catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

Selling out feminism for multiculturalism

with 168 comments

The New Left:

I’m going for political suicide here but I’m willing to stand up with anybody else in this country who happens to agree with Sheik Hilali’s sentiments.

Not because of any emotional or religious point of view but from sheer logic. While men who want to assault women exist, there will be women who get assaulted. Unfortunately, how a woman dresses does affect her level of likeliness to be chosen. The subsequent reaction to this latest opportunity to get angry about something is the real lesson here.

Suzanne Bassette
National secretary, Australian Democrats
Clayfield, Qld

Jason brought this up on the open thread. Nothing much more to say, really.

Hat tip: CL

UPDATE: Suzanne Bassette has resigned her position, apparently in some distress – see here (link via Geoff Honnor). Rather than continue to attack her personally, I’d like to start a discussion that goes a bit further than the leftie-bashing one sees over at Tim Blair’s place when this sort of crap comes up. Basically, I’d like to know why.

Advertisements

Written by Admin

November 3, 2006 at 8:38 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

168 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I used to be a member of the UQ Democrats Club.Two years on UQ Union Council, too, as a Democrat.

    Why I left the left, people.

    skepticlawyer

    November 3, 2006 at 8:42 pm

  2. Bye, bye democrats. Don Chipp has been left far behind.
    In any case it is wrong. Rape is violence, not sex – has anyone shown this letter to CASA?

    Andrew Reynolds

    November 3, 2006 at 8:49 pm

  3. Where is Suzanne getting her information from?

    I was trying to sort it out through pure introspection.

    We may need to be more scientific then that.

    Skeptic you in?

    You get to wear a lot of different outfits on the upside?

    GMB

    November 3, 2006 at 9:31 pm

  4. Is the the dems first suicide bomber? – imploded by sheer logic.

    rog

    November 3, 2006 at 9:35 pm

  5. She left the Dems this morning via this extraordinary missive posted on Andrew Bolt’s Hun Blog, of all places. It reminds me of Pauline Hanson’s “If you’re listening to this…” tape only less lucid.

    “Dear All,

    Since I am no longer (thank goodness yeeha) the national secretary of the Democrats, I can truly speak on my own behalf. I am no politician and have nothing to do with politics, but it is time people stood up in this country to the prevailing anger and vindictiveness that is a hallmark of our society now, on all sides.

    We have the concept of freedom of speech and yet we work to stop it constantly. My own party, not realising it is dead and has no meaningful role for its existence, has turned this into a culture and become a rudderless ship in the process. So I figured if it was time to find something meaningful in life to do, I might as well leave by making a stand on something and I sure picked a sore wound to scratch.

    In a political vaccuum of debate over what kind of positive country we want to head to, it’s pretty clear we are reflecting a world gone too far to one side and politics is ineffective to solve our problems. Next election you will have the same assortment to choice dismally from and next year you will still be here postulating and abusing each other and nothing will have changed unless you want it to. For goodness sake, all this going off and meanwhile the Murray is about to dry up, the environment is stuffed and one in 5 of us have a mental disorder of some sort.

    Thank you everyone for saying what you think. Not that I necessarily agree with most of you, but you have the right to say it, just not to be so personal and abusive. I wonder how well you’d all take it when one day you step outside the prevailing group view on what is right or not and then find yourself being judged, abused and condemned. The only positive thing Australia can do for itself is to start saying enough is enough. This anger has to end and it takes each one of us to decide to say no to anger and realise we have to get on with each other. Sounds trite I know but as Blur said ‘there is no other way’.

    Roger and out,
    Me”

    Geoff Honnor

    November 3, 2006 at 9:38 pm

  6. I saw and heard some whacky crap during my stint on the left, GMB, but this titbit – AFAICT – takes the biscuit.

    skepticlawyer

    November 3, 2006 at 9:39 pm

  7. Geoff, you got a link for that?

    skepticlawyer

    November 3, 2006 at 9:41 pm

  8. Good lord
    sounds like a mid-life crisis.

    Jason Soon

    November 3, 2006 at 9:47 pm

  9. Thanks Geoff. Post has been updated. I just want to know where this stuff comes from.

    skepticlawyer

    November 3, 2006 at 10:17 pm

  10. No need to attack her personally but her comments are typical of the intellectual confusion of many. Criticising someone’s comments is not an ‘attack on free speech’ as she seems to imply.

    Jason Soon

    November 3, 2006 at 10:20 pm

  11. As for the ‘why’, this is just a manifestation of the intellectual tensions of the left imploding inside someone’s head.
    .

    Jason Soon

    November 3, 2006 at 10:22 pm

  12. Why is this surprising. When have the modern left ever had a good idea. This typical thinking.

    Free speech, anger, mental health, the evironment… linked together in a few neat paragraphs.
    This typical thinking in the left these days.

    Look at the clowns on the other thread trying to figure out how the speed/fine system can be used to milk more money.

    don’t be surprised.

    JC.

    November 3, 2006 at 10:29 pm

  13. The Left of which I’m a member has always despised the Australian Democrats, and everything they stand for. Don’t try and pin this shit on us.

    I’d like to start a discussion that goes a bit further than the leftie-bashing one sees over at Tim Blair’s place

    I’ll believe it when I see it here.

    Liam

    November 3, 2006 at 10:54 pm

  14. Hey, Tim Blair wrote us up as a lefty site! Fair suck of the sausage, Liam.

    BTW, I don’t know what lefty club you belong to, and I don’t much care. If your variety of leftiness has particular insight into this issue, maybe you’d like to share it with us.

    skepticlawyer

    November 3, 2006 at 11:06 pm

  15. Laime

    You may not like the Dems, but as usual you’re not really thinking too hard are you? The dems are essentially another leftist party. In certain ways they’re even more to the left than the ALP.

    Would you please explain to us normal people how a lefty like you could say he despises the Dems?

    JC.

    November 3, 2006 at 11:07 pm

  16. that was ages ago, sl.

    Liam doesn’t have a point. The reason for my jibe is that the Left has to decide when it will choose vigorous espousal of Enlightenment values (which need not translate into forcing them on everybody – criticising a frigging Sheikh isn’t an act of force) over cultural sensitivity.

    Jason Soon

    November 3, 2006 at 11:14 pm

  17. Nor do I care which demi-doctrinal subdivision of libertarianism you and Joe pay freely contracted market-priced rent in, skepticlawyer. It’s sheer sophistry to sheet this home to the teddy-bear straw-Left that keeps you secure at night.
    I spit on the views of this creep, and the views of Hilaly both, as do my comrades.

    I’ll believe it when I see it

    Go on. Make my day.

    Liam

    November 3, 2006 at 11:15 pm

  18. Well good for you Liam but I think you’re still being rather disingenuous about the internal contradictions within your camp. These contradictions are the reason your camp supports – dare I say it again – the equivalent of blasphemy laws.

    Jason Soon

    November 3, 2006 at 11:18 pm

  19. Laime

    Tell us why you hate the Dems? Seriously, i just don’t get it. And believe me, it ain’t trick question, Mr. Turtle Neck.

    JC.

    November 3, 2006 at 11:21 pm

  20. No, I’m asking a serious question.

    You seem to have some insight into this issue, and I’d like to hear it. If you just wanted to come over here and troll, fine, but that’s not the impression I have of you.

    What do you think of Jason’s comment? You may spit on these views, but why don’t others at least nominally on your ‘side’? I know why some who are on my side don’t. They’re followers of imaginary friends who – in days gone by at least – espoused similar sentiments to Hilaly.

    What gives?

    skepticlawyer

    November 3, 2006 at 11:22 pm

  21. And I think this entire post is the cheapest of cheap shots. You’re better than this, Jason, and so is this site.
    Want me to quote Senator Ross Lightfoot, Bill Heffernan or Hugh Morgan as evidence of what all conservatives believe right of Phillip Adams? I’m happy to, and it’d be no more intellectual stretching than this insulting botch-job of a blog entry.

    Liam

    November 3, 2006 at 11:22 pm

  22. Come on – is this Left enough?

    http://www.leftwrites.net/2006/11/02/ian-rintoul-on-women-and-islam/#more-430

    Criticising Hilaly is just ‘playing the race card’? This is exactly what I’m talking about.

    Jason Soon

    November 3, 2006 at 11:23 pm

  23. Isn’t David Marr the left’s new Bill Heffernan?

    C.L.

    November 3, 2006 at 11:25 pm

  24. The camp supports the laws Jason for one reason and one reason alone. Votes. The muslim baslphemy laws were imposed as a way of getting the Muslim vote…. just like Keating allowed residence to this rancid little Egyptian…. votes.

    They don’t give figgin shit about free speech, rights or anything else. They simply care about one thing. Votes=power

    The new left would sell it’s soul to the devil if it meant more votes.

    JC.

    November 3, 2006 at 11:26 pm

  25. Happy to play dickhead poker, Jase and skeptic. I’ll see your damn-fool straight and see you a John Ray flush.
    Here’s A Western Heart on Could The Sheik Be Right?

    Seriously now: sexism is sexism. Misogyny is misogyny. Nobody should be protected from criticism.

    Liam

    November 3, 2006 at 11:28 pm

  26. And boy are they so friggin stupid over that that putrid site. Sparrow or who wrote that crap has yet to figure out the iefference between Indonesia and Saudi A.

    We ought to send our bird of prey over there and capture Sparrow in mid flight….. by his claws.

    JC.

