The Liars and the Other Liars

The Liars and the Other Liars

This morning, at the breakfast board …

 

Sir Roger seemed agitated. Sucking the grease of a plump peasant pheasant thigh from his fingers, he suddenly ejaculated, “Did he bury the bloody thing before he cremated it Or did he cremate it before burying it Can you cremate something when it’s already buried What is the point of burying it if it’s already cremated One doesn’t…one can’t believe him! One suspects that he has hidden the thing away and that its grisly zombie body will rise from the grave as soon as the election is over if he wins … if  he wins … god save us if he wins … ”

The sweet young serving girl comforted Sir Roger with hot English truffled muffins, strawberries and cream, and other sustenance … and looked after him in the conservatory for a time until he was exhausted.

Sir Roger has asked one to share with his readers this excerpt from a Tony Abbott doorstop on 28 April:

“ QUESTION:

Speaking of endorsements by Queenslanders, Pauline Hanson has given you her endorsement to be PM. What do you think of that?

TONY ABBOTT:

Look, I’m happy to get as wide a range of endorsements as possible.

QUESTION:

But specifically from Pauline?

TONY ABBOTT:

I’m happy to get as wide a range of endorsements as possible.

As wide a range as possible? Ahmedinajad perhaps? Would an endorsement from Mugabe be welcomed? Kim Jong-il? Not too wide? Or Than Shwe? Still within the acceptable range?

Abbott is so demonstrably a man of such immense integrity.

Sir Roger had earlier in the morning been astonished by the view expressed by a woman from a certain Brisbane electorate that ‘a dreadful and massive invasion’ was taking place in north western Australia.

“They’re taking over the country!” she exclaimed.

Yes, apparently it is true, if you believe what the Monk and the Ranga are telling their “fellow Australians”.

Those pitifully few, desperate, seasick, starving, terrified, asylum seekers, with their hands out pleading for assistance, in their leaking boats, fleeing the murderous horrors against which our soldiers fight, magically become, as they enter Australian waters, mighty invading armies of terrorists intent on destroying (white) Australia’s way of life and all we have ever stood for… if, as Sir Roger repeats, you believe what both the emotionally unstable Catholic and the robotic Atheist claim.

“Whom must one vote for?” whimpered Sir Roger as he threw down another medicinal Rémy Martin.

“The Whores? Or the Other Whores?”

 

Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd and the Red Cordial

Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd and the Red Cordial

Ptthpphthphthppthphtthpphpth!

Sir Roger supposes that, given he is the default custodian of Australian Values, he is bound to comment on the recent burst of enthusiasm in Canberra.

The lesson to be learnt from it all is Don’t Let Unionists and the NSW Right Drink the Red Cordial. (They make such a mess all over the place.)

But where to start?

First,

we’d like to see the résumés of the people who have been advising Kevin Rudd for the last six months.

My god, there has rarely been such a display of collective stupidity, incompetence and/or self-serving inhumanity in federal politics since … since …  since Abbott & Costello, Sir Foppling Downer, Ruddock the Nazgûl, the tame but dreadful Keelty and, perhaps, DIC Correll, gave advice to John Howard.

Rudd was a joke for most of his leadership. And the joke was that he thought people voted for him. He thought, or came to believe, that people voted for him because they liked him. Pfffftt.

People voted for him so as not to vote for John Howard and his debauched, dissolute, corrupt, self-satisfied, complacent, arrogant party of political brigands.

They voted, specifically:

  • against Work Choices,
  • for responsible policy on climate change and the environment,
  • for human treatment of refugees and asylum seekers and
  • for an apology for what was done to generations of aboriginal people.

Rudd’s popularity was high for as long as there was a prospect he would deliver these things. And he did deliver more or less on Work Choices and certainly on the Apology.

But the doubts were there for years as he substituted imprecise promises of distant and uncertain reports-and-inquiries for actual action.

“We are acting decisively to set up an inquiry into whatever.”

Voters have felt betrayed especially about the acute need for action on mental health which has fallen away into nothing.

He looked cowardly when he distanced himself on a number of occasions from the bad news of broken promises which he ruthlessly forced his ministers to deliver while he was conveniently out of town. He didn’t look tough. He looked weasely.

The ascendancy of Tony Abbott has spooked him. And so he tried to look tough on the Mining Super Tax which he described as an example of revolutionising the taxation system which it patently was not. It was just a money grab and everyone knows it. Money to salve the hip-pocket nerve in the run-up to the next election. So we knew he lied about it being a revolution in taxation as long as this was the only recommendation of the hundred or two made by Henry that was taken on board. He recanted about the party political advertising “cancer” so we knew that he was unreliable, and untrustworthy – in fact that he was just another politician.

And he didn’t look strong against the miners. He just looked stupid. It wasn’t David and Goliath it was Dopey and Godzilla.

In his desperation to counter the attraction (he thought) and the traction of Tony Abbott he swung the party to the right. He matched Abbott on asylum seekers and he ditched climate change as policy – possibly the two biggest things that got him elected in the first place.

