Fuck Off Krispy Kreme

.. and Fuck Hollywood Too!

2009-05-27T11:37:00.006+10:00

(You Lying, Stealing, Hypocritical Pricks)

Is anyone left unsure how strongly I feel about this? I have had enough of the double-standard of remaking, sorry, stealing films from overseas and from previous filmakers, and then taking a zero-tolerance stand against so-called piracy.
The 'Are remakes destroying cinema?' argument is a smokescreen, this is a trade issue.
There is no such thing as 'free trade', it is just Nuevo Protectionism, and Hollywood is yet another example of American financial and cultural imperialism.
American cinema is attacking the film industries of the rest of the world, taking whatever they want from foreign markets, then use their distribution cartels to pump American crap back into the same markets they steal from. The result in places like Australia is the exclusion of Australian film makers to the Australian market: to cinemas, to television, to DVD, and the Australian film industry whither through lack of investment and return on investment. Since VHS squeezed Beta out of the rental market, Australian video stores have had small specialist sections for 'foriegn films' and 'Australian films', leaving 95% of the shop devoted to Hollywood as the default or generic product. Some Australian video stores just put the Australian films under the heading 'foreign and arthouse', 'arthouse' being yet another term that serves to alienate audiences. To put it simply: Australian films are often considered, in Australia, an alien and inferior product to the default or generic Hollywood film industry ...this can hardly be considered an accident.

Don't get me wrong, I watch American film and TV, but would be happier about it if they focused on quality not quantity, also, if the industry wasn't (as outlined above) designed to destroy and replace the film and TV industries of other nations - only to replace diversity with so much of this content-poor homogeneous crap, and rip-offs of the products produced by what little that survives from the markets they attack. I acknowledge that a 'do unto others...' type approach from a nation that proudly proclaims itself as 'One nation under (a Christian) God' is most unlikely. For this reason I watch as much film and TV from places other than America as I can ...as if a film or TV program has managed to get itself distributed or broadcast, despite American distribution cartels, despite the numerous (unrepentant) copies from Hollywood, it's likely to be something special.

So what prompted this rant? The 'straw that broke the camel's back' was an American film (rip-off) called 'Quarantine' (review/outrage below)

So while this blog might be called Fuck Off Krispy Kreme, today I say '...and Fuck Hollywood too!

For further reading and lists of remakes:
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/166239/55_movie_remakes_currently_in_the_works.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_TV_shows_remade_for_the_American_market
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English-language_movies_based_on_foreign-language_movies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes_A-M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes_N-Z
http://www.listology.com/list/feature-films-based-films-foreign-language

Quarantine (Film Review/study of the Hollywood virus)

2009-05-27T11:07:00.005+10:00

I put on a dvd called Quarantine - it's a new release horror film, I was not expecting brilliance, as I picked it at random - I've seen a lot of good films by just picking at random (and I've seen a lot of rubbish too).
The opening shot has Jennifer Carpenter (the actor who plays Dexter's sister in the TV series Dexter) standing with a microphone in hand in front of a fire station - she's a news reporter.

After the initial surprise of 'oh, it's her!', I got another surprise 'oh, I've seen this film, but not this film'. It's a new record - under 10 seconds and I know what is going to happen in a film I haven't seen, but there's a second 'new record' here, the film is a remake of a Spanish film Rec (as in 'record' - the film about a news crew reporting on a fire brigade that gets a call-out to a medical emergency and is 'quarantined' in zombie-infected building).

If you look Quarantine up on IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1082868/) you'll find that it used the working title Rec - the makers not denying the fact that it's a shot-for-shot remake, but with the original being less that a year old, the change of title isn't in good faith (I wouldn't have gotten this film if I know it was simply a desecration of Rec), and any arguments supporting the remaker's right to change the title became invalid when they decided to do an exact remake of a current film (if it's the same film it has to have the same name). To use the 'working title' of Rec, but release it as Quarantine amounts to plagiarism, to Copyright Infringement, they are not selling it as Rec, and to leave acknowledgement that it is Rec, hidden just far enough that you have to know already that you have been screwed-over by Video Pirates, isn't good enough.
Those loud FBI warnings at the start of DVD's telling you to be vigilant of copyright infringement - of inferior copies, somehow don't apply to the film they so often proceed.

As one reviewer on IMDb said of Quarantine "I expect the Mona Lisa to be repainted as a god damn cheerleader any day now... " (owen_williams - 1, from the UK)

Another example of a successful film being remade within a year was the British film The Descent [2005], with 3 rip-off's coming out soon after (using the titles: The Cave, The Cavern, and WithIN). In the case of The Descent, the original is in English, has a tigher and far better developed screenplay, and slicker production than the subsequent Hollywood copies - none of the commonly used arguments to justify copyright infringement apply. I assume the only reason that film makers and governments around the world allow this continual process of Hollywood pirating films is that they are powerless to stop it - film makers realise that Americans will not acknowledge a legal system other than their own, that means sueing Hollywood in America, under American law (a fixed contest if ever there was one), and governess of England, of Spain, and Australia etc, aren't going to take issue with the US over a film - America would never consider allowing a Hollywood film maker to be to face copyright infringement proceedings in another country (but Australia happily allowed an Australian citizen to be to be locked-up in a US federal prison for 20years, despite the person having not even been to American - how do break a US federal law if not in America?)

