August 25, 2004

READ 'EM AND PUKE

Andrew Bolt rounds up some sensational lefty quotes:

Murderer Anu Singh, about whom an unflattering book has been written: "The unfortunate thing about [the] book is that it seems to perpetuate this notion that people who commit crimes are bad, are evil."

Revolting author Bob Ellis: "I assume Saddam, a ruthless, ambitious fan of Stalin, did bad things and killed a lot of people in his time. But kill them pointlessly? I don't think so."

Unreadable crypt-dwelling Age columnist Ken Davidson: "Arguably . . . Iraq can only be held together by a monster."

Marx-sucking ABC presenter Terry Lane: "When they say 'Saddam was a very bad man' why should we believe them?"

Creepy Age movie reviewer Adrian Martin on the hideous anti-Semitic letters of David Hicks: "A mixture of homely familiarities and passionate declarations of his newly-adopted lifestyle".

Posted by Tim Blair at August 25, 2004 10:08 AM
Comments

notion that people who commit crimes are bad, are evil.

Isn't this true by definition? Maybe the book he was talking about was a dictionary.

Posted by: 2dogs at August 25, 2004 at 11:02 AM

I assume Saddam, a ruthless, ambitious fan of Stalin, did bad things and killed a lot of people in his time. But kill them pointlessly? I don't think so.

When Saddam gassed the Kurds Bob Ellis thought to himself, "You know, he has a point."

Posted by: Lawrence at August 25, 2004 at 11:09 AM

tim, you really are a dickhead pointing to andrew bolt's articles demonising people. Anyone can take quotes out of context to attack their critics. For example i could grab a series of bolt's quotes out of context, portray him as a lefty and claim he is a flip-flopper. But of course that would be an intellectually bankrupt approach to debating, and no doubt I would be howled down for using those tactics.
So my question is, why do you endorse and celebrate right wingers using these tactics?

Posted by: Iain at August 25, 2004 at 11:27 AM

What makes you so sure those quotes are being misrepresented, Iaiaiaian?

Posted by: Sortelli at August 25, 2004 at 11:47 AM

of course that would be an intellectually bankrupt approach to debating, and no doubt I would be howled down for using those tactics.

I question whether you would be "howled down". Attacked, maybe. But the problem is that out of context quotes and strawman arguments tend to get far too much currency in today's media.

Often, the best argument against a privilege is to be seen to abuse it yourself. A use of illegitimate tactics should not necessarily be seen as an endorsement of them.

Posted by: 2dogs at August 25, 2004 at 11:55 AM

Lefties showing their true contempt for human life.

Posted by: DaveJ at August 25, 2004 at 11:59 AM

Iaiaiaiaiaiaiaian obviously didn't read the linked article, where the context to the quotes is given.

Where did all these moral midgets crawl from?

Posted by: EvilPundit at August 25, 2004 at 12:24 PM

Iain wouldn't dare to justify websites dedicated to out of context quotes, now would he?

Posted by: Gary at August 25, 2004 at 12:41 PM

Iain whined: "But of course that would be an intellectually bankrupt approach to debating, and no doubt I would be howled down for using those tactics. So my question is, why do you endorse and celebrate right wingers using these tactics?"

My question to Iain is: Why not provide the context rather than use the intellectually lazy "out of context" whine and denunciation of these alleged "tactics"? Destroy Bolt's and Tim's contentions: prove Bolt has distorted those quotes. Put your money where your big mouth is. I won't hold my breath.

If someone used damaging out-of-context quotes about me and the context would repair the impression, I'd provide the context in a second. But that's just me.

I just love the "out of context" whine. Funny how people who use it never, never, never, never provide the context which would allegedly refute the quoter's contention.

Could it possibly be that the context would confirm the meaning of the quotes? And it's much easier for a lazy and dishonest person just to make this counter-accusation.

The people Bolt quoted are utterly despicable.

Posted by: Jim C. at August 25, 2004 at 12:43 PM

You're all taking Iain out of context.

Iain's context is idiocy. Ignore him.

