Australia the model

Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:30 am

Mark Steyn:

If I had to propose a model for Western rhetoric, it would be the Australians. In the days after Sept. 11, the French got all the attention for that Le Monde headline—“Nous sommes tous Americains”—“We are all Americans,” though they didn’t mean it, even then. But John Howard, the Aussie prime minister, put it better and kept his word: “This is no time to be an 80 percent ally.”

Marvelous. More recently, the prime minister offered some thoughts on the difference between Muslims and other immigrant groups. “You can’t find any equivalent in Italian or Greek or Lebanese or Chinese or Baltic immigration to Australia. There is no equivalent of raving on about jihad,” he said, stating the obvious in a way most political leaders can’t quite bring themselves to do. “There is really not much point in pretending it doesn’t exist.”

Posted by Tim B. on 04/04/2006 at 09:49 PM
    1. There are times I really wish Howard would move here and run for office.

      Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2006 04 04 at 10:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. Bravo, Mr. Howard this, “There is really not much point in pretending it doesn’t exist.” is pretty damn clear..

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 04 04 at 10:46 PM • permalink

 

    1. O/T
      Rising Seas threaten homes.
      Panicked island communities threatened by rising sea levels in the Torres Strait have demanded action before their homes are washed into the sea….. What exactly do they suggest is done about it? Float it on a pontoon?
      Could it be that the islands are sinking?
      It’s that global cooling global warming climate change changing weather stuff.

      Posted by kae on 2006 04 04 at 11:28 PM • permalink

 

    1. Hey, Bingley, if the US was willing to come in as an external territory…

      Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2006 04 04 at 11:47 PM • permalink

 

    1. Excellent – I was going to send that along to you.  I could not agree with the sentiments more – Australia has been a great ally and friend of the US for a long time.  Many of the same values and good people.

      Posted by bill w on 2006 04 04 at 11:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. #1 Jeff Kennett might like the gig.

      Posted by KK on 2006 04 04 at 11:56 PM • permalink

 

    1. Steyn lost all pretence of being an objective observer when he threw his support behind (un)intelligent design.

      Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 04 05 at 12:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. I don’t think Steyn has ever made a pretense of being an objective observer, at least in the sense the New York Times clowns pretend they are.

      Yeah he falls for the ID schtick I guess (I’ll take your word for it for now).  Beaucoup scientists fall for socialism.  I still listen when they talk about Evolution vs ID though, if they are specialists in a relevant science.  And I disregard their idiot notions of politics and economics.  We can’t all be experts on everything.

      Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 04 05 at 12:37 AM • permalink

 

    1. I wonder how someone like howard would go if he went and stood for the US or UK parliament.

      Posted by Tasman on 2006 04 05 at 12:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. Australia’s immigration program has served us well by providing young, skilled migrants. This has meant they add economically, socially, and also from a security perspective. Given that 25% of residents were born overseas with little social strain speaks volumes.

      I do believe however that there are some groups that do not add to the cohesiveness of our society and simply ignoring this issue will create problems for future generations. The problem is that like a number of issues they are subject to the age of unreason.

      Take for example Sydney, why is it that chinese students dominate in selective high schools yet only making up a small proportion of the society and yet Lebonese muslim youth (even second generation) seem to be incapable to make a go of it. Australia has had 15 years of continuous growth and I find it hard to explain how you could screw up so bad.

      The more I watch the news the more I am struck by stories of muslims in Australia seem to mirror those in the middle east (Violence,extremism,political maneuvering of so called clerics)

      I agree with Mark Steyn’s proposition that I don’t care if most of the population is not european as long as they maintain western values. Alas I do not believe that will occur if there are a substantial number of middle eastern muslims on a economic, social, or security level.

      Posted by verge on 2006 04 05 at 01:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. #7

      What are you talking about? When did Steyn ever “throw his support behind intelligent design”??

      Posted by Stone Cold on 2006 04 05 at 01:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. The thing about John Howard that differentiates him from other western leaders is that he has had the skill to seize the information agenda. He is not snobbish about it and doesn’t need a fireside chat program etc.  He is on talkback radio most days of the week.  He talks to people all over the country.