Hollywood are the real Pirates, the real threat to copyright and to cinema in general.

White Phosphorus: How not to fight an asymmetric conflict

2009-03-27T03:31:00.007+11:00

Israel has been caught out using White Phosphorus on civilians in Palestine. The explanation given was that ‘Israel doesn’t use White Phosphorus on civilians, it’s used on the battlefield to provide smoke’. More interestingly, the same spokesperson said that we ‘use it in the same way western countries do’. I’m figuring that they are talking about America, since they are armed by the Americans, and the US is a strong supporter of Israel.
This battlefield referred to sounds like something not seen since the First World War, with opposing armies neatly lined-up facing each other with a clearly defined space in between, not crowded urban Palestine. White Phosphorus has been banned for use in combat since perhaps WW1.

Incidents like this use of White Phosphorus in the middle of civilian populations (one family of 5 was burnt to death when a White Phosphorus shell landed in their lounge room) points to the fact that countries like Israel and America aren’t really prepared to fight asymmetric warfare in an appropriate manner, going in and engaging an enemy on their territory, the weapons and tactics that are appropriate for such a fight place soldiers at greater risk. It is far safer to just rely on technological supremacy. Safer for the soldiers that don’t have to fight in tunnels and caves against forces that are prepared for such a battle, and safer for the government that sends the troops to fight against a force like the Viet Kong, Taliban, etc, as getting your people killed by a rag-tag force armed with sharpened sticks puts you in considerable risk in the next election.
The problem is that the ‘bomb it flat from a safe distance’ approach to fighting guerrilla forces will kill a lot more civilians than ‘combatants’. Never-the-less, this is the method employed by countries like America and Israel, simply because they can’t afford to pay the full price in dead soldiers, it is also the reason they haven’t /won’t win any of these wars. They may kill a lot of people, but the high percentage of civilian casualties just inspires more people to take-up arms against the injustice.

Israel may use the ‘but other countries do it too’ excuse, it kind of shows that they aren’t planning on winning the war, at least not in a conventional sense – about the only way to defeat a guerrilla force with such indiscriminate force is to commit genocide. The Americans are in a similar mess with Iraq and Afghanistan, although there is some hope that the new president is trying to extricate his country from the mess his predecessor got them into. It’s worth taking a moment to consider the achievement of George W. Bush, managing to get his country (and others) into two wars that they can’t win, that is an extraordinary effort – few presidents ever manage to start one unwinnable war.

As long as the US and Israel believe that their ‘terrorism problem’ should be responded to with a ‘nation versus nation’, air-strikes to remove all resistance and critical infrastructure, followed by an bloody and largely unsuccessful attempt to occupy territory, then don’t expect the ‘problem’ to be solved, and get used to White Phosphorus, Depleted Uranium, Cluster Bombs, and other outlawed practices being used on civilians. The US and Israel will say that they weren’t trying to get the civilians (or will say they were terrorists, or that the terrorists were using civilians as ‘human shields’), but nor are they interested in avoiding the civilians – it’s just not a high enough priority. It's not so much a matter of 'acceptable losses', but 'unacceptable cost' to avoid civilians.

And the White Phosphorus? Well, the practice of bombing civilians is illegal – America and Israel are war criminals – so while bombing civilians is illegal, why not use some exotic and barbaric banned weapons if you are going to do it?

Stephen Conroy – Pathological Liar and Family First Stooge

2009-03-26T22:10:00.009+11:00

I’m watching Senator Conroy on ABC's Q&A, trying to lie his way out of being grilled for his grim determination to push through a fundamentally flawed Internet filter. Forget the so called 'moral question', that's a ruse that Senator Conroy's stunt to divert attention from the real questions ...and a cheap shot: 'don't want internet filtering? you must be a supporter of pedophiles'.

When confronted with the problem that the filter doesn’t work, that it will put an 87% performance hit on the internet (among other problems), Senator Conroy blamed the previous government, and claimed that we need a trial of the technology. "It‘s the Howard government - that’s where the famous 87% comes from”. This is absolute bullshit (sorry for the emotive language, but Senator Conroy is aware that what he has said simply isn't true - the results came from a report he commissioned).

