Tell the Age that they are Dreamin

The idea that Kevin Rudd can save the Labor from the upcoming slaughter is getting a bit space in the papers with the Age declaring this


Talk about trying to “fake it till yer make it”!!!!

Given the depths of Labor’s despair and disapproval you would have to have thought that a realistic headline writer would have used the less definitive “could” to describe Labor’s prospects under a resurgent Rudd. However we are talking about the Age here and they must be getting pretty desperate in that leftist bunker as every other Poll points to scorched earth for the ALP at the next election.

Personally I think that the best that Labor under a resurrected Rudd could expect is a slightly less than the  total devastation that Gillard is heading for, but more than that is unrealistic.

Anyway I curious to see if any of our readers think that the Age wishful thinking here has any substance …

Cheers Comrades

 

Terrorists on September 11 were not “petty criminals”

Jeremy's confused thoughts about Islamic terrorism are plainly wrong.

A rather extraordinary article by Jeremy Sear today where he actually argues that the US decision to fight the War on Terror is exactly what the terrorists behind the attacks on September 11 2001 wanted.

The War on Terror was basically a policy of combating terrorism by weakening terrorist organisations, toppling regimes which harboured those organisations and ramping up national security in order to prevent further terrorist attacks.

It follows that Jeremy is suggesting that al-Qaeda wanted to be destroyed, wanted the Taliban to be overthrown in Afghanistan and wanted US security to be tighter so they could not carry out similar attacks.

Naturally, Jeremy provides no evidence whatsoever for his absurd proposition. No quotes from Al-Qaeda where they praise the ousting of the Taliban. No broadcasts from Osama bin Laden where he expresses delight at the fact that Al-Qaeda has been progressively weakened. No quotes from terrorists who are glad that security in Western countries is now stronger in order to prevent more terrorism. No experts on the subject in support of such propositions.

As Andrew Bolt noted yesterday, the reality is that we are slowly winning the War on Terror. Islamic terrorists are weaker than they were in September 2001. There have been no successful attacks on US or Australian soil since then, although some nasty attempts have been thwarted.

As a result of our success, it’s easy to underestimate the terrorist threat and become rather complacent about it all, as Sear does. However, were it not for the good work of our authorities, terrorist attacks would have certainly occurred here, as the convictions under the Howard Government’s anti-terrorism legislation in the last few years demonstrate.

In his post, Jeremy also makes the following laughable claims:

- That the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were “petty murderous criminals”. What an oxymoron. If someone is a murderer, then they cannot possibly be a petty criminal. Moreover, the terrorists on that day were responsible for around 3,000 deaths. That’s certainly not petty either by any measure. It’s massive. 9/11 was an atrocity, not a minor criminal offence.

- That the terrorists are “not super villains”. Again, how can people who have deliberately killed thousands not be super villains? A villain is defined as “a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel.” So presumably, killing around 3,000 is not particularly great, and doesn’t make you extremely cruel, malicious or criminal. What sort of atrocity does one have to commit in order to become a villain of the greatest magnitude? If they are not “super villains”, who are?

- That the terrorists “wanted the West to abandon the civil liberties its citizens enjoyed and become more like the tyrannical regimes they wished they had the support to establish.” What nonsense. Firstly we have not become tyrannical. Apart from our soldiers and terrorism suspects, we have only suffered minor inconveniences as a  result of the War on Terror. Secondly, Al-Qaeda wants to commit terrorist attacks in order to advance its ultimate political objective – a fascist Islamic state. Their goal is not to make us more vigilant and determined to fight them, that is only a consequence of 9/11.

Since September 11, 2001, the left have often tried to rationalise the events of that day in ways which avoid acknowledging the obvious. At least Jeremy hasn’t excused what happened that day the way some leftists have.

This article has pointed out that many on the left have engaged in sophistry on the issue of September 11 and Islamic terrorism more generally. And in that respect, Jeremy is no different.

