September 03, 2003


What the f ... itís an Alan Ramsey column that sensible people can completely agree with!

Posted by Tim Blair at September 3, 2003 04:11 AM

And that is the alternative government? God help us all...

Posted by: Scott Wickstein at September 3, 2003 at 08:20 AM


Who needs an alternative Governemtn when we've got JoHo and the team? The economy's good, the lefties don't interfere with our lives too much and all those "arts" types are always fuming. What could be better?

Posted by: Toryhere at September 3, 2003 at 08:51 AM

Now , it is good to see a journo getting stuck into communards but in his Saddamite Times column, Ramsey continues to demonstrate all the muscle of a dribbler in his little diatribe.

Posted by: d at September 3, 2003 at 10:24 AM

Gee Tim, haven't you been reading Ramsey lay into Labor for the past 10 years. As usual distorting, by subtle implitcation, another persons's track record in the media to suit your own ends.

Then of course the rest of your fan club chimes in with more rubbish on Ramsey not been with the politically right program when it comes to war in Iraq.

Gee Tim, those boys over there you worked overtime to send to war are sure having a good time.

Is it not time you put your brave balls on the line and went down to the Pitt St ADF recruiting office.

Even a Gen X luncheon activist like you must be of some use in the army - washing dishes, cleaning toilets and generally doing your bit in the great clash of civilizations that stars you and your loud mouthed wacko mates center stage.

It's your war - so go do your duty and be the big brave Aussie bloke you so sincerely think yourself to be.

Posted by: Big Hawk at September 3, 2003 at 10:51 AM

As a Vietnam Era vet and a volunteer, I presume Big Mouth (ooops. BigHawk) is a volunteer vet him(her?)self? Else where would he/she get off with this continual challenge to join up? Perhaps a little personal history is in order?

P.S. I have some personal history of helping draft evaders in the '60s go to Canada, on the strict condition that they admit they were going to protect their precious asses rather than as a moral statement. I have nothing but respect for the few who went to jail rather than be drafted.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at September 3, 2003 at 10:58 AM

We've had a hat-trick this week- Ramsay alomst makes sense, Media Watch reports something accurately (AND buckets Fairfax) and the Phat Phuck writes something I almost agree with (up to a point).
Who's been putting acid in the Sydney water supply?

Posted by: Habib Bickford at September 3, 2003 at 11:42 AM

Big Hawk, I'm sorry if I missed it, but what branch of service were you in? Did you ever say?

Funny, I don't think my husband expects everyone who is pro-war to actually sign up and he is over in Iraq right now. Why are you holding people to a higher standard than the soldiers fighting?

Wait! Are you a recruiter? Come on, you MUST be a recruiter. This explains a lot. Recruiters have to meet quotas and I'm sure some of them get creative.

Unfortunatly you are just annoying.

Posted by: Kelly at September 3, 2003 at 12:12 PM

The Opposition seems not to realise it is being made to look stupid by the ABC which is driving its (the Opposition's) agendas to an absurd degree.

Long after the hoots of derision were fading elsewhere, the ABC lumbered on with this story like a stricken ocean liner heading for an iceberg, unable to stop or turn.

Posted by: ilibcc at September 3, 2003 at 12:28 PM

Big Hawk

Alan RAMSAY's attacks on Labor have been in the vein of frustration at their inability to make an inroad into the dreaded coalition forces of darkness - you cannot be seriously suggesting that RAMSAY is pro-coaltion. I enjoy reading RAMSAY, even if I don't agree with him and despite the fact that his column is becoming an obituary for fallen Labor Comrades and deceased press gallery hacks.

And for christ sake stop with this join the Army bullshit. I can care for the environment without joing the EPA or Greenpeace, I can be interested in politics without becoming a parliamentarian, I can be concerned about crime without joining the Police - I can support the military without joining them.

They are all volunteers, they are all asked before they join if they are willing to take up arms - they are literally asked that specific question.

If you support the people of Iraq thats fine - why don't you show your care and compassion by going over there and working as a volunteer aid worker or a human shield. Tim can join the army and shoot at you - then everyone will be happy.

Posted by: Gilly at September 3, 2003 at 12:31 PM

Cut and paste, cut and paste. Cut and run.

Posted by: Miranda Divide at September 3, 2003 at 01:18 PM

Miranda - what? Seriously, that was a context, sense, intelligence, humor,-lacking statement. Cut the shit.

