Last night the skeptical writer was subjected, for the first time, to the rash of "psychic detective" programs on Sydney terrestrial television. Mrs S is a solid believer in things spiritual and psychic.

So S had no choice, and probed for little flaws in the - admittedly: extraordinary - path to crime resolution pursued by some of these "psychic detectives". Then I reported them (as diplomatically as possible) to Mrs S, who chided me.

To the rhythm of my vigorously nodding diplomatic head.

In truth, misgivings about so-called psychic "phenomena" remain with me, ostensibly or otherwise. Still, who knows. Maybe a murder can be solved by having a "psychic" fiddle with the victim's keys, or photograph, or even their birthdate.

Even a skeptic like moi recognises the power of the sub-conscious.

We've all had the experience of, say, hearing a song hummed that we were just that second thinking of, or of knowing full well, as we reached into our change purse, that the amount of coins retrieved would be exactly one coin short of the amount required for a purchase.

Such minor happenings can be explained in terms of the sub-conscious:- the song example by virtue of, say, both parties having that day heard the tune on the same radio station; the second case by having registered, without conscious exertion, the exact amount of coinage passed by one's own fingers into the purse.

Something said by one of the "psychics" on last night's TV broadcasts made me think of the above:

That we ought to pay more attention to those everyday occurences we logically dismiss as trivial, but somehow stay with us. According to this "psychic", such events have greater underlying significance.



********************



Contra to the "psychic"'s claim is a message in the vaunted Arthur Miller play, "The Crucible", a story about the once-serious business of witch-hunting. It warns precisely against reading significance into anything other than that which is absolutely apparent, lest hysteria and paranoia take over, leading to tragic consequences of the kind that befell the play's "witches".

This idea was thrust at me, before last night's TV-watching, as a reason not to try to imagine expansive sub-texts relating to racist comments made on-field by a high-profile Australian rugby player (rugby is a big sport Down Under).

The player had called a South African opponent a "fcuking black cnut".

The targeted player reported the incident, and the - very contrite, regretful and quite convincingly apologetic - perpetrator was suspended.

It was subsequently revealed in (loud, long, finicky) media coverage that the same Australian player (Justin Harrison) had previously publicly joked (apparently on microphone at a club presentation) that one of his team-mates looked like a "jewboy ... (with) short arms and long pockets".

Several former players defended Harrison. One of them (Sam Scott-Young) was once reported to have defended his own interest in collecting Nazi memorabilia.

Now, the above is a ruthlessly bitter capsule highlighting some of the very nastiest speculation related to the Harrison affair, while culpably ignoring the stellar record of multicultural harmony in rugby and Australian sport in general. And ignoring the likelihood that Justin Harrison is, in Australian terms, a spirited "sledger" rather than a racist.

But it's the kind of thing that makes the news. And news reporters are more likely to operate on the "hunch" rather than the "Crucible" principle.

So it was that the Harrison incident was reported far and wide and in places where rugby normally rates zero attention.

For perhaps the same reason, some years ago, the anti-immigration and anti-Aboriginal rights politician Pauline Hanson's federal election campaign received more international media attention than is normally devoted to the the entire Australian election process, let alone serious campaigners therein.

"Racist" incidents involving Australia tend to stir up media attention throughout Asia, as well as attention amongst Australian Aboriginals (including Aboriginal rugby players, regarding the Harrison incident).

That may be because persons of non-white-European ethnicity are sensitive to racist sub-text, believe it is an unspoken but sad reality in Australia, and hence jump at the opportunity to highlight and expose it whenever such opportunity presents itself.

Arthur Miller would not recommend such an approach. So I was told by someone claiming too much was made of the Harrison affair.

But there is a lot to be said for following hunches, or recognising the symbolic, or being sensitive - as per the "psychic"'s prescription.

After all, just because something is not proven to some kind of evidentiary standard doesn't mean it's not a reality.

Paranoia and sensitivity are said to be common traits of highly successful business people - people for whom foreseeing possible future threats are a necessity of maintaining and building an enterprise.



********************



Today, another set of coincidences caused me to consider whether to apply the psychic's prescription of paying attention, or else to remember Arthur Miller and not waste time worrying.

The harbinger was a double-linking to today's Drudge Report:

Firstly, the news that Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol had been pelted with an ice cream pie at a public engagement.

Just under that heading, the item highlighting the heckling of Ann Coulter at Kansas University.

Stone the crows if I wasn't myself pelted with a raw egg while innocently hailing a taxi at Sydney's Bondi Beach late the other evening.

The incident stayed in my mind -just the thing the TV "psychic" had warned to watch out for.

Admittedly, this sticking in mind might have been related to the pain that stuck to my upper arm after being hit there, or else to the dribbly egg that stuck to my shirt for the duration of the taxi ride.

Dang kids, I thought at the time - though I did not see who was in the passed car from which the missile was launched. In my own youth I did idiotic things like that. Maybe it's karma.

Possibly that. Certainly: just a random incident.

The paranoid side of me couldn't help dwelling though, at least for an hour or so. Normally no-one, not even Mrs S, would hear my musings.

Such things are admitted only in the private-public blog of the 21st century.

I speculatively related the hooliganism to one of the distinct changes that beachside Bondi has seen since my own long-ago youth - its growing rowdiness, especially in the evenings. People from outside suburbs flock there now for entertainment.

Some of them seem to come there with "have-not" chips on their shoulders. Bondi is noted for being glitzy and touristy, frequented by "haves" and, famously amongst these, Jews. It's also a very, very multicultural area - but that doesn't change these other givens.

Amongst Bondi's visiting outsiders are a not-inconsiderable number - many of them with Lebanese or other Middle Eastern ethnic roots - who ostentatiously wear "Bulldogs" shirts and identificants.

