Its all about them and their gun fetish.

Ok. So I don't write often. I dare say, there aren't as many things I want to comment on as I first thought. I'll most likely put this into DailyKos to get some actual readership.

This enrages me. Why? Because apparently, its all about getting a few miguided Americans with a gun fetish.
I'm part of the ROTW (Rest of the World) which, too often, the American citizen appears to be either: Completely unaware of, Pretty scared of, misguided in assuming we're here for their benefit, in strong belief we think nothing except aspiring to be Americans... or a mixture of all that, depending on how red-state you go.

However, back to the point. The UN is attempting to move the considerable mountain of illegal guns and the illegal gun trade. From a progressive point of view, an extremely noble task. There are simply too many cases of uprisings, sustained militia warfare and simple everyday murder. I'd have thought it was a no-brainer. The less illegal guns around, should equate to less deaths.

However, that ideal hasn't accounted for the NRA. The National Rifle Association, has taken umbrage at the idea sending 100,000 letters to the man responsible claiming the UN is doing nothing other than attemping to take away their member's guns.

Yes. Its aaaaalllll about the American gun owner.

One could stoop down to the levels of many right wingers who are capable of the most amazing binary thought coupled with gigantic leaps of logic and say that by opposing the UN program, the NRA are PRO-murder and PRO-illegal weaponry. But I won't.

Part of the key misunderstanding must be related to that weird word 'illicit'. Unless the NRA generally supports the ownership of illegal guns, and laws managing them, it really doesn't affect a single member of the NRA.

In my rage about the topic, questions filter up. Why does the NRA equate this program with taking their guns? Why do they believe that having gun laws in other countries will affect their ability to buy weapons?

Some of the miscommunication the NRA is propagating includes 'illicit' but tends to ignore its actual meaning. Examples here & here (Previous UN review). The NRA sponsored web site about the topic has this to say on its front page:

...These dictatorships, terrorist states and so-called “free” nations of the world plan to meet on our home soil to finalize a U.N. treaty that would strip all citizens of all nations of their right to self-protection, and strip you of your rights under the Second Amendment.

How many people around the world should die as a result of a massive propaganda drive by the NRA deliberately misinforming its members before we say enough?

Jerry's Fal(l)

Despite God, and the best lawyers money can buy, Jerry Falwell has failed to shut down a site using a mispelling of his name. The site is highly critical of Jerry's views on the world.
His defense is based around people accidently believing it to be his real site. This defense does have plausibility. Sure, normal people generally aren't that dumb, but then again, his flock is made up of mid-western christian fundies who are.


The Age: national, world, business, entertainment, sport and technology news from Melbourne's leading newspaper.:

The next presidency is a poisoned chalice.

Bush has managed to set up a scene in which the next presidency is simply a poisoned chalice that only the truly brave or foolhardy would want.

Obviously, they inherit a war. Bush only recently admitted that a pullout date would be determined by a future president. Even the costs of the war which were estimated to be as low as 1.7 billion are now a quarter of a trillion dollars!

Spending has been conducted in a reckless manner, the national debt has risen to a near unserviceable 8.3 trillion and rising.

The 'Patriot' act has been renewed, as laws banning assault weapons been allowed to lapse.

Tax cuts have been given to the wealthy, under the pretense of stimulating growth.

Job growth has consistently failed to meet expectations, and real incomes have gone down.

What about the political scenario the next president walks into?

It is argueable that a large percentage of the right has been, to a degree, radicalised. Sub-sections of the right, such as the christian right have become a significant force in politics.

Talk of the US officially becoming a christian state, and the 800 year old concept of a wall between church and state is being dismantled.

Acceptable public discourse now includes open talk of killing the opposition to whatever it is they are ranting about. (Coulter, Robertson).

The respect of law from the government has been significantly eroded through illegal wiretaps, shooting individuals without proper reporting, authorising torture and imprisoning individuals without charge or trial

Civil liberties have been questioned, and in some cases rolled back in states (South Dakota)

Voter confidence in the legitimacy and openess of elections have been eroded.

The media has been beaten into submission and in some cases like Fox, nothing more than a defacto organ of the administration. The 'liberal bias' that the media allegedly has is touted by just about everyone in the media... about every one else in the media.

In the heirachy of nasty labels, being a 'liberal' is only a step above being a terrorist. Of course, anyone not kow-towing to the administration line is a liberal.

The right wing is no longer interested in conservative politics or truth, simply power.

I strongly believe that whoever actually gets into power will have a significant effect on the future of US politics for a generation to come.

