October 14, 2004

NEWS BRIEFLETS

• Professor Bunyip declares an end to gloating.

• Dixie Chick Natalie Maines insulted George W. Bush, then apologised for insulting George W. Bush, and now claims she didn’t apologise for insulting George W. Bush. The stupid faux-country bint.

• A Dylanologist defends her faith.

• Gnat Lileks is only a few years (or weeks or months -- hard to tell with kids these days) old, and she's already inventing killer Achewoodesque lines:

After we played Candyland I told her she beat the pants off me, and she later reported this to Mommy thus: I took off his pants to his underwear. So we had a little talk about similes and metaphors.

"How'd you do in court today?" "Terrible. Bitch prosecutor took off my pants to my underwear." "Man ... that’s too bad."

• Speaking of Achewood, via Photoshop-adept reader Bunnie I now have my own Achewood band:

timband.gif

• Those Che Guevara t-shirts should show him doing this.

• Julie Burchill on Jacques Derrida: "I didn't know much about him. He was French, which to me says it all. Leave well alone! I did laugh, though, when I saw the news on AOL. It said: 'Cancer claims snowy-haired philosopher.'"

• From Daily Kos's Guardian column:

Someone, somewhere, labelled Bush Furious George - a clever turn on HA Rey's Curious George children's books and an appellation that took firm hold in the online and, increasingly, offline worlds.

Yeah, it really took a firm hold online. Look at all those Bush links!

• "All we have to do today is go down to the lake for a few hours," writes welfare mother and future Springer subject Gianna ("I Don't Wanna Work, and You Can't Make Me!"). She continues: "I'm always conscious that some people will begrudge me this carefree lifestyle because I am on a sole parent's pension ... So how about it--any rightwing readers think I'm a bludger?"

• "No, I’m a Collingwood fan."

Posted by Tim Blair at October 14, 2004 01:08 AM
Comments

* Dixie Chick Natalie Maines insulted George W. Bush, then apologised for insulting George W. Bush, and now claims she didn't apologise for insulting George W. Bush. The stupid faux-country bint.

The Pope has also been saying some stupid stuff recently (sort of saying that nazism and communism were, "neccessary evil[s]"). Are the two competing to see which is more whacko?

When both the Dixie Chicks and the Pope disagrees with you ... it's probably a good sign.

So how about it--any rightwing readers think I'm a bludger?"

It'd help if she had a comment section.

Posted by: Andjam at October 14, 2004 at 01:25 AM

This may be off the subject but I am starting to worry about the left after the Aus elections.

I saw political correctness at it's best and it was pure comedy. Some of the best laughs I ever experienced were due to it.

I always beleived those days were behind me, a distant memory from the past, until I came across Margo.

With all the soul searching going on, I am beginning to beleive this may even evaporate.

I ask all true lefties to collect themselves, find themselves a heart and let the laughs keep rolling.

Posted by: gio at October 14, 2004 at 01:48 AM

Derrida, like all original and rigorous lefties, wrote on the right. Here he is recently on bin Laden. Notice that in a single sentence (```...cynical mode...'') he demolishes every argument on the left :

What appears to me unaceptable in the ``strategy''
(in terms of weapons, practices, ideology, rhetoric, discourse, and so
on) of the ``bin Laden effect'' is not only the cruelty, the disregard for
human life, the disrespect for the law, for women, the use of what is worst
in technocapitalist modernity for the purposes of religious fanaticism.
No, it is, above all, the fact that such actions and such discourse _open
onto no future and, in my view, have no future_. If we are to put any faith
in the perfectibility of public space and of the world juridico-political
scene, of the ``world'' itself, then there is, it seems to me, _nothing good_
to be hoped for from that quarter. What is being proposed, at least implicitly,
is that all captialist and modern technoscientific forces be put
in the service of an interpretation, itself dogmatic, of the Islamic
revelation of the One. Nothing of what has been so laboriously secularized
in even the nontheological form of sovereignty (...), none of this seems
to have any place whatsoever in the discourse ``bin Laden.'' That is why,
in this unleashing of violence without name, if I had to take one of
the two sides and choose in a binary situation, well I would. Despite
my very strong reservations about the American, indeed European, political
posture, about the ``international terrorist'' coalition, despite
all the de facto betrayals, all the failures to live up to democracy,
international law, and the very international institutions that the states of
this ``coalition'' themselves founded and supported up to a certain point,
I would take the side of the camp that, in principle, by right of law,
leaves a perspective open to perfectibility in the name of the ``political,''
democracy, international law, international institutions, and so forth.
Even if this ``in the name of'' is still merely an assertion and a purely
verbal committment. Even in its most cynical mode, such an assertion
still lets resonate within it an invincible promise. I don't hear any
such promise coming from ``bin Laden,'' at least not one in this world.

``Autoimmunity: Real and Symbolic Suicides'' _Philosophy in a Time of Terror_ p.113

Posted by: Ron Hardin at October 14, 2004 at 01:50 AM

Ironic that Derrida would oppose bin Laden, insofar as Derrida has probably caused more damage to Western civilization than Osama could in his most fevered dreams.

And yes, Gianna, you are a parasite. Leech, tapeworm, take your pick. I have more respect for prostitutes.

Posted by: Dave S. at October 14, 2004 at 02:13 AM

Dave S: What is your opinion on working mothers?

Posted by: Andjam at October 14, 2004 at 02:33 AM

Michael Graham's summary of the Vote For Change concert sounds like one that will have almost unlimited reusability between now and Nov 2nd: "(...) most of the political commentary was innocuous, idiotic or both." Particularly if we're going to hear from even more uninformed artists and celebrities. Hell, it'll probably apply to the talking heads' analysis of Bush's stunning, none-of-us-expected-this reelection, too.

