Loathsome clerico-fascist dead.

Even as we speak, hoards of loyal readers of The Age/Sydney Morning Herald are putting pen to paper about the death of Osama bin Laden to write to the papers claiming, variously, that the death was “murder”, that he “should have faced trial” and that “violence never solves anything”.

Sharper minds than mine have dealt with these issues already but just for the hell of it, here’s my two-cents worth.

It was murder/he should have faced trial.

Personally, I would have loved to see the bastard hauled off in chains to court but that was never going to be a realistic option. The US troops involved in this were apparently given instructions to take him alive if possible but I think things had reached a state where it was unlikely bin Laden was going to stick up his hands and use the Arabic equivalent of “fair enough Guv’nor, you got me bang to rights, I’m coming quietly”.

There was an exchange of gunfire, during which bin Laden was shot dead. I fail to see how this was murder.

Violence never solves anything.

Well, sometimes it does – it certainly did for the fascists pretty good in 1945.

As Obama said in his speech announcing bin Laden’s death, “the American people did not choose this fight” and at the risk of repeating myself, bin Laden chose to attack the US and other western countries not for their vices but for their virtues.

The fact that bin Laden despised the west for its (relative) free, open, secular nature shouldn’t be forgotten.

He wasn’t that fond of Jews or women either.

The Egyptian Uprising explained. Also Laid!

"We're still a bit cross, you know"

Rather to my surprise, some commentators on this blog have been crying out for my analysis of the political unrest in Egypt; why I’m not too sure.

I have, however, an obsessive interest in international politics, a drinking problem and way too much time on my hands which makes me – I suppose – as qualified as anybody else outside Egypt to come up with a half-arsed explanation.

So here goes.

The current uprising has been sparked by the Egyptian people being feed up to the back teeth with a regime which is a) brutal, b) corrupt, c) incompetent and d) loved by none.

True, since 1955 the Egyptian people have been governed by regimes that were – at times – a mixture of all of the above but the difference seems to have been the recent uprising in Tunisia and the extensive coverage this received.

There’s been much blather about what a post-Mubarak government will look like, how representative it might be and the role of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood, despite being the oldest and best organised Islamic society in the country, would probably have around 20 per cent support in any free and fair elections. But what seems obvious from the mass scale of the uprising and the nature of the demands being made is that the bulk of the demonstrators want democracy – not an Islamic state.

The other thing some commentators are pointing to is the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which saw a largely secular uprising hijacked by theocrats. However Iran, with its substantial supplies of oil was always better placed to go it alone politically, unlike Egypt which is closer tied to the West, both through tourism and Western economic aid.

The usual suspects are also pointing to the role of the West in backing corrupt, authoritarian regimes, like Mubarak’s. That’s true but the region is not without corrupt, authoritarian regimes that have no backing from the West. The problem, I suspect, is that the countries ruled by the Ottoman Empire didn’t go through the historical process known as the Enlightenment which eventually lead to the creation of stable liberal democracies in the West.

Also.

I was quite prepared to view Laid with an open mind, but the constant publicity around it is pretty sick-making, so I think I’ll give it a miss.

London Turns it Around

Bob contesting the origins of Bangers and Mash with the Barman at Charles Dickens' local 'The Lamb and Flag'.


I've just returned from a two week trip to London. Last time I was there was 2002 and at that time I found the place staggeringly expensive. The exchange rate was around 30c to the pound and I distinctly remember the Missus and I buying 2 tuna sandwiches and 2 coffees for around forty fucking dollars and walking out in, respectively, a fury and an apologetic smile. Despite staying with friends in Maida Vale for the duration of our stay for the low price of nothing, we got out of London as quickly as we could: every time we moved it cost us.

This recent trip was for work, although I did manage to fit in enough beer drinking to satisfy even the hardiest among us. And I discovered this: in 2009, London is cheaper than Melbourne.

There, I said it.

Sure the exchange rate is much more in our favour (around 50c to the pound), but even so, things have changed somewhere. Either Melbourne has become very expensive, or London and the UK - as a result of the GFC perhaps - has become much, much cheaper. Beer was marginally cheaper than Melbourne (around 3 quid 30p for a pint), food was cheaper (perhaps 3 quid for a large, filled baguette), travel was cheaper, books were cheaper, petrol was cheaper.