      I am nobody special but even I have met and exchanged pleasantries with him on 3 separate occasions.  You go to a dinner and he is there with Janet. He heads for the dancefloor with his wife and actually has a good night out.  This is a man you can see, hear and trust.

      On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of his government his speech was all about going for the next 10.  He would have made it as a football coach or any elite team.

      He has mastered the art of saying it in a nutshell..”There is really not much point in pretending it doesn’t exist.” Where do the lefties go from there?

      Posted by allan on 2006 04 05 at 01:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. Yay John! Best Australian PM ever.

      Posted by Ubique on 2006 04 05 at 01:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. O/T “CHARGES against six Middle Eastern revenge attackers from the day after the Cronulla riots have been dropped on legal advice” really what is happening?  Charges against

      On the evening of the revenge attacks we know that police observed the men in question preparing for the attacks but were unprepared or unwilling to enter the fray.  This is only partly about the relevant laws and the justice system.  It is still mostly about the willingness to confront and control lawbreakers.  The courts are there to punish but the police to prevent first and second apprehend.

      Posted by allan on 2006 04 05 at 01:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. Im renovating one of my houses it dates back to the 1870’s. Found some amazing stuff,old pennys dating back to 1854.magazines from 1938 and newspapers from 1942.the articals are pretty much the same,one artical was about aussie cricketers being bad losers and should stop sledging England (no shit its true). an informitive artical on sypahllis but for the life of me nothing about drive bye shootings or gang rapes or daily stabbings.

      Posted by sparrow on 2006 04 05 at 03:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. # 9 Tasman
      I wonder how someone like howard would go if he went and stood for the US or UK parliament.

      One thing non Oz readers here need to bear in mind is that Howard’s been in the Federal parliament for 30 years.  Early on he was in government & was a Minister (Treasurer).  Then he spent about 12 years in Opposition, battling most of that time with a contemporary for the leadership, with just about everyone – including his own party – pouring shit on him.  That helps to explain his current rinocerous hide.

      So come 1994 and since, he has vast experience in the Parliament and knowing “what the ordinary folk want” and how they will react to various scenarios.  He’s seen just about every Opposition figure, or any figure in Australia (& outside it)rise & knows them & their history.

      So… if he had the same experience in the UK, he’d probably be in the same position.  Dunno about the USA – he’s probably too “ordinary” to get to the top of the heap there.

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 04 05 at 04:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. … plus he’s now at an age where he doesn’t have to worry so much about his political future, so he can just do what he thinks is right and not give too much of a shit about what the media / commentariat might think or say. Nor does he have to worry about giving / receiving favours to anybody.

      Fortunately, what he thinks & does is pretty well what the majority of the country wants.

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 04 05 at 04:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. #7

      Good one Gustov.  What’s your poison then? “panspermia” or maybe lightning bolts in little muddy ponds? or what about the old classic: life evolved from “simple” single-celled organisms?

      Obviously such a definite opinion such as yours stemmed from a HD average biology degree followed by a well received PhD thesis.  Combined of course with an in depth understanding of western philosophy.

      Or maybe you just listened to too much JJJ one afternoon?

      People that use the term “objective observer” lose all claim to having an intelligent opinion when it comes to matters of science or philosophy.

      Maybe you should stick to comments on the footy

      Posted by Willow76 on 2006 04 05 at 04:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hey Willow,

      Steyn defends ID.  Nothing else needs to be said.  The man is clearly an idiot.

      Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 04 05 at 05:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. Oh, clearly.  Based on his opinion on one subject.  Obviously.

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 04 05 at 05:56 AM • permalink

 

    1. So Gustov,

      Do you reckon the rabbitohs will win on the weekend or what?

      Posted by Willow76 on 2006 04 05 at 06:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. #9 Tasman.  What is the common, uniting feature of the American politician?  Perfect Hair.  Mr Howard cannot compete in that league.

