 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| Don't assk don't tell | |
Nothing succeeds like excess, and the Annual Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras may be a case
in point. Severe financial problems (specifically lack of money) may mean that
the show does not go on. After several decades of shock tactics, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence,
the Dykes on Bikes, the Giant Percys and those muscle-bound men with Bulls-eyes painted
on their bottoms, just became a bit ho-hum. Even the sight of a nipple-ringed
Bob the Builder failed to titillate a blase and jaded public. The main thrust of the movement was about acceptance of homosexuality as a
valid lifestyle choice. Having achieved this goal there is not much interest
in it any more. The modern age doesn't really care about someone's
sexuality. Even the once homophobic US military now has a don't-ask-don't-tell
policy. There is something a bit sad about grown men running around the street
saying 'notice me', 'notice me' when there is nothing to actually protest
about. The beginning of the end must have come when the Rev Fred Nile finally
stopped his annual praying for rain to wash away the heathen festivities.
Apparently he realized that in the permissive age it was inconsistent with his
main goal of preying for reign - particularly as rain dances are regarded as a
bit .. well .. primal if not actually carnal. There was some suggestion of the government bailing out the
Mardi Gras, but in
the end, the average tax-payer wasn't very comfortable with the prospect of the
gay lobby putting their hands into their pockets.
|
|
 |
| X: 40 to 55. | |
There was hysteria in Sydney last night as the ringleader
of the series of ethnic-related gang-rapes was sentenced to 55 years in prison
for his crimes. The perpetrator's family and friends screamed that he was
innocent, while his victims rejoiced that they had finally won. The severity of the sentence is unprecedented in modern Australian judicial
history, and reflects both the outrage about the crime itself and the
frustration of the failure of two decades of political correctness. Few people
feel any sympathy for the perpetrator, and the thought of him spending not only
his youth but also his middle age in a cage may satisfies people's need to hit
back at a criminal who's obscenity defies understanding. However the precedent
is a dangerous one. A 55 year gaol sentence is greater than murder. Faced with a 55 year gaol
sentence, future rapists will just kill their victims. Few people would call this penalty too harsh, considering the crime, but
regardless of the level of disincentive, there will always be some level of
rape. If Australia wants to impose these kinds of sentences, she must
reintroduce the death penalty for murder. Otherwise we are condemning future rape victims to a death sentence.
|
|
 |
| Jumping to the head of the queue? | |
The old adage about communism - "the future is certain, only the past is
changing" - seems likely to survive the collapse of Soviet Union if the
Australian-2002-08-15 is to believed. The Australian claims to have sent reporters to the small village where Asylum Seeker Ali
Bakhtiyari claims to be from, and village elders and locals claim to have
neither heard of him or to have recognized his photo. Previously Ali identified Charkh to
The Australian as his place of birth, and pointed it out on map. Initially as tight-lipped as some of their clients, his lawyers have now
spoken out in his defense. They are blaming a 'linguistic mix-up', and now
claim he is from Kharkh Knowlege, between Khoshk-darrah and Anjeel-darrah but
refuse to say where these villages are, and refuse to point them out on a map. No-one else has been able find these villages on a map either. Ali Bakhtiyari's asylum claim is being reviewed by Australian immigration
officials, along with his protection visa. His future seems increasing certain,
but his past is still changing.
|
|
 |
| Oriented to the East | |
Taiwan has started talking up independence from mainland China again and
threatens to hold a referendum to settle the issue once and for all. Officials representing the People's Republic of China are (once again) squealing
with indignation at the suggestion that 20 million people on an island off
their coast, controlled by Beijing for only five years in the last century,
could even think of independence. They have condemned the independence calls and said they will not let the
democratic rights of the of the people of Taiwan be taken away by 'a few
trouble makers'. These indignant squeals ring a bit hollow coming from the largest dictatorship
in the world. Further, Chinese officials may have a bit of a credibility
problem if these 'few troublemakers' turn out to constitute a majority in a
Taiwanese referendum. Ten million people would be considered a significant
number even in mainland China - it's as many people as members of the Chinese
communist party. George (WW-III) Bush earlier indicated that the US would defend
Taiwan against being 'liberated' by the People's paradise utopian Republic of
China, but at the moment he's trying memorize the names of the capital cities
in the Middle East, and doesn't want to be distracted by trivialities like a
real war with China. He would really like the Taiwanese to just shut up and
shop (preferably in China), and not make 'provocative' remarks. Exactly why 20 million people on their own island saying they want to make
their own decisions independently of anyone else could be considered
'provocative' is one of the many mysteries of The Orient. Hopefully though, the Chinese rulers will orient themselves. They wiped out most
of their intellectual elite during the cultural revolution (even a fool is now
and then right by chance), and they are therefore smart enough to know that the
Chinese government would not survive a war with Taiwan, regardless of who actually
wins. As the Chinese curse goes: 'may you live in interesting times'. The Chinese
risk making the times interesting for themselves.
