November 27, 2004
BLAMELESS
The Daily Telegraph is running a campaign against the menace of young drivers in "200km/h supercars". It isn’t a very rigourous campaign, as may be judged by the fact that the Telegraph thinks a supercar is something that can reach a mere 200km/h (125mph).
(Nor is it original. The Telegraph should check its files for the June 25th, 1972, edition of the Sydney Sun Herald, which bore the headline: 160 MPH SUPERCARS SOON. What would happen, the paper worried, if young drivers were to buy these proposed machines?)
The Telegraph blames the government (particularly transport minister Carl Scully) and car makers for young driver deaths:
Nissan, maker of the 200km/h supercar in which three people died this week, does not believe it has any responsibility to help solve the P-plate problem.
Nissan Australia declined to get involved when asked if they thought P-platers (note: in Australia, newly-licensed drivers are required to display P - for “provisional” - plates) should be restricted from driving high-powered vehicles.
"It's not our choice," a spokesman said. "It's a strange question to be asking us".
It is a strange question, given that Nissan Australia doesn’t import the model in question. The Skyline is a popular choice for private importers. Meanwhile, nobody seems inclined to blame the driver of this "200kmh supercar":
The father of a pregnant 15-year-old girl killed in a fatal car smash yesterday said he did not blame the P-plate driver.
Tony Schyf, whose daughter Natasha died in a Nissan Skyline GT-R which was travelling at an estimated 200km/h at Wyoming on the Central Coast on Monday, said driver education was essential.
But Mr Schyf said he was "not prepared to blame" the young driver for his daughter's death.
"I can't be angry or place blame," Mr Schyf said.
"It all comes down to inexperience behind the wheel. We have to educate our kids more about road safety from a very early age."
Please. Do you think the driver was unaware that it is not a good idea to drive at 200km/h in a 50km/h zone with a pregnant teenage passenger? Speaking of whom, her 33-year-old boyfriend was also on board. Why wasn’t he demanding that his youthful friend slow the hell down? For that matter, why didn’t Mr Schyf educate his kids about not getting pregnant at 15 to men more than twice their age?
A certain issue of personal responsibility appears to have been dodged here, at several levels. Yesterday The Telegraph ran a puzzling piece by Luke McIlveen (not available online) defending Natasha Schyf’s pregnancy: "We should be praising Natasha Schyf for committing to one of life’s biggest challenges at such a young age."
Excuse me? She was knocked up by a 33-year-old. Congratulations! And, being only 15, she made a predictably mature choice of partner:
Mr Homer had a passion for cars and for modifying his own Ford XF 351 V8 with accessories such as a bonnet scoop, his friend Stephen Deas said.
He recently spray-painted it fire engine red and asked Mr Deas to help him purchase a boot wing. Its customised interior had a canvas mural of Motley Crue stitched on to the inside of car's roof.
In its zeal to pursue the NSW government, The Telegraph has missed the bigger story. We've got here a 20-year-old so irresponsible he drives a car containing a pregnant girl at four times the speed limit; a 33-year-old so irresponsible he has sex with 15-year-olds; and parents so irresponsible they allow it. And the Telegraph is worried about ... driver ed.
Well, not all the time. A few pages on from today's issue-dodging story, we find this item:
A Melbourne man travelled to Queensland where he had sex with a 15-year-old girl he had met in an internet chat room, a court heard yesterday.
Brisbane District Court heard when David Padgham, 37, began communicating with the girl, who lived at Logan, south of Brisbane, he clearly knew she was only 15.
Padgham pleaded guilty to using the internet to procure a girl under 16 for sex, carnal knowledge of a girl under 16 and two counts of indecent dealing. The offences occurred between December 1 last year and February 2 this year.
The Telegraph’s headline? "Jailed for preying on girl". I blame the government.
UPDATE. Miranda Devine points out that novice driver crashes have decreased: "In 1992 the crash rate of novice drivers - those on L and P plates - was 28 crashes per 100,000 licences, RTA figures show. In 2002, the number had dropped to 19, a 30 per cent reduction."
Posted by Tim Blair at November 27, 2004 10:18 PM
Woo hoo! I owned a supercar!
A 1975 Chevy Nova. Did 127 (mph) in it back in 1982 on a deserted strech of highway. Great to see that Europe is catching up with us. I'll have to keep an eye out for them in the rear-view mirror . . .
