Draft Mateship Guidelines Exhumed

Draft Mateship Guidelines Exhumed

Fair Dinkum Aussie Mateship Cetrificate Test

 

A new Mateship test will ensure Australia strikes the right balance between the British and the rest, says Minister for Aussie Mateship, Smeagol K. Dic.

The Ministry today released a draft guide detailing what it regards as the essential Australian values every aspirationally nationalistic citizen must embrace.

In order to become a citizen, New Australians will need to correctly answer at least 75 out of 100 questions, such as “what were the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act”.

“One of the great achievements of Australia has been to balance two things: Firstly the diversity of people that have come from more than 200 countries around the world and secondly, the opportunity to pit them against each other in the run-up to an election,” Mr Dic told reporters in Kogarah.

“This is part of the government’s desire to balance their pathetic gratitude for being allowed to stay here for a time, and the fear of terrorism which we may whip up from time to time – both of which will help to ensure our re-election.”

“Multiculturalism has been doing so well all on its own without very much government intervention at all”, said Dic, “that we thought we ought to put our oar in and fix it. If we manage not to stuff it up, we can take credit for it. If we screw it up we can claim it doesn’t work and we can go back to just importing Brits, the way we used to.”

Migrants would also need to demonstrate an adequate level of understanding of the Liberal/National policy platform if they were to realise their aspirational nationalism and if they wanted to stay here for that little bit longer before being shipped back to their hell-hole countries full of gibberish-speaking foreigners, Dic said.

“The rich tapestry of Australia today, a reflection of our diversity, has always been a problem for the Liberals and especially the National Party, and we have done all we can to put a stop to it” he said. “We tried Pauline Hanson and her policies but that only worked for one election. We had the Mayor of Tamworth try to spike it by branding desperate Sudanese refugees from Dafur as leprous, TB and AIDS-carrying, thieving, car-crashing childmolesters. But the town took the side of the refos and rolled our man. We’ve stood by as some of the diversity drowned trying to get here, and if they got here, we sent them to South Pacific paradises or to exclusive desert resorts for special education programs in the Australian government’s policy positions. But still they keep coming. So if they have to come, they have to learn to be just like us,” said Dic.

Asked why the “values” document, to be given to aspirational New Australians, lacked any meaningful reference to Aboriginal history, culture or values, with only four sentences to cover perhaps 60,000 years, Mr Dic said, “I think in a booklet like this you have to get your priotities right. I mean, who cares, right? Do they vote for us? No.”

Among the values laid out in the document are tolerance and compassion, freedom of speech and a respect for Australia’s British heritage.

Examples of the government’s tolerance and compassion can be found in reports of the death count in the Iraq war.

Australian’s respect for Britain can be seen in the attitude of most Australians to the English cricket team.

The Australian government’s tolerance and its attitude to free speech are demonstrated by its recent amendments to Wikipedia, and its action to kindly inform Values Australia in March that if it didn’t pull the site down it would send it to gaol on the basis of a variety of laws. This was in addition to its actually closing down a parody site of the Prime Minister. Aspirational immigrants need to understand that by “free speech” the government means you can say anything you like, anything at all, that agrees with the government and does not hurt its feelings.

TAKE THE VALUES AUSTRALIA MATESHIP TEST

Values Australia has prepared a special alternative Mateship Test which we defy any Australian politician or fat-arsed bureaucrat to take and pass, particularly the Minister for Dic and his silly pen-pushers.

Take it yourself. Use it for trivia nights. Many of the answers are on the Values Australia website.

PASS MARK: 75%
TIME ALLOWED: 2 HOURS

1. Who was the Father of Federation?

2. What were the real reasons the Australian colonies decided to become a federation?

a. What was New Zealand’s status before Australian federation?

3. List all the Prime Ministers of Australia in order, with their years in office.

4. What does Australia Day celebrate?

a. When was the first Australia Day?

b. What happened on the first Australia Day?

5. Who was Chips Rafferty?

a. Was he really gay?

6. Which was the only Australian State not to receive convicts?

7. Name the complete Australian Ashes Test squad from the 1948 England tour.

a. What was the team’s nickname?

8. How far is it from Sydney to Melbourne (to the nearest 10km)

9. What was the basis for the Crown to assume ownership of Australia?

a. What did it mean?

b. Was it correct?