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2006 04 05 at 06:50 AM • permalink

 

    1. #19 and some people defend socialism.

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2006 04 05 at 06:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. I can’t help but notice that gustov never bothers to actually let us know where or when Steyn “defended” ID.

      Of course, as others have pointed out—lots of scientists believe in socialism. Doesn’t mean their science is wrong.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 04 05 at 07:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. the curious thing about Howard is that the older he gets the better he looks. In the 70s he looked a complete nerd. Now he only looks a partial nerd. Give him another 10 years as PM and he’ll be positively hip.

      Posted by hooligan on 2006 04 05 at 07:30 AM • permalink

 

    1. Interesting if it’s true about Steyn and ID. Still if defending ID is a mark of stupidity than a hell of a lot of people are stupid. Evolution is very complex in its operation and is hard for many people to accept, even those who don’t have an particular religious view. Many people i’ve known (not all dummies Gustov, although most admittedly lacked even basic education in science) had some intuitive objection to evolution and tried to find some way to modify the concept in a way not disimilar to ID, although they’d find all types of mental gymnastics to distance themselves from identifying it as such.

      The other amusing thing i find is that various people i’ve had dinner with or met at parties take great joy in deriding people who believe in ID but then proceed to ask me what star sign i am or go on about feng shui. Must be some intellectual hierarchy of belief in pseudo-sciences.

      Posted by Francis H on 2006 04 05 at 07:30 AM • permalink

 

    1. #26.  People have a lot of strange ideas about subjects that aren’t their “core speciality”.  I’m more concerned about the mental abilities of a biologist who believes in ID than of a journalist who believes in it.  Einstein was a socialist – still a genius.

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2006 04 05 at 07:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. #26 #27

      Last time I looked ID was a philosophical belief system and not a science.  Calling it a science and then knocking it down for not meeting scientific requirements seems to me to be a classic straw man argument used by people trying to sound clever.

      What some people don’t realise is that naturalistic explanations of life’s origins have atheism as their premise and as such are also based upon a philosophical belief system.

      Wouldn’t it be great if Gustov’s “objective observer” existed maybe we could get some answers from him/her.

      Posted by Willow76 on 2006 04 05 at 08:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. I’m still waiting for this stuff about Steyn and ID. I’ve looked and couldn’t find it.

      Time to cough up gustov_deleft.

      You wouldn’t be de wasting my detime now would de?

      Posted by geoff on 2006 04 05 at 08:18 AM • permalink

 

    1. #28 Yes, ID is a philosophical belief system.  However it seems to be the ID people themselves who want to claim ID as a science, even though it is in essence the negation of scientific inquiry.

      Science is a method not a set of beliefs, and is not necessarily atheist – it depends more on what religious people want to claim for the qualities of god.  For example, the Ancient Roman or Greek style gods are scientifically possible, because they operate within the universe.  They are super-human but not super-natural.

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2006 04 05 at 08:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. What some people don’t realise is that naturalistic explanations of life’s origins have atheism as their premise and as such are also based upon a philosophical belief system.

      That would come as quite a shock to the Roman Catholic church, which has stated quite clearly and often that there’s nothing incompatible between evolution—and science in general—and their faith.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 04 05 at 08:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. Too right Brett_McS.  Running around invoking the supernatural certainly won’t win you any Nobel prizes (well for science anyway).

      I think ID has become popular recently for two reasons:

      1.  Current explanations for the evolution of a self replicating cell are so unconvincing that they constitute an intellectual embarressement for the science of biology

      2.  Many people want to believe in a higher power and find creationism with its vegetable eating tigers and artefact laden coal seams too ridiculous to contemplate.

      I don’t really think the super-natural/natural dichotomy actually exists. I prefer the explained (that which is currently accepted as science) and the unexplained (that which may or may not become science in the future).  Any type of God you want can exist within the unexplained (not just Mars, Atlas etc..).