Posted by: ilibcc at August 25, 2004 at 12:56 PM

But of course that would be an intellectually bankrupt approach to debating, and no doubt I would be howled down for using those tactics.

I'd like to add that you'd also win the Palme D'Or.

Posted by: Sortelli at August 25, 2004 at 01:56 PM

OK Dickheads you asked for it,
Despite what bolt inferred, the age did not claim Anu singh was not evil, they just got her to make a few quotes for a book reveiw about her.
I haven't seen Adrian Martin's movie reveiw on the president vs david hicks. Did he praise Hick's letters, or was he merely discussing the opening of the movie? My guess (and it is only a guess at the moment) is that Martin was like all good movie reveiwers, you no, reveiwing a movie.
Bob Ellis is absolutely right. Saddam is an arsehole, but he was a calculating arsehole. His killing spree was very targetted (eg Kurds gassing) and there is no evidence he killed those who were not challenging him.
Terry Lane was not supporting Saddam, he was merely discussing the honesty of the coalition of the willing. Again taken out of context.
Need I go on exposing the intellectual deficiencies of Andrew Bolt and his supporters on this blog?

Posted by: Iain at August 25, 2004 at 02:33 PM

Was the torture of athletes by Uday part of the Saddam regime only doing bad stuff when neccessary? Did it improve the performance of Iraq's team?

Posted by: Andjam at August 25, 2004 at 03:00 PM

The above question was addressed to Iain.

Posted by: Andjam at August 25, 2004 at 03:01 PM

Wow, Bro, you uh,... you really let them have it.

Is that ""EE-yan", or "Eeeen"? And when WILL the Nicole Miller's be in?

I gotta start watching something besides "Seinfeld."

Posted by: geezer at August 25, 2004 at 03:02 PM

I really don't understand the media portraying Hicks as an innocent party. What was he doing in Afghanistan........on a guided tour or something?

I don't give a stuff about his new-found beliefs but to think he can go somewhere else in the world, learn how to fight a jihad against those countries trying to eliminate terrorism, and then say it's all a mistake when he pisses himself, giving up as soon as a gun is pointed at him. Sorry, he should be for the high jump!

Also, his family and friends should be ashamed of him, not trying to defend the bastard. I have nothing but a deep regret for them on their stance as it has diminished their moral integrity. I don't mind people defending someone they know,when that party may be innocent but in this case, pull the other one.

As for those mainstream media tarts. I've never listened to or read words from a bigger pack of prawn-headed, mullet-gutted, limp-wristed shirt-lifters as now exists. Looks like the sheep herder's already got that lot on his side. Next will be the opposition party, saying Hicks wasn't even in Afghanistan, and it is all a contrived setup.

Sorry if I've waffled on a bit. Just cheesed off.

Posted by: Lofty at August 25, 2004 at 03:10 PM

Iaiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiain! Someone needs to aquiaint you with the first rule of holes: Stop digging!

1) Bolt was taking issue with the content of Anu's bizarre words rather than with Age itself, although along the way he criticize the Age for treating her with kid gloves. Since you did not understand or address this, it seems odd that you could claim anything was being misrepresented here.

2) Since you can't provide any context on this I'll mock your ignorance. You know, the word NO is a negative, the opposite of yes. The word KNOW, on the other hand, as in KNOWLEDGE, is what would properly belong in the phrase "you know", as opposed to "you no". A little no-ledge goes a long way.

3) "Saddam is an arsehole, but he was a calculating arsehole." The very fact that someone would defend a murderous tyrant for being a clever murderous tyrant IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE QUOTE IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. At any rate, you have helped to establish that the quote was not misrepresented or taken out of context at all, because you only just stooped to defending the very quote in the context Bolt provided it. Good for you, Saddam apologist! Good for you!

4) Terry Lane was not supporting Saddam, he was merely discussing the honesty of the coalition of the willing. Hmm... Bolt wrote "For Lane the real problem seemed not Saddam, but the "lies" of our evil leaders." . . . so how was this take out of context or misrepresetned, Iain? Might I recommend that you retake the second grade and focus a little harder on your reading comprehension skills? Seriously.