Sorry, Senator Conroy, the famous 87% comes the closed trial initiated last year by the Labor Government. While moral concerns about censorship should be taken seriously, the question should be whether it's remotely possible before letting a 'Clayton's' moral debate act as a smoke-screen to disguise the bulldozer-like effort to get the filter in place. Folks, read the report, see how far it is from ready, and keep this in mind; when Lackey of the Christian Right and Family First, Senator Conroy, is pushing the filter unconditionally.

http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310554/isp-level_internet_content_filtering_trial-report.pdf

There's also the Blacklist leaked on Wikileaks... I've had a quick look, and a lot of this seems to be just soft core porn, and not the evil Child Pornography/Child Abuse that poses a great threat to our civil society. In many cases you can see that many of the websites have US certification that all models are over 18 years old at the bottom of the page "All graphic materials & texts used on this site are in compliance with 18 USC 2257." There was another page that I saw that had images of modestly clothed adults bound with ropes ...presumably some kind of bondage thing. I expect the classification rejection (remember, it's not just Child Pornography that is 'blacklisted', but material refused classifaction) would be for 'sexual violence'. Sexual violence is a serious matter, but the pictures that I saw contained no violence, just people restrained by ropes - they didn't appear to be in distress. While this kind of thing doesn't interest me, I'm figuring that 'whatever floats your boat' is OK, provided it's not at the expense of someone else's well-being. This reminds me of A Clockwork Orange, and the terrible fuss about the film when it was released - the violence is implied - it's that 'pure mind sees no evil' problem.
I see the Christian Right behind this, which might seem strange with a Labor government in power. The ACMA does not change with the change of government, but the Senator Conroy has shown relentless determination to please Family First's Steve Fielding, and there's the suggestion in various publications from around the world that this effort will benefit uptight moral crusaders from around the world. America treasures it supposed 'absolute freedom of speech' (the reality is that you aren't free to say various unpopular things in America), and the few attempts that have been made to impose ISP-level censorship/filtering have not been recieved well - it seems that Australia is doing the 'heavy lifting' for the benefit (or harm) of other nations.

There's a Queensland Dentist and several other law-abiding citizens whose webpages have found their way onto the 'blacklist' (a woman who runs a local school canteen, a web host/designer...). Have a look for yourself at:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Dentist%27s_website_on_leaked_blacklist

The most recent and complete copy of the 'Blacklist' can be found at:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_internet_censorship_blacklist%2C_6_Aug_2008#Aug_6_2008

CleanFeed: Rudd and Conroy afraid of Christian Right?

2009-02-08T04:36:00.004+11:00

When I first started writing a post on this topic 5 or 6 months ago it was largely a technical detail-based doc that sought to expose the depth of absurdity that Senator Conroy and the Rudd Labor government should pursue this internet filtering policy so fervently, but three to four thousand words later I’d barely scratched the surface on why CleanFeed just won’t work, and why it is ridiculous that the government try and push it through regardless. I still think this topic needs addressing, but I’ve started afresh, and kept it brief...

In the interests of keeping this short the areas I wanted to address are: content and censorship standards, practical outcomes, and motivation.

CleanFeed is being promoted on the basis of ‘reducing child abuse’, that children need to be protected from access to images of child abuse on the internet, but the level of restriction of content is to be on-par with computer games – this is tighter regulation than film and television. This MA15+ standard is a far cry from ‘stopping child abuse’, it’s an attack on the very spirit of the internet.

The chance of present technologies delivering the intended result is next to zero. Closed trials (you know, a controlled environment free of real world variables to see the potential capabilities of the technology) revealed the 6 candidate filter products weren’t even close to being able, with problems such as: inaccuracies in filtering (filtering large number of safe sites, missing targeted sites), and massive speed reduction (upto 80% reduction in speed – not desirable in Australia’s second-rate internet). The other problems with ISP-level filtering are that it is does nothing to prevent net predators and bullies, and is no substitute for appropriate supervision of children using the internet, but by having this super-duper infrastructure-level piece of protection it gives parents a false sense of security.

Also worthy of note is that the poor results in closed trial were obtained by filtering only HTTP and HTTPS protocols, leaving the other 60% percent of the internet traffic either unfiltered or totally blocked, Senator Conroy has since announced that the final product could include filtering for bittorrent and other p2p protocols. Closed trials were a dismal failure when attempting to filter only a small portion of total traffic - why does the government think they can get it right in real world implementation? One theory is that proposed upgrade national broadband infrastructure will speed-up the internet so that an 80% performance hit will be unnoticeable, this is just all kinds of wrong...

Political censorship has been mentioned in connection with CleanFeed... we have sedition laws, is political censorship such a stretch? Iceland's internet filter features censorship of an outspoken critics, although one in particular did name his website the Icelandic word for Child Pornography, it features no images of children - only articles and links relating to censorship in Iceland. For the Federal government to impose CleanFeed on Australia they need to convince the Greens and independents in the Senate to pass legislation. Family First's Steve Fielding is the only one supporting it at the moment (is that a surprise?). Senator Xenaphon has suggested that if the government add Internet Gambling to material blocked then he would support CleanFeed, it's not radical censorship to serve the interests of powerful lobby groups says the government, but a deal with each Senator to get the legislation through is OK... I wonder what Bob Brown would sell his soul for?