      Posted by Willow76 on 2006 04 05 at 08:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. #31
      Evolution is a loaded word and as such comes with many different definitions.  My guess is that the Catholic Church wouldn’t go in for a naturalistic (ie: no supernatural involvement)explanation of the origin of life(ie: formation of the first self-replicating cell).

      Posted by Willow76 on 2006 04 05 at 09:07 AM • permalink

 

    1. #32 Willow76.  It seems that what ID wants to do is arbitrarily stop inquiry at some point and say “OK, from this point on, God takes over.  Let’s stop trying to figure it out”.

      Science keeps trying to figure it out, even though it may be “embarrassingly” incomplete in many areas.  Personally I wouldn’t be embarrassed – this is hard stuff.

      It is the claim of religion for the existence of the super-natural that creates the dichotomy.  Without that claim, there is no dichotomy as you say.

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2006 04 05 at 09:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. Steyn is right on the money as usual. And Howard is the most refreshing breath of fresh air in a politician, in the world.

      Posted by Latino on 2006 04 05 at 09:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. the idistas are never going to convince the evolutionaries & vice versa, so let’s get back to real world stuff like the existence or otherwise of jeremy sear’s chin

      Posted by KK on 2006 04 05 at 09:28 AM • permalink

 

    1. I have some severe problems with the Howard Government. Very severe, genuine human rights violations, albeit affecting small minorities of people.

      I’m dissuaded from voting against them though for the following reasons:

      1. On the “Big issues”, they have it right, and the opposition has it wrong.

      2. The ALP Opposition has essentially 4 factions: the Opportunists, the Careerists, the Deadwood and the Lunatics. There is no credible alternative government at the moment.

      3. And on most of the minor areas I have problems with the Howard Government on, the situation is bipartisan anyway.

      Howard, Costello, Downer and even Abbot – not perfect, just far better than any alternative, far better than anyone in the Uk, Europe, and nearly anyone in the USA. It pains me to say that, and means the quality of international politicians is pretty ordinary.

      Posted by Zoe Brain on 2006 04 05 at 09:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. #28 Willow76

      Last time I looked ID was a philosophical belief system and not a science.  Calling it a science and then knocking it down for not meeting scientific requirements seems to me to be a classic straw man argument used by people trying to sound clever.

      Unfortunately Willow, there a lot of ID-advocates who claim it is a science, and actually want it taught within science class.  That’s where the problem starts.

      What some people don’t realise is that naturalistic explanations of life’s origins have atheism as their premise and as such are also based upon a philosophical belief system.

      Not really, Willow.  As others have pointed out, science is about method, and not a static set of beliefs.  Science progresses by falsification of earlier science.  It never stops, it never says ‘now we know everything’.

      I think the ID controversy is a curious by-product of America’s constitutional constraints and would be unlikely to ignite for long in Australia.

      It’s legal here to mention god, and hold religious instruction within public schools.  Thus, parents can have their children taught creationism in religious classes (they don’t need to dress it up as ‘intelligent design theory‘).  And science is kept to science class.

      Teaching ID in science class makes as much sense as teaching French in woodwork class.

      Posted by ekb87 on 2006 04 05 at 09:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. #34

      Valid point.  However you must admit that if a person allows for the possible existence of some kind of god/orginator in his world view then it is entirely logical and possibly even necessary for that god/originator to be involved some way in the origins of life.  To demand that people/societies completely discount this possiblity is to demand atheism and many people are uncomfortable with this.

      I used the word “embarressment” to highlight the incongruity between the confident facade with which many of these “origin of first cell” ideas are presented to the public and the actual available evidence.

      Posted by Willow76 on 2006 04 05 at 09:41 AM • permalink

 

    1. Willow76 @ #21 ROFL !

      But I think ekb87 is on the money @#38.  ID is being promoted as an alternative to or in competition to “true” science, but its based on belief, not a testable hypothesis.

      I don’t have a problem with religion being taught in schools – as ekb87 says, there’s heaps of that here in Oz.  ID can be taught in those classes and science (“how to test ideas”) can be taught in the physics, chemistry, biology, geology etc classes.