No, seriously. You're 0 for 4 here, pal.

Posted by: Sortelli at August 25, 2004 at 03:12 PM

Lofty,
you did waffle on.
As far as i can see there are very few people in the media portraying Hicks and habib as good blokes.
There are however plenty of people in the media defending hicks' right to a fair and open trial. there are also plenty of people (mostly right wing simpletons) who want to deny hicks this basic right.
Lets reverse the situation. Say an Australian was arrested in Zimbabwe or a middle eastern country and held without charge for 2 years. He/She was then accused of being a spy and tried behind closed doors without access to a decent legal defence.
I'm sure Andrew Bolt and his cohorts would scream "injustice".
Why the double standards with hicks?
I would argue the double standard is simply based on the fact that the right wingers chose sides and back their team no matter what sort of contradictions are thrown up.
If you don't think hicks deserves a fair trial go live in Iran.

Posted by: Iain at August 25, 2004 at 03:34 PM

1. It was a book reveiw, not an expose of Anu. Getting quotes is a matter of balance. Bolt did infer the age was refusing to call her evil. That was total crap.
2. Anyone have the movie reveiw? Google is coming up a blank.
3. Who the fuck is defending saddam here? Ellis certainly wasn't. taken out of context again.
4. In the piece Bolt sites Lane wasn't defending saddam, but he was critical of the coalition of the willings honesty. He has criticised saddam in previous articles, so Bolt misrepresents Lanes opinion through selective quoting.
You have fallen for the old "If you don't support the coalition of the willing you're a saddam sympathiser" argument.
PS where are those WMDs again?

Posted by: Iain at August 25, 2004 at 03:48 PM

I've got a gov't contract to hold them in my basement until the morning of 3 Nov 04.

I get a free mug, poncho and steak knives if I get the NYT's reporters to look in the local dump.

Posted by: geezer at August 25, 2004 at 04:00 PM

watch out for ASIO Geezer, or you may be holidaying in Cuba for the next few years

Posted by: Iain at August 25, 2004 at 04:06 PM

I'm retired USAF, so EVERY day is a holiday!

Good to see you've got something resembling a sense of humor, after all...

Posted by: geezer at August 25, 2004 at 04:09 PM

Iain,
who said anything about not having a fair trial? However, to compare someone (I presume you mean an innocent citizen) held in Zimbabwe without charges,against an individual taking up arms against his own country's forces? There is no comparison between the two particularly as Hicks did not become a citizen of the country he decided to fight for.

Yes, maybe the Australian Government should have done more for Hicks and Habib, maybe. One thing I do believe you are right on is that it shouldn't have been two years without charges. But with the amount of individuals being held, plus the lack of resources to process them quickly, efficiently and accurately, its not surprising about the delay.

As for the media, the tone and message coming from them is very passive and one-sided if you really listen and watch what is portrayed.

On your last sentence.....very offensive!

Posted by: Lofty at August 25, 2004 at 04:17 PM

"Bob Ellis is absolutely right. Saddam is an arsehole, but he was a calculating arsehole. His killing spree was very targetted (eg Kurds gassing) and there is no evidence he killed those who were not challenging him."

WOW!

There are intelligent people who really believe this? That, at worst, Saddam 'just' killed his challengers? Sounds like 'Baghdad Bob' (Iraqi Info. Minister) wrote his memoirs.

What did Saddam consider a 'challenge'? A direct threat? Looking at him (Saddam) the wrong way? Not cheering for him loud enough? Saddam must have had quite a list of things he considered 'challenges' worthy of torture and death.

All those Iraqis who were killed for 'challenging' Saddam were either very brave or very stupid. Why didn't the Iraqis just NOT 'challenge' him?

Posted by: Chris Josephson at August 25, 2004 at 04:22 PM

1) It's only crap if the Age did, in fact, portray her as evil. If they treated her neutrally, Bolt's opinion stands because he did not misrepresent the Age OR Anu's quote.

2) You don't know what you're talking about. Good on you!

