|
2013
Nov 4, 2013 23:19:10 GMT 10
Post by jack on Nov 4, 2013 23:19:10 GMT 10
So okay, I've made some positive noises about the troothiness of the thesis presented in the 'JFK The Smoking Gun' program (JFKTSG).
Yet still I must express some concerns about the case as presented.
For one thing, Secret Service agent Hickey's discharging (accidental or not) of a semi-automatic weapon into the President's brain can not have escaped the attention of his colleagues at the scene.
Why then was Hickey charged with securing the safety of VP Johnson at Parkdale Hospital?
More crucially, JFKTSG asserts (at some length) that the Warren Commission was at best incompetent - or at worst quite unscrupulous - about determining 'the truth' about the events in Dallas.
And yet it doesn't occur to JFKTSG's producers that this apparent laxity might call into question the commitment and transparency of government instrumentalities about safeguarding democratically elected officials. I mean, surely there comes a point where the imperative of good governance will override lesser considerations, such as maintaining public confidence in the Secret Service (many of whom, JFKTSG asserts, were nursing hangovers at time of the assassination).
Interestingly, the program painted Warren Commision assistant counsel Arlen Specter (later long-serving Democrat/Republican/Democrat senator) as a somewhat shady and/or conflicted character, who was responsible for propounding the so-called 'single bullet' theory that the program roundly debunks.
Finally, notably at variance with JFKTSG's insistence on a rear entry wound, the 8mm footage of the 'kill shot' captured at the scene by Abraham Zapruder clearly suggests a frontal entry causing Kennedy to slump back and to the left.
Anyone familiar with that footage will see how the President slumped back and to the left.
Oh by the way, have I mentioned how Kennedy slumped back and to the left?
|
|
|
2013
Nov 5, 2013 20:04:07 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 5, 2013 20:04:07 GMT 10
I think Obama's currently demonstrating an excellent reason to negotiate with Iran ....
... it really pisses off the Saudis.
|
|
|
2013
Nov 7, 2013 22:21:35 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 7, 2013 22:21:35 GMT 10
I just watched QandA and the video is even better than the transcript.
Something that obvious from start to finish ... Peter Hitchens could not bring himself to even LOOK at Dan Savage. Not a glance. Even when Peter was speaking to Savage, he had his head turned slightly away. He'd wave his arms in the general direction of the other end of the table ... but I don't believe he looked towards Savage even once. In over an hour of debate.
Wow. Hitchens really hates that guy. I wonder why. It can't be because Dan said "cunnilingus", surely?
Hitchens was staggeringly uncomfortable the whole way through. He couldn't talk honestly about sex directly even once - just kept using euphemisms and ridiculous vague generalisations.
|
|
|
2013
Nov 7, 2013 22:39:39 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 7, 2013 22:39:39 GMT 10
Yeah, ok. Now having watched it to the end and seen the inaccuracies in some of the "coverage" from our friends on the right, I think I understand why so much effort had to be spent spinning it, to attacking savage and rescuing Hitchens (up to and including misrepresenting the things that were actually said, not to mention the audience reactions).
The reason? Because Hitchens really let the side down. He was terrible, barely even phoning it in. He tried to make out that he had something to say with passive-aggressive grandstanding, but almost never backed it up - when challenged he just ran away and claimed victimhood (stop asking questions! Ow! Ow!). He occasionally said something interesting, but usually immediately made a goose of himself by trolling the audience. He only ever really seemed comfortable when trotting out christian talking points that seemed irrelevant to the context. I know he can do better than that, because I've heard him do better than that. He was visibly uncomfortable about the presence of Dan Savage, too. That was just plain weird.
Hitchens actually got quite a lot of support from the audience - bolt's wrong about the audience not understanding his "dangerous idea" proposal until Hitchens explained it. They very obviously understood it, and cheered. I think may bolt sees the things he thinks he needs to see. Hitchens had friends in that audience - maybe next time he shouldn't treat them so badly.