When he became Prime Minister he had placed the party in the centre right. That left the LibNuts nowhere to go but further to the looney right fringe, where Tony Abbott lives. Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull tried to contest the centre right and failed. All Rudd had to do was to stick to the centre right – humane social policies with responsible fiscal policies – and he would have been a three-term PM. But he got spooked.

The hilarious moment came, in fact when the night before he jumped he promised that Labor wasn’t going to lurch to the right into Abbott territory on climate change and refugees. But it already had! His asylum-seeker policies were as ruthless, at least in prospect, as John Howard’s, and his proposed action on climate change now non-existent, like Howard’s.

The other amusing thing he said was that he had been elected PM by the voters of Australia. This was not true. You can’t vote for the Prime Minister, just your local member and the factions elect the leader of the party. So the factions just unselected him as leader.

It was the lurch to the right that really opened up the Greens’ opportunity in the centre. They now look like the centre left instead of the looney left fringe. We can all see that they had been right all along, all those years of banging on about climate change and the environment and being ignored as radical-newage-pinko-leftie-drug-crazed-hippy-weirdos.

Oh, and gay.

And it turns out they were right and we should have listened to them way back then. But way back then they were unelectable. Now it is quite conceivable that they will hold the balance of power, possibly even in the Reps. It may be the only way to keep a rein on the ALP’s slide to the right.

Anyway, Rudd broke the faith and broke our hearts and he had to pay for it sooner or later.

The power brokers all have the Labor Party self-destruct DNA. You can see it in NSW every day. Two and a half years in power federally clearly is beyond their capacity to cope with. The boiler was bursting and they longed for the quiet, familiar decades of Opposition.

One doesn’t blame Gillard. She knew Rudd’s number was up (courtesy of the naughty boys who had drunk the red cordial) and she was obliged to take the opportunity.

One doesn’t care whether she’s a woman or not. It’s no big deal. Bandaranaike, Meir, Gandhi, Thatcher, Clark; Boudicca, Mary, Anne, ER, VR, EIIR. Xena. All have come before, elected and unelected, both. We already know for goodness’ sake, that women are up to the task. They always have been. What one does care about is whether she does a good job for the country.

One dislikes her. Especially her awful, grating voice and strident accent. Someone on a radio talkback show said they liked her because she was a good communicator and a straight talker and they were looking forward to the end of all the political spin.

One begs your pardon?

One cannot recall a single time that Gillard ever actually answered a question, or at least the one that was asked. All there ever is with her is spin and slogans and ignoring the question. Here’s an answer I prepared earlier. Over and over and over again. She is a waste of space and a waste of time.

And she is still preferable to Tony Abbott by a long long way.

And if she softens asylum seeker policy and urgently implements real climate change policy and compromises on the mining tax grab and addresses mental health then one might change one’s mind about her.

We don’t deserve this bullshit. We shouldn’t be limited to choosing between the Liars and the Other Liars and the pot-smoking-long-haired-tree-huggers.

There ought to be a law that says anyone who wants to be a politician is banned from running for office and the politicians should be drafted the way juries are.

UPDATE:

The question whether the bloodletting was worth it pragmatically (and what else is there in politics?) may be answered by the betting market, although one wasn’t watching before the guillotine fell to know how much tightening there has been.

Betting on the election result is strongly towards Labor. Centrebet has Labor at $1.36 against $3.05; Sportingbet has $1.40 against $2.85.

Top election date betting is for August 28: Centrebet $3, Sportingbet $3.50; September 4: Centrebet $5.50, Sportingbet $5; any date in 2011: Centrebet $6, Sportingbet $5.50. All other dates in 2010 are at longer odds. So the punters apparently expect Gillard to go early while she’s got the new-girl bounce. Hmmm. (Strokes chin)

MORE UPDATE:

Recommended: more, more professional, betting analysis, immediate polling results and other entrail sorting available from Possum Pollytics and the Pollbludger. The new-girl bounce is there but would Kevin have won anyway?

 

We Came For Peace

We Came For Peace

“We came for peace,”

said the commando, one of the first Israeli soldiers to board the Mavi Marmara.

”They came for war.”

How you can tell “we came for peace” is that we came in the dark of night in warships and armed rigid-hulled inflatable boats, and rappelled down from military helicopters.

How you can tell that the flotilla “came for war” is that they had boats filled with food and supplies that would have been appropriate for a struggling, broken down, hungry, besieged population whose land we progressively steal.

So now you can tell who the real terrorists are.

They’re the people who believe in non-violence, humanitarians who are committed to the welfare of others, people who empathise with the pain of others and who try to do something to alleviate the suffering of others in the world.

So, you know, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Médecins sans Frontières, UNHCR, World Vision etc. etc.

I mean, that’s obvious, isn’t it? Just like Mr Fish says:

 

 

I mean, you know, let’s be clear about who are the professional victims here, right? You just have to understand that whatever the situation and whatever action we take however brutal and excessive, Israeli is always the victim, okay? Anyway, the White House will make sure no-one never has to find out what really went on. They’re okay with us “investigating” ourselves.

