RUNDLE RUMBLED

An email from Pamela Bone, formerly one of the few sane journalists at Melbourne’s Age, to Arena magazine:

In the June-July edition of Arena, Guy Rundle writes, in an editorial regarding the Euston Manifesto, that one of the international signatories to the manifesto is ‘our own imperial feminist Pamela Bone’. I must first advise Mr Rundle that I am not ‘his’ anything. Secondly, although I suppose I should be flattered that he has not forgotten me, I must wonder why Mr Rundle feels it necessary to refer to me quite so frequently: given that in 22 years of writing in a much larger publication – The Age – I have not once referred to him; that the copies of Arena regularly sent to me have been unsolicited; and that I in fact I have written very little for six months, having retired from The Age last year after having been diagnosed with terminal cancer.

The Euston Manifesto is a document prepared by a group of British academics and writers who met regularly at a pub near London’s Euston Station. The architects are members of the Left who wish to distance themselves from what they see as the knee-jerk anti-Americanism and cultural and moral relativism that has plagued much of the Left in recent times – indeed, from the kind of views which may be said to be typified by the writings of Guy Rundle. I do notice Mr Rundle makes no mention of the fact that another international supporter of the manifesto is one of Australia’s most eminent philosophers, Professor Raimond Gaita; perhaps he felt this would lend the document too much credibility.

As for the term ‘imperial feminist’; I am certainly a feminist, and I am happy to be deemed “imperial’ if that is taken to mean that I wish to impose on other cultures the basic human rights that are taken for granted in this culture (for I doubt he means the word in its other sense, ‘majestic’). Indeed, if I could, I would forcefully replace those cultural traditions that allow the stoning and beheading of women, or the throwing of acid in their faces, with one that grants women individual rights under the law. Happily, I don’t need to, for brave Muslim women are themselves beginning to force those changes.

In another place Mr Rundle has ‘humorously’ criticised me for frequently writing about poverty and human rights abuses in Africa. Yet in his accompanying editorial in the same edition Mr Rundle writes eloquently about the suffering of people in Darfur. Unlike Mr Rundle, I have been to the refugee camps on the Chad-Sudan border, and have talked to the victims of the fighting in Darfur, just as earlier I had been to Rwanda and seen the aftermath of that genocide. A genocide is taking place in Darfur. Every decent instinct calls for international intervention; but one can be sure that if there were such intervention, especially one that had any US involvement, good-hearted people of the ‘Left’ would be marching in protest at American imperialism.

Guy Rundle cannot forgive me for pointing out three years ago what many others are now pointing out: that the idea of international humanitarian intervention rightly belongs to the Left. Yes, that stance took some courage. However, I may be old, weak and sick, but I have one thing Mr Rundle will never have: guts.

Posted by Tim B. on 06/29/2006 at 11:14 PM
    1. Go Pamela !!

      Posted by closeapproximation on 2006 06 29 at 11:34 PM • permalink

 

    1. Go Pamela, Go!

      Happy to join the cheer squad. Isn’t she doing some part-time blogging?

      Posted by TimT on 2006 06 29 at 11:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. OT – following a story in today’s The Age, I have spent all morning in hysterics over the counter-scamming of Nigerian scams over at a site called 419eater

      Some if this stuff is pure gold.

      Posted by closeapproximation on 2006 06 29 at 11:42 PM • permalink

 

    1. Bravo Good Lady!  If you’ve been wondering where the muscular, humanitarian Left has gone, it turns out it is embodied in one weak, sick, gutsy old lady (along with Chris Hitchens, Joe Lieberman and Ann Clywd).  The rest of those simpering self involved twits ought to be ashamed of themselves, because no amount of mass graves has ever been too much for them to pay for the opportunity to bash Bush, the US, our coalition and their own civilization in general, even as they remain safely ensconced in its protective embrace.

      Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 06 29 at 11:43 PM • permalink

 

    1. On the topic of manifestos, this looks like one of ours. A function is planned for Sydney later his year.

      1. We are committed to the pursuit of freedom, free speech and genuine tolerance.

      2. We support experimentation in all its forms – scientific, social and personal.

      3. We support the development of the human potential and individual self-determination.

      4. We uphold a human-centred perspective, which recognises the ability of people to confront the challenges they face through reason and subjectivity.

      Sounds ok, let’s see if it gets up any momentum and who ends up driving it.

      Posted by Rafe C on 2006 06 29 at 11:45 PM • permalink

 

    1. Bea-you-di-fulllllll

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 06 29 at 11:45 PM • permalink

 

    1. Rafe C – is that tongue in cheek?  I feel like doing a ‘Pamela Bone’ and disowning your use of “ours”.

      Sounds ok…

      Sounds like a heard of farting cows if you ask me.

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 06 29 at 11:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. Pamela Bone always writes with a humanity and a clarity of insight that so many others lack.

      Posted by Skeptic on 2006 06 29 at 11:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. Rundle got bitch slapped!!!

      The 10 Cannots, I saw a letter writer in the West Australian put this in and it struck me as both a sharp rebuke to the left and common sense.

