<< MINI APPLE IS ~ MAIN ~ ONLY REPORTING THE BAD STUFF >>
COLUMN WEARS HAT, RHINESTONES
The latest Continuing Crisis column in The Bulletin mentions cops, hookers, Keith Urban, Lee Ann Womack, Debbe Dunning, Tim Allen, Pamela Anderson, and Glen Campbell (see also this, by Jim Lowney, in which certain comical themes are revisited).
Among other excellent items in The Bulletin: Eric Ellis and Julie-Anne Davies report on Nguyen Tuong Van, soon to be hanged in Singapore.
Oops! My mistake - ‘Aussie Asian guy’.
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 11 28 at 04:31 AM • permalinkYes, we should be respectful of the wonderful Nguyen Van family of heroin traffickers who are such a credit to Australia. And what harm could a mere 26,000 doses of heroin do anyway, either to addicts or the victims of crimes committed by addicts desperate for money? Nguyen Van is a hero of civilization right up there with Osama bin Laden.
Posted by Susan Norton on 2005 11 28 at 04:55 AM • permalinkMaybe the lefties and do-gooders should think of Nguyen’s death as a VERY late term
abortion .
100,000 deaths per year in Australia. What’s the big deal with one more?Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 11 28 at 05:05 AM • permalinkSusan I don’t say we should respect drug smuggling. However I see nothing funny in the barbaric methods used in Singapore to kill someone.
In the past and possibly now,if the person does not die immediately they slash their veins so they bleed to death.
If the death penalty must be carried out (arguments for or against aside) why not just give an injection of drugs like a pre med.The objective is to remove a person from society not revenge. Also I don’t think his crime was heinous enough for the death penalty but it is their country,not ours.However I see nothing funny in the barbaric methods used in Singapore to kill someone.
I don’t know that there’s really a nice, civilized way to kill someone. I suppose lethal injection is the least gross.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 11 28 at 08:17 AM • permalinkEver seen a heroin addict, Geoff?
Ever had to try to patch up the life of the victim of a herroin addict?
I have.
Posted by Susan Norton on 2005 11 28 at 11:02 AM • permalinkThere was a French President who died of a heart attack, about a century ago, while being serviced by a young courtesan giving him the Full Monica.
Dave S.‘s grandpa had the right way to go, death by excessive shagging.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2005 11 28 at 05:52 PM • permalinkI’m with Crash and Nic on this one. Capital punishment is barbaric. Guilty he may be, but his death will not stop the big wheels in the drug trade.
And don’t forget the one minute’s silence on Friday, Nic. Perhaps we should all just be miserable on Friday.
I read a spray in the paper* about Kate Moss(and her boyfriend),and their cocaine habits and how they seem to think that it doesn’t affect anyone else. It went on to outline the murders and other goings on in Columbia due to the cocaine trade.
Idiots.* or linked to this site.
Is Eric Ellis related to Bob Ellis?
His over-the-top article is bound to do wonders for our ‘entry into Asia’: “Singaporean state executes every year, with barely a whiff of the due process Australians would expect of a transparent legal system.”‘Barely a whiff’ of objectivity here.
Has anybody here seen even one straw poll on what the average Australian thinks of this case?
Our media love these polls for other current issues, but now, like Ellis, they present an entirely one-sided picture, failing to note that most of Asia, and 38 US states too, still use capital punishment…#13 Andrea: I don’t know that there’s really a nice, civilized way to kill someone.
Andrea,
I’m certain selling someone an overdose of heroin, or any heroin, isn’t a nice and civilised way to kill them.Morally, the more anti-CP people declaim and emote against the horror of killing any human being, the more they should pay attention to the innocent deaths of the victims which is, of course, the moral case FOR CP in the first place..
#23
I don’t think they can have it both ways, Nic, I am all for locking up the terrorists in solitary, no external contact and therefore no ability for them to spread their poison.John Button would have been hanged for a crime committed by Eric Cooke (the movie “Shark Net” was very loosely based on the Eric Cooke crimes), had there been mandatory captial punishment for murder in Australia. I am unsure of how he wasn’t taken to the gallows.