    November 3, 2006 at 11:29 pm

  27. Fine, Liam. So John Ray is the National Secretary of what, the Liberal party?

    And seriously now – I can understand that you’d want to wash your hands of the Democrats but they are seen as a major left wing force in politics.

    Jason Soon

    November 3, 2006 at 11:31 pm

  28. PS and let’s not even bring up George Galloway’s Respect.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESPECT_The_Unity_Coalition

    I am well aware Liam that you do not share all these loopy opinions but you are missing the point. Groups like Respect are a natural logical consequence of some of the recent alliance building and evolution of thought that has gone on with the rise of identity politics.

    Jason Soon

    November 3, 2006 at 11:36 pm

  29. Laime
    You don’t know how to play poker otherwise you wouldn’t be raising with such an emepty hand. You could raise me one of those names and I will always have 20 Sparrows handy in the back pocket. You doofus.

    Don’t go into the card counting routine. We can count better than you. In fact they’re falling out of our pockets, you nimbus.

    JC.

    November 3, 2006 at 11:37 pm

  30. Why do you hate the Dems Liame?

    JC.

    November 3, 2006 at 11:38 pm

  31. Skepticlawyer, I can’t answer for anyone else’s views but mine. Conflating my views and those of others with those of someone whose views are too bizarre to remain in the Democrats is hardly fair, though.
    Jason, neither can I answer for who you see as a left wing force, or a feminist one.
    Are uncompromising condemnations and furious agreement somehow not enough?

    Liam

    November 3, 2006 at 11:39 pm

  32. from John Jay Ray, anti-abortionista (sorry CL) and supporter of sundry imaginary friends. Oh, and he used to go to Nazi Party meetings, too – said they shared a common interest in baroque music.

    As I said, I’m happy to admit these kind of people are at least nominally on ‘my side’, and to think publicly about why they may hold those views. Much of it is to do with a slavish and outmoded view of religion, which evidences itself in a desire to criticise the Hilalys of this world for characteristics they themselves exhibit.

    There is also, I suspect – at least among the conservatives – a desire to see others live their lives in a patterned and predictable way. When individuals deviate from this pattern, they are subjected to controls of various kinds to restore the ‘pattern’. This manifests itself practically in the frenzied ‘laura norder’ campaigns one often sees around election time.

    Without going into the sort of detail one would expect in a post, rather than a comment, I think that’s where this kind of crap comes from on the right.

    I’m still keen to hear your insights on the left, Liam.

    skepticlawyer

    November 3, 2006 at 11:39 pm

  33. Liam who the hell is ‘conflating your views’? I refer you to my last comment. Why do you think this is about you as opposed to our having a discussion about tendencies within the Left?

    Jason Soon

    November 3, 2006 at 11:41 pm

  34. I’m still keen to hear your insights on the left, Liam.

    And why Turtle Neck hates “dem” Dems.

    Com’on Laime. Just push down and hold your breath. Spit it out.

    JC.

    November 3, 2006 at 11:42 pm

  35. Jason Soon

    November 3, 2006 at 11:44 pm

  36. C.L.

    November 3, 2006 at 11:46 pm

  37. Good Link Jase:
    “One former ally in the Stop the War Coalition that the SWP had more luck in attracting to Respect is the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), a rather conservative organisation with links to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian Islamist movement. This has resulted in one of the most bizarre pairings in recent British political history – a revolutionary Trotskyist organisation allying itself with a conservative Islamist one. It is this pairing that makes Respect’s position more than a little contradictory.”

    It goes on to say that Osama B has been given the honorary chairmanship of the party and he’s expected to attend a few meetings in London this year. Uncle A from Iran is the party secretary.

    JC.

    November 3, 2006 at 11:50 pm

  38. To quote skepticlawyer on Bassette, from the post:

    The New Left:

    Why I left the left, people

    I saw and heard some whacky crap during my stint on the left

    I suppose it *was* presumptuous of me to assume that she meant to refer to any kind of broader left wing political thinking, rather than the misguided freakery of one marginal ex-office-bearer in an increasingly irrelevant Party.

    On the Democrats, since you all seem to be so keen to hear denunciations: they’re an unneeded, unwanted offshoot of the Liberal Party who ought to have stayed around in the 1970s. Simple.
    Oh, and I saw Goodman Galloway with the Devil.

    Liam

    November 3, 2006 at 11:51 pm

  39. CL

    He lied.

    I emailed Leunig when the “artistic” competition was announced by the Iranian society of anti-semitic art suggesting he ought to enter the comp.

    He told the ABC he received my email by citing my comment that he “was a natural” and could easily win it.

    He then went on Denton and said he never uses computers.

    My question is : how did he know about my email?

    What a liar. He uses email like everyone else.

    JC.

    November 3, 2006 at 11:55 pm

  40. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll leave the thread to you all. I’ve dhimmi duty to attend to.

    Liam

    November 3, 2006 at 11:55 pm

  41. I’ll just say that a few years ago I knew Michael Leunig personally. He was generous enough to gift me the four cartoons he did over my book controversy (even though I offered to pay).

    Those four cartoons were exceptional. I don’t know where that Michael has gone, now.

    skepticlawyer

    November 3, 2006 at 11:55 pm

  42. The winners of that competition have been announced

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/more-anger-as-holocaust-cartoon-winners-unveiled/2006/11/02/1162339989025.html

    First prize went to a Morrocan

    Second prize went to a Frenchman and Brazilian

    Jason Soon

    November 3, 2006 at 11:59 pm

  43. Laime

    You know you hang round here because we’re right and this shit haunts every waking /sleeping hour. Come in through the door, bud, you don’t have to peer through the window.

    Of cuurse we’re an attractive chick: thats why you’re always looking through the bedroom window. It’s a big tent Liame. And you can wear the turtle neck, but give up the beret.

    JC.

    November 4, 2006 at 12:01 am

  44. The winning cartoon is here

    skepticlawyer

    November 4, 2006 at 12:04 am

  45. shit

    Leuig lost? Jeesh, I thought he’d scream it in.

    He was so romtanic on Denton. i almost shed a tear. He talked about how he walks around his country garden….. and sometimes he can fee l the breath of God on his shoulder. How touching.

    We also found out he doesn’t speak to any of his sibblings.

    The truth is maybe they’re not speaking to him.

    JC.

    November 4, 2006 at 12:05 am

  46. Come now, Mr Soon and SL, Bassette’s comment is neither reflective of the Democrats or the left. Nor is George Galloway or Leftwrites, for that matter.

    Larvatus Prodeo is apparently Australia’s most read lefty blog and Phil’s post on Hilali was an emphatic criticism.

    “Looking at the edited transcripts there is no way to spin this or hide inside the twin Burqa’s of misquote and misunderstood. We understand all too clearly what he’s saying, and it’s dark ages medieval stuff. He has a Sheiky grasp on Australian reality.

    So, let me add my voice to the chorus and plurality of voices in condemning his remarks – obviously nothing but an unreserved apology without explanation is called for.”

    http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/10/27/a-sheiky-grasp-on-reality

    The 155 comments left on that post were almost uniformly critical.

    For every weird opinion voiced by a lefty on the whole Islamofascism issue there is at least one equally nutty opinion expressed by a righty. That includes Goward’s opinion that the shifty Sheikh should be deported- even though he is a citizen.

    melaleuca

    November 4, 2006 at 12:05 am

  47. I know for a dead cert you’re not at all like that, Steve. But there are lefties who are, and righties who are too (which I tried to address above, for Liam’s benefit).

    And I’d really like to know where it comes from.

    skepticlawyer

    November 4, 2006 at 12:13 am

  48. The post’s intro link is “The New Left”. I would have thought that indicates she was differentiating this latest incarnation of Islamoleftism from an older left that would have – perhaps – monstered Hilali without qualification. Yes, I know “New Left” and “Old Left” have quasi-specific meanings in political historiography but I think we can safely say now that we now have a new (new?) New Left – let’s call it the Leunig Left.

    This left has abandoned its longstanding contempt for religion (Eric Blair commends his readers’ “decorum” in a discussion of Islam happening over at LP); it has abandoned its commitment to transgressive art for art’s sake (hedging and dodging over the Danish cartoons); it has abandoned its uncompromising love of free speech (Benedict XVI deserved what he got); it has abandoned its vigorous and cross-culturally absolute feminism (a la Bassette and, formerly, Natasha Stott Despoja who donned a veil to demonstrate her solidarity with Islamic misogyny); it will now use homophobia to destroy its enemies – be they Republican email fetishists or Sydney talk-back kings; it will now express doubts about “foreign workers”.

    This is the New Left and I hope you’re not part of it Liam because it’s the most despicable, cowardly political movement of this new century.

    C.L.

    November 4, 2006 at 12:13 am

  49. Maybe I should call it ‘the New (new) Left’, CL. Buggered if I know.

    skepticlawyer

    November 4, 2006 at 12:16 am

  50. Should have read: “I would have thought that indicates SL was differentiating…”

    Apologies for edit-generated rudeness, SL.

    C.L.

    November 4, 2006 at 12:16 am

  51. Munn
    We all know that the reason you oppose fascist Islam. It’s because it threatens you as a gay person. Yes Munn, you have said this yourself in so many words.
    That really doesn’t count, as Birdy and I feel that the reason is purely selfish… In other words it’s all about you.

    Don’t get me wrong, even though your motives are purely selfish, as a libertarian I can relate to selfish motives, however not selectively so.

