Cheeseburger Gothic

Worst. Opposition. Ever

Posted October 7, 2014 into Blunty by John Birmingham

At le Instrument.

It might be time to move on from bitching and moaning about the Worst Government Ever, to pondering the possibility that we're also living in the golden age of the Worst Opposition Ever. Some of the worserer newspapers with the dumberest readers made jolly sport a few weeks ago when the Daeshi bandits of ISIS hacked their way into public awareness, solemnly intoning the reliable old chestnut about evil only requiring that good men do nothing before it can get its extra sparkly disco pants on.

But what about the Worst Government Ever? What does it need to boogie oogie oogie until it simply cannot boogie no more?

The answer's simple. The tin-hearted, morally bankrupt ALP of the modern era.


49 Responses to ‘Worst. Opposition. Ever’

insomniac puts forth...

Posted October 7, 2014
After seeing Chris Bowen on the weekend, it reoccurred to me that people like him, Albo, Tanya are all pretty direct speakers, but Bill waffles on a bit and introduces too many hokey sayings into his press conferences. Is that a result of overly excessive focus group crap, or is that just Bill? It would be interesting to see if the former people mentioned would change their speaking style upon assuming the leadership if focus groups really do have that much influence. People want to hear things straight and not spun.

Respond to this comment

Barnesm has opinions thus...

Posted October 7, 2014
Still trying to post of at Blunty, however I think the satirical site The_Shovel captured the current ALP strategy in this piece.

Respond to this comment

Darth Greybeard has opinions thus...

Posted October 7, 2014
I don't give a rat's arse about "small targets" or governments being voted out rather than in. I want a political party that will say "This is Australia, we don't run concentration camps with kids." Surely whatever your opinion on where asylum seekers should end up, years in those filthy hell-holes shouldn't be on the list? If we can chuck $40M to a pack of corrupt war criminals in Cambodia to take 5 people, surely we can spend it on faster cheaper on-shore processing?

Shorten is so weak I wonder at times if Abbott has something on him. Our collective weakness for the Strong Man leader will see Abbott into a second term, even if he destroys our manufacturing industries, privacy, press freedom, sells the ABC, Medicare and whistles up racism everywhere. I think LBJ said "I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

Paul_Nicholas_Boylan mumbles...

Posted October 7, 2014
I didn't realize that LBJ let that little secret formula to divide, conquer and exploit the poor slip.

NBlob asserts...

Posted October 7, 2014

I have it from a very good, if slightly batsh!t crazy source that PNB is retained & empanelled by a Conspiracy of Arsewits, serving on their Global Brains Trust . He is tasked with straw man thatching, herring reddening & is one of the consulting architects for logical fallacies & legal constructs.


You know it makes sense.

Respond to this thread

Barnesm swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted October 7, 2014
You had my vote at ""This is Australia, we don't run concentration camps with kids."

NBlob has opinions thus...

Posted October 7, 2014

Did you hear <A href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2014/s4101614.htm">AM this morning</A>?


"It's taken decades but it's hoped the last group of Vietnamese boat people who fled after the war will be resettled in a third country this week.
The Vietnamese nationals have been living stateless in Thailand since the late 1980s but now have almost all the documentation needed to start a new life in Canada.
There they will be allowed to work and for the first time, their children will go to school."


There but for the grace of Dog...


Respond to this thread

Barnesm puts forth...

Posted October 7, 2014

is there a problem at the bluntie?

I thought there would have been more comments on a topic like this one, or is it too confusing for the LNP supporters to comment on a blog that says Labor sucks. Would have thought that was their pervue.

Respond to this comment

Rob mutters...

Posted October 7, 2014

JB. I totally agree with everything you wrote. I would vote Green but they showed their true colours down here in Tasmania and were found wanting.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK21 asserts...

Posted October 7, 2014
Cannot get into BT at the mo:

Watching the comments lately about both the current government, the previous and what’s taking place both in the ME and within our own borders, I have noticed quite a vast sum of people squealing. I say squealing and classify that as objecting to what was done or what is now being done.
And why do I call it squealing, well for the most part, that’s what happens when somebody objects to something but has not alternative to offer that is remotely feasible. Pissing and moaning might well better categorise them, so in light of this, I’d like to see the floor opened up to the masses to put forward their ALTERNATIVES of the following:

1 ISIS- what do they propose we do in Iraq and with the fight against ISIS in general?
2 The boat people, where do we process them and how do we process them. That means, under what circumstances are they allowed into the country and if you let them in, in greater numbers, how do you plan to fund it, what jobs and how do we create them and where do they get settled. (I’m not asking to a plan capable of actually being fully implemented as JB blog would not have enough space. But I want some answers, some broad sketching with at least enough detail to show the thought process has actually taken place)
3 We know that ISIS is operating across the Syrian / Iraqi border and that at the moment the IRAQI’s are simply not capable of stopping them. Are we wasting our money on bombing that’s really largely not going to work? Should we increase boots on the ground with a view to severing the border logistics line and then handing over the zone to the Iraqi army?

