Counting Blessings

I spoke to my Mum in Sri Lanka this morning, and she is safe-safe-safe. Everyone in my family is safe, and there's just property damage to deal with. I cannot believe our luck...

My Mum and my Aunt from the US had wanted to drive down the South Coast (the worst affected areas) on a pilgrimge to a temple of Hindu god (Kataragama) (in whom Buddhists believe in/pray to too) this weekend, but all the holtels were booked so they went to another Aunt's house in Awissawella, which is inland. They didn't actually hear anything 'til after it had all happened.

Yesterday morning they had planned to drive down to visit my Grandma, who lives in Morragulla, Beruwalla--on the West Coast of Sri Lanka. The planned early-morning journey was interrupted when a water main burst in the street near my Aunt's place and my Uncle had to get in touch with the authorities to sort that out. It was a Sunday and a public holiday (Sri Lanka observes Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and Christian holidays--another excellent reason as to why we should embrace true multiculturalism) so it took ages to organise maintenance... while they were waiting they got call from a relative of a relative asking if they had any news. It was apparently a "what news?" moment. The TV went on and they weren't going anywhere.

The first wave had come up to my Grandma's front fence. She spoke to my Mum and said everything was fine, the water's receded quickly. Silly old lady! The second wave was worse, and her place, which is actually raised about a metre off the ground, was flooded up to her chest. Her neighbours carried her to the second storey of the house across the street. My Uncle who lives nearby (the one with the new bub) owns a restaurant and a small guesthouse which did not get touched.

My second Uncle's house in the South was destroyed, but the family is safe, and a second cousin was playing cricket on the beach on the East Coast and he got sucked out to sea twice, but he's a national junior swimmer or something and he is ok.

Again, thank you everyone who called/messaged/got in touch with me, it means so much to know that you guys care, and thank you thank you thank you for your prayers/good karma... if you can, please keep it coming; my family is ok but thousands, maybe millions, more aren't doing so well.

If anyone is able to, the Red Cross/Red Crescent is taking donations...

• Red Cross Australia's Asia Quake and Tsunamis Appeal: Info, Donate Online
• International RC/RC accepts donations to the Emergency Disaster Relief Fund

P.S: My brother's in the US at the moment and he and my cousin drove to Canada this weekend... apparently there's a bitch of a blizzard out there right now. Is this a test, Mother Nature? I promise I will recycle even more...

Encouraging Conversation

We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers, leave those kids alone

Looks like Gregory Melleuish's been listening to too much Pink Floyd... His latest column about liberal education raises some very valid points about the stagnation of intellectual debate.

To collapse many conversations into one is to reduce the vitality of the intellectual life of a society or culture. For ideas to develop and grow, individuals holding those ideas must be in touch with those who hold different positions so that they do not grow complacent and arrogant in their own rightness.

Apparently this stagnation occurs because there are too many whacko-lefties in universities. But surely if Tories weren't too busy making money, there might be a more "fair and balanced" intellectual status quo in universities? So how about properly funding universities and paying people properly for their intellectual contribution to society, instead of forcing brilliant minds to the stupor of the corporate world? (Argh, my tongue appears to be stuck to my cheek... must be the weather.)

Greg observes that the problem of "academic conformity"

prevents any form of vigorous conversation occurring within the universities. Instead, it is left to journalists and mavericks such as Keith Windschuttle to engage the academics from outside the universities. The result is not a conversation but a shouting match that is more like a gladiatorial spectacle than a debate.

I totally agree. Pseudo-academic insurgency merely prevents proper discussion, analysis and solutions. We shouldn't encourage intellectual blowback. Furthermore, the purpose of education is to encourage people to learn and make choices based on their analysis of all the information available. The presentation of only one perspective is "thought control".

Greg's solution to this odious scourge

is to create the conditions under which other institutions, including private universities, think tanks and institutes, are able to flourish.

But isn't that just building a Colosseum in which intellectual gladiators may fight, rather than encouraging a civil approach to intellectual debate? Governments should provide "a more favourable environment" for intellectual conversation by supporting universities properly.

Providing tax breaks for think-tanks isn't going to solve anything.


Update: A reply to the comment left by my Good Friend Anonymous because I have a cheap-arse comments system (can anyone help me out with that, not looking at anyone in particular?) which won't accept over 1000 characters...

First of all, I reckon you should put your name to your opinions. You don't have to leave contact details, but it really looks bad when you have to hide in Anonyland.

In any event, this is an issue of education policy. What I'm saying is that you can't run around crying that universities aren't up to scratch (which is what Greg was doing) when you support less funding for them (which is what, let's face it, Greg does). What we need are universities which are able to hire enough staff from diverse backgrounds and keep them there so these institutions are able to provide students with the opportunity to understand all facets of the debate.

The problem at hand is that universities are unable to have enough staff to teach classes let alone provide differing viewpoints, further exacerbated by the fact they just can't attract the right people by paying them properly (although another issue is whether Right people want to be involved in the first place; they seem to happy sitting on the side lines having a whinge).

The think-tanks Greg wants tax breaks for are not "true think-thanks". They are intellectual lobby-groups. They do not 'thoroughly [discuss] all options'; they present very partisan opinions in the hope of influencing decision makers. They are not an arena for encouraging "vigorous conversation", they are participants in the inevitable "shouting match" which results from the fractionalisation of the intelligentsia.

If it needs to be made clearer for you, Anon, what I'm saying is that Greg can't bemoan the lack of intellectual conversation in universities then argue the best way to solve this problem is to encourage external shouting.

My solution, to repeat myself in case it was *misread* the first time, is to encourage conversation within universities so THEY really can be "true think-tanks", and this should be done through providing proper funding and support for what they were established to do, cf pumping up partisan gladiators with ridiculous tax-breaks. Of course, if we're supposed to be so obsessed with tax breaks, yes, give them to the universities, but not hacks from think-tanks.

