October 06, 2004


The SMH's Antony Loewenstein isn't the only propagandist pushing an absurd Coalition = conscription line. Check out this cartoon (bottom right of page) in the Byron Bay Echo: "Vote Howard and bid your children farewell!"

Actually, for some parents, that slogan could be a real winner.

UPDATE. Draft alarmism just won’t go away:

During a campaign stop last week in West Palm Beach, Fla., Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry was asked if he thought President Bush would revive the military draft if re-elected. "Is it possible?" Kerry replied. "I can't answer that."

During an appearance one week earlier in Parkersburg, W.Va., Kerry ticket-mate John Edwards was similarly queried about the draft. And rather than declaring it a nonissue, he simply responded, "There will be no draft when John Kerry is president."

Posted by Tim Blair at October 6, 2004 02:42 PM

Jesus, the Left was on and on about this over here in U.S. all last week. Is this organized or organic moonbattery?

Posted by: Cosmo at October 6, 2004 at 02:53 PM

"Psst.... hey, what are your thoughts on civilian conscription?"

This what the Australian constitution thinks of civil conscription

(Inserted by No. 81, 1946, s. 2.)
(xxiiiA.)The provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances

Civilian conscription is unconsitutional in Australia mainly so pinko governments can't boss doctors around.

As for military conscription, why would we need it? We've got 850 troops in Iraq and another 75,000 back in Australia.

Posted by: Mike Hunt at October 6, 2004 at 03:31 PM

A foul little cartoon. But quite in keeping with some of the other dross on the same page. Take Jillian Watt of Mullumbimby for example (top right hand corner). In her letter to the Editor she uses the phrase "Iraqi resistance movement" and tells us that "The resistance leaders have always indicated a willingness to cooperate with any genuine effort to cooperate with them." You'll have to click on Tim's link above to read the final paragraph of her letter, which I couldn't force myself to retype. Suffice to say it's a pearler.

Posted by: Hanyu at October 6, 2004 at 04:43 PM

The comments you refer to, including "How long before a re-elected Coalition government follows suit?" are mine, not Antony Loewenstein's. It's also quite clear from his posting that the comments are mine, not his.

Therefore I think you owe Mr Loewenstein an apology, don't you? (Of course, having the same morals as your idol Howard, the chances of that happening are about the same as Howard telling the truth about anything.)

So surprise us all and be man enough to say sorry.

And the reasoning behind my post is quite simple - Bush and his neo-cons have made no secret of the fact that they want to invade Iran and Syria, and maybe even North Korea, legislation allowing for conscription is in place and a committee established to prepare the way for conscription is due to report early next year, and even Murdoch's media empire has run stories on how the strain on the US military is getting too much.

And as I pointed out, America's most decorated soldier, Colonel Hackworth agrees that it will happen. (Would you like to call him a liar? I can send you his email if you like - I'm sure he'd love to hear from you.)

And here we have little Johhny Howard licking the ass of Bush at every move. Can you honestly (there's that word again) say if Bush is re-elected and goes off to war again, Johhny won't be offering our kids as US cannonfodder? (Of course, the likes of you will never join up will you, though you will undoubtedly declare how right and just the next wars are.)

Add to that the fact that even small scale operations like East Timor, the Solomons and Iraq stretch our resources at the best of times, let alone when we're involved in several operations at once.

And then tell me conscription isn't a issue if Howard and Bush remain in power.

Posted by: Kim Hudson at October 6, 2004 at 05:04 PM

there there kim. if it happens we could always smuggle you across the border into new zealand.

Posted by: rosceo at October 6, 2004 at 05:21 PM

And then tell me conscription isn't a issue if Howard and Bush remain in power.


Conscription isn't an issue if Howard and Bush remain in power.

Posted by: Quentin George at October 6, 2004 at 05:37 PM

At the moment, only the Democrats in the US have proposed reinstating the Draft. So if you don't want conscription, vote for Bush.

Under their current governments, I think both countries would instate a foreign legion long before they bring the draft back.

And I doubt an Australian foreign legion would have any shortage of recruits.

Posted by: 2dogs at October 6, 2004 at 06:01 PM

legislation allowing for conscription is in place

Perhaps your precious Democrats shouldn't have proposed it then?