Now I have not invoked the “the only thing for fkn evil to triumph “line, but I do want an answer to the question: If we choose not to send troops and aircraft, then others do the same and later on we have to face a much larger threat, perhaps even after an event and all, let’s remember Bali and a boat load of other events (lets call them attacks actually). How will we have justified sitting on our collective hands, what’s the point where the threat is sufficient, is it to only ourselves, is it to other states, is sending our troops over there to forestall such attacks warranted ever? And that’s the larger question. At what point do we do something.
After all, this is not a roll out of pink bats scheme or any number of the other ones that failed. And here’s one more question.
Should we simply be looking at what we wish to do, I suspect to a degree like we are now doing, lets not be overly concerned about the rest, but having decided that action of some sort needs to be taken and having further established it’s of a military nature, then we should engage directly with the IRAQI’s as we are now doing. It’s their country and they are our troops, so liaison between the two directly is as it should be in my opinion. We do better when we do it ourselves and that also includes deciding on who we attack, where we attack and how we attack, mated squarely on how we operate, where we operated and the overall methodology for that. The US is a power house, but when it comes to the holistic approach to modern counter insurgency operations they are shithouse and a rather blunt instrument, dare I say it, much like the ALP in opposition at the moment. Whenever the go forward, they are, largely ineffective and simply cause themselves more harm than good. The Specialist well that’s something entirely different and I’ll not slag off the foot fella, he’s doing as he is directed.by and large, it’s the senior commanders and the political restraints imposed upon them, by persons far removed from the conflicts with little or no appreciation of what’s actually required at ground zero.

Barnesm has opinions thus...

Posted October 7, 2014

Do you recall how many refugees arrived in Australia after the Cambodia crisis. The bipartisan solution saw them processed and settled in Australia. I don't recall it generating huge costs, nothing like the billions it is costing for the current overseas solution.

We didn't have a refugee crisis.

Barnesm swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted October 7, 2014


With regard to Daesh, I don't think its bombs or nothing.

There have been a few proposals put forward by people who work in the area of middle east politics which have proposed strategies for containment, strengthening structures in surrounding countries, supporting those elements of Islam which oppose the action of Daesh and letting the people in Iraq see what a bunch of bearded nutjobs they are when they are in charge.

I can not see how repeating what we have done before in Iraq and has seen the rise in Daesh in the first place we can expect a different outcome THIS time.

Recent reports would seem to suggest that the most significant outcome of the bombing campaign to date is a rise in the numbers of young dissaffected youths flocking to the Daesh cause.

HAVOCK21 is gonna tell you...

Posted October 7, 2014

The trouble is, if we take the other medium to long term road, I’m fairly certain that we will lose a significant portion of Iraq if not the majority and exponentially increase the ISIS reach and hold. I think, that as a result of people mentioning Vietnam and the likes that the west has made the very large mistake of opting for a clean and far less risking air campaign.
What should have taken place here, was a rapid closing of the Syrian and Iraqi border by light mechanised troops, with close air support and I mean choppers. ISIS will not have a night fighting capability like western teams will and that’s a very large advantage, I’m also wondering what pressure was put on the other ARAB states too, not enough in my opinion.
But sitting back, jawing in this case, I think is and was fundamentally wrong and will ultimately cost more lives. The AIR PATROLS and STRIKES are a joke.

Barnesm puts forth...

Posted October 7, 2014

I think you are right and a military commitment to the Syrian/iraq border might have been a better way to go. The problem is air patrols and strikes are easy and quick and the government can look like they are doing something, unlikely as it is to work.

Its probably why our government hasn't been as quick to support efforts to control Ebola in Africa. Air patrols and air strikes just wont work and no one in the public could be convienced they would work no matter how much they trumpet it on the front page..

beeso mutters...

Posted October 8, 2014
I'll take your challenge MR Havock, as soon as you accept mine. Sketch out a plan to reduce the deaths by domestic violence in australia to 5% of what they are now, using a tenth of the money spent on this little foray into the middle east.

Halwes ducks in to say...

Posted October 8, 2014

How is money going to end deaths by domestic violence? Everyone already knows it's pissweak and wrong to bash anyone weaker than themselves. I do think that we don't reflect hard enough on our collective decision to send troops to kill people in our name though. We are effectively at war and we are, rightly or wrongly, wreaking carnage in another country but you wouldn't know it by talking to most Australians. The thing about killing other people and destroying their homes is that it legitimises their hatred of us and their eventual revenge.

beeso swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted October 8, 2014
We jumped off and committed massive resources to war in another part of the world in an instant. Domestic violence is arguably an easier recognised threat to human life, but just sits there, solved by the, oh well don't hit people mantra.

