.. would never lie ...
.. nor dissemble even,
.. he'd just stick to the truth
Dramatis personae (in 'reported' action order):
1. Godwin Grech, public servant at the Treasury.
2. Andrew Charlton, of the Prime Minister's office.
3. Steve Lewis, the Australian (News Ltd - Murdoch).
4. Malcolm Turnbull, the (current) leader of the opposition.
5. Eric Abetz, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate as the 'star' upper chamber inquisitor.
6. Joe Hockey, previously financial services minister, now languishing in opposition. He dragged himself gratuitously in; just how amazingly clever was that?
Plot: Fake email used by Turnbull to demand the resignation of the Prime Minister of Australia.
Note(s): Grech comes 1st, as the source (but not so-far identified publicly as author) of the email which attempted to implicate the PMO's Charlton; that email then being 'leaked' (did it fall or was it pushed?) into Lewis' hands. Then (out of a clear blue sky, or so it seemed) Turnbull attacked Charlton and quickly thereafter Abetz unmercifully grilled Grech, completing a perfect 'circle' of discredit. Somewhere along the way, Hockey 'stuck his bib in,' disclosing a relationship with Grech going back to before 2001, brought up to date latest by Hockey leaving a message on Grech's phone on Friday 19Jun'09 (or was it on Saturday the 20th? - Hockey said both, but one presumes just the one message; even one may seem too many.)
a) For weeks, the Lib opposition 'led' by Turnbull had been attacking the federal Treasurer over OzCar, alleging 'special dealings for a PM's mate.' Information presented shows yes, some Treasury traffic involving a certain Mr Grant, in fact more than many but less than a few others; and nothing really much special at all. (To pretend that 'mates' can't get a foot in the door faster than outright nobodies would be laughing in the face of political reality, then recall Turnbull pumps $10m into rainmaking gamble; funding for a 'mate' in Turnbull's fundraising group, for a non-proven rain-making machine, approved just days before the 2007 election. (My tip: read the article! See Malcolm duck and weave!)) All, of course, just 'normal' representative work?
Nothing to see here; move on. Well, some did 'move on,' but in a markedly different manner:
Turnbull in the hot seat
«MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, there were references made in the media, Kerry. There were references made in the media and there were references - questions asked in the Senate before - there were questions asked in Senate estimates if you go back, I think, to 4 June. But you see, the issue is not ...»
Note(s): This provides a convenient 'starting point,' namely 4 June, and tries to pin it at least partly on 'the media.' Thanks at the latest to AusBC/mediawatch, we can now see who in the media (Lewis), and what he had in his hot little hand, namely an 'email' naming PMO's Charlton as sender, to Treasury/OzCar's Grech dated 19Feb'09.
Note(s): This padlocks Grech & Charlton to Lewis via the email.
b) Definitely "b" for "bombshell:"
Turnbull 'threatened' PM's staffer
By Online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers
Posted June 19, 2009 11:04:00
«"At the mid-winter ball the other night Mr Turnbull approached a Government staff member and threatened that staff member in relation to the OzCar matter," he said.»
Note(s): This directly links Turnbull to Grech, Charlton & the email, a few days before Abetz' intimidation of Grech. It doesn't implicate Lewis directly - just 'circumstantially.'
c) How prescient, "c" for "career:"
«Mr Turnbull: Andrew, integrity is the most important thing in a man's career. That is why I encourage you, no matter what the circumstances, no matter what the pressure, not to lie.»
[AusBC/Turnbull 'threatened' staffer, ibid.]
d) Very definitely "d" for "drama:"
Journalists and Their Sources
«Senator Eric Abetz: A person has, a journalist in fact, has suggested to me... that there may have been a communication from the Prime Minister's office...
[flow interrupted by interjections]
Godwin Grech: My recollection may well be totally false or faulty... but my recollection is that there was a short email from the PMO to me which very simply alerted me to the case of John Grant, but I don't have the email.
Senator Doug Cameron: How many times did you speak to Steven Lewis yesterday?
Godwin Grech: Yesterday?
Senator Doug Cameron: Yes.
Godwin Grech: At least four occasions.
Senator Doug Cameron: You spoke to Steven Lewis on four occasions.
Godwin Grech: mm... »
Note(s): Grech must be on pretty thin ice here, one presumes there's only so much 'small-talk' a public servant can have with a 'dig up the dirt' Murdoch reporter. Note also that Abetz implicated 'a journalist;' this may have enticed/led/forced Lewis to publish the alleged email now known to be a forgery/fake the next day.
e) Perhaps we can posit "e" for "exit:"
Turnbull's links to Grech questioned
«KERRY O'BRIEN: Did you or any other Liberal MP or staffer have contact with Mr Grech between when he gave Senate evidence on 4 June and when he gave that evidence last Friday, June 19?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Kerry, I am not going to talk about Mr Grech. I understand your interest in it, ...
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The ABC has today confirmed that Mr Turnbull, at least, did meet with Mr Grech between the first Committee Hearing on June the 4th and the sensational proceedings of last Friday.»
My comment: This is the crux; the failure to be definitive here simply screams out "Something to hide!" Turnbull - did, or did not - have a 'chat' with Grech, and there'd only be the one (main) topic. Then, as in 'be sure your sins will find you out,' along comes Brissenden with 'the goods:' "confirmed ... did meet".
f) For "firestorm:"
A 'pathetic' party would replace Turnbull
Posted June 29, 2009 18:43:00
«Mr Abbott argues the Government's smear campaign against Mr Turnbull is the reason for the Liberal Leader's poor polling.
"I don't think any leader in my memory has experienced the firestorm of smear which the Labor Party directed against Malcolm Turnbull last week," he said.»
My comment: IF there was any firestorm THEN it was Lib generated, if there was any smearing of any Lib, it was by their own grubby little fingers.
My tips: IF sparks sown, THEN expect to reap firestorm. If you don't wish to get burned, don't play with matches. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Last word (for now):
Questions raised over Turnbull-Grech meeting
«SUSAN MCDONALD: The ABC has confirmed Malcolm Turnbull had a meeting with the Treasury Official Godwin Grech, sometime after his first Senate testimony ...
SUSAN MCDONALD: It's been reported Senator Abetz was at the meeting with the Treasury official who police suspect forged an email ...»
... the meeting singular, where it all happened ...
My comment: How does it go? "A nod's as good as a wink?"
PS What about the possible case of a rogue public servant? The author of the faked email is clearly such a rogue: ("A 42-year-old Calwell man has been interviewed by the AFP in relation to this matter and it will be alleged that the interview is consistent with preliminary forensic advice") - but to my Q: Who can be held 'responsible?'
Turnbull 'touched' on this: "... if an email has been concocted in the Treasury? Will Mr Rudd resign if an email is concocted in my office. This is absurd. If an email has been concocted or fabricated, it's been concocted in the Treasury. Mr Rudd has been making the allegation recklessly and without basis that somehow or other the Opposition had a hand in it."
My comment: What is truly absurd, is Turnbull's attempted total red herring: "Rudd alleges ... that somehow or other the Opposition had a hand in it". What Turnbull and the rest of the opposition are undoubtedly right up to their bottom lips in, is the enormous hole (full of bullshit!) - that they themselves dug/created - out of whole cloth, as the saying goes.
But#1: «Mr Rudd said Mr Turnbull's fingerprints were "all over this fake email and he knows it"» - which would quite literally be true, if Grech had shown it (which could only have been a paper copy) to Turnbull (and Abetz?)
But#2: «During the weekend Mr Turnbull said he did not have the email and had not seen it ...» Here a Q: IF he hadn't seen it THEN what was the basis for his allegations? More particularly - perhaps most importantly, why did Turnbull accost Charlton?
But#3: It was Mr Turnbull himself who set out on his 'fabulous adventure,' armed with this fake/forgery as his 'weapon.' My Q: Exactly who bears all the blame?