"Citizen Jane" Responds

From my inbox re my vile raving rant from yesterday:

Well, here I was carelessly surfing the internet and thinking to myself… geez there’s a lot of conservative crap being printed on the internet. With a slight sigh of relief I stumbled across your ‘blog.’ At the very first glance of your page I was quickly reassured with the state of the media. The media isn’t biased at all. There’s just as much conservative crap out there as there is ‘liberal’ bulldust such as yours (and for those wondering I use the term liberal very loosely).

To start off with I have to say that it is no real surprise that you got so worked up on the issue. Well, think about. If someone says something stupid your shrug your shoulders and think, if not say, what a “poor stupid bastard.” But in this case you had a person making logical, valid points and all you could respond with was a whole heap of swearing and false bravado. And to make things worse for you the person making these points was actually one of your own-kind (someone else who writes what they believe is right in an attempt to save the world.)

Oh… you thought I was referring to author’s gender. Opps, I guess you forgot the first rule of feminism: equality. Yes, that’s right – gender is irrelevant. WHEN WILL YOU PEOPLE FINALLY UNDERSTAND THIS. The fact that it was a female writing the article is completely. Utterly. Undeniably. IMMATERIAL. But I suppose I should forgive you, when you can’t attack the content of an article you have to fill your page moaning about something.

The problem with old-feminists is that they completely lost sight of what they were fighting for. Originally, they weren’t simply about women’s rights, they were about equality. It just so happens that, at the time, women were getting a bloody raw deal. So, that’s what they fought for. Tooth and nail. They fought for a system where women could be educated, given the same opportunities and be just as, if not, more successful than their muscularly enhanced counterparts.

Conveniently (but predictably) you forgot to mention the fact that women do have a chance. And not just a 30% chance either. Confused? Oh, let me remind you of someone who actually has some facts.

Women in the present day are:

* Four times LESS likely than young men to kill themselves
* 22 times LESS likely to be imprisoned.
* And MORE likely than boys to leave school with no qualifications.

Oh, but didn’t you say:

“It's only when women are educated, supported and given the chance to excel do we have a $%&* choice.”

What’s worse is that you then go on to lament about the demise of the Office of Status of Women. Well don’t men have issues too? Isn’t this what we are fighting for here - Equality.

Agreed?

Anyone?

Oh… that’s right… now I remember why men don’t have an Office of Status. Because if they haven’t killed themselves then they are in prison or too uneducated to do anything about.

How convenient.

The thing that is admirable about Janet Albrechtsen is that she isn’t afraid to fight for equality. She isn’t the ego-thirsty, power-hungry person that you are. She can accept that 30% ain’t bad for women. Now, all your readers out there, bear with me here.

Let’s face facts. Men have penises and women have vaginas. Women give birth (using their vaginas). Men are strong and are more suited to the blue-collar jobs (not that anyone cares about those jobs anyway). But nevertheless, a bit like YOU said. You want to stay home and look after the kids. Well what happens if 70% of women agree with you. Do we then launch into a cry about the High Court?

No. We look at it objectively. Women have great opportunities. In fact, in some cases, they are better off than men. Most women are educated, out-of-prison and alive. And if a woman wants to gets on the High Court, SHE HAS THE OPPURTUNITY. So now that women have opportunities you can get off your high horse. Old feminism can slowly fade away. And a new, truer form of feminism can be bred where equality is fought for, regardless of the gender.

Citizen Jane

This, folks, is even more gold when one knows who wrote it, and I now feel 100% justified in certain possibly-irrational choices I may have made recently :-D

But, to the issue at hand.

Dear Jane

I agree with you, Jane, about equality. In fact, I was discussing this issue with a Friend From Up The Road yesterday and he takes exactly the same position as you with regards to what modern feminism is about. The term feminism should apparently be scrapped (in the same way one might say the ALP should get as far away from 'Labor' as possible which some creative corporate re-branding, but I'll save that one for a rainy day... it's too lovely a day today to be angry...) in favour of 'equalism' or, in the alternative, we should just forget about the whole damn thing all together and just get on with our lives.

However, there's something about forgetting the past which I just cannot deal with. What happens when you forget the past is that you make the same mistakes over and over again. This is the same issue I have with indigenous issues and economic policy... everyone gets lulled into a false sense of security when things are 'fine' and all of a sudden, you're back 70 years. As long as you, Jane, promise me that on the road to equalism we don't forget that women have suffered with the raw deal for a very long time, I agree that we need to support everyone with warm-fuzzies.

But, here's my reply speech (especially since you don't like them...) on the other issues you raised, in chronological order.

Firstly, I'm not the media. I'm an over-excited twenty-something nerd who hates to piss off the few real-world friends she has and has thus taken to venting in kilobytes. Furthermore, I believe there has been some good research done on the fact blogging doesn't affect the mainstream media enough to have real impact on the information war, and with 8 hits a day I'm not part of the tiny number who may in fact do so.

Secondly, I feel that my harping on Janet Albrechtson's gender was justified. Someone said to me yesterday that if a man had written what she had written, it would have never been published. Why would anyone say that if what she wrote wasn't ridiculously offensive to women and the hard fight fought by crazed feminazis everywhere? Plus, she wrote it as a woman, she should be able to justify it as a woman, and so I am going to write about what she wrote as a woman.

Thirdly, would you like to re-read my post and tell me exactly how many times I moaned without discussing 'content'? I may get emotional sometimes, but I generally try to stick to the issues at hand when I criticise something, without resorting to blatantly making stuff up.

Fourthly, I'm glad you accept that there needed to be a cat-fight for women to "given the same opportunities and be just as, if not, more successful than their muscularly enhanced counterparts" and that "as a result of the pressure from such people that many women’s lives have improved":

This is great. Women have achieved so much. But the brutal facts remain. The vast majority of the world’s women still have very little power, at work, in their relationships at home, or in the wider world. As British social commentator Polly Toynbee noted, even in the Britain of 2004: ‘the battle is only half won.’