Posted by: Dylan at September 3, 2003 at 02:09 PM


It makes our John him seem so "hip and happening" - doesn't it. Better than "SiC" (which is what the Labor polling must be telling them their chances at the next election are.

What is great about this story is that an unprepared upstart thought he could do what the (Left-leaning) Press Gallery usually lets him do - feed-the-chooks, throw in some anti-Liberal bile and provide a few superficial "sound bites" and quotes ...

And he got both barrells, in public ...

Posted by: The_GOP_Elephant at September 3, 2003 at 02:12 PM

The thing that bugs me about the Emerson/Crean 'attack' on Tony Abbott is the fact that they get away with statements to the effect that Abbott shouldn't be allowed NOT to name the donors. You know, 'Who does Abbott think he is, thinking he doesn't have to name the donors etc etc'. And not one journalist stands up and makes the point that this is a free country, that one has the right to put one's money where one wants, and the AEC had ruled that this trust fund was NOT an 'associated entity'. Emerson and Crean were allowed to dribble on all week about this, yet no-one made the point that Abbott and the donors were acting perfectly within the law.

Next point: this whole 'associated entity' thing is quite interesting. Basically, as I understand it, if an entity has an important role in acting to support a political party, then donations to that entity may have to be disclosed. There's even a website listing disclosures from the last election.

But what of organisations like, say, the Australia Institute? Well known to be left-leaning, never puts out anything that doesn't support the Labor party or criticise the Liberal party. Donations to this group can be reliably expected to help the Labor party, yet it doesn't appear as an associated entity of the ALP. There are examples from all sides of politics of course: the HRNicholls society favours free markets and small government, an agenda that is most supported by the Liberals, so a similar principle could be argued, though I'm not sure if the HRNicholls Society has such close links to the Liberals as the Australia Institute does to Labor. What of the Evatt Foundation?

No-one would deny these groups' right to exist, and to argue whatever case they may like, but if they are predictably supporting one side of politics, then the issue of how donations to them are treated is worth further examination.

Posted by: GeoffM at September 3, 2003 at 02:57 PM

Further on Associated Entities, the AEC website is at

They also give the definition of associated entities: "An organisation which is either:
controlled by; or
operates wholly or to a significant extent for the benefit of;
one or more registered political parties. (This definition, therefore, includes organisations which are independent of, but primarily benefit, a party.)

Organisations which commonly fall within this definition include companies which hold assets for a political party, investment/trust funds, and fundraising organisations, groups and clubs."

Posted by: GeoffM at September 3, 2003 at 03:05 PM

Tim, your so called trolls are insipid. Your status as right wing death beast is diminished.

Posted by: Lee at September 3, 2003 at 03:24 PM

Looks like Timmy Boy missed his chance yet again to get on down and show what a real man he is at the Pitt Street ADF recruiting office.

Guess he's only good for distorting the public record of anyone, anywhere at anytime. Enjoy your dinner tonight of fine wine and expensive food Tim.

But just spare a moment of thought for those real men out there eating field rations yet again. Something you will never be and never experience due to your selfish Baby Boomer dedication to your own priorities.

Posted by: Big Hawk at September 3, 2003 at 06:14 PM


Posted by: D at September 3, 2003 at 06:18 PM

Big Hawk, utter rot.The soldiers , Hawk, signed on for the rucking business of warfare, to bring sudden violence on enemy and to face the dangers and endure the discomforts along the way. If they are not prepared to do it, the tax payer is certainly having their hard earned capital wasted. I feel no sympathy for servicemen and women on that score.
A conscript is an altogether different matter but most likely( for can't say it won't be ever raised again) press-ganging in the civilsed West won't be done again.

Lastly, Big Hawk, what do you believe regs. do in peace-time, sit indoors drinking pints throwing darts, shooting pool, turning out for the occasional parade and firearms drill. I must be something unless the peace-time `widows', not just their men, are lying, as in 6 months min. out bush - for sailors that is out sea but, inside - inside, that is, a man ' o ' war.

Now, B.H., tell me about Bambi, where it dwells and I'll take out me sporting rifle and invite it for a barbecue, on a spit.

Posted by: d at September 3, 2003 at 06:44 PM

I think BIG HAWK fancies tim...

Posted by: roscoe p at September 3, 2003 at 07:58 PM

He loves a man in a uniform.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 3, 2003 at 09:25 PM

"sensible people can agree with"...

sounds like the lefties singing from the same songbook there. too many phillip adams cut'n'pastes tim!

Posted by: chico o'farrill at September 4, 2003 at 01:17 PM