 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
|
It's sometimes hard to say what goes on in the dark recesses of Islam.
Occasionally one gets a glimpse into the mindset, as someone lets the cat out
of the bag to grab some unattended meat, before retreating into the
'misinterpretation', 'out of context' and multicultural victim-hood. Or sometimes even
to prison. In one such a glimpse, some mainstream media outlets were reporting that the
ever colorful Sheik Hilali has been sacked as Australia's Mufti. This has been
met with counter-claim, and counter-counter-claim, but as usual the real
entertainment is not in the truth - it's in the positions of the players. Specifically Kevin (KRudd) Rudd has weighed into the religious debate,
insisting that "It's time for
Sheik Hilali to go and it's time that that happened as a matter of urgency,"
because his "views are inconsistent with the mainstream views of the Australian
community." Huh? This from the leader of the party which championed political
correctness? This from the successor of the man who intervened to give
Hilali citizenship in the first place - in spite of his questionable police
record? Apparently Kevin Rudd feel that people should be sacked simply for having
'views inconsistent with the mainstream'. Wouldn't that constitute unfair
dismissal Kevin? What even happened the ALP's stance on Little Johnny's
'draconian' IR laws? And what about diversity? As Australians, aren't we
supposed to celebrate diversity, Kevin? Wasn't 'mainstreaming' a dirty word
concocted by the fascists in the Liberal party? And would it be appropriate for a Prime Minister (or wannabe Prime Minister) to
interfere with the internal decisions of a religious group? Isn't Australia
supposed to be a secular state? Does KRudd want us to become more like the
Middle East in this respect? Kevin Rudd has once again demonstrated that he is a total goose. For the rest of us, Hilali's status is just an indicator of the sentiment of
the Muslim attitude within Australia. Whether he has been sacked or not, the
fact that he survived this long is a clear indication of the median mind-set of
his supporters. Though-out his lies about his Iraqi adventures (apparently
single-handedly rescuing Douglas Wood), the comments about women being to blame
for rape, and calling
Australians the worst kind of liars and hypocrites, he wasn't removed. The
conclusion? That at least half of the Muslims in this country supported his
position, and therefore supported him. If the Sheik truly is fired from his position, then this will be an indication
of a smarter Muslim population (in recognizing that their overt support for
such extremism has consequences), but not necessarily a change in attitude.
'Mainstream' Australia will remain suspicious of their Islamic co-citizens in
spite of their claims to be from the 'religion of peace'. Is such suspicion justified, or are we merely Hansonist xenophobes? It's
clearly the latter. After all what would would you expect from the worst kind
of liars and hypocrites?
|
|
 |
| All care, no responsibility | |
Sometimes, if you shout at the kids loudly and long enough, they will leave you
alone on Sunday mornings and let you watch TV in bed. For some reason the
biggest LCD TV in the house is in the one in the bedroom, so watching TV in bed
is one of the pleasures in life. Not so much of a pleasure this morning though, as one of the commercial
networks ran their in-depth story on Kevin (KRudd) Rudd. The
'meet the Rudds' interview was shot a fortnight ago, before he was revealed as
being a serial consorter with known criminals, and was still presenting himself
as the all-round-good-guy family man. Just an average guy with few kids and a
millionaire wife. The fact that he admitted that he and his millionaire wife got someone in to
iron his shirts was a bit of a giggle. [How many Australians can afford to have
their clothes ironed? Are they in the top or bottom 50% income percentile?
Which of those groups does KRudd claim to represent?] But the clincher was him talking about the 'pivotal' point in his life [Ed: the
'fork
in the road?'] where his father died. He didn't want to talk about the
cause of the car accident which killed his father. He just wanted to talk about
the problems with the hospital system which didn't save his father's life, and
the fact that his mother (left with four kids) had to find somewhere else to
live, since their house was a fringe benefit of his father's employment. KRudd hinted
that the surgeons operating on his father may have been incompetent, and hinted
that one or two were 'moved on' as a result of the inquest. He said that he
would like, one day, to actually see the findings of the inquest into his
father's death. Apparently this is what made KRudd the man he is today. A passionate need to
see that no-one would have to go through what he went through. A need to
improve to medical system, and to create a more compassionate society. Exactly
how he was 'improving the medical system' when he closed 2200 Queensland
hospital beds as a public servant was a bit of a puzzle. His nickname of
'Doctor Death' didn't provide many clues either. Doubtless he was 'just doing his job'. But the most telling thing was what the inquest report actually said.
