troops. When there is an adequate Iraqi security force, foreign troops leave Iraq.” Asked how quickly that should happen, he said: “Well I figure that if we could get that done by the end of 2006 that would be really good.”
These comments were enough to drag the ALP out from under their rock. Quagmire! Turmoil! Exit strategy! Buzzwords bandied around by armchair critics and self-appointed experts. Definition of an expert? X is an unknown quantity, spurt is a drip under pressure. Expert=unknown drip under pressure.
Robert McClelland, former sports lawyer;
"Our government is not identifying what our mission is, let alone when that will be completed and there is a real risk that we are going to be sucked into a quagmire. This is clearly something the Government has to now start talking about and that is setting out details of our mission in Iraq and when that mission is going to be completed."
Kelvin Thomson, former lawyer and ALP party drone;
"He was saying that the presence of foreign troops in Iraq is a principle focus of terrorist motivation, and, I think, if we're serious about reducing the risk of terrorism in Australia and wanting to do everything we can to reduce the risk of terrorism in Australia, then we should get Australian troops out of Iraq."
Mr Thomson would not comment on whether General Cosgrove should have expressed this view earlier when he had the power to influence defence strategy.
Wayne Swan, former lecturer and ALP party drone;
"Well, everybody else has been saying that, except for the arrogant Howard government. But the truth is that this is the common-sense view throughout the Australian community and throughout the world."
Kim Beazley, former lecturer and still an ALP party drone;
"In going into Iraq we distracted attention from the real struggle with terror and now we have a quagmire on our hands. At least Peter Cosgrove is out there suggesting some form of exit strategy. It's time the Government came clean.The commitment of foreign troops provides a rallying point for the foreign terrorists operating in Iraq and that obviously this has been a consideration in his mind but that's never been articulated by the Government. Well, this is a wrong commitment."
Duncan Kerr, former social worker and lawyer and another ALP party drone;
"We want our government to deal with facts rather than a world they imagine it ought to be, and to pretend that you can dismiss the assessment of the Australian Federal Police, the assessment of the former head of the defence forces, is to live in a fantasy land which is not in the interests of Australia."
Unfortunately, I am unable to find a comment from the SWAT Womble. I have no doubt when he gets around to it, he too will use those critical keywords 'quagmire, lying Prime Minister, arrogant government, exit strategy' etc.
So, at the end of the day, former CDF Peter Cosgrove merely outlines what is still probably the ADF's concept of operations. Continue the training of the Iraqi security forces and provision of security to the JDF, then start a hand-over commencing this time next year. All troops rotated out of the MEAO by end 2006. That's still some 18 months away. A lot can change between now and then. What won't change is the strategy of appeasement and policy of placation that the ALP endorse and engage in. It is disturbing to envision these people as the alternative government.
Cross posted at Bastards Inc.
Members of the Rev. Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., are picketing military funerals, KMBC's Micheal Mahoney reported Friday.This is disgusting, absolutely disgusting. While I respect their right to voice their opinions what do they hope to accomplish by this abominable behaviour? To actually rejoice in the death of a serviceman is disgusting and reprehensible. It’s easy to see that religious extremism exists on both ends of the spectrum. It’s also easy to see how it turns otherwise normal people into babbling, drooling retards.
The group has made national headlines for traveling throughout the country to picket gay churches, gay weddings, and the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a gay college student who was murdered in Wyoming in 1998.
Friday, about 15 members of the group -- some of them children -- picketed the funeral of a St. Joseph soldier who was killed in Iraq. Mahoney reported that the group stood across the road from the Grace Evangelical Church during the funeral of 21-year-old Spc. Edward Myers.
"The first sin was being a part of this military. If this young man had a clue and any fear of God, he would have run, and not walked, from this military," said protester Shirley Phelps-Roper. "Who would serve a nation that is godless and has flipped off, defiantly defied, defiantly flipped off, the Lord their God?"
One protester had an American flag tied to his belt that draped to the ground. He was holding a sign that read, "Thank God For IEDs," which are explosive devices used by insurgents to blow up military convoys.
cross-posted to Rite Turn Only
An extreme Muslim cleric whose family have been living on benefits in Britain for 20 years says it would not be 'fair' to deport him.Isn't this lovely? This piece of garbage has been living high on the hog (pun most certainly intended) at the expense of British taxpayers yet has no use for the nation that has fed his lazy ass. He has referred to Israel as a cancer and has called for the extermination of homosexuals. But Blair is being unfair when he seeks to expunge Britain of garbage like him? Yeah. I hope your sorry ass is the first one shipped out.