    It’s interesting how you see the light when your own hide is threatened; yet display almost hysterical anger when some poor unsuspecting right-winger is talking about the benefits of labor reform. You’re so pathetic Munnchkin I could almost correctly label you a green party supporter. Ohh…. that’s right, you are.

    A summary of the “party’s” manifesto is further up the thread. I was rolling on the floor in fits of laughter when I read it. Munnchkin, you take that swill seriously? Say it ain’t so bro. I’ll respect you in the morning.

    Note to self…. This is gunna get Munnchkin’s racist flame off and going.

    You big Mary.

    JC.

    November 4, 2006 at 12:19 am

  52. CL,

    This New Left thing, I would humbly suggest, is a figment of your imagination. Certainly none of the lefties in my network have any time for the likes of Hilali- and that includes fellow Greens members.

    You have an unfortunate habit of stringing together a few factoids to develop grand but hollow theories.

    As to SL’s question, I think a very warped and misguided version of “siding with the underdog” may explain Bassette’s coments.

    melaleuca

    November 4, 2006 at 12:26 am

  53. “This is the New Left and I hope you’re not part of it Liam because it’s the most despicable, cowardly political movement of this new century.”

    I disagree a little here, Cl, if you pardon me. But that lot hanging its shingle beside’s Stalin when he went with Hitler were an attractive bunch… NOT
    The left always rises to the occasion when the opportunity presents itself. It never disappoints. It has Ted Kennedy, that lover of dead women, as one of its standard bearers.

    JC.

    November 4, 2006 at 12:26 am

  54. As to SL’s question, I think a very warped and misguided version of “siding with the underdog” may explain Bassette’s coments.

    That’s as good an explanation as I’ve heard, Steve. I think it probably accounts for a fair bit of Galloway and the Leftwrites crowd, too.

    skepticlawyer

    November 4, 2006 at 12:28 am

  55. Mind you, in Galloway’s case, much is also attributable to sheer opportunism.

    skepticlawyer

    November 4, 2006 at 12:31 am

  56. Munns comment 54

    Of course. Bob Brown is far too busy saving the rain forrest in the Antarctic Peninsula to even know there is an issue with Islamic barbarians.

    JC.

    November 4, 2006 at 12:32 am

  57. SL
    “Mind you, in Galloway’s case, much is also attributable to sheer opportunism.”

    You just defined the left…. Gorgeous George was simply acting in the best traditions.

    JC.

    November 4, 2006 at 12:34 am

  58. JC,

    I think I’ll just go back to my former policy of ignoring your barrage of insults. I’d prefer to have an intelligent conversation with grown ups, if you don’t mind.

    Your childish abuse ruins almost every thread and does a disservice to this site- one that I regard as one of the best on the net.

    melaleuca

    November 4, 2006 at 12:35 am

  59. Well yes JC, for weirdness anyway, the Hitler/Stalin pact is indeed comparable to the loose alliance between Islamic extremists and the Leunig Left.

    C.L.

    November 4, 2006 at 12:37 am

  60. Munn
    Funny how you say you respect Catallaxy and feel it is one the best sites around yet you have expounded numerous hatefilled racist expletives on this very site directed towards me even going so far as to steal my identity when doing so.
    So please spare us the swill. When you get on your hands and knees and apologise to Jase for doing that i will hold some back by maybe 20%.

    Otherwise, i’ll take you for what you are. A low rent idividual with serious issues..

    Don’t apolgise to me, as I couldn;t give a toss but you owe Jase a big apology you stupid green monster.

    JC.

    November 4, 2006 at 12:45 am

  61. I try to keep my comments at a reasonable length, Steve, but I invariably make an effort to bring some examples and facts to the discussion. I’m also not averse to marshalling many facts and evidentiary links on occasion. The facts I’ve referred to above cannot be denied. They evidence a trend in left-wing praxis and thought that constitutes a betrayal of progressivism and only a fool would deny that. Your suggestion of hollowness is itself hollow and is, of course, born of your own confounded philosophical embarrassment.

    Your own contribution to this debate so far consists of the following zinger of an argument: ‘some of my best friends are Hilali critics’. Gee, that’s a slam dunk.

    C.L.

    November 4, 2006 at 1:09 am

  62. “confounded philosophical embarrassment”

    Yes, I often experience that after midnight on a Friday. Blasted insomnia.

    melaleuca

    November 4, 2006 at 1:30 am

  63. He tried the schtik when he was trying to inform us he is not a racist punk. yea, he’s eaten Asian food and orso bucco of course proving lowrent steve isn’t a racist punk. Just pathetic. That’s what passes for deep thought at Green Party meetings I’d guess.

    It’s laughable isn’t it? “look girls, there’s 155 comments expressing criticism of the mad Eygption, which just proves the left is moderate”.

    Where’s the bucket.

    JC.

    November 4, 2006 at 1:35 am

  64. Munn’s argument about the underdog is interesting, but what a weird way to define an underdog, for we thought that the victims of rape (women as well as men) are true underdogs.

    However if islamists are underdogs, I also agree entirely with CL. This love affair of the left with Islamists may indeed have sympathy for the underdog as an underlying motivation. But these good intentions are creating havoc and consequences are enormous. To an extent, the problem is not the Islamists as such, the problem is with westerners who at best are still in a state of denial. It is the west that allowed this islamist monster to flourish, and we urgently need to find a cure. CL is spot on.

    Boris

    November 4, 2006 at 2:24 am

  65. It will wind up being self-fulfilling if young crackers think it gives them an exuse.

    But is there any evidence for this?

    Like evidence dating before the 90’s.

    I just thought it was about targets of opportunity. The fellow thinks to himself he can do this thing and get away with it.

    I wouldn’t trust the latest stats because it might have this horrific attitude incorporated into them. The data hopelessly buggered forever by the license that these crackers are giving their youngsters.

    In the old days it probably just meant that the girl didn’t have to buy her own drinks.

    But what gives? Where is the evidence for what these people are talking about?

    Even tainted evidence would be nice.

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 6:05 am

  66. The problem is that whilst LP may on this occasion condemn Hilaly they have yet to condemn the Islamic fundamentalism of Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, AQ and all the other criminal based brotherhoods that litter the place.

    Mike Carlton is saying that much of media comments on Hilaly are “blatant racism and religious bigotry”, now LP can get stuck into Carlton for being a racist bigot.

    rog

    November 4, 2006 at 6:48 am

  67. The idea of siding with the underdog has some legs. Roger Sandall has some good stuff on this which I will try to find. The idea is that the left have identified various ‘underdogs’ who are supposed to be the hope of the world.

    First it was the urban proletariat, but they just turned into bourgeoise instead of becoming the new dictators (under Red leadership).

    Then it was the suffering masses of the Third World, but something went wrong there as well.

    Then it became various other marginalised or oppressed groups – take your pick – women, gays, refugees.

    And then the environment.

    Rafe Champion

    November 4, 2006 at 6:53 am

  68. “Well yes JC, for weirdness anyway, the Hitler/Stalin pact is indeed comparable to the loose alliance between Islamic extremists and the Leunig Left.”

    Well they both came out of the socialist church. They had been allies and remained allies until the day Hitler invaded.

    But we might be onto it here. The Jhadists are utopian eschatologists. As are many of the hard leftists.

    So they would be drawn together.

    They both wish to rip down the old order. To get society to shed its skin.

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 7:17 am

  69. No come on Liam. Lets here it. Don’t wimp out.

    “The Left of which I’m a member has always despised the Australian Democrats, and everything they stand for. Don’t try and pin this shit on us.”

    The Democrats are leftist themselves. So lets get your explanation.

    Is it because they are generally non-Utopian-Eschatological leftists that you hate them.

    You’re gutless Liam. You never explain yourself. Last time I tried to get some sort of answers out of you you found a ridiculous excuse and staged a walkout.

    “The Left of which I’m a member has always despised the Australian Democrats, and everything they stand for….”

    Why?

    Where is the evidence for this?

    That you’ve always hated them and everything they stood for?

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 7:24 am

  70. she’s right…

    she did go for political suicide…well done…just managed to cement the death of the democrats…

    even the hilalalalalalalli guy himself is apologetic…whats with these idiots….

    c8to

    November 4, 2006 at 8:50 am

  71. I must say Suzanne Bassette’s comments are extraordinary in that they actually agree with Hilaly.

    This is actually past the leftwrites stuff which doesn’t actually agree with the sentiments but merely calls Howard a hypocrite and the attacks motivated by racism and being an excuse. I don’t agree with this position by the way but it is different from Suzanne Bassette’s position.

    I think the main reason though that leads people on the left to this position is merely thinking the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If the rest of the right making points more in like with John Ray I think you’ld find Suzanne Bassette condemming the sexist remarks.

    Steve Edney

    November 4, 2006 at 8:59 am

  72. Just to be fair, I reproduce the following response from a left-leaning Howard hating friend when I sent her Bassette’s comments:

    “Political suicide indeed. and she deserves a political Darwin award for removing herself from the political gene pool”

    Jason Soon

    November 4, 2006 at 10:14 am

  73. BTW Galloway is a despicable piece of shite but I think he does actually believe in what he says.

    Jason Soon

    November 4, 2006 at 10:16 am

  74. Currency, there’s a core of truth in what you’re saying. It’s true that amongst the broader Left there’s been a retreat from the dreams of universal Progress and Peace, moral cross-cultural absolute values, to be brought about into a paradise by the iron logic of the dialectic, on the bayonets of an armed, united working class, and imposed through revolution. Nowadays the cause of Labor is furthered by managerialist economists and lawyers who wouldn’t know their Third International from their 20th Party Congress. I can’t help but see that as a good thing.

