‘I’m Sir Roger and I’m Fucked’

Oct 5, 2008 | Arts, Australian Values, Border Security, Capital Punishment, Citizenship, Corruption, Cultural Values, Democracy, Economic Values, Fame, Freedom of Speech, Global Warming, Humour, Immigration, Indigenous, Legal, Lifestyle & Life, Media Values, OzPol Values, PedoPriests, Racism, Religious Values, Science Values, Terrorism, Uncategorized, USPol, Values, War

‘I’m Sir Roger and I’m Fucked’

 

This is not for you

 

Really. We just want to acknowledge ourselves privately but publicly (it makes sense to us, anyway). It’s not meant to be onanistically self-congratulatory, except in the sense that we have achieved some things and we want to record them.
So this is a stocktake for posterity, if you like, that marks a moment, a milestone.

Yes, ValuesAustralia is two years old. This is our 712th post. Singlehanded, eh, Clubtroppo, Larvatus Prodeo, RoadtoSurfdom etc. etc.? That’s almost one a day. (There used to be a billboard for One A Day vitamin pills at the corner of Victoria Rd and Rowntree Street at Blackwattle Bay in Sydney. There was a picture of a man and a woman. The woman was saying, “I’m Jenny and I give John One A Day.” Soon a graffiti artist had added, “I’m John and I’m fucked!”)

And, yes, we’re just about fucked, ourselves. We’ve got a rotator cuff from all the typing and mouse clicking, especially during October and November last year.

(We went to the radiologist. “What seems to be the problem?” “I’ve got a sore shoulder.” “Hmm…we’ll do an ultrasound and an x-ray…… Hmm…. Hmmmmmm, our expert analysis of the ultrasound and x-ray indicates you have a sore shoulder. You’ll have to stop using it for a while.” “Thanks….What?)

We’ve never paid for any advertising. We’ve never submitted ValuesAustralia to any search engine. Nevertheless, we got ourselves listed on Google within 24 hours of launching the site. We tried to register the site with dmoz.org (The Open Source Directory) – as you do – but it wasn’t taking orders, and by the time it came back on line months later, ValuesAustralia was already magically listed!

We’ve been #1 for “Australian Values” on Google, Yahoo, Live and Ask most of the time for more than a year and a half. We’re #12 for “values” on Google worldwide, out of 314,000,000 results and on google.com.au we’re #2 for “values” out of 307,000,000. We’re #1 on google worldwide and Australia for “Australian political values” out of about 400,000 results.

Our Google Page Rank is 4 (used to be 5 but they changed the algorithm) which is respectable but we’d prefer a 5 or a 6.

We’ve had over 300,000 aggregate visitors and more than 75,000 spam messages (thank you, Akismet).

Earlier this year we were consistently getting more than 1000 visitors a day – over 30,000 a month, which is okay, although nothing like the big guys.

We’ve made friends all over the world and especially in Australia. We are in the top 1% of websites worldwide. We are popular in Saudi Arabia – amongst the top 42,000 favourite sites for Saudis. (That worries us just a bit…Say hullo to Al for us…) We appreciate our readers and those who choose to comment from time to time. We thought a scarcity of comments was a Bad Thing, a Failure, but we noticed that one of the most popular, most entertaining bloggers we know of, Whatever It Is, I’m Against It, doesn’t get heaps, either – a few, but not tens like Possum or hundreds and thousands like William the PollBludger.

In May 2007 ValuesAustralia was picked up by the “Stay In Touch” column at the Sydney Morning Herald, accusing us of “rhetoric”.

One of Sir Roger’s posts was selected by ClubTroppo and On Line Opinion in January 2008 as one of the top 40 posts in Australia for 2007. We’re very proud of that.

But it’s a post we made early in 2007 that we are still most proud of. Ken Parish at ClubTroppo called it

“quite possibly the best piece of passionate, angry polemic I’ve ever read, certainly on a blog. ‘Roger Migently’ is roused to extraordinary heights of eloquence… ”

Yes, Troppo has been good to us and we mourn the passing of Missing Link and Ken’s prolonged work-induced(?) absence. We were also congratulated by Richard Neville (HomePageDaily) and Steven Poole whose Unspeak blog is our benchmark for economy, clarity, style and wit.