Perhaps Doctor Death should have actually read it before speaking out.
According to the report, it contained almost nothing about the hospital care,
and was mostly about the accident itself. KRudd's father survived the accident,
and gave interviews to police before succumbing to his injuries. He admitted to
- Getting pissed at lunchtime;
- Getting more pissed at dinnertime;
- Starting to drive the 120 Km home; and
- Continually falling asleep at the wheel before drifting off the road and hitting a tree.
Yes, dear reader, this was the cause of the pivotal point in KRudd's
life. His totally irresponsible father puts himself, his family and other
people at risk by driving drunk and falling asleep at the wheel. But there's nothing in the personal KRudd philosophy about responsibility.
Nothing that suggests that people with wives and dependents should take care on
the roads; that they shouldn't drink and drive; or that they should pull over if
they are about to fall asleep. Nothing to suggest that people should take more
responsibility for their own actions. Nothing to suggest that people who put
others at risk are not victims, but perpetrators. As usual, the leftist manifesto is simply about denial of responsibility.
It was the fault of the hospital system. It was the fault of the surgeons. It
was the fault of the heartless employer. It was the fault of society. Remember: society is to blame.
|
|
 |
| No closet - but plenty of hanging space | |
Every Leftist knows
that Aborigines in custody die at a greater rate than non-Aborigines. They know
this because the heard it on the ABC or something. When the truth is
pointed out to them they go through the various stages of grieving starting
with denial, and ending with .. well .. usually denial. The facts don't really
matter to those who 'feel' their truths. A recent high profile Aboriginal death in custody was that of Cameron
Doomadgee on the Palm Island. We call it recent even though it was several
years ago because (in spite of leftist claims to the contrary) they don't
actually seem to happen that often. But it happened this time on Palm Island. Palm island, for the initiated,
is where an embarrassed government dumped several tribes of Aborigines many
years ago (out of sight out of mind), and then inflicted the worst of all
possible things on them: subsidized self-government. The inevitable outcome (a
socialist style hell-hole
with levels of inter-tribal and domestic violence which would frighten
the average Afghani) became a reality, and white policemen are rotated to the
island to try to keep the violence at a low enough level to stay out of the
papers. Senior Sergent Chris Hurley was unlucky enough to either volunteer or be
volunteered for the task, and he seems to have approached his job with a little
too much zeal. Cameron Doomadgee was arrested and died in custody after a
scuffle with the Senior Sergent. Gangs of thugs on Palm Island took the opportunity to riot, burn down
several government buildings (including the Police Station of course) and
threatened to kill any whites people who didn't leave the island
immediately. Then an outraged family demanded justice for Doomagee. Then
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie proclaimed that all Aboriginal deaths in
custody would be regarded as suspicious from now on. Exactly why white
deaths (which apparently happen at the same rate
as Aboriginal deaths) in custody weren't going to be regarded as
suspicious was a bit of a mystery, but that was the decision. Clearly this
decision was made on political grounds. And any
decision about what do do with Sergent Hurley was also going to be made on
political grounds. Like the decision to not charge Sergent Hurley, and
then the decision to charge him after all. Whether Sergent Hurley misunderstood his role on the island (and thought he
was actually there to prevent violence), or whether he just got his kicks
beating up on the local Aborigines will never be known to most of us. But do we
really care? It's difficult not to sympathize with someone who has so obviously
been charged due to political reasons, but he was a policeman, and that's the
system he agreed to when he signed up. There will be a trial, and there will be
process ('due process' is what they like to call it in some circles). And there
will be a verdict. And the Sergent will stand or fall on that verdict. There are many laws in our society which are unjust. Victimless crimes are
the most obvious example. What goes through a police-officer's head when he
swears an oath to punish people for victimless crimes? Anyone who voluntarily
becomes a police officer is giving up their own morality and replacing it with
the morality of the law. The morality of the government. The morality of
the masses. The morality of the mob. Morality and justice
are replaced by 'due process'. Right and wrong cease to be moral terms - but
legal terms. And truth is not about fact - but merely the outcome of argument in a court of
law. For most of us, having lawyer determining truth and fiction, is frankly
perverse. But not for the policeman - that's what he signs up for. The
policeman just washes his hands of any moral wrongdoing with a simple 'just
doing my job'. Apparently it's okay to violate someone's rights as long as
you are getting paid for it. The innocent man convicted and send to prison is usually a tragedy. But for
someone who voluntarily abdicates their morality for 'due process', the outcome
will be just regardless of the facts. Senior Sergent Chris Hurley will be tried
by a political process, judged in a political process, and (if found guilty)
sentenced in a political process. It's just what he signed up for. Provided 'due process' is done.
|
|
 |
| Questions for the intellectual elite | |
Psychologists pride themselves on being able to devise simple questions which
tell a great deal about someone's personality. Why should they have all the fun?
