May 19, 2004


• Salam Pax revealed! He’s in Australia for the Sydney Wanker’s Festival.

• Janet Albrechtsen in The Australian: “A media willing to incite Arab outrage but spare our own is not a media interested in balance. This one-sided reporting of our own misdeeds eats away at our resolve to stay the distance. Indeed, one suspects that is its purpose.”

• The Sydney Morning Herald reports: "David Hicks received a prolonged beating from US military personnel during an interrogation soon after his capture in Afghanistan." The source for this claim? Hicks’ lawyer Stephen Kenny, who "gave no details of the abuse but said it was sanctioned by higher authorities."

• Four “people” have reportedly been arrested over Nick Berg’s murder.

• John Kerry’s daughter fronts the cameras in Cannes, while Kerry himself refuses to back the US-Australia trade deal.

Posted by Tim Blair at May 19, 2004 02:06 PM

I love how the article on Alexandra Kerry's dress mentions that John Kerry is a Vietnam War veteran.

Posted by: Donnah at May 19, 2004 at 05:31 PM

Jeez Kerry's daughter has got a rude head, much like her old man.

(Shudders at thought of John Kerry in a see through dress)

Posted by: Antipodean at May 19, 2004 at 05:34 PM

I note that the "Hey look, here's some breasts" story is once again the most-viewed news story on both the SMH and Age sites.

Oh, the joys of the quality, respectable media.

Posted by: Jorge at May 19, 2004 at 05:57 PM

Americans, for the good of Australia, please don't vote for John Kerry.


Posted by: Quentin George at May 19, 2004 at 06:31 PM

Hey, look - A face malfunction!

Posted by: yobbo at May 19, 2004 at 08:30 PM

Enjoyed Janet Albrechtsen's report. From what I hear, people are upset and want the soldiers punished. However, I don't see the media getting their wish, yet, of getting rid of Pres. Bush.

I wish Pres. Bush would hold more press conferences and talk about what is happening from his perspective. I think he could counteract a lot of the negativity.

Kerry's daughter:

If daddy gets elected, I wonder if she'll wear a dress like that to the inaugural ball? Honestly, I don't expect her to dress like a nun but couldn't she show a bit more class? She may have caught a lot of attention, but she looked so tacky. What father would want to see a picture of his daughter dressed like that? I'm sure daddy wasn't too pleased.

I know Americans are supposed to be prudes about such matters, so perhaps it's because I'm an American that I thought she looked more like a hooker than the daughter of one of our presidential candidates.

Bush has underage party girls for daughters and Kerry has a daughter who likes to reveal a lot.
The old saying is very true .. "You can pick your friends, but not your family".


Anyone notice that Michael Moore stood in solidarity with the French workers who were striking? (No, he didn't.) Neither did any of the other celebs at Cannes. They may make pictures glorifying 'the workers', but when 'the workers' come between them and a Cannes award .. 'the workers' lose.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at May 19, 2004 at 08:32 PM

The moonbats are hard at it about the Nick Berg video - guess what they think? He was not "killed" by terrorists - no - but by the US CIA/Shadow Ops whatever to move attention away from the Iraqi prisoner abuse photos.

If you wish to keep up to date with the latest in poisoned thinking then head on over to:

Be warned you will get mad.

Posted by: Rob at May 19, 2004 at 10:00 PM

Mr Blair, re your colunm in Sydneys' Daily Telegraph: You criticised Michael Moore for his innacurate description of unemployed French actors while at the same time saying "the headlines screamed....". Surely he can't be blamed for a French newspaper headline. Also you sarcastically referred to one of his books as being titled "Hey Commies, buy this book and make a fat millionaire even richer". For a start, no-one outside of Texas has used the phrase "hey Commies" since 1969, and is the man supposed to work for nothing? You're struggling Tim. Michael Moore is not my favourite either but that was just personal, childish & pointless.
Sounded like a right-wing loony rant to me & I thought Piers Akerman was the Tele's in-house right wing nutter. He has struggled too since he has been forced to write his own copy.
Regards Glenn Luttrell

Posted by: Glenn Luttrell at May 19, 2004 at 11:17 PM

Glenn Luttrell -

I frequently use the phrase "Hey Commies", and have done so throughout the eastern United States to this very day.

With the proper inflection, it is appropriate in more situations than you might think.

So to you I say a cheerful "Hey, Commie!"

Posted by: Parker at May 20, 2004 at 12:00 AM

geez, you'd think kerry's daughter could afford some better looking panties to go along with those breasts. from this picture it appears she rummaged through the clearance bin @ wal-mart for some grannie-panties.

Posted by: poormedicalstudent at May 20, 2004 at 12:52 AM

Glenn Luttrell — Yer kidding, right? Maybe they don't use it anymore in the Berkeley Starbucks, but the term is alive and well...

Quentin George, but, but, if we don't vote for Kerry, the world won't respenct us and Margo Kingston might say terrible things about us, and you know the power of the Australian press...