Posted by: Anon at October 6, 2004 at 06:07 PM

AIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEE, I've stumbled into Webdiary. NOOOOOoooooooo. The horror, the horror.

"little Johhny Howard" "Howard telling the truth" "Bush and his neo-cons" "Murdoch's media empire" "licking the ass of Bush".

Wh -where am I? How did i GET here?!

Tiny slogan signs writ with angry fist-held crayon to divert the synapses around the area of real thinking. 'Warning: Reason Ahead. Howard Lied'.

Kimmy, look at moi, look at moiiiiii .... What a preposterous, ponderously self-important p-p-p-post.

Posted by: Sweet sweet Bundy at October 6, 2004 at 06:21 PM

Johhny won't be offering our kids as US cannonfodder?
No that card has already been played to the hilt by the British.
However with the iranian Jihad nuclear bomb around the corner, some may become dust rather than cannon fodder.
But of course, as long as it's not in Byron Bay we should not worry, right?
We can always thank god it did not happen here!
yes the moral fortitude of the left is always inspiring.

Posted by: davo at October 6, 2004 at 06:30 PM

Kim Hudson, I hope you are not suggesting that there is something WRONG with invading Iran, Syria & North Korea?

Posted by: Steve at October 6, 2004 at 07:41 PM

The army hates conscripts. They are a very professional organisation and only want people who want to be there. You're only as strong as your weakest link.

Posted by: gaz at October 6, 2004 at 07:57 PM

I met a Kim Hudson once.

Fool of a Public Service Lawyer.

You don't come from Qld now do you son?

Posted by: Just Another Bloody Lawyer at October 6, 2004 at 08:09 PM

Conscription may be unconstitutional in Australia (I'm not convinced thats what that passage actually means though). If this is the case then 2 Governments have acted unconstitutionally in Australias history - John Curtains', in the closing stages of WWII and Robert Menzies' in 1956. We have had conscription twice in our history - so the "field evidence" (to quote Ratty's latest catch phrase) is that Governments will always do what they consider expedient. So dont think for a moment its impossible.

By the way Australia does not have "75,000 troops in Australia" - Regular (permanent) ADF strength is about 50,000 (thats all 3 services and all trades) and about another 10,000 Reservists of varying degrees of training and deployability. Oh, and by the way, ADF numbers have FALLEN under Howard as he has progressively handed much of the ADF's logistical capability to the Liberal party's mates in commercial industry - most of these ventures are significantly more expensive that when they were in-house, and there are a variety of significant management problems with them. Believe me, I'm Regular Army and I see it every day.



Posted by: Michael at October 6, 2004 at 08:16 PM

Oh, by the way, I forgot to say -

I really hope Latham wins on Saturday for lots of reasons - not the least of which is that it will drive the right wingers in OZ absolutely NUTS!

I'd like to see that!

Posted by: Michael at October 6, 2004 at 08:22 PM

gees michael,you gave the game away with the 'ratty' comment. if you're actually in the army god help us all...

Posted by: rosceo at October 6, 2004 at 08:26 PM

three 'ohh by the ways' and you're out micko!

Posted by: rosceo at October 6, 2004 at 08:28 PM

When he grows up, Antony Loewenstein is hoping to become a third-rate polemicist

Posted by: Steve at October 6, 2004 at 09:08 PM

Military conscription is constitutional is Australia. Civilian conscription isn't. The cartoon was about civil conscription.

According to the ABS, the ADF had 73,300 personnel as of 30 June 2003, which includes 21,500 reservists. I would hope that a member of the Army would know how many people are in it.

Posted by: Mike Hunt at October 6, 2004 at 09:48 PM

Rosceo (?) Give it up mate, you know you cant win, and the wit and tone of your responses proves it.

Mike Hunt (say that one fast, a very old joke but a goodie anyway)OK I'll grant you the point on the ABS data - but does it tell you how many are deployable? You'll find its well below 21,500. I challenge you to find out that figure. Go on you know you want to!!

What is "civil conscription anyway"? Whats the distinction? Is there a definition anywhere coz I'm curious and it might throw light on the discussion. I havent seen the cartoon in question.

Posted by: Michael at October 6, 2004 at 10:02 PM

Give it up mate, you know you cant win, and the wit and tone of your responses proves it.

