More proof, as if that were needed, that Australians are completely and utterly barking mad, whilst, at the same time, have balls of steel, emerged today.
Via AMERICAblog to Crooks and Liars comes the story of how a bunch of Australian comediens waltzed through the security surrounding US President George Bush - which costs AU$1million per hour - with one of their number dressed like Osama bin Laden:
The comedians, from a show called The Chaser's War On Everything take an honest Aussie's dislike for everything in authority and take it to the max:
Yes. The story is worrying. It is worrying that a AU$1million per hour security force could be that piss-poor. Don't lose sight of that.
And, notice the pattern. The government ends up with egg on its face, but the comedians end up in jail.
Showing posts with label patriotism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patriotism. Show all posts
7.9.07
21.4.07
These Are Our Allies?
One thing that is really getting on my wick is the way that the media over here are treating the 15 Britons just released by Iran.
This whole story must have been quite the dilemma for the rabid right-wingers, especially those at FAUX News and their spiritual brethren.
See, the right-wing mainstream media over here has been very vocal in its support of the Bush administration and, especially, for their efforts to legalise the use of torture - sorry, that's "aggressive interrogation techniques" - by US troops and intelligence personnel. Of course, this means that FOX couldn't exactly condemn Iran for using similar techniques, even when it was concerning illegally detained members of a closely allied power, and especially when the techniques used weren't as bad as those described by some in the media as "frat hazing."
FOX and their ilk have also taken great pains to play up the effectiveness of torture. Phrases like "a weapon in the war on terror" are often trotted out. This all means that they couldn't very well point out that the British troops resisted their captors quite effectively, and, true to their training, provided minimum cooperation whilst doing everything shy of sending up parachute flares to signal that they were appearing in videos and pictures only under duress.
So, the right can't condemn Iran, nor can it support the troops. What's a girl to do?
Well, it seems that The Powers That Be sent down an order from on high: Impugn the troops!
British troops are cowards who crumble as soon as you give them a hard look.
That's the thanks we get for nearly 150 dead and six years of support for Bush's little profit-making scheme.
But it's catching on outside of the conservative-dominated mainstream media.
Top-ranking (and publicity-hungry) US military officers have arrogantly and repeatedly stated that US soldiers would have offered more resistance, that they wouldn't have given up without a fight.
FreeRepublic, the deranged right-wing fucktard's deranged right-wing fucktards, has multiple threads where the Fightin' Keyboarders, safe in mommy's basement, tell us about how the soldiers should have acted, and how they would act if they were captured (and had the balls to join up in the first place).
Hell, even AMERICAblog - one of the more progressive, liberal blogs out there - fires a shot o'er our bows on this issue, erroneously describing Iran as "the enemy."
Yes, it's unfortunate, but the gung-ho, Rambo, Dirty Harry, John Wayne culture in America is so ingrained that some just can't hear for the roar of the testosterone. Stupidity and thoughtless violence is becoming a virtue. Luckily, it's mainly the media and a few wankers with computers, because most people I've spoken to face-to-face understand what really happened and join me in just being thankful that the guys made it home.
Americans in the media (and a minority I've spoken to) stand aghast that the fifteen Brits didn't whip off their shirts, tie on a headband, grab an M-60 and slaughter the entire Iranian Navy before invading Tehran, disposing of the Revolutionary Guard, planning, staging and executing a coup, planning, staging and executing free democratic elections, posing for statues commemorating their bravery and then swimming back to England, making it in time to give 'er indoors a good seein' to, and all in time for the 10 O'Clock News.
Sadly, there are those amongst my countrymen who feel the same way.
Here is the pertinent fact in this case:
The United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does not, at this time, exist in a state of war, neither declared nor undeclared, with The Islamic Republic Of Iran.
Geddit?
This means that the 15 Brits weren't POWs, they were accused criminals.
They weren't captured by the enemy, they were arrested for a crime.
The Geneva Conventions do not apply.
Name, Rank and Number is bullshit.
The Brits weren't cooperating with the enemy, they were doing what they had to in order to survive.
And for all the armchair warriors who believe that there was something dishonourable about the way the Brits surrendered, here's something that I guess would never occur:
Royal Marine Captain Chris Air was in charge of fourteen people; seven Royal Marines and seven Royal Navy sailors, on a mission from HMS Cornwall to board and inspect a vessel suspected of smuggling. These fourteen people were lightly armed and traveling in two "Gemini" rigid raiders. The were confronted by forces from the Iranian Navy and accused of violating Iranian waters. Captain Air knew from his GPS that he was still, at that point, within Iraqi waters, but he also knew that his small crew didn't stand a chance of resisting the Iranians even for as long as it would have taken the Cornwall to arrive. But, more importantly, he was also aware of the fact related above; that Britain and Iran weren't at war.