Speaking after the Prime Minister announced his clampdown, father-of-seven Sheik Omar Bakri said: "I have wives, children, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law. It would be hard on my family if I was deported."
Since Syrian-born Bakri settled in Britain, he and his extended family have raked in benefits amounting to at least £300,000.
He is registered disabled because of an injury to his leg during his childhood, and was recently supplied with a £31,000 Ford Galaxy under the Motability scheme.
Bakri, who lives in a £200,000 home in North London, tops up his £250-a-week benefit payments with an extra £50 incapacity allowance.
He has praised the September 11 terrorists as 'magnificent', called Israel 'a cancer' and said homosexuals should be 'thrown from Big Ben'.
In January, he declared that Britain had become a 'land of war', and called on Muslims to unite behind Al Qaeda. He has supported suicide bombings and urged his followers to kill non-Muslims ' wherever, whenever'.
cross-posted to Rite Turn Only
This woman is the British Prime Minister’s wife, and she is a fool. And here’s why:
Now we need judges more than everReally, Cherie? Well, I guess that all depends on how much damage has been done to the institution itself, in the face of ludicrous appointment after ludicrous appointment; political creatures with more experience agitating than deliberating; equal idiots with little knowledge and/or appreciation for age-old fabrics of law, but a very solid grounding in the mechanism of the apparatchik and the group-think collective.
In the face of terror, they are the guardians of democracy itself
Nowhere has the importance of independent judges policing a constitution of principle become clearer than in the context of the threat and reality of terrorism.The ‘constitution of principle’? What the HELL does that mean?
I say this in the month that London experienced a series of bomb blasts, killing and maiming many innocent civilians. . .At the same time, it is all too easy to respond in a way that undermines commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions and cheapens our right to call ourselves a civilised nation.A civilised nation? Of that there is absolutely no doubt. So, I wonder what you could possibly be leading up to, Cherie?
The choice of options in response belongs to the executive or legislature. But these are not unbridled. As the president of Israel's supreme court put it: "The court's role is to ensure the constitutionality and legality of the fight against terrorism. It must ensure that the war against terrorism is conducted within the framework of the law."It most certainly does. The question is, what law? Laws we already have on our books? Laws that govern, for example, acts of high treason? Oh, ho, but no – I’m sure you can’t be talking about that kind of law, can you, you blithering fucknozzle. Of course – silly me – that’s where the ‘constitution of principle’ comes in, doesn’t it. That’s the little circuit breaker that ensures we can’t do a damn thing to defend ourselves or our way of life.
An obvious conflict arises between the need for national security and human rights.There ya’ go. Knew she’d hit that button sooner or later, didn’t we.
Recently the House of Lords has grappled with this conflict when faced with a challenge to indefinite detention of foreigners at Belmarsh prison under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001. The house ruled that such detention was a breach of the European convention on human rights - a landmark decision described by Lady Justice Arden as a "powerful statement by the highest court in the land of what it means to live in a society where the executive is subject to the rule of law".Thanks so much. Doesn’t sound to me like they had much ‘grappling’ to do at all – they simply sold us out. What a wonderful legacy from the Eurabians. So, what would have been the case, for example, only some sixty years ago, here in Australia, with the detention, indefinitely, of some 25,000 persons representing a potential risk to our society? Answer? Simple. Let them all go. Set them all free. How could we possibly do such a dreadful thing (while fighting for our lives). They must be allowed the opportunity to wreak havoc before we can act. It’s only fair. . . It’s only just. . . It’s only democratic. . .
The public reaction to this decision has not been uniformly favourable.You got that right.
What the case demonstrates is the potential for judges to educate the public about the real meaning of democracy.Is this woman serious? The ‘potential for judges to educate the public’? ‘Educate’ in what way, Cherie? Educate us in ways of taking it up the back passage? And the ‘real meaning of democracy’? What’s that, pray tell? That we must sit back while deadly dangers threaten us, and do nothing? Of course, casting back a moment, we can all hear this moronic mindset, bleating at the gates while all those poor, unfortunate Nazi and Fascisti internees were locked up. An appalling breach of their human rights? Yes – it’s a small step to take. Because this is exactly what this tosser would have been shrieking.