Greer was good value, though. Except I didn't quite get where she was going with the initial thing about the Iraq war. And I wonder if she's ever taught college-aged boys - because they get dumped too. Maybe she's just never noticed that?
|
|
|
2013
Nov 8, 2013 11:48:49 GMT 10
Post by angra on Nov 8, 2013 11:48:49 GMT 10
This is serious shit... Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan "Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will, a variety of sources have told BBC Newsnight. " www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846
|
|
|
2013
Nov 8, 2013 17:43:36 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 8, 2013 17:43:36 GMT 10
"Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will, a variety of sources have told BBC Newsnight"
They've been a bit annoyed lately because obama's talking to Iran, not bombing Assad and not causing enough trouble for Israel. One presumes this is something they've leaked to the media to indicate their annoyance.
They'd be insane to consider a nuclear arsenal - it's not worth the trouble it'd bring. And what would it get them anyway? It's not like anyone's planning to invade saudi arabia. Their security problems are sealanes and domestic - neither of which are very usefully handled with big bombs from the sky. Meanwhile their economic security will still be underwritten by somebody else's navy, and the US is hardly just going to step aside.
|
|
jreidy
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by jreidy on Nov 8, 2013 18:36:14 GMT 10
Re Saudi, scary but it does make sense, they have plenty of money, a motive and lots of desert to hide them in.
|
|
jreidy
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by jreidy on Nov 8, 2013 18:38:03 GMT 10
All true MOC, i am just not sure the Saudis are into rational thinking.
|
|
jreidy
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by jreidy on Nov 8, 2013 18:43:21 GMT 10
There was a good letter in the SMH today re Howard's climate change , comparing how Howard was quite happy to accept WMD on faith, but disregarding evidence re climate change. Although really I didn't believe Howard then, the lib policy in 2007 was politically driven.
|
|
|
2013
Nov 10, 2013 9:21:49 GMT 10
Post by angra on Nov 10, 2013 9:21:49 GMT 10
You get more information about the boats fiasco from the Indonesian media than the Australian (thanks to Morrison's censorship). From today's Jakarta Port... "Agus Barnas, a spokesman for the Office of the Coordinating Political, Legal, and Security Affairs Minister, said the government’s policy was that Indonesia should no longer accept asylum seekers from Australia. Out of six asylum seeker boats rescued by Australian vessels recently, Indonesia declined to receive the last three requests for transfer, which happened between September and November, Agus said. He explained that there was no agreement with Australia on the issue. “Foreign ministers from both countries discussed the issue in Bali [today] and there has been no progress,” he told The Jakarta Post over the phone on Friday." www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/11/09/ri-oz-maritime-standoff.html
|
|
|
2013
Nov 10, 2013 12:50:39 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 10, 2013 12:50:39 GMT 10
"more information about the boats fiasco from the Indonesian media"
I'm sure you mean the NATIONALIST Indonesian media. Why trust them - they don't have Tony's interests at heart, so they're liable to tell you anything!
|
|
|
2013
Nov 11, 2013 9:28:50 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 11, 2013 9:28:50 GMT 10
Yes, please
[url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-11/war-and-memory-australians-experiencing-commemoration-fatigue/5081544?section=act ]'All commemoration is political': Historians lead charge against Gallipoli 'myth'[/url]
Yes, I believe I understand the significance of Gallipoli, and I don't think we need to fight over whether it's more or less important than PNG. But neither of those events was how Australia was actually born as a nation - and THAT is something we hear almost nothing about.
As an aside - I also worry that an emphasis on those particular campaigns tends to overshadow other important (and just as heroic) military engagements. It's almost like the only things that Australians need to know about our military history are Gallipoli and Kokoda. Don't laugh - think about it first.