Is that why the left has gone gung-ho for this fake draft issue?

Posted by: Sortelli at October 6, 2004 at 11:05 PM

What is "civil conscription anyway"?

civil conscription is like 100% flat income tax, you are forced to work for someone else's benefit.

See Slavery.

Posted by: Rob Read at October 6, 2004 at 11:22 PM

Our left friends believe that Howard and Bush command their respective countries. They omit that they're permitted to command with popular support.

The war has popular support. Conscription doesn't have popular support, never has, even amongst the right. I think historically governments have gotten away with it due to a naive populace not resisting sufficiently. I don't know that this situation exists anymore with such pervasive access to information and democratic organisation.

But I see the left's point, if you're into conspiracies, the logical conclusion being that if it doesn't have popular support now..
and I don't want to go there.

I think we should just keep on trusting in fundamental human decency to see us through one way or another, as it always has at least in Australia. I know the left finds this hard as to them ordinary people can't be trusted to know their own minds, we're too easily led by plotters etc, but hey, look at the magnificent society and country around you, built by ordinary people. Don't trust if you can't, but I for one do.

Posted by: Romeo at October 6, 2004 at 11:33 PM

Let's see now.

Aussie troops (combined) approx 70000
Aussie troops in Iraq approx 900

Aussies voting overseas 2001 approx 60000
This year may be a similar number.

Will Mark bring all them home too?

Posted by: DaveACT at October 6, 2004 at 11:59 PM

Kim et al, have you any REAL EVIDENCE that plans for conscription in the US are being put into place.

By real evidence, I don't mean Kerry's talk of secret plans, or proposals from 2 Democrat Senators which no one in the Administration supports (the Administration's current position is that nothing less than a WW2 size crisis could ever justify conscription, no, the Middle East is no where near that big).

gaz is right. If Bush ever seriously proposed conscription, the Joint Chiefs would tear down Rumsfeld's door as quickly as Cosgrove would tear down Hill's door.

The left's notion that the Prime Minister of Australia and the President of the United States command their countries should tell you all you need to know about them.

They believe in dictatorship.

Posted by: Sheriff at October 7, 2004 at 12:10 AM

Y'know, we haven't had many genuine barking mad moonbat leftoids visit this blog for a few days.

Then Kim Hudson pops in, and reminds me why I find them both amusing and annoying at the same time.

Thanks for the reminder, Kim!

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 7, 2004 at 12:19 AM

If I vote absentee for Howard, wil you please come and take my children?

Posted by: Doc at October 7, 2004 at 12:20 AM

If you look at my initial post, Kim, you'll see that I clearly cite you as Antony's source.

He's a propagandist for publishing you.

By the way, you are profoundly paranoid and should seek help.

Posted by: tim at October 7, 2004 at 01:34 AM

One of my prized posessions is a copy of a mint condition newspaper from Zeehan (Tas) from 1897. Their front page design was streets ahead of that BB rag.

Civilian conscription??? What is the conscriptorial alternative?

Labour is presumably against "civilian" conscription, clearly implying that they are pro some other kind of conscripttion.

Do they think there are Ents in those Tasmanian forests they are allegedly trying to save?

Posted by: jlchydro at October 7, 2004 at 01:53 AM

Kim Hudson, you're not "Karl" from the MacGuff/Afghanistan post are you? If you're not, then 'tis a troublesome trend that two twits thought to take the time to test Tim's thinking on the same day. Perhaps you could meet and really come to grips with the world's problems. Amazing stuff.

Posted by: Hanyu at October 7, 2004 at 01:58 AM

Oh yes, the Democrat-sponsored bill to bring back the draft was brought forward a few hours ago, and defeated 402 to 2. The 2 were, of course, Democrats.

Kim, Let me guess, you'll now claim that it was only due to your dilgence in bringing the draft to the electorates attention that forced Bush to back down, but that Howard will still draft all children over the age of 3 to work in Uranium mines to make Atomic Bombs, etc etc etc. And that Bush will backtrack using his Orbital Mind Control Lasers to change all those votes retroactively.