We have enjoyed the journey so far and we have no intention at this stage of stopping, although we have slowed down (work, you know).

Bobbo the Clown

Our favourite person in the world, of course, is the clown, Bob Correll (above), Deputy Secretary of DIC, OPM, because he wrote us the letter which inspired our outburst. As we discovered he was (and appears still to be) the person who had taken over departmental responsibility for “Borders, Compliance, Detention and Technology”, or in other words, perhaps, for keeping innocent kiddies locked up in the desert, deporting Australian citizens, supporting the failed state of Nauru, making the lives of genuine refugees a misery, doing it to please the Minister, and all at the touch of a computer key. Previously he had been the driving force behind developing and implementing Job Network, or “how to design exquisite, personalised punishment for people who are already struggling with the stress of being unemployed”. Godluvvya, Bob! How’s the Volvo? How’s the kids? How do you sleep at night?

One of the most satisfying things is how we always beat the Immigration Department on Google.

Our second favourite person is Mick Keelty, just for being such a hopeless buffoon and continually making appalling stuff-ups for us to make fun of. G’bye, Mick.

Anyway, just for the record.

(And a special “hi!” to Lang!)

Sack Keelty

Aug 30, 2008 | Australian Values, Border Security, Citizenship, Corruption, Democracy, Immigration, Legal, OzPol Values, Terrorism, Values

Sack Keelty

 

Sack the Bastard

 

…and DIC Senior Management, particularly the Deputy Secretary in charge of borders, compliance, and detention, the avowed expert in the use of the visa as a tool for enforcing (at the time) Liberal Party policy. Yes, it’s our old friend, Bob Correll who, outed himself on LinkedIn as a big supporter of the LNP; (not sort of ‘correct’ for a public servant?).

And sack Andrews and Ruddock from Parliament.
Sack them all for Misfeasance. Malfeasance. Non-feasance. Abuse of power by a public official. Criminal stupidity. Any of those will do.

Federal Police yesterday released a statement saying the former Gold Coast doctor [Haneef] is no longer a person of interest to them, and they have found there are no grounds to proceed against him. [SBS News]

Well fuck me dead – I’m Foreskin Fred!

Yes, after all this time. After all the waste. After all the harm. After all the stupidity and incompetence. After Scotland Yard laughed at the AFP; months after the Queensland Police Service and ASIO both said there were no grounds. After all the subversion of democracy, the courts and the rule of law.

Sack them.

Everything about the carriage of the Haneef affair by the AFP and the government suggests that it never was about public safety; that it always was a political stunt; that it was in fact a considered and calculated decision by the AFP to use the Haneef matter for political ends. As we know from another case, the AFP sought every possible opportunity to test the envelope of the terrorism laws.

Keelty, in particular, clearly operates a political agenda, having capitulated under pressure from John Howard years ago. He learned his lesson well and in the Haneef case hung his hat on the re-election of the Howard government. This means that he has lost sight of his actual role, his constitutional – and certainly his moral – obligation to the people of Australia and the democracy they own.

And so we say in the alleged words of Lawson, the Bastard’s curse:

“ May the itching piles torment you, may corns grow on your feet,
May crabs as big as spiders attack your balls a treat.
Then, when you’re down and out, and a hopeless bloody wreck,
May you slip back through your arsehole, and break your bloody neck.”

Keelty Must Go At Last

Jul 30, 2008 | Australian Values, Corruption, Democracy, Immigration, OzPol Values, Values

Keelty Must Go At Last

 

Howard’s last ditch: a failure called Keelty 

 

We wish to note the news this week that:

“ ASIO has revealed it “consistently” advised the Howard government it had no evidence connecting Mohamed Haneef to a British terrorist plot, days before the government stripped the Indian doctor of his visa.

In a damning submission to the Clarke inquiry into the handling of the case, the head of the country’s main intelligence agency said it told the government there were no grounds to believe Dr Haneef was linked to, or even knew about, the botched June car bombings. It raises questions about the actions of the then immigration minister, Kevin Andrews, who cancelled the doctor’s visa, and of the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty, who has declared there were grounds to treat Dr Haneef as a security risk.

