December 21, 2003

AGAINST OVERWHELMING LOGIC

"This is my last column for the year," writes Margo Kingston, "and I dedicate it to Australians who took a stand for what's right against overwhelming odds."

Hmm. Could’ve used a comma after "right", to remove some ambivalence. But, given how often Margo faces overwhelming odds -- the odds that some day she’ll make sense, or attract a non-zombie audience, or keep her job in 2004 (rumours abound) -- perhaps the comma lapse is appropriate. Continue gibberish:

A bouquet to Andrew Wilkie, who walked away from more than 20 years of military and intelligence service, his mates, his super, his security - his life really - to tell the truth as he saw it about whether Iraq had WMDs ready to turn on the West. Sacrifice doesn't get much bigger than that, especially with a vindictive, whatever-it-takes Federal Government like the one we've got now. He's broke, has no job, and spends a lot of time travelling the country talking to Australians who want to know what's really going on.

The truth as busted, unemployable Wilkie saw it was as follows:

Yes, it might be a short and successful war. It might be. But it might not be as well.

My main concern is that Saddam could engineer a humanitarian disaster for any of a number of reasons. We all know of his program to co-locate his sensitive assets in civilian areas, next to schools and so on. He's also got a number of options up his sleeve. Three main ones come to mind:

He creates a humanitarian disaster to overwhelm coalition forces. Just totally overwhelm them, with thousands of casualties, hundreds of thousands of refugees, internally displaced people, trying to move through their lines. That would play all sorts of havoc for the coalition military.

He might create a humanitarian disaster to cause such outrage in the international community as to force the US to stop.

He could create a humanitarian disaster as part of a scorched-earth policy once he realises the game is up. He's on the record as saying during the Iran-Iraq war when it looked like Iraq could lose that he would leave nothing of value for the invading army. That, I think, is an awfully important insight into the way this evil man thinks.

He could do it with weapons of mass destruction. He's already used chemical weapons against the Kurds, and he could do the same again.

Andrew Wilkie couldn’t predict a freakin’ sunrise. By the way, what was Margo’s artist Martin Davies getting at with this image from October, depicting John Howard with a big yellow star on the left side of his chest?

Margo pretended to instantly recognise the theological issues raised by George W. Bush’s use of the word "crusade" in 2001 ("I'd just lifted my head out of my hands after hearing the leader of the free world announce he was leading his allies into 'a crusade' - the Christian term for a holy war") so it’s remarkable that someone so sensitive and aware would allow this image to be published. Surely Margo knows ...

A decree, issued on September 1, 1941, issued badges to Jews within Germany as well as occupied and incorporated Poland. This badge was the yellow Star of David with the word "Jude" ("Jew") and worn on the left side of one's chest.

Oh, well. Maybe it was just another "nigger in the woodpile" moment.

Posted by Tim Blair at December 21, 2003 01:52 AM
Comments

I'm an average, unsophistcated American.
The "Margos" that inhabit various countries in the Anglosphere have their work cut out for them.

From their lofty heights they see things we 'peasants' can't see or are too dumb to understand. They try their hardest to give us their wisdom, but for some reason we just don't get it.

It must be difficult being a Margo, or a BBC reporter, or a NY Times reporter (to name a subset of those trying to light our paths to a brighter and better future). These are our 'enlightened ones'. They have figured out what needs to be done so the Utopian New World can be ushered in.

Most Americans are just very simple people who aren't worthy to tread the paths our 'enlightened ones' tread. I don't think the majority of us will ever be enlightened enough to appreciate the words of wisdom these people bestow upon us.

Must suck to be them having to deal with the 'great unwashed'. Out of my deep compassion for their suffering, I'd like them all to get together, leave our countries and go where their enlightened teachings will be received.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at December 21, 2003 at 02:27 AM

Okay, now I'm really confused. Keith Richards's ugly little sister says:

A bouquet to Andrew Wilkie, who walked away from more than 20 years of military and intelligence service...to tell the truth as he saw it about whether Iraq had WMDs ready to turn on the West

Apparently she meant this to mean Wilkie said Iraq had no WMD. But Wilkie says:

He could do it with weapons of mass destruction

Damn, now my head hurts.