If a Democrat actually manages to develop spine enough and win, the right wing will literally crucify the left every step it takes to correct the mess.The right-wing demonisation will continue,and probably even increase beyond what it was during the Clinton impeachment and the current level of antagonisation. The likely outcome that even the best intentions of the next presidency won't fix much of the endemic problems will simply be yet more fuel for the right wing.

If another Republican takes power, we can expect more of the same. The interia of the right wing is extremely strong, and it would be a brave republican to actually attempt to temper let alone reverse the tide. The path of least resisteance would be to continue the lies, the debt and the pretenses, leaving it for a yet further presidency to solve.

Premium fuels aren't worth the price.

A new RACV study demonstrates that the price differential between normal (91) unleaded and the premium unleaded (95 & 98) brands doesn't not cover the additional economy/power provided.

At the moment, I do use as high a octane rating in both car & bike that i can find. I do feel the response increase. However, I didn't think it was a losing game.

My previous car was a hotted-up 31 year old sports car with an aftermarket turbo. It barely ran at all on normal unleaded and was really tuned for Optimax. The g/fs previous car was an LPG Falcon.
Our current car is a 1995 japanese Pulsar econo-box.

Will I not bother with premium fuels? The car probably doesn't justify getting the nicer fuels anynre. However, I will still use it in the bike. I don't ride the bike purely for transport, so I'm happy to pay for a bit extra for that little bit extra oomph.

=my2c

I tend to agree with Costello.
The example Costello has brought up is a good one, in my view. Sharia law and Australian common law are pretty much incompatible. It isn't an unfair expectation from the host country to expect migrants to agree with & abide by the fundamentals of our society, even if the details & nuance differ.

If a potential migrant does have an issue with the fundamental nature of the society they wish to migrant to, then perhaps they are making the wrong choice.

PS. On a totally different topic - Is it just me or is Costello doing a far better job of being a reasonable oppostion leader than the opposition leader??

=my2c

We are now seeing the beginning of the effects of isolating Hamas.

First was the Egyptians, now the Saudis rebuff the US's call to stop funding them.

Both states have a less than open attitude towards Israel. Hamas, being indebted to such states will have to accomodate the demands of that state.

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah and Prince Saud reportedly told Dr Rice that isolating Hamas would lead it to greater extremism and said they intended to continue giving aid to the Government. Hamas should be given more time, they said.

Goodbye Peace Process.

=my2c

More on David Irving's imprisonment.

I've been reading a few posts from US blogs which express a bit of Voltaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." philosophy.

Personally, I think there is a bit more to it than that. Free speech comes with a degree of responsibility. Jumping up and down proclaiming things that are simply not true is not exercising free speech, but simply jumping up and down proclaiming untruths.

In the US recently, mad cleric Pat Robertson suggested assasinating a legitimate head of state (Hugo Chavez). Should this be defended to the death?

David Irving hasn't exercised responsibility in his misguided beliefs. David has written approximately 30 books on the topic. They fly in the face of insurmountable evidence. David also spends a great deal of time on a public speaking circuit inciting hatred with some extremely questionable organisations.

Is this free speech in spirit or simply making a living out of abusing it and inciting hatred?

On the other side of the coin, we also need to understand the Austrians & Germans, who committed these atrocities. The jews themselves refer to the holocaust a great deal, and is now a significant part of their national identity. The holocaust is also a very large & recent black mark on a proud german people's history.

The laws that David has been charged with were enacted not long after WW2. These laws have helped the Germans come to terms with what really happened by disallowing such garbage to circulate legitimately.

Many say that to counter such crap is to merely debunk it. To show the effectiveness of that approach, I give you the continunce of the Bush administration.

Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities. David Irving wasn't and isn't responsible with that freedom. He lost his for 3 years as a result.

=my2c
BC

From the Land of the Free:

A federal employee with a anti-bush bumper sticker is harrassed

A nurse who wrote an ani-government letter to a newspaper is investigated here and here

=my2c
BC

David Irving jailed.

Yaaay!

Israel vows to stem flow of funds to Hamas

I think even Hamas are suprised to have gotten such a large percentage of the vote in the recent polls. The general consensus is that Fatah lost votes due more to being ineffective and corrupt than further radicalisation of Palestinians.

The idea that Hamas, a terrorist organisation with a political wing (like Ireland's Sien Fein) being financially supported by the very body it is chartered to wipe out is quite twisted.
However, the quandry is deeper than that. Hamas can gain financial support from other islamic groups & states that share the deep-rooted hatred of Israel. Right now, there are too many elements in the middle east (such as Iran or even bin Laden) who would quite happily fund Hamas. This would only serve to further distance Hamas from negotiaing meaningful peace with Israel.
By holding the purse-string, Israel may be able to apply more pressure to de-radicalise Hamas. Of course, the first step is to negotiate the removal of wiping Israel off the map from their charter. By accepting Hamas, Israel may lead to the development of Hamas as a legitimate, moderate political party that is well known for its efficient administration.