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at May 20, 2004 at 02:16 AM

Glenn Luttrell:

After describing Moore's perfunctory 'please look at me' protestations on behalf of French actors, an article in today's WSJ Opinion Journal continued:

Mr. Moore has yet to express his support, though, for another strike here, that of the staff at some of Cannes's finest luxury hotels. Apparently Mr. Moore's solidarity with labor ends when it affects his ability to get first-rate room service.

Why is that not surprising? The Wall Steet Journal is not a "right-wing loony" rag, yet its writers also recognise Moore for what he is: a self-aggrandising, tendentious creep. He has a right to make a living but not by deliberately disseminating what he knows to be falsehoods.

When these include suggestions that President Bush may have been somehow involved in 9/11 or the mistakes which inevitably followed that terrible event; when those falsehoods include the claim that everything associated with the war in Iraq can be reduced to Bush's desire for an oil pipeline through the country; when Moore speaks of throat-cutting murderers as "minute-men" who will win; when his new movie depicts life in pre-war Iraq as an idyll (which it does in its early sequences); when the same production includes footage of mutilated American soldiers and dead civilians (contravening all known filmic conventions of decency); when a man does these things, I say he is a cretin, a toad, a liar, a yellow journalist, a cur, a putrid sewer-brained parasite of grief, a moral sissy, and a dishonourable traitor - not just to America but to decency and truth.

He deserves all the ridicule he gets. And Moore.

Posted by: CurrencyLad at May 20, 2004 at 02:18 AM

Kuro5hin has turned into a swamp, just like Metafilter. At least on Slashdot or Fark this sort of nonsense would provoke a flamewar.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at May 20, 2004 at 02:35 AM

I can't read Kuro5hin or Metafilter anymore; they literally make me want to put an axe through the computer. If you want the world's richest mine of Smug, look no further than those places.

Posted by: Sonetka at May 20, 2004 at 02:40 AM

Albrechtson point is well encapusalted by an article linked by Instapundit: terrorists' butchery is good because it can be used to attack Bush and the Republicans. Andrew Bolt's account of what occurred on Insider is also revealing, I've looked for the transcript but it is not available, not yet anyway.

What both examples disclose is appalling, which is a consideration set in an item I wrote on Monday. There is no question, for me, such journalists are effectively complicit in what is underneath it all evil work.

Freedom of the press is grounded in, the rule of common law, it is outright rubbish a free press is a guarantor of freedom. Leftoid journos provide more evidence by their continual propoganda efforts on behalf of socialist aims, and their apologising and exculpation of the horrific deeds of svage murderers like PLO - Hamas, and the scum who murder Berg, Pearl, Iraqis.

And notice how the freedom loving leftoid journos avoid anything to do with the unpleasant facts of the communist regime of Cuba.

The facts of Mugabe's regime are too obvious to ignore but they still keep reports on Zimbabwe to a minimum, that what is at stake is reduced to silly trivial nonsense as to whether the 1st 11 should tour or not tour.

ANd meanwhile, Marr pursue trivia and persectues many who are better thann many in ABC, including himself.

A bloody bad and black joke.

Posted by: d at May 20, 2004 at 10:53 AM

Hey, Glenn Luttrell

I often say hey, commie, just like I say hey, faggot. Often both together.

Posted by: narkynark at May 20, 2004 at 04:31 PM

Hey Glen, perhaps people on this comments forum should greet one another with a cheerful and friendly, 'Hey, Fascist!!"

Posted by: TimT at May 20, 2004 at 05:47 PM

Perhaps we might TimT, but then, we aint fascists
Fascists are Left wing
We are right wing
Therefore we are not fascists
And if you think fascist are right wing, please note the following
Hitler's Party was the National Socialist German Workers Party
This site on Political ideology describes why the traditional left-right divide is inadequate to describe political differences, and show that, economically, Hitler wasnt just a socialist by name, but in practice too.

Posted by: RhikoR at May 20, 2004 at 06:21 PM

It's only when white people abuse Arabs that the Left could be bothered speaking out. That's the extent of their conviction.

Posted by: Brian. at May 20, 2004 at 07:58 PM

I wonder if they will now be serving tea and biscuits to the slaughteres of Nick Berg.
And of course reciting the Geneva Convention, i presume will be adhered to by al sadr's gangsters too.
Do you need two to tango?
or is one enough for the self flaggelating lefties?
why fight on equal terms when you can have them tie your hands behind your back ?

Posted by: DAVO at May 20, 2004 at 08:44 PM

Yeah, Rhiko, I've read my Friedrich Hayek. Personally, I don't care whether Hitler was technically a socialist or not, all that matters is that he was a grade-A asshole.

Posted by: TimT at May 20, 2004 at 09:13 PM

After all the self flagellation, something to give you a rush
Shame the Aussies are bayonetless!
LOVE those Brits after ALL
Todays London SUN.

OUTNUMBERED British soldiers killed 35 Iraqi attackers in the Army’s first bayonet charge since the Falklands War 22 years ago. The fearless Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders stormed rebel positions after being ambushed and pinned down.