I was most pleasantly surprised. Also, the sun shone, unlike during my previous 2 visits which had me believing London was a grey, morbid shithole.

On the flip side, London public transport commuters are the most depressed, rude and stupid group of people on the face of the Earth.

Victory to the Iranian people!

I really wasn’t going to write about the upheavals in Iran (largely because I know three quarters of fuck all of Persian history and culture) but the complete silence from certain sections of “the left” is starting to shit me.

Hundreds of thousands of people (possibly millions) have taken to the streets in cities across Iran to protest against what seems to be a deeply dodgy election result and are shot, baton charged and tear gassed for their pains – and the gatekeepers of the hard left say nothing.

Nothing.

Socialist Alliance – nothing.

Green Left Weekly – nothing.

In some way, I shouldn't be surprised. These fuck-knuckles have always been deeply uncertain about Iran, largely because they can’t blame the usual suspects (Zionists, the CIA, the military-industrial complex, the US, the “west”) and their typical reaction is to turn away and hum loudly when the Iranian government does something like beat members of Tehran’s bus drivers’ union and jail its leader (as happened last year).

Of course, it would all be different if these events were taking place in another country in the region starting with the letter "I" (and no, I don't mean Iraq).

But still, Iranians continue to take to the streets to demand democracy and human rights, despite the beatings, tear gas attacks and shootings.

I’ve been in quite a few demos that have got a bit excited, but I’ve never had some cunt try and shoot me.

Victory to the Iranian people.

IDAHO: not just potatoes

I turned on the TV in my room last night and discovered I had BBC World News. At first, I was rather excited that I had another option besides CNN, but that quickly turned to confusion and anger when I watched the first story presented.

A BBC reporter was in Moscow, where the Eurovision final is to be held on Saturday night. A gay rights activist had petitioned the city council for permission to hold a gay pride march, but had been denied (every application since the first in 2006 has been turned down by the mayor, Yuri Luzhkov, who describes the parades as ‘satanic’). However, the council is allowing “hardcore nationalists and religious groups to stage a counter-demonstration on the same day.”

Being gay is apparently not illegal in Russia, but there are many cases of gay and lesbians being the victim of violence from “neo-Nazis, ultra-Nationalists and Christian fundamentalists.” Including British activist Peter Tatchell, who was badly beaten in Moscow two years ago, and Irina Fedotova, one half of the first lesbian couple to seek a marriage certificate in Russia (they were denied), who says she has been beaten twice by extremists. While I was watching the story, she intimated that many gay people in Russia have to hide their sexuality for fear of violence against them, and that anti-gay activists will wait outside gay clubs to bash people leaving them.

Indeed, Mikhail Nalimov, leader of the United Orthodox Youth, has said there will be “a very tough reaction from a lot of [their] activists” and claims gay activists are “spiritual terrorists” and that the “aim of the gay movement is to destabilise the country and society.” Of course, it’s not possible that the aim of the gay movement is simply to allow gay people to have the same basic human rights as everyone else.

I am completely baffled by opinions such as this. I just don’t understand what people have against homosexuality. What does it matter what two consenting adults do in their private life? How on earth does it impact on anyone else? Why do religious people get their knickers in such a twist about it (such as the ‘God Hates Fags’ group in the US)? And not just religious people, but anyone? Why? I’ve heard of some people who are against homosexuality, and in particular same-sex marriage, bring up paedophilia as an argument, and say society makes it their business to prevent that sort of perverse behaviour, and claim that it’s no different to homosexuality. But that’s bullshit. Paedophilia is not between two consenting people, because one of the parties involved is a minor and unable to give consent. There is also the ridiculous argument that if we allow same-sex people to marry, what’s to stop someone from marrying their dog in the future? For the same reason – the dog can’t consent.

While I was watching the report, and listening to Nalimov say the church and his activists will continue to fight against gay activists (and putting aside the very important issues that those who call themselves Christians are hardly acting like Christians when they bash other people and act with such intolerance), I just kept repeating to myself, “But why? Why do you care if these people are gay? How is it affecting you?” Sure, you might think homosexual acts damn the soul and what not, but what does it matter to you if someone else is doing it? I hardly think bashing someone up is going to endear you to god, even if said person is doing something you think god doesn’t approve of. Two wrongs don’t make a right and all of that. Not to mention, Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality in the New Testament of the Bible. You’d think if it was really that important, he might have mentioned it once or twice.