      1. You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.
      2. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
      3. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
      4. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
      5. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
      6. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
      7. You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.
      8. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
      9. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.
      10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 06 29 at 11:55 PM • permalink

 

    1. That “heard of farting cows” was, of course a deliberate pun.

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 06 29 at 11:57 PM • permalink

 

    1. The only way she could have been more disdainful of Rundle
      would be to bring up “Vulture”.

      Posted by stuartcooper on 2006 06 30 at 12:11 AM • permalink

 

    1. Those who are sure in what they stand for don’t need a manifesto.

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 06 30 at 12:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. I may be old, weak and sick, but I have one thing Mr Rundle will never have: guts.

      hear hear!

      Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 06 30 at 01:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. Rundle has failed spectacularly at Lefty Principle No 2, namely: only pick on targets when you are sure there will be no discernable consequences.

      However he seems to be going along fine with LP No 1 which is of course, “It’s all about me”

      Best wishes to Pamela

      PS #3 Great link

      Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 06 30 at 02:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. P.B: …the idea of international humanitarian intervention rightly belongs to the Left

      For the most part, an enjoyable Fisking…

      …and the linked article was nice too.

      But the last quoted sentence of Mz Bone leaves me feeling a wee argumentative.

      Does such a notion “rightly” belong to the left?  I would differ, but I don’t need to.  Suffice to say that in 2006, it *factually* belongs to the right.

      Ha.

      Rumph!

      Posted by zeppenwolf on 2006 06 30 at 02:59 AM • permalink

 

    1. #5 Rafe C,
      I have my own little maifesto:
      1: Bugger off and leave me alone, hippy.
      2: Bugger off and leave me alone, commie.
      There are more, but I think you can all guess how it goes. Your link sounds interesting, but don’t get your hopes up until you’ve thoroughly checked the authors backgrounds.

      Posted by Daniel San on 2006 06 30 at 03:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. God Bless Pamela. She is a courageous and astute journalist who was a personal hero of mine. She was the only reason I bought The Age.

      Her columns were the conscience of the absent women’s movement and the silent Left. She came right out and said what had to be said and asked the questions that needed to be asked, And when she was challenged, she held her own.

      Hang in there Pamela. You are one of Australia’s treasures.

      Posted by daphne on 2006 06 30 at 03:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. Come, gentle night, come, loving, black-brow’d night,
      Give me my Pamela Bone; and, when she shall die,
      Take her and cut her out in little stars,
      And she will make the face of heaven so fine
      That all the world will be in love with night
      And pay no worship to the garish sun.

      I’m sure the Bard wouldn’t mind the adjustment for a writer as splendid as Pamela Bone.

      Her letter makes us miss Pamela Bone’s oasis of sanity column in the arid Age newspaper desert all the more.

      Posted by Andrew Landeryou on 2006 06 30 at 03:42 AM • permalink

 

    1. Now that’s the left I love to hate; stands for some good things for the wrong reasons – but at least has reasons.  You can argue when there is some substance to a person.  Trying to debate with the counterfeits we get these days is like trying to grab and hold tight to oatmeal.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 30 at 03:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. Pamela is a lady of the left I admire very much. Unlike 99% of the modern left, she has principles, wit, intelligence, clear understanding of teh world, and the courage of her convictions. Do I agree with her? On many things, no. But I’d rather have her principled, rational and passionate opposition than the intellectually lazy, flabby hate-based bile of the so-called modern left.

      I understand that the remains of Mr Rundle have been found, just a pair of smoking boots in a circle of scorched concrete, apparently!

      MarkL
      Canberra

      Posted by MarkL on 2006 06 30 at 04:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. Rundel spouted thus :

      its very reasonableness tells you what it isn’t — it isn’t a manifesto.

      That tells it all. For a dyed-in-the-wool Moonbat, Reason is anathema.

      I’m a signatory too, I was one of the early ones. Even though Norm is a self-confessed Marxist, the principles contained in the Euston Manifesto, basic human rights, real ones rather than imaginary, are reasonable ones that everyone whould be able to subscribe to. Leftie or NeoCon.

      That so very many are unable to, are actually “objectively pro-Fascist” in the Orwellian phrase, is a terrible indictment of the Left as it is today. That the Euston Manifesto exists gives hope for its reform.

      Posted by Zoe Brain on 2006 06 30 at 04:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. Whenever I read an article or column by a typical leftwing writer, I envision a doofus who basically looks like Rundle.  So when I tried the link and saw the picture, I thought to myself, “yep, another snippy effete”.

      wronwright’s personal portfolio of stereotypes once again confirmed.

      Posted by wronwright on 2006 06 30 at 05:30 AM • permalink

 

    1. Guy Rundle cannot forgive me for pointing out three years ago what many others are now pointing out: that the idea of international humanitarian intervention rightly belongs to the Left.

      Nice letter- but I don’t get it- when did international humanitarian intervention “rightly belong” to the Left?

      Posted by Wylie Wilde on 2006 06 30 at 05:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. Here’s a voice from the Left one can respect.