      Do ya reckon the bunnies will get up, though?

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 04 05 at 10:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. #38
      I don’t believe I said anything about science not being about method or that it will ever reach a point of completed knowledge.  Yes of course it is based upon falsification through observation and repeatable experiments.  However if you think that science is not influenced by a person’s belief system/temperament etc etc….  then you will have to join gustov_deleft in his search for the “objective observer”.  The influence of belief systems just becomes more pronounced when dealing with origin of life questions and this is entirely understandable.

      Posted by Willow76 on 2006 04 05 at 10:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. #40 Yeah prob. After going to big Russ’s school of random untempered violence win or lose they should do a fair bit of damage this weekend.

      Posted by Willow76 on 2006 04 05 at 10:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. Oh, for some guts (or imagination) in Australia’s corporate boardrooms.  When are we going to see a phone company sponsor Russ’ Rabbitohs?

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 04 05 at 10:27 AM • permalink

 

    1. Brett — Yes, but Einstein couldn’t balance his own checkbook.

      I think the closest Tim ever came to defending the ID hornswoggle was the thread about the alleged assault on that Kansas theology prof.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 04 05 at 10:44 AM • permalink

 

    1. Well, okay, so maybe Howard is forgiven for the drooling gun lovers remark.

      I love MS to death, but I feel he won’t be satisfied until politicians and statesmen alike stand up and state unequivocally that the problem is not just with the few, the infamous hijackers, who misinterpret or misrepresent Islam, but with Islam itself. Not gonna happen, folks. The remarks made by Howard, Costello and Downer are as close as we’ll get and, while commendable and praiseworthy, even they were comparatively mild.

      Although it’s a debate for another time and place, what exactly is wrong with a biologist who believes that a (and/or the) Creator set the evolutionary ball rolling? I satisfied my college science requirement with several evolutionary biology courses and I found nothing there that either was incompatible with or otherwise challenged my belief in God.

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 04 05 at 12:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. Gusty 7/
      The objective value of your subjective evaluation of Steyn’s objectivity is nil.  As is, seemingly, the prospect of your coming up with a citation of Steyn’s having defended I.D., after, what?, three posters have challenged you for one.
      Damn, that’s a mess of a sentence, innit?  Oh well, I bet you get the idea.

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 04 05 at 12:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. My guess is that the Catholic Church wouldn’t go in for a naturalistic (ie: no supernatural involvement)explanation of the origin of life(ie: formation of the first self-replicating cell).

      As I understand it, you’re wrong. The draw the line at the soul, not at the self-replicating cell:

      Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

      Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.

      I’m not a practicing Catholic, but I admire their position. It’s the most intellectually honest I’ve ever seen, and it bugs me when people try to lump the Catholic Church in with the 3,000-year-old-Cosmos, YEC nuts.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 04 05 at 01:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. Not sure how this thread got onto ID and evolution, but I once saw a sign in front of a church that sort of covers the bases, including the thread topic:

      “God places restrictions on Faith.  Faith does not place restrictions on God.”

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 04 05 at 04:43 PM • permalink

 

    1. #48 RebeccaH. Was the church a mosque?  That saying only applies to the Islamic faith.

      Just imagine if a Christian thought he experienced a vision from God telling him to murder his neighbour.  Would he do it?  No, it is dead against the Bible.  An islamist probably would.  Which of the faiths is therefore placing a restriction on its God?

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2006 04 05 at 05:38 PM • permalink

 

    1. The ID-evolution sidetrack was probably my fault. My point wasn’t to start an evolution debate only to address Gustov’s contention that someone who believes in ID is prima facie an idiot.

      Sorry Willow but ID is promoted as a science. Doesn’t mean it is one but it was bascially an attempt to legitimise creation science. I’m not saying it is a science but that’s how proponents want you to view it.  That’s how they try to get it into schools, as an alternative scientific theory.

      Regardless you then went on to say the naturalistic explanations (ie evolution) are also just philosophical belief systems. So it seems we can compare ID and evolution under your classification system anyway.