In the age old tradition of armchair psychology here are three questions to
test your rationality,
intellect and
objectivity.
1. Suppose the government passed a law: "Every time you sell an apple
to someone, you have to include three grapes at no extra cost". Who would be
better off?
[A] Fruitsellers or
[B] consumers
2. Suppose the government passed a law: "Every time you buy a tank full of
petrol you have to give one litre back to the service station (with no
discounting)." Who would be better off?
[A] Service station owners or
[B] motorists?
3. Suppose the government passed a law: "Every time you pay someone
to do a job, you have to pay a 15% leave loading?" Who would be better off?
[A] Employers or
[B] employees?
It's not that our government would actually
make any stupid laws of course
- after all, we live a democracy, and we all
know democracies are immune
to such things. Aren't they? Hint: all three questions are trick questions. The answer for all of the
above is
[C] petty government bureaucrats who would use the laws as a means
to further their own careers through compliance monitoring and
enforcement.
|
|
 |
| Leftist propaganda since 1932! | |
Little Johnny likes to keep his battles far away. It's part of the global
political view. Keeping soldiers fighting in Iraq, is a little patriotic
reminder safely on the other side of the world. And excising islands from
Australian migration keeps the human garbage off our pristine beaches. And
lecturing busted-arsed pacific nations about 'good governance'? Well, it keeps
them on their little busted-arsed pacific islands instead of roaming the
streets of Sydney looking for a little bit of political reconciliation. But Little Johnny's battles are about to get a whole lot closer. He will
have to fight ALP celebrity
recruit Maxine McKew on the beaches of his North Shore mansion as they slug it
out for the seat of Bennelong in the coming election. It came as little surprise for many of us that the former ABC mouthpiece took up a position
working for ALP leader Kevin Rudd. It was always clear from her politically
biased presentations on the ABC network where her allegiances were. So it should have come as no surprise that she has also been given ALP
preselection in the seat of Bennelong. Yes, dear reader, that's the same seat
of Bennelong currently held by our own Little Johnny. And not held too tightly
it seems. A four percent swing against Little Johnny will see him forced to
take early retirement .. well .. er .. retirement anyway, from politics, and
see him and Janet move out of Kirribilli house and squeezed into his own little
house up the road. Nice move for the ALP. Little Johnny is going to have to fight the next
election on two fronts. Divide and conquer has been little Johnny's strategy in
his wedge politics strategies which have split The Left on so many issues.
Little Johnny is about to get a wedgie of his own. But this speaks volumes about the ABC. If there was ever any serious denial
that the ABC was a mouthpiece for the ALP, it must have surely ended. The ABC
is a puppet of the ALP, and ABC presenters who are biased enough, persistent
enough, and loyal enough to the ALP for long enough are rewarded in their
retirement by getting plush ALP jobs, and preselection in high profile seats. Your 8c per day at work. For the ALP that is.
|
|
 |
| No Roolz!! | |
This came from reader B ... Love your site. Your definitions are absolute killers. I found almost total
resonance with nearly every article of crude, belligerant, vulgar beauty
that graces it's pages. However, as I approached the end of my serial time
killing spree I stuck a bad chord. In particular, I reference your article
on 'Anarchism': Anarchists believe that the world would be a better place
without any government
control. They apparently believe that people will not initiate force against each other in the
absence of a ruling authority which tells them not to. The inevitable short-term outcome of the imposition of
anarchism is choas, lawlessnes and slavery. The medium-term
outcome is feudalism, and the long term outcome is democracy or dictatorship.
Anarchists are losers." I found this a little odd from someone as rational (or perhaps 'logical',
there is a difference) as yourself. I have always considered Anarchism to be
the logical extension of libertarianism ( i.e. full privatisation of the
government). Obviously I am talking about the only 'real' form of anarchsim,
being 'market anarchy'/'anacho-capitalism' (The rest being Stalinism in
denial).