This was on top of similar advice to the AFP nearly three weeks ago:

“ The Queensland Police Service says it told Australia Federal Police (AFP) officers last year there was not enough evidence to charge Dr Mohamed Haneef with supporting a terrorist organisation.

There is now no doubt at all, if there ever was any, that the Haneef affair was Howard’s last ditch attempt at a Tampa Overboard for the 2007 election, aided and abetted by his lapdog, AFP Commissioner Keelty, and the Joke, Kevin Andrews.

More recently,

“ A senior counter-terrorism officer with the Australian Federal Police…testified that police were directed to charge “as many suspects as possible” with terrorism offences in order to test the new anti-terrorism laws introduced in 2003…”At the time we were directed, we were informed, to lay as many charges under the new terrorist legislation against as many suspects as possible because we wanted to use the new legislation,” Mr Lam Paktsun testified.

An AFP spokesperson was asked whether the ASIO statement made Keelty’s position untenable.

The answer is ‘Yes’.

As we said here last November,

“ can there any longer possibly be any question that the appalling, scandal-ridden, utterly discredited and totally compromised Keelty is irredeemably politicised – in fact has offered himself up to the political game by his own choice?

“It’s time for Mick Keelty to resign. Or be sacked…Keelty has to go because of how he thinks about the law…He has to go because everything points to his being utterly politicised and his making decisions on political, not legal, grounds as directed by his [then] masters, the Howard ministry.”

Keelty made, cleverly he probably thought, a Faustian pact with the Devil of Realpolitik. Now he’s been caught out yet again and so we say, yet again:

“Do the decent thing at long last, Mick.”

Oh, no, you bloody don’t!

Jun 11, 2008 | Australian Values, Democracy, Media Values, Religious Values, Terrorism, USPol, Values, War

Oh, no, you bloody don’t!

I’m just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood

“ President Bush has admitted to The Times that his gun-slinging rhetoric made the world believe that he was a “guy really anxious for war” in Iraq.
In an exclusive interview, he expressed regret at the bitter divisions over the war and said that he was troubled about how his country had been misunderstood. “I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric.”

As we picked our chin off the floor we thought, “What an utterly lame and sleazy attempt this really is to rewrite history in the name of clawing back some sort of presidential legacy from the catastrophic horrors he has inflicted on the world and even on his own people through his proud ignorance and astonishing immaturity.”

Actually, we didn’t think that. We don’t talk to ourself like that. I mean, you don’t, do you. It was more like “What the fucking fuck?!” But it’s what we meant.

As SFGate‘s Edward M. Gomez, a former U.S. diplomat and staff reporter at TIME, put it, “Now he tells us.”

“ Phrases such as “bring them on” or “dead or alive”, he said, “indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace”.
He said that he found it very painful “to put youngsters in harm’s way”.
He added: “I try to meet with as many of the families as I can. And I have an obligation to comfort and console as best as I possibly can. I also have an obligation to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain.”

Well, Mr Bush, (pardon us) FUCK YOU!

It wasn’t your rhetoric that showed you were a “guy really anxious for war”.

It was how you were, ah, really anxious for war.

It was how you rushed in.

It was how you deliberately ignored, manufactured and distorted intelligence.

It was how you had quite a few people killed. Over a million on the high but credible side and, certainly, considerably over 100,000 on the very most conservative realistic estimates. All innocent. Largely mothers and children.

People don’t think you are not a man of peace because of something you said, Mr Bush. People know you are not a man of peace because you started a war and killed a lot of people.

People know you are not a man of peace because you started a war on your very own, on the flimsiest and most transparent of excuses and against international laws and conventions, against a country that had not attacked yours and could not. As you and all those around you knew.