      Sorry if i’m trying to sound clever again.

      Posted by Francis H on 2006 04 05 at 06:14 PM • permalink

 

    1. John Howard has got hair only he wears it on his eyebrows instead of on his head.
      And now that he has stopped tripping over his feet all the time, he is really quite a bloke.
      We are lucky to have an experienced, intelligent critter like this just when we need him.
      Hope he stays round.

      Posted by waussie on 2006 04 06 at 12:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. Firstly, Go Johnnny Go!

      Secondly, are there others out there who find the theory(s) of evolution/punctuated equilibrium as (or more) miraculous and God-affriming than soi-disant intelligent design?

      I mean, creation ex nihilo is a perfectly acceptable theory for both creationists AND evolutionists alike.

      For example, the uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them.

      In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy—they briefly “borrow” the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the “debt” back and disappear again.

      Now consider what physicists term “spacetime foam” and the regions within, which are called “bubbles of false vacuum.”

      I’ve read that wherever in this foam the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein’s equations, exponentially inflate.

      In 10 to the neg. 42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe.

      The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a “false vacuum.” As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.

      As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang.

      The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design.

      The so-called “anthropic coincidences,” in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be “fine-tuned” for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms.

      (too many sources referenced to list)

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 04 06 at 01:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. Since gutsof_bereft is going to rubbish Steyn on those grounds, I will make the unsubstantiated assertion that many cosmologists see an intellect behind the design, or to be more basic, the fact of the universe.
      It must be galling to see people like Steyn, Albrechtsen, Bolt, Victor Hanson, Efraim Karsh, Melanie Phillips – and many other across a wide spectrum of sites – arguing cogently and eloquently (or worse, with wit) against the dogma you so love and cherish.
      Tonight’s interview by red Kerry of Les Murray managed to avoid Les’ religious views in favour of his throwaway lines on Iraq.
      Last night it was Dewi Fortuna Anwar who was interviewed and delivered on cue an anti-Australian, venomous bite. No longer is is possible to grant protection visas to DESERVING refugees if our ABC deems it unsuitable.
      Even if these Papuans were bona-fide cannibals (which they are not) I would prefer to offer them protection than some who have turned up at our doorstep in recent years.
      The challenge to Indonesia (as to any other country) is to make the province a place where people want to live rather than escape from.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 04 06 at 07:42 AM • permalink

 

    1. #52 yeah but is it any good in a bubble bath?

      Posted by KK on 2006 04 06 at 08:48 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hey Gustov,you’re a moonbat. Nothing else needs to be said. You’re an idiot.  #53
      “Bloggers” you should have heard MOONFACE Franny on radio national this morning.She was harpying on and crawling to Clive James.
      Fran (being inviting) “You Never criticise Australia -WHY NOT?”
      Franny “Don’t governments need criticism?”
      James “yes and they get it here in Australia..”
      Fran “Well let’s move on..”
      She moved on to girly pearls and Council parking rorts in Melbourne. Apparently there is a quota system and officers must book thirty saps a day. Savaged John So and (is the sound of ringing cash registers aired three times during a sentence emotive?) added that the “we” have long suspected this.
      Well Franny we have long suspected that radio national has a quota system..
      Lashings of misery,humiliation of the West, guilt flogging,Fed bashing,merlot swilling,crim shielding,illegals supporting,terrorist worshipping and will there be ideology for tea?
      This post composed to the soothing sounds of Aunty reliving the battle of Little Big Horn and exulting in the panic of soldiers,the humiliating stupidity of Custer etc.All in glorious technicolour and gory detail -complete with simpering “experts” and B.B.C. purring presenter.

      Posted by crash on 2006 04 06 at 09:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. #54 Works a treat for your sense of self-esteem, KK, when used in the bath.

      Every time you cut a fart, a bubble-universe takes form and if you are creatively (“intelligently”) using your sphincter—why, imagine the number of universes YOU are designing.

      Thou art God. (Michael Valentine Smith)

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 04 06 at 03:35 PM • permalink

 

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.