Capt Air had a choice. Open fire or surrender. Certain of our allies would have you believe that the latter was dishonourable and he should have done the former, even if it cost his life and the lives of his subordinates.
Here is the choice:
Either:
Open fire and "go down fighting", thus sacrificing the fourteen lives under your command, and instigating armed conflict with someone you are not at war with, creating a massive international incident and quite probably sending Britain into a war at a time we can scarcely afford it, with a country with which we have always maintained diplomatic relations and are hoping to have diplomatic relations with in the future, in a region where our activities and the activities of our allies are being viewed with considerable hatred and are already breeding the very terrorism we're supposed to be fighting.
Or:
Swallow your pride, surrender, and let the diplomats sort it all out.
British soldiers are sworn to defend Crown and country, even if the cost is high. Laying down one's life for one's country is a great sacrifice. Capt Air did something much harder, something a lot of Americans - and some Brits - are having a hard time understanding. Most of us wouldn't have had the courage to do it. Most of us would have taken the easy way out and called it "honourable."
Capt Air laid down his ego and his weapon, and in doing so, defended his country.
Bravo.
This whole story must have been quite the dilemma for the rabid right-wingers, especially those at FAUX News and their spiritual brethren.
See, the right-wing mainstream media over here has been very vocal in its support of the Bush administration and, especially, for their efforts to legalise the use of torture - sorry, that's "aggressive interrogation techniques" - by US troops and intelligence personnel. Of course, this means that FOX couldn't exactly condemn Iran for using similar techniques, even when it was concerning illegally detained members of a closely allied power, and especially when the techniques used weren't as bad as those described by some in the media as "frat hazing."
FOX and their ilk have also taken great pains to play up the effectiveness of torture. Phrases like "a weapon in the war on terror" are often trotted out. This all means that they couldn't very well point out that the British troops resisted their captors quite effectively, and, true to their training, provided minimum cooperation whilst doing everything shy of sending up parachute flares to signal that they were appearing in videos and pictures only under duress.
So, the right can't condemn Iran, nor can it support the troops. What's a girl to do?
Well, it seems that The Powers That Be sent down an order from on high: Impugn the troops!
British troops are cowards who crumble as soon as you give them a hard look.
That's the thanks we get for nearly 150 dead and six years of support for Bush's little profit-making scheme.
But it's catching on outside of the conservative-dominated mainstream media.
Top-ranking (and publicity-hungry) US military officers have arrogantly and repeatedly stated that US soldiers would have offered more resistance, that they wouldn't have given up without a fight.
FreeRepublic, the deranged right-wing fucktard's deranged right-wing fucktards, has multiple threads where the Fightin' Keyboarders, safe in mommy's basement, tell us about how the soldiers should have acted, and how they would act if they were captured (and had the balls to join up in the first place).
Hell, even AMERICAblog - one of the more progressive, liberal blogs out there - fires a shot o'er our bows on this issue, erroneously describing Iran as "the enemy."
Yes, it's unfortunate, but the gung-ho, Rambo, Dirty Harry, John Wayne culture in America is so ingrained that some just can't hear for the roar of the testosterone. Stupidity and thoughtless violence is becoming a virtue. Luckily, it's mainly the media and a few wankers with computers, because most people I've spoken to face-to-face understand what really happened and join me in just being thankful that the guys made it home.
Americans in the media (and a minority I've spoken to) stand aghast that the fifteen Brits didn't whip off their shirts, tie on a headband, grab an M-60 and slaughter the entire Iranian Navy before invading Tehran, disposing of the Revolutionary Guard, planning, staging and executing a coup, planning, staging and executing free democratic elections, posing for statues commemorating their bravery and then swimming back to England, making it in time to give 'er indoors a good seein' to, and all in time for the 10 O'Clock News.
Sadly, there are those amongst my countrymen who feel the same way.
Here is the pertinent fact in this case:
The United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does not, at this time, exist in a state of war, neither declared nor undeclared, with The Islamic Republic Of Iran.
Geddit?
This means that the 15 Brits weren't POWs, they were accused criminals.
They weren't captured by the enemy, they were arrested for a crime.
The Geneva Conventions do not apply.
Name, Rank and Number is bullshit.
The Brits weren't cooperating with the enemy, they were doing what they had to in order to survive.