The War on Terrorism was clearly necessary, because there were and still are Islamic fascists who were and are prepared to kill civilians in order to promote their political objectives. It is obvious that more terrorist attacks would have occurred if we hadn’t fought terrorists in other countries and authorities had not been more vigilant at home.

Unfortunately, that point is not obvious to Jeremy Sear. How disappointing that someone who purports to stand for intellectual honesty cannot be so on the issue of Islamic terrorism.

A 9-11 sunrise at Chez Hall

Sunrise at Chez Hall 9-11-2011

Yesterday I was extremely flippant about murder and death, today I am feeling far more sombre. A glance at the date stamp for this post will tell you why. Yes the tenth anniversary of that day is upon us and frankly I don’t want to just reiterate what I have said before  on this sad anniversary here at the Sandpit, nor am I going to drag out the sack cloth and ashes. To be honest I like funerals because they are all about love and they give us a ceremony that gives shape and form to our grief, a place to be angry, and sad but ultimately they teach us just how precious life is:

click for source

But also because of the women and men I’ve loved who died so young, leaving young kids or bereaved parents behind: three of cancer, one of motor neurone disease, one of a heart attack, two in car accidents, one by suicide.

So how do we cope, what do we do with the grief from all the losses we’ve suffered and the impending losses we know are yet to come?

A new friend said to me: “I’ve been to too many funerals this month. I cope by enjoying every moment that I’m alive. I do it in honour of those who can’t do it any more.” Another told me she no longer does anything or tolerates anyone she doesn’t like. “Time is too short.”

It’s not as if we can ever let go of the pain and fear of loss. But living well and living passionately is our only defence against the nagging truth of mortality. And if our departed loved ones could talk, they would echo the mantra: “Dance as if no one is watching.”

So that is my message for this of all days as well, the best way to remember those dead because of the Jihadists, is not to seek revenge or payback (although justice has some curative value) but by living our lives well and being the best people that we can be. Time is indeed short and as I watch every new sunrise I count the blessings that the new day brings and I am thankful.

With respect Comrades

How to commit murder

At the risk of being totally not politically correct I offer this little Bon Bon,

Just remember don’t ever tell your lawyer you did it otherwise they won’t be happy to argue that you are not guilty…

Murder safely now Comrades ;)

Update

I never thought  that minions of the left would be such a humourless and sanctimonious lot, even though I tagged this post to show that expectation but right on Cue we have our erstwhile critic Zane Trow sprouting off (under an assumed name) in the comment thread over on the dark-side:

Zane Trow

Saturday, September 10, 2011 4:11 PM

Today Hall has a fake axe murder video on his site. The last few days in Brisbane we have seen the saddest and worst example of an axe murder for many many years. Hall wallows in this, he is the most vile excuse for a human I have ever come across. It is simply disgusting, it actual makes me want to vomit. I pity his children and his whole family, and actually I fear for their safety.

I am ashamed to have ever engaged with him at his site. I feel dirty just thinking about it.

OK, I admit to having a rather dark sense of humour

I was  entirely ignorant of the crime to which Zane refers to  here, if such things don’t make it to the Radio National news reports they go straight past me to be honest, doing a little research does suggest that he is referring to the murder of a teenage girl by her mother who subsequently jumped off the Storey Bridge Now as horrible as that murder suicide appears to be Trow is drawing a very long bow to make the ridiculous claims that he does about me in his comment above. Sadly there are vile murders committed every minute  of every day somewhere on the globe among the billions of our number. So according to Trow’s twisted logic every author of every blog should be aware of every murder and therefore not make light of any of it with a bit of dark sarcasm.