Posted by: Alan E Brain at October 7, 2004 at 02:00 AM

Bush and his neo-cons

Oh, man! Kim, you screwed up your talking point! It's "the neo-cons and their puppet Bush", not "Bush and his neo-cons". The dreaded neo-cons are in charge, not evil stupid Bush, remember? Don't you recall being indoctr...told about that at the last tinfoil handout?

Posted by: PW at October 7, 2004 at 03:48 AM

'If Latham gets in it will drive the right-wingers nuts'.

Oh come one, we had Hawke and Keating all thru the 80's and 90's. Just more of the same. Are you too young to remember that perhaps?

I'll tell you what will drive the right-wingers nuts - Islam gaining such a foothold in Australia that all the rights which you kiddies enjoy now disappear, and you become Dhimmis in the nation your ancestors struggled so hard to establish,

that is, when we old right-wingers are dead and gone and the consequences of our airhead lefty contemporaries ideas come to fruition.

Posted by: Om at October 7, 2004 at 10:40 AM

Michael the army wallah! You are so hurtful and nasty when you get angry. You even sound like that ex army intelligence bloke who is running against John Howard in Bennelong. I can't remember his name now but he sure gets angry sometimes, so angry he could hit you with a wet dishcloth.

Posted by: hube at October 7, 2004 at 11:57 AM

TV Guide for Kim
The best thing on Saturday night will be a sad but resigned Kerry manfully combating fatigue to bring you the wrong result. Ok, no it won't....an agitated Tony Jones on 'Lateline' barely able to tolerate those uninformed plebs doing the wrong thing yet again ...DON"T THEY UNDERSTAND??....

Posted by: TT at October 7, 2004 at 12:11 PM

Yes of course the Universal National Service Act of 2003 has been defeated in the US - have any of you noticed that it's also election time in the US and conscription is a big fat vote loser?

And of course Bush & co are denying any plans for the draft - they are afterall the same people that claimed we MUST invade iraq because they have WMD (oops sorry proven lie), that they're making "progress" in Iraq (as another car bomb goes off killing dozens of civilians and another poor US grunt dies in an ambush) and that Iraq isn't a quagmire, it's one step away from becoming a shining light of democracy in the Middle East.

My point is WHAT HAPPENS AFTER BUSH (or perhaps Kerry for that matter) WINS? The PR spin machine wheels into action telling the US people that their very continued existence depends on conscription, anyone who objects gets the full force of the Patriot Act wheeled out against them, and walla! Here comes conscription!

I came to this blog to see what sort of intellectual debate the right could muster - yet all I see here is abuse of anyone who dares say anything different to you (as opposed to abusing politicians - that's fair enough) and the complete denial of reality. No matter. Let me show you a few facts:

The Selective Service System, the Bush Administration, and the Pentagon have been quietly moving to fill draft board vacancies nationwide in order to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. In preparation several million dollars have been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget. The SSS Administration must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide. An unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld’s prediction of a “long, hard slog” in Iraq and Afghanistan (and a permanent state of war on “terrorism”) proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

In May 2000, Delaware was the first state to enact legislation requiring that driver’s license information be sent to the SSS. By August 2003, thirty-two states, two territories and the District of Columbia followed suit. Non-compliance with sending information to the SSS has always been punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Up to now, the government has never acted on these measures, but levied punishment would bar violators from federal employment and student loans. The SSS has altered its website (www.sss.gov) to include a front-page denial of a draft resurrection, but continues to post the twenty-four page Annual Performance Plan which includes its June 15 deadline still intact.

Shit looks like a draft is coming to me.

Here's the US military admitting that claims the resistence in Iraq comes from foreign "insurgents/terrorists" is crap: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=5&u=/latimests/20040928/ts_latimes/insurgentsaremostlyiraqisusmilitarysays

Oops - that's not what Murdoch and Howard says!

And for good measure here's what the poor grunts on the ground in Iraq think: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7017.htm

Anyone get the feeling they think they've been lied to?

If Bush (or perhaps Kerry for that matter) wins and introduces the draft, I'll come back to this site with a few comments for you all...

Posted by: KH at October 7, 2004 at 01:20 PM


Thanks for the intellectual joust - I always enjoy a bit of low level sport teasing Howards cheer squad. Certainly more interesting than cable.

Kim, I'll see you for beers Saturday night.