And for all the armchair warriors who believe that there was something dishonourable about the way the Brits surrendered, here's something that I guess would never occur:
Royal Marine Captain Chris Air was in charge of fourteen people; seven Royal Marines and seven Royal Navy sailors, on a mission from HMS Cornwall to board and inspect a vessel suspected of smuggling. These fourteen people were lightly armed and traveling in two "Gemini" rigid raiders. The were confronted by forces from the Iranian Navy and accused of violating Iranian waters. Captain Air knew from his GPS that he was still, at that point, within Iraqi waters, but he also knew that his small crew didn't stand a chance of resisting the Iranians even for as long as it would have taken the Cornwall to arrive. But, more importantly, he was also aware of the fact related above; that Britain and Iran weren't at war.
Capt Air had a choice. Open fire or surrender. Certain of our allies would have you believe that the latter was dishonourable and he should have done the former, even if it cost his life and the lives of his subordinates.
Here is the choice:
Either:
Open fire and "go down fighting", thus sacrificing the fourteen lives under your command, and instigating armed conflict with someone you are not at war with, creating a massive international incident and quite probably sending Britain into a war at a time we can scarcely afford it, with a country with which we have always maintained diplomatic relations and are hoping to have diplomatic relations with in the future, in a region where our activities and the activities of our allies are being viewed with considerable hatred and are already breeding the very terrorism we're supposed to be fighting.
Or:
Swallow your pride, surrender, and let the diplomats sort it all out.
British soldiers are sworn to defend Crown and country, even if the cost is high. Laying down one's life for one's country is a great sacrifice. Capt Air did something much harder, something a lot of Americans - and some Brits - are having a hard time understanding. Most of us wouldn't have had the courage to do it. Most of us would have taken the easy way out and called it "honourable."
Capt Air laid down his ego and his weapon, and in doing so, defended his country.
Bravo.
19.2.06
Dissent and the patriot
One of the most amusing of American political tactics is defining opposition to anything the government says or does as unpatriotic - even treasonous.
Since 9/11 - and to a certain extent, before - anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly support the current administration in any detail is often portrayed as being somehow unAmerican. It is hard, for me, to understand how anyone can fall for this approach, for two reasons.
The first reason is purely a matter of historical merit. The very basis for American society, the origin of the entire nation, is rebellion. It is the belief that authority should be questioned, the total rejection of the notion of infallible government, that defines the creation of the United States of America. That any person - no matter their station or situation - has the right to question and to challenge the government was one of the driving forces behind the USA's struggle for independence.
So central is the concept that it forms the basis for the Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies:
The Constitution of the United States even begins with the declaration "We, the People," a hugely unusual statement for the time. Even today, official documents and declarations issued by most governments - for example, declarations of war - draw upon the authority of the deity or deities that are culturally significant to the country concerned, and it is by drawing upon this divine right that most governments hold themselves to be beyond reproach.
In Britain, for example, such documents are always predicated upon the authority of the Crown, which derives, its traditionally held, from the Christian god. The official title of the Queen goes "Her Majesty, Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland..." and it is held that Monarchs are "ordained by God."
The authority of the American government, however, derives entirely from the Constitution, and the authority of the Constitution derives entirely from the people. It seems completely impossible that any individual could be considered to be betraying his government by criticising it, when he, in a very real sense, is the government, especially when that government is founded upon the principles of individual freedom and liberty.
The second reason is cultural. In Britain, there never would, nor could, be any suggestion that patriotism could be defined as unconditional support of any one party or administration. Such a suggestion would be greeted with howls of derision. Which is not to say, of course, that some parties haven't tried it.
Patriotism is defined - in England - as loyalty to the Crown. Queen and Country. Okay, you can throw whatever god you want in there, too, if it'll make you happy.
Administrations come and go, Prime Ministers change, the Crown is eternal. Everyone from the military down to the Cub Scouts swear allegiance to the Queen, not to the government.
It is just one advantage of a constitutional monarchy, that the head of State and the head of the government are separate. One can disagree with the government - vocally and often - without ever compromising one's patriotism.
I dislike the current Labour government intensely. I think Tony Blair is a grinning twat who needs constant supervision in order that he not turn Britain into some Orwellian nightmare zone.
But call me unpatriotic for it and you'll have a fight on your hands.
I don't have to support my government in order to be patriotic. In fact, when the government is doing harm to the country, opposition is the only patriotic option.
It is, of course, for Americans to decide for themselves how they define patriotism. Is it loyalty to the constitution? To the founding principles of the country? To the institution of government? To the office of the president? To the actual president? To the party?
Whatever one chooses, blind obedience is never a good thing. Had the Founding Fathers practiced that brand of patriotism, there would be no USA.
Since 9/11 - and to a certain extent, before - anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly support the current administration in any detail is often portrayed as being somehow unAmerican. It is hard, for me, to understand how anyone can fall for this approach, for two reasons.
The first reason is purely a matter of historical merit. The very basis for American society, the origin of the entire nation, is rebellion. It is the belief that authority should be questioned, the total rejection of the notion of infallible government, that defines the creation of the United States of America. That any person - no matter their station or situation - has the right to question and to challenge the government was one of the driving forces behind the USA's struggle for independence.
So central is the concept that it forms the basis for the Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it[...]It is part of the First amendment, which not only protects free speech, but also the right of the people to petition the government for "a redress of grievances."
The Constitution of the United States even begins with the declaration "We, the People," a hugely unusual statement for the time. Even today, official documents and declarations issued by most governments - for example, declarations of war - draw upon the authority of the deity or deities that are culturally significant to the country concerned, and it is by drawing upon this divine right that most governments hold themselves to be beyond reproach.
In Britain, for example, such documents are always predicated upon the authority of the Crown, which derives, its traditionally held, from the Christian god. The official title of the Queen goes "Her Majesty, Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland..." and it is held that Monarchs are "ordained by God."
The authority of the American government, however, derives entirely from the Constitution, and the authority of the Constitution derives entirely from the people. It seems completely impossible that any individual could be considered to be betraying his government by criticising it, when he, in a very real sense, is the government, especially when that government is founded upon the principles of individual freedom and liberty.
The second reason is cultural. In Britain, there never would, nor could, be any suggestion that patriotism could be defined as unconditional support of any one party or administration. Such a suggestion would be greeted with howls of derision. Which is not to say, of course, that some parties haven't tried it.
Patriotism is defined - in England - as loyalty to the Crown. Queen and Country. Okay, you can throw whatever god you want in there, too, if it'll make you happy.
Administrations come and go, Prime Ministers change, the Crown is eternal. Everyone from the military down to the Cub Scouts swear allegiance to the Queen, not to the government.
It is just one advantage of a constitutional monarchy, that the head of State and the head of the government are separate. One can disagree with the government - vocally and often - without ever compromising one's patriotism.
I dislike the current Labour government intensely. I think Tony Blair is a grinning twat who needs constant supervision in order that he not turn Britain into some Orwellian nightmare zone.
But call me unpatriotic for it and you'll have a fight on your hands.
I don't have to support my government in order to be patriotic. In fact, when the government is doing harm to the country, opposition is the only patriotic option.
It is, of course, for Americans to decide for themselves how they define patriotism. Is it loyalty to the constitution? To the founding principles of the country? To the institution of government? To the office of the president? To the actual president? To the party?
Whatever one chooses, blind obedience is never a good thing. Had the Founding Fathers practiced that brand of patriotism, there would be no USA.
11.12.05
Nice
Ahh, yes. This is from someone who believes in a holy book that includes the phrases "love thy neighbour as thyself" and "judge not, lest ye be judged".
13.11.05
Remembrance Sunday
The eleventh hour will, thanks to the time difference, be at 6am tomorrow (later today, actually), but as with every other year, wherever I am, whatever I'm doing, I will be thinking of those who didn't come back.
Too often, patriotism becomes confused with jingoism, and words like "honour", "duty", "sacrifice" and "valour" become dirtied in the mouths of politicians who seek to twist them for their own ends. One of the things I try to remember is that we do owe these people. Not because some politician wants us to, but because they fought.
I doubt that many fought for freedom - it's too nebulous a concept. But to fight and die for family, for friends, for countrymen and women, to fight to protect those and that which you love, that is the sacrifice they made.
I'm not interested in comparing or contrasting the previous wars with the current war in Iraq, too much of that is being done already.
I honour those that fought and died for my country. I honour them by deciding issues for myself. I honour them by demanding accountability for those who would send off the next generation of kids to fight and die for their political careers. I am a patriot. I remember.
I can't get a poppy over here, but it's only missing from my lapel.
Too often, patriotism becomes confused with jingoism, and words like "honour", "duty", "sacrifice" and "valour" become dirtied in the mouths of politicians who seek to twist them for their own ends. One of the things I try to remember is that we do owe these people. Not because some politician wants us to, but because they fought.
I doubt that many fought for freedom - it's too nebulous a concept. But to fight and die for family, for friends, for countrymen and women, to fight to protect those and that which you love, that is the sacrifice they made.
I'm not interested in comparing or contrasting the previous wars with the current war in Iraq, too much of that is being done already.
I honour those that fought and died for my country. I honour them by deciding issues for myself. I honour them by demanding accountability for those who would send off the next generation of kids to fight and die for their political careers. I am a patriot. I remember.
I can't get a poppy over here, but it's only missing from my lapel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)