10. Why can the Australian Prime Minister or Parliament not apologise to its indigenous peoples?

11. Were there ever any massacres (or mass killings) of indigenous people in Australia?

12. Did anyone ever take unwilling Aboriginal children from their families?

a. If they had, what would the institutions have been called which carried out these operations (if any)?

b. Did they live up to their name?

13. What has always been the general legal presumption in the Australian justice system if someone is accused of or charged with a crime?

14. According to recently proclaimed Australian laws, what is the basis upon which suspected terrorists are held?

a. What does this mean for justice in Australia and for ordinary, law-abiding Australian citizens?

15. What does the Government presume, and say, about David Hicks?

16. Habeas corpus is a fundamental of the Australian legal system. What does it mean?

17. When is Federation Day?

a. What year was the first Federation Day?

18. What is the correct spelling? “Color”, or “Colour”?

19. Two famous Australians travelled on the 1908-9 Shackleton expedition to which continent?

a. Who were they?

b. Together, they were the first to achieve which two feats?

c. Which of them is/was on the $100 note?

d. The other had an avenue named after him in Sydney. What is its name and in which suburb is it?

20. After whom is the mineral davidite named?

21. Who was the skipper of the first Australian yacht to win the America’s Cup?

a. Who was the designer?

b. What was the name of the boat?

c. In what year did it win?

d. What did the Prime Minister of the day famously say when the boat won?

e. What was the Prime Minister’s name?

22. Have there ever been Jewish Governors General of Australia?

a. If your answer is yes, what was their name(s) and in what years did he/she/they “govern”?

23. Has there ever been a female Governor General?

a. If your answer is yes, what was their name(s) and in what years did she/they “govern”?

24. Has Australia ever had a homosexual Prime Minister or state Premier?

a. If your answer is yes, what was/were their name(s)?

b. Of which State(s) etc.?

25. After what or whom is Bennelong Point named?

a. Where is Bennelong Point?

b. What is at Bennelong Point now?

26. Who was Pemulwuy?

a. What happened to him?

27. Who cut the ribbon when the Sydney Harbour Bridge was opened?

a. Why?

28. What disaster happened to Melbourne’s West Gate Bridge?

29. In what month and year did a ship collapse the Tasman Bridge?

a. What was the name of the ship?

b. Where was the bridge?

30. What does DLP stand for?

31. Who was the most famous member of the DLP for most of its history?

32. What was Australia’ greatest constitutional crisis?

a. In what year did it occur?

b. Who was Prime Minister?

c. Who was the Governor General?

d. Who became the next Prime Minister?

e. Which national media icon was on the steps of Parliament House at the culmination of the crisis?

f. What was Joh Bjelke Petersen’s role in the crisis?

g. What convention did he break?

h. What was the name of the Senator whose offer of a diplomatic posting precipitated the crisis?

i. From which party did he come?

j. Where was he posted?

33. What sort of creatures populate the island off Perth, WA?

a. What is the name of the island?

34. What is the constitutional status of the Northern Territory?

35. Who was the first female Justice of the High Court Australia?

36. When did Papua New Guinea become independent?

a. Who was its first Prime Minister?

37. Who called Australia “The Lucky Country”?

a. What did he mean? (No, what did he really mean?)

38. In what year did Australia first host the Olympic Games?

a. In what city?

39. In which year and in what city did the world welcome “Matilda” as the mascot for the Commonwealth Games?

a. What was she?

b. How big was she?

c. What did she famously do?

d. Where is she now? 

40. For how many years was Robert Menzies Prime Minister?

a. From when to when?

41. Where was the Eureka Stockade?

a. What was it about?

b. When did it happen?

42. When did Aboriginal people gain the right to vote?

43. When was the legislation passed to include Aboriginal people on the Census?

44. Australian indigenous dot painting is world famous. Where did the movement begin?

a. When?

b. Name the person who initiated the movement as a community and economic enterprise.

45. Who was Australia’s most famous Aboriginal Artist before this?

a. Where did he come from?

b. What language is spoken in that country?

46. Who went to prison for planting a bomb in a rubbish bin outside the Hilton Hotel in Sydney but subsequently had his conviction quashed?

a. What year?

b. What was happening at the Hilton Hotel, Sydney, at the time?

c. Of what religious sect was he a member?

d. On whose evidence was he convicted in the first place?

47. What were Ned Kelly’s famous last words?

48. Who wrote a book with those words as its title?

a. What was his real name?

49. Who was Xavier Herbert?

50. What, and in what year, was the Petrov Affair?

51. In which year did Australia first fight a war as a nation?

a. Against whom?

52. In Australia’s early years, what was the main form of personal transport?

a. What was the main form of bulk transport?

53. What is the Australian standard gauge for railways?

a. How many different gauges were there before standardisation?

b. What were they?

c. In what year did the first service operate from Sydney to Melbourne without changing gauges?

d. What was the name of the service?

54. Where was the origin of the most important breed of sheep in Australia?

a. Who imported them?

b. Where can the descendants of the first flock be found?

55. What did Paul Hogan do before he became a movie star?

a. What brand of cigarettes did he advertise?

b. To what tune?

c. What was the slogan?

56. Who was the whistler in the advertising campaign for Cambridge cigarettes?

57. Before cigarette advertising was banned on Australian television, an announcement was made at the conclusion of each advertisement. What was it?

a. Who spoke it?

b. In what popular TV serial did he appear?

c. On which network?

d. What character did he play?

e. How did the character infamously die?

58. When was cigarette advertising banned on television?

59. Who wrote the advertising campaign whose catch phrase was “Where do you get it?”

a. Which radio stations does he now own?

b. Who is his most famous employee?

c. What is the name of the book which explores this employee’s homosexuality?

60. What is the name of the most famous Australian movie about transvestites?

a. Who is Australia’s most famous operatic soprano?

b. Who is the second most famous?

c. What dish was named after her?

61. Which two nations claim to have invented the pavlova?

a. In honour of whom was it invented?

b. On what occasion?

62. What disease was the first attempt to eradicate the rabbit in Australia?

a. What was the second?

b. Where was it first released?

c. Why?

63. Which organisation released sparrows and starlings into Australia?

a. Why?

64. Why was the cane toad introduced into Australia?

65. What is the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act??

a. When was it promulgated?

b. By whom [Prime Minister]?

66. What is the constitutional principle on which the Federal Government halted the proposed damming of the Gordon below Franklin Rivers in Tasmania?

a. When was the proposed damming stopped?

b. Which famous international TV naturalist joined the protest against the dam?

67. Where is the Ord River?

a. What was the Ord River Scheme?

68. What does QANTAS stand for?

a. Who founded QANTAS?

b. From where to where was the first commercial QANTAS service?

69. What is the full name of Sydney Airport?

a. After whom was it named?

b. For what was he/ she famous?

70. What does WACA stand for?

a. What does ‘The Gabba’ stand for?

71. What does FNQ stand for?

72. What do the following have in common? Cambridge, Archerfield, Jandakot, Parafield?

73. What percentage of Australians are indigenous?

74. What was the White Australia Policy?

a. When did it end?

75. Who was Arthur Calwell?

a. Who shot him?

b. Where?

c. Why?

d. What were Calwell’s injuries?

76. When was the first modern terrorist bombing in Australia?

a. By whom was it carried out?

b. Against whom?

c. Where?

77. People from how many countries have made their homes Australia?

78. Have atomic or nuclear weapons ever been detonated in Australia?

a. If so, by whom?

b. How many?

c. What were the long-term consequences?

79. What was the name of the control centre for post WWII rocket testing on behalf of the British Government?

a. What people lived in the area?

b. What happened to them?

80. What happened at Maralinga?

81. Where is Pine Gap?

a. To what extent is Pine Gap an example of Australia/US cooperation?

b. What do they do there?

c. Why not?

d. What access does Australia have to the results?

e. Why not?

82. Who first climbed and named Mount Kosciuszko?

a. When?

b. What range is named after him?

c. Where is it?

d. What nationality was he?

e. Why did he leave that country?

f. Who was Kosciuszko?

g. What was his full name?

h. What is the correct pronunciation of his surname?

83. What was the Cowra Uprising?

84. What did Bec do before she married Lleyton?

85. What was Kylie’s first movie role?

a. What was the film’s title?

b. What was her name in Neighbours?

c. List all her boyfriends from Jason to Olivier.

86. What is Molly’s passion?

a. What is going on under his hat?

87. Whom did Elton John marry in Australia?

a. On what date?

b. What was she doing in Australia?

c. Which Australian singer was present at the wedding?