      The Euston Manifesto does no more than recall the Left to a role it was once willing to play.  It was, if they recall, the spead of human rights as a universal entitlement and support for those suffering under brutal governments.

      Now all we get on those subjects is silence.

      Post imperial whites can have nothing to say about other ‘cultures’.  They may offer admiration and take the lessons learned from them to heal their own diseased souls but criticism is merely a sign of the imperial racism that dwells in every white heart.

      ‘Culture’ has become the paralysing monster to which leftoids abase themselves.  Except our own of course; that they despise.

      Posted by Inurbanus on 2006 06 30 at 06:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. Pamela Rundle sounds like one of the old-style feminists of which I was (and am) so very proud: she dedicates her life to improving the quality of life for others, rather than, as so many “feminists” profess now, being “against” blah blah and blah.

      Posted by ushie on 2006 06 30 at 06:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. Pamela BONE!  Gah, where’s my morning cup of tea?

      Posted by ushie on 2006 06 30 at 06:41 AM • permalink

 

    1. Gee, Guy, how does it feel to be put in your little place by a dying woman with ten times the balls you’ll ever have?  Do you still feel ‘cool’ in your designer frames and designer stubble?  And your button-top, no-tie shirt?  Man, how cool is that?  By the way, that revolution, y’know, that one where fat losers like you get all those hot Cuban chicks?  Sorry, dude, never gonna happen.

      Posted by cuckoo on 2006 06 30 at 06:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. What a lovely letter.

      Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2006 06 30 at 07:27 AM • permalink

 

    1. Pamela Bone sounds like an Australian Oriana Fallaci.

      To complete the picture all that needs to happen is for Pamela to be dragged before an anti discrimination lynch mob ,whose powers having been extended to protect the rotund and semi blind, and to be then sacrificed on the alter of Political Correctness for blasphemy.

      Posted by gubbaboy on 2006 06 30 at 07:31 AM • permalink

 

    1. It seems there are a handful of lefties, like Bone and Hitchens, who actually buy the left’s rhetoric about human rights. More fool them. Anyone with even half a brain can see that the left’s true agenda has sweet fa to do with human rights and everything to do with undermining and defeating the west and Amerikka in particular, and for reasons that even the left cannot articulate. The left – bin Laden’s great hope for delivering the islamists victory.

      Posted by hooligan on 2006 06 30 at 07:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. o/t “Mediawatch kicks own goal” quoth the Oz Media liftout.
      “ABC’s M.W. had a go this week at the Today show for running McDonald’s world cup sponsorship segments..host M.A. said “Steve Jacobs is Today’s Weatherman. He’s part of the show’s editorial team.But when he teamed up with Ronald McDonald,well he became Today’s OFFICIAL SPONSOR PLEASER.”
      Media Watch ran footage of Jacobs handing over a prize to a little boy named Daniel..saying “Ronald has a special boarding pass for you,you are going to run out on the field with the Socceroos.Sixty six thousand people in the crowd and over a billion people watching you right around the world.How do you feel?”
      Cut to Attard,who voiced what she interpreted as the boy’s response ..”BESIEGED”.Well the boy’s Mum Lindsay Connell,has written to ABC to express her DISMAY AT THE REPRESENTATION OF HER FAMILY.”My eight year old Daniel was watching Media Watch and could not understand why the presenter suddenly said HE WAS BESIEGED.
      He has had a FANTASTIC few weeks’ experience ,both with the media and the TRIP TO GERMANY and YOUR PROGRAMME MANAGED TO REDUCE HIM TO TEARS FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR POLITICAL SPIN.Are you proud of yourselves??
      The boy’s Mum also claims Media Watch’s RESEARCHER Lorna Knowles spoke to the family BEFORE DOING THE SEGMENT and WAS WELL AWARE THE FAMILY WAS HAPPY.
      We gave her the truth and also assured her that we were more than happy with both Channel 9 and McDonald’s.THEIR INTENT TOWARDS OUR FAMILY ALWAYS SEEMED TO BE HONEST AND HONOURABLE.”
      She (mum) is STILL WAITING FOR A REPLY.” END.
      caps MINE.
      Oh Nanny Attard -who’s got the Green Eyed Monster cause SBS got the Soccer then?

      Posted by crash on 2006 06 30 at 07:55 AM • permalink

 

    1. O/T Please read a remarkable editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal about the NYT’s treasonous (my word, not theirs) reporting of the US’s tracking of financial transfers:

      The problem with the Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations in anything close to good faith. We certainly don’t. On issue after issue, it has become clear that the Times believes the U.S. is not really at war, and in any case the Bush Administration lacks the legitimacy to wage it.

      (snip)

      Perhaps Mr. Keller has been listening to his boss, Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who in a recent commencement address apologized to the graduates because his generation “had seen the horrors and futility of war and smelled the stench of corruption in government.

      “Our children, we vowed, would never know that. So, well, sorry. It wasn’t supposed to be this way,” the publisher continued. “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights,” and so on. Forgive us if we conclude that a newspaper led by someone who speaks this way to college seniors has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it.