Then: «Mr Turnbull says the Opposition raised the disputed email during a Senate inquiry on Friday because it had been published in a newspaper.
But Mr Rudd says the purported contents of the email were not published until Saturday and Mr Turnbull cannot get his story straight.»
After the Grech 'sworn testimony' - which may have been pre-arranged, but was certainly made to look for all the world like coerced(!!?) - after that testimony, Turnbull went wild - and called for our PM's head. Note the implication: Turnbull preferred a public servant's word to our PM's. But (2nd last for now): the APF *did* find the fake, as 'deleted' (i.e. still stored, just marked as deleted) from Grech's home system. The fake presumably contains all the headers, showing exactly the user, the day/time and the machine & connected server from which it originated, that whole corner is sewn up. But (it's the last for now and a massive BUT): What if the APF had *not* found the fake? What if the 'fake' never even existed, except in the (sick!) imaginings of Grech, Lewis, Turnbull&Co?
Suggestion: Continuous & public deployment of properly functioning lie-detectors, everywhere. (Listening, Aunty?)
Lies are only deployed to deceive.
 integrity n. 1 moral excellence; honesty. 2 wholeness; soundness. [Latin: related to *integer] [POD]
 lie2 —n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. —v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive. give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [ibid.]
 dissemble v. (-ling) 1 be hypocritical or insincere. 2 disguise or conceal (a feeling, intention, etc.). [Latin simulo *simulate] [ibid.]
This is a comment to green revolution (Iran)]
.. but some AusBC reporting *is* ...
I do *not* support violence, in any way, shape or form - quite the opposite.
In the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq (and talking of 'brutal,' that's what the invasion was morphed into, a *brutal* occupation; estimated 1.3+mio dead Iraqis) - in that run-up, we who opposed war were accused of being Saddam *supporters,* with or without a gratuitous *appeaser* tag. That's the sort of tactics deployed by the vicious warmongers and warmongering supporters (i.e. lying trolls, say).
Now, if we (truth, justice & *peace*-seekers) oppose the criminal US destabilisation of Iran, we stand the chance to be maligned; we may once again be incorrectly (unjustly!) accused, this time of supporting the brutal crack-downs - reported almost hourly on by panting AusBC patsies. One can almost hear the blood dripping down between their words. At the time of this writing, Anne Barker's AM transcript is yet to be posted, but I heard some of it, and it could have gone something like this: "Iran's streets are now almost completely, peacefully silent, with people quietly resuming their normal business - however the brutal crack-down has resulted in about a squillion deaths, with the hated and feared berserker-militia, all dressed in black-masked mufti, were yesterday seen by US-sponsored subversive tweeters - attacking innocent bystanders with axes." She didn't say: thankfully, the pitiful but noisy minority of illegal and violent anti-government sore-loser protesters had abandoned their foolish quest to unseat the legitimate authorities. Too bad; but we have to sacrifice something in the name of so-called 'journalistic honesty, accuracy & accountability' - I suppose.
We (the sheople) all just *love* democracy; basically because we've been told we love it, just as we are continually assured that we live in the absolute and only best place in the world - funny that the one best place happens to include simultaneously the US, UK, Aus & Israel. The propagandists don't 'see' any problem with this unique/non-unique impossibility, because they (conceptually) are stuck in their own incredibly narrow perspective - which they force down our throats. In fact, it amuses me to hear the propagandists tell us we live in *the most unique* paradise!
Sooo, when an ignorant and ideologically erring rent-an-insurgent mob go on a rampage in Iran (look to the earliest demo pictures; hoards of *stone throwers*, burning pyres - from stinky rubbish bins to public buses); so much for 'peaceful rallies' - when this rabble is asked to behave but instead increases it's intransigency, Q: What're the authorities to do? A: Get out the axes - according to the AusBC.
Despite the AusBC's 'best' efforts, we still lack loads of meaningful data. Here is an interesting viewpoint:
Stolen Election in Iran? An Inside View of Vote Fraud
By Maarten Doude van Troostwijk
June 22, 2009 "LewRockwell"
«Nothing in the above proves or disproves fraud in the recent election in Iran, of course. But since there seem to be hardly any reports indicating the type of blatant, precinct-level fraud as described above, the way it must have been done - if at all - is on the level of the Regional or Central Electoral Commission by manipulating the count. If so, one would expect results to have taken longer to be announced for the above-mentioned reasons. Of course, the manipulation of results could have been done crudely too, particularly if it was done in a panic - by a bunch of incompetents who hadn’t prepared their conspiracy to defraud properly (which would render the current Iranian authorities not much of a dictatorship - proper dictatorships don’t mess up their hold on power). In that case we should see real evidence soon.
So far, however, the fact in itself that the results of this election were known within a short time after the closing of the polls cannot be a convincing argument that there must have been fraud. On past experience of observing elections, it tends to indicate the opposite.»
[ICH/lewrockwell/Doude van Troostwijk]
As usual, one should read the lot.
PS At any crime scene, it may be asked what of means, motive & opportunity. The US, with its *publicly announced* $US400mio destabilisation plans, must be 'in with a chance.' That Iran sits on a lake of oil - just like Iraq - gives us a hint at 'Cui Bono?'
PPS What's so good about democracy anyway? We, the sheople are lied to, not just by our so-called leaders, but also by big bits of the AusBC; our so-called representatives more often than not represent anything but our, we the sheople's interests (like flogging off 'the family silver,' say), and no matter who we elect, we still get ripped off, and our boys sent to invade and murder in foreign lands. Sooo again, who would wish our system on any other group? Why would any other group wish to join us, in our fake 'democracy paradise?' All we get, as 'lucky Aussies' (or USs, Uks etc.) is bought off with cheap trinkets like wide-flat-screen TVs, loads of DVDs, take-out pizzas - and an otherwise bored-to-death, waiting for Godot poverty of an existence. What utter madness.
 'Blood everywhere' in fresh Iran crackdown
By Middle East correspondent Anne Barker for AM
Posted June 25, 2009 06:00:00
Updated June 25, 2009 09:31:00
«"We saw militia with axe chopping people like meat - blood everywhere - like butcher."»
Not much good complaining, without suggesting a solution; so here's how we could start:
STOP ALL THE FILTHY LIES! (Listening, Aunty?)
.. the end - justified the means ...
.. too bad - for the many 'collaterals' ...
.. omelette = broken eggs [or 'just' beaten]
1. "the price - was worth it" - the ½mio children, being ½ of the total of about 1mio Iraqis, thought to have died as a direct result of the US-sponsored UN-sanctions against Iraq, '91+. This estimate is sure to be short of the real total, and does not attempt to measure misery.
2. "the end - justified the means" - the downfall & execution of Saddam, at a cost to-date of (estimate; the US doesn't even attempt to count): 1.3+mio dead Iraqis, with 2+2mio displaced or fled - and 6+ years later (longer than all of WW2), Iraq is still occupied by 150,000 invading US soldiers; infrastructure damaged, in many places totally destroyed, and the whole economy in tatters.
3. "too bad - for the many 'collaterals'" - Afghanistan, Iraq and now Pakistan (this only but not all since 2001); the US invading, pink-misting 'grunts' do not care a wit who they witlessly kill. Bullet, bomb or robot-missile, rained down on the 98% innocent indigenes out of clear blue skies. Their skies, not the invader's. Ummm; what's about the 2%? - actually, more indigenes, variously called "Al-Qaeda" or "Taliban" - but probably more accurately: "genuine, patriotic freedom fighters."
4. "omelette = broken eggs [or 'just' beaten]" - Iran today; the 'legitimate' authorities either brutally suppressing legitimate democratic dissent - or desperately defending their age-old culture from US-inspired, US-funded & US-assisted subversion, psyops and snivelling greed.