Which is the lesser of the evils? supporting Hamas and maintaining a dialogue, or marginalising Hamas forcing themto go source more radical financial support?

"Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"

=my2c

BC

In my return to actually writing, I'd like to start with a conspiracy theory.

If a state was going to re-introduce the death penalty after it having been abolished for (on average) about 35 years, how would it go about it?

The death penalty is right up there on the sensitivity scale along with abortion. How would a state, in a democracy, raise the issue in the the public consciousness without a crippling backlash?

Recently, there have been a spate of stories about Australians transporting drugs overseas & potentially facing the death penalty when caught. I cannot recall, in recent memory, the volume & degree of incidence of charges with the death penalty being greater. Shapelle Corby, Michelle Leslie, Van Nguyen & the Bali 9 have the incredible bandwidth. Sadly, Van Nguyen is no longer with us either. Right now, the death penalty is in the forefront of the Australian mind in a way it hasn't been since the hanging of Ronald Ryan, the last person to be excuted in Australia in 1967.

Recent polls conducted shows that more than 50% of the populace favour a re-introduction of the death penalty.

• Quantum Australia SCAN conducted a survey just after the Bali bombing, which showed for the first time in five years of polling that a majority of Australians favoured the death penalty. The figure of 51 per cent for, with 31 per cent against and 18 per cent saying don’t know, compared with an average over the previous five years of 44 per cent in favour, and 31 per cent against, and 25 per cent saying they had no opinion. The proportion in favour in both the United States and Britain is about 75 per cent.

• In a poll conducted in August 2003 by Newspoll, 56 per cent of respondents answered affirmatively the question: “Would you personally be in favour or against the introduction of the death penalty in Australia for those found guilty of committing major acts of terrorism?’’.

In the case on Van Nguyen, the poll results are a little less clear.
Of course, silly Australians have been trying to smuggle drugs into countries with the death penalty for ages. The fact there have been 3 high profile cases is nothing in itself. What lends to something behind this is indications that in the 'Bali 9' case, the AFP could have caught the offenders in Australia.

Irrespective of any other issue, the AFP was in a morally dark area. To claim to want to catch a 'Mr. Big' still leaves 9 mules facing the death penalty, which in a legal sense, Australia is opposed to. The fact that no Mr. Big was caught or any real evidence gained about one should put the AFP in some serious hot water.

The AFP was also involved in denial of 11th hour attempts to have Van Nguyen extradited to Australia. To a non-lawyer such as myself, reports that this was not possible appear credible. However, Downer himself admitted to not putting forward to Singapore the idea of going to the international court. Downer has attacked some lawyers for a too little, too late approach. Personally, I think Mr. Downer also needs to take some of that flack.

Several high-profile cases, AFP misadventure & political influence has inadvertantly killed several Australian citizens.

Does all this imply that the Australian voter is being 'softened up' to the death penalty or is this simply a case of "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

=my2c

BC

Its been a while....


I haven't written in the blog for a month, so it tells me.
Life has been extremely busy. I've found a new place to live in Elizabeth bay, overlooking the harbour. Its fully furnished and on a short-term lease. In the interim, the theory is to go off and look for something to buy.

Once again, i'm starting to feel settled enough to start writing and generally complaining about stupid people again.

Now all I have to do is work out how to generate a readership.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me. - Neimiller

I copied and pasted this on the 22/10 when Fuehrer Howard had announced his double-whammy attack on workers and terrorists (read: Muslims)
Typical wedging.

Whilst this attack on the workers has been playing out, I'm yet to hear one coherent & backed up argument on how the changes to the IR laws are actually going to improve things. I tend to agree with those about the 'Race to the bottom' in terms of wages. The market does not solve every problem.

What is the bigger picture here? What is Howard really trying to achieve?

• Is the bigger picture designed to reduce wages for more competive exports?
• Is the bigger picture to delineate further between employer/employee in the best tradition of conservative philosophy?
• Is the bigger picture simply that Howard's biggest contributors ARE employers and he is simply looking after his 'base'?

Lets be honest, to try something that pisses off so many of the Nouveau Liberal voters like this can only be achieved with a weak opposition. History will show Howard as an excellent politician, but a poor leader. History will show Howard got through the things he really wanted. It will also show that there wasn't anyone of note to stop him either.