|
|
 |
| A Worried Man | |
Game theory is a dangerous tool the hands of fools, having suggested the optimum
strategy in the Cold War was a pre-emptive strike against the
Russians. Nonetheless, it gives interesting insights into the more temperate
relationship brewing between the US and Iraq. How will these sides play out the
upcoming Gulf War? Saddam Hussein knows better than to take on the US forces in the desert. Having
made that mistake before, and seeing his line of death turn into a path of
least resistance leading to his mother of all defeats, he will choose a
different strategy this time. He'll meet the US (or more correctly try to avoid
the US) in the cities. The US will have to besiege the cities. For this strategy to work the troops have to be closely integrated with the
population. US precision bombing has improved over the past 11 years, but it's
still not good enough to take out the tank parked in the double garage. And
taking out the billeted soldier in the spare room has about as much chance as a
rejected asylum seeker voluntarily removing themselves from yours. Of course this distributed force model creates discipline problems for Saddam,
but he doesn't have much choice. The choice he has to make is how many
cities? At this point the war game resembles chess more than a
conventional war. Saddam has to make the call to protect some number of his
cities, which unfortunately for him can't support each other. Because of the fragile nature of the military power pyramid, he will lose
control of any military unit he is physically isolated from, and since the
end-game is to protect the king (himself) he will choose first and foremost to
protect Baghdad. If the rest of Iraq is under US control, they can set up their
fledgling puppet government in another city and get on with the job. Baghdad
will eventually crumble by itself, or be taken out with the much touted US
scalpel. This is really just and extension of the US' containment strategy. They would
rather contain Saddam in a 10 foot cell, but containing him in a city of 4
million may be good enough until they work out how to cut him out without
taking too much good flesh with him. In the meantime George W Bush, not know for being the sharpest knife in the
draw himself, is trying to fashion his powerful club into a finely tuned
scalpel, and every armchair general from Melbourne to Baghdad is wondering if
he is up to the task. He is unlikely to get a five-star rating.
|
|
 |
| White lies, black truths. | |
SMH-2002-0808
reports: >> In the most important native title decision since the Wik case, the High
>> Court has found that legislation in Western Australia extinguishes any
>> rights indigenous people might have held over mineral and oil deposits. Ownership of the land was not enough for the elders of the Miriuwung and
Gajerrong people. They felt their traditional rights included the minerals
under the land as well as the land itself. However ownership of land generally
does not include those rights - just the right to use the top of the land
for buildings or farming - not mining. Back in 1992, the High Court Mabo decision was complicated, but came down to a
simple principle: if you have some connection to a patch of land, act as though
it's yours, believe it's yours, and no-one else objects, then eventually it
becomes yours. Common law. White-man's rule. Going back hundreds of years. This was pretty novel for Aboriginal culture. Having gained
great political
mileage from several decades of a confusing but mystical mantra
'we belong to the land' they then had to get used to saying 'the
land belongs to us'. Then they started saying '.. along with the oil, the diamonds, the uranium
and all the minerals under it', and alarm bells started ringing. Here were
a bunch of guys who had used the white-man's notion of ownership to obtain
something, and then were using the same notion to claim ownership rights that
whites themselves didn't have. In winning Mabo, the Aborigines had to accept the total authority of a
patronizing High Court. Terra Nullius (the controversial claim that it was
acceptable for the English to exert English law and control onto the 'empty
land' now called Australia) suddenly became vindicated. Politically, the
decision was a foregone conclusion - any other result would have undermined the
High Court's authority. But the High Court was also a bit like Eva Peron throwing cash to adoring
crowds to increase her popularity ("I've stolen your money, but I'll give it
back to you if you say you love me"). And yet here was Oliver Twist demanding
more. Not just thin gruel, but oil, uranium and diamonds no less. The outrage!