 

 

 

Shalom

Israel’s Bogus Claims

Israel’s Bogus Claims

 

[About Article 67(a)]

 

Israeli spokespeople are cheerfully quoting the “San Remo Agreement” or the “San Remo Accord” as if it gives their recent action legitimacy; that Article 67(a) confers on them the special right to board civilian craft of other countries in international waters if they are threatening to run a blockade.

But it does not and you’ll see why.

The actual title of the San Remo “Agreement” is San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994.

The first doubt you might have is whether there was “an armed conflict at sea” before the Israelis dropped from the helicopters onto the civilian ferry and other craft.

It is true that the Manual initially seems to offer some legitimacy:

 

Article 67 (a) says:

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

This is the one paragraph that they quote because it suits their purposes. But wait, there’s more. It goes on to say:

(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;

(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;

(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;

(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or

(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

 

68. Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.

 

69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it.

Paragraphs 38-46 say:

Part III : Basic rules and target discrimination

Section I : Basic rules

38. In any armed conflict the right of the parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

39. Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians or other protected persons and combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and military objectives.

40. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

41. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document.

42. In addition to any specific prohibitions binding upon the parties to a conflict, it is forbidden to employ methods or means of warfare which:

(a) are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; or

(b) are indiscriminate, in that:

(i) they are not, or cannot be, directed against a specific military objective; or

(ii) their effects cannot be limited as required by international law as reflected in this document.

43. It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis.

44. Methods and means of warfare should be employed with due regard for the natural environment taking into account the relevant rules of international law. Damage to or destruction of the natural environment not justified by military necessity and carried out wantonly is prohibited.

45. Surface ships, submarines and aircraft are bound by the same principles and rules.

Section II : Precautions in attack

46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

(a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack;

(b) in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives;

(c) they shall furthermore take all feasible precautions in the choice of methods and means in order to avoid or minimize collateral casualties or damage; and

(d) an attack shall not be launched if it may be expected to cause collateral casualties or damage which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole; an attack shall be cancelled or suspended as soon as it becomes apparent that the collateral casualties or damage would be excessive.

All of this is in a context of warfare and one is not at all sure that Israel is in a state of declared war with the Palestinians. Or with an international bunch of peace activists.

The rules about Blockades are:

Section II : Methods of warfare

Blockade

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94.

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or

(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and

(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.

So Articles 102 and 103 expressly forbid the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

All of this makes the mendacity of the Israelis starkly clear. Particularly the oozing, excremental (and happily ex-Australian) Regev.

And they are relying on you and me not having read the whole San Remo Manual which they flash so briefly and so nonchalantly.

Shame on you, Israel! Big Shame!

And big international lawsuits ahead.

 

Just a Question

Just a Question

 

 When menace lurks behind every door 

 

If the Israelis approached civilian craft in international waters with the intention to – and in fact did – board, take control of and then tow, or with armed force cause, those craft to land in an Israeli port, isn’t that piracy? What is the difference really between the the Israelis and the Somali pirates? […despite the claim by Mark Regev, the unctuous Israeli spokesperson, that (“as you know”) interception on the high seas with warning is allowed in some convention or other …]

There are, however, these Articles from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea:

Article 88:   Reservation of the high seas for peaceful purposes

The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes.

Article 89:    Invalidity of claims of sovereignty over the high seas

No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.

Article 90:    Right of navigation

Every State, whether coastal or land-locked, has the right to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas.

Article 110 :   Right of visit

1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:

(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;
(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;
(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;
(d) the ship is without nationality; or
(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.

As far as one knows there is no suggestion that the flotilla was suspected of piracy, slavery, unauthorised broadcasting, or having no or bogus nationality.

  

There is just one thing you need to know in order to understand Israeli politics: 

 

NEVER AGAIN

 

If you understand that you understand the Wall, this recent piracy, and even Mark Regev (ptooey ptooey) — possibly Australia’s most embarrassing export.

They will do and say ANYTHING – lie, cheat, kill, stab friends in the back – whatever it takes to maintain their existence so that NEVER AGAIN will they be the victims.

You can understand this for obvious historical reasons.

Of course, the problem is that this attitude/policy makes them their own victims; cages and imprisons them and shrouds them in the fog of their own delusion and blindness.

They blockade the Palestinians, but they also besiege themselves.

The paradox is that a policy that is all about NOT being a victim, because it is predicated on the reaction to victimhood actually makes the policy all about being a victim – in the present and into the future. And protecting against victimhood ignites the resentment and fuels the very fury that threatens them.

Who are they, after all, if they are not Victim reacting to Victimhood, struggling for survival in a hostile world in which terror surrounds them, menace lurks behind every door and NOBODY can be trusted?

Who are they?

What else is Israel?

What else do, or could, they stand for?

That’s the question for them that, when they can answer it, might free them and much of the rest of the world.

Anyway, it’s fascinatingly awful to watch them self-destructing, as they are – making increasingly appalling choices, telling increasingly preposterous lies and taking increasingly hysterical actions, marching with deliberate, inexorable, arrogance to self-inflicted defeat.