Posted by: Ken Summers at December 21, 2003 at 02:56 AM

She should have had a full stop after "This is my final column."

Posted by: Greg Hlatky at December 21, 2003 at 03:47 AM

To be fair, I think that 'yellow star' is supposed to be a deputy sheriff's badge.

It's rich with symbolism! Margo is extra important because she tries super-extra hard! Margo gets a gold star too!!!!!!

Posted by: Amos at December 21, 2003 at 04:39 AM

I have the (mis)fortune to teach university classes that attract a wide range of majors. The average worst is "non-declared education" majors (means they want to teach, they just don't know what, so they aren't studying any particular subject) and followed closely by journalism majors. Not that there aren't quite excellent individuals among each. It's just that these two majors routinely demonstrate the least ability to think rationally or to write understandably. Go figure.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at December 21, 2003 at 04:43 AM

To be fair, I think that 'yellow star' is supposed to be a deputy sheriff's badge.

Yes, Amos, but why be fair when you can be ridiculous?

This is the most pathetic accusation of antisemitism I've seen in a long time.

Posted by: Robert at December 21, 2003 at 05:34 AM

But she's not being accused of antisemitism, Robert. She's being accused of being insufficiently sensitive to religious nuances, which was her accusation when George Bush used the word "crusade".

By the way, "Why be fair when you can be ridiculous?" may as well be Margo's motto.

Posted by: Angie Schultz at December 21, 2003 at 05:41 AM

To be fair, Amos, a deputy sheriff's badge would be silver and worn on the right. Everything is wrong with this picture.

Posted by: Fred Boness at December 21, 2003 at 06:15 AM

A deputy sheriff's badge would be a silver five-pointed star, not a yellow Star of David. Mind you, I think stupidity is the best explanation for the graphic.

"Crusade" is used routinely in the U.S. to mean a dedicated campaign to achieve a noble goal. Rarely do "crusade" sayers think "holy war," much less: Let's take Jerusalem and kill a bunch of Muslims (and Jews)!

Posted by: Joanne Jacobs at December 21, 2003 at 08:57 AM

Re Wilkie and "Sacrifice doesn't get much bigger than that" perhaps Margo should reflect on the sacrifice Sgt. Andrew Russell (SASR) made and consider the fact that, unlike Wilkie, it was not an exercise is grandstanding, performed in total safety.

Posted by: Harry Tuttle at December 21, 2003 at 09:05 AM

BTW, weren't General Eisenhower's WW2 memoirs entitled "Crusade in Europe"? Wonder what made Eisenhower stop at the Elbe, instead of continuing on to Jeruselam?

Posted by: Bruce Lagasse at December 21, 2003 at 09:07 AM

The comments Joanne Jacobs makes about the use of the word "crusade" applies everywhere where English is spoken by people who understand English. The idiots who object to the word belong to the same pc group who object to "niggardly", "master- slave", "golly", "rape seed" and so on. All IMHO of course.

Posted by: John Elliot at December 21, 2003 at 11:20 AM

Harry Tuttle: my brother fought alongside Andrew Russell in Afghanistan, mate. And he himself received two minor wounds in Iraq.

Now, apart from their own close friends and NOK, it's not anyone's place (including the PM's or the Prez's, btw) to use specific KIA for cheap-shot leverage in our sparkling debates, and far be it for a shiny-arsed, ex-Army, Saddam-appeasing 'enlightened one' like moi to go squealing endlessly to me supertrooper widdle bro' for help in the terror-war dirt-pissing stakes, either. I have endeavoured, even if I do say so myself Blair, to be relatively restrained on this point of etiquette throughout this crap-fucked, draining year.