Posted by: Mike at October 7, 2004 at 01:47 PM

oh by the way mike, make sure you put a plastic bag over your head and some drop sheets on the floor while you're watching the election results. howard=win=leftist=heads=explode!!

Posted by: rosceo at October 7, 2004 at 01:58 PM

"Is it possible?" Kerry replied. "I can't answer that."

Is it possible that Kerry is an evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet? Well, I've never seen definitive proof to the contrary...

Posted by: Steven Jens at October 7, 2004 at 02:07 PM

The fun thing about being a conspiracy theorist is that people will rarely come back to you later and hold your feet to the fire about all your nutcase predictions that turned out to be wrong. So you can just spout off all kinds of nonsense, secure in the knowledge that you'll never have to apologize for your scare-mongering.

I wonder what just prompted me to write that.

Posted by: PW at October 7, 2004 at 03:22 PM

Kim, I'd take the time rebut your (very long) post, including the almost total opposition to the defeated bill, that the original sponsor didn't vote for it, the fact that the US has had selective service registration since 1980, and that the prospects of a general mobilization (which is what a draft would feed) are pretty darned slim.

But upon reading your (very long) post, I realize that Tim is right...you are profoundly paranoid and should seek help.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 7, 2004 at 03:27 PM

"There will be no draft when John Kerry is president."

Would this be when:

1)Hell freezes over

2) The oceans dry up, or

3) Pigs fly?

Kim, registration with the SSS has been compulsory for a very long time. You've still not proven anything, and your shrill cries further reduce yourt credibility.

Not even I imagined that this was possible.

Kim, I suggest you listen to what Iraqis actually have to say. Tim's got a link to Iraq the Model (by far the best Iraqi blog), from there, you can reach most of the Iraqi blogs. You'll probably claim they are all Zionist CIA agents because they're Iraqis who want their freedom.

Posted by: Sheriff at October 7, 2004 at 04:20 PM

The only way I would support a draft is for the opportunity to see Kim in a nice clean uniform, with a real job and a proper haircut.

Posted by: Sweet sweet Bundy at October 7, 2004 at 04:32 PM

Hey "Sweet Sweet Bundy" - seeing how you're so keen on seeing others in the military - the ADF recruiting office has lots of positions on offer and is waiting anxiously for your call - 131901 is the number.

How about putting your money where your mouth is?

Oh, sorry, I forgot you're just following that inspiring example of John Howards - support, indeed openly campaign for, conscription, but dont ever serve yourself.

Posted by: Joker at October 7, 2004 at 09:24 PM

1) Wow, the "chickenhawk" meme! You trolls are really on the ball today. Yawn.

2) Who's "John Howards"?

3) Assuming you're talking about John Howard, where the hell did you get the ridiculous notion that he's "openly campaigning for conscription"? Did your alphabet soup spell that out one day or something? Well, since you seem to know Mr. Hudson, I guess I shouldn't be surprised you're sharing his delusional fantasies.

4) Thanks for picking a less ambigious name than "Michael"...and "Joker" seems to be very apt for you, in light of your posts so far.

5) Please, go back to Webdiary, or wherever the hell you guys came from. Nobody here is stupid enough to fall for your nonsense.

Posted by: PW at October 7, 2004 at 09:38 PM

The sure fire way to identify a troll - sock puppet!

(Hint: At least change the email if you want to try and reinforce your argument with "allies")

Posted by: Quentin George at October 7, 2004 at 09:57 PM

'Joker', what have you done with that nice 'Michael'?! I liked him. Is he tied up in your lair?

Well I'll address this to all of your multiple personalities...

Your assertion: "... John Howards - support, indeed openly campaign for, conscription, ...."

So far you’ve had some mutual lovin’ with your friend Kim, and at least he is trying to construct some sort of argument, but now it’s time for you to produce the goods mate. Please show one – just one – quote from the Prime Minister that would indicate support for military conscription. A sterner test might be a quote that suggests, and as you claim, openly campaigning for it, but let’s leave the bar lower for you at “support”.

A link, a website (not Green Left Weekly etc) – anything at all.

Oh, and free Michael.

Posted by: Sweet sweet Bundy at October 7, 2004 at 11:34 PM

He must have been openly campaigning behind closed doors when he was absolutely sure that no one was looking and listening.