The famous Canterbury Bulldogs are currently Australia's champion rugby league team. Their Canterbury headquarters is in a Sydney suburb far away from Bondi. Their broad support base includes a percentage of persons with Muslim and Arab heritage. One of the current team's star players is the brilliant Hazem El-Masri, proud muslim, national icon and one of the finest goal-kickers in the history of rugby league.

Bulldogs paraphernalia was much in evidence around Bondi in the days following the 2004 championship Grand Final. In that match, the Bulldogs triumphed over the Bondi-based Sydney Roosters.

Thrashed 'em.

So the parading of the Bulldogs shirts and hats and banners around Bondi Roosterville after that game was a bit like rubbing salt into wounds.

In a good-natured way, perhaps. Nobody really minded. The 'Dogs supporters were proud, and dersevedly so. Australian sport is about fun and enjoyment and good-natured rivalry, where everyone ribs each other and has a drink together afterwards.

Having said that, a slightly eery pallor has tainted Australian sport in recent years.

It was during 2004 that an in-season Bulldogs-Roosters match became embroiled in large-scale crowd violence. It was big news, and perhaps the first time in the history of traditional Australian sport that such a thing had ever occured.

Much has been done by rugby league authorities since that time to crack down on the psychotic behaviour of the minority of spectators who might be tempted to engage in violence at games, and their efforts have so far been successful. There has never been any overt hint of ethnicity or racial motivation inspiring such behaviour, nor have any such overtones affected or coloured the crackdown.

Nor should they. Paranoid joining of far-flung dots, as hinted at above, has no legitimate basis. The Miller prescriprtion defines the appropriate treatment here.

There are indeed minor - psychotic - groups that bear watching though, as underlined by the youth recently featured in Australian headlines after a video was found showing him making a suicide-bombing style threat against Australian military targets, Australian flag in the backdrop of a film piece otherwise notable for its Islamofascist style.

Let's hope patriotism and love of country runs deep with many of us, and that same does not become muddied with cancerous, violent ideas.


***************


Back to the egg, and the Kristol ice-cream pie, and the Coulter heckling. And one more item not yet mentioned: the hallucination offered March 29 by far-left guru Noam Chomsky, inter alia:

(T)he United States had to be brought kicking and screaming into accepting (Iraqi) elections. ...

(T)here has been a very powerful nonviolent resistance in Iraq - far more significant than suicide bombers and so on. And it simply compelled the United States step by step to back down. ...

Washington was compelled, very reluctantly, to accept elections. It tried in every way to undermine them. ...

(R)ight now there's a struggle going on, as to whether the United States will be able to subvert the elections that it reluctantly accepted. ... Of course once the United States was forced into accepting elections, the government and the media immediately pronounced that it was a great achievement of the United States. ...

In fact it's a major triumph of nonviolent resistance, and it should be understood as such....The last thing the United States wants is a democratic, sovereign Iraq.

He's a psychotic phenomenon, is Mr Chomsky, and possibly the prototype useful idiot of his generation. A Jewish-American academic of niche standing who disdains religion, and hates capitalist Israel and the United States, and a prolific activist regarding said hatreds. A gift-wrapped nasty for the murky ideologues of fanatical Islam in the crusade against common enemies.

We wouldn't accept someone like Chomsky in any kind of responsible mainstream position in western public affairs. Hence the same kind of ridiculous Bush-is-a-liar/America-hates-democracy allusion ascribed to Washington Post Managing Editor Bennett recently was roundly condemned, and I (and many, many others) have delineated its rank illogic.

That is not why the item caught my eye - save for the bald-faced intellectual dishonesty of Chomsky, a professor of linguistics, failing to distinguish between foreseeable concerns about radical elements taking advantage of Iraqi democratic processes, on the one hand, and outright opposition to democracy per se, on the other.

What caught my eye was the reference to "non-violent resistance". Was my bombardment with an egg some kind of spiritual or "psychic" alert to a new pattern? Does the Kristol ice cream pie battering and the Coulter heckling herald a new phase in leftist tactics?

I think not as to the psychic business, but possibly yes as to the new pattern.

Violent anti (-capitalist, -Israel, -US, take your pick) tactics - epitomised by the 9/11 cannibalism - have failed to overcome, overwhelmingly frighten, or galvanise high levels of sympathy for the far left or Islamofascists in western democracies. On the contrary.

Following the Bush re-election, his opponents of various stripes have been forced to navel-gaze. And the collective result may well be a mere change of tack, rather than deep-seated consideration of ideology.

Eggs instead of bombs - a more civilised proposition, but not an entirely civilised one, and not one that is likely to be perceived as fair or persuasive. And therefore a mistake, yet another one.


EDIT: April, 2007, and the egg-throwing phenomenon has taken off

Michelle Malkin, the presenter of this clip, has herself become a favourite target of racist left-wing assault.

What to do if Daniel Pipes' warning proves correct?

Pipes believes that radical Islamist groups may be uniquely positioned to ride, all the way to power, the wave of democracy sweeping the Middle East (see details in my post below).

One attitude to such an outcome may lie in the political reasoning of Israeli Deputy PM (and former Soviet dissident) Natan Scharansky, whose recent book "The Case for Democracy" was recommended by President Bush as containing "a glimpse" into his own thinking on foreign policy.

Scharansky believes that a democracy that hates a fellow democracy is much safer than a dictatorship that loves it; that the society that does not protect the right to dissent can never be a reliable partner for peace.

If future Islamist democracies go the way Turkey's present government, then there is strong reason in the west to hope for comfortable, peaceful co-existence. Anti-theocratic movements in Iran, also, show that the direction of popular opinion, if allowed to flow, has the power to override an aggressive government of the moment.

No-one needs to imagine that the transition of Middle Eastern countries to democracy will be be notably smooth. Nor should we assume that such transition is guaranteed of success.