Posted by: PW at October 14, 2004 at 03:05 AM

>What is your opinion on working mothers?

The same as my opinion on working fathers. Why do you ask?

Posted by: Dave S. at October 14, 2004 at 04:21 AM

I understand the need for welfare in certain cases, and have nothing against a single mom trying to get by. What I object to in Gianna's life are the vague statements: perhaps I'll do this, perhaps I'll do that, when what she's really doing is spending her time lolling around at the lake. And then she compounds the insult to taxpayers by taunting them:

So how about it--any rightwing readers think I'm a bludger?

Gianna (wisely) does not want to know what I think, which she demonstrated by not putting in a comments section. So... lazy and cowardly.

Posted by: Rebecca at October 14, 2004 at 04:59 AM

rebecca, you need to spend more time lolling around the lake and less time hitting the post button...

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at October 14, 2004 at 05:24 AM

Actually, Rebecca, the comments feature on Gianna's blog is accessible when you go back to the main page. So it's there but hidden. I wish her and her child all the best, but I'm irritated that she thinks the government entitles her to the behavior she's exhibited and the choices she's made.

Posted by: Anne at October 14, 2004 at 05:46 AM

Here is the REAL Che -

Che Mouse

Posted by: Parker at October 14, 2004 at 06:21 AM

Yeah, that "Furious George" thing sure would have been clever, if, like, he came across as being, like, angry and stuff. But since he's not much more furious than he is curious, it's not gonna work.

"Spurious George" might just work as an attack on his (allegedly) somewhat spurious arguments for the invasion of Iraq, but that's abuot the best I can come up with.

Posted by: Jorge at October 14, 2004 at 06:30 AM

Anyone else notice the resemblance between Tim Blair and my neighbor Phil? Yeah, I know what you're thinking, Phil looks a lot older than Tim. Well, no shit, Phil IS a lot older than Tim. I said resemblance, I didn't say he was an exact fucking clone. Man, you people piss me off.

Posted by: Bill in Boston at October 14, 2004 at 07:59 AM

=/
I dont have much issue with a single parent (of either gender) getting a few years of minimal support from the govt. Perhaps because I intend to go to Uni next year and have the govt cover my rent (I'll still have to work of course). But I dont know why she wouldnt think she's a bludger. Its exactly what it is.

Btw, does anyone know if she's in Canberra? I dont think many towns/cities have lakes. If she's talking about one of Canberra's lakes..eww. I wouldnt take a baby near that water.

Posted by: Ken at October 14, 2004 at 08:01 AM

I heard Terry McAwful make a "Furious George" reference today. Chicken or egg?

Posted by: Jim Treacher at October 14, 2004 at 08:16 AM

About "working" mothers: how much do they charge? Do they bring the kiddies along? What sort of labor do they perform? Do I have to look at pictures of the little rugrats? Until I know more, how can I have a considered opinion?

Posted by: Dr. N.O. Brain at October 14, 2004 at 09:57 AM

Bill in Boston,
I think you'd better go back to Starbucks and get another short, I mean tall, or is it a mondo!

Posted by: Lofty at October 14, 2004 at 09:58 AM

On Derrida, the best comment was by Dennis MacShane(same article).

Posted by: DWAYNE at October 14, 2004 at 10:01 AM

Bloody hell! Apologies to all for my piss poor linking abilities. Starbucks.

Posted by: Lofty at October 14, 2004 at 10:45 AM

Che Guevara finally brings the real objective of communisim into the light: to crap on the peasants.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 14, 2004 at 11:19 AM

The same as my opinion on working fathers. Why do you ask?

Just that some criticise mothers if they don't work and also if they do - which'd be a case of damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Posted by: Andjam at October 14, 2004 at 11:48 AM

Furious George! Simpsons! Furious George is the name of Mr. Burns' knife-fighting monkey (my GoogleMagic sources tell me season 11, "Mansion Family." It originally aired in 2000, and I think it had something to do with pirates.).

So, Kos, "someone, somewhere?" Gawd, maybe I can get myself a suit and a pained condescending expression, and write a column labeling Kerry the "Great American Kwyjibo."

Posted by: Matt from Illinois at October 14, 2004 at 03:04 PM

Erm, closer reading now, so I guess my point is that the "clever turn" likely belongs to Groening's writers, when Bush was still governor. Sorry.

Posted by: Matt from Illinois at October 14, 2004 at 03:09 PM

I like Tex's take on Derrida's death:

Jacques Derrida - the world's biggest intellectual hairball - has croaked at age ---.

Posted by: TimT at October 14, 2004 at 07:38 PM

Gosh, Blair's quiet about Costello's announcement on Wednesday that the economy isn't really all that strong after all.

Anyone want to stake their reputation on their belief that the Libs will keep all their election promises?

Timmy doesn't seem to care, but you can discuss it here, if you dare.

Posted by: Jeremy at October 14, 2004 at 10:37 PM

Jeremy: Hopefully they keep none of their election promises. The left-wing government expansion bs that most of it was.

Posted by: Brett Milner at October 14, 2004 at 11:33 PM

Professor Bunyip may declare an end to gloating. I don't.

Posted by: Sue at October 15, 2004 at 03:53 AM

Prof Bunyip may declare an end to gloating. I don't.

Posted by: Sue at October 15, 2004 at 03:55 AM

"...you can discuss it here, if you dare."

Oh good lord. Like a typical Leftist wannabe, Jeremy thinks that it's a sign of macho bravery to leave a comment on a website. Sorry, Jemmy, can't join in -- I'm just a girl and scary internet discussion forums make my stomach all hurty.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 15, 2004 at 11:30 AM