Reading the various dickwadded comments on this site thru' 2003, especially about the 'brutal reality of war in the real world' - y'know, all that manly shit we sad Margolian terrorist-apologists are just too 'cloistered' and 'feeble' to handle - has been at times bracing, occasionally amusing, and invariably instructive...in a painful kind of way, as I hope even you'll comprehend, Harry. ('Appeaser', 'Chamberlain', 'coward'...yes, all very witty, Oscar, and all in good cyber-fun as we say in the blogosphere. I dare say for every such flung Righty epithet there's been a matching 'Bush is the devil', 'warmonger' and 'RWDB' barb from the Left, too.)

But that Russell line is just a teensy-weensy white feather too far, Harry, so forgive me if for once I don't raise a hearty chuckle and let it slide by like the wet turd it is. (We Margolians, as you well know, are renowned for our sense of humour and joie de vivre, but...)

Because if it'd been my brother who drove over a mine in Afghanistan, or if the mortar round that blew him through the windshield of his LRPV on the Syrian border had been more accurate, or if the ricochet that nicked him under the chin near Basra had been an inch closer to his jugular (according to the Brit doc who stitched and pitched the little toad)...then you would very probably be taunting us appeaser-Margolians with his 'sacrifice' now, too.

Which would be kinda' hard for even a Lefty wuss like me to take without busting an arse-valve somewhere, eh Harry? You with me?

So kindly shove your Andrew Russell 'exercise in cyber-grandstanding, performed in total (cyber-anonymous) safety' where it best fits.

C**t.

Balmain NSW 02 9810 6816.

Feel free to call me with a personal retraction anytime, Harry, and I'll pass it on to Saint Margo for ya. Or you could just lay some more anonymous filth on us, if that's your only tune. Answering machine's always on, mate.

(Sorry to go all uppity on one of your trolls, Blairelzebub, but enough, at long fucking last, is enough. If you RWDBs want to keep playing 'who's got the biggest military dick', then me and bro' - who sends his thanks again for the July beers and the incongruously-pleasant 'real world' chit-chattery - are up for it, anytime. Andrew Wilkie too, no doubt. I presume you're familiar with his military record. And...yours, Tim?)

Posted by: Jack R at December 21, 2003 at 01:10 PM

Jack R , Harry just stated that Andrew's and your brothers sacrifice was far more then Wilkie's that's all. If he meant disrespect to them I don't see it but I could be wrong. The Margo’s of the world use casualty numbers to 'sneer' all the time and get payed for it.

Posted by: Gary at December 21, 2003 at 01:56 PM

A deputy sheriff's badge would be a silver five-pointed star, not a yellow Star of David.

Here's a gold one with six points. And another. And another. Here's one with seven. This page shows that they came in gold or silver, with five, six or seven points.

"To be fair, Amos, a deputy sheriff's badge would be silver and worn on the right."

That's news to me. If you're right, then this is a Jew, not a sheriff:

The Anoka County Sheriff wears his badge on his left. So does the Santa Barbara Sheriff. So does the Cache County Sheriff, the Gilchrist County Sheriff, and the Houghton County Undersheriff. So did Sheriff Beck way back when.

Yellow is the colour we use to represent gold. Six pointed stars are easier to draw, and don't necessarily represent the Star of David. Get over it.

Posted by: Robert at December 21, 2003 at 02:16 PM

Hmm, images aren't allowed. In that case, "If you're right, this is a Jew, not a sheriff."

Posted by: Robert at December 21, 2003 at 02:18 PM

Lets see, Harry isn't allowed to have an opinion about Andrew WILKE and make the valid point that Sgt RUSSELL made a much greater sacrifice, because his brother isn't in the Army.

My brother is in the air force, so by your logic Jack that gives me the right to have a point of view.

And my point of view is....drum roll please......Jack R, you are an idiot.

Posted by: Gilly at December 21, 2003 at 02:29 PM

Go find someone to read what Angie Schultz replied you Robert, Get over it.