Hitler's Nazis, who have provided a blueprint for much Islamist activity in recent years (see here), participated in numerous German elections until Hitler obtained the Chancelorship. Then they crushed democracy, a political system they openly despised (like Islamists), and one they saw as imposed upon their Fatherland by enemies (like Islamists).

We all know how those enemies were dealt with once the Nazis obtained power, and how the appeasement of Hitler by European nations (like ...) abetted his plans.

It took an unfortunate route, traversing two global wars interspersed with a failed democratic experiment and preceded - 100 rocky years before - by knitting several independent states into a single country, but keep in mind that the German story ended, eventually, in democracy.

Daniel Pipes warily welcomes the march toward democracy in the Middle East, but summarises the concern many of us may have been feeling:

"
- Yes, (Palestinian Authority Chairman) Mahmoud Abbas wishes to end the armed struggle against Israel but his call for a greater jihad against the "Zionist enemy" points to his intending another form of war to destroy Israel.
- The Iraqi elections are bringing Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a pro-Iranian Islamist, to power.
- Likewise, the (recent, unprecedented)) Saudi (municipal) elections proved a boon for the Islamist candidates.
- (Hosni) Mubarak's promise (of allowing opposing Egyptian presidential candidates to run against him for the first time) is purely cosmetic; but should real presidential elections one day come to Egypt, Islamists will probably prevail there too.
- Removing Syrian control in Lebanon could well lead to Hezbollah, a terrorist group, becoming the dominant power there.
- Eliminating the hideous Assad dynasty could well bring in its wake an Islamist government in Damascus.

"Note a pattern? ...

"Sadly, Islamists uniquely have what it takes to win elections: the talent to develop a compelling ideology, the energy to found parties, the devotion to win supporters, the money to spend on electoral campaigns, the honesty to appeal to voters, and the will to intimidate rivals." (emph. mine)

Pipes is a renowned Middle East historian and also, as he proudly notes, often called a 'neo-conservative' - not only by sniping cliques to the left.

So his warning is worth keeping in mind. What to do about it is another question.

Per Claudia Rossett today:

Mr. Annan ... deliver(ed) his latest plan for U.N. "reform", by way of a 63-page report stuffed with high-sounding declarations wrapped around dozens of proposals to take most of what the U.N. does wrong, and do lots more of it, with lots more taxpayer money.

Emphasis mine.

How much longer can the world afford to continue giving a free pass to Kofi and the bureaucratic behemoth that muddles along under his stewardship?

Remember his recent comments on revelations that OVER ONE BILLION $$ has been defrauded in the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal:

"We take the allegations seriously, we really do".

Like he was reassuring a child who had complained about verbal bullying, or something.

Not much made of this by the media. Not much heard about it since then, either. Maybe we should just let it go ...

Wonderful item by WSJ editor Brett Stephens yesterday, in exposing the hypocrisy and directionlessness of Clinton-era National Security Council official Nancy Soderberg.

Soderberg's muddle-headedness might be hilarious, but for the fact that she was once entrusted with very serious responsibilities, and now hopes to sell a book apparently brimming with the contradictory and strange views that Stephens castigates, but which are shared by so many on the Democrat side.

It's more sad than funny, really.

Regarding the prescription in my previous post (for rank ignorance on the subject of Nazism), I would advise picking up a book by an authoritive author on the subject of Hitler, and there is indeed no better remedy.

The proviso is that you must actually READ the book, not simply cite it without understanding it.

Unforunately, sadly, there are numerous examples of such misrepresentation. A common one concerns English historian Alan Bullock. Bullock's enormous recent tome Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives is in paperback form in many book stores, and seems - at least for a time - to have achieved flavour-of-the-month status, including amongst certain Democrat politicians and supporters.

Some of the latter refer to Bullock to assist in creating a veneer of credibility. However, it is virtually impossible to actually read his recent work without understanding the true nature of Nazism, as indicated in the comparison with fanatical Islam in my post below.

Hanson's article (see post below) chronicles the astounding audacity of various elites, and their contemptuous disregard for fact, in making cheap comparisons of Bush, his administration, and his allies to Hitler's Nazis.

All in order to slur: perhaps to throw lots of mud in order that some may stick (the Goebbels formula); or perhaps to project one's own ills upon an enemy and then blame them for it (the Stalin formula).

Whichever pole the tactic may lie at, it's essentially a totalitarian favourite.

Beyond the elites, what of the targets in today's populace, the bleating sheep who accept and repeat the smeer (1,350,000 references on Google, Hanson says!)?

For those who might entertain the possibility, if only to themselves, that ignorance on the subject of Nazism might help fuel this phenomenon, here's a prescription*.

Try comparing Nazism to fanatical Islam, for example as follows (present tense is used for ease of elaboration):

1) Both Nazism and Fanatical Islam (FI) idealise forms of totalitarianism;

2) Both despise and denigrate democracy, free speech, human rights and western values;

3) Through the sponsorship of Wahabi Islam, Arabic versions of Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have become best sellers in the Middle East;

4) Both target a range of identificants, but target Jews as the central and natural enemy, and both propagate the most extreme prejudicial chauvinism toward Jews;

5) Both advocate viloence as an essential and legitimate means of achieving their political aims. Both try to galvanise militants via symbolic violent acts (cf. Hitler's 1923 putsch and 9/11, for example), and both actively recruit, train and dispatch as many agents as possible for the purpose;

6) Both ideologies draw motivation from cultural chauvinism towards outsiders (not only Jews), and both have zero tolerance for cultural "misfits" in their midst.