You will not get away with this slimy, slippery, dishonest, hollow, inauthentic, typically infantile attempt to avoid responsibility for the global horrors you have created with your own hands; horrors which include the devastated lives of the mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters and cousins and aunts and uncles of the more than 4,000 soldiers whose lives were wiped out because you were anxious for war; horrors that include the destroyed futures and minds of the tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraq veterans who are physical and mental casualties of your headlong and bloodthirsty rush into a synthetic conflict, and that include the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died, and the more than two million Iraqis who have been forced to flee Iraq or who are internally displaced.

And the release and explosion of sectarian violence in Iraq which was caused by your stupidity and your lust for war.

So please don’t ask for forgiveness.

Don’t claim to have been misunderstood.

The rest of the world will not let you get away with it. Surely your own countrymen will not, either.

You claim to be troubled about how your country has been misunderstood.

Mr Bush, your country is not misunderstood. Not really. The world knows that many Americans are confused about how all this happened, how the country attracts so much hatred.

But we can tell them that it’s not them, it’s you.

The world knows that your country includes warmongers like yourself, anti-democratic ideologues whom you support, ignorant stupid people like yourself, religious nuts who think god talks to them and tells them what they ought to do – and some even worse than yourself.

And yet the world also knows that your country still nurtures a people who are extraordinarily generous.

The world knows that, despite your efforts to silence and sideline them, your country still is home to more than its fair share of the most humane souls, the greatest, wisest minds, the most creative thinkers and talented doers, and some of the most energetic, enterprising, adventurous, life-loving and courageous people on the planet.

You are not one of them.

Dulce et decorum est

May 18, 2008 | Arts, Australian Values, Cultural Values, Democracy, OzPol Values, Values, War

Dulce et decorum est

 

(Hint: No it’s not)

Watched The Einstein Factor this evening and the second contestant’s subject was the life and poetry of Wilfred Owen (more or less).

One of the poems mentioned — which of course it had to be — was Dulce et Decorum Est. Everyone – most of them very well-educated and perhaps even erudite – pronounced it “DOOLL-chay et d’-CORum est”.

Which is fair enough, but I think it is wrong, at least in the context of the poem itself.

Way back in the….well, more than a couple of minutes ago….I was sitting in an English tute at UNE. Wilfred Owen’s poetry – and this poem in particular – was the topic.

The tutor asked if anyone knew how the title was properly pronounced. I remember because this smarmy new chap, who was the only person I ever knew who had done Latin for the Leaving Certificate, showed the rest of us up by casually giving the correct answer. It wasn’t that he knew, exactly; it was his attitude of “well, of course, I thought everyone knew that, don’t they? (And by the way amn’t I clever?).” 

Anyway, his pronunciation was something like: “DOOLchet DECKerest”.

Our tutor nodded sagely, with an approving smile at the cleverboy, so I have no doubt it is correct. But why would it be different from the “normal” pronunciation? Is it for the scansion of the lines? Is it because accepted Latin pronunciation began changing sometime around the early 1900s? cf. Mr Chips’s joke about vicissim:

Headmaster to Chips: “This question of Latin pronunciation, for instance–I think I told you years ago that I wanted the new style used throughout the School. The other masters obeyed me; you prefer to stick to your old methods, and the result is simply chaos and inefficiency.”

At last Chips had something tangible that he could tackle. “Oh, that!” he answered, scornfully. “Well, I–umph–I admit that I don’t agree with the new pronunciation. I never did. Umph–a lot of nonsense, in my opinion. Making boys say ‘Kickero’ at school when–umph–for the rest of their lives they’ll say ‘Cicero’–if they ever–umph–say it at all. And instead of ‘vicissim’–God bless my soul–you’d make them say, ‘We kiss ‘im’! Umph–umph!” And he chuckled momentarily, forgetting that he was in Ralston’s study and not in his own friendly form room.

So this has been bugging me for hours. I haven’t found anything about it, any guidance on it, on the intertubes.

That is why I throw myself at your mercy, dearest and most appreciated blog-lurker. Please, if you know, tell me if I have come anywhere close to this special pronunciation. Tell me, if I am wrong, why I would have this memory? Or tell me that I am really stupid and old and losing it. I can take it [just don’t all rush in at once…].