      Wow.  A slam of another newspaper’s editorial decision of such a degree is almost unprecedented.  Bill Kellor will go down in the history of journalism as giving all rightwing persons their first and best example of shameful liberal bias by the MSM.

      Posted by wronwright on 2006 06 30 at 08:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. Wronwright-Free Republic (which appears to be down now-but it is also here from Powerline) had a thread the other day that quoted a NYT editorial from Sept. 24, 2001 where they called for more to be done in monitoring financial transactions tied to terrorism.

      There is just no way to take them seriously any longer.

      Posted by 68W40 on 2006 06 30 at 09:04 AM • permalink

 

    1. Erp-I see that Tim has already addressed that editorial farther down the page.

      Posted by 68W40 on 2006 06 30 at 09:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. Guy Rundle — Judging by the photo, a failed telemarket who’s read Marx for Dummies.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 06 30 at 09:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. Inurabanus — The problem is, the modern Left is so far decayed, I have a hard time even accepting that the motivations of the Euston Manifesto’s authors may be honest, and not some Clintonesque “let’s ‘move to the center’ until after the election” dodge.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 06 30 at 09:41 AM • permalink

 

    1. It could be a ruse.

      Pamela Bone hasn’t lost a child or husband to Islamist supremacists her nation’s arrogance. But
      as a coughing, wheezing, last-gasp dying soldier of the Left, suddenly like Cindy and the Jersey Cows she too has absolute moral authority.

      Enough authority and persuasiveness, perhaps, to snatch the NaderVaders and Gaiaphiles back from the abyss and deliver them into the dreamy embrace of everyday Democrats. Just in time for a Hillary vote.

      A harsh thing to say of seemingly good intentions, perhaps, but I’m with Ann Coulter in the spirit of these things. You’ve gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.

      Posted by splice on 2006 06 30 at 10:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. Pamela Bone’s writing shines with a clear light.  Mr. Rundle seems like the kind of man who must scuttle away from that light.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 06 30 at 10:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. Pamela makes many good points in her letter, and I’m glad to have read it.

      But I take exception to her statement “…that the idea of international humanitarian intervention rightly belongs to the Left.

      Humanitarian intervention is—theoretically—non-political.  That’s why it is called “humanitarian”.  That root word of “human” ought to be telling.

      I concede that there are often political and diplomatic objectives in any humanitarian operation.  But it’s hardly a concept that is owned by any one political school of thought.

      Pamela Bone writes an excellent letter, but there’s a certain amount of arrogance and moral posturing in that last statement.

      Still, she has the guts to stand up for what she believes in, even if it isn’t part of the groupthink.  Kudos to her for that….I wish more of the left were like her.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 30 at 10:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. Rundle looks a bit like Curly of the three stooges (woop, woop, woop, woop, woop!). Looks like Pamela has “ripped him a new one”, as we say. You can usually tell when a person is writing from the real heart of his or her beliefs, and is taking a stand based on rock-solid principle. Pamela is such a one; wish there were more like her.

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 30 at 10:58 AM • permalink

 

    1. I would point Ms. Bone to what may well be the sine qua non of humanitarian intervention, the campaign by the English in the early nineteenth century to close down the slave trade.

      I would hardly regard the Victorians as leftists.

      In fact, I am hard pressed to think of any effective humanitarian interventions by the left.  The left may talk a good game, but their idea of a humanitarian intervention generally seems to be supporting a Marxist strongman as he puts down the opposition.

      Posted by R C Dean on 2006 06 30 at 11:04 AM • permalink

 

    1. If you’ve been wondering where the muscular, humanitarian Left has gone, it turns out it is embodied in one weak, sick, gutsy old lady (along with Chris Hitchens, Joe Lieberman and Ann Clywd).

      Two weak, sick, gutsy old ladies: Pamela Bone and Oriana Fallaci–and I’m sure both of us mean “weak” only in the sense of waning élan vital. Both are strong of mind and spirit. Brava, Ms. Bone.

      Look, at the end of the day, lefties like Hitchens and Bone et al and we righties work for the same outcome: peace, freedom, justice, security, prosperity for all God/Darwin’s children. Our disagreements lie in the means to those ends. Of course, we’re right and they’re wrong about those. They think big government socialism is the way; we know it isn’t. But we can argue about that later. For now, we hang together.

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 06 30 at 11:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. And the New York Times can suck Cheney’s Dick.

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 06 30 at 11:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. “Cast away your burqas and burn your bras, sisters of Islam! Be free of your fathers, your brothers, your cousins, your tribe and your god…”

      Bugger, that would sound so much more likely if Pamela said it.

      Posted by splice on 2006 06 30 at 12:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. #43 – What have you got against Dick Cheney?

      Anyway, I don’t think he’s had his shots.

      In fact, I doubt there are any shots for NYT Disease; they need to be put down humanely.

      Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 2006 06 30 at 12:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. #35 richard mcenroe,

      The problem is, the modern Left is so far decayed, I have a hard time even accepting that the motivations of the Euston Manifesto’s authors may be honest, and not some Clintonesque “let’s ‘move to the center’ until after the election” dodge.