7) Both ideologies arose following a period of massive social upheaval involving perceived military loss to outsiders (and consequent loss of collective pride), redrawn and shrunken borders (again, made by outsiders), collapse of ruling elites, mistrust of elites who took over and the systems they represent, fluctuating economic fortunes (mainly very negative for most of the populace);

8} (In response largely to 7)) Both promise galvanisation and attainment of natural-right-leibensraum at the expense of the hated outsider, and both work actively and energetically towards their aims;

9) Both make innovative and concentrated use of media and mass gatherings to achieve their aims. Hitler pioneered such use centered on technological media; Al-Jazeera and Hezbollah TV, for example, are recognized leaders and innovators in this area in the Arab world, where mass pro-Islamist gatherings are well known to be common, for example at funerals and in mosques;

10) Both FI and Nazism receive(d) support from wary custodian governments they implacably oppose(d) (like in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Saddam's Iraq, in the case of FI; and Weimar Germany's various elites and parties, in the case of the Nazis). Those governments, in both cases, reasoned that the extremists might be "tamed", or tapped, or diverted so as not to disturb the political status quo (except to suit their own ends). Both FI and Nazism use(d) a combination of violent threat and negotiation to secure such support.

11) At an international level, the Nazis co-operated with implacable ideological enemies to achieve short-term gains: with the Soviets on several occasions, most famously in the Nazi-Soviet pact, not to mention with the German communists. There seems to be a parallel in FI synchronisation with the international and leftist milieu (including and most particularly the UN, the leftist media, and pan-European politicos) at the moment.

Regarding the last two points, we don't know, of course, where fellow traveling with Islamists may head, but it's a historical fact that Hitler was grossly underestimated.

The really scary part is that the above is probably only a partial list.

Best to heed demonstrable historical correspondence, in my humble opinion, rather than reaching grimly for all kinds of obtuse sub-text, simply because it suits one's own bias or emotions.

If you still disagree with me, perhaps because the Bush Christmas video (the one starring the family pet) was really a devilishly subtle equivalent to Mein Kampf, do drop me a line and let me know.


* Regarding the prescription, see my next post (above).

Goebbels was guided by the above quote (and by Hitler), and it's with this kind of reasoning in mind that mindless leftist minions have been encouraged to compare Bush with Hitler.

Not that many of them would be aware of what they are doing. The incomprehensibility of the comparison to anyone with even a smidgeon of historical knowledge seems beside the point, and there are apparently more than 1,350,000 references to the slur on Google.

"Where does one even begin .. " to deconstruct such tripe - so began a blog on the subject by Arthur Chrenkoff recently, and the exasperation in that phrase is something many of us can relate to.

So let's all make a concerted effort to meet such lunacy head on, and as often as possible.

Hence I do not hesitate to link, in advance of even reading the danged thang, this article on the subject by Victor Davis Hanson, highlighted in Real Clear Politics last Sunday.

This is a really, REALLY good film, one of the best biographical movies I have seen, and perhaps unlucky not to win Best Film and Best Direction honours at the recent Academy Awards.

Like many, my first reaction regarding Jamie Foxx's selection for the Best Actor Oscar was "Oh well, looks like embarrassed Hollywood's playing PC catch-up" - but this is way off the mark: Foxx is incredible.

I don't know what Ray Charles was really like, having been born as he was approaching his career peak. Whatever the reality, Foxx pulls off a winning caricature, within a rollicking screenplay.

The film is long but never boring. The story stays close to historical truth and yet, surprisingly, stays captivating.

You see the stories behind some of the Charles songs. They are of the warts-and-all rather than whitewashed variety. Which makes them all the more fetching.

Just like - significantly - the portrayal of Charles' best known contribution to the Civil Rights movement. I won't spoil the details for those who haven't seen the flick, save to say that I was touched by the completely believable and human Ray Charles in this context.

What a distinguished, and memorable, surprise that is.

Of course, different people will assess the film differently. Mrs S gave "Ray" a 7/10, while I gave it an 8/10. Hard to imagine someone not liking it though.

Media blogs:

Rabid propaganda

Optical illusion

Maureen who?

Coulter on "McCarthyism"

Pilger in defence of BBC

The medium is the message

From Vietnam to Iraq

New media flexes muscles

Middle East "reporting"

BBC, NBC Olympic vultures

Osama's media nominee

Re Amira Hass

Re Philip Bennet

Intelligence abuse scandal

"Reuters" feels terror

"Islemmingism"?

Re: Hitler slurs (3)

Re: Hitler slurs (2)

Re: Hitler slurs (1)

Mailer quote

Healthy cynicism

Latest Mark Steyn

Gordon Liddy

Decaying heraldry

Saudi TV

An institution unravels

Bodycount schadenfreude

Google's active bias

Our best weapon against terror

Media Resources:

Fox has 53% of cable news audience

BBC Bias (2)

BBC Bias (1)

Middle East blogs:

Review: One Pal'ine Complete

A torchflame of hope

Rabid propaganda

Optical illusion

ICJ fence ruling

Left awakens to Arafat

Middle East "reporting"

Rockets across the chasm

Mubarak's peace move

Egypt's Ali Salem

Handshakes Popescript?

Rare handshakes at Pope's funeral

Re Amira Hass

Gordon Liddy

Decaying heraldry

Now for more rockets

Education in the Arab world

Middle East Resources:

In Palestine, terror is mainstream

Jerusalem Settlements

Barak on Oslo, Clinton, Arafat

European Anti-Semitism

Iraq War blogs:

Spain & Larry Flynt

Pilger in defence of BBC

From Vietnam to Iraq

Rumsfeld holds firm

Pakistan and 9/11

Aspects of Islamism

Oil for graft

Osama & Mr. Fisk

Oil for palm grease

Mouth Park

Cronkite's unwitting wisdom

Academia

Anti-warriors stand up

Intelligence abuse scandal

Bin Laden's death reported

Re: Hitler slurs (3)

Re: Hitler slurs (2)

Re: Hitler slurs (1)

Islamism after democracy

Islamism in the wake of democracy

Psychotic phenomena

Re Philip Bennet

Ken Livingstone

Bin Laden man walks

(Another) failure of appeasement

Latest Mark Steyn

Koch on Iraq

Human parrot file

The WTC conspiracists

Loserspeak

The Saudis and 9/11

Kofi coverass, latest

Galloway's latest treason

Iraq War Resources:

Osama's US Election Speech

Terror target Australia

Clinton: strong Saddam - Qaeda connections

Cowardice, hypocrisy, Michael Moore

Red Crossfire

Tony Blair on Iraq

Hart-Rudman Report 2002

US Politics blogs:

Spain & Larry Flynt

Bill Clinton's book

Lincoln and Bush

Showdown @ NY

Clinton & cocaine

Kerry's image problem

Coping

Enron, Andersen, Clinton

Coulter on "McCarthyism"

Civil war dining

Election fever

10 days to go ...