    I’m also not averse to marshalling many facts and evidentiary links on occasion.

    No indeed, no-one’d ever accuse you of that 🙂
    Now, as to the evidence presented here—Leunig and Bassette—neither of them are claimed by the Left, and have not been for a very long time. Leunig in particular suffered enormously, and rightly, for one particular cartoon of the early 1990s (before he went truly unhinged) attacking childcare. Bassette is having to leave the Democrats in disgrace; hardly evidence to her left-wing credentials.
    One of the reasons I read Catallaxy is to learn about the great, enormous, unbridgeable gaps in the broad churches of the Right, about which I’m constantly learning. Why is there such an urge to conflate the Left into one amorphous mass, Democrats, Labor, and neo-Trotskiite Leftwrites all together?

    Liam

    November 4, 2006 at 10:58 am

  75. Also, Currency there’s one very serious point of inconsistency in your argument: I’m not quite sure how you can both condemn the Left for pandering to multiculturalism, and condemn Labor and the trade union movement for fear-mongering about foreigners. (Though I think you’re wrong on both counts, naturally).
    Surely it’s got to be one or the other?

    Liam

    November 4, 2006 at 11:05 am

  76. The left fragmented when class was overtaken by gender, sexual preference, religion (incl. atheism as a reaction to religion) as points of fragmentation, compounding its failure to guarantee broad economic prosperity. The only people who regard leftism as worth criticising are those of us old enough to remember it as cohesive and potent.

    even the hilalalalalalalli guy himself is apologetic…whats with these idiots….

    He hasn’t apologised, he expressed regret that non-Muslims had gotten a hold of his speech.

    BTW Galloway is a despicable piece of shite but I think he does actually believe in what he says.

    Agree with the first part, as to the second I could only agree if I accepted situational ethics. The man’s a snake.

    Andrew Elder

    November 4, 2006 at 11:29 am

  77. Well Liam, regarding conflation, I have allowed in my comment above that the Leunig Left can be differentiated from another left that isn’t Leunigian. That was the concession inhering in my delineation of a “New New New Left” – that there was/is another non Leunigian left.

    I do think the Leunigians, however, are in the ascendant. Even Peter Garret issued a boilerplate critique of Ole Catmeat Hilali before thrusting out the now standard – in his case, alliteratively explained – BIG BUT: ‘his comments are appalling, women never responsible bla bla bla, BUT we Australians are kinda-sorta just as bad in the barrooms, bedrooms and boardrooms’.

    Regarding multiculturalism and Labor Hansonism, I think the party is simply mixing up its signals and messages depending on the constituency being addressed. Labor’s King Gee class has never given a toss about multiculturalism but that isn’t to say the old Grasbian tradeoff isn’t worthwhile pursuing in certain electorates. How much chance do you think an Alan Carpenter would have surviving in a Sydney electorate after his declaration that Sandgropers might regret welcoming foreign workers into Western Australia?

    C.L.

    November 4, 2006 at 11:37 am

  78. Well I think the contradiction can be reconciled pretty well. Hark back to Whitlam’s ‘fucking Vietnamese balts’ comment and the fact that the strongest defenders of the Vietnamese boatpeople in those days came from the Right and included people like Santamaria, Gerard Henderson, Knopfelmacher, etc. And as I recall reading (not that I was around at the time), the unions were in a bit of a disquiet at the time.

    It is a shame that Howard squandered all this political capital for the Right back in those days with his later comments on immigration but Howard really isn’t that smart anyway, his is a short term form of cunning.

    Contrast this with the excuses and apologies for Islamic fundamentalism and bad behaviour among some refugee groups made by parts of the Left.

    The fact is that certain sections of the Left (note that I am careful not to throw in everyone) who say there are into multiculturalism are really into refugees who can be clients of the State forever and more and who fit into a certain Rousseauan ‘noble savage’ mould i.e. those who equally hate ‘decadent capitalism’ and ‘Western values’ and those who prefer to make their living in the multicultural industry as ‘ethnic leaders’ and their assorted hangers on (e.g. Keysar Trad) rather than in more useful occupations.

    Anti-communist refugees and those willing to work hard for low wages do not fit into these favoured categories.

    Jason Soon

    November 4, 2006 at 11:59 am

  79. Pretty good, I think, Currency, especially in Western Sydney.
    Thank you for conceding my point on the plurality of leftyness. As to your Leunigistanians (though I think you’re wrong about their ascendancy, and there are good reasons why he lives on a farm in the middle of nowhere), I don’t see how you can have cause for complaint. Peter Garrett’s comments are a pretty good reflection of my views also.
    1. Condemnation, specifically, of Hilaly,
    2. Assertion that rape is always wrong, and
    3. An extension of the analysis into a broader social critique. White men can rape.
    And that’s hardly selling out feminism, universalism or the ideals of the Auld Left, for which young crusties like Andrew Elder are so nostalgic.

    Liam

    November 4, 2006 at 12:01 pm

  80. selling out feminism, universalism or the ideals of the Auld Left

    No point selling something out when you can’t even give it away these days. All those people who go on about the market Liam, they may be onto something!

    Andrew Elder

    November 4, 2006 at 12:05 pm

  81. Agreed on Howard in 87-88, Jason. That was a major head explosion – Asian immigration to this country has been a resounding and wonderful success. How he screwed up his radar on the ‘value’ of Asians to the Liberal Party like this remains amazing – just to look at it, for a moment, from the standpoint of electoral politics. At least Whitlam’s crass indifference to the Vietnamese was internally rational for a Laborite: he realised these people were not going to be good little bribe-able Grasbians. One of the interesting things about Labor’s new version of Hansonism is that criticism of it has to be outsourced to Greg Sheridan and a few other commentators. Howard knows he can’t go there girlfriend because of 87-88.

    C.L.

    November 4, 2006 at 12:12 pm

  82. Liam, I think what you call the “extension of the analysis” – or what I call the BIG BUT (see also Mike Carlton) – actually has the effect of partially rehabilitating the culprit by affording his vile rhetoric the undeserved status of issue icebreaker. If Jack van Tongeren made some well-publicised remark about Aborigines being genetically stupid, would Garret, Fraser, Leunig and Carlton respond by saying “this is appalling and wrong BUT let’s face it, Aborigines aren’t doing well enough in our schools”? My guess is no, they wouldn’t.

    C.L.

    November 4, 2006 at 12:31 pm

  83. “Why is there such an urge to conflate the Left into one amorphous mass, Democrats, Labor, and neo-Trotskiite Leftwrites all together?”

    They are all (with the exception of the Labour right) nutballs Liam. Wrong about everything they believe in. Idiots impervious to reason and the facts of reality.

    We might link them as well with any other mad bastards. They just come under the set of NUTBALLS and MOONBATS.

    What distinguishing ideas do they have that aren’t plain wrong, silly, childish and ludicrous?

    Who really cares what wing of bad-craziness they sit with. I would group them in the same anti-capitalist group as the jihadists. It matters not that they might eventually squabble with eachother once human freedom is destroyed.

    They are all hateful and stupid. Its a bit of a specialist field to disaggregate such people when they have so many things in common on the deeper level.

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 12:53 pm

  84. GB
    That’s about right. What’s amazing is the amount of damage they reap around the world.

    Liame.
    I never ever want to hear you talk about rights and freedoms until you apologise for supporting the Muslim Blasphemy laws. Until then, you have no right ever passing judgment on any issues again. If you can’t rally in favour of free speech- possibly the most important of all civil rights- you have no business taking positions on other issues.

    JC.

    November 4, 2006 at 1:14 pm

  85. would Garret, Fraser, Leunig and Carlton respond by saying “this is appalling and wrong BUT let’s face it, Aborigines aren’t doing well enough in our schools”? My guess is no, they wouldn’t.

    My guess is that yes, they would, and that they would attribute blame for that situation to white racist curricula/insufficient regard for Aboriginal cultural values being expressed as learning difficulties for Aboriginal children etc.

    yobbo

    November 4, 2006 at 1:51 pm

  86. Thanks everyone for your insightful comments. I’ve been doing a bunch of other stuff today so haven’t checked in until now.

    I’m glad no-one went off in a huff, because this has now turned into a really interesting thread, with lots of good ideas into the mix, and some more interesting comments (Andrew E & Rafe) too. Rafe, If you can come up with that stuff on the underdog, I’d be interested to read it, and then maybe get some thoughts from Andrew E on how that has undermined a left that was once ‘cohesive and potent’.

    skepticlawyer

    November 4, 2006 at 2:15 pm

  87. Related:

    “And I don’t understand why the left aren’t upset about this. When it was just crazy people like Reagan and Thatcher who had nukes, the left thought Armageddon was coming in the next 48 hours. And now, it’s just perfectly sane chaps like Kim Jong Il and President Ahmadinejad who have them, the left couldn’t care less.”

    – Mark Steyn

    C.L.

    November 4, 2006 at 2:22 pm

  88. there is some method in that madness.

    If either North Korea or Iran get nuclear weapons they can only use them defensively because their defence forces lack the resources to attack after using nuclear missiles.