      The problem is that the left’s Marxist principles have been thoroughly discredited wherever, whenever, and however they’ve been applied.  Marxism isn’t just wrong, it is evil.  Its ideas have caused the death of tens of millions.  I don’t understand how anyone can continue honestly to espouse such ideas after they’ve seen the consequences.  To say that the ideas are good, it just hasn’t been implemented correctly, like France et al does, is just perverse.  If the idea was good, it wouldn’t have turned the world into a graveyard.

      If you look at the principles involved, Islamism isn’t much different.  One ideology says that the state owns your life and the government will explain what that means; the other says that Allah owns your life, and the mullahs, imams, and ayatollahs will explain what that means.  Either way, one human being ends up owning the life of another, which is slavery.

      (This is why the founders separated church and state.  Christianity’s history of the authority of the church combined with the weapons of the state was just as destructive of life and limb.  The founders were close enough to the wars Christianity fought with itself to understand this.  We’d do well to remember it now.)

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 30 at 12:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. I sense that Pamela Bone AND Oriana Fallaci, are ‘sisters’, in more ways than one.

      Being outspoken, for one….

      And this: Indeed, if I could, I would forcefully replace those cultural traditions that allow the stoning and beheading of women, or the throwing of acid in their faces, with one that grants women individual rights under the law.

      And this: having been diagnosed with terminal cancer.

      As the late, great Winston Churchill once stated, “I like a man who grins when he fights”.
      Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

      Obviously in the case of Ms. Bone and Ms. Fallaci, this quote, includes Women.

      Bless you Pamela Bone and Oriana Fallaci. May I offer to both of you another Sir Winston Churchill quote.

      Never, never, never give up”.
      Sir Winston Churchill

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 30 at 12:42 PM • permalink

 

    1. Pamela Bone realizes that you can’t advance one’s ideal for society if one’s society ceases to be.  I can get on board with anyone who’s willing to defend civilization against barbarity and call for the spread of freedom and liberty.

      Posted by Nightfly on 2006 06 30 at 01:34 PM • permalink

 

    1. In fact, I doubt there are any shots for NYT Disease; they need to be put down humanely.

      Agreed wholeheartedly, and glad you struck out the “humanely”.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 06 30 at 02:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. lefties like Hitchens and Bone et al and we righties work for the same outcome

      right- it’s the same as the Christian/Jew/Athiest alliance. There is a common enemy.
      There is only one important question right now, and how you ask it dictates where you stand.

      What is the greatest threat to humanity?

      a) Americanisation
      b) global warming/rising oceans/overpopulation/polar bear extinction
      c) the “rise” of China
      d) too many infidels
      e) Radican Islam and failed-state anarchy.

      If you think “wow, that’s a tough question” then you’re not on the ‘right side of history.’ (to borrow from George Clooney).

      Posted by daddy dave on 2006 06 30 at 02:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. I meant “how you answer it.” dammit, and I previewed and everything…

      Posted by daddy dave on 2006 06 30 at 02:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. how’s this answer?

      The lack of Americanisation in areas comprised of the anarchy of failed-states currently dominated by radical islam is often the cause of death for too many “infidels”. Even so, many of those that have succumbed to the intellectual inbreeding of the overly pampered and combined with those actually born stupid have risen, not against the real threat to their lives but the imagined threat of global warming/rising oceans/overpopulation/polar bear extinction and while they decry the evils of industrialization they cheer the “rise” of China’s industrial capacity simply because China is not America.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2006 06 30 at 03:18 PM • permalink

 

    1. #51, Grimmy,

      Well done.  That about says it all.

      P.S.  You never answered my question about breasts, Grimmy.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 30 at 04:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. Blast, ixnay on the previous SPay.  I spoke too soon.  I just got to Grimmy’s answer about the breasts.  And a fine, respectful answer it was, too.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 30 at 04:42 PM • permalink

 

    1. in fairness to Clooney, at least he was picking “e” when he used that phrase. He was talking about Darfur, where Radical Islamics in a failed state are slaughtering everyone else.

      Posted by daddy dave on 2006 06 30 at 04:46 PM • permalink

 

    1. Curse you saltydog. I have searched high and low through previous threads looking for talk of breasts, but no such talk was to be found. The closest I got was threats of spankings from Andrea.

      Posted by daddy dave on 2006 06 30 at 05:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. oh never mind. I found them.

      Posted by daddy dave on 2006 06 30 at 06:44 PM • permalink

 

    1. 37 splice

      “It could be a ruse.

      Pamela Bone hasn’t lost a child or husband to (Islamist supremacists) her nation’s arrogance. But
      as a coughing, wheezing, last-gasp dying soldier of the Left, suddenly like Cindy and the Jersey Cows she too has absolute moral authority

      A harsh thing to say of seemingly good intentions, perhaps…”

      SPLICE, FOR 2 REASONS YOU ARE WRONG:

      1) Pamela has been a soldier of human rights for over a quarter of a century. She has visited Darfur and Rwanda and written courageously on the barbaric practices of other cultures toward women. She is as genuine as vegemite.