3) Since you agree with Ellis' quote as it was presented, you have no grounds to claim that you or the quote are being taken out of context.

I don't really want to get into the dark and musty heart of a person who thinks it's unfair for Saddam to be characterized as a bloodthirsty madman on the grounds that he's actually a calculating cold-blooded killer, so I don't really want to know why you think it's okay to feel Saddam should have been left alone and-by-the-way-he's-not-that-crazy. If Ellis was claiming that we should remove Saddam by force BECAUSE he's a rational killer, then you might have some ground to say that Ellis has been misrepresented. But is that what you or Ellis think? Here's a hint: If your response to people that think Saddam should be removed by force because he's a madman is to say that "no we shouldn't and Saddam's actually a rational killer"; you are defending Saddam.

And if your response to evidence that Saddam really IS a fucking psycho who likes to watch people be tortured and killed and had raised his sons into senseless beasts who torture and murder on a whim and who think rape is both a passtime and a way to silence dissent is to say "No way, they only killed for a reason"; then you are not only defending Saddam but being a totally sick whackjob nutter in the process.

4) Bolt did not misrepresent the quote. He said that Lane was more worried about the coalition's honesty, which is exactly what you said the quote meant. He didn't say Lane supported Saddam, he said that Lane was more concerned with his political opponents than he was with Saddam. That's a curious set of political priorities, but I wager it doesn't bother you at all because you think Saddam was a calculating asshole and not a crazy one.

Posted by: Sortelli at August 25, 2004 at 04:22 PM

Oh, and ZERO for FOUR, Iaiaiaiaiain.

Posted by: Sortelli at August 25, 2004 at 04:24 PM

I'd STILL like to know if it's "EE-yan" or "Eeen"... it's very important, and germain to the issue.

Posted by: geezer at August 25, 2004 at 04:28 PM

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Monday 28th June 2004

We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Posted by: Intellectual Gladiator at August 25, 2004 at 04:29 PM

To make it easy for you, Iaiaiaiaiain, your four points will only stand if:

1) You show that the Age condemned Anu contrary to how Bolt presented the piece.
2) You know what the hell you are talking about
3) You can show that Bob Ellis was talking about Saddam's calculated brutality in reference to condemning him as opposed to protecting him from people who supported a war to remove him.
4) Hopeless, give it up, you're completely and utterly wrong on that one and you've already contradicted this with your own words.

Posted by: Sortelli at August 25, 2004 at 04:29 PM

I have posted Lanes article that bolt sites in full. As you can all see it is about propaganda from both sides of the debate. It is about the dangers of believeing propaganda unquestioningly. nowhere does Lane state or "seem" more concerned with the coalition of the willings lies rather than saddam as bolt claims.
In the last par Lane asks "In the end, who knows what to believe?"
For me, it isn't moore, saddam, johnnie, or George. All have bent the truth. Some have outright lied.
And it certainly isn't Bolt, who shamelessly misqotes people. Any thinking person would take everything this bloke says with a grain of salt.
So who here think Popovic hugged drug dealers?

[Oh no you haven't. Entire article removed because Tim already linked to it and we can go read it for ourselves. You idiot. Cordially, The Management.]

Posted by: Iain at August 25, 2004 at 04:51 PM

Why do I get the feeling you're mouthing some party line here? I believe Tim and Andrea have made it quite clear in the past how they feel about "cut and paste" arguments, and you just might have hurt their feelings with your last post.

You're quoting some pretty heavy losers here, Bro, and history is fast putting it's footprints up yer backside.

We and Iraq are better off because of what we've done collectively, and you ain't gonna win this argument. The extent of "better-offedness" won't be known for some time, kinda like previous wars, y'know?

Posted by: geezer at August 25, 2004 at 05:03 PM

Iain, all you are doing is repeating yourself and/or quoting talking points. What little original thought expressed in your posts has been trounced soundly.

You might want to bow out gracefully.