    In other words if either nation used nuclear weapons to attack another one they would be soon either a massive mushroom cloud or hit will an almighty number of conventional weapons.

    Thus the nuclear weapons are a waste of money.

    Both the USSR and the USA had the capacity to destroy the planet if one is secular minded.

    Bring Back EP at LP

    November 4, 2006 at 2:30 pm

  89. Homer, for the 100th time, the value of nuclear weapons is NOT limited to their use in an actual nuclear exchange. An Iranian Bomb would increase Tehran’s conventional stranglehold in the region and make it untouchable whenever it masterminded or bankrolled further acts of terrorism. This is the proximate danger; the ultimate danger is a Middle East with a half-dozen countries acquiring nuclear weapons (read today’s news). This will be far more dangerous for the world than anything that happened during the Cold War between the US and USSR. There is no “method” to the left’s apathy about all this at all.

    PS: Courtesy of the New York Times, we now know Saddam Hussein was also on the verge of nukes. And so ends the Iraq War debate. Bush won.

    C.L.

    November 4, 2006 at 2:41 pm

  90. As usual the west never learns. Want to see a glimspe of hell. Thank God we live in far off Oz

    Feast your eyes on this.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html

    I then suggest we curse the side that wanted to go easy on Iran….. yep discussions certainly worked. The only thing left to do now is to make sure we spend every single dollar available of Missile defense.

    Yep. That missile defense the left keeps telling us is too provocative.

    JC.

    November 4, 2006 at 2:42 pm

  91. “Thus the nuclear weapons are a waste of money.”

    What is your reasoning here?

    So it was all a waste of money. And the Soviet Union… always totally scraping about the place for some cash, spent this fortune on nuclear weapons…

    But they wasted every dollar in your view right?

    And there was no connection between these nukes and their record of success in extending their influence in the world every year right up until the emergence of Reagan..

    Is that your view.

    Don’t be a fucking idiot EP.

    Retract this idiocy.

    I’m getting fucking angry at you just for being such a stupid c-word fuckhead?

    Why do you spew this nonsense you complete shithead?

    Why?

    What’s your fucking purpose?

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 2:49 pm

  92. I seriosuly don’t know how on earth we counter this. A major European city will have to be blown up before the other 50% of the Western electorate begin to see the danger signs.

    JC.

    November 4, 2006 at 2:49 pm

  93. Your message like fatfingers is always loud and clear from the point of view of consistent treason.

    Don’t do a damn thing about the other guys weapons. They are useless….

    or

    Nothing we can do to improve our own situation can possibly help… Because we’ll always be outgunned ten to one.

    or

    We don’t need to do anything because no-one can reach us.

    or

    No-one would ever try to invade us or blow up a bomb in one of our cities since this would be irrational.

    or

    …………..

    You see it doesn’t matter what you leftist swine say. Its always for the purpose of getting as many people as possible killed and destroying anything good in this world.

    It doesn’t matter whether you guys contradict yourself on the same topic or yet even in the same fucking post.

    You always get hold of the policy optionin the service of supporting mass murderers and the influence they have on us.

    If there has been a recent terrorist attack you will say that you cannot fight terrorism. There is nothing you can do.

    If there has not been a recent terrorist attack you will claim its all a beatup and its all the politics of fear.

    Admit to be human filth EP.

    You too fatfingers and Liam.

    Just admit that you are in fact vermin.

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 2:55 pm

  94. Bird
    Tone down your abuse of Homer and the others (and btw his name is Homer, not EP).

    Homer for one is a not a commie, he is a conservative evangelical. He just says very silly things sometimes.

    Jason Soon

    November 4, 2006 at 2:59 pm

  95. You’re a top bloke and very funny, Graeme, but do that again and you will get sooned. I was preparing the seasoning for the roast so didn’t get to see it in time.

    Just sayin.

    skepticlawyer

    November 4, 2006 at 3:08 pm

  96. Isn’t it more the case that the left barracks for victim groups rather than the putative underdog? Or again, maybe that’s what changed about the left. They used to be for the underdog, but morphed (perhaps some time in the 80’s) into supporting the victim, then further morphed (IMHO) into self-identifying with the victim. Keith Windschuttle had a piece recently arguing that the only victim group really left for the left bourgeoisie to champion was themselves.

    Rob

    November 4, 2006 at 3:09 pm

  97. Bird has been right all along. This century is shaping up to be a bad one for the West if we don’t quickly get our act together. In fact it could fatal.

    How to handle it: The Birds theory

    1. Raise our tax-free threshold to $25,000 while reducing churning and waste by imposing a negative income tax.

    2. Cut non-defense spending and push that amount into military spending as we should be working on the assumption there is a chance the US simply goes isolationist again. They do that, we‘re dead meat.

    3. Use lots of the money diverted away from non military spending to finance to finance the best missile defense system possible….. and keep on improving it..
    ‘

    If are unable to keep the lid on nukes in the Mid East, it’s gonna get real horrible.

    Bird, Homer is a nice guy and means well. He doesn’t have an ounce of malice in him. Soon’s right, Homes just says silly things.

    JC.

    November 4, 2006 at 3:14 pm

  98. Birdy and CL and whomever.
    Nukes are a waste of money because you can never use them.
    morevoer once you have them someone else in the neighbourhoos gets them and it is nil all again.

    They only stop nations invading or attacking you.
    They have no advantage in offensive war situations.
    You need a highly competent defence force to provide back up after the initial strike.

    contrary to CL’s delusions Iraq never possessed this. Never looked like possessing the capability.
    Their army. air force , navy were a joke.

    Neither has Iran the capability of backing up any nuclear capacity.

    As for North Korea…

    perhaps I have have been too subtle I do not believe either in the past or in the future we would be allowed to destroy thisd planet .
    Afterall we are only stewards.

    Birdy ,
    I will only respond if you use civil language.
    engage in further swearing and I will ignore you.

    Bring Back EP at LP

    November 4, 2006 at 3:25 pm

  99. Yes, Homer is a gentleman and a friend.

    And I look forward to personally welcoming him from the banks of the Tiber – a poor Lambeth refugee – as he comes home to the One True Church. 😉

    C.L.

    November 4, 2006 at 3:27 pm

  100. So you and Homer are converting to libertarianism, CL?

    Jason Soon

    November 4, 2006 at 3:30 pm

  101. Oh that’s very good CL. Even I (an atheist and skeptic and all) can appreciate that…

    skepticlawyer

    November 4, 2006 at 3:30 pm

  102. CL has catholic tastes and likes purple robes despite this he is one of the finest Howard/Bush apologists around at the moment despite his persistent and time consuming bludging by not writing on his very good blog!!!!!

    I say for everyone in the blogosphere CL.
    Get back to your blog and start writing

    Bring Back EP at LP

    November 4, 2006 at 3:33 pm

  103. …contrary to CL’s delusions Iraq never possessed this. Never looked like possessing the capability.

    Tell the New York Times! Dubya vindicated!

    C.L.

    November 4, 2006 at 3:33 pm

  104. I’ve been considering it, Homer, but I actually think I forget how to drive it!

    Adios for now, anyway, folks!

    C.L.

    November 4, 2006 at 3:35 pm

  105. CL,
    Iraq did not have the capability to followup any nuclear strike.
    That is the point

    Bring Back EP at LP

    November 4, 2006 at 3:38 pm

  106. “Birdy and CL and whomever.
    Nukes are a waste of money because you can never use them.”

    You idiot.

    If you never have to use them how is THAT a waste of money?

    Thats success?

    So how is it a waste of money?

    And who says you can never use them? What are you talking about. Just because in a **** world they never got used why is it that you think they won’t be used in a multi-nuclear world.

    Dope.

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 3:53 pm

  107. “Neither has Iran the capability of backing up any nuclear capacity.”

    Why are you saying this idiocy?

    There is America. There people and their Iraqi charges being slaughtered on a daily basis with Irans assistance and they don’t even have the courage to TALK ABOUT IT because they don’t feel up to fighting back.

    What will be the situation if they get nukes.

    The left already alibied Saddam from 9/11 and he was just thought to have some chemical weapons and stuff.

    If a nuke goes off in Sydney or Chicago whose to say they won’t simply blame it on some terrorist group again?

    Nothing to see here.

    No Middle Eastern terrorist regimes involved.

    Actually they went further then that and retrospectively cleared Saddams regime of being a terrorist regime.

    If there are 12 nuclear powers and a bomb goes off we might retaliate against the people who we think might have done it.

    Or then again we might not.

    But if there are 50 who do we retaliate against?

    And since we cannot rightly retaliate how can we prevent it?

    How can we prevent it particularly if the left is going to alibi any likely suspects?

    We cannot.

    We cannot therefore stop it from happening by the threat of retaliation.

    So its obvious that we need to use pre-emption.

    And its easy enough. You just bomb the facilities until they cannot produce the weapons.

    What could be more simple then that?

    I mean just how crazy are we?

    When we could just bomb bomb bomb until the problem is solved and barely kill anyone.

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 4:03 pm

  108. homer

    Not for nothing, but you should give it some hought before you put paw to keyboard.

    JC.

    November 4, 2006 at 4:08 pm

  109. What is your purpose EP?

    What have you got against stopping mass murderers getting nukes.

    What is the sense in this. You say the nukes are useless.

    But you are lying?

    Do we have ANY chance of getting rid of the North Korean slave labour camps if they get nukes?

    Why not stop them from getting nukes in the first place?

    What is your reasoning really?