5. "boots - or settlements; 'on the ground'" - the near 1000 US bases around the world, threatening & coercing democracies such as Germany, Japan - and Australia (remember the (CIA) coup against Whitlam); and the illegal settlements the Zs build, as they press their (non!)borders ever further into Palestine, beyond the (undeserved!) 'gift' the UN (immorally!) 'gave' them in '47/8.
6. Omitted (amongst others); the whole grisly, South America saga, the brutal attacks on the former Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Korea, the (war crime!) A-bombings. Too many US-depredations, not enough (my) time. But note one thing: almost without exception, the US(Israeli) attacks are made against pitiful if any resistance.
These are not actions from some dreadful medieval past, they are current, starting roughly post-WW2 and occurring almost continuously right down to the present moment. Apart from the actions by Iran, which - IMHO - may very well be only self-defensive in nature, even if (slightly?) misguided (but see Iran Had a Democracy Before We Took It Away) - these aggressive (see Nuremberg Crimes against Peace) actions are actions carried out by, led by, the so-called world leader - and its vicious side-kick.
The US (plus Israel) are not doing any of this to spread democracy; they have no use for truth and less for justice. (See corrupt and venal MSM, including big bits of the AusBC.) The US (plus Israel) are doing what they do to enable US-style capitalism to rip-off the world's resources, and further enrich themselves ever more obscenely beyond avarice in the process.
They, the US (plus Israel), represent themselves as "the pinnacle of human civilisation."
«Without justice, there can be no peace. He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it.»
About time to get something useful - honourable & legal to do, eh?
.. 1. the US invasion of Asia ...
.. 2. the Zionist invasion of Palestine ...
.. 3. police action against poor-loser Iranian insurgents
1. My title should be enough, but I'll 'toss' up some extras anyway. We know about Lakoffian® framing; it's not just what one says, but also v.definitely how one says it. I have recently pointed out a few of the multitudinous AusBC sins of transmission.
For some reason unknown to me, the AusBC has given itself permission - or been ordered - to tell us lies, the recent/current examples being two, namely the pro-opposition biased reporting on the attempted subversion (green revolution (Iran; 'the fix')) of the Iranian election and the pro-Liberal-opposition biased reporting on the OzCar/utegate psyop mounted against our own Federal government by Turnbull&Co.
On the one hand, the AusBC is joining by encouraging dissent against the legal order in Iran; the only 'real' info we have so far seen on Iranian voting intentions predicted essentially the given result. Massive street demonstrations (by sore losers) may look impressive, but IF they are the result of external subversion, and in any case represent only a small but v.well organised minority, *and* have been declared illegal, THEN reasonable police action would be understandable. Further IF the demos get out of hand (we've seen lots of fires) THEN more extreme actions (water-cannon, batons) could be justified. I do not by this condone any killing in any way, but who is to know who's really 'responsible?' See the $US400mio that we know about, deployed (via CIA, we suppose, perhaps Mossad) specifically towards the destabilisation of Iran. Based on the known 'School of Assassins' m.o. they could have multiple undercover killers active in Iran. Note: fires in the streets have been seen recently in France, water-cannon, batons deployed in Germany, etc.. Sooo, Q: Why is the AusBC describing events in Iran with such draconian language? (A: Silly question; they wish to influence, as opposed to inform.)
On the other hand, until it became ludicrously obvious that Turnbull had well and truly shot himself in the foot, the AusBC bias was full-tilt to the Liberals. Not just on the Federal scene, the AusBC full-tilt bias to the Liberals is 'enduring and endemic' to Canberra local politics. Q: Why that? A: See influence vs. inform. Q: Whose interests are served? A1: *Not* ours, we the sheople, A2: *Not* our de-balled and defective democracy.
Only fully and fairly informed voters could be capable of making sane electoral decisions; any single lie is a crime against democracy, but the AusBC is a serial, multiply continuous offender. Boo! Hiss! Bad Aunty!
2. The US, and its as good as continuous 'resource' wars. There's a logical fallacy, often deployed 'in the bad old days' by Howard: "Everyone knows..." which he would then follow by one of his famous lies. (Coined especially for Howard: "All politicians lie!" - where 'all' is loosely interpreted as the multiple Howard personalities assembled "as a shag on a rock.") Sooo, everyone knows - or should know by now, exceptions being a) those actually 'on the take,' b) those erring ideologues who support criminals 'for free' (i.e. lying trolls), and c) those deliberately deceived, see AusBC above... - Err, everyone capable of sorting truth from the MSM dross knows that the US is run by an outlaw rogue regime, mass-slaughtering across the planet, recent examples being Afghanistan, Iraq and now Pakistan:
US drone strike kills 45 in Pakistan
Posted June 24, 2009 06:00:00
«US ally Pakistan officially objects to the strikes by pilotless US aircraft, though the attack came as the Pakistani army was preparing an offensive against Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud in South Waziristan on the Afghan border.»
Fat lot of good any 'objecting' will do:
Pentagon Multiple Choice: Dissenting Americans are Terrorists
June 15, 2009
«It should come as no surprise a DoD Antiterrorism Awareness training course characterizes dissidents as “low level” terrorists. Such indoctrination and brainwashing will make it easier for soldiers and DHS paramilitaries — including “public-private partnership” (fascist) shock troops such as InfraGard and soon enough Obama’s “public service” Jugendbewegung — to not only round-up and intern dissidents but shoot them down in numbers as they were shot down in their millions by Stalin and Mao in the blood-soaked 20th century.»
I hear some saying yeah, yeah, pull the other one; so try this:
October 26, 2008 12:40 PM PDT
U.S. Army warns of twittering terrorists
by Steven Musil
«The U.S. intelligence community is concerned that terrorists might use micro-blogging tool Twitter to coordinate attacks, according to a purported draft Army intelligence report posted on the Web.
The report--present by the 304th Military Intelligence Battalion and posted to the Federation of American Scientists Web site--examines the possible ways terrorists could use mobile and Web technologies such as the Global Positioning System, digital maps, and Twitter mashups to plan and execute terrorist attacks.»
But IF you still think I'm dreaming THEN try this:
Jun 20, 2009
Beijing cautions US over Iran
By M K Bhadrakumar
«Earlier, Moscow welcomed Ahmadinejad's re-election. Both China and Russia abhor "color" revolutions, especially something as intriguing as Twitter, which Moscow came across a few months ago in Moldova and raises hackles about the US's interventionist global strategy.»
3. In another type of "Everyone knows" bucket, we have the "except for the deliberately disinformed" one, see AusBC above. Here I refer to the Zionist invasion of Palestine, essentially the defining injustice that allowed every subsequent injustice - like the illegal invasion of Iraq, now turned brutal occupation; murder for oil. I note the UN now bleating at Iran; Q: Why didn't the UN declare the B, B & H invasion illegal - until too late? Q: Why did the UN allow Zionists to invade Palestine in the first place? On top of all of those v.good questions, come the overarching one, Q: Why does the AusBC provide cover for invading alien Zionists, who have been mass-murdering the original legal owners of Palestine now for 61+ bloody years? One glaringly obvious (i.e. dog's balls) one is because the politicians not just allow it, they order it. But what of AusBC 'integrity?' What of their so-called 'professionalism?' Bah! Of course, either voluntarily surrendered, or totally corrupted - if not both, even assuming that any of those ever existed.
Facit: The 'peak of perfection' of Anglo/Judaic 'civilisation' arises in the so-called 'leader(s)' of the so-called 'free' world, the (mad dog!) US, with its (illegitimate!) tail, Israel - and their murdering wars for resources, mainly the US for oil, Israel for land and water. That the filthy crimes of this 'dastardly duo' go largely unremarked, is because of continuous (lying!) 'cover' afforded by the (corrupt & venal!) MSM, including big bits of the AusBC.