They may have had a better chance if they were asylum seekers. Asylum-seekers
could demonstrate no attachment to the land, but the High Court may have found
in their favor on the principle of dealing themselves back into the law-making
game. No such special consideration for the locals though, because the High
Court had already won this one, and the Aborigines left empty handed (except
for the dole cheques). Maybe if some historical revisionist were able to prove that oil, diamonds,
uranium and other minerals are a traditional Aboriginal cultural right? This
claim would be no more outrageous than some - like the land-rights claim on the
Swan Brewery. Culture can be very adaptive.
|
|
 |
| Headed for political damnation. | |
Tony (prime-ministeral-hopeful) Abbott seems to have lost the plot with his
latest affray into the public spotlight. He seems to have become the
self-appointed moral guardian of Australian society. Normally his speeches are full of good things like union-bashing, and scathing
criticisms of the welfare state, and make good use of his boxing experience to
lay not only the fist, but also the boot, into the ALP's lack of political
agenda. But suddenly, like some right-wing Victorian Feminist, he has started
to blame society's woes on a lack of basic Christian morality. In Aus-2002-08-05-Opinion he laments the effect that "100,000 abortions per year
has on the birth rate" and says that "abortion on demand" is "part of a
tendency to treat human beings as disposable,
throw-away-when-they're-not-convenient commodities", and goes on about how
"modern ambivalence towards the morality of the Ten Commandments reflects loss
of analytical rigour more than loss of religion". Apparently his own punch-drunk analysis did not lead him to the conclusion that
politicians are not there to dictate morality to their constituents, but to do the
job they were voted in for. People might expect their leaders to set an example,
but that's not the same thing. Let's remember too that Tony's past is not
exactly squeaky clean. Most Australians would think those little discretions
with that girl which resulted in adopting out his illegitimate child disqualify
him from such a role. Of course this kind of thing hasn't stopped the pedophile-ridden Church
from appointing themselves as our moral guardians, so I guess Tony thought he'd
give it a go. He goes on to say that government's "task is to change people's minds,
reassure them about their best instincts and touch their hearts". Most
Australians can make up my own mind thanks Tony. And after your history, they
don't want you touching any part of their body, thanks. Perhaps he feels like those American TV
evangelists who (after being caught out committing theft and adultery) proclaim
'the devil made me do it', and then promptly use their new-found intimate
knowledge of the devil as an extra qualification. On the other hand perhaps he is trying to soften his image from the
union-basher to the moral family man. But apparently it's OK to abandon your
families until you find one you like. Or maybe, after recognizing that he has to compete to become Johnny
(retiring-soon) Howard's replacement, he became confused about his main competitor.
He may have confused Peter (Mr Smirky) Costello for his brother Reverend Tim
(lying-for-my-religion) Costello, and thought that religous hypocrisy was the
key. Even Johnny (can't-retire-now) Howard was aghast, proclaiming that the
government is not going to open a debate on family values, and stressing that
moral issues are the choice of the individual. Apparently Little Johnny will
permit us to indulge in immoral excesses behind our compulsory picket fence.
As long as the gate's closed. If Abbott continues to stand on his moral pedestal he leaves his nether
regions vulnerable to a good blow below the belt. And that would give Costello
something to smirk about.
|
|
 |
| Pleased to be home | |
Well, it seems that it's not just in the communist world that some are more
equal than others. Even the great U.S of A. is prone to the same view of
humanity, or at least of American Citizens. The Americans are using an 'offshore solution' to their Taliban and Al Qaeda storage problem, which far outstrips Australia's 'Nauru' solution, for
keeping the detainees out of their court system. Detainees are kept at
Guantanemo Bay - technically part of Cuba, but on a long term lease to the
USA. It is not technically part of the US, so the courts don't have
jurisdiction, and no bleeding-heart democrat supreme-court appointee can take
pity on them and unleash them on a frightened US public. Johnny (24-and-still-going-strong) Walker, the US citizen who was
caught fighting with the other psychos in the Taliban during the US invasion of
Afghanistan, had been detained in Guantanemo Bay along with the other psychos.
However he has now been cut a deal which sees him returned to the US, and put on
trial in the technicality-prone US legal system. Who knows - he might walk
free with one of those 'fruit of the poisoned tree' rulings so popular on the
American courtroom TV programs. Apparently an American fighting with the Taliban must be seriously deluded, and
in need of professional help, whereas a man from, say, Australia would be just
operating as part of an axis of evil. Australian David Hicks who was also
caught fighting with the Taliban has to remain detained in his Guantanamo Bay
cell indefinitely without trail. And unlike Australia's offshore detainees
he doesn't have the option of changing his mind and
going home. While it may surprise and dismay some people that Australia has not pushed
harder for Hicks to receive the same treatment as Johnny Walker, a little
thought will reveal the danger of protesting too strongly. The Americans might
actually give him back. Imagine the outcry if we had to detain him with all the
other Muslims in Topside Nauru? Now that would be cruel and unusual punishment!