You did say yourself that the government is simply:
"An organization which monopolizes coercion in a region." Now why couldn't that be done by a competeing freemarket of security firms,
based upon the interests of the companies that employ them, based in turn
upon the interests of the shareholders, based in turn upon satisfying the
consumers who commision these services in return for a nice wad of liquid
capital. You seem to have a sound understanding of economics. As such,
would not a competeing market of fims providing a service be better than a
forced monopoly in any circumstance (none the least the given circumstance,
granted the said monopoly is rather taken by the act of charging
compulsorily for the services it provides)? Furthermore, any service which
the government performs either has a justifiable purpose, or falls into the
category of bureaucratic pork barelling. As such, any serviice provided by
the governmen which did indeed have a justifiable purpose would surely have
it's own level of market demand (for if it did not, it would not be
worthwhile), in which case it could easily be provided for by a firm for
some kind of ongoing subscription fee.
|
|
 |
| Donor rates: absolutely offal | |
A healthy skeptic is always suspicious of a government organization who
uses the word 'need'. While not all government employees would have actually
read Karl Marx, nearly all
would have been influenced by the 'to each according to their needs'
wisdom. Your ABC reports that "Health authorities say Australia desperately
needs more people to sign up to the organ donor register". It bemoans that Australia continues to have one of the lowest donation
rates in the world despite being a world leader in organ transplant
surgery. It must be John Howard's fault. Something to do with living in an economy
instead of a community, or something. There are of course many good reasons not to sign up for organ
donation. Like the fact that your family will be put under all kinds of
pressure by over-zealous medical elites to turn off your life support instead
of waiting around for a possible (even if unlikely) recovery. And the
possibility for being topped by someone with a compatible kidney-challenged
relative at the top of the waiting list is pretty high too ('what a freaky
accident - he was left with just enough to brain function to keep his vital
organs working until they got him to the hospital'). On the other hand there are good reasons to go on to the program too. Like
saving someone's life. Even saving the life of a complete stranger sounds like
a pretty a good option if the only cost is the donation of few hundred grams of
useless and unwanted offal. But there could be one really really good reason to go on the organ donation
list which is denied us by the compassionate caring elites: the opportunity for
a cash-strapped grieving family making a few bucks auctioning off the spare
parts. I have owned a number of cars which have finally died beyond repair. Every
carcass has been sold to the local wreckers for a few bucks. Admittedly I have
always felt that the wrecker got the better end of the deal but I have still
been happy to get the money. If I had met a similar end to the wife's old car
(even four wheel drives die when you run them into concrete walls at high
enough speeds), then I would have pretty happy for the family to sell all the
spare parts. And use the money for the kids' education or something. Before launching into a hysterical leftist 'what about the
little children?' let me just say that that's the point!. Even
the leftists might ask themselves the question: what if you lost the
breadwinner in the family? Wouldn't you like to get a few bucks for recycling
their parts? If you were the breadwinner - wouldn't you want to make your
family a bit better off from the proceeds of an organ clearance auction? It's not really clear what the organs from a healthy body would be worth, but
kidneys alone must easily be worth a five figure sum. The liver must be worth
something, and those bits of the eyes they use to help the blind see ..? All
good stuff. All valuable. All worth money. So why doesn't this happen? Apparently because money is evil, and we don't want to cheapen the act of
organ donation by tainting with the dirt of money. Or maybe because families
might even choose which individuals to give, or sell, their loved one's organs
to, instead of letting medical elites decide. (The horror the horror!) Because given a choice between letting people choose for themselves, and
letting people die, we would rather let people die. It's for the good of
society. It's called 'compassion'.
|
|
 |
| Free indeed. They couldn't even give him away | |
There's something in the US
constitution about your right to a speedy trial. I know this because they keep
referring to it on American TV. So one would have thought that five years
languishing in a cell block with no one but a bunch of Muslim terrorists for company would
be stretching the reasonable limits of judicial interpretation.