I think it was Barton. - some people on TV once
|
|
|
2013
Nov 12, 2013 4:45:05 GMT 10
Post by angra on Nov 12, 2013 4:45:05 GMT 10
Does News Ltd inhabit the same universe?
This morning The Australians editorial -
"Indonesia helps AFP stop boats. MORE than 1100 asylum-seekers have been stopped from coming to Australia by boat as the Australian Federal Police and its Indonesian counterpart greatly boost their offshore disruption activities.
As the government continued to fend off criticism it had botched the relationship with Jakarta following a high-seas stand-off over the weekend, The Australian has been told tensions with Jakarta have not had any impact on co-operative law-enforcement measures between the countries."
Bolt -
"No way there is disarray over Abbott boat policy"
But the SMH reports -
"Tony Abbott warns Jakarta on refusal to accept asylum-seeker boats. Prime Minister Tony Abbott has fired a verbal warning to Jakarta that Australia is not happy over a standoff in which a boatload of asylum seekers landed on Australian territory"
And the Jakarta Post says -
"RI rejects Australian dictated solutions on people smuggling. The Maritime Security Coordinating Board (Bakorkamla) says it rejects being dictated to by Australia in deciding the way it handles boat people wanting to enter the country.
It said the 13 marine authorities tasked with handling people smuggling would refer to Indonesian laws, not to those preferred by Australia.
Bakorkamla executive director Vice Adm.Bambang Suwarto said the 13 authorities should not comply with Australia’s wishes, that boat people be stopped in any way possible."
|
|
|
2013
Nov 12, 2013 8:53:32 GMT 10
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 12, 2013 8:53:32 GMT 10
Random observation of the day ...
Why are alcoholics never (or at least extremely rarely) just termed "addicts"?
Yeah, sure, there's a special word for it, but it seems like a strange and careful cultural/semantic distinction. I was listening to a Dr Drew thing recently and he was talking to a woman who'd had some problems with alcohol and he briefly talked about the problems/risks of addicts and relationships. It stopped me in my tracks - I don't think I'd never heard an alcoholic described as an addict before. It's exactly the same thing, and all of the same considerations and problems apply. Would calling a spade a spade be helpful, maybe? Would it help blossoming alcoholics to take their situation a bit more seriously? Or do we need our cultural crutches enough that we'll just throw a tablecloth over some addicts and pretend they're fine?
Angra - I think fairfax and NEWS each inhabit their own universe at the moment. They're undoubtedly both picking the sources that confirm their preferred theses. Fairfax might well be reaching, but I also tend to conclude that NEWS is just plain lying. But who knows really. I think you're probably right about just ignoring the australian press and finding out what Indonesian reporters are writing about.
I think the refusal to take the boat back is hardly a big deal - they don't want responsibility for the people on that boat any more than we do (what happens next - they just let them go? Do they suddenly have the Australian press giving them crap about resettlement? Do they now have to CHARGE them with something?), and Indonesia knows that Canberra needs Jakarta on that issue more than the other way around. If it hadn't been splashed over the front pages then maybe a deal could have been struck, but I think it's ultimately something that will get figured out.
Bolt megaphoned about "nationalist" Indonesians, but wow - he should have read some of the comments on his own blog. Not backing down was less about border policy to those guys than it was about showing Indonesia who's boss. Awkward.
|
|
|
2013
Nov 12, 2013 15:24:28 GMT 10
Post by angra on Nov 12, 2013 15:24:28 GMT 10
Did you see Clive Palmer's NPC speech?
He got stuck into Murdoch, Abbott and entrenched interests and the two-party stranglehold.
Sure he's prone to the occasional Malapropism, but so is Abbott. But of course he's one of the wealthy elite himself, so how can we take him seriously?
A loose cannon on the deck? I think the Righties are a bit scared, as he can tell stories from the inside. No wonder the Murdochians are portraying him as a buffoon.
Expect a concerted effort to muzzle/denigrate him. He doesn't fit the mould.
|
|