 Just by the way, Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori means, more or less, “It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country”. Owen did not, you can imagine, subscribe to this view. Yet the same idea is still trotted out by such as George Bush (who are fairly confident that they are not about to be called upon to die for their country, either sweetly or fittingly) with terms like “sacrifice” and “honor” as some sort of justification for deaths in pointless, cynical wars.

My favorite Owen poem is Mental Cases. It’s about what we now call Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. There’s so much of it about these days¹…..

[….]

These are men whose minds the Dead have ravished.

Memory fingers in their hair of murders,

Multitudinous murders they once witnessed.

Wading sloughs of flesh these helpless wander,

Treading blood from lungs that had loved laughter.

[….]

etc…….

¹UPDATE: Some 300,000 of the 1.6 million US soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression or both, an independent study showed last month.

Expertology

May 5, 2008 | Australian Values, Democracy, Humour, Media Values, OzPol Values, Religious Values, USPol, Values, War

Expertology

 

How the Experts Won the Iraq War in Weeks Rather Than Years

 

The newest Bill Moyers Journal episode includes an interview with Victor Navasky and Christopher Cerf, whose new book MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! OR HOW WE WON THE WAR IN IRAQ looks back at what the experts told us would happen in Iraq. It’s quite funny except it’s all true.
You can watch it here:

 

What the experts said:

DONALD RUMSFELD:
“It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
CHENEY:
”I think it’ll go relatively quickly…weeks rather than months.”
PAUL WOLFOWITZ:
“We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark…We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.

WILLIAM KRISTOL: “The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably.”

RICHARD PERLE:  The war, “…ended quickly with few civilian casualties and with little damage to Iraq’s cities, towns or infrastructure…it ended… without the quagmire [the war’s critics] predicted…relax and enjoy it.”
MONA CHARON: “the man who slept through many classes at Yale and partied the nights away stands revealed as a profound and great leader who will reshape the world for the better. The United States is lucky once again.”
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: “The only people who think this wasn’t a victory are Upper West Side liberals and a few people here in Washington.”
WILLIAM KRISTOL:”I think there’s been a certain amount of frankly.. pop sociology in America…that…the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There’s almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq’s always been very secular.”

Here’s an excerpt from the interview with Navasky and Cerf:

VICTOR NAVASKY: Well, at every stage, there was someone who proclaimed that it was over. And– when this book came out, we were told isn’t it a shame that it’s coming out now, because the country has reached a turning point with the surge. And based on our research at the Institute of Expertology … we were sympathetic to the point of view that we’ve reached a turning point. Because, as we show in the book, in 2003, we were told by the President of the United States that we’ve reached a turning point. And then, in 2004, we were told we had reached a turning point.
And then, in 2005, we were told by Donald Rumsfeld we have reached a turning point. And then– So every year, three or four times, we seem to have reached a turning point. So that’s one of the ways that we have triumphed.

 

BILL MOYERS: So how do you decide who is an expert? What makes an expert?

 

CHRISTOPHER CERF: Well, I think if you are in the government – this is one of the problems we have in the country – you are, by definition, an expert. In fact, you’re unpatriotic if you disagree with someone in the government. And your expertise, if you had any before, becomes suspect.

 

BILL MOYERS: But these experts also included scholars, pundits, columnists.

 

VICTOR NAVASKY: People are believed to be experts who proclaim their expertise. Some of them do it directly. Others do it by using jargon, by parading the number of articles they’ve published, by their titles, and by their uniforms. And then, people who have positions of status and power, whether in the press, who are supposed to be adversaries of the establishment. Or, you know, the heads of departments – great departments of government – are assumed to know what they’re talking about. So anyone who is presumed to know what he is talking about, we, at the Institute of Expertology are ready to say, as an expert, but you have to trust us – they don’t.

But who are their favourite “experts”?

VICTOR NAVASKY: I have a favorite expert and a friend. And Chris, I’m sure, has his. But my favorite quote – he’s my favorite expert. But it’s a quote by Paul Wolfowitz, who, you know, came from the academic community, and then had this very important career in the Defense Department, et cetera.
And he says, at one point, “I think foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq.”