Posted by: DWC at November 27, 2004 at 10:34 PMWyoming is on the Central Coast? Is Margo moonlighting as a sub (normal) at the Tele these days? If it happened at Wyong, I could understand an E33 full of bogans going into a tree- it's the only viable form of birth control in the area. Wyoming, it should have been a pickup jacklighting varmints.
What's the Tele going to think when the Honda NSX comes up on the low-volume list next year?
(BTW- I've got a '69 Mercury Cougar 429 leaving Savannah Ga in a week's time- Santa's coming early this year).
I wondered about that too. As sickening as the crash is, reading the hypocrisy in the print is awful. "He was a good honest responsible bloke and will be missed" just doesn't jibe with "He was travelling over 160kmh with 2 passengers in a car he stole from his father when he crashed & killed everyone". Sorry relatives, that does not bear out "responsible", "honest" or "good".
And then victim's groups want to remove telephone poles from the side of the road and have powerlines underground. Way to completely miss the point.
b. (351 Ford owner, but someone who IS responsible and alive)
Posted by: baryon351 at November 27, 2004 at 10:44 PMPadgham pleaded guilty to using the internet to procure a girl under 16 for sex, carnal knowledge of a girl under 16 and two counts of indecent dealing.
I blame the internet, high speed connections, chat rooms, color monitors, Bill Gates and Intel. All must be heavily regulated and taxed into oblivion in order to save the children.
Posted by: perfectsense at November 27, 2004 at 10:56 PMI hit 200 km/h for a few minutes on the A1 Autobahn near Koeln, but soon slowed down to a nice, sedate 160. Too much like hard work, *not* a relaxing drive in an Opel Kadet.
Here I drive a 16 year old Daihatsu Charade ( with, count em, 3 cylinders! and 993 cc! ). It will do well over 200 km/h. (If dropped out of the back of a C-130 at 5,000 metres, anyway).
Actually, on long trips I have to be careful I don't exceed 110 on even a slight downhill slope, it's easy to go from just-barely-105 at the crest to 120-and-rising-rapidly two seconds later.
As for the victims of the crash - call it Evolution in Action. Sorry, but irresponsibility and stupidity is sometimes a Capital Crime. Unfair, Unjust, but there it is. The parents have been punished enough by losing their kids - or rather, carelessly throwing them away.
The wallopers are useless. I got hit head on at the Meccano set of lights cnr Hume and Woodville @ Villawood while turning right with green arrow. Car took 2 months to fix and the idiot who came thru the red reveresed into a driveway, got out of the car (80s Ford falcon) and decamped in a westerly direction.
The Fairfield coppers still haven't got back to me on the owner, registered in Goulburn.
Speed kills my arse! Dickhead drivers kill!
Posted by: pat at November 27, 2004 at 11:16 PMToday a Copper got creamed while conducting a
U-turn on a country road. Obviously he didn't check his mirrors before attempting this manouver (no doubt to catch a speading driver going in the opposite direction) and was subsequently cleaned up by the Toyota 4WD following him. 1 Cop KIA, 1 Cop in serious condition
What was the message the Police Minister had for the great unwashed? Don't speed! and more demerit points for Modile Phone users. Mmmmmm
Posted by: Jon at November 27, 2004 at 11:36 PMThat was brilliant Tim.
Maybe certain subs need some re-education about discerning the true bloody news angle in stories like this.
Posted by: C.L. at November 27, 2004 at 11:55 PM"Padgham pleaded guilty to using the internet to procure a girl under 16 for sex, carnal knowledge of a girl under 16 and two counts of indecent dealing."
I blame the internet, high speed connections, chat rooms, color monitors, Bill Gates and Intel. All must be heavily regulated and taxed into oblivion in order to save the children.
i blame al gore
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at November 28, 2004 at 12:00 AMThe Daily Telegraph is running a campaign against the menace of young drivers in "200km/h supercars". It isn't a very rigourous campaign, as may be judged by the fact that the Telegraph thinks a supercar is something that can reach a mere 200km/h (125mph).
I take it you believe there is a time and place (apart from on race tracks) for cars that can do 200km/h? (Allbeit not in the hands of P-platers in 50km/h zones)
Posted by: Andjam at November 28, 2004 at 12:13 AMAndjam,
Yes, I do. Big fat freeways and quiet backroads are safe places to explore such speeds, under certain conditions. We should go for a drive some time.
Posted by: tim at November 28, 2004 at 12:24 AMYou Aussies are nuts. Here in the US, if all a "supercar" could do was a measly 125 mph, you'd be laughed off the street as a l4m3r. I think my Camry can do that.
Posted by: William Young at November 28, 2004 at 12:51 AMAnd here I thought Australia was full of wide open spaces. There's a time and place for everything, of course, and finding the limits of a car is not appropriate when there are others in the car, especially underage impregnated young ladies. I won't even comment on the boyfriend's Motley Crue headliner; sounds classy, though.
Like Tim, I am simply aghast that the focus of this story is not about the girl getting knocked up.
Posted by: Rob at November 28, 2004 at 01:00 AMSpray job? Hood scoop? Rear wing? Motley Crue mural? 15 y.o. pregnant by 33 y.o.? This is Transluscent Albino White Trash. Sorry, but Australian society improved by a few percentage points with this crash.
Posted by: Dave S. at November 28, 2004 at 01:02 AMDitto with (most) everyone above - the fact that someone's doing 200 km/h on a suburban street is a testament to the victory of idiocy and testosterone over common sense. It's not a reason for yet more legislation.
As for the families... well, I feel sorry for them, but they obviously have very warped ideas of responsible behaviour.
Posted by: Slat Guy at November 28, 2004 at 01:15 AMI gather the Oz Daily Telegraph is your Daily Mirror? In the UK the DM seems to think that the government can solve every problem and there is no such thing as personal responsability.
BTW: Wonder if this arsehat had a copy of Motley's Music to Crash you Car to Vol 1 or 2?
Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at November 28, 2004 at 01:19 AMThis is tragic for the unborn child, and (I believe) for the 15 year old girl. And it is a completely inappropriate news angle -- this Telegraph sounds like low quality asswipe.
But the other two guys in the car sound like candidates for the Darwin Awards.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 28, 2004 at 02:11 AMWell, the Tele is better than the Sydney Morning Herald - though that's not saying much.
But the Tele never claimed to be a serious newspaper, so these histrionics are pretty much to be expected.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at November 28, 2004 at 02:21 AMLast I read it, the Murdoch-owned Sydney Daily Telegraph was more like The Sun. The Daily Mirror it ain't.
Posted by: Scott Campbell at Blithering Bunny at November 28, 2004 at 03:42 AMIt's now just a matter of time before the personal responsibility challenged begin to blame the automakers for the mayhem and destruction caused by drunk drivers who drive vehicles that cannot compensate for their impaired condition!
Posted by: rinardman at November 28, 2004 at 04:04 AMYou don't blame the dead baby-raping yobbo Labor-voting dole-prole driver because he has no money or estate to sue. Auto manufacturers, tho, have lots of money...
Posted by: John Edwards (Sen., Ret.) at November 28, 2004 at 05:09 AMMy first car was a Morris major elite. Does that qualify as a supercar?
Posted by: gubbaboy at November 28, 2004 at 05:28 AMHaving had my SCCA license, once qualified to drive Formula Ford 2000's and currently thinking about acquiring a repro Shelby Cobra [550 h.p.] I'm no whining sister.
But..I have noticed that the Ad's for the sportier cars that younger kids obviously desire do tend to accentuate driving behaviors that will get them in trouble. Don't count on Kids at beginning driver age to get in a hot car and think, "gee am I driving responsibly".
Posted by: Wallace-Midland, Texas at November 28, 2004 at 05:30 AMThere is now an electric supercar. See http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2004/11/eliica_the_elec.html
Perhaps the real (and hidden) objection to a supercar is global warming, but as you see an internal combustion engine is not needed.
Posted by: Doug at November 28, 2004 at 05:42 AMWallace:
My dad theorized that teenagers got in less trouble in cars they were embarassed to drive. When impressing anyone is impossible, then sullen safety probably follows. His favorite car to stick me with was the yard truck from his company. Nothing hotter on Saturday night than a white 1970 Ford pickup with an attractive "Nevada Tractor & Equipment" logo on the side.
15 years later, I think he was probably right. Didn't appreciate it much at the time.