Oh, and I know Andrea will not appreciate your pasting Lane's complete article here; it has to do with copyright violation. I suggest an apology, since this is not your blog.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 25, 2004 at 05:09 PM

Fuck it I give up,
It is a book reveiw you morons not an article about Anu. The article is written to inform people about the book. It isn't a discussion about the "evil" in Anu or any other criminals. The journo writing the reveiw simply gets quotes from anu, reports what she says, and doesn't make a judgement on them. for this the age is condemned by Bolt. Who is he going to go after next, the resteraunt or the music reveiwers.
Anyone who reads any more into the age piece is a dickhead, or a far right journo using the piece out of context.
I'm off to a more intelligent site

Posted by: Iain at August 25, 2004 at 05:13 PM

Via con Dubya!

Posted by: geezer at August 25, 2004 at 05:19 PM

In conclusion, let's review Ian's four points:

1) Iain: "It is a book reveiw you morons not an article about Anu. The article is written to inform people about the book. It isn't a discussion about the "evil" in Anu or any other criminals. The journo writing the reveiw simply gets quotes from anu, reports what she says, and doesn't make a judgement on them. for this the age is condemned by Bolt. Who is he going to go after next, the resteraunt or the music reveiwers."

I felt bad about the sloppiness of my first big post, but now I don't. Thanks, and as a word of advice, you seem to get really illiterate when you're backed in a corner, Iaiaiain. Might want to watch that.

Bolt's point about the book review was exactly that they could not bring themselves to paint a criminal as bad or a murderer as evil. Anu's silly quote was a perfect example of this. Now, you may not LIKE Bolt's take on that, but you certainly CANNOT say that he misrepresented the article. You have now been reduced to saying that the article Bolt claimed was not condemning Anu was in fact, not condemning Anu, which contradicts your argument that he took her out of context. You're wrong.

2) You still have no idea what you're talking about. Good on you!

3) From Lane: "And he is flirting with a dangerous idea. Given that Bush, Blair and Howard lied about WMDs and connections between Saddam and Osama, what if their final threadbare excuse for invasion - that Saddam is an evil man akin to Hitler or Stalin - is also a lie?

Wow, by quoting Lane, you just totally proved that Ellis was presented accurately, and that you are an asshole for agreeing with him. Good for you, Saddam apologist! Good for you!

And hey, guess what? This contradicts your argument that Bolt took this out of context and it contradicts your claim that Ellis was not defending Saddam. You're wrong again!

4) Iain: "nowhere does Lane state or "seem" more concerned with the coalition of the willings lies rather than saddam as bolt claims."

This is the opposite of what you said before. And Lane's conclusion belies your new position. You're not only wrong, but you either can't read or you are a worthy candidate to join John Kerry's "bring it on/stop bringing it on" flip-flop campaign!

Final score remains ZERO for FOUR, Iain! Don't tell your friends at the more intelligent site about how fantastically wrong you are! You might lose some more respect that you don't deserve!

Posted by: Sortelli at August 25, 2004 at 05:29 PM

(May I just take a moment to applaud "prawn-headed, mullet-gutted, limp-wristed shirt-lifters"? Thank you.)

Posted by: jaed at August 25, 2004 at 05:32 PM

Ha!

Fucking hell Sortelli, you are my new hero!

:)


...and Iain - try www.indymedia.org.

"Intelligence" ahoy.

Posted by: Quentin George at August 25, 2004 at 05:40 PM

In the 1930's people had debates just like this. Apologists for evil are popular again.

A very ominous sign.

Posted by: Om at August 25, 2004 at 05:41 PM

Fucking hell Sortelli, you are my new hero!

Well, in all modesty, it's not like we were dealing with a heavy thinker, here.

Posted by: Sortelli at August 25, 2004 at 05:45 PM

Well, in all modesty, it's not like we were dealing with a heavy thinker, here.

Come on, anyone who spells "Ian" with two "i"s is obviously a deeply sophisticated guy.

You know, like Thhom...

Posted by: Quentin George at August 25, 2004 at 05:50 PM


When and where exactly did Churchill and Menzies make fools of themselves by admiring Hitler?

Or is Iiaiaiaian/Ellis repeating someting out of context?