For a man with such a devotion to the transgressive in the production of “Art” he seems rather intolerant to me tickling the boundaries of  good taste here and I can’t help but wonder if he feels the same about the animal rights protesters in this story, after all at least one of them has some resemblance to the murdered girl… Do you fear for their families as well Zane

Cheers Comrades

Anniversary of imagination


The media has been relentlessly talking about the anniversary of an event a decade ago for the last ten days or so and it has got me thinking about just how the way that such things imprint themselves upon our imaginations but I am reserving consideration of that anniversary to the actual day. Instead, this morning I offer this clip from an unaired pilot of that most famous Sci Fi serries, Star Trek which is 45 years old today:

Just consider what the fate of the concept would have been in that format…

Live long and prosper Comrades

Soccer ain’t “footy”

It’s the eve of the AFL footy finals and what do we find? Yes, Soccer in Australia – which ironically calls itself ‘The A League’ - is launching its latest advertising campaign designed to lure Aussies away from real football, with this uninspiring black & white video under the laughable slogan “We are football”:


.

Look, I have nothing against the round-ball game and I reckon it’s a good idea to have a safe alternative so wimps and mummy boys can pretend that they are footy players too. But give-me-a-break, Soccer, in this country at least, is a 3rd-rate sport that lives so much in the shadows of Aussie Rules that it doesn’t even have the guts to run its season over the same time of year.

With the A-League season start now held back until October, soccer chiefs believe they can generate far greater interest. They will then rely on the quality of the “product” to persuade more fans to become repeat spectators or television viewers.

There is also a deliberate policy to try to rally the estimated 2.5 million serious soccer fans in the country behind the local competition, or at least take an interest in it as the first steps towards converting a massive participation base into paying customers. A source close to the campaign said the choice of “We are football” was designed with this in mind.

The only reason soccer has any popularity at all in Australia is because over summer there are no alternative “football” games to watch. That and the fact the Socceroos have made the last two FIFA World Cups in 2006 & 2010. But even those achievements have failed to inspire Aussies to regard soccer as anything but an amusing diversion.

Soccer is just a bloody boring game with more action in the crowds than on the field. In fact violence at soccer games is far worse than at any other sport and there are good reasons for that, as SockPuppet (i.e. yours truly) wrote under the post “Soccer the beautiful game my arse” :

Look I do not like to state the bloody obvious but it is pretty bloody obvious to me that there are 3 main reasons why soccer crowds are the worst behaved:

1. Boredom: In what other game in the world can you have a 0 – 0 result? There is not a lot of action out there on the pitch and when and if someone kicks a goal its like “how the hell did that happen?” and the crowd goes nuts.

2. Prissy poofy rules: In soccer you can not even touch your opponent. That’s because it’s played by a bunch of metrosexual Beckham types who are not real men. This lack of contact and violence on the field means the supporters have to take their frustrations out on the opposition supporters. And they do.

3. Migrants: There I have said it. Lets face it, Soccer is a game that is enjoyed by violent people from violent countries. So what else would you expect? How many times have we seen Serbs & Croatian fans belting the shit out of each other? And Greeks and Macedonians? Imagine if we let the Jews & Arabs play each other – there would be war in Melbourne. They should keep their differences back in their homelands and not bring their arguments over here.

Stuff Soccer and bring on the AFL. There is no crowd violence at an AFL game. Unless it’s a Collingwood one and Collingwood loses. Then we are in big trouble.

Says it all. Oh, and go Saints.
.

Any news today, Ray?

"I'm not going away"

Ah the script writer of the story arc in our current political soapy has a sense of the melodramatic. Yesterday Ray was having a delightful time rubbing my nose in the fact that I chose not to write about the member for Dobell when  the  NSW police were unable to proceed towards a prosecution. What do I find is the lead story in today’s Age? Yep you guessed it, Thomson in yet more credit card bother:

click for more delicious Labor naughtiness ;)

Which has to mean yet more existential angst for those who barrack for team Labor, and you know what I’m good with that for all kinds of reasons not the least of which is that it probably means an even longer sojourn in the wilderness and maybe (this is a real long-shot I admit) one of the backbench will set loose their inner climate sceptic and cross the floor  in a bid to save their seat and vote against the carbon tax legislation…

Oh what in interesting ride this current parliament is proving to be!

Over to you ComRayde

Any news today, Iain?