If they’re going to insist on a minute’s silence for Van Nguyen, why not silence for all the innocent people killed recently by UN incompetence and intransigence? They’re far more deserving of it.
100s of thousands massacred in Sudan…that’s a lot of silence. Hopefully we’d never hear from the Greens and the Dems ever again.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 11 28 at 08:40 PM • permalinkA Minute of silence for a drug runner? What *moron* came up with this idea?
Before the cricket on Friday John Howard should tender an apology to the government of Singapore, expressing Australia’s shame and humiliation at one of our citizens running drugs through Singapore. Then the criminal should be stripped of the citizenship this country granted to him, and which he has then shamed.
Posted by Steve at the pub on 2005 11 28 at 09:24 PM • permalinkWhere do you guys that are slavering for Nguyen Tuong Van to be hung get the notion that he’s killed anyone? Has he ever forced anyone at gunpoint to inject heroin? If so, string him up.
Yeah, the stuff he tried to move is not exactly condusive to good health and well-being. So are many others you can buy down the street.
#15 One of my in-law relatives died from liver cancer attributed, according to medical opinion, to a lifetime of alchoholism. It wasn’t a pleasant way to go, believe me. But I’m not calling for whisky distillers to face the gallows.
Conservatives profess to believe in smaller government, except where it comes to public morality issues like drugs, in which case its more, more, more: more police, more legal power, more punishment. Wonderful.
/rant off
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 11 28 at 10:54 PM • permalinkCapital punishment is mis-named. The death penalty isn’t punishment, it’s a sanitation measure to get rid of the people who commit those sort of crimes. It’s like shooting a mad dog, only with a judicial system.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 11 29 at 12:09 AM • permalinkAll the media campaigning for PM John Howard to go into a monastery to mourn on Friday should be consistent, and pull all their CP-insensitive TV shows scheduled on that day:
Life of Buddha SBS
They’re Watching Us SBS
Temptations SBS
The Biggest Loser ch10
The Young and The Restless ch9
The Price is Right ch9
Home Improvement ch7
Deal or No Deal ch7
Who Dares Wins ch7
Crimestoppers ch7#27 Lionel and any other naive liberals are referred to Melanie Phillips’ post for a realistic view, highlighting children and drugs:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/Thanks Barrie, but I prefer the tag ‘naive libertarian’ rather than ‘naive liberal’.
Oh, and the article’s irrelevant. Anyone who sells drugs to kids deserves very harsh penalties. Just like paedophiles and child pornographers. But that doesn’t mean consensual sex between adults and adult porn should be criminalised, does it?
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 11 29 at 12:57 AM • permalinkHey I absolutely believe criminalizing drugs is mandatory but don’t know if I support the death penalty for it.Also,maybe the elite in this country could stop referring to drug use as a joke (Glass House snigger giggle head toss tilt)style and academia to regard it as part of uni experience.We should take all drug use very seriously and warn our kids that other countries do too….
The Singapore government is no doubt dismissing Australia’s complaints as utter hypocrisy, and rightly so. These laws have been in place for years; where have the moralists been? Murdering this kid is obscene, but we have no right to expect special treatment for him just because he’s Australian.
As for minutes silences and yellow ribbons, more hypocrisy. What bollocks.
#32 Lionel, we are multicultural here, so we understand liberal and libertarian as the same.
Is it also irrelevant that kiddy porn is still *itself* illegal like hard drugs, in order to protect the lives of the innocent young?
Libertarians like the late S.Aust. Premier Don Dunstan wanted kiddy porn *freely circulating* in our state, even insulting his Governor Mark Oliphant for opposing him.
Irrelevant too?#36 Barrie are you serious about Dunstan? I’m a South Australian myself, and I never heard that. But then, I admit I know bugger-all about the 70s in SA (I was in primary school at the time!).