Worldwide, 70 per cent of those living in poverty are women, as are two-thirds of illiterate adults. One in four women is beaten by her husband or partner. Every day, 1,300 still die unnecessarily in childbirth or during pregnancy.

I do not believe feminists have "lost sight of what they were fighting for". It is only when we accept sub-par results do we lose sight of the fight.

Fifthly, if you're up for some websurfing: here are some more facts about women and our (cough) place in the world.

Sixthly, when I was talking about [deleted] choices, it was in the context of responding to Auntie Jan saying feminazis do not offer women 'real choices'. I was saying we have choices. Because of feminazis and what they fought for. Yes, hurrah, something to celebrate! Auntie Jan goes on and on about how Old Femmos whine despite the progress we've made and yet what does she do? Whine about something we could celebrate. Way to go!

Seventhly, I understand the point you are making about the status of men. I'm sure you feel very strongly about it. All I have to say to that is, then let's stop arguing about women and men and fix the education system which currently favours the rich over the poor and is on a steady march to increasing that divide.

Oops, did I suddenly switch from whinging about gender to whinging about class? Here's the thing with equality in this country right now: Everything and everyone is divided into competing factions because it appears that the elites seem to like it that way. They're happy propping up their friends to high places and ignoring those who can't increase their status. My apologies for the digression, but there is a link...

The thing is, exactly the same issue exists with women. Women have always have and, if we ignore it, always will face an uphill battle for equality. Probably because we have different bits down there to men. (I am going to ignore the thing you said about Auntie Jan's ego: la la la la la la imnotlisteningoriwillswearagain la la la la.) My Friend From Up The Road pointed out that the number is 30% because 20% of women are having children at all times. (Like how 69% of statistics are made up on the spot.) Well, if that is the case, I give up. I concede. Capitulate, even. Ok, we have the chance and opportunity to be on the High Court now, let's get the hell over it.

But 30% isn't equality yet. We need to support everyone, men, women, children, elderly, indigenous people, migrants, students, workers, heck, even wild tree frogs, but we still have to fight for equality, as the best way to provide that support. We still have to fight because the current status quo doesn't give a shit. That's all I was saying. That and Janet Albrechtsen is evil.

Thanks for taking the time to send me a response, and I hope to talk to you soon
Sunili

P.S. I know I'm not one to talk about spelling, but I've recently found that Copy-Paste to Word only takes a few seconds ;)

Anger. Rising. Must. Blog.

Note: Sorry I've been out of the blogging loop for a while, it was due to the post-exam blob-out and being too busy in the real-world and then writing about slightly more interesting things elsewhere--I have even avoided looking the news up online--and please forgive that this response to my second favourite Tory Lady Janet Albrechtsen is a little tardy and may have been covered elsewhere. I promise I'll be getting back into the swing of things again shortly. Oh, and yeah, I get really ticked off here, so you have hereby been given a

LANGUAGE WARNING.



Anti-feminist women perplex me. Conservative anti-feminist women (though I'm hard pressed to name any progressive anti-feminist women) more so. Let's face it, if a woman it so brainwashed by her context to think her place is in the home and she should never be able to achieve or do anything because she wants to, then I can't blame her. Heck, if a woman sits down and has a good think about all the issues and decides, for. her. self, that's what she wants to do, then kudos to her. But how can an educated, apparently intelligent woman of the world think so? I suppose "an intelligent Conservative" is an oxymoron. But, in my humble opinion, so is Tory Anti-Feminism.

In her latest, Janet Albrechtsen suggests that for those weirdo hippie bra-burning crackpots better known as 'older feminists', "conservatism and feminism do not mix".

And rightly so, because Tories like the Luddite "picket-fence, mother-at-home model" of women's policy in preference to the "oh, shit; quick, put a woman on the High Court even if it's solely to save us from international humiliation (even though we probably can't be more humiliated and looked down upon...)" model.

But, surely, if a Conservative woman was all gung-ho for that personal-best-self-interest realist crap, she would be promoting the need to support women though affirmative action mechanisms because it'd be the best way for her to win?

Apparently not!

Which I SO do not get. Doesn't Jan realise that maybe one day she could be swinging her sensible shoes off the edge of highest park-bench in the country if only she supported giving women a so-called 'free ride'?

No, she's too busy pointing out that 30% is a victory.

I know Jess from ausculture hearts Janet Albrechtsen, but I hate her and her smarminess.

According to Jan, 'real women' (of which I am apparently not one) should be celebrating (and that does not just mean being pleased with the current progress, but actually congratulating ourselves on this is be-all and end-all achievement) the following:

Women hold 33 per cent of Australian government board spots, well beyond the 8.6 per cent of seats they had on Australia's top 200 listed companies as at June 2003. For the same period, women held more than 30 per cent of positions at the senior executive service level in the Australian public service. In the private sector the figure is 8.8 per cent. Women fill more than one quarter of Coalition seats and as Howard noted in his post-election press conference, there are more women in cabinet than at any time since Federation.

First of all... 103 years is a LONG FUCKING TIME SINCE FEDERATION, but, more bizarrely... we're supposed to be proud of THIRTY FUCKING PERCENT?????????????

Fuck. Off.

Oh, pardon me. That's thirty-three percent of government board spots.

Fuck the fuck off, Jan. Not happy, even.

Apparently we're not allowed to be 'angry' that only SIX women head government departments. That's SIX out of EIGHTEEN departments. Good things obviously come in thirds, because this fact, according to Auntie Jan, is the. Best. Thing. Ever.

Fuck. Off.

I appear to be repeating myself. But I just can't help it. I am livid. FUCK THE FUCK OFF, JANET!!!!

On the issue that affirmative action is a 'free ride', Auntie Jan argues that:

... merit must come first. Short cuts based on gender will hardly advance the status of women. When you appoint a woman on sex, not talent, you risk appointing the talentless -- or at least promoting that perception. And that can only encourage a view that women are not quite up to the job.

What complete and utter bullshit. On first glance, Jan's point appears relatively rational. (Heaven forbid!)

But let's have a think about this, shall we? (Phew. Order is once again restored to the world.)

First of all, while we may like to think we live in a meritocracy, oh no we fucking don't. What's the difference between appointing a woman to the High Court because she's a woman and appointing a conservative to the High Court because he (let's face it, he) happens to be a conservative, for fuckssakes? Because that's what fucking happens in the fucking real world, as much as it pains me almost to the point of tears.

Second of all, we "risk appointing the talentless"??? Give me a freaking break, woman. Why don't you just SAY "there are no talented, qualified, quite-up-to-the-job women available to fill these positions", COUGHBULLSHITCOUGH, and just admit your redicularity (is that a word? I mean it in the same way one says 'hilarity'). Giving women a chance to enter a male-dominated profession is shitloads more progress than THIRTY FUCKING PERCENT. Can someone please explain to me how the fuck she ever passed highschool (heck, even kindergarten) thinking THIRTY PERCENT was good enough? That concept is just spinning me out right now.

And on the issue of choice... The feminazi version of choice apparently has "a nasty tendency to transmute into the dictatorial and doctrinaire". WANKWANKWANKWANKWANK. Your point, sweetie? (By the by, what a nice way of appealing to the masses; you go, Jan.) There is so a fucking choice when you support women. When I have children, I will stay at home with them because I'm the clucky type and I want to watch the cute little monkeys grow up. But I also want to do something with my life other than get sprogged up. That's called choice. It's only when we have opportunities do we have a bloody choice. It's only when women are educated, supported and given the chance to excel do we have a fucking choice.

Finally, if it's not too much to ask, Auntie Jan, would you care to explain and/or give an example of what you mean by "objective policy making based upon impartial research of women's needs and wants"? I would be most appreciative. Because if that isn't what the Office of Status of Women is about, well, then, I'm stumped.

So now I'm back to being confused. Confused as to why a woman thinks it's fine for women to only be 30% of the decision making process which affects 50% of the population, confused as to why she's not riding the affirmative action train to Success Station herself, since it's in her go-get-em Tory nature anyway, and confused as to how in blazes she gets stuff published in national newspapers. (No, wait, I so know the answer to that last one: Tinkerbell.) Oh jeez, how is her existence even rational? Is she some sort of über Conservabot sent here from the future to destroy our souls or something? If so, is she from the same lab from which Ann Coulter spawned?

URGH.

Right, back to being angry. Jeez Louise, I am so pissed off right now. I'm just going to stop before I say something which could get me sued. If I haven't already.

Sunshine on my window

"Why don't these photos make the news?" Thanks Fiona. 

O'Reilly's Loofa

Bwahahaha. The thought of Bill O'Reily having sex is totally gross, but by George it's funny to think this particular Respected National TV host's non-existent credibility is now even more non-existent.

Weighing in on Bolty*

Disclaimer: At the risk of having my employment threatened, I just want to say that Andrew Bolt is a "respected national columnist" and he totally rocks my world.**

---

Ausculture's Jess points out that even the Herald Sun agrees Bolty is a waste of space.

Why does he keep spouting off the same RWDB opinions over and over again? No one cares, Andy, sweetie-dear.

Yes, we know you're against anything which has an even remote connection to being fair to people and/or accepting that some pretty awful things happened in this country in the past which we might be able to learn from.

So there's no need for you to tell us that the Australian Research Council providing

grants for 10 more investigations on gender issues, eight on race or racism, another five on reconciliation and seven on global warming. Plus a couple of studies on how anti-terrorism laws are a menace, and Islamism isn't

is bad.

Heaven forbid people trying to find some ways to solve Global Warming. What's the point in that?

I have agree with him on the anti-terror law thing though. Everyone already knows they're a menace, why do we need to do a study on it? Bah, damn those Leftie Academics and their eschewing of economic rationalism!

But does he really need to be whinging about the Eureka Conference? Of course he's going to hate it; he's so damn predictable that he doesn't need to even mention it. Hello, it's to celebrate the 150th of the EUREKA STOCKADE.

No Liberals have turned up to speak.

My. God. Isn't that just shocking?

I think the Right needs some new material.


___
* How can I consider myself a playa on the Left of the Blogosphere if I didn't have at least one post on the critically acclaimed genius-slash-unstoppable sex god himself?

** Did you ever play Opposites Day at primary school? Ah, the memories are flooding back.

The L-Word

Before my Politics and Media exam yesterday* I ran into this American Study Abroad student whom I accidently snogged last month (it turned out that he'd postal-voted for Shrub, thus making it an Accident**). When he learned my exam was for a unit run by our Illustrious Collage of Arts Foudation Dean who also happens to be a Big Leftie, my American friend kindly offered me some, uh, sage advice to help me pass.

"Be liberal," he said. "Simon will love it."

If I were hispanic, I would've done that don-tchu-no-giv-me-noh-ahtitood neck rotation thing*** and said "You don't have to tell me to be liberal, honey, it runs in my veins." But I'm not, so I just laughed nervously at a further generalisation he made about my lecturer, politely wished him well for his exam and excused myself. Back. Away. From the Republican. Slowly. His ignorance could be contaigious and might be set off by sudden movements.

Anyway, the way this guy mentioned being 'liberal' got me thinking. It was like he thought being 'liberal' was contrary to the way human beings would/should normally operate and must only be feigned when writing an exam set by some weirdo commie bastard who may or may not have worked at a terrorist training camp in Cuba.

It was like being liberal was dirty.