Like many of us, one of the first things I do every day is to check the news & views on the Internet, including what Iain has chosen to write about. But looking at this site this morning with one post about suicide and then another one with a video of some raving lunatic from England, you’d swear it was just another no-news day. I wonder how (or why) Iain missed this little (lead) story
 

"I'm not going away"

THE fraud case against Labor MP Craig Thomson is effectively dead following advice from the New South Wales police that there is insufficient evidence to prove allegations he spent more than $100,000 on prostitutes, election campaigning and personal expenses.

The advice, which was sent to senior police yesterday for consideration, calls for the matter to be referred to Victoria Police – as any offence would have been committed in Victoria – but says they are unlikely to reach a different conclusion.

Look, I still think Thomson’s a sleaze and a dubious character but givemeabreak - if you’re going to carry on like he’s committed the crime of the century that demands he be immediately sacked, a by-election held and the government outed (as the likes of Abbott, Brandis, Bolt, Iain et al have), then don’t you think that when the police say “what crime?”, you should at the very least acknowledge that you, um, slightly over-reacted?

Anyway, I guess we’ll just wait until the next non-story and beat-up comes along, and then we’ll go through it all again. This could get a tad tedious seeing that there’s two years to go before the next election.

.

Don’t dis Darwin or ultimately everyone is the master of their own life

OK let me start with a very simple premise, we humans are  social creatures  and generally we care about any other people who we find in trouble the vast majority of us will render any assistance that we can when we come across someone who is in self destruct mode, but I am heartily sick of hearing the bloody do-gooders admonishing us because there are still people who succeed in topping themselves.

click for source

Now before I am accused of being a heartless bastard on this issue let me say that I had a close friend  who did succeed in killing himself and another who I managed to save from success, we do what we can when we can and sometimes you just miss the signs and other times you might  find the pill bottle. Often its more by luck than good intention and in the overall scheme of things maybe that is the way that it should be because no matter how compassionate and caring we are we have to be somewhat blasé about suicide because ultimately everyone is the master of their own life and of they really want to top themselves they will do so. Those who run campaigns such as this are clearly well intentioned but (yes its a big but ) I can’t help but think that preventing every suicide is not actaully going to reduce the total quantum of pain and suffering within our society. Its a balancing between the suffering that is caused by a self inflicted death and the pain caused by a  fucked up life, frankly I think that sometimes the continued life of someone who is totally fucked up can be worse for those around them than the pain of  their self delivered  death.  I look back at the life of my late friend and I can’t help but think that he would have done more of the bad things that demonstrated the failure of his life had he not killed himself. His family would have still suffered had he lived but their suffering would have been more of a slow burn than a bright flame.

So my ultimate message here is help them if you can, but be philosophical if you can’t, not everyone can be saved  and playing the “what if” game is futile and just makes the memories of our lost friends dark, guilt riven  and bitter, frankly I want recall the good things of the shared journey rather than the self recrimination and unjustified responsibility for the autonomous decisions of any other individual.

Cheers Comrades

Kick ass start to a Kick ass show

Today I have to get my daughter to school early because she is off to the Brisbane writer’s festival to meet some of the authors of children’s fiction this  is a great experience for a young lady who has ambitions to be a an author herself, however that is not my topic for today as much as it is an explanation for a quickie post this morning which is about the HBO serries “Trueblood” created by Alan Ball.

We recently added the box set of season one to the video library here at Chez Hall and having now finished watching it I was sort of blown away by just how good it is. From the kick ass opening credits to the clever script creator Alan Ball has made what is perhaps one of the best Vampire/supernatural franchises going.

Ball, 54, says he enjoys tapping into his audience’s subconscious primal urges. “I think the show gives people an hour in the week when they can let their minds do really bad things, like the [True Blood] title song,” he says, referring to Jace Everett’s Bad Things.

But it’s not just the mythical creatures or the toned bodies that make the characters of True Blood so attractive. Ball wants to show their depth as well. He describes himself as an “elementary student of Buddhism” and says all beings deserve compassion.