Despite being outnumbered five to one, they suffered only three minor wounds in the hand-to-hand fighting near the city of Amara.

The battle erupted after Land Rovers carrying 20 Argylls came under attack on a highway.

After radioing for back-up, they fixed bayonets and charged at 100 rebels using tactics learned in drills.

Charge ... tactics from drills

When the fighting ended bodies lay all over the highway — and more were floating in a nearby river. Nine rebels were captured

Posted by: DAVO at May 21, 2004 at 01:51 AM

Speaking of Commies, in an episode of "the Simpsons", Homer utters the oath whilst shaking fist: " Go back to Massachusetts, Pinko".
At the moment, I believe this is something of a fitting statement.

Posted by: james at May 21, 2004 at 02:04 AM

mmmm.... Commies....


Posted by: Parker at May 21, 2004 at 05:15 AM

Is is just me, or does 'Salam Pax' look kinda like Andrew Sullivan with a tan?

Posted by: rosignol at May 21, 2004 at 07:34 AM

Oh c'mon, Davo. We all know those Highlanders charged an innocent wedding party and slaughtered dozens of peace-loving Iraqi women and children.

Posted by: R C Dean at May 21, 2004 at 09:49 AM

To answer Janet Albrechtsen Question at he end of her article I would say 'No'.

Posted by: Dog at May 21, 2004 at 06:07 PM

The poor kid - she inherited the old man's looks!

Posted by: Joe at May 22, 2004 at 04:13 AM

Rossignol, that was exactly my reaction. Ans as for Alexandra Kerry all I can ask is "Why the long face?"

Posted by: Tibor at May 22, 2004 at 07:02 AM

shut up all you freakin commie losers and pay attention to Kerry's daughter's tits! Don't make me come over there!

Posted by: Two in the Hat at May 22, 2004 at 08:59 AM

The April blog "Crock of Jack" won't accept any more posts and I missed it so I'm butting in here to get in my 2 cents.

"Crock of Jack" related to a foolish assertion that going a bees dick over the speed limit doubles crash risk so there should be even more oppression of drivers.

Perfect sense typed: "The real public risk is Professor McLean probably wants taxpayers to double his research findings."

He's currently in the Centre for Automotive Safety Research before that Road Accident Research Unit. The more he obliges those profitting from speeding fine revenue raising the more prestigous and better funded he becomes.

Uncle Milk "All good arguments. But how, then, should the traffic laws be written to accomodate this?"

To answer this the relationship between speed and safety must first be understood. As jafa said: "The golden rule for staying out of trouble, is to stay on the pace." It becomes dangerous to go too much slower or faster than other traffic.

In this post I'll look at speed and safety but if there is any interest and I relate it to speed limits Craig Mc's wish can be fulfilled ie.: "I hope one day to see a link between advocating reduced speed limits and horrible, bloody, screaming death."

After discussing the fundamental relationship between safety and speed I will consider choice of speed from a driver's perspective. I will discuss the situation where safety and law conflict and argue that safety should be paramount.

Safety and speed when driving in populated areas normally is a case of speed differences with other vehicles. It is based on simple physics. I normally use the illustration of a group of tennis balls moving in the same direction. If they all move at the same speed they will keep travelling (until slowed down by friction). If they move at different speeds they will hit each other. To minimise collisions you minimise speed differences. There are more complications with cars but that is the basic principle.

The idea for speed management is to minimise the speed differences. Common sense suggests this. However I mention it because it is fundamental to understanding the relationship between safety and speed and having a meaningful discussion about these. Further it is important to state the obvious as people who profit from speeding fines prefer that people are mushrooms when it comes to this area. They prefer to throw around red herrings that can result in the more trusting members of the community looking at things up side down and back to front.

There is the law and there is the driver behaviour. The law is essentially represented by the speed limits. The issue of speed and safety will now be considered from the driver's perspective. I will discuss the issue of speed limits in a later post.

From a drivers point of view there are two important considerations. To individual drivers the importance of these will depend on the driver and their circumstances.

1) the law. If you exceed the speed limit you may get punished. Currently the laws doesn't just apply to the minority of people who are either incapable of or unwilling to drive at an appropriate speed. Unfortunately people can be punished for reasonable behaviour. However the fact remains that breaching the law can result in punishment and many drivers take this into account.

2) safety. This is primarily based on speed differences. I have explained this above. To broaden thinking there is a link below to a paper written by a physicist who attempted to tie down the relationship between driving in different circumstances and different speeds with other considerations that arise. It makes interesting reading and might not be a bad starting point. I'd label it educated navel gazing.

You can find it here:

The above paper discussed a situation where law and safety may conflict thus creating a dilemma for the driver. If in that situation the driver chooses to disobey the law are they doing the wrong thing? My view is no. Safety should be paramount. The law should serve us.

Posted by: John at May 22, 2004 at 08:59 AM

John: no off-topic posts (unless they are really entertaining; sorry, yours doesn't qualify). Final warning.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 23, 2004 at 11:33 AM