To criticise Iran in the face of their own vast criminality is the utter heights of hypocrisy; there can never be peace without justice, and the reform must start 'at the top' - else, 'the fish is rotting from the head.' Phew! - But not just awful, catastrophic.
"Jobs for the boys" or "favours for mates" is the 'hook' Turnbull went fishing with - but it could be pointed out a certain Howard/Manildra ethanol rort (something like $500,000 if my recall is correct - High-octane spark, Ethanol uproar engulfs Howard), but whatever the sum, that was both *real* money and *real* chicanery; here what's under discussion is a) some broken-down old ute and b) some unspecified, theoretically *possible* assistance. Oh yes, I do know that "It's the thought that counts."
I thought it was pretty crook, watching Turnbull admit that he had *nothing* in his hands, no email; no text, basically SFA. Q: What then, had he based his calls for a Rudd resignation on? Then to go Oh, so disingenuous and say "Fake email? We composed no fake email!!?" - now that's what you call a red herring, as is belatedly trying to switch the attack (back) to Swan.
It might be what you call a conundrum, Turnbull obviously had *something*, whatever it is he won't say (but we know that he's had it for some time, just as obviously did Abetz); when challenged "Put up or shut up" he flat-out failed to produce, then went to bluster. Meanwhile, a 'real' fake email turns up, possibly clearing the 'nightingale' who sang to the Senate, dragging in some so-far anonymous new actor, a '42-year-old Calwell man.'
Fakes are lies; lies are deployed to deceive. 'Sent from Treasury' presumably implicates the Calwell culprit; the nightingale showed apparent genuine discomfort. Perhaps the song-bird is (partly) off the hook, but heading for a nervous breakdown (sorry if so.)
It looks like a psyop designed to damage Rudd; the exit of Costello could work to rule out "smirk and mirrors," but we have to put some faith in what we see - and what we saw last night on 7.30 was Turnbull in full-on attempted and cowardly squirm-out mode - but with his foot fixed firmly to the non-evidence, false-email floor. Turnbull's "no basis" mea culpa looks pretty terminal - a) he claims he hadn't sighted it, meaning b) it couldn't *possibly* have been checked let alone verified and then the ultimate nail c) it was an eff'n forgery anyway. Also what of the 'helpers' Abbott, Abetz, Bishop, Hockey & Minchin? Are they desperately trying to bail out a sinking boat, or are they going down with the ship? Both?
PS Still no transcript. Ooops! 7.30 are totally screwed up; the Turnbull transcript contains the Rudd segment, and the Rudd segment itself is empty - where is the Turnbull segment, why the switch? Bad, Aunty!
Now we can see my objection to O'Brien, Uhlmann et al. at the AusBC: they are grabbing at the side-show (Swan), now that Turnbull has totally stuffed up on the main event. Note that the Uhlmann citation is *NOT* of the AusBC 19:00 news bulletin; I do not know if that 'episode' is documented anywhere and if so how, but lateline is a v.much toned-down version of what Uhlmann tried to 'push' earlier that day, namely that Swan was the target all along (as if to imply 'main' target.) If that amounts to the AusBC trying help Turnbull wriggle away I leave as a question for 'individual contemplation.'
.. is not at all what they do...
.. but what they say ...
.. haw, haw, haw!
.. as you might recall, I'm not irreligious so much as anti-religious, but I was (against my will, even back then) inoculated with some religious 'pollution.' One such bit is this:
.. Forgive them father, for...
.. they know not what they do.
Complete and utter bullshit of course, and a 'matching' piece is this little bewdy:
.. The meek shall inherit the Earth.
Even worse BS; me: "Justice delayed is justice denied!"
At this point, we need a perspective-pause. We are not 'on the ground' in Iran; most of the so-called 'Western' journalists who were there have been ejected (or run away;) some who have stayed - perhaps all (especially think here: Fisk) - seem to have their own agendas. What we absolutely *know* - is that the MSM lies, also publicly financed broadcasters. It's not new (but my realisation is relatively new); an old adage comes to mind (or I made it up): "IF a liar, THEN no credibility."
One reason for dragging religion into it is because Iran either 'fell to' or 'was rescued by' religion in 1979 (option chosen by individual observer opinion), due to a revolution against the (US)UK-installed *repressive, rip-off* Shah regime, itself the result of an external, subversive coup. For 30 years now, the 'mad mullahs' have ruled, 'dictatorially' is the charge (more individual observer opinion to decide on the veracity of the preceding, MSM-pushed propaganda). More than half of contemporary Iranians were born since then, and have a) little to no knowledge of their own history/predicament, and b) wish to 'play' with the 'rest of the West' - to which they have convinced themselves - or have been corrupted - to desire.
Personal note: Having been through a 'religion-rejection' event myself (and not only survived but am definitely, tending to infinitely better off); I can understand young, intelligent people similarly rejecting their religion. BUT: What I can't understand is why this particular group (under 30 Iranian 'intellectuals' - i.e. students, or just 'slightly better educated' even) wish to jump from the (Iranian religious) frying pan into the (US rip-off) fire. To me, this indicates amazing naïveté bordering on criminal. The Iranians stand at the abyss: they stand to lose their patrimony, not 'just' like Iraq (illegal invasion, brutal occupation) - but these 'green revolutionaries' look like *giving it away on purpose, 'for free'*.
Me not understanding modern students is neither new nor unique, here I recall "students for Reagan." In my own student days I was (virulently!) anti-war (and still am); and so now to some responses to Obama lecturing to the current, as far as I know legal authorities in Iran, who may well be (certainly my conclusion) facing a violent insurrection, instigated by foreign subversion, carried out by a rabid rent-a-mob rabble of erring-ideologue young brats (who may have validly made their own personal choice between "Heaven later ..." and "iPod now!") - but have seen their particular option fail to 'get up' in the election - and are apparently committed to destruction.
So, Mr Obama:
'68 Chicago democrats' convention.
Kent State shootings.
NSA spying on your own people and politicians (with a view to blackmail?)
Illegal invasion of Iraq, now morphed into a brutal occupation, and the oil-rip-offs now seriously getting underway, by the (mainly US) oil majors.
All the above perhaps not 'yours' - but your country's *regimes'*.
Accelerating the invasion of Afghanistan, spreading the brutal carnage into Pakistan.
*Not* prosecuting torturers.
*Not* unclenching your "All options!" fists.
But before we go, Mr Obama, what about the $US400mio (that we know about; how much more we don't know about) targeted on subverting Iran?
.. with soap; words they should not use ...
.. the 'job' of the AusBC is to neutrally inform ...
.. *NOT* to make judgments, or slant info in any way
Explication: In order to document AusBC 'indiscretions,' biased remarks, (invalid!) value judgments or other malfeasance - including outright lies - examples may be listed here. Anyone wishing to include such need only submit a comment, including a checkable quote plus working URL and any qualification(s); the instance will be listed in this headline article, a 'push-down' stack.
Date (YYMMDD); transgression; comment:
090620; 'political dissident, ... people ... disappeared;' dissident —adj. disagreeing, esp. with the established government, system, etc. [POD] - It's correct; most of the nominated persons in stress positions are disagreeing with a result declared by the constituted authorities. By now, we all know the implications of 'stress positions.' Another word they (AusBC etc.) like using is insurgent (—adj. in active revolt. —n. rebel. [ibid.]) The (analogous?) usage of 'disappeared' first came to my attention in the aftermath to the (CIA sponsored?) Chilean coup d'état. (Please see Jun 20, 2009 7:19:00 AM below.) What language you deploy, Aunty!
090620; 'unleash their full fury;' unleash v. 1 release from a leash or restraint. 2 set free to engage in pursuit or attack. [POD] fury n. (pl. -ies) 1 a wild and passionate anger. b fit of rage. [ibid.] Dear Ms Barker and/or Aunty; please justify these invalid and/or immoderate inaccuracies/projections, and generally inflammatory language? (Please see Jun 20, 2009 5:51:00 AM below.)
