Note - from June 24th 2009, this blog has migrated from Blogger to a self-hosted version. Click here to go straight there.
Two things have impinged upon my brain this week; one which has been touted by all and sundry as being of global significance, and one that's been given little more than cursory attention. As usual, the media has got it entirely arse-about as far as the actual significance of the two events is concerned.
The first event is the death of Pope John Paul II - the "leader" of the world's Catholics. That's the one of supposedly cosmic importance - despite the fact that 90% of Catholics are complete and utter hypocrites (the same goes for most adherents of any religion... except possibly Buddhism).
I dont' take the death of any man lightly, but as the saying goes, "all history owes the dead, is the truth". And the truth is, there are thousands of clergy more worthy of praise and recognition, than Karol Wojtyla. These are the guys who never "make a run for the top" - they toil away, minister to their congregations, and die poor and ignored except by their parishioners. Conversely, there are others who strive for the purple (and sebsequently, the red), and eventually set their sights on the throne. Karol Wojtyla was one of the latter. People don't end up Pope by "accident" or by being the most worthy - in the same way as people don't end up Prime Minister by accident or through "good works". Both positions require diligent politicking, faction-building and more than a touch of megalomania. Anyone who tells you otherwise, is selling snake oil - and you shouldn't buy it for a second.
I hope that my 1996 "tip" to be the next Pope (Josef Ratzinger - head of the Sacre Congregatio Propaganda Fides as The Inquisition is now called) doesn't have the numbers, but my hopes aren't high.
The other event - which has been given only cursory notice despite its extreme importance - is the ongoing trial of "Jihad Jack".
Firstly, he is obviously a "diffie" (a.k.a. a "divvie") - i.e., he's got a roo loose in the top paddock, he's a couple of cans short of a six-pack, he's a couple of sndwiches short of the full picnic.
That aside, the claim - by the government - that the evidence being used to convict him is too sensitive to be made public because of "National Secuity" implications, should scare the crap out of people.
This is the same government who claimed the same sensitivity for the supposed evidence upon which the Australian Foreigner-Killing Force was sent overseas (away from the island it's supposed to be defending). We all know what sort of "national security" was involved there - namely, that if the "evidence" was exposed to sunlight it would be revealed as a farcical load of horse-shit. As the French would say (remember this every time Howard or any politician opens their mouth)... "Quel salade".
The onlyreason that governments refuse to release information to their public (and the rest of the world) is because governments are always doing shit that would make people very very cross if they found out; stuf that is in nobody's interests . Government by the people should be able to frankly disclose its every action... it is only government of the people that requires that some issues be hidden from the herd.
Secondly, "Jihad Jack" is guilty of what Orwell coined a "thoughtcrime"; he allegedly sympathises with foreign agents of influence, and may have been prepared to conduct observations on their behalf. He never actually did anything, but he may have thought about it.
So we have a "Star Chamber" setup where the "evidence" is withheld from public scrutiny, while the charge is something that involves no threat to anyone.
And here was me, thinking we had won the Cold War. After all, we spent TRILLIONS of dollars to stop the nasty Commies from spreading their nasty tyranny...
Frankly, if you're not a fan of al Qaeda, folks like Jihad Jack ought to be encouraged... if al-Qaeda is prepared to write a cheque to every diffie who puts their hand up, to "surveill" military bases, they will go broke faster than One.Tel.
Put simply, they will get bled white by dolts who wouldn't be able to find Watsonia on a Met map or Holsworthy on a satellite image. They wouldn't be able to identify the location of the Cav bases at Puckapunyal, or the SASR over in Perth. Townsville's Lavarack Barracks would elude them, as would the Aviation Regiment at Oakey. The various military installations at Bonegilla and Bandiana (both near Wodonga) would remain a mystery. Even 1RTB Kapooka would probably get overlooked. In short, al-Qaeda'sAustralian branchwould be blind.
Now - given the locations listed above and half an hour in an internet cafe, you can get satellite imagery of every single major Australian defence installation (I haven't listed Navy bases - like HMAS Cerberus - or Air Force bases - like Townsville - because I've got to leave something for you to find for yourself).
So, given that the entire DefComNet is a virtual open book, why would al Qaeda pay some half-wit to take photos? Answer - they wouldn't - but it plays well with the sort of mindless dill who takes network news at face value.
Jihad Jack, David Hicks and the other bloke (from WA) who recently got set up, are all borderline retards; they are about as big a threat to "national security" as that van Tongeren bloke who gets trawled out every six months (whenever the Israeli Embassy calls the government and complains about anti-Semitism... which is when the news coverage gets remotely sympathetic to the Palestinians).
And one last thought - if al-Qaeda is so glad to get white recruits that every diffie who volunteers for "al-Qaeda duty" gets to meet bin Laden, why hasn't the CIA sent a wet team to "volunteer", and then offed bin Laden when the introductions took place?
Answer - because the "met with bin Laden" fantasy is precisely what a diffie would dreeam up in order to more fully flesh out their al-Qaeda fantasy. The poor sod got hold of some dough from a false flag, and is being used to scare Women's Monthly readers.