      2) The “absolute moral authority” you find distasteful is, in fact, her own moral courage to speak out against that which she finds barbaric. When the rest of the Left were silent or “tolerating the intolerable” as she called it—she put on her boots and got on her lone horse.

      And, this isn’t her last dying gasp—her “sudden” absolute moral authority, as you call it has actually been around for 22 years—the fact that she is terminal, but can continue fighting for the human rights of others is a testament to her own character.

      Posted by daphne on 2006 06 30 at 07:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. “Genuine as vegemite”—coming from an Aussie, that sounds like some sort of Ultimate Compliment. First, find out whether Pamela Bone in fact likes vegemite; if so, then she should be informed of having received the Aussie acme of all accolades.

      Posted by ForNow on 2006 06 30 at 08:24 PM • permalink

 

    1. I would change the first line in this ee cummings poem:

      the left
      pretending to be
      humanitarians

      are like cannibals
      on a health kick
      eating only vegetarians

      (note: the orignal first line read “fascists“)

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 06 30 at 08:27 PM • permalink

 

    1. ….and I’m not sure that Pamela would really approve of the comparison with Oriana Fallacci, who while also admirable, is really another kettle of fish altogether…

      Posted by closeapproximation on 2006 06 30 at 08:34 PM • permalink

 

    1. For half a century the Left has been ragging and raging at the Right, especially the United States, for realpolitik aimed at stability. “Propping up dictators!” they cried. “Supporting death squads that oppress the people and generate misery!” And they sponsored Wars of National Liberation against the people they didn’t like.

      And then one day George Bush said (paraphrasing), “Well, there’s something to be said for that view, and besides, it doesn’t even work, doesn’t provide any real stability. So from now on we’ll be deposing the dictators and trying to introduce Government based on liberal principles.”

      Upon the instant came a mighty squealing and a choking cloud of blue-gray smoke, as the Left destroyed a year’s production from Michelin in a simultaneous, unbelievably coordinated bootlegger’ turn. “No, no, no! Stability and realpolitik are the only possibly ethical goals and methods! Well-run dictatorships are infinitely preferable to messy contradictory democracies.”

      It wasn’t hard for them, of course. All those years of overnight doctrine switches when Moscow Central wanted something new were invaluable practice. But you should never be bashful about reminding the present-day Left that when we Rightists took their part, they took ours with the enthusiasm of converts.

      Regards,
      Ric

      Posted by Ric Locke on 2006 06 30 at 08:57 PM • permalink

 

    1. MentalFloss

      Good to see you. Hope all is well and that it stays that way…:).

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 30 at 09:38 PM • permalink

 

    1. Well said, Mental Floss at #60 and El Cid at #63.
      We have been missing you MF.

      Posted by Skeeter on 2006 06 30 at 10:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. Thanks. First day in two weeks I’ve woken up without coughing.

      Felt so good I finished uncovering a web-based money laundering scheme out of Germany and reported the facts to US State Department and Australian Homeland Security. Names, numbers—the lot.

      Had my eye on a bottle of single-malt down the local. Might lower it by a few fingers tonight.

      Texas Bob, you short-timer, hope you muster out by way of Gondwanaland.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 07 01 at 12:02 AM • permalink

 

    1. I can see similarities between Oriana Fallaci and Pamela, but I believe there are also significant differences.

      Fallaci is at times so passionate she exaggerates. Sometimes when I read her work I’ve thought some aspect of Jewish or Islamic culture she is discussing sounded a little far fetched. Upon checking, I discovered Fallaci had put her own spin on it. She is an entertainer as well as a journo.I can’t say I have ever had to check Pamela’s writing. In fact, Pamela does not possess the arrogance or pushiness of Fallaci. She possesses a humble, quiet dignity and she has worked steadfastly over many years to promote a more humane world.

      Fallaci, on the other hand, interviewed Yasser Arafat and claims he told her all sorts of things about his personal life. She is flamboyant and colourful and appears to love attention. Unfortunately, she now faces a defamation trial where she is accused of “defaming Islam”. I just can’t see Pamela doing that!

      All of the above aside, both women are brave and courageous and how sad it will be to lose either.

      Posted by daphne on 2006 07 01 at 01:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. The Euston Manifesto is actually worth a read, Ms Bone’s admirable heroics notwithstanding.  Although I cannot avoid comparing it to its famously adolescent predecessor, the Port Huron statement, it does ackowledge the existence of non-Western evil and the necessity for liberal societies to employ violence to combat it when necessary, which is miles ahead of any other position offered by the “reality based community” here to fore.  So its a start.  Anagallis put it well here earlier though: those who are sure in what they stand for don’t need a manifesto.

      Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 07 01 at 02:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. #67 Vanguard,
      It’s a start, but it’s still a Communist document. Read closely the parts about economics and social engineering.

      Posted by Daniel San on 2006 07 01 at 04:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. The Euston Manifesto is indeed worth a read and more. It’s writers claim to believe in a two-state solution in Israel and they believe in a universal set of human rights for all nations—not one for the Muslims and one for the rest of us. They condemn kneejerk anti-Americanism — in fact, I see it as a split in the Left. Many Leftoids hate what the Left has become but cannot align themselves with the conservatives. The Greens and the Democrats are a joke. The Eustonites might well split the Left—and so they should. What the Left has become is an undemocratic farce.