|
|
 |
| Why did you sink the boat, Daddy? | |
The 'children overboard' Senate inquiry dribbled away to nothing today as
the opposition finally realized the issue was dead in the water. Apart from demonstrating that the Australian Defense Force
information dissemination process is based on the Chinese-whisper model,
it didn't really embarrass the government. The fact that a huge government
bureaucracy is inefficient wasn't really news to a cynical electorate,
and did little to discredit a party ostensibly committed to small government. It did however embarrass the opposition after it was shown that the asylum seekers had scuttled their boat - effectively throwing everyone in the water
(children and all). Then it was shown that a child was thrown into the water
(details
here) - just not from that boat. Then there were the videos of unauthorized
arrivals screaming and shouting violently and threatening to throw a child
overboard. It did little to instill sympathy for the asylum-seekers or the
ALP. In the end the government's opponents just looked weak and ineffectual
against their relatively hard-line approach. The fact that Little Johnny's
explanation was less than water-tight was of little consequence to a dry-eyed
electorate. After weathering that, the ALP was faced with a choice of ending the whole
charade or sifting through the SIEV-X details. Some may feel that Australia has responsibilities for the safety of
non-Australians in the search-and-rescue areas of other countries, but most
don't. Some may feel that we have an obligation to fly a chartered Qantas jet
to Kabul (or Quetta) as soon as an Afghan expresses an interest in emigrating
to Australia, but most do not. Some may think we need more plumbers, but
plumbers with 5 kids and bad backs who don't speak a word of English after
being here for two years? They'll put up with the dripping tap until the other
guy is available. The ALP chose to let the issue drain quietly away. Facing sinking polls, Simon (thinking-more-clearly-now) Crean has realized
that embarrassing the government is pointless if you embarrass yourself more in
the process. He's showing signs of acting like an alternative Prime Minister
instead of a rabid criticize-everything attack-dog. The thought of becoming
PM has whetted his appetite, and getting rid of those
rottweiler teeth has really buoyed his psyche! Well done Simon. Now all you need is a policy.
|
|
|
| No Job Security | |
George (WWW.) Bush is no longer denying that the plans for an Iraqi Invasion
are on his desk - they are, strategy and all. But is this saber rattling
to avoid fighting at all? SMH-2002-07-30 Suggests that the favored US strategy is an 'inside-out'
strategy. It aims to strike right at the heart of Baghdad instead of taking on
the forces in the desert. The theory is that Iraq's soldiers, like the Bruce
Willis' Fifth Element Mangloids are not encouraged to make decisions
when their chain of command is broken. Once the top of the pyramid is removed,
the whole thing will crumble. Of course then there is the added doubt that Saddam's army's will fight at
all if they think he is dead. This new-found 'scalpel' approach by the US will come as a
disappointment to many. US troops are famous for their brute-force approach to
everything, and watching the complete route of the Iraqi army was probably the
most entertaining 100 hours that CNN has ever screened. Better than watching
countless reruns of 2 identical buildings falling down, anyway. A little planning, and a whole host of new US weapons would also make much
better viewing than images of US Daisy Cutters blowing up miserable
half-starved Taliban fighters and over-exuberant Afghan wedding goers.
Hollywood has educated us to expect better. Regardless, Americans are not known for their subtlety, and they risk
another Mogadishu if they try to use a scalpel approach. They also run risks if they ignore the psychology of the Iraqi army, and
of the Iraqi power-block. At the core of Iraq's power is a group of
people who's lives depend on keeping Saddam in power - because they
will be killed by a vengeful replacement (like a democratic government) if he
is gone. They
will defend him to the death, because death is the alternative. But outside that is a larger group who will have a better life with Saddam
present, but will still survive without him. If they are convinced that he is
going down, the best thing they can do is to change sides, or organize a
surrender. The ERG (Elite Republican Guard) is part of this group. Ten years ago the ERG gambled that Saddam would survive the Americans, and they
were right. But now is different. The goal now is not to remove Iraq from
Kuwait, but to remove Saddam from Iraq. Once the first M1A1 tank rolls over the
border, that will be a certainty. The ERG will have a choice. Make peace with the Americans,
or risk almost certain death. History teaches us
that self-preservation usually wins over loyalty if people are given time to
consider their options. Hence, the US war should not actually be
with the Iraqi command, but with the psychology of the ERG. With the ERG out of
the picture, Iraq would fall without further resistance. Elements of Iraq may
even do the job for the US - they wouldn't even have to go to Baghdad. What the US needs to organize is not a sophisticated and dangerous
operation with a scalpel but an old-fashioned face-off with the ERG. If the ERG
blinks first, they could win the coming Iraqi war without firing a shot. And it
would still make good TV.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