What the hell is with some people's problem with liberalism, huh? Why is it bad to think that everyone deserves a chance to access decent education, healthcare, reasonable living and working conditions and a fair? Why is it wrong to support civilised diplomacy rather than reckless aggression, fairer income re-distribution, services which benefit larger parts of the community and not just those who can afford it, equal pay for equal work, the right of women to choose what happens to their bodies, the right of people to choose their faith coupled with an obligation to not impose their beliefs on others, the right of grown adults to decide whom they want to marry, and the sustainable use of natural resources?

Please, just let me know where I've got it wrong, because it's killing me.

Now, if I am totally and utterly convinced by flawless and brilliant reasoning (something other than If It's Not Right It's Wrong, please) that I'm in the wrong camp and I capitulate and repent for the error of my nasty liberal ways, what should I do? How should I act? What am I supposed to believe in? (Heaven would forbid me, as a new Tory, to think for myself.) The Democratic Underground author I've linked to above points out that

many conservatives I have met usually espouse one or more programs and policies that are mainly self serving - including the reduction or elimination of taxes, protection of the status quo and states rights irrespective of societal inequities, "my" religious convictions - not yours, prosperity at any cost, business interests - not the public's, the right to own assault weapons, a powerful military rather than universal public health and education, or finally America first - the U.N. never! In a more vernacular sense, "I've got mine, Jack, to hell with you."

Don't Americans love themselves from being the land of liberty? Well then get with the facts, dammit, and celebrate liberalism. Because it means sticking up for everyone, not just yourself. Because it means giving a fuck.

___
* The exam was a treat, and I think I did pretty well. For the question on blogging, I quoted John Quiggin, Tim Dunlop and Robert Corr, and for the question on the media's role in Iraq I mentioned stuff I'd blogged about last week. I knew I started doing this for a reason!

** Note to self: interrogate all potential snoggees about their political viewpoints beforehand, regardless of cuteness.

*** That would be rotation on the y-axis, cf the chick in The Exorcist. I can't think of a better way to describe it right now.


PS -- More on the Shrub election: The Election is Over. The Fight is not.

A Declaration of Dependence

To the citizens of the United States of America

In the light of your failure to elect a proper President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new Prime Minister (The Right Honorable Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a Minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.

A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminum." Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favor' and 'neighbor,' skipping the letter 'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters. You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z' (pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix "is" will be replaced by the suffix "ise". You will learn that the suffix 'burgh' is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to respell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed". There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary then you won't have to use bad language as often.
   
   
2. On your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of "-ize".
   
   
3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to Cockney, upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier). You will also have to learn how to understand regional accents - Scottish dramas such as "Taggart" will no longer be broadcast with subtitles. While we're talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is "Devon". If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become "shires" >e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire.
   
   
4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will be required to cast English actors to play English characters. British sit-coms such as "Men Behaving Badly" or "Red Dwarf" will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who can't cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness.
   
   
5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.
   
   
6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 2005. You should stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a girls' game called "rounders" which is baseball without fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs.
   
   
7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde. "Merde" is French for "Shit". The 97.85% of you who were not aware that there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians have never been the bad guys. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.
   
   
8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 2th will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day".
   
   
9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.
   
   
10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips. Fries aren't even French, they are Belgian though 97.85% of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called "crisps". Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be served warm and flat. Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.
    
    
11. As a sign of penance, 5 grams of sea salt per cup will be added to all tea made within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this quantity to be doubled for tea made within the city of Boston itself.
    
    
12. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all, it is lager. From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be referred to as "beer", and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as "Lager". The substances formerly known as "American Beer" will henceforth be referred to as "Near-Frozen Knat's Urine", with the exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product will be referred to as "Weak Near-Frozen Knat's Urine". This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in Pilsen, Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.
    
    
13. From December 1st the UK will harmonise petrol (or "Gasoline" as you will be permitted to keep calling it until April 1st 2005) prices with the former USA. The UK will harmonise its prices to those of the former USA and the Former USA will, in return, adopt UK petrol prices (roughly $6/US gallon - get used to it).
    
    
14. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.
15. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.

Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your cooperation.

___
email forward via Annabel; thanks bubs!

Fighting God-policy

After yesterday's debate on The Balance of Creation over at Rob Corr's, I was interested to find this post in my Nation LiveBookmarks folder this morning. Katrina vanden Heuvel outlines the systematic infiltration of Creationism into US education policy and the "rightwing assault on the Enlightenment [which] extends well beyond putting creationism on equal footing with evolutionary science".

The article ends with a warning to those of us who find this trend disturbing...

People of reason must be savvy, and just as tough as the intolerant Right, in defending scientific discovery and the ideal of human progress from the retrogressive forces now rallying behind this White House. With a messianic militarist in the Oval Office, social conservatives are seizing the initiative and assailing the Enlightenment. Time is not on our side.

Link

Republicans for Voldemort

For those of you who were doing a "huh?" about my Republicans for Voldemort merchandise, here's the goats.com cartoon it came from:



Bloody brilliant. I have also pre-ordered a new t-shirt from them which says Jesus Loves Dick. Yeah!

Real update laterish :)

Rice is the new Pasta

Excellent, the new US Secretary of State is the ex-namesake of an oil tanker. Doesn't that just fill your hearts with warm fuzzies?

But is there a good side? David Corn writes that this provides an excellent chance for the Democrats to keep pestering the Bush 2.2 Administration:

Why didn't the president and you bother to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before he decided to go to war? Why weren't there Cabinet-level meetings on what to do after the invasion about the obvious economic, political, legal, and security challenges that would be faced in Iraq? Why did Bush say there were "stockpiles" of biological weapons in Iraq even when the overstated intelligence did not report this? Why did he devote more time pre-9/11 to ballistic missile defense rather than to counterterrorism? Oh, the list could go on for days.

Update 18/11: This column by John Nichols* sums up why I dislike Condi quite nicely.