    You cannot sustain this idea that nukes have no valence to these dictators. It makes all the difference in the world because we don’t want to get millions of people killed in order to be able to deal with these people.

    So you are simply lying when you are saying that these things are not useful.

    Why lie like this.

    The North Koreans were willing to starve millions of people rather then abandon their nuclear program.

    Why would they do this for something that is useless.

    Its not useless to them.

    You are lying.

    It wasn’t useless for the Chinese to have nukes during the Vietnam war. It enabled them to aid proxies with impunity.

    Now you are just lying.

    Admit you are lying and tell us why you are doing it.

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 4:09 pm

  110. in the midst of Birdy’s ramblings.
    CL’s story of time’s story is about Iraq PRE-Gulf war.

    Unless someone can show that decision makers in Iran or North Korea are interested in suicide then they will not use any nukes.

    In other words they have spent a lot of money gaining weapons they cannot use.
    birdy do a cost benefit analysis on that!

    Bring Back EP at LP

    November 4, 2006 at 4:17 pm

  111. “Unless someone can show that decision makers in Iran or North Korea are interested in suicide then they will not use any nukes.”

    You idiot!

    1. Its not suicide to use a nuke if no-one know its you.

    2. A nuke doesn’t need to be used in order to have been successful.

    In fact IF IT IS NOT USED then it has been successful.

    Now you’ve had this explained to you MANY TIMES.

    So why are you still lying and complaining that they are not useful.

    Now hurry up and explain your lying

    No I wasn’t fucking rambling you bastard.

    You were lying about that too.

    Now explain yourself.

    “Unless someone can show that decision makers in Iran or North Korea are interested in suicide then they will not use any nukes.”

    That….. Does….. Not…… Follow……… You ……. Idiot.,

    How does that follow?

    It doesn’t follow does it?

    So why are you still lying about it?

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 4:22 pm

  112. “In other words they have spent a lot of money gaining weapons they cannot use.”

    Don’t you get it you dope.

    Thats the ultimate success of the weaponry.

    Thats the number 1 option.

    The number 1 option is to not have to fight. To have the weapons that mean you can do what it is you want to do and not have to fight.

    2. The number option is to fight and win. Or to fight and maliciously do a great deal of damage. But thats not the number 1 option. The number one option is to not have to fight and to get away with intimidation and mass murder if that is what you are into.

    “In other words they have spent a lot of money gaining weapons they cannot use.”

    You do understand WHY you are being an idiot don’t you?

    We spend money on weaponry. And your theory is that IF WE DON’T USE THOSE WEAPONS THEY ARE A WASTE OF MONEY.

    But you are being ridiculous. If you don’t have to use the weaponry thats the ultimate success of the weaponry.

    Now stop doing this play-dumb-and-win attempt because I’m not just going to let it go.

    You are being an idiot.

    Now admit that you are being an idiot and promise to never do that again.

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 4:28 pm

  113. We didn’t USE the F111’s did we. Not at least for a couple of decades right?

    I mean for a long time we didn’t bomb anyone with these F111’s right.

    So under idiots theory here they were a waste of money right?

    Its not to be assumed that EP isn’t simply lying here.

    I mean he cannot really be this stupid.

    You conservatives put up with this constant idiocy and just smile to yourself about your superior intellect.

    But its not to be assumed that EP isn’t just flat our lying here.

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 4:31 pm

  114. GMB, awful close to sooning there, brother.

    skepticlawyer

    November 4, 2006 at 4:31 pm

  115. Its good for him Skeptic.

    He needs it.

    Its therapy.

    I have his well-being in mind when I do these things.

    And its also important for younger third parties who don’t quite understand defense issues. They seem to be wrapped in mystery and jargon.

    And there is this idea that the natural way of things is peace and that war is an abberation.

    Whereas in reality ‘no peace keeps itself’. And it takes a lot of hard work and investment to have the peace of ones choosing.

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 4:35 pm

  116. Birdy,

    try use the queen’s english.

    What are you trying to say.
    They are going to nuke someone via a third party?

    They cannot nuke anyone because they will end up dead themselves. no-one is interested in suicide!

    By the way.
    WE used F111s old son as in flying them around.

    How many nukes have you sen used?

    Bring Back EP at LP

    November 4, 2006 at 4:44 pm

  117. Ummm, I think the Iranian nutjob is interested in suicide – it kind of goes with the territory.

    And no GMB, I like to read Catallaxy at work, so too much bad language will get you sooned. You don’t have to live with the JAG spamfilter. I do.

    skepticlawyer

    November 4, 2006 at 4:53 pm

  118. SL, the Persians have always outsourced suicide jobs to arabs!!

    Bring Back EP at LP

    November 4, 2006 at 5:00 pm

  119. Homer
    Proliferation of nukes in the hands of the bad guys is a serious, serious problem. If a bomb goes off in a city we won’t know who set it off. MAD becomes redundant. Do you understand this difference?

    JC.

    November 4, 2006 at 5:00 pm

  120. look at your last comment Homer.

    Do you understand what outsourcing would mean if these critters had nukes.

    Of all places, Iran had a hand in setting off a bomb in Argentina about 10 years ago killing 70 people. Think about that! Of all places places that’s where they decided to project their version of terror. They are also responsible for the Kobi towers attack which killed a few hundred US soldiers. They have constantly projected terror at us since the revolution.

    Now rap the idiot, Uncle A ,the mad mullahs. terrorists around a few nukes and what do you get?

    thsoe are this issues we’re goiing to have to face, homer.

    JC.

    November 4, 2006 at 5:07 pm

  121. Of course they’ll nuke people through third parties.

    Or they will carry out non-nuclear terrorist attacks and we catch them they will say ‘screw you. You cannot do squat. We’ve got the bomb’

    Now what is your stupid argument again?

    That these guys are so delusional they are spending billions of dollars over decades to get hold of something that is inherently useless.

    This is a stupid theory EP.

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 5:13 pm

  122. What do you think they do NOW Homer you twit.

    They kill people through third parties. And we can never know for sure at the time which regime(s) are responsible.

    Now they really do do this sort of thing Homer. They really do you know. I’m not just making it up.

    So you could make the argument that they would never do these things on the exact same basis that you claim that they won’t use the nukes.

    But they do these bad things despite your trenchant analysis.

    And having nukes will allow them to continue or expand upon this.

    After all having nukes makes it possible for China to have spies in Australia. Now thats pretty silly isn’t it. Why would they have spied in Australia.

    But you saying that something is silly is not going to stop murderous dictators doing the sort of things that murderous dictators do.

    They act independently of your primitive notions of how you think they SHOULD act.

    How you think they SHOULD act is not how they actually act. When have dictators acted in ways that your theory of how they SHOULD act would predict.

    See normal people have to deal with real threats and can’t make-believe them away in your childish fashion.

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 5:19 pm

  123. Birdy, JC

    please go and read.
    for nukes to go places they need to be ‘weaponised’ to use a horrible yank expression.
    In this case a warhead and a missile is needed.
    Do you actually know what is needed to do this.
    The expense involved.

    JC outsourcing suicide bombers is very different to nukes as any book on AQ would tell you which is why no expert on the group ever thought they would go near them.

    Bring Back EP at LP

    November 4, 2006 at 5:37 pm

  124. So Homer

    Unlike pakistan and India, you are telling us that Iran and the rest of the potential proliferators cannot achieve the job of fitting a nuke on a missile? Is that what your paw made you write?

    There are other ways of delievering a nuke. How about a trigger device on a container ship?

    JC.

    November 4, 2006 at 5:42 pm

  125. Homer, you forget that some of these leaders do sometimes act irrationally. Saddam did (or he wouldn’t be where he is now).

    GMB, how sad it is that your excellent post is infested with abuse, and thus inhibits a good discussion.

    CL, can you supply a link to the NYT piece?

    Boris

    November 4, 2006 at 6:00 pm

  126. JC,

    I am afraid a nuclear deevice would be spotted these days.
    US security is pretty good that way.
    Easier to get a conventional bomb through funny enough.

    Boris,
    There is no leader who is willing to commit suicide. That is what happens when you launch a nuclear missile against another country in the area we are talking about.

    now I an off to watch New Tricks and finish off the latest economist

    Bring Back EP at LP

    November 4, 2006 at 6:18 pm

  127. Boris, brief commentary by James Taranto and link to the New York Times’ accidental confirmation of Saddam’s nuclear intentions here.

    C.L.

    November 4, 2006 at 6:32 pm

  128. As Boris said, Graeme, you actually make excellent points. I agree with your views on nukes. I think Homer is being dense as usual.

    But your abuse does put some people off from reading you and therefore they think you’re just a verbally incontinent lunatic. You don’t do yourself justice.

    Jason Soon

    November 4, 2006 at 6:53 pm

  129. Yeah so they need to be weaponised.

    So whats your point?

    When China got its nukes they too needed to be weaponised.

    What was your point again?

    They need to be weaponised and they will find a way to weaponise them.

    Now therefore are you so confident that they can’t weaponise them right now that we can bomb this problem away?

    That would be the obvious implication of your great confidence.

    But grown-ups cannot go on your hunches dressed up to be certainties that always lead to the same conclusion….

    And that conclusion is always for the mass-murderers to gain strategic ground and for the rest of us to lose it.

    That is the policies you leftists produce with stunning 100% consistency.

    Now you say that they have yet to weaponise them. To shrink them down and put them on a backpack.