88. Whom did Graham Kennedy marry in Australia?

a. What American TV comedy show did she star in?

89. How many Twelve Apostles are there?

90. In which month are the Birdsville Races held?

91. How many members sit in the House of Representatives?

92. How many members sit in the Senate?

93. Which Australian parliament does not have an upper house?

94. Which place has the lowest elevation in Australia?

95. Where are the oldest rocks in the world?

a. How old are they?

96. Where was the birthplace of the Australian Labor Party?

a. What happened to it?

97. Who formed the Liberal Party of Australia?

98. What were the first Australian political parties?

99. Who was the shortest-serving Australian Prime Minister?

a. Who was the longest?

100. What were:

a. The Statute of Westminster?

i. When was it enacted?

ii. When was it adopted?

iii. What did it do?

b. The Australia Act?

i. When was it enacted?

ii. What did it do?

Good luck!

What Cheney Really Thinks

What Cheney Really Thinks

Invading Baghdad Would Create a Quagmire

 

In this interview from April 15th, 1994 Dick Cheney reveals the reasons why invading Baghdad and toppling Saddam Hussein‘s regime wouldn’t be a great idea. He also stipulates that “not very many” American soldiers’ lives were worth losing to take out Saddam during the Gulf War.

Less than a decade later …… ?

Feel we need a shower to cleanse ourselves of this man’s ordure. What an immoral hypocrite he really is! And one of Howard’s “mates”.

Now with Karl Rove deserting the sinking ship on 31 August, perhaps Cheney won’t be far behind. At least he will be more isolated than ever.

Black Breath of the Nazgûl

Black Breath of the Nazgûl

AKA Phillip Ruddock  AKA ‘Dock Vader

How dare ordinary ‘people’ have “views!” 

 

Asked on Southern Cross radio whether the case was a mess, he replied:
“No, what I think has happened is that people who have views about the nature of the law are determined to try and bring it into disrepute. That’s what I think is happening.”

Yes, that is exactly what is happening in some quarters.

Those who believe that they own the law and that the law is a tool for re-election, or for legal validation of unethical and immoral policy, or for the pursuit of personal agendas, are certainly bringing it into disrepute.

Elsewhere, what is happening is that — by revealing information about the way the law is being used and abused, and by debating processes and procedures — people who care about the law and its already tenuous relationship with “justice” are illustrating how the law is a bad law, how the law is being used disreputably and how the law in general is being debauched by the government and its stooges.

For your interest, if any, here are the relevant sections of the Crimes Act that relate to Haneef’s charge:

102.7 Providing support to a terrorist organisation…..

(2) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person intentionally provides to an organisation support or resources that would help the organisation engage in an activity described in paragraph (a) of the definition of terrorist organisation in this Division; and(b) the organisation is a terrorist organisation; and(c) the person is reckless as to whether the organisation is a terrorist organisation.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 15 years.

_________________
terrorist organisation means:

(a) an organisation that is directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not a terrorist act occurs); or
(b) an organisation that is specified by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph (see subsections (2), (3) and (4)).

_________________

“member” of an organisation includes:

(a) a person who is an informal member of the organisation; and

(b) a person who has taken steps to become a member of the organisation; and

(c) in the case of an organisation that is a body corporate–a director or an officer of the body corporate.

_________________

terrorist act means an action or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2) and does not fall within subsection (3); and

(b) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and (c) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of:

(i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or

(ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public.

_________________
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) causes serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or

(b) causes serious damage to property; or

(c) causes a person’s death; or(

d) endangers a person’s life, other than the life of the person taking the action; or

(e) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; or(

f) seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system including, but not limited to:

(i) an information system; or

(ii) a telecommunications system; or

(iii) a financial system; or

(iv) a system used for the delivery of essential government services; or

(v) a system used for, or by, an essential public utility; or

(vi) a system used for, or by, a transport system.

(3) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) is advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action; and

(b) is not intended:

(i) to cause serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or

(ii) to cause a person’s death; or

(iii) to endanger the life of a person, other than the person taking the action; or

(iv) to create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.

Note that the law clearly requires you to satisfy yourself  that any person to whom you render a service or a “resource” which may conceivably assist a member of a terrorist organisation to perform, or conceive, or plan, or prepare, or assist a terrorist act — a packet of nails, say, or a bottle of Ammonia, or a map, or a tank of petrol — is not a member of a terrorist organisation. And the evidentiary burden that you took sufficient steps to satisfy yourself of this probably rests with you.

Luckily for the government, it could be argued (although we don’t) that the Government itself would be guilty of a “threat made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause”, “coercing, or influencing by intimidation”, “intimidating the public or a section of the public” if it weren’t for subsection (3).

On the other hand, it could also be argued, surely (although we don’t), that the government’s invasion of Iraq was intended “to cause serious harm that is physical harm to a person and to cause a person’s death, and to endanger the life of a person, other than the person taking the action” (who was safe in Canberra), and “to create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public” (at least the Iraqi public).

Brave Role Models – Leading from Behind

Brave Role Models – Leading from Behind


Pressing Personal Reasons

 

Those who believe so strongly that Australia ought to be in Iraq and ought to stay there “until the job is done” (leaving aside the problem that no-one has ever explained exactly what “the job” is, or how we will be able to tell that it is “done”) – people such as all members of the Young Liberals and Young Nationals who barrack for the war, as well as John Winston Howard, Peter Howard Costello (fair dinkum), Alexander John Gosse Downer (no bullshit), Philip Maxwell Ruddock, Anthony Chisholm Abbott, Brendan John Nelson – ought to lead from the front.

If you truly believe in the sacred value of your cause, fight for it yourself, not by proxy – enlist, go to Iraq and fight the heathen devils over there (meanwhile taking every care to defend our oil).

It’s a mystery to us that so few of the most strident supporters of the war are prepared to serve in it, and that so many of them have such pressing personal reasons and medical conditions that regretfully force them to deprive the Iraqi people of their courageous presence in that country.

If our great leaders and courageous role models go to Iraq, they may be lucky enough not to be one of the (at least) 12.5% of Iraq war veterans who return from Iraq suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

That is what Keith Olbermann is calling for Bush to do:

 

“Go to Baghdad now and fulfill, finally, your military service obligations. Go there and fight, your war. Yourself.”

Dis-Honoris Causa

Dis-Honoris Causa

 

In all its splendor and majesty

In September 2006 the US right pushed the country “a step toward totalitarianism” when the Republican Senate majority passed a bill which essentially stripped the US Constitution of the protection of habeas corpus, one of the foundational guarantees against executive injustice and abuse of power which has been an essential part the British legal tradition for hundreds and hundreds of years.

As Chicago Tribune columnist Garrison Keillor said at the time:

  Last week, we suspended human rights in America, and what goes around comes around. Ixnay habeas corpus.

The U.S. Senate, in all its splendor and majesty, decided that an “enemy combatant” is any non-citizen whom the president says is an enemy combatant, including your Korean greengrocer or your Swedish grandmother or your Czech au pair, and can be arrested and held for as long as authorities wish without any right of appeal to a court of law to examine the matter.

[…]

The Senate also decided it’s up to the president to decide whether it’s OK to make these enemies stand naked in cold rooms for a couple of days in blinding light and be beaten by interrogators….[T]hey have no right to see the evidence against them, and there is no appeal.

[…]

None of the men and women who voted for this bill has any right to speak in public about the rule of law anymore, or to take a high moral view of the Third Reich, or to wax poetic about the American Ideal. Mark their names. Any institution of higher learning that grants honorary degrees to these people forfeits its honor.

[…]

To paraphrase Sir Walter Scott: ‘Mark their names and mark them well. For them, no minstrel raptures swell. High though their titles, proud their name, boundless their wealth as wish can claim, these wretched figures shall go down to the vile dust from whence they sprung, unwept, unhonored and unsung.’

 

Three Republican senators made a show of opposing the bill and after they’d collected all the praise they could get, they quickly folded. Why be a hero when you can be fairly sure that the court will dispose of this piece of garbage.

 

If, however, the court does not, then our country has taken a step toward totalitarianism. If the government can round up someone and never be required to explain why, then it’s no longer the United States as you and I always understood it. Our enemies have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They have made us become like them.”

There were 65 Senators who voted in favour of the stripping of habeas corpus.

Three of them are now Republican Presidential candidates (none are Democrat candidates).

They were Brownback, Hagel and McCain. None of them now, as Keillor says, “has any right to speak in public about the rule of law anymore, or to take a high moral view of the Third Reich, or to wax poetic about the American Ideal.

Indeed, such “wretched figures” surely agree with the American military that the question of whether the Guantánamo prisoners – whose Military Tribunal cases were recently dismissed – were “Enemy Combatants” or “Illegal Enemy Combatants” is mere semantics. Of course. It is merely the law, and — as we know from the way that John Yoo, Alberto Gonzalez, Andrew Card, George Bush and Dick Cheney (not to mention McCain, Brownback and Hagel) view the law in general — when it gets in the way of their own agenda the rule of law and basic democratic principles are of small importance and the law itself (even though passed by the same vile and obsequious Senate) merely a minor hindrance when it comes to the Machtergreifung ¹.

But the law is not nothing, and the difference between an “illegal” and an ordinary “enemy combatant” is neither trivial nor semantic, as “rmj” clearly explains at Adventus [and also here].

(These are the people and the sort of people, by the way, whom John Howard’s government – especially Billy Bunter Downer, Darth Ruddock and the man who has lost any idea of morality or democratic principles, Michael Joseph Keelty – uses as its moral, legal and ethical benchmarks.)

Garrison Keillor went on to say, “Any institution of higher learning that grants honorary degrees to these people forfeits its honor.

So, speaking of universities granting honorary degrees to dishonourable people…

One-time Acting-Attorney-General James Comey “testified before both the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and the House Judiciary subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law on the U.S. Attorney dismissal scandal…In early January 2006, the New York Times…reported that Comey, who was Acting Attorney General during the March 2004 surgical hospitalization of John Ashcroft, refused to “certify” the legality of central aspects of the NSA program at that time…After Comey’s refusal, the newspaper reported, Andrew H. Card Jr., White House Chief of Staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, then White House counsel and now Attorney General, made an emergency visit to the George Washington University Hospital, to attempt to win approval directly from Ashcroft for the program”.

(Ashcroft refused. See Comey’s description here).

Nevertheless, about three weeks ago, “Andy” Card got his reward from – to its eternal shame and disgrace – the University of Massachusetts. But not without the almost universal condemnation of students and faculty in perhaps the most astonishing display of opposition and dissent ever, certainly recently, in a formal academic ritual.

[See the video above]

 

 

¹ Machtergreifung is a German word meaning “seizure of power”. It is normally used specifically to refer to the Nazi takeover of power in Weimar Germany on January 30, 1933.

The term Machtergreifung was first coined by the Nazis themselves in order to portray their accession to power as an active seizure”

$20 A Barrel!

$20 A Barrel!

 

The Murdoch interview with Max Walsh

 

The way we were

On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, Max Walsh conducted an exclusive interview with Rupert Murdoch.

   Max Walsh: Let’s start with Iraq and the war because that looks like being one of those inflection points in history, with the world, financial markets and the business environment all being affected by what happens. How do you see events unfolding at this stage?

Some “inflection point”!

How about “Catastrophuck”?

Two smug, self-congratulatory bulls of the financial world, oblivious to the impending and utterly predictable suffering of millions of Iraqis discussing the carnage as if it was as moving as a financial chart.

Let us imagine for a moment that America owns the world by default and that it is theirs to give or take away parts of it as they see fit, because this is the only way you could understand Murdoch’s answer, that

   Oh, I believe Bush is right, certainly. Well, we can’t back down now, where you hand over the whole of the Middle East to Saddam…

But why does he really think Bush was acting “morally”?

   The greatest thing to come of this to the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $US20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in any country.

Damn! if only Costello had thought of somewhere to invade, before the budget. He could have given an even bigger insult bribe to the Australian people! Maybe Howard is thinking of invading Zimbabwe before the election! The way he’s been talking about Mugabe is if anything more strident than his condemnation of Saddam, even to the point of invoking the Nazis.

Sadly, Murdoch was slightly off in his calculations.

 

In fact, if you look closely at the graph above you can just discern that the price of oil did not go “DOWN” but edged slightly in the direction of “UP”. With a bullet.

The price of oil when he spoke was around $25 a barrel.

The price of oil now is about $66 a barrel.
And Murdoch’s 2003 crystal ball reading for Bush’s Iraqi “cakewalk”?

   I’m not close enough to know what they really are planning. They’d certainly want to establish a democratic regime as soon as possible and they’d want to get out as soon as they can.

Double damn! Wrong again!