.. not to mention that bit about cruel and usual punishments. Unless you were a Muslim terrorist, of course. Then it might be
the ideal company. Exchange a few Allah Akbars with your buddies,
compare stories of the glory days mutilating girl's genitals and blowing up the
kaffir, and anticipating the
72 virgins waiting to accommodate your every fetish in the afterlife. However, in spite of these small compensations, it seems that ratbag South
Australian David (Davo) Hicks would like to leave. He's been sitting around for
five years while the US administration works out what to do with him and
several hundred of his colleagues, who got caught up in a big broom which went
through Afghanistan
after some little misunderstanding in which some Muslims flew their aircraft
dangerously close to some large buildings. But no speedy trial for Davo. It seems that he isn't entitled to the
protections of the US constitution, being, like, technically in Cuba and
all. Australia dumps her
unwanted human garbage on busted-arsed Pacific islands like Nauru. The US dumps her unwanted
human garbage on a busted arsed island like Cuba. Not on US soil therefore not
protected by the constitution. Obviously. Of course before taking angrily to the streets with pitchforks and Marxist slogans, The Left
might like to consider that this is not actually unlike the Indonesian move which
refused the Bali Nine constitutional rights on the basis that they were not
Indonesian - even though they were on Indonesian soil. The US is not alone in
her judicial interpretations of convenience. Of course it's all John Howard's fault. It always is. And in this case
Little Johnny has done something he doesn't do that often: he has made a
serious error in judging the public mood. David Hicks might be a Islamofacist
psychotic homicidal terrorist, but he's our Islamofacist psychotic
homicidal terrorist. And don't you forget it, Johnny. Then again of course he might just be very stupid. He wouldn't be the only
Islamicist who was a few murders short of a jihad in the brains department.
There are enough failed shoe and rucksack bombers to attest to that. Either way, public opinion has swung relatively quickly from the 'No
hurry, Dubya' to 'charge him or let him go, Yank'. It's finally
occurred to people that spending five years in a cell without even being
charged violates every notion of justice imaginable. The public might be in
love with the concept of big government, but they still don't trust it. Giving
that kind of power to the
average politician is a
bit like leaving your bottom with Bob Brown over the weekend. And Little Johnny
didn't see it coming. Now he's running around trying to backdate and exaggerate
the demands he made of Dubya when they have discussed the issue. Bad call Johnny. No Cuban cigar. Part of the problem for the Americans, though, has been working out what to
actually charge Davo with. Going fighting in foreign wars might be a pretty stupid
thing to do, but it's not clear that it's a crime. Fighting in a foreign army
might make it legal to strip someone of their citizenship, but is it
actually a crime? And it's not like Davo was ever actually a US citizen, so
that doesn't really apply. What's the problem with citizens of a free country
going to fight in foreign wars if they consider the cause to be just? For a while the Americans looked like trying to charge Davo with 'Being
an Enemy Combatant'. What the .. ? Wouldn't that make every German or Japanese soldier in WWII a
criminal? Get a life, Dubya. They now have settled on a complex set of charges which have been introduced
into the US military code specifically for the Guantanamo detainees, whose
description is so convoluted as to be almost unmemorizable. The public has a right to be suspicious of charges with complex
descriptions. Charges like 'murder', 'rape', 'theft' and 'assault, are easy to
understand, and have a close association with a notion of natural justice. A charge
like 'feeding a red and pink lubricated goat with a mobile phone under a full
moon on the second Thursday of the month' is simply a fabrication designed to
get a result. Why couldn't they charge him with something simple? If he is
guilty of murder, theft, assault, rape or theft then charge with these
things. Please. Regardless, the whole War on
Terror is going pear shaped. The Left have seen the
opportunity to embarrass Little Johnny, and boy are they going to. They would
have liked a better poster-boy than a Muslim ratbag, but they've worshiped the
likes of Mao, Stalin, Kim and Castro in the past. Davo is looking pretty clean
cut compared to the company they normally keep. Especially now that that the
Hicks Groupies are using Davo's primary school photo to convince us all that he
is really a child in detention. Guys, every Islamofacist psychotic homicidal
terrorist started life as an adorable milk-drinking guiltless child - what's
your point? Truth and reason be damned, Bring David Hicks Home is going to be the
humanitarian slogan of The Left up to the next federal election. One piece of advice to The Left though - be careful what you ask for - you
might get it. After all, do you really want that lunatic back here? At the risk
of stealing one your slogans: Think of the children!