I really don’t understand homosexual-hate. Anyone have a clue?

P.S. May 17 is International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO), so I thought this was a fitting topic.

Now what are they going to use?

Bananarama - no relation to Barak Obama, sadly.

I’m delighted that Barak Obama is now President of the United States and not for just the usual reasons.

Part of my glee stems from the fact that the fuck-knuckles of the Australian loopy left will have real problems with an Obama Presidency. Not because they will, in any way, welcome President Obama; in their heart of hearts they despise the democratic process and actually believe the US is a quasi-fascist state.

No, the reason is that when the Obama administration does something which displeases them and they take to the streets, do you think they’ll be able to burn pictures and effigies of a young, progressive, charismatic, black President?

I don’t fucking think so. That’s not going to play too well on the evening news.

Expect to see more generic “Uncle Sams” being denounced, burnt and spat on in the foreseeable future.

Are we still "all Hezbollah" now?

You may recall, at the time of Israel’s recent invasion of southern Lebanon, certain members of the “left” marched under the slogan of “we are all Hezbollah now”.

This was in turn a reference to the murderous fascist scum engaged in fighting the Israeli army.

Oh, I’m sorry; did I describe them as “murderous fascist scum”? I mean, of course, “heroic freedom fighters against western imperialism”.

Well, it seems the sons of fun in Hezbollah aren’t that keen on a free media, either*.

The Guardian reports;

In the run-up to its launch next week, the glossy quarterly Jasad ("body" in Arabic) has been generating plenty of curiosity and hostility as it prepares to take on some of the most powerful taboos in Arab culture.

Issue one of the Lebanese title includes articles on self-mutilation and cannibalism as well as stories on sexual themes by authors from Egypt, Morocco, Syria and Palestine. Pseudonyms are not permitted. Regular features will include Body-Talk, Voyeur's Corner and My First Time.

The paper also notes

Officials of Hizbullah, the powerful Lebanese Shia movement, tried to close Jasad's stand at this week's Beirut book fair.

The paper doesn't say what "tried to close" involved, but I'm guessing it wasn't a stern blog post.

You’d think, that at some point, certain people might be able to work out that Hezbollah really, really isn’t an organisation any rational leftist would care to embrace.

But comrades, don’t hold your breath.

*They’re not that fond of Jews either.

Or secularists.

Or democracy.

Or voting.

Or women.

This one is too easy

A quick competition, comrades.

A crate of Cooper's Ale to the first TSFKAer who can find the suggestion that the vicious fascists who have murdered scores in the Indian bombings are in fact "brave freedom fighters against western imperialism".

Try looking here.

Back tomorrow.

Rahm Emanuel sounds like my sort of bloke.

Salon Magazine reports on the man chosen by U.S. President-elect Obama to be his new Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

It’s an interesting and well written piece and I urge you to read it.

However, for the time poor, I include this passage, which sums up Mr Emanuel rather well:

One of the founding myths of the Legend of Rahm is of a night at Doe's, a divey steakhouse in Little Rock, Ark., shortly after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. Emanuel had worked on the campaign, and would soon move into the White House as political director. Some Clintonistas were sitting around at dinner, griping about all the people who had betrayed the new president. But Emanuel wasn't satisfied just to whine about them. (After all, he races triathlons, marathons apparently being insufficiently challenging.) So he grabbed his steak knife and started plunging it into the table, yelling, "Dead! Dead!" as he rattled off the names of the new administration's enemies.

Mr Emanuel, I like the way you think.

And for dessert?

The Bali bombers have been executed.

I think they were loathsome fascists and anti-Semites who should have rotted in an Indonesia prison for the rest of their lives, forgotten and unmourned.

However, what gets my goat is that the usual suspects have been jumping up and down, saying “the Australian Government should have done more to stop the executions”.

Umm, chaps? They were Indonesian citizens, sentenced by an Indonesian court and executed by an Indonesian firing squad.