090617; 'despise, hate;' one of Fisk's phrases is "They absolutely despise him," where 'him' is Ahmadinejad. Q: How can Fisk know this? Iran has about 70mio people; has Fisk talked to 35mio+1, all of whom 'absolutely despise?' Fisk is presumed to take $s from the AusBC. Then, Fisk says "they do not hate or dislike the Islamic republic," which is some good news.
090615; 'crack down;' the article title is "Iran declares opposition rally illegal" - one doesn't 'crack down' on anything illegal, one enforces the law.
090606; 'denier;' the phrase is "Obama has bluntly challenged Iran's president to visit a concentration camp and lashed out at Holocaust deniers." Dear Aunty: please present *hard evidence* of any such denial by Ahmadinejad. (Note that this is the very same Obama who advised Iran to "unclench its fists.") IF there is no such evidence, THEN the AusBC should tell us so, alerting us to a quoted lie.
090604; 'atomic weapons, the West;' this article is a 'real bewdy.' One phrase is "Tehran's nuclear program, which the West suspects is a cover for ambitions to build atomic weapons." Q: Who, exactly is 'the West?' A: The mad dog US and illegitimate tail Israel, and any quisling/coerced 'allies?' Q: Where is there evidence of Iran building a bomb? A: None; neither CIA nor IAEA. Only snivelling politicians, often Israeli, make this (invalid!) assertion - and the AusBC parrots it just about every time. Boo! Hiss!
060903; '... Ahmadinejad, who has said openly he would like to wipe Israel off the map.' Said by Tony Jones - got any proof, Aunty?
That one's pretty old now; here's a more up-to-date one:
090211; 'nuclear capability, wipe Israel off the map;' quoting Obama: "The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region, it pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a nuclear arms race, its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real." ("unclenching his fists." Haw!) Same as above; IF there is no evidence for Obama's statements, THEN the AusBC should tell us so, alerting us to quoted lies.
A 'different' thing is weird language:
090618; 'took a hit;' - what the hell is that supposed to mean? I mean, we can have a guess, but what's wrong with good old plain English?
09mmdd; 'slam;' as in "libs slam" 18 times this year alone, including 9 "ACT libs slam." Hmmm. There are plenty of other choices for 'slam,' invalid due to being a loaded, judgmental term. How about 'pitifully, or whiningly criticised?'
Fazit: The idea is to collect violations of the 'business model' that we fairly & rightly expect, as the bill-payers, that the AusBC should be honouring.
PS One 'trick' that AusBC deploys is that they do not supply word-for-word transcripts for all news broadcasts, including the 7:00pm 'news' and RN/b-fast. Sooo, since what they say there can be totally undocumented, so they can abuse such broadcasts - and they do. Another 'trick' is to hide 'sensitive' items, often as 'oncers,' in off-peak or otherwise obscure corners. Again boo! Hiss! Anything that is not strictly non-biased fact should be flagged as such; it would help if the AusBC actually provided the facts, when such are contradicted by someone they quote. That'd be pretty easy for so-called 'professional' journalists, eh?
PPS The intention is to keep 'floating' this article to the 'top' of the blog. Naturally enough, as a truth-seeker site, anyone may 'argue the toss.' Also, if anyone has better examples than those already published, please feel free to send 'em in.
1 not helping or supporting either of two opposing sides, especially states at war; impartial: during the Second World War Portugal was neutral.
belonging to an impartial party, state, or group: on neutral ground.
unbiased; disinterested: neutral, expert scientific advice. [Oxford Pop-up]
3 (informal) he was slammed by the critics for his first-half performance
CRITICIZE, attack, censure, condemn, denigrate, pull to pieces, give a bad press to; pillory, maul, lambaste, flay, savage, revile, vilify; informal knock, pan, bash, take apart, crucify, hammer, do a hatchet job on, throw brickbats at, lay into, roast, skewer; Brit. informal slate, rubbish, slag off; N. Amer. informal trash, bad-mouth, pummel, cut up; Austral./ NZ informal bag, monster; archaic slash; rare excoriate.
-opposite(s): PRAISE. [ibid.]
I'm working through what his logic must most likely be. I assume he thinks he's putting the interests of families first and I'm trying to figure what his probable rationalisation of that would be.
My own logic runs: IF one is putting families first, ... THEN one acts to protect the interests of families in the long term, i.e. one acts to serve the interests of families both now and into the future.
Fielding's illogic (IMHO) appears to run: IF one is putting families first, ... THEN one acts to serve only their immediate short-term interests, i.e. forget about their likely future situation.
My logic is based on an ethic of concern for long term sustainable human existence on this planet. It's based on the simple logic: IF we don't trash our habitat, ... THEN it continues to be habitable.
Fielding's logic is apparently based on concern for what? IMHO, his chief concern is for his own situation, his political career, and perhaps the perks available after a certain number of years in the Senate.
In recent days, Fielding has effectively stated that he does not accept a correlation between the increased CO2 emissions generated by human activities and change in the climate on our planet. He's going to freeze there like a stick in the mud and refuse to act on reduction of CO2 emissions, unless the correlation is proved to his satisfaction.
I'm at a loss to see how Fielding's stance could be serving the long term interests of families because:
1. IF there is indeed a true and strong correlation between CO2 emission increase rates and global average temperature, but its proof is simply not deemed sufficient by Senator Fielding (erroneously), ... THEN he's got it wrong and, by standing against implementation of a CPRS, he stands to cause families to suffer in future (for generations) due to the impacts upon them of increased frequency, duration, and destructive power of various catastrophic events caused by climate change, e.g. droughts, crop failures, fires, storms, floods, and so on.
2. Given there already is increased frequency, duration and/or destructive power of various catastrophic events at current climatic conditions, IF there is not a strong, but a weak correlation between CO2 emissions and climate change, ... THEN there will still be reason to reduce CO2 emissions and thereby reduce its effects as a factor contributing to the occurrence of these events ... PLUS THEN we will need to hasten and act to discover and deal with whatever might be the major/other contributory factors.
3. Given there already is increased frequency, duration and/or destructive power of various catastrophic events at current climatic conditions, IF there is not even a weak correlation between CO2 emissions and climate change, ... THEN we will still need to hasten and act to discover and deal with whatever might be the actual contributory factors combining to cause these events and/or learn to live in ways that reduce the impact of such events. The energy-saving result of implementing a carbon pollution reduction scheme still goes toward the longer lifespan of non-renewable resource reserves (i.e. shifting out the peak gives us the benefit of the resources for longer) and thus it is beneficial to families as they'll enjoy some longer run boost to living standards in the future. That boost from the energy saving dividend is likely to be needed in order to offset whatever drag on living standards comes as a result of addressing the presumably unknown true causes of the damaging events we've been through more often now than ever in our known history.
Whichever way I look at it families are more likely to enjoy some longer term, longer lasting benefit if a CPRS is implemented.
never trust any statistic ...
.. that you didn't forge yourself ...
.. "They'd have to say that, wouldn't they?"
.. yet another c-theory - this time hardly joking at all
Q: How did the Mousavi rampagers get the idea the election was 'fixed' anyway?
A: They tried to put the fix in themselves, but were outfoxed and (possibly) counter-fixed.
.. Q: What else is new? ...
.. A: Not a lot - for a looong time, now
[NOTE: THIS IS A COMMENT TO green revolution (Iran); BLOGGER HAS IMPOSED A 4095 CHAR LIMIT]
There's a subsequent Cole (sorry; long 'snip'):
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Class v. Culture Wars in Iranian Elections: Rejecting Charges of a North Tehran Fallacy
«Khatami received 70 percent of the vote in 1997. He then got 78% of the vote in 2001, despite a crowded field. In 2000, his reform movement captured 65% of the seats in parliament. He is a nice man, but you couldn't exactly categorize him as a union man or a special hit with farmers.