After Rice appeared in that city in September, the Seattle Times newspaper pointed out that, "Rice sounded at times like a candidate." In a sense, she was. Prior to the election, Washington was abuzz with speculation about the all-but-certain departure of Secretary of State Colin Powell, the closest thing the administration had to an independent man of government -- as opposed to the programmed politicos who peopled most major posts in the Bush White House. Rice, who began campaigning for the Secretary of State post before the 2000 election, did not want there to be any doubt on the part of Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney, the man who runs foreign policy for the administration, that she would be a more loyal and dramatically more politicized player than Powell.

...

Just as she politicized the national security adviser to an extent never before seen, she will politicize the State Department. Any pretense of independence or pragmatism will be discarded as quickly as was the tradition of keeping the national security adviser out of politics.

With Powell, its feeble defender, on the way out of the State Department, the last small voices of dissent within the foreign policy bureaucracy will begin to fall silent. If Rice is confirmed, as seems certain considering the partisan divide in the Senate, the Department of State where Thomas Jefferson, William Jennings Bryan and George Marshall once presided, will be little more than an arm of the White House political operation. And the Secretary of State, who has already proven herself to be more interested in campaigning than in defending the best interests of the nation or its security, will not be a diplomat. She will be a politician, nothing more and, certainly, nothing less.

One of my politics lecturers predicted Powell would go before the start of Iraq War II last year, either because he felt dirty being associated with Dubya or because he'd be chucked for having a brain capable of thinking on its own. Dr Rice shouldn't have any of those problems, but it looks like the embedding of partisan interests in the Bush 2.2 Administration is just going to get worse. And this can't possibly be a good thing.

Even if she is a politician (because, let's face it, who isn't these days?), the position of her politics is dangerous. If I'd blogged when Powell was appointed I would have said the same thing, but honestly, how can someone who was in charge of national security (you'd be kicking yourself if 9/11 happened on your watch, eh?) and so gung-ho about going to bloody war be a diplomat? I know I'm a bleeding heart liberal idealist who will just get crushed like a bug if I ever moved away from my laptop, but surely the whole point of diplomacy is to avoid war?

Why not just get rid of the Secretary of State job altogether? It'd be perfect economic rationalist policy. I understand Rice's appointment is a logical conclusion after an ex-General, but this just solidifies the Administration's obsession with political realism in foreign policy. National interest, alliances, military might, blah di blah di blah. Is it working, darlings? No, no it bloody well isn't.

Dr Rice should remember what she used to teach at Stanford:

C students rush to war, while A students work diligently and patiently toward peaceful solutions to international problems. When the Iraqi crisis has ended, what grade will the current Administration have earned?

I'd give them an F.

___
*Ah, The Nation. I would be adrift in a sea of "Huh?" and "Umm" without you.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

(That was an automated posting... If it was actually me, the post would have said "Woo! Trackback! I don't even know what that is! Leave me comments, I love the attention :-D". Thank you and goodnight.)

Fallujah War Crimes Caught on Camera

From Reuters/ABC.net.au:

The US military has begun an investigation into possible war crimes after a television pool report by US network NBC showed a Marine shooting dead a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque.

If I may offer a suggestion for Dubya's banner makers: Misson Fucked.*

The Power of the Media
I did a unit this semester called Setting the Agenda: Politics and the Media.** Taking it was half of the inspiration for starting up this blog (the other half came from Rob Corr, who, after the last couple of weeks, is officially my blogging idol). The unit really made me question that grand old idea of the Fourth Estate as 'an independent and impartial watch dog of government and other powerful interests.' When looking at the mainstream media's response to 9/11 and hearing about the antics of the Murdochs and Alan Joneses of the world, most of the time the mass media just comes across as a lap dog (excellent, from now on I will only refer to Murdoch as Tinkerbell**).

When things like this show up, though, it gives you just a little bit of hope. Hope that maybe the megamedia has realised they spent immediate post 9/11 period and the lead up to Iraq 03-?? acting as the US Government Stenography Service and now understand the crucial role they have to play in protecting us from the tyranny of the majority. Another entry on hope/faith later (not).

___
* As pointed out by GT, my most appropriate typo ever! :)
** Therefore this entry counts as exam study, woo.
*** Paris Hilton's chihuahua.

GRRRRR!!!!!

As if I didn't hate those f^(&ers at The Australian enough, they go and give away the ending of Sex and the City with a headline. Like how The Chaser spoiled who-dies-in-Order-of-the-Phoenix. God DAMMIT!!! Smarmy bastards!!! Some people have exams, you know, and had to tape it. I HATE YOU NEWS LTD!!!!!!

JWH [heart] GWB

Aaww, why are those Tories so against gay marriage? It's a match made in heaven! (ta to The Bulletin)

(Woo! Two funny photos in two days! I know actual content is good, but I say funny photos are better. No one reads this anyway.)

Right-Wing Barbie

Last night I read a post on Ann Coulter, written by an anonymous (hah) Big AC Fan, detailing an apparent example of the 'hypocrisy' of the left. The logic of the 'column', what little I can garner from it, goes something like this: Ann Coulter is a woman who says some stuff. People (aka Those Mean Lefties) criticise her, but they only point out things about her appearance. Therefore what she says is valid.

Ann (can I call her Ann? I like to keep things a little less formal over here, unless it's completely necessary) has every right so say whatever she wants to say. It's in that old Constitution thingy those Americans are so proud of (right after that apparently inconsequential part about separation of church and state, y'know, the First Amendment). And I totally agree that people who just sit in front of their laptops and say "She's a whore" are not helping anyone.

The thing that confuses me is this: how can people actually read or listen to what dear Ann has to say honestly be able to defend what she says (rather than her right to say it)?

The purveyor of Defend Ann 2004 listed down a bunch of quotes berating dear Annie on the basis of her gender, appearance and sexuality as proof of why the Left Wing is sexist.

If that was the point, then I'd have to agree that that's just not on. But, kids, let's not forget context. Maybe we should be able to see if those Ann-haters had something meaningful to say as well? (Subtitles: what are your sources?)

