speculative fact
Online Opinion Republishes My Tripe
So Online Opinion decided to designate one of my posts from last year as a “best blog post of 2007”. They republished it here on Thursday gone. I remain unsure as to the reason that this particular post was chosen, but the response given by OO’s readers was outstanding. In the words of one commenter,
I’m probably too old to understand this. But a “lady” used to be a female who was refined, well-mannered and tasteful.
Now, a “lady” is anything that’s female.
Thanks, Online Opinion!
If nobody stops me, I'm just going to keep posting this shit.
Flies On The Wall
Horrified anti-war protesters report seeing tiny, insect-like objects hovering above their heads and manoevring in unison, and speculate that the Government is using tiny dragon-fly spy-bots to record their every move. Sound like a case of too many druuuugs? Yes, yes it does. But then the article goes on to say this, which is truly astounding and disturbing:
But the Defence Department researchers are experimenting with putting computer chips into moth pupae - the intermediate stage between a caterpillar and a flying adult - and hatching them into healthy “cyborg moths”.
The Hybrid Insect Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems project aims to create camera-toting insects whose nerves have grown into their internal silicon chip so that wranglers can control their activities.
Even if the technical hurdles are overcome, insect-size fliers will always be risky investments. “They can get eaten by a bird, they can get caught in a spider web,” Professor Fearing said.
This adds a whole new dimension to Sydney’s plague of bogon moths, which have been besieging parliament house and flying into peoples’ yawns all this week. And it’s not a nice one. It’s a crazy one. I mean, who decides to spend Government revenue on a project to control the minds of insects? SETTING INSECTS LOOSE WITH A MISSION?
As I sit here typing this, a moth crawls up and down my window, watching me work. It can see everything I’m doing. Is it malevolent? Is it American? It just flew at my face! Is it an attack-bot? This could go on for hours.
Iraq death toll tops 1 million
Guest post from my greenest leftist friend, who doesn’t have his own blog and wants only to be known as Jason
Somehow the Australian MSM managed to miss a story last week that Iraq’s death toll now tops 1 million.
Ah well, good thing we got rid of that murderous Saddam Hussein, eh?
This article sums it up pretty well:
If we’re not enraged, let’s ask ourselves why. Is it because the slaughter of Iraqi’s is happening thousands of miles away? Is it because they are not like us in appearance or religion? Would we, say, feel the loss of British or Irish people more intensely? We Americans are upset about the loss of lives of American soldiers. When we’re not shopping at the mall or watching Sunday football, we’re concerned about this. But the death of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s? We don’t feel that. We don’t imagine what it looks like. Our politicians don’t convey the terrible weight of what we’ve done to that country. Perhaps there is something to be angry about. Very angry.
Reporters Without Stories hoax the SMH
A bard of truth has posted a piece on the SMH entitled Lips are flapping but no words come out”, which appears to document the complete lack of news coming out of APEC. Pretty sure it didn’t make the print edition, but anything’s possible in a city gone mad. Doubtless the piece shall be removed forthwith by some editor, so I shall reproduce it in its entirety after the leap.
Kevin07: campaigning for the new age
The Kevin07 site now has this section devoted to Kevin Rudd video fan fic sent in by what a friend of mine calls “passionate citizens”. Alot of it’s pretty scary, as you’d imagine.
A friend of mine and his band have also submitted their premiere video clip to the site, which I’ve posted for the wary after the jump. It’s entitled “Titty Bar”. Somehow, I doubt it will be posted. This is what democracy looks like.
Important Uses for Tax Dollars: #1
Ensuring that all staff of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have full external internet access priveleges where other public servants do not.
More at LP.
what a disgrace: the second
“I challenge the Prime Minister, his ministers, Mr Keelty and the police to produce the legal basis which would make anything I’ve done illegal.
“They know where I am. If they think I’ve done anything wrong, they can come and take me away.”
Thus spake Stephen Keim, senior counsel for Dr Mohammed Haneef, and in my estimation an incredibly brave man considering that our Government has a recent and bloody history of supporting retrospective criminal offenses in terrorism cases. With a dual house majority, and with its 2005 precedent of ramming through changes to the anti-terrorism legislation with an absolute minimum of community consultation (one day senate “inquiry”, anyone? Arbitrary detention without the ability to tell loved ones or employers where you are, anyone? Statements by the Attorney-General to the effect that no matter how bad the legislation was, it should only be changed ‘later’ and passed ‘now’, ANYONE?), I would judge that taking the Government on on this particular strip of turf is a very risky prospect and should only be undertaken on incredibly solid ground, at the strong risk of retrospective criminal sanctions, not to mention career and sanity. For those who think I’m being melodramatic, reflect on the fact that Ruddock has already foreshadowed that he can and will change the legislation at the Government’s slightest whim.
But then, Stephen Keim is strongly supported in this case by not only the legal profession but also apparently the judiciary. The front page of today’s SMH carries extracts from the Federal Court appeal of Andrews’ ruling that Haneef fails the incredibly dubious character test. As per my comment on yesterday’s thread, the judge in the case confirms that the test is ridiculously broad:
Justice Jeffrey Spender said that he too would fail the test according to the Government’s interpretation…
“I have been associated with persons involved in criminal activity. I have defended them, charged with murder. Unfortunately I wouldn’t pass the character test on your statement,” the judge said to Roger Derrington, SC, representing the minister.
“You’re not a non-citizen,” was the government barrister’s reply. “The purpose of the migration legislation is to protect the national interest … the Commonwealth doesn’t have the power to investigate the relationships of people overseas.”
Justice Spender’s voice rose. “That’s absolutely astounding, Mr Derrington.”
Of course, the court’s role is to determine whether the legislation was correctly applied and not whether the legislation itself is a piece of crap, rammed through the parliament in a climate of fear with the absolute minimum of community consultation and designed to allow our Government to act towards foreign nationals in whatever way it sees fit. So, of course, there’s every likelihood that the character assessment will stand, depending on whether the Minister can prove that Haneef has been involved with a person who the Minister himself ‘reasonably suspects’ might have committed a crime - no proof required.
"Legitimate"?
John Howard quoth:
“And I know the Australian people want us to provide them with the maximum possible protection against terrorist threats consistent with the maintenance of our legitimate civil liberties.”
Any Tories out there want to suggest exactly what our “legitimate civil liberties” are?