According to my reading, Churchill and Menzies pressed for re-armament against Hitler, in the face of leftistr accusations that they were war-mongering.

Posted by: Sue at August 25, 2004 at 06:48 PM

Hicks? Yawn! Let his moongod save him.

Posted by: Dog at August 25, 2004 at 06:55 PM

Hmmm, there's a Greens candidate down our way by the name of Iain Lygo, who fancies himself as a scribe. Writes hard-left viewpoints to all the local papers.

Posted by: slatts at August 25, 2004 at 07:09 PM

Geezer, thanks, but my feelings at least are intact. Iain, I have removed the article, as you can see. Don't post entire articles here. By the way, when you do cite (that is the correct spelling of the word you meant, not "site," which means "place or location") an article or any other published work you are supposed to indicate that somehow by either putting quotations around it, or blockquoting it (for quotes longer than a sentence or two). If you are puzzled you may consult any style book for pointers. This is something I learned long ago in the supposedly lousy American school system, by the way.

And guys, to be fair to Iain, the spelling of his name is a slightly less common but by no means unknown variant.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at August 25, 2004 at 08:14 PM

I was wondering when you were going to make an appearance Andrea.By the way where can you get those you beaut style books?

Posted by: gubbaboy at August 25, 2004 at 08:47 PM

Why should we believe them when they say that Saddam was a bad man?

Follow me very closely now.

Mass graves.
With the bodies of little children in them.
Still clutching their dolls.

That is a sign that Saddam is a very, very, very bad man.

And anyone who questions that conclusion is a moral pinhead. Mmmkay?

Posted by: Mikey at August 26, 2004 at 12:09 AM

"you beaut style books"? Well, the style books I meant referred to those MLA or ALA essay and research paper howtos that they make you buy in college. I still have mine. There's also plenty of internet reference sites. (Note, Iain, correct use of "site.") Just google on "MLA style" or something like that.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at August 26, 2004 at 12:34 AM

i had no idea adrian martin and anu singh were so fundamental to the intellectual development of the left. damn you, liberal media and pinko educational establishment for keeping this from me.

Posted by: akman at August 26, 2004 at 01:23 AM

> there is no evidence he killed those who were not challenging him.

So what? That's true of most everyone who kills, especially those with state backing. Most everyone kills has a "point".

Why does Iaian think that "they were challenging" excuses Hussein? Why does Ellis think that "pointfull" killing is okay? (For the slow - the specifics of the challenge and the point matters.)

Posted by: Andy Freeman at August 26, 2004 at 01:48 AM

Andy -- you used the verb "think" in the same sentences with "Iain" and "Ellis". Totally inappropriate. Try "hardwired kneejerk reaction", or perhaps "mindless parroting of Chomskisms". 'Tis closer to the truth.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 26, 2004 at 04:46 AM

Anu Singh appeared on Monday nights Radio National for an earnest chat with Phillip Adams. To Phils credit, he gives her no sympathy. To his further credit he saves his sympathy for an interview with her victims grieving parents. Listen to them - its heart-breaking.

I've done a post but it's too scathing to publish. But I'm sorely tempted. Death is too good for her.

Posted by: jafa at August 26, 2004 at 07:28 AM

jafa, post it. there is clearly not enough pointless, misdirected hatred on this site.

Posted by: akman at August 26, 2004 at 08:14 AM

Apparently there aren't enough snarky, illiterate and insecure goons either... but thanks for filling the gap on both counts, Akman!

Posted by: Sortelli at August 26, 2004 at 09:32 AM

no problem! sortelli!

Posted by: akman at August 26, 2004 at 12:46 PM

It's now posted Akman. Read it, listen to her, then listen to the boys parents and tell me if my post is pointless, misdirectecd hatred....if you hold the same view, then you're obviously not a parent, or inhuman.

Posted by: adrian at August 26, 2004 at 03:22 PM

adrian,
having listened to the interview, yes, i still feel my characterisation of your "death is too good for her" post was correct. i share your appall at her crime, but can't see the sense in wishing violent retribtution on a pathetic, mentally ill person.