The evidence is that in the past little over a decade, Iran's voters had become especially interested in expanding personal liberties, in expanding women's rights, and in a wider field of legitimate expression for culture (not just high culture but even just things like Iranian rock music). The extreme puritanism of the hardliners grated on people.
The problem for the reformers of the late 1990s and early 2000s was that they did not actually control much, despite holding elected office. Important government policy and regulation was in the hands of the unelected, clerical side of the government. The hard line clerics just shut down reformist newspapers, struck down reformist legislation, and blocked social and economic reform. The Bush administration was determined to hang Khatami out to dry, ensuring that the reformers could never bring home any tangible success in foreign policy or foreign investment. Thus, in the 2004 parliamentary elections, literally thousands of reformers were simply struck off the ballot and not allowed to run. This application of a hard line litmus test in deciding who could run for office produced a hard line parliament, naturally enough.»
A commenter cites a Fisk:
Iran erupts as voters back 'the Democrator'
A smash in the face, a kick in the balls – that's how police deal with protesters after Iran's poll kept the hardliners in power
Sunday, 14 June 2009
«An interval here for lunch with a true and faithful friend of the Islamic Republic, a man I have known for many years who has risked his life and been imprisoned for Iran and who has never lied to me. We dined in an all-Iranian-food restaurant, along with his wife. He has often criticised the regime. A man unafraid. But I must repeat what he said. "The election figures are correct, Robert. Whatever you saw in Tehran, in the cities and in thousands of towns outside, they voted overwhelmingly for Ahmadinejad. Tabriz voted 80 per cent for Ahmadinejad. It was he who opened university courses there for the Azeri people to learn and win degrees in Azeri. In Mashad, the second city of Iran, there was a huge majority for Ahmadinejad after the imam of the great mosque attacked Rafsanjani of the Expediency Council who had started to ally himself with Mousavi. They knew what that meant: they had to vote for Ahmadinejad."»
(Note: This is a quote of a quote of a quote. Some 'perspective' could be applied.)
Then, we take a 'breather.'
When it comes to 'democracy' we the sheople - in Aus; US, UK, Israel even - let alone Iran - simply do not have a 'prayer.'
(And "NO!" - I'm bloody-well *NOT* a 'believer!' Cooling down...)
An 'oldie' for sure, but still applicable; I recall it was in the time of Gorton (we lived in his street and were invited to the 'moving-out' party (vetted by ASIO - one supposes; recall the Petty caricature.)) Ooops! Ah, yeah: "The Mushroom Club." See? - Told you: 'still applicable.'
One hardly needs a Sherlock to detect it; and not even a TV to broadcast it. The AusBC 'hoodwinked' me back around '67, and all we had then was (steam powered) radio. I'm talking about the utterly vicious lie that the AusBC propagated, the one about "David vs. Goliath" going down in the ME. We (those with eyes to see) now know the truth about murdering, stealing IL, and the all the poor, hapless Palestinians, killed outright or 'merely' driven off their land. (Q: Did you know, that Deir Yassin is only about 1400m from IL's new, you-beaut *holocaust* museum? Yeah.))
Where was I? Oh, yeah (again); democracy. Briefly, of what one might term the absolute minimum constellation, namely a switched-on and educated public, a wide range of honest candidates, and free, full and fair information-flows - we've got, effectively - *none*.
It ill behoves the US - or any of innumerable other dysfunctional democracies - to comment on any other country (Iran, say) - before they properly fix their own systems.
PS Did you note in passing in the Cole citation, how the US regime as good as crippled a genuine reforming faction in Iran? «The Bush administration was determined to hang Khatami out to dry.» Charming, eh? Shows the damage such erring ideologues can do. Notice also, how a popular govt. had so little effect on the actual policies being implemented. Sound familiar?
Q: If you wanted Aus to stop siding with the (rabid dog) US, or the (illegitimate tail) Israel, or bring our boys home from Afghanistan, who would you vote for?
QED, I'd say.
(QED? But - s/he's not on the list??! - (Exactly - slow learner.))
.. err, - reptilian? ...
.. actually absurdum ...
.. as well; all three, that is
Preamble: Instantly, I spring to my own defence: I don't necessarily agree with N.Korea *having* an A-bomb, and as far as I can 'see,' (IAEA, latest US NIE, etc.) Iran is *not* working on any A-bomb, but in any case; since the US & Israel a) both have the bomb, b) that the US has actually deployed nukular bombs (The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki ... largely innocent civilians), and c) both the US and Israel threaten, as in this chilling little 'charmer:'
On being asked:
«"Prime Minister, ... if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it?"»
Golda Meir did say:
«"Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying."»
[ICH/Alan Hart/Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews]
Comment: This is utterly typical; Israel, with about .001% of the world's population, holds the rest (99.999%) hostage. Yeah; that'd be about 'right.' Recall that all the while IL distracts the world with its filthy criminality, the climate-catastrophe gets ever closer, ever less avoidable. And, of course, it won't be just the I/J/Z-plex that needs an ark. Or a fire-proof bunker, or 'manna from heaven' (haw!)
Also, I don't necessarily agree with totalitarian regimes (I'm mindful of gibes (jeering remark, taunt) by lying r-wing trolls: "You must support Pol Pot then eh?"), nor do I support religion of any flavour. Not just 'BTW,' dare you examine this?
5:00am The Rhythm Divine
with Geoff Wood. World sacred music, everything from chant to the charts
Exploring religion and life - this latter was a real shocker today; heard the intro and nearly went to heaven! (It means "Hit the roof.")
Main: Uranium, reptilian and absurdum.
1. Uranium. First of all, 'they' lie to us; the MSM (as usual, including the AusBC: Boo! Hiss!) - the politicians (ours (Aus) and theirs (US, Israel)); lying *should* be against the law. In fact, when it 'suits' them, 'misleading parliament' can lead to 'discipline' being deployed, and as we can plainly see, 'laws' are often 'honoured' - in the breach (think: illegal invasions, or torture, say.) The only laws should be *just* laws; only just laws may be a) accepted, let alone b) enforced. Again 'in fact,' just laws would need almost no enforcing; 'everybody' can see that just laws are in their own interest. (The actual 'sickos,' the exceptions, aka the criminal psychopaths, still need 'sorting,' then 'exporting.')
In clear text: As long as some countries have nukular bombs, there is simply *no* possibility of forbidding others from possessing them as well. Again in clear text: Iran and N.Korea both *need* nukular bombs - as a proper defence, given the illegal threats they have trust upon them (bellicose US to innocent Iran: "All options!")
2. Reptilian, aka dumbed down. It's simply obvious - to those of us left, the conscious ones, still with a conscience. First, 'they' (the propagandists, turned 'public relationists,' then morphed into 'marketers') - manipulated ('manufactured') demand. They 'customised' the sheople. Later, they invented 'focus groups,' enabling them to accurately 'advertise' the (then limited) wares they were pushing. Even later still, with 'computer aided design/manufacture,' they could better 'target' the market with customised goods. But all the time, they were tricking the sheople, selling them stuff they (mostly) didn't really need. The actual 'reptilian;' the propagandists have bypassed the so-called 'higher functions' (The Enlightenment, say) - by appealing to the primitive, the reptilian, or 'hind brain' - yep; just as in dinosaurs.
In clear text: The sheople have been bought off, with the modern equivalent of beads and feathers. The 'social contract' has not just been violated, it's been shredded and thrown to the winds. (Let's not start: down-sizing, out-sourcing, off-shoring, sub-contracting, no deserved, restful retirement in sight; medicine for profit (instead of health!!?) - the sheople squeezed from every possible direction. The trickle-down - has *toadally* dried up; nobody gives a shit for any other except for "Me, me, me!")