CleanFeed sounds all honourable and impressive, but is just smoke and mirrors – it has no positive outcomes other than giving the impression that the government are doing something serious about questionable problem – who has ever accidentally stumbled onto a Child Pornography site? In fact, who has ever seen Child Pornography? As the government says that we have to protect children from stumbling onto depictions of child abuse. Stopping child abuse is a well worthwhile endeavour, but to use the emotive responses that the topic of child abuse produces to justify such an absurd project is not OK. If the government is determined to waste money on ridiculous bullshit, they could give the money to me – my trivial amusements don’t screw-up the internet... well not to the same extent.

So why push CleanFeed? A good question without a good answer. The Christian Right are one of the few groups pushing as hard as the government, and in the last month or so it has become apparent that similar other countries, as well as governments, are interested in the outcomes here. The one thing that is clear is the average Australians aren’t screaming out “please mess-up our internet”. So the question remains; with the federal government trying to rollout better internet infrastructure, why impose such a flawed idea on Australian internet?

Has Kevin said 'no' to reconciliation?

2009-01-26T21:38:00.002+11:00

It’s easy to say ‘sorry’, but it doesn’t mean anything if you don’t have a sincere desire to put things right.

Kevin Rudd has named prof. Mick Dodson Australian of the Year, presumably for his work on reconciliation. John Howard failed to listen to Mick’s recommendations re: ‘sorry’ and other steps forward, that helped motivate Mick Dodson to be a most active critic of John Howard – it’s too early to tell if Kevin might have made the same mistake.
Using the opportunity afforded by being named Australian of the Year, Mick Dodson has suggested that Australian Day be moved from Invasion Day, 26th January to a date that doesn’t have such a negative association (one day in May was suggested).
Kevin Rudd has said that Australia Day will stay as 26th January – too afraid that the type of Anglo psychos that draped themselves in the Australian Flag to further the cause of racism at Cronulla a few years back will no longer vote for him.
John Howard’s bigoted resolution that he had nothing to apologise for – well, you know where you stand with that, but a (hollow?) apology, then to be fobbed-off personal recognition for an Aboriginal leader – I sincerely hope that is not all Kevin and co planned for reconciliation. The reason I’m concerned at this moment is that personal honours are normally bestowed after something is achieved; Sorry wasn’t the end of this issue, but the start of the journey.

Moving Australia Day sounds like a symbolic move, but presently that is part of what required - to remove Colonial signifiers, most public institutions frame Australia as a British colony. These public institutions make a narrative about Australia, and while one group is excluded (especially the first nations) then the narrative doesn't appropriately describe Australia.

I hope Sorry wasn’t all that Kevin planned for reconciliation.

Please aim more carefully (G.W. Bush leaves office)

2009-01-23T03:37:00.001+11:00

I'm back after a 1 year unplanned sabbatical. I’d like to thank the parole board out at Port Phillip... no, not true. It’s been study and work commitments that have kept me from shooting off my mouth here. It’s not because I’ve been super-busy (there have been a lot of 18-hour days) that I haven’t contributed here in a year, it’s that with the work I was doing for school I didn’t feel the need; it seems that well-constructed academic essays come from the same place - use the same energy as emotive polemics (sorry, rants). I did try to keep writing, but sated, spent, energy channelled elsewhere, I couldn’t be bothered – I’ve got the start of dozens posts that I couldn’t have been bothered finishing (I might start posting those up if they interest me enough to finish them, and aren't relevant only to a moment now passed).

The thing that I regret the most in this year of silence is that I’ve missed the last year of G.W. Bush’s presidency, and the opportunity to be appropriately inappropriate about Pres Bush – the idiot and the elected leader (well, second choice).
...there are those people who say they’ll miss him. To those people I say: please aim more carefully.

John Howard wins "brown nose" medal

2009-01-08T15:56:00.005+11:00

Former Australian PM John Howard will receive the highest civilian honour a US president can bestow during a White House ceremony this month.

George W Bush will confer the prestigious Presidential Medal of Freedom award on his staunch international supporters in an East Room ceremony on January 13, exactly one week before he leaves office.

Howard says he is honoured personally to receive the award but more so because of the compliment it pays to Australia.

"It's an indication of the very close relationship between our two countries and I'm very pleased that during the time as prime minister I was able to contribute too," he said.

It was also testament to the "very obvious" personal warmth between himself and President Bush.

Does this make anyone else ill?

This award has essentially been awarded to those who did not oppose the atrocities perpetrated by the US and it’s allies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

President Bush has awarded 78 medals of freedom during his tenure in office, quick George, create a legacy that doesn’t involve lies and the suffering and death of the innocent.