Posted by: akman at August 26, 2004 at 03:54 PM

"you beaut style books"

Hey Andrea,
I didn't know the words "you beaut" were used by our North American friends, or have we corrupted your lingo? If the latter's the case, the next step is sending Margo over there for a holiday!

Posted by: Lofty at August 26, 2004 at 04:14 PM

I wouldn't call Jafa's post "pointless" or "misdirected", but just to deprive akman the ability to smear everyone here by association, I will say that I think it is a little too over the top. But just a little. I don't weep for the hatred murderers earn through their actions.

I still stand by my characterization of akman as being snarky, illiterate and insecure on top of pointlessly misdirecting his hate out at the world, starting with the SHIFT key he has apparently gnawed off of his keyboard in a self-righteous frenzy.

Posted by: Sortelli at August 26, 2004 at 04:15 PM

and you're a shrill, supercilious jackass, sortelli, so i guess that makes us even.

Posted by: akman at August 26, 2004 at 04:24 PM

*snicker* If you say so.

Posted by: Sortelli at August 26, 2004 at 05:21 PM

Tim, I can't quite work out why Anu Singh qualifies as a lefty.

I've read the original Age piece and can't seem to find the bit where Anu Singh expresses any lefty views.

To me it seems to be a profile on a killer trying to justify her crime. In some parts of the world this is known as journalism. Having read Garner's book, I think Singh has a LOT more work to do on the explanation front.

As for Bolt, I can't work out what he's advocating. Is he saying that the Age is somehow lefty for having run the story? That Singh shouldn't have said what she said? Or that the quote shouldn't have been included?

I mean we're not talking about some interest-group nobody. This is the woman who injected her boyfriend with heroin and watched him die over two days. She thinks it's not good that she's being made to look bad in Garner's book.

I don't agree, sure -- but isn't it interesting to know what she thinks? The old 'inside the mind of the killer' story? And what journo worth their salt wouldn't include a quote where the killer tries to justify herself?

I'd rather be able to read what she has to say, and then make up my own mind.

Better that than be told what to think by newspaper columnists or vitriolic bloggers.

Posted by: Col at August 26, 2004 at 07:18 PM

Aun Singh is a turd. That's most of the way to qualifying anyone as a Lefty.

Posted by: Sue at August 26, 2004 at 08:00 PM

"Vitriolic bloggers" Oh, boo hoo. You need to get in the kitchen and bake me some pie.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at August 27, 2004 at 12:50 AM

I've heard two radio interviews with Anu Singh and each time when challenged why she did it, she conveniently pleads illness and amnesia. Yet she wants to 'involve the victims parents in a restorative justice program' !? Talk about the deluded psycho-babble of a leftie...

Posted by: jafa at August 27, 2004 at 08:07 AM

Obviously Anu isn't a very nice person, but is she a leftie? Is the person who wrote the book reveiw a leftie? So far there seems to be absolutely no evidence of any political leanings of either people.
Oh well, Bolt and the bloggers say they are lefties so it must be true!

Posted by: jimbo at August 27, 2004 at 09:00 AM

I think the Left thing with the Anu case is the feminist perspective that either ignores or makes excuses for female violence when there is "no excuses, never, ever" for male violence. In Australia recently we had a campaign about "domestic violence" that only focussed on male violence directed against women and ignored female violence towards children and men. A serious and just campaign against domestic violence would include all types of family violence, female and even children perpertrators - don't laugh, older siblings of both genders can do terrible things to younger children and even their parents. If Anu was a man she would have been found guilty of murder. Men are expected to take responsibility for their actions unless certifiably insane. She was in prison for only 4 years and is taken seriously in some quarters because of Leftist gender politics: a man who plotted and schemed to kill his wife would get his just desserts. So that's where the Left/Right spectrum comes into that sorry story.

Posted by: Ray at August 27, 2004 at 07:21 PM

Gee Ray, that was a load of rubbish. So who exactly is taking Anu seriously because of leftist gender politics? You would have been great during the mcarthy era. Looking for lefties everywhere.

Posted by: jimbo at August 27, 2004 at 07:38 PM