3. Absurdum. Really, daaarlings, I mean - just how silly is that?
 Sunday 14 June 2009
Image of God (rpt.)
The power and the mystery of the human face. From the representation of Christ in religious art, and the hidden face of God in Judaism, to modern cosmetic surgery and the experience of facial disfigurement.
Comment: This is possibly indicative. 'They' (the AusBC) speak of 'Christ' and (some) 'God' as if both actually exist, then go on to modern cosmetic surgery, an article about which *in Iran* I commented on years ago. (Young Iranian women are sooo politically conscious, that they think "a nose-job" will fix their (and therefore the world's) problems.) Another loop complete. (Was that "loop" or "loopy?")
Comment: More than just a bit 'superficial,' eh??!
.. a conspiracy theory ...
.. with wicked AusBC types ...
.. up to their lying bottom lips in it
Tin-foil hat time? No, not really; and I'm not suggesting that any wicked AusBC types were actually personally involved in attempts at subverting democracy in Iran. But I am betting that subversion *was* attempted - by secret agents and other erring ideologue running dogs and stalking horses of you-know-which wicked rogue regimes.
At just about any crime scene, means, motive & opportunity must be considered; and 'agents' with matching modi operandi will naturally draw attention to themselves.
Also, any coincidences immediately draw suspicion.
And so it was and is, in the run-up to and aftermath of the just concluded Iranian presidential elections. The AusBC seemed unnaturally interested, uncannily well informed, and had all the 'right' sound-bites/video to go with - their very own conspiracy theory, namely a green revolution purported to be 'on the go' to overthrow Ahmadinejad. As evidence, recall the AusBC video segment they broadcast repeatedly, showing happy faces and green items of all types and shades; a rally craftily confected and cagily staged for maximum propaganda effect - one suspects; modus operandi all over again. A real give-away is the expression on V. Haussegger's face whenever Iran or N.Korea gets a mention (i.e. try getting her to say 'denier' or 'provocation' and then observe her facial contortions - and especially, her bottom lip.) Then, what is truly remarkable, is the outrage in the AusBC voices as they decry the result, as if to screech: "How dare they so defile democracy??!" (Haw. As if the Iranians would bother, and as if our own 'Western' democracies actually properly functioned... Think "MSM lies," think "Lib/Lab pug-ugly twins," think "dumbed-down voters," think "Hanging chads;" think "Diebold." Haw again! Aw, stop it! - Ow, it hurts!) What is it with these AusBC types? Looks like they have a personal interest - in the 'dark side;' and here of course I'm referring to the you-know-which wicked rogue regimes.
And again no, I'm definitely *not* talking about Iran or N.Korea; each of those hapless countries, basically just wishing to mind their own business, has just as much 'right' as any others - to fiddle around with nukular whatevers; it is in fact the you-know-which wicked rogue regimes who/which in one case actually deployed A-bombs (100s of 1000s of innocent victims slaughtered), and in the other, spitting in the face of the NPT, threatens the whole ME, in the name of 61+ years of murdering to steal "Lebensraum" for invading, mostly 'Western,' mostly foreign & mostly *illegal* settlers.
.. haw, haw, haw! ...
.. double double entendre ...
.. beat that - or someone gets hurt
First, a 'joke:' Two 'pilots' enter the cabin, after everyone is properly seated (luggage stowed in o-head lockers, or a few small bits under the seat in front of them; seat-backs upright and all seat-belts fastened). The 'pilots' have impenetrably black 'sun'-glasses on, and carry looong, white canes ... tap, tap, tap! The cockpit door closes behind them, the engines start then rev up - and slowly, the 'plane taxis out. After a short pause at the threshold, the 'plane ROARS down the runway ... seemingly interminably ... then, all of a sudden, the passengers all shriek! - And the 'plane soars into the air.
"Phew!" - says one 'pilot' to the other - one day, they're gunna shriek just that little bit too late!
What seems like a vast majority (as if it were some sort of 'democracy') - of our 'very best' scientists tell us, that excess CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere, as a result of human activity, namely the burning of 'fossil' carbon. (It wouldn't matter much, if all we burnt, we first grew. That'd be pretty-well 'sustainable.') But, in the first place it is a certain amount of CO2 that makes our planet as habitable as it has been, due to the so-called 'greenhouse' effect, and in the 2nd (and becoming more immediate case), this newly added, excess CO2 will lead to higher temperatures (somewhere). It stands to reason. Higher temperatures (somewhere) are likely to lead to more weather (Q: Why? A: Weather is just the world's way of transporting solar energy, mostly deposited near the equator, to the N&S poles, where it more easily radiates away into space.) Here, 'more weather' is assumed to be not a good thing. (Think: more floods in some parts, more fires, droughts etc. in others. Just like in Aus these past few years.) Except:
There are certain people who either do *not* accept, do not *wish* to accept, or outright *decry/deny* anthropomorphic climate change - for various reasons - but obviously not long-term 'self-preservation' ones. One assumes that the non-acceptors and especially the *deniers*, are going for some (very!) short term, self-advantage; like - err, coal diggers & sellers, say. Or perhaps they're 'merely' erring ideologues.
Thesis: that our democracies are dysfunctional. Well, again 'everybody' knows, that a) the sheople are dumbed-down, b) are fed on a diet of 'disinformation' - when not outright, propagandistic lies (listening, Aunty?) and c) the elected representatives, themselves drawn from an effectively non-choice pool - tend (massive understatement) to represent anyone *but* we, the sheople. All given; democracy kaput.
But the 4th: what if our democracies were ever so slightly responsive, to the vicissitudes of expressed opinion?
Well, then; in such a case, it is the 'climate sceptics' (as the loudest, most easily accommodated 'squeaky wheel') - who are currently 'in control' (also obviously, since nothing effective is being done). When the penny finally drops and the sheople all shriek *climate catastrophe!* - well, then, we can at least lay blame where it belongs - by all means the coal diggers & sellers, but especially those self-same climate sceptics, who 'drove' the weak and lily-livered 'decision makers,' our so-called politician 'leaders.' If so-called 'leaders' are unresponsive, or listen to the wrong voices, AND TAKE WRONG OR NO EFFECTIVE ACTION, then no matter what the 'excuse,' it's leadership failure.
It will not help, of course, after the fact - but at least we'll know who to lynch. The fault very definitively lies with the representatives who fail to properly represent, but (the last); IF representatives are at all responsive THEN they are presumed to have misbehaved based on those filthy liars, the climate-sceptic spruikers.
PS Q: What's about the joke?
A: Silly question; how soon is too late?
.. GO HOME YANK!
The 1st 100 days have come and gone. The US, now under the latest freak - Ooops! Err, president, has *increased* the tempo of killing in Afghanistan. Iraq is a smoking ruin. Now, by far the largest (and by far and away the least scrupulous (IDF excepted)) military on the whole wide, once-pretty planet is dragging mass-death & destruction into Pakistan too.
June 5 -7, 2009
What Are We to Make of His Speech?
Obama in Cairo
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
«In his first 100 days, Obama managed to create two million Pakistani refugees. It took Israel 60 years to create 3.5 million Palestinian refugees.»
The US, it seems, only has the one weapon - a brutal, mostly innocent-civilian slaughtering military, and a single, strangling philosophy; rip-off casino-capitalism. The so-called 'top' 1% have now got almost all the money - and the bottom xx% as good as none. How can the 'real' economy ever even begin to function?