But what about looking at Ann's work itself and telling us why she should be so admired and revered? What about defending her instead of bashing her critics? "People say mean stuff about her so she should be given a medal" just doesn't cut it for me.

So, in my dedication to rational debate, and in flagrant violation of context (because these things should not be said no matter what the context), I pulled up another random Coulter-bashing page off Google and I will reproduce some little Annie pearls of diplomacy, wit and wisdom which were reproduced in it...

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal... [The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail."---Hannity & Colmes 8/24/01

"I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly."---MSNBC 3/22/97

And as for gender, appearance and sexuality...

"Anorexics never have boyfriends. ... That's one way to know you don't have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend."---Politically Incorrect 7/21/97

"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores."---Salon.com 11/16/00

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01

"Clinton is in love with the erect penis."---This Evening with Judith Regan, Fox News Channel 2/6/00

"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."---Rivera Live 8/2/99

And, my favourite Ann quote of all time, detailing her anti-terrorism policy at her old job on National Review Online* on 13 September 2001:

"we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

You go, girlfriend.

‘[L]ogic in Miss Coulter’s arguments’ indeed. That's all I have to say, I'm supposed to be learning about Breach of Trust. But, the moral of the story: Ann Coulter is a crazy person (ooo! how PC of me!) and deserves to be seen as such.

___

*Sorry, I'm not including hyper-links because those Right-Wing Arses get enough hits, but here's Google to give you a headstart. Or better yet, go read The Nation. The blogs there are quite excellent. I highly recommend The Daily Outrage and Editor's Cut.

This Week's Funny Photo

Voting Bush = You're Stupid

(unless I like you, in which case it's still not ok...)

Dear Mr Howard

You are a pretentious arse.

Don't forget, history will judge you too.

Good luck
Sunili

Rememberance Day

November 11 was Armistice Day, a bushranger was slaughtered and Gough was betrayed
November 11 -- he wouldn't survive the Governor-General in '75
November 11 -- a big day for all of us
November 11 -- Ned Kelly died, ahh shame, Fraser shame and we all cried
For you Gough, you Gough, you Gough, Edward Gough Whitlam

The Whitlams always say it better!

Inappropriate and unnecessary

Blacks split on welfare overhaul

Nice one, News Ltd. What's next, employing Howard Sattler as a weekly columnist?

Jesus speaks through the Republicans

Via the Daily Kos:

I hope the election of George W. Bush is seen as a wake-up call to all the liberal Democrats who oppose God's will.
It is His doing that George W. Bush is still our president. Millions of born-again Christians helped win this election through our prayers and votes. Jesus speaks through the Republicans.
The Democrats will not be able to win elections until they renounce their sinful ways and stop encouraging abortions, gayness, and trying to take away our guns.

Earl Balboa
Washington Township (mcall.com)

Reading something like that never fails to make me feel intelligently superior, but then I remember that these people get to choose who runs my world (as pointed out by The Chaser Decides team, this person votes) and I want to cry.

I have decided to do my Honours thesis on the development of the Christian Right, both in Australia and the USA. I'd been tossing around the idea of looking at political satire because it'd be loads of fun, but last month my supervisor, Dr Bob, suggested I pick an issue that really pisses me off as a topic because then I'd be motivated to research and discuss it for a year. I can also argue against it properly when the oppurtunity arises.

Now I don't plan to sit down next year and outline how Jesus cannot possibly speak through the Republicans given that his own platform was so clearly left-wing (was JC's gun as shiny as yours, Earl?), but I hope to nut out some issues such as: What is the place of religion in politics? Why is the issue growing in countries where the separation of Church and state is a constituionally enshrined concept? And why does it scare me so much?

But before I can write an Honours thesis, I suppose I should pass my exams this semester.

Some perspective

No, it wasn't God.

I'm slowly getting less upset about the US Election. Should focus more on own backyard and what can be done... especially as the WA state election draws closer.

Remember this, all you sandgropers: WA is now a Better Place to Live. Yeah!

(That was so lame. I don't even know why I'm posting this.)

Dear 49% of America...

Apology accepted. We know you tried, guys, and we feel your pain...

Bush has no mandate and I know you can fight him. That's the way your country was set up; please remember that. Stand and fight, we're counting on you.

Lots of love,
Sunili

In the near future...? Thanks to Sophy's Mom.

Armchair Activism

Well it's not quite going to change the world, but I got my first letter to the editor published this week... in the Western Suburbs Weekly in response to this. Heehee I'm so proud of myself!

Oh, yeah, the letter, as published in the 'Western View' section on the 2/11/04 issue of WSW, along with another on the same topic:

Hitler cartoon was great
I wonder if the Hon. Senator Campbell (Western Suburbs, October 26) complained to our daily newspaper last Wednesday [sic, it was Friday] for Alston's blatant rip-off of Smithy's great Howard-Hitler cartoon?
And those readers who found it "puerile" should be grateful we live in a society where opinions like that can be freely aired. Although maybe not for much longer.

[And they spell my name wrong...], Nedlands

Ten out of 10 to cartoonist
Contrary to the opinion expressed by John Lanchaster and Ian Campbell (Western Suburbs, October 26), I and many, many others thought the Howard-Hitler cartoon was outrageously funny.
So good in fact that I plan to send copies to friends interstate

N. Cox, Swanbourne.

I need to try and find the cartoon and scan it; it was really fabulous.

My heart is broken and my mind is numb

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it -- Voltaire

An American friend of mine who voted for Bush pointed this quote out today, in response to the "verbal bitchslapping" she's been getting since the US election result, and it really made me stop in my tracks.

We value democracy so highly... but do we ever truly accept what it means? In a world so driven by adversarialism, does democracy even have a place?

And so much for me being liberal (with a small-l) when I'm walking around thinking people who voted for Bush or Howard are intellectually inferior to me. That means my warm fuzzies apply to refugees, single parents, the disabled, unemployed, the homeless, homosexuals and trees but not to those who can't summon up a few rational brain cells... I have a lot of soul-searching to do.

The ideas I've always had about reason have left me feeling a bit flat today... they don't seem to fit in the world anymore, because people make their choices on what they feel, what they believe, and what they are taught rather than looking at the facts and their implications in order to reach a decision.

I don't know. I'm really confused and awfully disillusioned. But I'll leave you with a what another American friend (who voted Kerry) has on his away message tonight:

Dear (United States of) America,

What the fuck?

Love,
Patrick

"sideshows to the main game"

Today's ponderable: Does our illustrious federal Education Minister actually care about education? Or is he too busy on his power trip to sit down and think about what his post is actually about?

So the VC's are worried about what Nelson wants to do... I bet they feel so screwed over right now.

And I know I personally don't have a vested interest in the status of public universities, but that doesn't mean I don't care.

Forget Hallowe'een...

This is the real scary stuff:

The Patriot Act allows American authorities access to normally protected US company information, even from foreign subsidiaries. Three Canadian provinces are already considering measures to specifically counter the US law over concerns about companies such as EDS, which in Australia manages federal taxrecords and all South Australian Government records.

Trick or treat.

Now The Australian always has interesting sydicated photos on their front page, but I've never seen one which was so appropriate to the headline... 

The West Suburbian?

Today's West's Alston cartoon (p4) looked VERY similar to one in the Western Suburbs Weekly last week (19 Oct). (I can't seem to find them online, but the both cartoons had Howard in a big car being dictatorish and saying "Ve must not let ziss go to our heads" etc.)

Is this a sign of things to come? If so, I'm looking forward to hearing more about the Cottesloe bowling clubhouse fiasco.

Sen Ian Campbell wrote to WSW to complain about the cartoon last week, as did some other dorkus from Claremont (and I'm sure even more went unpublished). They should be grateful they live in a society where we can still make a joke about politics.

Should also be marginally interesting if any copyright issues come out of this.

Update: Ooo hoo hooo! Dean Alston just emailed me in response to my letter to The West about the cartoon. He's been in India for the last fornight, so it can't be "wanton plagiarism". But the cartoon shouldn't have been published!

Could this be where I leave my indelible mark on the blogging world? Probably not, since I'm the only person who reads this and it's about political cartoons in wee Perth rather than Monica Gate (hey Rob: do you think if the Nixon thing happened at the DC Hilton it'd be "Monicaton" and "Ratherton" etc?), but I hereby declare that this is officially my Matt Druge moment :-D

:(

Well, it's official. Maybe the Tories do own God/Whatever? Nothing we do seems to work.

Is this man serious?

...if somebody came to me and said we have got some intelligence information which suggests that young people are being used in a particular way and we need to be able to address that, one might well come back in those circumstances with that sort of advice and say we need to look at this again...

says AG Ruddock, Australia's poster-boy for due process.

'This' being allowing kids as young as 12 to be strip searched and questioned about terrorist threats.

I'm sorry, but why are we still even talking about this?

Oh, that's right, because the foreign policy agenda of the Howard/Downer regime has made this country into legitmate targets from terrorists. Woops, brain like a sieve over here.

And obviously there's no point in trying to stop terrorism by fixing its social causes of poverty, imperialism, marginalisation and endless hopelessness; we just have to make sure we can force pre-teens to spill the beans on any impending attacks (about which our brilliant intelligence agencies have found real, accurate information).

There's not going to be much left...

The Australian: Human rights 'at a crossroads' [October 23, 2004]

There's not point crying over spilt milk, I know, but the prospect of the next three years just really sucks.

And here's something that makes me cranky: the Customs Officers strike (more from Rob). Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but in the 'current security environment' we need to protect ourselves from threats, right? But... hey, we don't really need people to do that for us, right? Or at least we don't have to give them proper pay and conditions; after all, Industrial Relations is lame, right?

Everyone's freaked out about terrorism, so fair enough we need more protection at airports and the rest of it. So... employ enough people and pay them properly to protect us, you morons. You can't eat the cake, people, you can't eat the cake.

And in news I wasn't able scoff at on Wednesday due to internet-oddness: Murdoch-owned paper rejects ad for 'Outfoxed'. Aren't they embarrassed? Seriously, it's just so stupid! Media Watch picked it up on Monday.

Oh really?

Pre-election economic predictions were optimistic: Costello. -- ABC News Online

I cannot even start to articulate how annoyed this makes me. Your department's predictions were 'optimistic'? So... Does that also mean your party's predictions about interest rates were 'wrong'?

Actually, let's not beat around the bush here, kids. They lied.

The Libs will have ostrich egg on their face by 2007. Mark my words.

Why do we only have one daily national?

The Australian -- Scrapbook: These guys should eat their words [October 12, 2004]

What, none of Murdoch's Media Minions ever pointed out what was pretty obvious at the time? Well Ross Fiztgerald got through, but otherwise, I guess not.

The Chaser team got it right last week with the Tampa 2; no matter what reason people come up with to negate it as a lame sour-grapes excuse, they know it's the only reason why Howard won.

13 Oct -- PS: A friend of mine told me she didn't want to go see Outfoxed today, because she'd read a really bad review of it. Where did you read it, I asked. Where else. It's really very scary.

George W[ired] Bush

It was ... alleged that on several occasions Bush stopped speaking for a period and stared ahead as if listening to a voice.

*Snort*

Let's give G-Dub's team the benefit of the doubt here and say he was listening to God...

More from This Modern World.

The Welcome Mat

Well. It's a new week and a new term of government. And because it's not a Latham Labor Government, it's time for a new... something. A new blog, that's it.

The 2007 Election Campaign started on Sunday 10 October 2004. Because Australia deserves better. And the only way we can get it is if people understand what is happening to our country.

This is my way of trying help everyone to open their eyes and understand. I hope it's not propaganda, though some people may think it is. After all, the line between what propoganda is and what it isn't seems to be blurring by the second.