This reminds me of Pope John Paul II canonising a record 86 saints in his senile tenure as Pope.

I think that it is worth noting that the father of the Hydrogen Bomb Edward Teller won one of these.

Iraqi shoe throwing journalist to receive death sentence

2008-12-16T15:03:00.001+11:00

He won't really receive the death penalty, at least we hope he won't, but he is nursing broken bones after being tackled by Iraqi security guards.

When I was studying journalism, they said that the pen was mightier than the sword. They clearly forgot about footwear. This guy was thinking laterally - nice work!

You don't hear this very often, but to his credit George Bush Jr really outdid himself during this incident. If only more of these types of situations had popped up in the last year or so of his term, the Republicans may not have been so soundly flogged (figuratively, not literally a-la Guantanamo) at the polls.

The incident, which I think should be referring to footwear of mass destruction, as they stopped being mere "shoes" when they were thrown at the "leader of the free world", has been celebrated and immortalised in a number of novel ways - link to Wired magazine.

Obama Won

2008-11-16T22:00:00.001+11:00

America has grown a conscience and entered a new era!

Good taste in coffee hobbles American chain

2008-08-10T09:00:00.002+10:00

Please join me in a minutes silence whilst we remember Starbucks in Australia.

In the last couple of weeks, anyone traveling down Collins Street, Bourke Street, and nearly every other street in Melbourne, will be met with the barren empty shell that was once the home of the sickly sweet cinnamon chai latte or frappaccino and numerous other coffee monstrosities.

Starbucks, the Dr. McFrankenstein of Coffee, whilst not completely gone, is in serious decline in Australia. And not before time, too.

I do feel for the 685 employees who lost their jobs in early August after the company closed 61 of its 84 Australian stores, but let’s face it; coffee making is an art that a great many Australians appreciate. Trying to pass the over sweetened, fast food, McCoffee concoctions as coffee, and charging so much for it, was never going to work. There are far too many exceptional “hole-in-the-wall” coffee places, especially in Melbourne, where coffee appreciators can be served a fine flat white or long black. You just don’t need the Starbucks sprinkly and syrupy “bells-and-whistles” when the coffee is of a good standard to begin with.

It seems that Starbucks is experiencing trouble at home too. In selected US stores (soon to go national) they are offering dramatic discounts for those who buy a “Grande” cold drink before 2pm as their second purchase in the day. Sales are down, so they are trying to encourage consumers back into the stores. Supplying more of their bad product at cheaper prices does not make the product better.

Stay tuned for the decline of other American retail colonialists.

Who will be next? Krispy Kreme, McDonalds, KFC, Subway, Pizza Hut, unfortunately the list goes on.

update

2008-07-13T21:13:00.003+10:00

It's been a long time since we posted, and it's not because America has suddenly picked up it's game. On the contrary, I've been so engrossed in the pre-election circus over there, I've hardly had time to think about how insane the whole thing is and write it all down.

After all, since we lost John Howard, all we have is George Bush, and even he's been pretty quiet.

The parties over there sure put a lot of money, effort, bile etc into competing against their own people, then as soon as a winner is announced, it's all forgotten and the other party are the bad guys again.

Hopefully American's will pull their fingers out and put in a representative vote this time. Once the Democrats are in we can all go back to picking on TV Evangelists, paedophiles and fast food chains (not necessarily in that order).

Newsflash! George Bush got it wrong

2007-12-04T09:00:00.000+11:00

How strange that the "democratically elected"leader of the so-called "free-world" has got it wrong yet again.

In the case of Iraq, Bush's own people told him that there were no WMDs. The ensuing invasion and occupation that occurred despite this information failed to uncover the fictitious stockpiles used as justification for the devastation of an entire region.

Now to Iran. Again Bush has banged on and on about the Iranian weapons program.

"A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb."

By no means is this a reason to breath a sigh of relief in the comfort that Bush won't decide to invade. After all, there is an election coming up, and Americans tend to vote for war mongers.

As long as Iran is enriching Uranium for civilian purposes, there is always enough doubt to justify a unilateral preemptive strike.

On the other hand, Americans could come to their senses and head Bush off, vote him out, get some Democrats in, and end the latest Western tyranny of our times, just like we did in Australia.

This is (Howard's) Australia

2007-12-02T01:32:00.000+11:00

Hands up who's seen the film 'This is England'? It came out last year, but is a recent release to DVD. The reason I mention this film at this time is that the recent departure from government makes now a good time to reflect on the legacy of Mista Howard. What's a film about early 1980's UK got to do with present-day Australia? Well, the central theme of the film is a look at the unholy connection between Nationalism and the rise of racist organisations such as 'National Front' under a conservative government in a time of war. Hard to deny the connections to the present, but that's down to the film-maker, and is a pretty damming commentary on England's 'New Labour' under Tony Blair. 'New Labour' has much in common with the old Tories, as the film is about Thatcher, the Falkland war, and the complexities of racism/nationalism, with a spectrum of Skinheads and interrelations with National Front.