    Now I don’t know how you know that but that would be a pretty good guess.

    So the idea then would be to gear up now and take action of some sort.

    Surely thats the take home story here.

    But no. Thats not why you brought it up. You brought it up to argue, as you will argue in all cases.

    In all cases you and fatfingers and Liam will argue to act in such a way as for these evil bastards to gain strategic ground and for us to lose strategic ground.

    And you will never act differently.

    You say that they cannot every use these nukes. So that they are useless.

    Ergo we could get some Raptors…. And retain the ability to swoop on these bastards, in the dead of night, and hit all their damn targets.

    Of course then we fact the idea that they might destroy Seoul or the idea that we would still not be strong enough to stop China from retaliating.

    Now they have 14000 artillery pieces pointing at Seoul.

    And you would say that to use them all would be suicidal so that therefore they are useless as are the nukes that they are developing.

    But you are just a damn Quisling-traitor. Because you cannot mean what you are saying here.

    If we could swoop on them and destroy their capacity to produce weaponised nukes before they got that far……

    BUT WE DO NOT DO SO BECAUSE OF THEIR ARTILLERY PIECES POINTED AT SEOUL AND BECAUSE OF CHINAS NUKES……

    Then clearly these weapons… that therefore won’t get used…. Were useful despite the fact that they didn’t get used.

    If Australia isn’t protesting Chinas kidnapping of an Australian citizen outside of her own territory does this mean that the nukes weren’t useful?

    Well if it wasn’t the nukes why didn’t we demand and apology?

    How come within a few years of that we were offering them totally one-sided gas deals and we don’t strenuously protest their behaviour…… If all these nukes are totally useless why do we behave in this callous way?

    I tell you the truth. Within minutes of talking to a mainlander on the net the first thing they will do is threaten to throw nukes at us.

    How can you say that these nukes have no valence whatsoever?

    They let fascists BE just-as-fascist-as-they-wannabe.

    You CANNOT believe what you are saying.

    Supposing America is out of the picture. And suppose the Chinese have Taiwan and Japan is quelled.

    Now suppose then that the Chinese use skillfully covered up bribes and threats and their many international agents to start building bases in the Pacific Islands.

    What can we do about it if we cannot respond to anything they throw at us.

    They could have us surrounded by bases in no time WITHOUT EVER ONCE USING THEIR WEAPONS.

    And South East Asia would flip in their direction and we would hear no end of abuse and intimidation.

    In fact a lot of people have very short memories.

    During the last Gulf War the Americans rigged up our puny airforce with the JDAM.

    And now we could hit what we aimed at.

    Which meant for the first time with our ageing airforce we were suddenly catapulted up in our relative strength to the point where we could quickly paralyse a whole string of our neighbours.

    This little-known event marks a dividing line between the before and the after.

    Before we got no end of abuse from these people. Gareth bloody Evans always apologising.

    After the JDAM thats when the abuse stopped.

    Weapons do not need to be used to be useful.

    You have to be quits with this silliness from here on in.

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 6:57 pm

  130. Sort of back on topic, one of the things that strikes me about lefties in positions of authority, is that they use the position as somehow transferring extra credibility to their POV. So they commonly write a letter to the editor and sign off as “Professor K. Gueverra, School of Social Justice and Howard-Hating, RMIT.
    They are expressing their personal opinion, but by signing off as if their employer’s policy is consistent with their own. In this case, Bassette got what she deserved, but I am constantly amazed at how often academics in particular do this, and get away with it.

    This is of course one of the two reasons I use a blog name rather than my real one. Even with out posting my position, use of my real my name could could mean my views are construed as somehow representing the organisation I work for. The other of course, being I think it’s cool.

    entropy

    November 4, 2006 at 7:34 pm

  131. “There is no leader who is willing to commit suicide. ”

    How do you know? Hitler did. Imre Nad’ did. Saddam did.

    And trere are other players apart from leaders. Generals etc.

    Boris

    November 4, 2006 at 7:42 pm

  132. CL,

    Your link says

    But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

    That Iraq was doing weapons research prior to GWI is hardly news.

    Steve Edney

    November 4, 2006 at 7:57 pm

  133. Yeah thats bullshit EP.

    Where did you hear that? That there is no leader willing to commit suicide?

    And weather it was true or not it wouldn’t back up your JIVE about weapons having no valence when retrospectively they are not used.

    This could not be sillier.

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 7:58 pm

  134. “That Iraq was doing weapons research prior to GWI is hardly news.”

    It might not be news but its highly relevant.

    And that they had 500 tons of yellowcake and was looking for more thats relevent too.

    And that they had all sorts of radioactive powders and things that pretty relevant too.

    And the enriched-Uranium.

    And all sorts of other things.

    Its all relevant and its got to be repeated in view of all this rubbish about there being some sort of scandal about WMD.

    GMB

    November 4, 2006 at 8:09 pm

  135. Saddam Hussein had the nuclear blueprints to build a bomb in quick time and his ambassador to the, er, HOLY SEE – Wissam al-Zahawie – was mysteriously visiting Nigeria in 1999. Coincidentally, Zahawie used to be Baghdad’s man in charge of dealing with (that is, fobbing off) the IAEA.

    So then, Bush critics would have you believe:

    – Saddam used WMDs;
    – Saddam was trying to finesse weapons inspectors;
    – Saddam was thought by the Clinton administration to have links to Al Qaeda (that’s why Clinton bombed the Sudanese pharmaceuticals factory);
    – Saddam had all the technical information necessary for a nuclear weapon;
    – Saddam was seeking to buy African uranium;

    BUT that he wasn’t a threat anymore, had turned over a new leaf and would have been controlled by the UN authorities (who have done such a wonderful job controlling Iran and North Korea).

    Statistically, people who believe this would also tend to believe in the Easter Bunny.

    C.L.

    November 4, 2006 at 8:52 pm

  136. GMB and CL, stop conflating the issues. The main motivation for war, as declared by Bush and Blair, were that Saddam was on the verge of attacking the west with nukes. The logic was that if he restricted access to inspectors, he must be on something really serious. Most western goverments agreed although they disagreed how acute the threat was.

    In the end we found that Saddam bluffed. No nukes and no traces of serious research BETWEEN the two wars were found. This does not mean Saddam didn’t pose the danger or that he shouldn’t have been attacked. But it does mean the public was misled, perhaps unintentionally.

    Bush himself admitted this intelligence failure and no amount of intimidation from GMB will change that.

    Boris

    November 4, 2006 at 9:26 pm

  137. The main motivation for war, as declared by Bush and Blair, were that Saddam was on the verge of attacking the west with nukes.

    No it wasn’t.

    The official reasons for the war were:

    Self-defense

    – find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, weapons programs, and terrorists (the presence of which was believed in by the UN and most of the world’s intelligence agencies; the Clinton administration insisted on the links with Al Qaeda).

    – collect intelligence on networks of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists (from this enterprise have come the documents currently in the news – these confirm Iraq’s ability to build a nuclear weapon in short order).

    Humanitarian

    – end sanctions and deliver humanitarian support (according to Madeleine Albright, 500,000 children had died because of sanctions)

    – United Nations Security Council Resolution
    Resolution 1205, made in 1998.

    Regime Change

    – end the Saddam Hussein government (this became policy during the Clinton administration)

    – help Iraq’s transition to democratic self-rule

    Economic

    – secure Iraq’s oil fields and other resources

    C.L.

    November 4, 2006 at 10:06 pm

  138. Entropy, this happens on both sides. A few years ago a priest was sacked from Edith Cowan University for signing a petition against a gay parade. His “crime” was that he mentioned his post at the university when signing.

    Boris

    November 4, 2006 at 10:20 pm

  139. according to Skeptic (#1) the Democrats “are why she left the Left”, yet according to Liam (#15) “the Left has always despised the Australian Democrats, and everything they stand for.”

    I guess such is the fate of anyone who tries to move even slightly away from being part of a cheersquad for one’s idelogical dogmatism of choice.

    Nothing beats tribalism it seems. Once everyone can figure out what the name of their tribe is (and more importantly what the name of their enemy’s tribe is so they can define themselves against it), we should all be fine. Just apply the label – no need for further debate (although I think the “New (new) Left” label needs a bit of work)

    Still, I did once have a perception that Liam valued the notion of exchanging views and ideas, so it’s useful to have one’s illusions cleared up.

    (I’m assuming a comment on the actual topic of the post is still permissible – hope that’s OK)

    Andrew Bartlett

    November 5, 2006 at 12:32 am

  140. I’m assuming a comment on the actual topic of the post is still permissible – hope that’s OK

    Andrew if only you made a bit more clear what your point is.

    Boris

    November 5, 2006 at 1:31 am

  141. Hear hear, Boris.

    Senator?

    C.L.

    November 5, 2006 at 1:51 am

  142. I agree with Liam that the opinion of Ms Bassette is not typical of the left, and therefore an attack on the left from this perspective can be regarded as a cheap shot. But there is another interpretation: that such an opinion is an extreme form of a phenomenon widespread throughout all colours of the left – affinity with all things non-western and anti-wstern. In this multiculturalism is taken to such a degree that, say, mistreatment of women and blasphemy laws become understandable features of another culture. In this sense the post is relevant to all the left, except a small strain represented by Munn.