Re: Hitler slurs (3)

Re: Hitler slurs (2)

Re: Hitler slurs (1)

Re Philip Bennet

Bill Graham, Billy Clinton

Pat Robertson & Live 8

2005 for 2008 campaigners

Cronkite's unwitting wisdom

Bin Laden man walks

New man on the moon?

Bush SofU 2006

Koch on Iraq

Truth is a harsh mistress

Human parrot file

Hastert was misquoted

US Politics Resources:

Re Nancy Soderberg

Osama's US Election Speech

Election Crow

Fear of the Wolfe

Bush won first debate

Cowardice, hypocrisy, Michael Moore

Birth of US judicial activism

US VP Cheney on the Bush anti-terror doctrine, John Kerry

Hart-Rudman Report 2002

Whose internationalism? - blogs:

Secularism v Islamism

Attacks aim to divide Muslims and non-Muslims

A survivor of the London bus ...

Effective measures

"Islemmingism"?

Egypt's Ali Salem

Live 8 (1): Not all terrorists are impoverished

Live 8 (2): Eliminating poverty

Live 8 (1): The reaction outside Europa

B.C. versus C.E.

Islamism after democracy

Islamism in the wake of democracy

UN "Reform"

Bigotry in modern Russia

New man on the moon?

Sex and terrorism (2)

Sex and terrorism

Sex and terrorism (3)

Religion needs an enema

Religion needs an enema (2)

1st American century

French bonfire

Paris riots

Date symbolism

Understanding "Salafism"

The noughties oil shock

Kofi coverass, latest

Good riddance, Kyoto

Whose Internationalism? - Resources:

Neo-Darwinism v "Intelligent Design""

Oil: the Achilles Heel

Murdoch on immigration

Theo Van Gogh

Hitchens on secularism, 2004

De-Christianizing Europe?

Europe as a haven for fanatics

Murder Lemming Motivation

The 100 Largest Economic Entities 2001

Australia blogs:

Australian water security

Fitzy's Limitations

Medical Overreach

Australia, Indonesia & Malaysia

Alleged "Australian views"

Psychotic phenomena

Bridging the gap

Decaying heraldry

Sex and terrorism (3)

Sydney favourite eats

Pious and wicked

Dreams & bad jokes

Sex and terrorism (2)

Sex and terrorism

Bulldogs explosion

Australia Resources:

Terror target Australia

Random blogs:

Mel Gibson & Passion

Criminal justice imbalance

Indian model

Taiwan election

B.C. versus C.E.

Mouth Park

Cronkite's unwitting wisdom

Review: "Ray"

Defining beauty

MSBP

The oil century

Passion revisited

Religion needs an enema

Emailed history test

Random Resources:

PRC views on Judaism

Who　am I?

The origins of the term "Judeo-Christian"

Garry Kasparov Despises Putin

Victhom, Ossur, Otto Bock & Bionics

Reefer Madness

The 100 Largest Economic Entities 2001

When Modern Medicine Fails

Quotes

Stories from the south world:

On "Chinamens' Ears"

Rugby's "Beautician"

Bridging the gap

Snippets






c 2005/7, at a Wests Tigers v Souths rugby league match in Sydney:

Mark Latham: You need to get a life!
Photographer: Just doing my job sir
Latham: And what is your job?
Photographer: I'm a photographer, and by the way what's your job?


***

Yoga instructor asks class:

"Is anybody here expecting a child?" No hands go up.

She nods and says: "Good, because if anybody is pregnant I don't recommend you do the following exercise."

She extends her arm directly in front and then forcefully brings the open hand into her stomach. "And one (slap), and two ... come on, harder!"


***********


IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s) only. It may contain information that is confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive people with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or absurd religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not authorised (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email, although the spaniel next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft. However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have received this email in error, please add some nutmeg and flour, lightly sift and mix with 200g of margarine and 180g of sugar, beat well and place it in a warm oven for 40 minutes. Let it stand for 2 hours before icing.

Virus protection is in place at krites, however virus protection remains the responsibility of the recipient.


**********

At Silverwater Detention Centre in Sydney, an inmate was said to have ripped out a toe nail and slit wrists with it. A toe nail apparently has a hard, sharp and potentially dangerous root, when extracted as a whole

**********






GIFs, links, tools

Search & Info tools
Film
Picture & amusement sites
Humour
Select GIFs
Religion
Restaurants
Games
Erotica




Search & Info tools

http://www.truthorfiction.com/

http://www.zabasearch.com/

siliconhell.com

http://www.urbandictionary.com/

http://www.erowid.org/

http://www.conservativebookclub.com/membershome.asp



Film

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/

http://www.pumpupthemovie.com/toss.html

http://hoyts.ninemsn.com.au/



Picture and amusement sites

http://www.b3ta.co.uk/

http://www.rathergood.com/

http://www.b3ta.com/

http://www.kontraband.com/

www.boingboing.net/

http://www.worth1000.com/default.asp

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/index.html

http://www.space.com/

http://www.risboroart.co.uk/




Humour

http://www.holymoly.co.uk

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/oracle/

www.theonion.com

http://www.rudefun.com/

http://www.weirdspot.com/

Select GIFs

Pisces gif large:

Pisces gif:

http://network.news.com.au/images/horoscopes/pisces_small.gif





http://www.leconcombre.com/board/flashtutorial/prestonblair/anime/dancekick100.gif

(dancing cutie)



http://www.thatfatgirl.com/applause.gif

(applause)




http://joepixel.com/common/images_blog/stick_people.gif

(rat-racing stick people)



http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Animation/Gif/HitMe.gif

(Tom & Jerry smashola)



http://www.rad.kumc.edu/nucmed/images/pet/pet_lung2_animated.gif

(cancer-riddled rotating body)



http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Animation/Picture/clintond.gif

(Clinton devil morph)



http://www.thatfatgirl.com/hasselhoff.gif

(hasselhoff endless)


http://s90632679.onlinehome.us/decor/walkingman.gif

(walking pixels)



http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2711/giveadamnprogress3ur.gif

(give a damnometer)




http://www.yonkis.com/imagenes01/curro.gif

(computer frustration extremis)



http://members.cox.net/kriskentay/coexist.jpg"

http://www.world66.com/myworld66/visitedCountries/worldmap?visited=CAUSMXEGATBEHRCZDKFRDEGRHUITLILUMTMCNLNOPTYUESSECHUKVAILJOSYTRCNINIDJPMYPHSGKRTWTHVNAUFJPFGUFMNCNZMPVU
- my visited countries



http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/7467/roomoffunny8gy6gh.jpg

("this room is full of people who think you are funny")








Religion


http://www.thebricktestament.com/
(the bible told with leggo)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

http://www.kabbalah.com/kabbalah/





Restaurants

http://www.miettas.com/restaurants/guide2002/nsw/sydney_cbd/rockpool264702.html

http://www.rubymurray.com/ (death by curry, recipes)

http://www.rcnsw.asn.au/awards/metro.htm




Games

http://www.addictinggames.com/

http://www.vagenisonline.com/

http://www.stade.fr/fr/jeux/strip_penalty/index.phtml?sessionID=7d4a015450d366fc7d7c5953dd60a522〈=fr

http://www.mousebreaker.net/game15.shtml

http://www.straightuptheguts.com/

http://www.gameof3halves.com/





Erotica

http://www.mediareality.com/kiss2.jpg

(les kiss)

fhm.com

el-ladies.com & worldsex.com

http://www.literotica.com/

AMPLAND

http://www.allsexguide.com/

suze.net

As Easter approaches, Mel Gibson is re-releasing 'Passion of the Christ' in many cinemas.

Unfortunately, though to a less pronounced extent, much of the angst and many of the questions that accompanied the film's original release remain. ADL's Abraham Foxman is still angrily carping on, and many will be disappointed that the likeable Gibson couldn't find some way to shut the man up or, more importantly, to reassure his many Jewish fans around the planet.

Much of what I blogged about one year ago remains relevant.

"If 'The New York Times' is liberal, then I'm Sean Hannity", the liberal lawyer told Fox News yesterday, as host Bill O'Reilly buried half his head in a hand and strained, successfully, to maintain poise and continue the interview.

Which was admirable professionalism on the part of O'Reilly. Many in Fox's audience are well aware of the steadfast denial of bias parroted in defence of the Bush is Bad News and MSM, even as the same defenders ruthlessly employ the Stalinist tactic of accusatory projection of their own ills. Still, it's jaw-dropping stuff when you actually witness someone trying to recite the doggerel with a straight face.

Underlined by the appearance on US TV last night of fanatical NYT columnist Maureen Dowd, equivocating in response to the Comedy Central host's question of whether she hated the Bushes. She said she reserved words like hate and animosity for use in her personal life.

I'd believe that. That she has a lot of room for such words in her personal life, that is.

She doesn't strike this observer as a particularly solid individual, the kind who might, for example, be able herself to withstand even a fraction of the public abuse she dishes out to Republican figures.

Even if such abuse was fair and not angry verbiage, as it appears to be in most cases. Why someone of her low credibility level occupies breathes front page oxygen at a major newspaper is a mystery to me. Since Bush was elected there have been numerous occasions that her apparently bigoted (and never ending) attacks on Jewish neo-conservatives, the President, Messrs Cheney and Rumsfeld, Karl Rove and other high-ranking Republican figures have attracted attention.

But the attention centres around the intensity of the muck-raking, combined with the fact of its placement at the NYT. The attention doesn't appear to have emanated from the actual plausibility of the writer's political opinion.

Hence to me, she has hardly been worth commenting on. In fact, I wouldn't want to disturb her position. I regard her as something of an asset to non-Democrats.

Now what did that lady, the O'Reilly guest, say about that relative shrinking wall-flower, Sean Hannity ...?

Leonard Cohen couldn't have sung this line with the Little Rock Hilbillaries in mind. But the former first couple are constantly in the news these days. Undoubtedly with a view to 2008.

While the likes of Guiliani, Romney, McCain and perhaps Rice and Jeb Bush already seem to be jostling on the Republican side, for the Democrats it's a case of Hilary versus who dares.

Bill, meanwhile, never got out of the habit of campaigning. He seemed energized recently in the role of UN-appointed emissary to the tsunami zone, tailing off that very taxing trip with rock-star like appearances at book signings in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

This Indian-Pacific run by the former President had the feel of a campaign, an international one. He seemed to come to life as he pumped hands with the hordes, despite the notably gaunt appearance and wiry frame that, not surprisingly, caved in to another heart condition after the trip.

But even this generated more publicity, perhaps breathing life into his political psyche even as it sapped same from his body.

Which makes you wonder whether it's even possible for the man to resist having a serious crack at the UN Secretary-Generalship.

The thought of Couple Clinton puporting to hold the reigns of the entire planet is a horrific one for many to contemplate.

As unlikely as it seems that this synergic double-vision of power could be realized, keep in mind where Bill Clinton was before the 1990s, how far he has come and how politically adept he has proven to be.