How does all this connect with the full measure of Howard's racist legacy? Well, many of the arguments that incrementally moved some people who weren't inherently racist into supporting racist causes have been dragged-out in Australia in the past decade of Howard, with similar results. The adoption of 'The Cross of St George' by National Front as banner they use in their race-war is reminiscent of that first ugly moment in Cronulla when it became clear that the Australian Flag could be used to divide this nation, that it could be a symbol of hate, where it was previously associated with the unity of multiculturalism.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the film 'This is England' made it that little bit easier to understand how people (who otherwise appear free of damage) can buy into the whole anti-Islam thing that the previous government wheeled-out to sell their wars, and the panic and changes to laws that convinced some that this country was under siege from one after another threat that only mista Howard could save us from. I wouldn't say that I 'enjoyed' 'This is England', but I'm glad I've seen it.

"...relieved the toxicity of this government is gone"

2007-11-27T01:33:00.000+11:00

not my words, ex-P.M. Paul Keating's account of John Howard losing office, but it sounds a fair description to me.

Over 11 years of xenophobia and lies. Fuck it. I won’t list all of Howard’s transgressions (national or international). The only crime I'll mention is 'treason', a lack of loyalty to the best-interests of this country. The little bastard was willing to sell Australia out, over and over again, to the Americans, to his rich mates, to his small-mind prejudices, to fears he manufactured for votes. The consequences of this betrayal are dire, Australia is hardly recognisable as the nation he took-over in 1996. The values that Howard so often evoked, of 'equality', 'mateship', 'a fair go', 'generosity of spirit', are largely historical footnotes - people are often surprised when they see the real thing. Being a decent person has become so rare that people get medals and rewards,just for 'doing the right thing'.

Now Howard is gone, and so many of lackeys too. Stooge Peter Costello isn’t going to lead the Liberal Party, and things are so bad that the new Opposition are considering Tony Abbot as leadership material. It’s almost enough to make me believe in a just and fair God, almost.

When I was very young there was a phrase that was popular: ’16 million Aussies can’t be wrong’. Well, they can, and often are, but occasionally they can get it right too....

Should the Bali bombers be put to death?

2007-10-10T14:03:00.000+10:00

Should the Bali bombers be put to death?

This really shouldn't be a simple issue to resolve, but many Australians, including our elected leaders, seem quick to bang on about their support for the death penalty in places like Indonesia when the situation suits them.

John Howard, the so-called Christian, is screaming for the blood of the bombers who caused the deaths of numerous Australians and even more Balinese/Indonesians. He also has the arrogance to criticise politicians with the moral fibre to disagree with the atrocious state sanctioned murder practiced by most of our allies and our neighbours.

Make up your mind you dickhead. Grow some real balls and bring the death penalty back to Australia, and face the consequences, or shut the fuck up.

Censorship - don't read this

2007-06-25T09:10:00.000+10:00

One day I will be a terrorist simply because I don’t agree with the government. This is how I, and I am sure many others, read the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock’s, proposal to widen Australia's censorship laws. The more they tweak and specify, the more likely your average person will fall into the trap of sedition.

Ruddock wants to impose a new power to ban books, films and computer games that advocate terrorism. The government has fulfilled its obligations and the period for public consultation closed last week, so now, no matter what anybody says the changes will no doubt soon become law.

Here’s an article discussing the issues “Terrorism proposal extension of censorship laws” by George Williams.

I don’t condone terrorism. Never have and never will. My issue is with who determines what is terrorism. A bunch of conservatives (doesn’t matter which side of politics) who have never really had much to do with the real world. They live at home with wealthy parents until their 30s then get jobs with mates or in the public service. By the time they start dictating what happens in our day to day lives most of us have held down several jobs, battled to pay the bills at some point or another and have seen authority and the government as playing a little or larger part in our problems. No wonder people want to protest and speak out against the government, but careful you are not being seditious.

And what about “terrorism”? One man’s terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. The Israelis are terrorists if the many UN resolutions ruling against their actions mean anything.

David Hicks was a freedom fighter in Kosovo, but a terrorist in Afghanistan. Why? US political alignment. The US were finished with their former allies in the region, the Taliban, and had swapped sides back to the Northern Alliance who they had helped the Taliban defeat years earlier.

So just be careful. One day you may think that you are standing up for the rights of the downtrodden in a conflict that seems unjust, or maybe you will be speaking up for your own rights to express your dissatisfaction with your government. The next thing you know you may be in an orange jumpsuit being brutalised by the people who declare that they are protecting us.

George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor and Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law at the Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales.

Howard tries to buy votes instead of scaring them out of people...

2007-06-19T03:08:00.000+10:00

The Howard government has changed its policy, previous elections they managed to come-up with some terrifying threats to our way of life - which only they can save us from, but all that seems to have changed, no more DIY WMD-kits in the hands of tyrannical dictators, no more hoards of filthy refugees in rusty boats coming to invade us, no longer are we encouraged to fear that every Arabic-looking guy with a beard is a terrorists... They seem to be going with the more conventional 'pork barrel' (so far).

In the last week we've had the populist promises of an overhaul to the ACCC to investigate petrol prices, and super-duper internet access for 98% of Australians. These are truly 'election year promises'. The chance of something real happening to improve petrol prices? ZERO. ... and you only had to see 'question time' in parliament where the opposition quizzed the government about the gap between 'theoretical speeds' for the internet technologies they plan to use, and the practical reality. No one living more than 3-4km from the phone exchange will get the internet connection that the government is promising, and what else is clear is that the government know this. It's currently a problem in suburban Australia, so the chance of these technologies working properly in a rural setting, where few people live under 5kms from the exchange, is again, ZERO.

Back in question time Senator Helen Coonan was sweating, as she tried to drag one after another embarrassing questions about the nature of the proposed internet infrastructure back to the findings of the carefully worded report that relied on 'theory', rather than the largely disappointing reality. The internet upgrade might have been something that the government would have been better keeping up their sleeve until a week or so before the election, as there's too much time for the public to get an explanation/understanding of why it won't work.

The petrol investigation powers for the ACCC is a far better hollow promise, it sounds like action, and maybe it will give the ACCC the power to prosecute rogues, but that won’t reduce the price of petrol. It is overwhelmingly composed of state and federal tax, and is set in parity with the price Singapore crude, regardless of whether is comes from Bass Strait or the middle-east. So the ACCC might bust a few independent service-station owners, up to no-good, and win a few votes for the federal government, from those who know no better, but not help the public with the burden of fuel costs in any way.

It’s a good thing Mr Howard’s going into ‘involuntary retirement’, later this year.

Church and State

2007-05-16T09:42:00.000+10:00

Two religious leaders are in the media this week. Each has had a colourful past and both have affected politics in their regions and possibly the world.

The Dalai Lama, a much loved and revered figure, normally honoured around the world for his peaceful resistance to tyranny, is being shunned this week in Australia. China’s value as a trading partner seems to influence our politicians on both sides more than its disregard for human rights. Rudd may be our knight in shining armour, riding to save us from John Howard’s arrogance, but if you fear increasingly closer ties with China, he’s not your man. He is a China-file, if that is even a word. He’s traveled there, studied Chinese culture and language and has a real affinity with the place. That would be fine if they really were a “people’s republic” but we all know they are a totalitarian regime hiding behind communist ideals.

If it offends them to speak with real representatives of “the people” such as the Dalai Lama and the leaders of Taiwan, then offend the bastards.

**********

Now to my favourite religious news story. Co-founder of the influential Christian Right-Wing Moral Majority (later the Moral Majority Coalition) Jerry Falwell has finally died. There must be a God after all. Segregationist, Zionist, Homophobe, you name the flavour of bigotry and he’s in there. I fear that the only reason he was a Zionist and not anti-semitic was because of Israel’s oppression of Palestinians – he simply had to pick a side.

There are many, many things Falwell didn't like for whatever reason, but lets remember him through some of his narrow minded comments. I like this one from the Christian television program "The 700 Club," in response to the attacks in New York on September 11 2001.

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

His rationale was that God protects a nation that reveres Him and that He ignores or shuns one that mocks Him. Falwell thought that homosexuality, abortion etc., mock God.

He later apologised for his comments.

I couldn’t find the other favourite quote, though having recently heard it replayed on the radio, I know that Falwell recently, quite arrogantly, compared himself to the king of Judah, Hezekiah from the book of Isaiah in the Christian Bible, asking God for 15 more years to continue doing his work.

Again, there must be a God for such a short time to have passed since this wish. From memory, Hezekiah didn’t have to ask. The arrogance of some people!

And, who can forget Falwell taking on Penthouse and Hustler magazines in the 80s failing both times. Watch the movie The People Versus Larry Flynt for the Hustler angle on this story. Falwells defeats in these cases strengthened freedom of speech laws in the US, so maybe he did contribute to society after all.

more 9/11 conspiracy

2007-03-24T12:10:00.000+11:00

Controversial University of Wisconsin-Madison lecturer Kevin Barrett appeared on WISC-TV's "For The Record," discussing his views on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Islamic studies and the class he taught last year.

American Idiot

2007-03-21T12:20:00.000+11:00

Does anyone think that George W Bush is an intellectual giant?

Bush's little buddy John Howard, has lost the plot

2007-02-13T06:33:00.000+11:00

The USA has a population of over 300 million people. Even though only a dozen or so of the inbred wing of the Bush family bother to vote, a presidential candidate represents them all (or at least the majority).

The potential US presidential wonderkind Barack Obama wants to pull troops out of Iraq, but John Howard has criticised this move. The USA has 132,000 troops in Iraq and has lost thousands. The population of the USA is unconvinced of the reasons used to invade (at that time they used 250, 000 troops.

Australia has 1,300 troops in Iraq at the moment. So where does John Howard find his international voice, and feel that he has the right to criticise? If we had a comparable ratio of troops to population in Iraq we would have 9,000 people there fighting the "good" fight.

Nearly 40 countries were involved in the coalition of the coerced, but most of them have withdrawn troops due to public opinion back home, or lack of faith in the USA and their handling of the situation.

When will John Howard stop embarrassing us and listen to the public he says he represents? The USA is in trouble and Bush is the main problem. Obama is a good option, but it may be too late for them on an international stage. In truth though, Howard may never get the chance to redeem himself if recent opinion polls and his parliamentary stuff-ups are a good indication.

Obama for President, Rudd for Prime Minister.

David Hicks

2007-01-20T21:02:00.000+11:00

I hate to go on about things, but...... No wait, I don't, I love it!

Hicks has been in that illegal prison for 5 years and he is about to be charged again by an illegitimate court spouting conveniently made up laws.

Our own Attorney General Ruddock says the laws are based on American law. But Hicks is being charged in Cuba for crimes allegedly committed in Afghanistan. How does this work? Nobody knows, as it is being made up as it goes.

If it's a criminal law, then why not try him on US or Afghan soil? If it is war related he is a prisoner of war, the Geneva convention needs to be addressed.

Thats all.

an American talking rationally about people who dislike America

2007-01-16T09:16:00.000+11:00

Very rarely do we read or hear a metered and considered analysis to Anti-Americanism from within America. Most US commentators are of the opinion that "if you're not with us, you're against us" when faced with people who dislike America and its role in the current world environment.

Neil Gross is assistant professor of sociology at Harvard University and wrote this article, which appeared in the Boston Globe and the New York Times. He concedes that there are reasons for Anti-Americanism besides war and jealousy. He also believes that it can and should be remedied through the US behaving differently (better) in world affairs.

Read Neil Gross' article here: The Many Stripes of Anti-Americanism.

Black Hawks Back?

2007-01-10T09:54:00.000+11:00

'Our benevolent benefactor' has bombed Somalia, again. Apparently they were after an al Qaida agent... which leaves me a whole lot more relieved that when the US strong-armed local authorities, they had 'a good reason'. Sure, the US have 'permission', but permission obtained by threat of force or deprivation of aid, is no permission at all, but it looks better if the Somalis say they grant permission, sorry "They have our full support for the attacks"(which is scared politician-speak for 'do you want to be the one to say 'no'?') . Pakistan have claimed that they've only cooperated with the US because Bush promised to "bomb them back to the stone age" if they argued. Yemen lost vital aid after voting against US in the UN (aid cancelled the following day). You just don't say 'no' to Dubya when his people have 'intelligence' (yes, that's a tired joke that's no longer funny, although... I believe their 'source' was 'tweetie-pie', who's reported as saying "I tort I tore a terrorist!"... which seems far more credible than previous sources... still waiting on those WMD's George!). This is what George means when he says "you're either with us or against us", keep out of the way, and let us bomb who we want, when we want.

Some of you may remember a previous US interference with Somalia, colourfully represented by Ridley Scott in the film 'Black Hawk Down'. That incident was a major 'black-eye' for the USA, it seemed to all the world that that an untrained, poorly equipped rabble from a third-world country could drive-out the mighty US. Somalia has been a bête noire that the US have had to revisit, and there was no better time than now, when Iraq is going the same way, it's a confidence boost (just don't tell the families of those killed).

If there is one thing the US armed forces learned from the 'black hawk down' incident, it was to bomb the site flat from greater altitude with AC-130's instead of engaging the enemy. There's nothing 'surgical' about this approach, just indiscriminate death across a large area. It's got that Kurtz (Heart of Darkness) "Exterminate all the brutes" feel to it. Or maybe it's like Pope Innocent III who advocated the killing of 20,000 faithful to get 200 heretics "Kill them all. God will know his own".
It seems that it's ok to bomb innocent civilians if you are trying to kill a terrorist who may or may not have been there.

The question is: when does this war against terror, become a war of terror?

...And the guest of honour Fazul? The Americans don't know whether they got him (and may not for weeks), but I'm sure all the Somali affected are comforted by the news that their loved ones were killed, and their world's been turned upside-down, for a good reason. After all, the Americans were trying to stop a terrorist! Left unchecked this terrorist could bomb their loved-ones, and destroy their livelihoods. It a good thing for the people of Somali that America feels so strongly about terrorism, someone could have gotten hurt!

Then there's the US-backed Ethiopian occupation of Somalia, but that's another story, for another time... and yes, you guessed it there's oil involved.