Kim, Iraqis are saying the terrorism (in 3 out of 18 provinces) is foreign based.

Your ignorance of the PATRIOT Act is not in anyway suprising.

Posted by: Sheriff at October 8, 2004 at 12:55 AM

Gee I love playing with you guys you are so defensive and frightened! Its always satisfying to get a bite!

Having a go at someones spelling or punctuation is a pretty weak refuge and bespeaks a tiny frightened mind who has run out of ideas - but I'm not surprised.

Howard and conscription? Well, remember the VietNam War? You know, the other US war we invited ourselves to? We spent about 10 years there, about 500 of our servicemmen were killed, and then we as a society turned our backs on the survivors (to me, our involvement in the war was less shameful than the way we treated the veterans). THAT VietNam War. There is TV footage in existence of John Howard and a bunch of his Young Liberal friends campaigning for conscription at a rally in the late 1960s. Its on the public record fellas. Of course you wouldnt know that, or would choose to ignore it.

Sweet Sweet Bundy - have you made the call to the recruiters yet? Do it, you know you want to! I did,18 years ago, and I can thoroughly recommend it!

Posted by: Joker at October 8, 2004 at 02:11 PM

Joker, and others, any real proof?

No, Young Liberals from the late 1960;s doesn't constitute real proof, nor does Lefty talk of secret plans, or the existance of an agency that has been around for a long time.

Before I accept paraniod leftist rants, I want to see recent public advocacy of conscription by politicians, and prominent members of the executive, bills introduced into Parliament (and Congress) by the Government Party.

I've asked for proof SEVERAL TIMES, no answer. Conclusion: There is not proof.

Posted by: Sheriff at October 8, 2004 at 03:52 PM


You are right to assume that I am (shock!) NOT in military service, but the fact that you are,(along with about 70,000 other Australians), does not make you the sole moral or scholarly authority on geopolitical matters. In fact, taunting people about joining up while saying you've been in the service for 18 years, could be seen as an attempt at leveraging your uniform which is a bit cheap actually.

I am no authority, but we do agree on one thing and that is the treatment of returning Vietnam soldiers. I've often wondered how many of the people now turning out for the newly-popular Anzac Day ceremonies are old lefties now smiling and politely clapping whereas thirty years ago they were screaming 'baby-killer' and spitting. I am surprised that in these posts you appear to be a fellow traveller of the left.

I have never seen or heard of the footage you refer to, but naturally, I'll take you at your word.

However, it is very slippery of you to try to use that as any type of 'evidence'. The topic is re-introducing conscription - NOW - in response to TODAY'S world events and this non-issue being used by the Democrats and ALP supporters to spread fear in these CURRENT election campaigns. Can I state the bleeding obvious? Howard possibly supporting conscription 35-odd years ago for a specific conflict (Vietnam) is not evidence of him supporting, or "openly campaigning", for it now.

Oh, and free Michael.

Posted by: Sweet sweet Bundy at October 8, 2004 at 04:00 PM

The issue was not reintroducing conscription now - the issue was that you suggested someone else should do things that you are not prepared to do yourself. That was what JH was doing in his support of conscription, and it was echoed in your comments. I'm probably older than you (I'm 40) but I seem to recall that we used to call such behaviour hypocrisy. Dont seem to now...

It might have been a bit cheap (I feel soo naaasty) but there was an honest point behind it.

One last comment before I go away and leave you all alone - we're all human beings, and the thing is there is more that makes us the same than makes us different. I have travelled widely around this bloodstained planet - and my abiding impression is exactly that. Our biggest problem as a species is that we invest so much of our time looking for difference - and therein lie the seeds of conflict. One day have a look at Auschwitz, or Dachau, or the West Bank and Gaza, the Katyn forest in Poland, Hiroshima or any one of hundreds of other places where we have indulged ourselves in the sport of killing eachother (hell knows there are plenty to choose from on every continent, including our own) and just think about this - this is the product of the politics of hate. There is plenty enough as it is, and there's no need to add any more.

I have indulged in a bit of idle sport on this blog, for personal amusement. Thanks for coming along for the ride.

Dont worry, Michael is safe, if somewhat hungover, and he is absolutely free with no intention of being anything else - ever.

Posted by: Joker at October 9, 2004 at 06:34 PM