Those who fear such an outcome should not hesitate to take whatever measures necessary from here on in to snuff it out.

It's all over the net. But it still must, in fairness, be said.

Phillip Bennett of the Washington Post did not come across to be anywhere near as stupid as the interview transcript provided by the Chinese People's Daily made out the other day.

The transcript provided by Bennett to Hugh Hewitt is nothing like the one I went ballistic about.

The differences appear not to be mere oversights of translation. At many key junctures the entire meaning of what Bennett appears to be saying has been changed.

There's a lot about the C-Span interview with aging Walter Cronkite, transcribed in part by James Taranto in "Best of the Web Today", that has me wondering about the former news presenter's cognitive processes - which is to say I largely disagree with him.

But I thought the part of the interview highlighted by Opinion Journal was kind of interesting:

" ... (M)oney? ... That's exactly the reason that those Arabs are so mad at us. We are--they see our television. I blame television for a lot of the problems we have today. Before television, they didn't know what we were like [audience laughter and applause]. But now they do. They see these riches, these riches pouring out of us. Every doxy on the air has gold and diamonds and sapphires, and they drive great big cars; we live in these magnificent houses. And they're starving to death. They're watching a television set energized by a hand--by a foot pump, one set to the village. They gather there every night. What do they see? I dunno, "Sex in the City," for heaven's sake [audience laughter].

I think if I were hungry, if I were starving, if my family were dying of AIDS or any other illness, and there was no medical help there, and I was watching this rich nation play at its own fashion, I'd be pretty damn mad. I'd be pretty damn mad [audience applause]."

In other words, Cronkite imagines that the simple emotion of envy, the same one forbidden by those 10 Commandments that make up the bedrock of Islam, Christianity and Judaism alike, fuels hatred of the US and it's western allies. I think it's a reasonable point.

One that would be lost on the so-called "religious" fanatics who perpetrate terrorist attacks against western targets, who flagrantly transgress this and other of their own Lord's commandments, while purporting to wave a righteous flag.

This aspect seems lost on old Walter Cronkite, apparently. Just like fellow Journalist Phillip Bennett (see blog below), Cronkite excuses (actually doesn't even refer to) the highly suspect bahaviour of US opponents, reserving contempt and criticism only for his homeland.

(PLEASE NOTE: Within days of the alleged interview with Philip Bennett appearing in the Chinese People's Daily, as described below, blogger Hugh Hewitt obtained a version from Bennett which appears to be at odds with that version on many substantive points)

***************

Perusing The Washington Post Managing Editor's interview with the China People's Daily, one gets the impression of a guy who is so tied up inside an anti-Republican echo chamber that he may have no idea of how hostile and bemuddled his views appear to the outsider.

The interviewer, Yong Tang, seemed bemused at various points. I know I was.

Consider some excerpts:

Bennett: ... I don't think there is much evidence that promoting democracy is what the US is doing. It is what it says it is doing...

So Bush is a liar, plain and simple. And, we can infer, a sinister one.

But what of the logic, tactically, in promoting democracy - the corollary between people power in a free-market democracy acting as a restraint upon 9/11-style terrorist promotions against another nation.

What of the deeper understanding of a fellow democracy's realities and mechanisms that might also ward against such attacks? What of the democratic free speech that enables a prospectively targeted country to transmit it's views direct to the people of the prospective aggressor?

Are these - as well as the track record of harmonious co-existence between democratic nations - not solid reasons underlying the Bush policy? Reasons that US soldiers are fighting and dying for.

What of the fact that democracy does appear to be breaking out - and welcomed - in the Middle East?

And what of the likelihood that American enemies will draw encouragement and succour from Philip Bennet's words ... ?

Evidently, such questions are not legitimate to Mr. Bennett, or are not worth devoting time to, so easily are they answered.

So he jumps a few rhetorical levels, to show that his bias-free news organisation is merely trying to help the lowly likes of you and me to understand what is really happening - that unworthy Bush is leading the simpletons of unworthy America down a ruinous, megalo-garden path:

Yong Tang: ... (D)o you think America should be the leader of the world?

Bennett: No, I don't think US should be the leader of the world. My job is helping my readers trying to understand what is happening now.

If we are heading into another period of imperialism where the US thinks itself as the leader ... then I think the world will be in an unhappy period.

One of the jobs of our correspondents in Baghdad is to tell our readers what the Bush administration is trying to hide...

Imperialism - soo thaat's what Bush is all about!

Interesting word, "imperialism". My own gut instinct is to associate it with the olden-days Spanish, who sucked gold out of the America's in the name of the Divine while putting heathen natives to the sword by the Auschwitz-load, or the olden-days British, who plagued a chunk of the planet with opium to denude it of gold, or the Naploleonic French, or the exploring Portuguese, or...

That is to say, the word can be associated most significantly with Europe, and by definition with subjugation, pillage, greed, all of the above. The Chomskys and Pilgers of this world use the word a lot, often in conjunction with the United States, precisely (one suspects) because of the word's negative connotations.

Thank heavens for the Washington Post editor, here to warn us that this is the vision of the United States of George Bush.

We must ignore what Bush says, ignore the mass slaughter of innocents that appeared to set the wheels of current US policy in motion, ignore the post-WW2 reconstruction of Japan and Germany, and try to imagine the unhappy future - the aim of US greed, lies and imperialism - Mr. Bennett selflessly pre-sages.

Let's pray Osama can continue to rescue us from unhappiness. He's done such a great job so far. And Jacques Chirac too - there's a man with greed-free, imperialism-free vision.

If only Bush himself would cave in and admit the mendacity in his policy, and carry out what is expected of him by the leftist international community / mainstream media, he would have no more image issues - issues that he has but brought upon himself and his government, issues that to Washington Post management have nought to do with any perceived starting agenda amongst their fellow denizens of MSM:

Yong Tang:..(H)ow do you think of this growing anti-American sentiment?