He believes, by writing in a way that does not judge the characters, he creates more interesting story-lines that engage audiences. “I feel so much of pop-culture entertainment is delineated by heroes and villains. We want the heroes to succeed and we want the villain to be punished,” he says. “I’m not interested in judging characters, I’m interested in trying to show why these characters do the things they do.”

Its not often I am inspired to say this but at present I am envious of those who live in Sydney and Melbourne!
Oh yeah and I thought when I first saw the opening credits I thought  that the smiling loon in the rocking chair   might be Ball doing an Hitchcock and having just seen his picture for the first time in the Oz piece It seems that I was right.
Cheers Comrades

Kelly agrees with me

Did Paul Kelly read my latest OLO article  or is this a case of two great minds thinking alike? This reads like a summary of my article:

The political story since 2007 is that both Rudd and Gillard as prime ministers, despite their achievements, can only be deemed on balance to have misread the nation’s mood and failed to offer effective governance. The problem, in short, is the Labor Party. This is a far more frightening conclusion than thinking an overnight switch can do the trick.

 

Read on.

 

HJ’s hate blog bites the dust

I wonder why? (click on image to enlarge)

No damage has been done and the Internet is actually a better place today now that the pseudonymous creep known as ”Husky Jim” - and as several other aliases - has finally deleted his stalking blog titled Jimi One Eyed Dog.

Or perhaps it was taken down for a violation of terms & services? I dunno (or care), but it was certainly a piece of crap written by a total loose cannon who has more than a few screws loose.

Like all obsessed and paranoid stalkers, “HJ” keeps insisting everyone wants to know his real identity and do him harm. Um, no we don’t, HJ. We just want you to go away and stay away. I’d suggest you get help but I think you’re beyond that. Good riddance to your smudge on the Internet. 

Hmm, now for SW …….

.

Labor needs to change direction as well as leader

Wheels are now in motion within the federal Labor Party to end the disastrous Prime Ministership of Julia Gillard. Whilst Labor must dump the most unpopular Prime Minister since the history of Newspoll, it also needs to change its direction in order to clean up the mess she will have left.

It’s hard to believe that it has come to this. Only about two years ago the federal government enjoyed a handsome lead over the polls and the Opposition was in disarray. At the time few doubted that Labor would win the 2010 election quite handsomely, but that election instead resulted in a hung parliament. If an election were held now, Labor would be lucky to hold on to 30 seats.

Some Labor types and those on the political left more generally may be tempted to self-indulgently blame the media, Tony Abbott or the fact that Gillard is a woman. But in truth this is a government which has managed so often to combine bad policy with political failures. Fuelwatch, Grocerychoice, the abolition of offshore processing, home insulation, building school halls, the RSPT, the carbon tax, set top boxes – the list is as long as Lennox Lewis’ arm.

Any sober analysis can only conclude that the vast majority of Labor’s political wounds have been self-inflicted. What inspired the government to soften the laws concerning unauthorised boat arrivals in 2008 is anyone’s guess, but it appears that a naïve belief that boat arrivals would not significantly increase as a result was an underlying factor. That belief has since been proven wrong, with sometimes deadly consequences. Even the government no longer denies that pull factors are at work, an implied admission that it unleashed those pull factors in 2008.

Likewise, the carbon tax represents another huge political misjudgement. A more astute politician in Gillard’s shoes would never have introduced such a policy after promising not to without at least giving the Australian people a chance to vote on it. If John Howard had tried to introduce the GST before the 1998 election, there’s no doubt he would have gone down in history as the one term Prime Minister who broke his GST promise.

Little wonder then that the punters see Gillard as dishonest and untrustworthy. The Grandmother who confronted Gillard at Fairfield Shopping Centre in Queensland is far from the only voter to feel lied to on the carbon tax.

Even Gillard’s explanations for her broken promise have been unpersuasive. The fact that Labor has found itself in minority government is no excuse for breaking such a clear and fundamental pledge. And Gillard’s denials at times that she broke her promise or that the carbon tax is a tax have been humiliating mistakes.

Gillard is obviously an intelligent person. She did extremely well in student politics and then legal practice, even becoming a partner at Slater and Gordon at a relatively young age. But her political judgment has often been dreadful.

The carbon tax was always likely to be a toxic policy for Labor, as I predicted it would be. Gillard and her advisors clearly didn’t appreciate how the politics had moved on the issue of climate change since 2007. Since 2007 the drought has been broken, the economy has slowed down, the rest of the world has not committed to emissions cuts, climate change scepticism has grown and people have realised that action involves increases to their power and grocery bills.

However, Labor has been a little unlucky with the Craig Thompson scandal and the recent High Court decision which terminated the Malaysian solution. The High Court interpreted section 198A of the Migration Act in a judicially activist manner, contrary to s198A’s literal meaning, the intention of Parliament at the time and the rulings of the Chief Justice when he was a Federal Court judge.

In ordinary circumstances the courts would be blamed for this outcome, but the public has lost faith in the government and so are viewing the result as yet another example of federal Labor’s incompetence. So in a way the government is paying for its past mistakes through the High Court debacle.

Ultimately, the Malaysian Solution should have been given a chance to be judged on its own merits. Justice Heydon’s dissenting judgment is a reasoned exposition against the majority’s interpretation of s198A(3) and on the dangers of having activist judges curtail the power of the executive.

In hindsight, one of Gillard’s biggest mistakes was not to use the opportunity of her ascension to the Prime Ministership to change the government’s direction. Her only policy changes at the time concerned the mining tax and the East Timor Solution, both of which were short-term political solutions. The main policy change since has been the hated carbon tax that she promised not to introduce.

As a result, history is unlikely to differentiate between the Rudd and Gillard Governments, as they have been characterised by numerous broken promises, policy on the run, spectacular policy debacles, big budget deficits, faith in big government, tax hikes and a lack of real achievements – the very things that have made this government so unpopular in only its second term. As a result, Rudd is not a credible candidate for PM, despite his current popularity in the polls.

It follows that Labor needs to do more than simply change leaders in order to ‘save the furniture’, otherwise the change will be as successful as the leadership changes NSW Labor made in office, where the Premier was a different person but nearly everything else the same. Gillard’s successor will have to change the entire course of the government. To that end, here are a few suggestions:

  1. Scrap the carbon tax policy. This one is essential. Apologise to the Australian people for having tried to introduce it with no mandate and defer any price on carbon until there is a binding international agreement which includes all the major emitters.
  2. Re-open Nauru as a processing centre and re-introduce Temporary Protection Visas. Apologise to the Australian people for having softened the laws in 2008.
  3. Introduce some spending cuts in order to ensure that the budget is brought back to surplus as promised.
  4. End the formal alliance with the Greens, who will always support Labor over the Coalition anyway.
  5. Avoid any new schemes which will result in more money being wasted. If you can’t respect the hard earned money of taxpayers, you cannot respect the taxpayers themselves.

The only way for Labor is to not only replace Gillard but also the Rudd-Gillard style of government. Otherwise the leadership change and the passage of time will likely result in federal Labor becoming as contemptible and despised as NSW Labor was in March of this year.

Gillard moves towards good sense on asylum seeker processing

OK I admit that my expectation is that Gillard would keep on making bad choices but its seems that she may at last be seeing sense about doing that all important deal with the Coalition on the asylum seeker issue:

click for source

With only 12% of those surveyed supporting her the PM really has to do the deal if she wants to survive beyond the arrival of the next slew of boats that are surly preparing to sail in the light of the last High court decision.
Accepting a deal may allow Gillard some breathing room even if it mean that she has to then contend with a pissed off left wing from her own party and her pals the Greens having conipitons because they can no longer wag the Labor dog on this divisive issue.

Cheers Comrades