Posted by: Gary at December 21, 2003 at 03:03 PM

I don't remember Jack R mentioning his service. I did mine. Do I get an opinion, or only my brother who didn't have to go? (The other one did, though.)

I wouldn't mind having some of whatever Jack R was drinking, though. Must be strong stuff.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at December 21, 2003 at 03:32 PM

Gilly
Wouldn't you get annoyed if someone was using your family to score points?.

Posted by: Gary at December 21, 2003 at 03:44 PM

Of course I would get annoyed - thats my point.

Jack R is using his brother to score points.

Posted by: Gilly at December 21, 2003 at 04:05 PM

Gary, Angie's comment is noted. However I fail to see that a six-pointed star is inherently semitic. Perhaps you should contact those various sheriff's departments and tick them off for being "insufficiently sensitive to religious nuances".

Posted by: Robert at December 21, 2003 at 05:42 PM

hehehe... his name is "jack" R hehehe...

Posted by: beavis at December 21, 2003 at 06:02 PM

Wow Gilly, a drum roll. What a fantastic device to strengthen your already robust "point of view".

I was nearly swayed by Jack R's post, but the drum roll really hacked that logic down to size.

Posted by: Sincerity Slips at December 21, 2003 at 06:11 PM

Drum rolls will do that

Posted by: Gilly at December 21, 2003 at 07:17 PM

"However I fail to see that a six-pointed star is inherently" nether do I Robert. Looking into the history/motives of the artis and publisher would be far more useful then a nee jerk defence of it. And that goes for the opposite reaction as well. Your profession(lawyer) mite one day compel you to defend the indefinable but you have choice in private life.

Posted by: Gary at December 21, 2003 at 08:34 PM

I'd start by looking at the article to which the picture was attached, and since it had absolutely nothing to do with Judaism or Israel, I fail to see how a reasonable person would mistake the sheriff's badge for a Star of David.

Posted by: Robert at December 21, 2003 at 08:44 PM

Predictably Adams article is all about him, again. Buy paper and take a look at the photos, of him, he has in the corner. He probably was sitting there stroking himself and thinking ‘I look statesman like in those pictures, why does no-one listen to me’ when the idea for the article came to him.
He forgets that he is still the same smug fat kid that got (justly) picked on at school.

Posted by: Dave at December 21, 2003 at 09:00 PM

Predictably Adams article is all about him, again. Buy paper and take a look at the photos, of him, he has in the corner. He probably was sitting there stroking himself and thinking ‘I look statesman like in those pictures, why does no-one listen to me’ when the idea for the article came to him.
He forgets that he is still the same smug fat kid that got (justly) picked on at school.

Posted by: Dave at December 21, 2003 at 09:01 PM

That's fare enough. Given the time context shouldn't "sensitive to religious nuances" come into play? And remember oversensitivity is used as political tool for a lot of other things. So I hope you think about that in the future.

Posted by: Gary at December 21, 2003 at 09:10 PM


Are you telling me the artist didn't look at his finished product and think, "Jeez, that looks like a Star of David"? I mean, did he seriously not see the resemblance enough to decide that maybe he should put in more badge-type details? Surely it's not beyond the ability of an artist to make a badge distinguishable from a Star of David?

More likely, it's intentionally ambiguous. Clever dick, eh?

Posted by: Dave S. at December 22, 2003 at 06:44 AM

wow - I haven't seen people get this sensitive over 'racism' since ... well ... ever.

Personally, I'm scared to debate anything relating to judaism or jewish people because I assume I will get labelled an anti-Semite. Of course, I don't have that problem when talking with my single jewish friend... just like I can say "nigger" to my one black friend and "faggot" to my one gay friend. But I dare not say these things to a white straight gentile! They'll hang me!

{sigh} quickly! smere that person! before they say something convincing!

Posted by: John Humphreys at December 24, 2003 at 07:46 PM