Bennett: The world image of US is so clearly linked to its foreign policy and particularly its policy toward Iraq and Middle East, say its support of Israel and its occupation of Iraq.

... (T)he US government and Bush administration reacted (to 9/11) by deciding that the country would make decisions in foreign affairs that respond only to US interests. ... That caused rift even among the US allies. So it is natural to see that the image of America is the lowest in public opinion.

Interesting blame and causality chain in the Washington Post editor's worldview, isn't there.

For starters, no challenge, as one might expect from Mr. Bennett, to the spurious proposition that "anti-American" sentiment is growing, where it appears to already have been broadly sustained at high levels over a long period. Nor any challenge to the legitimacy of such sentiment.

Instead, we see that in Mr Bennett's thinking, the actual 9/11 attacks, and attacks by terrorists against Israel, aren't particularly relevant in assessing US (or Israeli) policy or any cockeyed image thrust upon such policy.

Only the reactions to terrorism are open to criticism: For Mr. Bennett it goes without saying that the ("occupation") policy in Iraq is wrong - well not really, he already said that - and that "support of Israel" is "wrong".

Focusing on said reactions, the Washington Post and allied media have delivered 19, 656,744,466 anti-American above-the-fold opinions about "Abu Ghraib", 211,597,233,579,902 about "Guantanamo torture" and "no WMDs" and 234,888,400,788 about "Evil Sharon's evil apartheid wall", versus 122,001 mainly below-the-fold and page 97 criticisms of religious fanatic murder-lemming attacks on innocent and pregnant civilians, head loppings, rocket attacks on schools, bigoted Islamic television, bigoted preachings, terrorist schools, terrorist sponsorship, oil-for-food, visions of fanatical Islamic imperialism etc. etc. etc.

And note Mr. Bennett's view that it was the (selfish, irresponsible, imperialistic) reaction of the US to 9/11 that caused the rift with allies.

Apparently nothing to do with nascent pan-European chest-thumping or leftist bias or jockeying for economic positioning.

No hypocrisy regarding the reaction to Iraq versus that to the Yugoslavia invasion, or regarding the long history of rapacious European imperialism, in this view.

No query of the viability of a policy of appeasement against countries that harbour terrorists.

The scary part is that the Washington Post editor like, we might assume, his journalistic colleagues, doth take these truths to be self-evident, for he rejects any notion of bias in the Post's reporting ...

... Except to the extent that it failed to devote enough critical attention to Bush ... for not, inter alia and most significantly, physically unearthing the stockpiles of WMDs necessary to expose what many (illegitimately, in the Post's "unbiased" view of course!) might cynically view as the the anti-American UN legality card, a card concocted for largely political reasons in the first place:

Yong Tang: How do you think of the roles American mainstream media play in American foreign policy?

Bennett: ...We don't have any political point of view that we are trying to advance. ... On the news side of the paper we try not to give opinions.

The government of the US is becoming much more secretive, much more hostile to the press in terms of giving us access to the information.

...it is a big thing for the Washington Post to be the first major newspaper in America to publish the pictures about the Iraqi Abu Ghraib prisoners abuse scandal.

Where the news gathering part of the Post failed was to be sufficiently skeptical about the administration's claims that there are weapons of mass destructions in Iraq. ... We just repeated what the government said and we did not dig hard enough to challenge those statements.

Now let's see: the opinion-engineers and policy makers at the Washington Post are admittedly anti-Bush, and these people manage, direct, edit and employ the paper's news collectors (with whom they interact on a day to day basis). Further, the starting assumptions guiding news collection (for example, regarding the relative importance of WMDs and Abu Ghraib) are in synch with the paper's opinions...but the Washington Post is not biased.

Is this for real?

When you think you are right, you can fool yourself that your position is not biased, I guess. Even when your country's leader and the majority of your fellows disagree with you.

But the claims of lack of bias don't seem to impress the canny Yong Tang:

Yong Tang: It seems that the influence of mainstream media in America is on the decline. One example is about the general elections last year. The Washington Post and almost all the other major newspapers in the country firmly sided with Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry but finally Bush still won the reelection by a wide margin.

Bennett: Yes, the influence of the mainstream media is on the decline, but I don't think it is because of the reasons you said.

Yong Tang: Does it mean that American mainstream media no longer represent mainstream views?

Bennett: ... Today American people are more conservative, nationalistic and religious and more closed off to foreign influence than the media.

Religious ... closed. The sub-text is that the smug newspaper editor is aware of real, important things, while the unwashed masses who re-elected Bush - not to mention the people dying on the front lines - are not. Their views, you see, are uninformed and based on religion, not logic.

Apparently, whether they realise it or not.

Further, taking this paradigm of denial to yet another - and possibly self-destructive - level, Mr> Bennet argues that the Post approach is in synch with cold realism and astute business sense:

Yong Tang: But basically the newspaper is a business. In order to survive as a business, you should cater to the mainstream views. How can you keep out of touch with your mainstream readers?

Bennett: I don't think we are out of touch with our mainstream readers. If we were out of touch with our mainstream readers, they would not read our newspaper. But they continue to read our newspaper and find value on it.

I wonder if one of the Post polls gleaned that last bit of information. Value is in the mind of the reader, I would say.

I wonder also whether, in financial terms, the Post could do worse than having someone like Yong Tang responsible for extracting value from the Post's news content, instead of someone as embarrasingly out of touch as Mr. Bennett.

But that's just me. Part of Mr. Bennett's religious demographic, even though I haven't seen the inside of a house of worship in years. Unaware of international realities and Bush intentions, even though I dare to imagine myself to be well-traveled, multi-lingual and well-educated - a delusion that the young staffers of the Post can evidently help me eliminate.

With their unbiased, astute, much respected reporting.