      Posted by daphne on 2006 07 01 at 05:02 AM • permalink

 

    1. #62
      Tidy.

      Posted by chrisgo on 2006 07 01 at 05:51 AM • permalink

 

    1. #62, good call, Ric.  This is why I don’t think the labels “Left” and “Right” really work anymore.  Smarter people than I am are going to have to come up with a substitute, though.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 07 01 at 09:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. MentalFloss

      Felt so good I finished uncovering a web-based money laundering scheme out of Germany and reported the facts to US State Department and Australian Homeland Security. Names, numbers—the lot.

      Since you are so adept to do the above, one assumes that you would be just as adept to ferret out the reason behind the below..

      First day in two weeks I’ve woken up without coughing.

      Thanks

      You are welcome…lol.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 07 01 at 10:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. I know I shouldn’t have, but I laughed when I saw the photograph of Rundle. Talk about your perfect inner city Left-wing fraud. All that’s missing is the CPA lapel badge.

      Posted by Hanyu on 2006 07 01 at 10:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. …I don’t think the labels “Left” and “Right” really work…

      Of course they do! They’re arbitrary, and always were—which side of the aisle a particular Frenchman sat on. As identifying labels they’re every bit as suitable as they ever were.

      It might be said that the ideals and policies of Left and Right have changed, but even that’s arguable. The French politicians who sat “on the Left” were, by and large, elitists and academics holding themselves up as leaders and saviors of the Common People. Their theories and attidues are clear precursors of Leninism, which appoints the Vanguard of the Proletariat as the new nobility, charged with guarding the lives and interests of the Workers. (That, of course, set them up as positive poles in the Somebody Else’s Problem field that pervades Europe, and made them irresistably attractive to the Europeans, who are negatively charged in that physics.)

      The current bunch of Leftists are probably closer to their origins than the muddle-headed Marxists and labor organizers of the Thirties ever were.

      Regards,
      Ric

      Posted by Ric Locke on 2006 07 01 at 12:50 PM • permalink

 

    1. Rebecca H: “#62, good call, Ric.  This is why I don’t think the labels “Left” and “Right” really work anymore.  Smarter people than I am are going to have to come up with a substitute, though.”

      Dumb and Dumber, I thought, but I think that’s the fever talking.

      Posted by ushie on 2006 07 01 at 01:01 PM • permalink

 

    1. #74 ric,

      The French politicians who sat “on the Left” were, by and large, elitists and academics holding themselves up as leaders and saviors of the Common People. Their theories and attidues are clear precursors of Leninism[….]
      <snip>
      The current bunch of Leftists are probably closer to their origins than the muddle-headed Marxists and labor organizers of the Thirties ever were.

      This was Rousseau’s direct influence (if you are discussing the time frame I think you are).  It is interesting to chart ideas:  Plato, (then skipping many others) Rousseau, Kant (who was such an admirer of Rousseau’s that he kept a portrait of him hanging on the wall), Hegel, Marx, and Lenin.  It is no aberation that the French are where they are, but a law of nature playing out.  There are consequences to the ideas you hold.  It is called Justice, and reality will mete it out as inevitably as e=mc2.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 07 01 at 01:33 PM • permalink

 

    1. #76 saltydog,

      Yes. A common subject of BS sessions at meetings of science fiction fans is “what best to do with a time machine?” My prime candidate has for a long time been to transport J. Rousseau to a real example of the Acadian habitat he extols: equatorial Guinea, perhaps, or the Xhosa, or (since the time machine is handy) his own ancestors circa 300 BCE or so.

      All those you list have in common what I call “Tinkerbell Philosophy”—the notion that the unaided human intellect can somehow gain true meaning, without consulting the objective Universe; that if you only believe hard enough you can change the World. I wish I knew why it’s so prevalent throughout history. Its adherents have killed more people (because their behavior didn’t fit the Theory) than any other, and it never works because Universe is more complicated than that.

      I wish I were a better con man. I’d like to start a sect, with the basic text taken from Genesis, Chapter 1, Verse 31:

      And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

      That is, the Creation is the way it is because God wanted it that way; and it is better, and more respectful of (or submissive to) God to humbly attempt to discover what was actually created than to impose our own, limited and generally crack-brained, concepts. Prophets and Holy Books are of necessity incomplete at best, because the Word of God won’t fit between two pieces of pasteboard or within a couple of kilos of squishy protoplasm. The only thing big enough to hold the Word of God is Universe.

      It’d never fly, of course. Too bad. From all available evidence, prophets have a fairly pleasant lifestyle nowadays. Tax deductible, even.

      Regards,
      Ric

      Posted by Ric Locke on 2006 07 01 at 02:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. What best to do with a time machine (or that machine Wronwright has in the back)?  Hell, I wouldn’t go anywhere but here unless I was a rich male aristocrat or travelling with a machine gun.