The Australian Government (and opposition as well) has made quite clear its opposition to the death sentence around the world. It’s the height of arrogance to imagine it could do anything more.

I have to admit that if I was going to be executed*, firing squad would probably be my preferred method**.

*After a great big, slap-up meal of Beef Wellington and a couple of bottles of a decent red.

*Not that it’s likely I’d be offered a choice.

End of Week MILF

Being single, I am often asked or forced to consider what attributes I might like in a potential partner.

The following things come to mind.

1. Ideally they will be a bit or a lot intelligent.
2. I must find them attractive.
3. They should be happy (even if they look like Audrey Hepburn and have Einstein's brain, if they're bitter I lose interest).
4. Likes footy, or tolerates my love of it.

That's about it.

But, I'd like to add one, given the events of the past few days.

5. Must be able to shoot a caribou, like Sarah Palin.



Ramon thinks I'm a nutsoid, and yeah, she's a right-wing brain-dead conservative Christian drongo who clings to dangerous superstitions (ie: the Bible) and with such archaic, childish and moronic value systems could potentially bring damage to many people's lives, but, like I said, after half a bottle of wine, I'd hit it.

BECAUSE SHE'S POWERFUL!

AND SHE SHOOTS CARIBOU!

Put her in a policewoman's outfit and I'll be jizzin' all over the axeminster.

Sort of like the Australian Democrats, only in turbans.

One of the things that struck me while reading media reports about the recent biffo* in Afghanistan was the way various journos kept referring to an attack by “Taliban extremists”.

As opposed to what, Taliban moderates?

“Well, yes, you have been found guilty of sending your daughter to school but instead of stoning you to death you’ll receive a written reprimand.

“Oh, and you’ll have to pick up all the rubbish around the cave for a week.”

UPDATE:

On doing some research for this rant, I’ve discovered most of the journos are now describing them as “Taliban fighters”. Which is a little better, but given they were armed with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades, they were hardly going to be “Taliban social workers”.

*I’m not going to describe it as a “firefight”. People who use the word “firefight” are cunts.

The unbearable lightness of Complex Shit

Sometimes you can be too ironic and monumental for your own good, as evidenced today by this story from The Age. Artist Paul McCarthy had been purportedly "subverting the complex landscape" according to the Paul Klee Centre's website with his giant inflatable dog turd piece entitled 'Complex Shit'. Problem was, the Complex Shit was picked up by a high wind, snagged a power line and damaged a greenhouse before landing in the grounds of a children's home.

One wonders if the inmates of the children's home now have what psychologists might call a shit complex caused by the errant Complex Shit?

Who knows? Only time will tell.

WYD ends - huzzah

Pope grabs drive-through snack on way to airport - more at 6

Captions anyone?


(Image courteously ripped off from ABC news - thanks Aunty xx - original article here)

One possible reason why the "left" is silent on Zimbabwe.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez getting chummy with Robert Mugabe, October 2005

Most of my comrades on the hard left usually have a ready answer to the world’s ills.

“Palestinians good/Jews bad, nationalise stuff, troops out now”; the sort of stuff they can rattle off the tops of their heads, no thought required.

Mention Zimbabwe, however, and the reaction is a nervous foot-shuffling and sudden desire to be elsewhere.

This is because Zimbabwe is a bit of a tricky one for the comrades. They can’t blame the Jews, they can’t blame the US or UK governments (although some of them do give it a fair old crack), they can’t even blame the Mainstream Media.

Bugger, eh!

Best to say nothing then, since the alternative might be to analysis the situation in a way free of cliché and rhetoric and we can’t be having that.

The net result is that we have an issue the maddies would normally be slobbering over; a brutal dictator oppressing his people, a crisis that could fuck over destabilise all of southern Africa, heroic trade unions in South Africa refusing to supply a ship carrying weapons to said brutal dictator and we hear not a word.

Not a demo, not a chant, not an online petition.

Not even a word from that vile Leninist cunt Jeff Sparrow

They just can’t bring themselves to criticise a man who calls himself “Comrade Mugabe”.

Good to see the spirit of aligning yourself with any fuckwit, as long as they spout the right clichés, lives on.

Incidentally, it was George Orwell’s birthday this week (25 June 1903).

I can’t imagine he would have stayed silent.