With every contentious matter that constitutional courts hear, judges have to grapple with opinions held by the public and to respond in a way that teaches citizens and government about the ethical responsibilities of being participants in a true democracy. This is so even when - one might say particularly when - a nation is confronted by the threat of terrorism.There’s that word again: ‘constitutional’. And ‘ethical responsibilities’? Like the responsibility our law makers and law enforcers have to keep our community safe from internal threat to the very fabric of our being? Precisely the reason why laws such as treason were enacted in the first place? Nah – that’s not what she’s talking about.
In the Belmarsh case, Lord Bingham addressed this issue powerfully: "I do not accept the distinction which [the attorney general] drew between democratic institutions and the courts. It is of course true that the judges ... are not elected and are not answerable to parliament ... But the function of independent judges charged to interpret and apply the law is universally recognised as a cardinal feature of the modern democratic state, a cornerstone of the rule of law..."They’re quite right, of course. The question is, however, what happens when they elect to pick and choose which law they will apply (and on what basis), which ethics they will uphold? Are we actually talking about the Law here? Or are we really jabbering on about ‘constitutional principle’ (whatever that really means on planet Moonbat)?
The democratic potential of constitutional courts lies not only in their role as guardians of the weakest, poorest and most marginalised members of society against majoritarian politics.Oh – you mean what the rest of us want? Ignoring that, ‘democracy’ is effectively undone, then, isn’t it? So what the hell are you blathering on about? Rule for the minority over the majority? That’s democracy?
It also lies in the judges' vital role as teachers in a national seminar on meaningful, inclusive democracy in the 21st century. In these troubled times, where terrorism, division and suspicion are the order of the day, this role is perhaps more vital than ever.‘Meaningful, inclusive democracy’? Ahhh – the new catch-cry. Roughly interpreted, it’s read as: sorry, you can’t act on the most outrageous, culturally/ideologically-based behaviour, except within the strictures of the most basic of criminal law. Strictures of apprehension, arrest, detention and rules of evidence that operate in the face of relatively minor, one-off acts, and that largely proscribe pre-emption. So what of treason, then? If we are talking about law and its framework, why is that particular framework being so carefully left out of the equation?
We know damned well why. And if anyone is still unsure about what Cherie the moron is beating on about, she tells us now:
Sometimes democracy must fight with one hand tied behind its back. Preserving the rule of law and recognition of individual liberties constitutes an important component of its understanding of security.Wrong! That only works when respect for that ‘rule of law’ largely cuts both ways, when the societal pact is adhered to, when the organs of enforcement confront the kind of domestic criminality that challenges the law of property (for example) rather than the wholesale freedoms and rights of the community at large – its very survival, in fact. When faced, as we are now, with a far greater ideological threat that utterly rejects our ‘rule of law’, which seeks to destroy those larger individual liberties, those freedoms and rights, then the response should be simple: all bets are off.
And that’s exactly why the laws of treason exist. And the fact that these laws do exist? That we can act within the framework of our law? Well, that’s precisely why they’re pretending they don’t and we can’t.
And if you thought she couldn’t sound more stupid and duplicitous than she already does, her finale doesn’t let us down:
Our institutions are under threat; our commitments to our deepest values are under pressure; our acceptance of difference is at a low point.So, ‘. . .our acceptance of difference is at a low point’ is it? And what differences is she referring to, I wonder, and that we aren’t accepting so well? Not differences in fundamental respect for concepts like – well – human rights, womens’ rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and thought, to name but a few? The very things this unbelievable cretin is banging on about?
Well at least she’s got something right. We don’t respect that ‘difference’. And neither should the ‘judges’ nor she.
At this time our understanding of the importance of judges in a human-rights age should be at its clearest. And it is at this time that our support for the difficult task that judges have to perform must be at its highest.The ‘useful idiots’ at work, yet again. I’m not sure I know which I find the more terrifying: that these mindsets abound, or that this one in particular has the ear of the British Prime Minister.
The real question is, though, will they, this time, finally manage to bring us down?