      Posted by ushie on 2006 07 01 at 04:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. #77 I agree, Ric, I agree. The Hebrew “tov ma’od” [very good] is a far cry from “tawmiym” [perfect].

      But the ‘sect’ has been around for quite a while now—it’s called Judaism. As a squishy bit of protoplasm, you’re as qualified as any to continue the tradition of discovery and, judging from what I have read of your thoughts, more qualified than most.

      Man resembles G-d in having free will (Maimonides, Yad, Teshuvah 5:1). The free will to make the “very good” a little better—even, dare I say it, perfect?

      Remember, it wasn’t much later (after a nice fruit plate lunch, IIRC), comes this “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..” [GEN 3:21]—get him the hell out of the garden before supper, lest he become thereby immortal as well.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 07 01 at 04:49 PM • permalink

 

    1. #79 Mental Floss, I knew that. I’m not Jewish, but some of my best friends… 🙂

      Seriously: Yes, I was aware of that tradition, but it wouldn’t serve my purposes. For one thing, it wouldn’t get me enough income to sponsor a University a la Oral Roberts. But, basically, I’d like to recast the whole thing in Evangelical-like cant and come up with some rip-roaring, Brother Love’s Traveling Salvation Show sermons. Judaism is altogether too accepting for my purposes, and not nearly showy enough. I want snake handlers shouting out, “I will not argue with God!”

      Oh, and in my religion an honest scientific experiment constitutes a prayer. Other religionists pray to God for miracles. The scientist prays to God that He not provide a miracle, so that the experimenter can attempt to understand a bit more of the Creation.

      For verily I say unto you, love your enemies; love them that hate you; be good to them that spitefully use you, and abuse you; that you may be the children of our Father in Heaven, who maketh his sun to shine upon the evil and the good alike, and his rain falleth on the just and the unjust.

      Which is all very well and good, but please, my Lord, I’m interested in such of the details as you’d care to divulge about sunshine and rain. Submission indeed, no?

      Regards,
      Ric

      Posted by Ric Locke on 2006 07 01 at 06:42 PM • permalink

 

    1. 68 Daniel San.  If you’re trying to get any defense out of me for the Left (socialists, green socialists, whatever), you’re barking up the wrong tree.  I could not agree more and the Euston Manifesto is too late to the party in any event, because the redistributionists have irreparably outed themselves and their visceral hatred for capitalist-based liberal democracy in thought, word and deed the last 5 years.  Best/Van

      Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 07 01 at 07:27 PM • permalink

 

    1. #80 You are closer than you think, there, Ric—perhaps too close.

      In fact, the word “light” appears only a few times in the Bible, so it quite amazing to see each verse follow the same pattern.

      207 is the numerical value of the word for “light” (or) and also the product of 9 * 23 (radiance). Many interesting phenomena are observed.

      Seek ye, if ye dare, these verses, witness ye through the brightness of Lurianic analysis that each part of the verse relates elegantly to 23, which is the largest prime factor of 207, which in turn is the numerical equivalent of the word for “light.”

      Remember, however, that all that is thought should not be said, all that is said should not be written, all that is written should not be published, all that is published should not be read.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 07 01 at 09:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. more on Kaballah and Science

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 07 01 at 09:23 PM • permalink

 

    1. Oh, outmoded traditionalist concept of higher authority, I’m having Anne Rice flashbacks.

      Seriously. Our own free and independent artiste Anne Rice, author of the Lestat Chronicles, thinks and talks exactly like that. Any neutral reference to her is an insult. Any complimentary reference to her isn’t being complimentary enough. Any insulting reference is an excuse to go batshit.

      I must resist the urge to beat my head against the keyboard when I read screeds like this. Maybe Pamela Bone’s been spending too much time behind a journalism desk and not enough in the real world, but she needs to lighten up. Take a vacation, lady. And get the hell off your high horse- the air’s too thin up there, and it’s done something weird to your brain.

      Posted by Tungsten Monk on 2006 07 01 at 10:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. #82, #83 Mental Floss, thanks for the link. I’ll follow it up when I have more free time.

      I warn you: I’ve made money off of soothsaying and related activities. Not much, but staving off starvation in a strange city type of thing. Note: it’s best to start with I Ching, since the equipment is so cheap. I actually prefer the Tarot, but it can be hard to find the Waite deck I prefer without knowing the area, and astrology works best if you have a “front”, especially all the impressive scientific reference works on the back shelf. I’ve never looked closely into the Kaballah, but from here it looks much of a muchness. And I’m really sorry, but I can’t do numerology without giggling. It’s a fault.

      Regards,
      Ric

      Posted by Ric Locke on 2006 07 01 at 10:55 PM • permalink

 

    1. #81 Vanguard,
      I wasn’t having a go at you, just rambling. When I first read it it seemed as though some on the left had woken up, that the mythical “thinking left” were speaking up, but further reading proved it was the same old nonsense. I agree with your comments.

      Posted by Daniel San on 2006 07 02 at 12:04 AM • permalink

 

    1. I was being jocular, oh sayer of sooth.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 07 02 at 06:44 AM • permalink

 

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.