    Boris

    November 5, 2006 at 2:35 am

  143. Unusually rational from a democrat. No wonder she exited the party.

    Timothy Can

    November 5, 2006 at 9:39 am

  144. Sorry, didn’t realize this was yet another thread about Iraq, GMB’s crackpot theories, and who is truly a lefty and therefore in need of bashing.

    Timothy Can

    November 5, 2006 at 9:44 am

  145. More lefty cowardice in the weird Bassette mold:

    I know you’ve made the point that there are some rather liberating aspects of wearing (the face-covering niqab) because you don’t need to wear make-up, you don’t even have to think of matching skirts and tops. It’s like me. I’ve worn black for the last 30 years. It’s an enormous help in the mornings.

    – Phillip Adams

    C.L.

    November 5, 2006 at 10:21 am

  146. This is disappointing coming from Adams, a fellow atheist. Double standards indeed!

    If some people are stupid enough to go around wearing some clothing inherited from some ancient society of barbaric nomadic goat herds, I guess that’s their business but I don’t see why Adams needs to engage in this sort of sucking up.

    Jason Soon

    November 5, 2006 at 10:29 am

  147. Because ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’.

    Scott

    November 5, 2006 at 11:25 am

  148. Yeah Timothy, somehow it got onto Iraq, although people have been trying to drag it back on topic…

    skepticlawyer

    November 5, 2006 at 11:32 am

  149. What complete fucking idiocy are you on about now Timothy?

    You really are an idiot aren’t you?

    Notice you won’t be specific. Since if you were you would be shown to be talking shiite.

    GMB

    November 5, 2006 at 12:20 pm

  150. Straight for the jugular, eh Graeme?

    Jason Soon

    November 5, 2006 at 12:23 pm

  151. But there is another interpretation: that such an opinion is an extreme form of a phenomenon widespread throughout all colours of the left – affinity with all things non-western and anti-western. In this multiculturalism is taken to such a degree that, say, mistreatment of women and blasphemy laws become understandable features of another culture. In this sense the post is relevant to all the left, except a small strain represented by Munn.

    This is what I was getting at in my main post, Boris – thanks for putting it so succinctly. Interesting that (instead) one of the effects was generating some reasonably solid mutual distaste between Liam and the Senator. And I’d really like the latter to come back and clarify what he meant.

    skepticlawyer

    November 5, 2006 at 12:30 pm

  152. Well, that was the intention behind my rhetorical question too, SL. To encourage a discussion of identity politics. But it got off the rails because Liam was treating it as a personal inquisition and got huffy about it. I mean it’s like if someone were to ask me ‘why are libertarians so obsessed with guns’ – which Corin in fact did in the LDP thread. And I explained the context behind it while still making clear I didn’t like ‘right to carry’ laws myself.

    Jason Soon

    November 5, 2006 at 12:38 pm

  153. I think GMB could use a spell on the interchange bench.

    Rafe Champion

    November 5, 2006 at 1:13 pm

  154. LP’s reaction to this thread reminded me of an earlier theory of mine on all this.

    C.L.

    November 5, 2006 at 2:32 pm

  155. SL: “But it got off the rails because Liam was treating it as a personal inquisition and got huffy about it. ”

    But to be fair, he is prefectly entitiled to this interpretation as per the first part of my post 144.

    If Liam is serious about this discussion, he should come back and respond to the second part. He will probably ask for examples…

    Boris

    November 5, 2006 at 2:33 pm

  156. Skeptic asked me to ‘come back to clarify what I meant’ – perhaps if you could clarify which bit wasn’t clear, then I could have ago – otherwise I’d just be paraphrasing my comment again.

    – and I have no distate for Liam – it’s just useful to be aware whether people are interested in genuinely exploring ideas or mainly see engaging in ‘debate’ as being a cheersquad for their ‘team’. It saves a lot of wasted energy.

    Andrew Bartlett

    November 5, 2006 at 2:38 pm

  157. I guess such is the fate of anyone who tries to move even slightly away from being part of a cheersquad for one’s ideo – was it in rlogical dogmatism of choice.

    Nothing beats tribalism it seems. Once everyone can figure out what the name of their tribe is (and more importantly what the name of their enemy’s tribe is so they can define themselves against it), we should all be fine. Just apply the label – no need for further debate (although I think the “New (new) Left” label needs a bit of work)

    I didn’t quite get your point here. Was it in relation to Liam’s comments, Liam personally or the whole topic of the thread? Liam likes ‘stoushing’, and maybe you’ve interpreted that as ‘cheerleading’ for (I presume) the ALP. He’s allowed to do that – I’m sure we all do it at times. I tend to stir rather than stoush, but the effect is probably the same.

    And I’m curious about the whole identity politics issue, because I think it’s hobbling the left as a broader political force in Australia, and possibly elsewhere.

    skepticlawyer

    November 5, 2006 at 2:58 pm

  158. Malcolm Fraser is being a prat as usual. God, I hate the easter island statue.

    http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2006/11/05/should-politicians-discuss-islam

    Jason Soon

    November 5, 2006 at 3:13 pm

  159. My comment was in relation to the original post (although the fact that the thread deteriorated into – as Timothy said – “yet another thread about Iraq, GMB’s crackpot theories, and who is truly a lefty and therefore in need of bashing” sort of reinforced my point).

    Of course Timothy may be right winger, in which case i should be saying he’s an idiot, unless I’m actually not on the Left, in which case i should be embracing his comment as the perfect exaple of why the Right is right in all things (or vice versa)

    I think ‘identity politics’ is hobbling politics and democracy in general, not just the Left (although maybe it’s harming the Left in an immediate political sense because the Left is in a much weaker position). Anyway, the general problem of ‘identity politics’ meaning everyone has to immediately put on their intellectual straightjackets was what I was reacting to.

    I know some people like stoushing for the fun of it – guess I just find it boring and irritating and a chance to spout crap and then say ‘only stoushing’ to cover it up.

    As probably the only person on this thread who knows the woman who uttered the original comments, I could say a lot of things that might clarify this particular WTF? episode, but that isn’t really the point either. The point is it was a stupid comment, well worth disagreeing with, but also an ‘out there’ comment which couldn’t really be seen as symptomatic of anything of broader political significance.

    (of course, it is fair enough to have a dig at the Democrats over the comment – they did make her national Secretary, although to balance that, it is basically an administrative position in the party and thus not one people would normally expect to see being used for media commentary – but hardly one worth using as artillery in the culture wars.)

    Andrew Bartlett

    November 5, 2006 at 6:43 pm

  160. I’ve always thought you guys were a pretty good bunch Andrew.

    Do you think the Democrats can make a comeback?

    I think you guys are getting kicked while you are down.

    “yet another thread about Iraq, GMB’s crackpot theories….”

    Since you are a practising politician I won’t ask you to justify your agreement with this or be more specific.

    I will only point out that you WON’T and you CAN’T.

    But do you think you can make a comeback?

    GMB

    November 5, 2006 at 6:54 pm

  161. “I’ve always thought you guys were a pretty good bunch Andrew.”

    What’s wrong with you, Birdy? Trying to impress a leftist sheila? 🙂

    Jason Soon

    November 5, 2006 at 7:15 pm

  162. No I just always really thought they were. You know their founding creed. About keeping the bastards honest and that sort of stuff.

    Shame that they lurched leftward rather then stuck to that idea. But nonetheless. They did not appear to me to be of the real nasty leftist crowd.

    Liam saying he always hated them really speaks in their favour.

    GMB

    November 5, 2006 at 7:22 pm

  163. LP’s reaction to this thread reminded me of an earlier theory of mine on all this.

    Sheesh. Lighten up, C.L.

    Mark Bahnisch

    November 5, 2006 at 7:29 pm

  164. “he main motivation for war, as declared by Bush and Blair, were that Saddam was on the verge of attacking the west with nukes.”

    No you are lying Boris.

    Bush and Blair never emphasised any such thing. And whats more you know thats not the history of this matter.

    You are just bullshitting.

    GMB

    November 5, 2006 at 7:47 pm

  165. Andrew Bartlett has now written 3 posts here, two of them quite long, and I still have no clue what he is talking about, or what his position is on the issue of the affinity of the left with the religeous fundamentalists in the name of multiculturalism (apart from saying, in passing, that he thinks the original comment of Suzanne Bassette was stupid).

    I see why he is a politician!

    Boris

    November 5, 2006 at 8:03 pm

  166. What a thread.
    I somewhat agree with Andrew Bartlett that my contribution to this thread hasn’t been one of sincere exchange of views about the Australian Democrats. Sorry (mostly).
    On his point about ‘identity politics’, he hits a good nail, but not quite the one he meant to—the reason identity politics and political polarisation is hobbling politics, from the Democrats’ point of view, is because they don’t have a viable identity. Ten or fifteen years ago everyone seemed to be moaning about the rank centrism of parties, and the lack of polarisation: I don’t see polarised Parties as a problem, I love the difference of opinion. Intellectual straitjackets are quite a different matter, unrelated to support of political tendencies.
    Boris, regarding your comment #144, and the

    phenomenon widespread throughout all colours of the left – affinity with all things non-western and anti-wstern

    I require no examples because I know exactly the phenomenon you mean, having gone to more than a few demos about various things with Resistance and ISO clowns. I disagree that it’s common to all colours of the Left, any more than fixation with guns and Saddam Hussein’s weapons are common to all strains of the Right.
    Jason, t’was never a personal inquisition. We’re collectivists over here: touch one, touch all, as the union slogan goes.

    Liam

    November 6, 2006 at 2:08 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: