November 25, 2005
John Howard: The ego that enslaved a nation
The massive opposition to John Howard's Industrial Relations legislation, including within his own Coalition ranks, does not matter to John Howard. What matters to him is that his idée fixe, the basis of his entire political life: the destruction of unions and the subsequent bargaining helplessness of millions of workers -- mugs in his terminology -- becomes iron clad law.
As each day passes before the Senate vote takes place we are seeing more and more evidence of this bill's feudal aspects, forcing a twenty-first century nation to all but return to the days when lords drew scented kerchiefs to their nostrils while being transported on elaborate palanquins by humble serfs. But John Howard cannot see these consequences. His egomania won't allow it.
He will never accept responsibility for the terminal harm he may be doing to the Liberal Party, let alone the country. In ten years of power, the buck has never stopped with him. And he has taught his ministers well to shirk their own responsibilities. The result is a government run amuck with power, an elected body of incompetent authoritarians with utter contempt for accountability.
Howard wakes every day emboldened by the knowledge that his support base accepts his two-faced stand on every issue. They don't know who he is or what he stands for because he talks inclusion but acts exclusion. They hear what he says and leave it at that. What he does, however, does not sink in because, after the reassuring sound-bite, they have followed his exhortation to "move on".
When he says the anti-terror bill is necessary to protect Australians, these people do not realise that the threat of terror is of his own making. They only hear that he will protect them.
With this industrial relations attack on their quality of life, however, they are beginning to wake up. At the very least, they are realising that when their sons and daughters enter the work force at the ripe old age of 15 or 16, working on Christmas Day may be a matter of do it or be sacked. The government that continually spouts family values is perhaps the worst enemy of family life this nation has ever seen.
"Howard's Battlers" may originally have been Labor's working class won over by a rhetoric that tapped into their short-term greed and his ingenious knack for dog-whistling to their inherent racism, but they are not as stupid as he thinks they are if he believes he can reduce their ability to look after their families -- for no good reason -- and get away with it.
The blind, repressed hate that seethes below the surface of John Howard may see the reduction of his party to an ineffectual rump at the next election, led, of course, by the hapless Peter Costello, one of many party members whose integrity has been destroyed by Howard's unprincipled promotion of pragmatics over ethics. But Howard doesn't care.
The power he enjoys over a population of freshman human beings is not that of a national leader but a sneaky office worker who, through mean-spirited innuendo and other divisive tactics, has risen to the position of a satrap to the man whose nametag reads "boss," a man who got to that position using the very same means. In this case John Howard's satrapy is Australia and his boss is George W. Bush. How embarrassing, how pathetic.
Little Johnny is utterly inauthentic, a passionless shell without panache, with no joie de vivre and nary a whit of the grand vision for humanity that has moved others to greatness. Instead, he walks like an anthropomorphised ventriloquist's dummy (the reason for his frequent stumbling). When he talks, the words fall away listlessly as if he were always ready for beddy byes.
John Howard is motivated by very little in the end. But there is no stopping him when it comes to being a waggletail who need to appease ideologues with greater power (Thatcher and Bush), to restoring the imbalance between employer and employee and, above all, his tenacious desire to take revenge over those who have been contemptuous of every minute of his 31 years in politics.
The IR bill is John Howard's ultimate payback.
Posted by Willikers at 2:19 PM
November 18, 2005
Family Friendly Films for John Howard Supporters (1)
James and Catherine just can't get enough of each other. One night James has a motor car accident. While visiting him in hospital, Catherine comes over all squishy at the sight of his wounds and elaborate leg brace. James, in turn, responds ardently, his still intact shaft rising from the wreckage of his body. "My man of steel," moans Deborah.
Before you know it, they've fallen in with the nicest group of Young Liberal types who drive around all night looking for crashes. And what do they do when they find freshly mangled bodies strewn hither and thither? Fuck like bunnies in their nearby parked cars.
Yes, the dead and dying get them really hot and bothered. But not as hot and bothered as your average John Howard supporter gets when John sends young boys off to war, or drives asylum seekers mad, or introduces new legislation to cage cripples, single mothers, and anyone else they don't like.
Well, one thing leads to another and one day John and Janette -- oops, I mean James and Catherine -- decide to have a little sport on the freeway. James wants to force Catherine off the road so she has a crash, and then he'll come running over to make love to her while she's dying. Like all John Howard supporters, Catherine is mostly dead inside anyway so she thinks it's a ripper idea.
And it came to pass that he did run her off the road. Alas, she was only bloodied up a bit. But that didn't stop them from fucking like bunnies on the soft shoulder. "Maybe next time," he consoled her, "maybe next time."
Indeed, for the likes of James and Catherine, as well as your all-Australian, conservative, Christian, misanthropic, misogynist, John Howard supporter, there is always a new perversion of human and family values around the corner. Ain't lifeless grand!
For more film ideas, see Choice Flicks for Coalition Wowsers.
Posted by Willikers at 11:50 AM
November 17, 2005
Socceroos honour memory of Johnny Warren
What a relief! Australia has finally made it to the World Cup. Could soccer lovers have survived another four year drought? Not without wearing hairshirts and ritually whipping themselves with cats-o-nine tails.
And now the great Johnny Warren, who was there in 1974 but did not live to see the return dream come true, can rest in peace.
Or can he?
Soccer fans never rest in peace. You've heard of sado-masochism, but soccer reverses it to become Maso-sadism, or some such. Watching a soccer match is an exercise in pure masochism. You sit through 90 minutes of innards-broiling anxiety waiting for something to happen. Then, when it's over, if your team has lost, all that tension explodes into the riots so often accompanying the sport. Off you go to join your opponents in a slugfest which may or not boil over into the streets of the town, resulting in trashed shops, burnt cars and other mayhem ... just to get rid of the pent-up energy.
How did soccer ever become the world game? And is it partly to blame for international tensions and hatreds?
Speaking of hatred, let me use this space to exhort Mr Photo-op, John Howard, to stay away from our round ball wizards. DO NOT EMBARRASS AUSTRALIA YET AGAIN WITH YOUR NEED FOR REFLECTED GLORY.
You may remember Howard's unsportsmanlike conduct at the 2003 Rugby World Cup in Sydney, where he was unable to disguise his mean-spiritedness in presenting the cup to victorious England.
Harold Hark's commentary at the time is worth rereading.
Posted by Willikers at 10:49 AM
November 16, 2005
The fragmented self: Jeering injustice at the movies, voting for it at election time
|For the first time in years, I once again feel proud to be Australian. For years I have felt embarrassed to be part of a society that invades, expels, lacks compassion and is detached by its "leaders". What has saddened me more, though, has been our apathy to allow all this to come about. Yesterday in Melbourne our Australia returned. Welcome back. -- Jason den Hollander, letter to The Age, 16 November 2005.||"They haven't even got a majority of the union movement membership to turn up, let alone anything more than a fraction of the Australian workforce. The fact is that well over 95 per cent of the Australian work force have completely ignored this so-called day of protest." -- Peter Hendy, ACCI Chief, quoted in The Age, 16 November 2005.|
To begin with, let's break down Hendy's "95 per cent" thusly: those who supported the rally but whose work involving patient care required them to remain on duty; those who supported the rally but were too snowed under with overwork to take a minute off; those who supported the rally but never take part in them; those who supported the rally but were afraid of employer reprisals; those who have no idea what is going on in the world; those who support the legislation.
With the opening round of massive opposition to the IR legislation behind us (but squarely in front of the Howard Government), now is as good a time as any to reiterate the incredible fragmentation in the minds of so many human beings the world over: support at the ballot box for politicians they innately despise.
Taking Australia as an example, we have a significant majority that supports John Howard. Yet, when they go to the movies, it is precisely the likes of John Howard whom they boo and hiss.
Look at Peter Hendy. The Chief of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Hendy is all over the media these days touting Howard's IR deforms.
But when you listen to his voice, you hear the slithery, slimy voice of the master arrogantly dismissing the concerns of his servants.
You hear this dismissive disdain for the masses in the voices of Peter Costello, Alexander Downer, Kevin Andrews and the like.
There is another voice associated with this view: the pinched, almost strangled voice of pure hatred. Listen to Wilson Tuckey, Amanda Vanstone and the talkback callers on right wing radio.
Howard and his henchmen are unable to disguise their misanthropy, let alone a sniggering contempt for the people who support their policies. Remember John Howard's whopper Freudian slip in Parliament when he referred to voters as mugs?
It is a despairing irony that the everyday citizen who clearly perceives the difference between good and evil on the screen cannot do so when it comes to electing leaders who will literally determine their quality of life.
It's true that a film can crystallise this difference because there are no distractions. Real life is nothing but distractions; only with critical thought and a predisposition to compassion can this vital distinction be maintained.
In real life, some people effectively "lose their mind" by swallowing the transparent lies of the political equivalent of the cattle baron who by day is an upright citizen but by night sends his gang to rustle everyone's cattle, or the land baron who sends his thugs to terrorise homesteaders whose pitiful bit of property is in the way of his massive land grab, or the Mafia don who orders assassinations over nonpayment of a few dollars, or his legal equivalent, the businessman with the heart of mould who treats his employees as fodder and/or knowingly sells faulty or outmoded products to unwitting customers, or the real estate salesmen who ramps up auction prices using false bidders, or the rapacious leader of one country who invades another under false pretences in order to obtain that nation's riches, or most obviously, the sneering, corrupt politician.
Were anyone to view a film -- not a documentary, but a film with a fictional screenplay -- that depicted even one tenth the corruption, incompetence and downright criminal behavior of a government like John Howard's, they could not possibly walk out of the theatre with anything but outrage.
Yet a John Howard is precisely whom they vote for come election time.
This enormous schizoid chasm between realities is indicative of people who are unable to pay attention long enough to assess situations important to their long term well being, people who have no capacity for critical thought and so are forcing others who can to do their thinking for them, to ultimately save them from themselves. Perhaps this is the source of right wing hatred of the left. The left thinks about everything, the right only thinks of itself. Those on the right know down deep that they have opted for superficial lives. When this realisation surfaces, it's time for baseball bats and death squads. Or the re-election of spiritual pygmies like John W. Howard and George W. Bush.
Hello, is this the definition of the Silent Majority? The eternal demographic of whom Jesus H. Christ was speaking when he asked His Nibs to "forgive them for they know not what they do?"
The next time you hear someone pushing the line that some huge per cent of the population agrees with this Prime Minister, remember that similar population percentages applied to support for the most infamous tyrants in history.
And the next time you wake up to the sun shining in your window causing you to expound on the beauty of the day, remember that this beautiful planet is populated by dingbats, by people who are psychologically undisturbed by anything, especially tyranny.
November 15, 2005
Like Robespierre, like Ruddock
The people have only one dangerous enemy … the government. -- Georges Danton, guillotined in 1794 for seditious opposition to Robespierre's Terror
Like the French Revolution's Maximilien Robespierre, Philip Ruddock began his political career with integrity and a sense of justice. Few who knew Ruddock as the principled politician who often crossed the floor of Parliament as a dissenting member of the Liberal Party can believe how distasteful he has become.
Like Robespierre before him, Ruddock has turned into a repressive authoritarian.
The French Reign of Terror was originally conceived by Georges Danton, nobody's idea of an angel. Faced with external enemies, he believed France should secure law and order within its boundaries. But once the threat of war was over, he wanted an end to The Terror. Robespierre, however, continued to implement it with a vengeance against any and all dissenters, eventually joining his fanatical colleagues on the typically named Committee of Public Safety to have Danton and others arrested for their seditious views.
Robespierre liked to think of himself as incorruptible and was so-called by his admirers. But others called him the "sanctimonious butcher." Like Robespierre, Philip Ruddock -- whose historical epithet remains as yet uncoined -- is cold, remote and, above all, inflexible. Emotionless as an undead cadaver, he has no concept of the mind-unhinging reality asylum seekers have faced in his concentration camps, or the Gulag-inspired reality the rest of us will face under his repressive anti-dissent pro-terror legislation.
Worse than Robespierre, who was a small man who had to stand on the tips of his toes at the podium, Ruddock's smallness is like that of a black hole, sucking all of humanity's goodness into its fathomless hatred.
Robespierre rationalised The Terror thus: "When the republic is threatened, we are omnipotent." During the trial of Danton and Camille Desmoulins, editor of Le Vieux Cordelier, which dared to protest against The Terror -- a trial, it should be noted, where journalists and court reporters were banned -- Robespierre admonished presiding judge Fougier for appearing to be soft on dissent: "We deliver the enemies of the Republic to you. Your job is to eliminate them not to judge them." The judge followed his orders. Danton, Desmoulins, and several others were guillotined within a few days.
Ruddock's sense of justice has become equally perverted. It blindly follows the twisted ideology of John Howard, the hate-whispering hobgoblin who squats on the shoulders of two-thirds of Australia's larval population. The guillotine is gone, but endless prison sentences await the Danton's of today.
Everyone hated Robespierre's secret police. Everyone always hates the secret police. The definition of a government with secret police is a government that employs state terrorism. The same will be true of Ruddock's ASIO branch of thugs in the service of Ruddock's Terror.
So went Robespierre, so goes Ruddock. Who said there was no such thing as reincarnation?
Thanks to Andrzej Wajda's film Danton, Barry Jones' Dictionary of World Biography, and Wikipedia for the background to this dilettantish piece. - TGW
November 10, 2005
The conservative scourge and its evil spawn (1)
"Terrorists and conservative governments are mutually dependant. Terrorists need conservative governments to wage war on them, creating martyrs and more recruits, while conservative governments need terrorists to scare the electorate into re-electing them and giving them more draconian powers. What a beautiful symbiosis." -- Felix Dance, letter to The Age 9 Nov 2005-11-10
Christian fundamentalism and its latest ploy: Intelligent Design
" … the answer to who is pushing [Intelligent Design] in America seems to be the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank based in Seattle. But Australia is feeling the intelligent design pressure, too: in August, federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson commended the idea of teaching it in schools.
"Junk science is seen in such things as the proliferation of anti-global warming think tanks and institutes all receiving funding from oil companies, notably Exxon. ID and creationism, its older sister, are in this category.
"Their closely co-ordinated publicity tries to insert biblical literalism into science classes in secular schools by sloganeering instead of a body of scientifically observed phenomena. Such science has no natural flow, no real vitality of its own. It has to be pushed along by devotees, and they have deep pockets and a sense of high destiny. But it has no experiments. All of its existence is based on picking holes in evolution. Intelligent design's big slogan is irreducible complexity. To this end its supporters cite the eye as a complex mechanism that could not have evolved, but must have been designed uniquely. This can be refuted by a single middle-school science lesson on the evolution of the eye from groups of light sensitive cells on flatworms up to the complex but imperfectly functioning eyes that we now possess."
From An intelligent design of the times, by Juliette Hughes, The Age, 22 October 2005
Posted by Willikers at 2:18 PM
November 9, 2005
Aussie terrorist roundup: Exactly what citizens expect from government
Bravo! This is what the government, ASIO, the Feds and local cops are being paid for. If the gang of sixteen are indeed guilty as accused, then the above agencies have the deepest gratitude of every citizen.
Above all, this roundup shows how unnecessary is John Howard and Philip Ruddock's precious anti-dissent pro-terror legislation. There are enough laws already in place to handle the long-term investigation and arrest of terrorist cells. The new legislation is not for terrorists, it is payback for those opposed to the government's authoritarianism.
If the legislation had already been passed, not one Australian would know of yesterdays mass arrest in Melbourne and Sydney. Worse, the media, if they did know, would not be allowed to report it.
Unfortunately, many chuckleheads in the community seem to think yesterday's successful raid using legislation already in place requires the passage of the new legislation. See today's other posting, The Silent Majority Speaks for a case history.
Posted by Willikers at 4:00 PM
The Silent Majority speaks
To those who oppose the Federal Government's anti-terrorism measures on the grounds that they have the capacity to diminish our civil liberties, all I can say is that I would rather be alive and relatively safe and well in a so-called "prison state" than dead in a defenceless socialist "utopia". This would also seem to roughly approximate the view of about 75 per cent of the voting population — which probably explains the reluctant support of the ALP Federal Opposition for the legislation in question. - Michael J. Gamble, letter to The Age, 8 November 2005
What a cowardly little shit. He speaks for all Howard supporters when he says he could care less what is happening to the world or to anyone else as long as he is cocooned safely in his bric-a-bracy, knicky-knacky, curio-infested brick veneer fibro-walled castle.
Notice that he equates the opposite of a police state with a 'socialist "utopia"'. Which he also equates with defencelessness and death.
Doesn't he know that he owes his present snugness to centuries of intellectual bleeding hearts who devoted their lives to seeking justice for everyone on this dingbat planet? Including lazy and ignorant gits like himself who have always sat on their hands while others struggled to win the liberties that have made lives like his richer? Is he too stupid to know he is taking his present freedom for granted? Isn't he aware that had history been comprehensively ruled by the small-minded, short-terrmer John Howard's of the world, he'd still be scraping his knuckles on the ground?
Why does he think the Anzacs sacrificed their lives at his hallowed Gallipoli? To screw employees so employers could make a little more profit? To invade nations for booty and political gain? In case his own head has been up his arse all his life, the Anzacs were actually fighting regimes who would impose police states.
You have to wonder what went wrong with people like him. Bad parenting? Poor or no education? Fucked genes?
How could anyone prefer a "prison state" unless he came down in the last shower? Is he so oblivious of history that he truly doesn't know what happened in police states under history's infamous tyrants?
It would appear he has no idea, that he did indeed come down in the last shower. He will have to suffer the fate his beloved government has in store for him. But even then, he will not have the brainpower to understand that even though he might become an enthusiastic collaborator for his preferred "police state," he will live every moment of his furtive life in fear.
For it is another historical truth that those who, bowing, scraping and sweating in the service of their police state masters, are hated far more by those masters than their adversaries.
What a fucknuckle.
November 8, 2005
Why we don't want to be like Singa-law'n'order-pore
"Having lived in Singapore for two years (although "incarcerated" would be more apt a word), I believe that Nguyen Tuong Van will not be coming home. All the sentiments that we Australians are conjuring up in petitioning for him to be given another go, and showing mateship for a common goal, such as the petition from all MPs, will not move the Singapore Government.
"Singaporeans, in general, are a passionless people. Hence, to appeal to their emotional psyche is a waste of time and effort. However, don't blame the people. Blame their Government. I spend two high school years in Singapore, and this opened my eyes to how brainwashed and cowed the citizens are. The Australian catch cry is "have a go". The Singapore equivalent is "kiah su", a Chinese dialectic phrase that means, afraid to lose. This is a country that suffocates public opinions of the Government through lawsuits, that discourages blue-collars from procreating, and that created a dating service for socially inept graduates to create more intelligent babies. Nguyen, thank you for your work at Changi Prison. You have brought comfort and strength to the mainly Singaporean inmates on death row.
"You stand out — not as an Australian mule, as Wilson Tuckey says, but as an Australian who is passionate and cares for others. Good on you, mate."
Ian Lam, Letter to The Age, 5 November 2005
Posted by Willikers at 1:45 PM
November 4, 2005
Australia under John Howard: From Crocodile Dundee to Wolf Creek
I didn't start Bilegrip to deal with politics, but what can you do when your country is being attacked by its own government. That is ultimately worse than being invaded. Under invasion from a foreign power, everyone rallies together to fight the common enemy. But when a nation is invaded from within, when its citizens are divided and conquered by a polarising force such as John Howard's, the treachery becomes insufferable. Australia is about to have more in common with the former East Germany under Honecker, Rumania under Ceaucescu, Chile under Pinochet, Greece under The Generals, and South Africa under Botha than it has with itself pre-1996.
It is surely no coincidence that the Australia of "Crocodile Dundee" is being hacked to death by "Wolf Creek" in the Australia of John Howard.
In it's lead editorial today, The Age points to a disturbing interaction between John Howard's Industrial relations and anti-dissent pro-terror bills.
The legislative packages share the same disquieting features of much greater arbitrary powers (for employers and for police and security agencies), heavy penalties for breaches of secrecy provisions and the legalisation of unfair and unjust treatment of blameless individuals, whether that involves detention or dismissal or, at worst, both.
That's right, in each legislation all power rests with the authorities and employers and none with the citizens and workers.
If that doesn't amount to a police-cum-feudal state, what on earth does?
The editorial gives an example:
Picture this. One of Mr Howard's Aussie battlers, let's call him Bruce, is not guilty of any crime, nor is he a suspect. He can still be detained for interrogation on the basis that he is thought to have come across information or be in a position somehow to help the agencies charged with preventing a terrorist act occurring. Bruce is worried about his boss's reaction when he fails to show up for work — and what will his family think when he doesn't come home? He can contact them only to let them know he is safe, but can't disclose the fact of his detention or how long he will be unavailable; a penalty of up to five years in jail applies. When Bruce is released, he can't properly explain his absence. His boss, not unreasonably in the circumstances, exercises his new freedom to sack him. Bruce presumably must rely on those who put him in this predicament to exercise discretion or perhaps speak up for him (even if it turns out they made a mistake). It's a nightmare, but one that appears possible from what we know of the legislation.
This is the sort of paranoid, evil brilliance you would expect from Stalin's Soviet Union: Catch-22 laws meant to totally paralyse the population. Instead, it's coming from Philip Ruddock, perhaps the most sinister mind in the service of repression since Robespierre.
The consequence of these bills passing into law will be massive civil unrest at the beginning, followed by the nation-wide paralysis the government is counting on. (Howard can be thankful that the "revolution generation" is still in school. The generation that could have stopped him at the last election may see their error and consider drastic action, but will continue to be too busy playing with their iPods. Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
But before the Australian persona is finally numbed into submission, this once-proud and peaceful nation will be plunged into a dark age of fear and terror, resulting in the arrests, disappearances and even state-condoned murder of its citizens. If this sounds extreme, just listen to the hateful, cold-blooded voice of the architect of these terror law. Philip Ruddock means to get his revenge on anyone who has ever crossed him. And their families.
The inescapable conclusion is that Howard and Ruddock, both of whom increasingly appear to be seriously unstable to the point of sounding and acting like sociopaths, want desperately for the country to be thrown into chaos.
As each of us looks within ourselves to gauge the level of protest we are willing to go to when the time comes, the question must be asked: Why are Howard and Ruddock so intent on bringing the country into violent, ruinous disintegration? Here are a few possibilities:
1) Look at me! Little Johnny wants to show Big Georgie that he can be tough too. Even tougher! (Strewth, but it may be no more complex than that.)
2) It's all ideological. The Mad Thatcher had more balls than any of her male devotees and Little Johnny is trying to convince her that his are just as big. Trouble is, they haven't dropped yet, and he's 66!)
3) Masters and servants. Lacking any compassion, any ability to put themselves into the shoes of others and therefore lacking any contact with reality, their sole interests lie in what is beneficial for the master class. The rest are servants, the wretched of the earth, the exploitable, ciphers. And the sedition clause will prevent any modern Charles Dickens from proving otherwise.
4) Ignorance and survival ensure power. Intelligence and education are anathema to the acquisition of filthy lucre as the only suitable goal in life and must be wound back as far as possible. People who can think for themselves never elect governments like Howard's. They must be well contained or even eliminated. (See Pol Pot)
5) Mammon is their God. Deep down (that is, a millimetre under the surface) they despise the Christian World's Convenor, Jesus Christ, just as he despised them. For they are the people he warned the world about. When it suits them, they mouth the values he taught in order to con the silent majority into believing they are decent folk. And then do the very opposite. The silent majority condone this hypocrisy because they are the same breed of swine. With the passing of this legislation, they will finally be rid of the nuisance of adhering to anything like the Golden Rule.
6) They're barking mad. Ten years of power, and now the control of both houses of Parliament, have corrupted them beyond any hope of rehabilitation. Only the unsound of mind could put forth such disastrous legislation, legislation unheard of in Western Democracies that will ensure widespread poverty and an end to law and order as the economy comes crashing down on the corporations they insanely believed would benefit from a cowering, wage-slave population.
Nations under governments like John Howard's inevitably become a wasteland; when it's all over, we'll be lucky to call ourselves a Banana Republic.
November 3, 2005
Ronnie Barker's comic genius
Australia's last days as a democracy and its swift descent into a fascist state under the Howard Government has distracted me from posting this item last month when I should have.
Anyway, British comedian Ronnie Barker died on 4 October at the age of 76. Mark Colvin of PM presented Barker's hilarious monologue on mispronunciation as a tribute. Listen and be truly amazed:
The PM transcript can be found here:
Posted by Willikers at 2:45 PM
November 2, 2005
"Whoopee, you're all gonna die" - if John Howard gets his way
So. Now that the Melbourne Cup is out of the way, Australia's frenzied psychopath of a Prime Minister has suddenly come up with a "specific" terror threat just in time to get his Stalin Bill passed through a parliament of arse-sniffing hyenas.
"Specific" did he say? Well, we'll just have to trust him on that one. God knows, his credentials for honesty and integrity are impeccable. As usual, Philip "Robespierre" Ruddock will give no details, citing operational security reasons.
How dumb do these constipated stick figures with their moral rectitude wriggling out of their smeared rectums think we are? Hell, they're not even talking to us. They're talking to the Silent Majority, the scaredy-cat witch burners who keep them in power.
It appears all the Labor premiers are ready to stuff the country to save their jobs. And, of course, so is Kim "Tepid Custard" Beazley, who may be itching for a Stalinist state even more than Howard.
Fuck it, you lame excuses for national leaders, just pass the goddamn bill and let the revolution begin.
As Howard's gouty, misanthropic death-worshippers are stunning Australia into submission for its mates in the salivating corporate sector, let us remember the words of Anatole France:
"A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is very easy to govern. It demands no social reforms. It does not haggle over expenditures for armaments and military equipment. It pays without discussion, it ruins itself, and that is an excellent thing for the syndicates of financiers and manufacturers for whom patriotic terrors are an abundant source of gain."
Here is the link from the ABC News Online:
PM warns of 'specific' terror threat