If you had a reference - article, chapter in a biography, or whatever it happened to be - I’d be very interested.
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 11 30 at 12:42 AM • permalink#37
I did a quick search of SA Hansard and this is really all I could find:not terribly enlightening.
Ah-ha! I have it…
“How Dunstan misjudged Sir Mark Oliphant” (search)
by David McNicholl,
keywords:
Governor of South Australia - Sir Mark Oliphant - Don Dunstan - General Politics - Liberation - Pornography - Freedom - Homosexuality - Salisbury Affair
The Bulletin, 1/9/81 (unknown pages and no notes)
Check the Flinders University Library collection of clippings.Dunstan wore pink shorts to work not only a social solecism but mmm a definite statement of the side he played on.
Didn’t he have a “mail order bride” who was certainly very broad minded and or tolerant of his unusual lifestyle.There was a scandal about a masseur in a gym or something at the time.Allow me a little poetic licence….36
we are multicultural here, so we understand liberal and libertarian as the same.
Hey Barrie? Bite me.
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 11 30 at 03:45 PM • permalink#41, #42 Cross-Pacific language issue. Since such a high % of US voters backed Clinton’s so-called morals in 1999, I just assumed that now liberal=Democrat=libertarian.
The guy only ever handled a Bible as a stage prop.
Reading some bios of him and Hillary only confirms me in this view.
In Australia, though, Liberal is a political term and does not mean libertarian, but ‘liberal’ might well do so.
OK?43
Since such a high % of US voters backed Clinton’s so-called morals in 1999, I just assumed that now liberal=Democrat=libertarian.
Yeah, right. And were they, or ANYBODY calling Clinton a libertarian, at that time or any other?
In Australia, though, Liberal is a political term and does not mean libertarian, but ‘liberal’ might well do so.
OK?Wait, what? Liberal with a capital L and no quotey marks does not mean “libertarian” but ‘liberal’ with a small L and some quotey marks does mean “libertarian.” I doubt that I’d buy this even if I DID understand it, but I definitely do not.
What if I told you I’m a “liberal” in the 18th-century, John Stuart Mill mold? Which I won’t, because that’s a distinction that NOBODY makes any more. Nowadays folks hear the world “liberal” and they think they’re talking about Cindy Sheehan.Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 12 01 at 05:06 PM • permalinkI did say cross-Pacific Stoop, and that’s why I like this site - an educational blog. John Howard has been our Liberal Prime Minister [OK so far?] for 10 years, longer than Clinton’s reign, with more to come, but in 4 elections.
Canadians have Liberals too, but our Liberals are pretty conservative and theirs aren’t. Confused?
‘liberal’ in the US means much like libertarian these days except for protectionism, which is confusing to JSMill followers [19thC, not 18th Stoop].
Democrat Clinton is a ‘libertine’ too, and Hillary also believes in ‘open marriage’.
I agree there are some conservative Democrats, but they seem to have zilch influence on their party’s immoralist platforms [eg ‘Massachusetts marriage’].
By the way, ‘Democrats’ in Australia means spoilers, way-left, kooky, libertarian Marx-mourners. Another perversion of the term.I now know MUCH less than I did half an hour ago. Ahmina go slam my head against the wall for a while, then go to my other job, then come back to this tomorrow, if it’s still here.
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 12 01 at 06:14 PM • permalinkStoop, hope you’re OK… Tell me, how many ‘US liberals’ voted for Bush or other GOP pollies?
And most of them support protectionism, which is not what JSMill or Adam Smith believed in.
So they are more like what we call ‘Labor-left’ here and in the UK - libertarian on moral issues, and statist on the economy - which confuses some old marxists a lot..For the record, JSMill was not against all censorship -he’s been co-opted to claim this.
36 Barrie’s preposterous premise:
Lionel, we are multicultural here, so we understand liberal and libertarian as the same.
is followed by indignant rebukes from S.D.Dave & Dave.S., apparently the twin sons of different mothers.
Barrie’s supporting rationale, 43:Cross-Pacific language issue. Since such a high % of US voters backed Clinton’s so-called morals in 1999, I just assumed that now liberal=Democrat=libertarian. The guy only ever handled a Bible as a stage prop. Reading some bios of him and Hillary only confirms me in this view.
I gotta give this opener a big ol’ “N” for “non-germane.” Clinton’s never been mistaken for a libertarian, and the whole Bible-handling thing is a big fat red herring. There are, in this great, broad, diverse land of ours, Christian AND Jewish AND Atheist libertarians (and Libertarians).
In Australia, though, Liberal is a political term and does not mean libertarian, but ‘liberal’ might well do so. OK?
In Australia, “Liberal” is a brand name for a major political party. As such, I wouldn’t expect it to serve as a very precise indicator of the political philosophies of that party’s members, especially if the party is more than one generation old, any more than the terms “Republican” and “Democrat” have got jack shit to do with the ancient Whig-v-Federalist dispute over states rights in the USA. As for whether small-l “liberal” is closer to the meaning of “libertarian” than large-L “Liberal” is, I say it ain’t. The root word (damn!)... The word-upon-which the term “libertarian” is based is “liberty,” which is the central philosophical premise of all libertarians, while the base-word for “liberal” is, uh, well I’m pretty sure it’s something else.
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 12 02 at 12:28 PM • permalinkBarrie’s further elaboration in defense of his liberal = libertarian slur:
John Howard has been our Liberal Prime Minister [OK so far?] for 10 years, longer than Clinton’s reign, with more to come, but in 4 elections.
So are you calling John Howard a libertarian?
Canadians have Liberals too, but our Liberals are pretty conservative and theirs aren’t. Confused?
‘liberal’ in the US means much like libertarian these days except for protectionism,The fuck it does. ‘liberal’ in the US means welfare-statist pacifist taxaholic. ‘libertarian’ in the US means pretty much the opposite of that, except for the “pacifist” part, on which issue the libertarians of my acquaintance seems to be pretty acrimoniously split. I’m one of the warlike ones.
which is confusing to JSMill followers [19thC, not 18th Stoop].
So if I was a ‘liberal’ in the 18th Century, in the JSMill mode, I’d be, like, ahead of my time, forward-looking, a
progressiveokay strike that.Democrat Clinton is a ‘libertine’ too, and Hillary also believes in ‘open marriage’.
The Clintons are relevant to the definition of “libertarian” the way fish are relevant to the definition of “bicycle.”
I agree there are some conservative Democrats, but they seem to have zilch influence on their party’s immoralist platforms [eg ‘Massachusetts marriage’].
By the way, ‘Democrats’ in Australia means spoilers, way-left, kooky, libertarian Marx-mourners. Another perversion of the term.If you’re using a term like “libertarian Marx-mourners,” then the perversion of the term seems to me to be originating with you.
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 12 02 at 12:41 PM • permalink47 Barrie’s third supporting thingy:
Tell me, how many ‘US liberals’ voted for Bush or other GOP pollies?
Some small positive integer, near zero. ‘US Libertarians’ now, I’m guessing about a third of them voted that way, with the other two thirds split between Badnarik and whatzisname, the pompous narc in the empty suit. Straight up, that USA PATRIOT Act pissed off a LOT of Libertarians.
And most of them support protectionism, which is not what JSMill or Adam Smith believed in. So they are more like what we call ‘Labor-left’ here and in the UK - libertarian on moral issues, and statist on the economy - which confuses some old marxists a lot..
Bah! What do I expect from a buncha antipodeans Strein-speakers who call their coolers “esky"s?! You people can’t even drain your sinks with the water rotating in the proper direction!
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 12 02 at 12:53 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Gallows humour #1 - Nguyen Tuong Van - Who said Asian guys were’nt well hung?