Posted by: Matt in Denver at November 28, 2004 at 06:18 AMI thought only Gerry Anderson made Supercar...
Blackfive has had a GREAT idea: Pat Tillman for Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year Not only does he deserve it, it would stick a big dirty finger right in Ted Rall's eye! Go for it!
Posted by: richard mcenroe at November 28, 2004 at 06:26 AMHe recently spray-painted it fire engine red and asked Mr Deas to help him purchase a boot wing. Its customised interior had a canvas mural of Motley Crue stitched on to the inside of car's roof.
This individual was prevented from reproducing.
A good thing overall, IMO.
ps: 120MPH = supercar? ROFLMAO!
Posted by: rosignol at November 28, 2004 at 06:59 AMJohn Edwards, isn't that a line from Bloom County?
"I blame Nikolta Camera Corp. As the manufacturer, they were criminally negligent in not placing a warning label reading Serious bodily injury could result from photographing rampaging Hollywood hotheads"
Words to that effect.
Posted by: Crispytoast at November 28, 2004 at 07:32 AMMatt in Denver
My Dad was the same way. At 16, I wanted a 1966 Mustang desperately, but he was convinced I'd kill myself in it, so I ended up with one of these. It didn't have much grunt, but I had a great time throwing it around on the mountain roads where I grew up. I got the Mustang a few years later; my Dad later restored it and it's now my sister's pride and joy -- and jealously guarded (meaning: I don't get to drive it).
Posted by: Spiny Norman at November 28, 2004 at 11:20 AMApparently the girls parents are receiving hate mail.
Posted by: dee at November 28, 2004 at 11:22 AMAn enormous amount of moralising from all.
Sometimes sad things happen. Young men speed. People sleep with peole they shouldn't.
The newspapers are so predictable in looking for someone to blame. Most of you guys posting are doing the same thing. Some of you have continually confused the middle aged teen fucker with the driver. This allows you a double dose of moralising.
Posts like these are why the girl's parents are getting hate mail.
Let it go.
Posted by: Simon at November 28, 2004 at 11:43 AMAnd you just couldn't resist jumping in and doing a little moralising too, right Simon?
Thanks, I for one will sleep better tonight!
And now you're moralising about my moralising, right rinardman ?
It's kind of a circular argument you're making.
Actually, I thought I was trying to point out your circular argument.
Guess I didn't do a very good job :)
And now you're moralising about my moralising, right rinardman ?
It's kind of a circular argument you're making.
Actually no. You're the one who's complained about moralizing. Rinardman only seems to be pointing out your hypocrisy.
Posted by: PW at November 28, 2004 at 12:50 PM"P" plates are not used everywhere in Australia, while people from "P" areas may not immediately notice their abscence, those who grow to adulthood without ever imagining such things exist, well, we find it quite a shock to venture south & see otherwise tough looking young bucks driving around with a great big incongruous "P" on their car! (P stands for...provisional, - we know now - but when first seeing it, Poofter, Pansy, Prick, Plonker?)
Posted by: Steve at the pub at November 28, 2004 at 01:04 PMNote also that the young "lady" had quit smoking and drinking because of the impending birth. Let's see now - smoking, drinking, and dating men in their 30's while in junior high. Yep, that's responsible parenting, all right. Mr. and Mrs. Schyf are freaking idiots. Perhaps the Darwin comments apply to their lineage also.
And yes, that's moralizing. The only ones who should have a problem with that are the ones who aren't sure of their own morals. Deal with it.
Posted by: ereynol at November 28, 2004 at 03:18 PMMost of us don't give a rats arse about who fucks who, and believe fast cars should be able to be driven fast in the appropriate circumstances- what gets on our tits is a pack of web-toed banjo pickers (carrying on as web-toed banjo pickers do) and dying in a fiery crash being used as a barrow to tell us driving fast cars is naughty, and needs banning. The conveniently ignoring of offences by the participants is particularly galling, as is the future issue of another welfare dependant being portrayed as courageous.
The parents don't deserve hate mail, but tied tubes and a vasectomy wouldn't hurt none.
I note that the Sunday Telegraph also mixed up Laura Bush and Lauren Bush.
Tsk, tsk.
Posted by: Quentin George at November 28, 2004 at 04:08 PMI'm with Dave S on this one. The gene pool is enhanced and no innocent bystanders involved.
With this background, what would the kid have grown up to be? What would be his/her contribution to society?
Posted by: jlchydro at November 28, 2004 at 04:19 PMTim, I don't want to be alarmist, but does it worry you that you and Miranda appear to be on the same side of the argument on this one?
Posted by: richard mcenroe at November 28, 2004 at 04:21 PMRichard, that's columnist Miranda Devine, not blogtroll Miranda Divide.
Posted by: PW at November 28, 2004 at 04:44 PMRichard, Miranda Devine is an actual real person, not the troll "Miranda Divide" that occasionally pops in here.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 28, 2004 at 04:46 PMIt's not the fast cars that kill, it's the sudden stops.
Posted by: Endgame at November 28, 2004 at 05:28 PMdoes it worry you that you and Miranda appear to be on the same side of the argument on this one?
I gather Tim's a friend of the Devines, considering he attended Miranda's christmas party last year.
Miranda Divide, on the other hand, is a pseudonym for either
a) some hack at Crikey.com.au
b) A disgruntled member of the Arts community
C) Possibly both of the above
So much wrong packed into one column. What's wrong with these people?
As an aside, both the Toyota Corolla XRS and Honda Civic Type-S have a top speed of 130 mph. (The enviro-weenie Civic hybrid manages only 107 mph.) It seems practically everything these days is a "supercar".
Posted by: Bruce Rheinstein at November 28, 2004 at 11:50 PMWhat the hell is "indecent dealing"? Sounds low and smutty.
Posted by: Mike at November 29, 2004 at 03:27 AMRegarding 'indecent dealing'. Two years prior to this the 33 year bloke was in a deep depression after the death of his 12 yo daughter. Then he met the 15 yo, who was then only 13 ! I'm not kidding you...
Posted by: jafa at November 29, 2004 at 04:52 AM200 km/h supercars? Pah! I'll take a 400 km/h supercar over those any day!
http://www.koenigsegg.com/thecars/index.asp?submenu=3
Posted by: gnu at November 29, 2004 at 05:09 AMRegarding 'indecent dealing'. Two years prior to this the 33 year bloke was in a deep depression after the death of his 12 yo daughter. Then he met the 15 yo, who was then only 13 ! I'm not kidding you...Well *that* would add a whole extra level of creepy. Posted by: Aaron at November 29, 2004 at 06:09 AM
Let's not forget the original supercar, with Mike Mercury & Mitch the Chimp:
Supercar, Supercar
With beauty and grace as swift as can be
watch it flying through the air
It travels in space, or under the sea
and it can journey anywhere
Supercar, Supercar
It travels on land or roams the skies
through heavens stormy rage
It's Mercury-manned and everyone cries
"it's the marvel of the age!"
Supercar, Supercar, Supercar!
Or am I the only own who still remembers this?
How could you forget any of Gerry Anderson's gems?
Posted by: Habib at November 29, 2004 at 09:34 AMras, habib — Where you guys been? I started that riff yesterday...
Posted by: richard mcenroe at November 29, 2004 at 10:02 AMOn a slightly different note, it's interesting that unlike Tim, the Daily Telegraph doesn't count a seven-month, presumably viable feotus as a person.
Posted by: Andrew D. at November 29, 2004 at 11:38 AMI got to drive an R34 Skyline GTR last year. truly a mind blowing experience. I recommend it to everyone. It's a crying shame their not sold in the USA. Americans get screwed again.
Posted by: swassociates at November 29, 2004 at 02:23 PMAny car that gets a commonly accepted nickname of "Godzilla" is okay in my book.
A motoring TV also reviewed a newer model once, one where the central TV screen in the dash would give info like current g-forces etc. They described the car as "a playstation with a car attached"
Posted by: attila at November 29, 2004 at 03:11 PMWhile I agree that the Tele is a. sensationalist and b. not well researched (regarding statistics) and c. that this particular accident looked certain to happen (their lives looked like accidents anyway)there is merit to focusing on the issue of road death by young drivers.
The car may be fast but is it safe? To say that I or you drove one and didn't die doesn't make it safe. What is the appropriate age to access and drive one? Then there is the other issue of the rights and responsibilities of passengers.
In our culture it appears to me that the passenger is expected to "cop it sweet" even if the driver indulges in appalling behaviour. Maybe we need a passenger's rights movement.
Posted by: Allan at November 29, 2004 at 03:27 PMSpeaking of Gerry Anderson's supercars this is the finest
Posted by: Pauly at November 29, 2004 at 03:29 PMAlan E. Brain
Nah, I drove a Daihatsu 5 door hatchback from new in 1982 until 1997, when my ex traded it in. A friend called it a "Facade" (Charade). I called it 998 cubic centimetres of screaming power.
I traded my ex in too, in 1999.
Kae, 998cc of screaming power it may have been - trust me the 1300 ain't much better.
On the other hand if that irresponsible ex-dill took my car for a joyride... they would probably still be driving... and alive.
I think the only road on the Central Coast that could cope with such a combination of car & speed is the F3. Darwin 1, knuckle-draggers 0.
Posted by: simon at November 29, 2004 at 05:28 PMThe Chicago Tribune recently ran a series about the new “super motorcycles” - almost the same article as the Tele’s about “super cars”. Too powerful, too many accidents, too many deaths, etc.
Of course the accident they chose to highlight how “dangerous” the “superbikes” were involved a 35 year-old idiot weaving his bike at approximately 120 mph through rush hour traffic on one of the area’s highways (I think the Dan Ryan). The moron wiped out and flattened himself into a retaining wall - Of course, its all the motorcycle’s fault.
Posted by: CPatterson at November 30, 2004 at 08:32 AMCPatterson, back in the 70's Joan Claybrook, who ran DOT for President Goober, was on a campaign to either ban motorcycles or make them safer. Among the things the DOT actually developed were:
A motorcycle with a roll cage (otherwise known as a naked 77 Civic).
A seatbelt/harness system (also known as, "Yes, please strap me to the outside of 500 lbs of hot tumbling metal...")
An airbag in the steering post for front impacts (also known as an ejection seat).
and a motorcycle that tried to steer by turning the rear drive wheel (also know as what the HELL was that daft cow thinking?!).
Needless to say, results of these and other experiments were, um, mixed.
Claybrook is still with us, she is some kind of public "advocate" who turns up from time to time for soundbites...
Posted by: richard mcenroe at November 30, 2004 at 11:30 AMIt was sad that it was not pointed out that the 33 bloke had committed statutory rape on the 15 year-old girl and that he was still walking around free. Here in the states he would have been in jail for a long time--but that's our “Christian values” for you.
As for Simon: "An enormous amount of moralizing from all. Sometimes sad things happen. Young men speed. People sleep with people they shouldn't."
What an idiot and an apologist. Sure, shit happens but then civil society has laws, too. Those ARE the codes of moral and ethical behavior set out by society. Simon and that other idiot reporter, Luke McIlveen, editorializing about “committing to one of life’s biggest challenges at such a young age…" obvious neither know, respect or disdain the LAW. What an obscenity. Opps, more “Christian values” showing through...
And finally looking down the barrel of a 12 gauge shotgun the words,
"Keep you damn hands off my daughter!"
take on a whole new meaning. That's what's called here in some parts as "old fashion" honor.
Carl Scully is Minister for Roads.
NSW has seperate ministers for roads, and rail (costa I think) etc.
To "mcj is SC"-
there's no point in playing a "Deliverance' rerun, and there's no point in moralizing any more and no need for a shotgun, the parents were happy with the situation and the guy's not going to jail because
THEIR DEAD
Let it go - move on with your life
Posted by: Simon at November 30, 2004 at 10:36 PM"THEIR DEAD" what, Simon? You left the sentence unfinished-- Oh, you meant they are dead. Well, dear, the proper spelling of the contraction of "they are" is "they're." And if you are wondering why I am nitpickingly criticising you, it is because 1) you obviously have not received enough criticism in your life, and are therefore unused to it, and I want to help you get used to this unavoidable aspect of the adult world, and 2) you seem not to understand other things such as the need for limits and boundaries on human behavior. By the way, simply dying does not make a person a saint, or render their behavior while alive beyond criticism. I am sure that you have no trouble condemning and holding up as examples of bad behavior the actions of those who have since died who you didn't like. Or when the subject arises among your modern, culturally-diverse friends how bad that, say, early Australian colonists were to the aboriginies do you tell your friends not to speak badly of the dead because, after all, that's all in the past?
Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 1, 2004 at 09:27 AM