|
|
 |
| An important message from our sponsor .. | |
One of the rewarding things about running a blog is the Lefty hate-mail that trickles
through the series of
tubes comprising the internet and end up in the
InBox. The feeling that somewhere, somehow, a whining, bleeding-heart Lefty is
annoyed at you is a bit like taking a good dump: a sort of satisfied, contented
feeling that something good (however small and insignificant on a global scale)
has been achieved. The Lefties call it 'thinking globally and acting
locally'. These little morsels of hate are normally flushed from the InBox in a
single satisfying button press. Occasionally though, a real gem arrives, and just
has to be reproduced on the site in its full, unedited, (and un-corrected)
glory:
Subject: A request on behave of the Australian Youth
From: Richard Broz to strawmanDear Uncultured, Uncouth and Uneducated Author,
I find your fictional writings entertaining if not a little desturbing. Do you
actually believe in what you are saying because if you do I pity your insight
into what you so blatantly refer to our history and cuture(lifestyle).As for
the fact that the poor should put aside buying other things and get food does
that include their rent, landline rent for their telephone, water usage rates,
clothing and education for their children if little or nothing is left after
these are paid is it still considered child abuse or true poverty. As yes many
families in Australia are faced with these choices everyday.
Now as disturbing as your rantings are the most disturbing thing is the way
I came across your site It was brought to my attention by a concerned parent at
a local high school who brought in a copy of your so called report on
Aboriginal history in Australia.A teacher has printed it up and wants an
assignment done on it now I find this very diturbing as children in schools are
taught very little about Australian History as it is and your simplified
ignorant view could easily sway children toward racism and violents against
others. That is a very scary thought you have every right to your opinions and
I wouldn't have read or taken any notice of your banter but now there are
people in very influencual roles using your writings to influence very
impressionable minds and that is a scary thought may on your page you could say
that this is you opinion only and not nesessarily fact. Sincerely Rae Carnes
It's pretty clear from this letter what a great job our professional
educators are doing in preparing the youth for the real world. I was going to suggest that the writer actually learn the Queen's English before labeling others as
'uneducated', but then I realized that s/he wouldn't actually get the joke
(read the subject line carefully). I will just have to contend with saying that there are few things more
flattering than having the juggernaut of State education using their
immense tax funded-resources to
try to defeat you. I look forward to publishing (and grading) the essays on this site. It will
be interesting to compare the teacher's marks and mine. In the meantime -
maintain the rage Bro'.
|
|
 |
| The Bruiser | |
This column has always taken an interest in certain colorful characters and few
could be more colorful than Geoff (The Bruiser) Clark. Note that's
colorful and not colored. This article could be branded
racist for actually pointing out the color of one's skin, so we will
just note that The Bruiser's skin is a lighter shade than the average
Australian, and so is his hair - apparently an excellent qualification for being
the spokesman for the Aboriginal people. Not such an excellent qualification though are accusations about his slightly
darker past, in which he has said to have led several rape gangs against
Warrnambool woman Carol Stingel some 36 years ago. And a jury has agreed, and
awarded $AU20K against him. Ouch! $20K has got to Stingelittlebit, but not that much for the ever-sneering
Clark, who was paid over $200K per year (at the taxpayer's expense) until he
was stood down from the ATSIC chair several years ago. Nonetheless, the court's decision does raise some slightly uncomfortable
issues. It's not like there was much evidence after 36 years, and it really
came down to he said / she said. More like a sordid divorce than a rape trial. Ms Stingel's lawyers claimed that 'no sane person would put themselves
through what she has if they were lying.' Well, who knows? She may have
been expecting more than $20K. Afterwards they were saying that $100K would
have been more appropriate. Would a sane person do the same for $100K? Maybe.
Beats working. It even beats pretending to work and hanging around the
dole office waiting for the government to give you money. Actually you can do
both at the same time .. The lawyers also said that she had consistently made these claims for a very
long time. True. But 4532 repetitions do not make a truth. Except in politics
of course. Does any one else here feel concerned that someone you pissed of 36 years ago
can make an accusation of rape and force you to pay them $20K? Is there anyone in
your past who is that greedy, or that vengeful? Ex girlfriend? Jilted lover?
Promoted over some woman's head perhaps? Cut some chick off in traffic? Argue with
a feminist over a queue at a bus stop? Feeling uncomfortable? Particularly when Ms Stingel talked about the 'feeling of power' when the
decision went in her favor. Yes, rape is about power. But so is revenge.
And so is out-and-out malice. But maybe any discomfort should be short lived. That kind of thing only happens
to the proletariat n places like Warrnambool - not in the comfortable places
that the intelligentsia like us live. And besides, the $20K was just money
stolen from the taxpayer. Whether any real justice was done here or not is hard to say, but but there was
certainly poetic justice. And the Bruiser's ego took a battering. Geoff, is that a sneer on your face or
are just just unhappy so see anybody?
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
