Live Whacking

The Dog's Tits
Sasha Castel
Tim Blair
James Morrow
Jason Soon
Paul Wright
Bitchin' Monaro Guide
Drivel Warehouse
Damian Penny
Eye of The Beholder
Gareth Parker
James Randi
Little Green Footballs
Rachel Lucas
Kathy Kinsley
Bizzare Science
Silent Running

These don't suck
Support Israel
Capitalist Chicks
Evil Godless Swine
Really Cute Chess Geek
Daniel Pipes
Professor Bunyip
Hot Buttered Death
Cold Fury
The Rottweiler
Ken Parish
Right Wing News
After Grog Blog
Brain Graze
Amax Weblog
Alex Robson
Angry Anderson

Dickheads Galore
Dick Neville
The Mirror
George Monbiot
Jew Killers United
I Love Osama
The Guardian
Screeching Dweebs
Noam Chomsky
John Gotti Fanzine
Green Left Weekly

MC News
AMA Superbikes
Motorcycle News
Perth Bikes
Bon Trikes
Oz Trikes

Holly Valance
Eliza Dushku
Katherine Heigl
Michelle Williams

Dark Horizons
Roger Ebert
Urban Cinephile

FrontPage Mag
The Smoking Gun
Straight Dope
Against Nature
Australian Skeptics

Assorted Gubshite
Draggin Jeans
Pure rancour
Brunching Shuttlecocks
The Onion

Fuckin' COUGAR!!!
Hahn Ice
Carlton Cold
Crown Lager

Note: the following appeared a couple of weeks back in a mailing list I subscribe to. I have obtained the author's permission to publish it here, unedited.
- Tex

Piss and Moan, but not Think

By M. Scott Eiland

In her latest column Molly Ivins lives up to her usual vapid level of analysis by slipping criticism of Bush's recent Middle East policy speech in between the snide comments and continued bitching about the 2000 election results (*cough cough*--get over it--*cough cough).

Her complaint: Bush saying that Arafat should go is misguided, because it will guarantee that the Palestinians will re-elect him, and that Bush's approach is symptomatic of his contempt for democracy (she throws in some whining about how we didn't rush to the support of Hugo Chavez--friend to Castro and Saddam--when he was briefly overthrown, because, you know, he got 60% of the vote). My reply, once I finish marvelling at how someone with their head shoved so far up their ass
can use a word processor, is to say: democracy is a good, but only in relation to arriving at the same leadership by a different means.

Not to give Ms. Ivins a history lesson, but the Nazis originally gained power through democratic elections: should the world have shrugged and said, "Well, we can't say that that government is evil and should be removed--it might offend them?" Oh, wait, they did. (See the encyclopaedia entry for "Chamberlain, Neville" for elaboration) Gee, Molly, I guess you're right. That worked SO well.

My take on it is this: Bush's comments were aimed straight at the Palestinian people, who will indeed get to choose their leaders, and the message was: "You can stop this whole awful mess by choosing new leaders who don't make blowing up babies a way of doing business, and we will be willing to set aside the past and help you get the state you claim to want.
If you bring back the same old, vicious murdering scum who have been running the show up to now, we're just going to sit on our hands and wait for the Israelis to finally lose all patience and carpetbomb the lot of you into mulch, whereupon most people with any sense in and outside the US will sigh in relief and move on with their lives. The choice is yours."

Would that he had actually said that; of course, it would have sent the editorial pages all over into a hissy fit, but at least the message would be unmistakable, and brain dead twits like Ivins might actually have to write about it rather than her own oh so clever nonsense about how terrible it is that Bush is soft on democracy. Democracy is about the people being
responsible for their own government, as opposed to being helpless victims like the Iraqis or the North Koreans. The opportunity is there: so is the price if they decline to take it.