Together with both these 'charming' attributes, Obama struts the world stage. At home, many of his own people are on the verge of starvation - ½mio per month *extra* unemployed; private medical 'insurance' that is a cruel and almost universally unaffordable (sick!) joke, mass home repossessions, banks/FIRE-sector gone totally berserk (and being propped-up using squillions of tax-payer funded, Fed-printed otherwise worthless fiat/tax-dollars)... Hardly worth a mention are the 'big-3' car makers; since as far back as the 50's producers of *really shitty*, utterly absurd gas-guzzlers, now *finally*, rightfully going bankrupt. And anything/everything possible - rip-off privatised, down-sized, out-sourced or shipped off-shore. Have I missed some foul failure?
It's time to say 'ENOUGH!'
Oh, yeah; and return Palestine to the Palestinians.
.. 'gets' me every time ...
.. love vs. hypocrisy, lies ...
.. and thieving, murdering crime
«Because the sky is blue.......aaaaaaaahhhh»
Blue/half-open sky, alternates between grey/occasional drizzle. (Rain-shadow keeps us mostly dry.)
«Boy, you gotta carry that weight
Carry that weight a long time»
Didn't ask to be born; but sooner or later booted from the nest. It's only fair - to have to support yourself; filthy, criminal predators, or more correctly cowardly, armed and bullying bludgers just aren't needed.
«Here comes the sun king
Here comes the sun king
Here comes the sun king»
Of course, it's Obama. Does he mean what he says? Does he say what he means? Wouldn't it be nice, if he actually spoke the truth to us? (And stopped the truly awful killings, and other filthy US/Israeli-regime's murdering-to-thieve crimes?)
(The song breaks down into foreign-sounding rubbish; jumbled Spanish? Italian? - that doesn't mean anything, at least not to solely English speakers; incomprehensible, possibly purely nonsensical ...)
«And in the end
The love you take
Is equal to the love you make.»
Some people say that love is all you need.
PS Love sure beats lying, cheating, theft and murder.
.. 'perfect,' (lying!) propaganda ...
.. the I/J/Z-plex sickly exploits it ...
.. but others may not even discuss it
Preamble: I was talking to a friend, and the holocaust 'topic' surfaced. I said: "Madness. Even to mention it is to fall into an I/J/Z-plex framing trap, where no argument is possible (and the goodies can't win)." He expostulated: "Wha-a-at!!?" I explained, that no rational discussion was possible; that the maddies had so muddied the water, that it's best just to say "Yes. Nazis definitely bad." - and then move on. Of course some discussion ensued; associated topics like 'freedom of speech' and 'honesty in politics' being prominent.
Context: There are many 'strings;' IMHO the highest priority of all is the putative excess-CO2 caused climate change, where I'm forced to write both putative and change in italics - exactly because climate change sceptics currently 'hold sway,' preventing the world from taking any effective action towards saving itself - if damaging climate change really is on the way. Of course, IF a climate change catastrophe does occur, THEN it's all over, Rover. I have to include this para, but it's not what I'm on about - here; nor am I on about the dangers of resource depletion - which will happen all the faster sooner, as ever more resources are gobbled up (some unavoidably, lots profligately) - by ever more people.
Eclipsing the above terminally serious topics are the rampant rogue regimes of the US and Israel. These two, aka the illegitimate tail wagging the rabid dog, plus the UK poodle and Aus dag make up the Anglo/Judaic axis of evil, and that axis is embedded in the so-called 'West.' (Why France and Germany are in this worries me; apparently at least Merkel is starting to wake up.) Now the greatest sin of the US is not its profligate (that word again) consumption, but how it goes about acquiring the resources it Oh, so obscenely devours. (Gluttony is a sin; 5% world's pop. consuming 25% world's resources.) The predominate method of US resource acquisition is to rip them off via inadequate compensation to the sovereign resource owners (see 'resource rent' or 'rent seeking,' say); any resistors to their crooked modus operandi being chastened by, not to put too fine a point on it, armed robbery with actual, murdering violence. (See Perkins' "Economic Hit Man." Latest example: Iraq.) Ditto for Israel; 61+ years long now, mass-murdering for mainly Palestinian land and water. Nothing in these two paras will be new to regular readers 'in here,' and that's the end of my context-setting.
Q: How do these villains get away with such horrendously vile crimes?
A: 1) The criminals lie about it; 2) the sheople do not seem to notice, or if they do, they just say effectively "So what?" But who really knows what the sheople think - if they think at all? This is not arrogance talking, but sadness: why are so many people so apparently apathetic about the disgusting, murdering criminality - of our so-called 'leaders?'
My 'morning ritual' (not followed 'religiously' - I'm no 'believer' (Haw!)) - is to rouse to AusBC's AM - usually, in more ways than one - getting roused, I mean. This morning differed little from many others:
1. Obama tells Ahmadinejad to visit Nazi death camp
2. Obama slams Holocaust deniers in camp visit
3. Iran has enough uranium for nuclear bomb: UN
Apart from noting (with distaste) the 'editorial style' ("Xxx slams Yyy"), the last shall be first:
«The UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, says Iran has more than 1,300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium, which is well over the amount needed to make a single nuclear bomb.»
There are several ways to tell lies, this uranium item includes a few - IMHO. One assumes that the IAEA did report the low-enriched 1300Kgs, but what the sheople are presumed *not* to know, is that 'low-enriched' is perfectly useless in building A-bombs (technical accuracy: one needs very highly enriched - something entirely different from 'low.' Iran, as far as anyone knows, only has low.) IF, as is insinuated, the IAEA went on to say 'amount needed' THEN the IAEA lied by inaccuracy, or IF the IAEA did *not* make that connection (my 'tip'), THEN the BBC lied. Whatever the case, the AusBC lied to us - by retailing the (totally misleading!) story.
The AusBC does this sort of thing - i.e. lying to us - all the time.
The Holocaust: Whoops! Warning! Warning! - Lakoffian® trap!
1. By now, we all know what the Holocaust was. ("Yes. Nazis definitely bad." Move on.)
2. And we should know, that despite all the poison being spat at us via and on their own behalf by the MSM (with AusBC: bad Aunty!), Ahmadinejad is *not* an Holocaust denier per se, but does deny that the Holocaust justifies slaughtering Palestinians, which Israel has now criminally been doing for 61+ years.
3. Also, we heard from Obama that he wanted to 'make a new start' towards Muslims AND Iran.
4. Sooo, what's up? It simply cannot be (inconsistency), that Obama wants to 'make friends' with Iran - by making such 'incendiary' accusations. Which, not at all coincidentally, rev the sheople up - looks to me like actual "hate speech" from Obama directed at Iran via Ahmadinejad, to cause what? An acceptance by the sheople of an attack on Iran?
Whatever the case, it's pure hypocrisy for Obama to say one thing one day, then the opposite the next.
Fazit: However these criminals lie, it's IF lie THEN no credibility.
PS Here's a good item on what Israel is up to:
June 4, 2009
The Future of Israel and the Decline of the American Empire
The Wages of Hubris and Vengeance
By ARNO J. MAYER
«Although its leaders avoid saying so in public, Israel does not want peace, or a permanent comprehensive settlement, except on its own terms. They do not dare spell these out publicly, as they presume the enemy’s unconditional surrender, even enduring submission. Instead the Palestinians continue to be blamed for a chronic state of war that entails Israel’s continuing self-endangerment and militarization. This policy’s underlying strategic premise is the need to prevent any significant change in the West Asian balance of power.»
Comment: This raises the spectre of the 'middle east peace process.' It's a lie; nobody can seriously pursue peace for sooo long, with sooo little (i.e. zero) success. Another lie pushed at us daily by, amongst others, the (rotten!) AusBC.
 lie2 —n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. —v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive. give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [POD]
 Framing (social sciences)
«A frame in social theory consists of a schema of interpretation—that is, a collection of stereotypes—that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events. In psychology, framing is influenced by the background of a context choice and the way in which the question is worded.»
noun a person who denies something: a denier of God. [Oxford Pop-up]