While http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/oct/07/gloria-steinem/steinem-more-women-killed-partners-911-deaths-atta/ this is a bit simplistic, it highlights the disparity between actual outcomes and good political PR.

We are going to iraq why? To defend our way of life? Yet an easily identifiable risk to human life, right here and now, that has been the same for decades, just keeps ticking over.

Ranty Peanut would have you know...

Posted October 8, 2014

http://wartard.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/the-idea-of-isis-history-and-future-of.html
http://wartard.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/the-west-v-isis-air-strikes-just-mean_6.html

On points 1 and 3.

Before anything else, the two links above provide an excellent potted history of where these Daeshi fuckwits came from, who the major local players are, and so on.

Second, I'll take it as a given that "something" ought to be done (by the USA and willing allied governments) about the Daeshi arseholes' destabilisation of the region's existing power balance. People can make arguments for and/or against if they like. I'm not doing that here.

(Really, read at least the "history and future" post. It's a passing fancy to entertain the notion of letting the Saudi ratbastards be hoist on their own Daeshi petard.)

Daesh obviously wants the USA (et alia) to bomb them - the have a very slick media team and they aren't stupid. They know exactly what taunting the USA comes to: Drones and bombs. They'll do as expected and filter into the civilian population. They have few to no permanent bases. Little to no infrastructure. The prospect that dropping bombs on them will significantly degrade their fighting ability is remote. They'll do what their predecessors have done and fade into the civilian population. The USA will bomb hideouts and weapon caches, training camps and SUV convoys. In the process they will doubtless kill more civilians and destroy more civilian infrastructure than they will damage Daesh. Daeshi shitsmears will turn the results of bombings into recruitment material, to attract more fighters, more money, have other organisations ally with them, and carry the Daesh mind-virus farther and farther afield.

Daesh is more than disaffected ex-army fuckstains with AKs and blunt knives. The most dangerous aspect is the idea of Daesh - its existence, relevance, potential.

Bombs will not stop this idea.

Daesh needs to (be seen to) destroy itself.

To do that, there's some political decisions to be made. Who do we want in Syria? Are we willing to prop Assad up against the revolutionary elements we were praising not so long ago? Iran has zero love for Daesh: Can we do an about face and work with Iran to stabilise, and not by having us just stomp in again an overthrow their government? Help Iran will give the Saudi's the massive shits. Are we willing to kick those retrograde fuckers in the nuts and inform them that, while they have a fucktonne of oil, they need to stop sending Shia-haters money, or else we'll see how good their succession planning is. When we finish kicking their scrote up into their nasal cavity, we can turn to Israel and let them know that it time to work for a stable region, instead of constantly shitting in the punchbowl. Turkey, Iraq and the Kurds are close to an agreement anyway. Push for an independent/autonomous Kurdistan.

Apart from that sort of long-term political moves, we can address the immediate problems too.

Instigate Surge 2 - Electric Boogaloo and put every Sunni tribe in the region on the US payroll. It will cost four fifths of fuck all compared to the war options. Pay them more than they can expect from joining/not opposing Daesh and there go all the easy victories for the Army of Criminal Wankers.

The Iraqi PM needs to come to terms with the idea of having a country of both Shia and Sunni, and that shitting all over the Sunni population is a bad idea. That muppet can have that idea crammed into his skull at any time, or, frankly, replace him with someone that can. Give the Sunnis a reason to give a shit about Iraq again, instead of being politically excluded. That, or get used to the idea of two new Iraqs.

Give the Sunnis very real and immediate reasons for not joining Daesh in the forms of carrots. Not sticks.

Next, attack Daeshi money supply. They're selling oil. Make it clear that buying Daeshi oil has Consequences. They're getting money from Saudi, from Yemen, from fuck knows where. Set the accountancy bloodhounds on them - forensic accountants informing the police, resulting in nasty SWAT raids on suit-wearing fuckstains in boardrooms and office blocks.

Freeze bank accounts - they're (allegedly) the most well funded group of arsebastards in the world. They can't rely on cash, surely. Find their banks, take their money. Find out who's laundering their money. Take them out of the picture. Dry up their money supply.

Last, you have access to some of the best trained, best equipped special forces in history - hook that up with all the intel a modern superpower can hoover up. ID the nexus points and take them out - without fanfare, without bluster, just cold, quiet, and very, very specific. No drones. No bombs. Something personal. Maybe a US Marine Raider Stiletto to the base of the skull.

None of that plays well in the media, and doesn't really cram massive amounts of cash into the pockets of the leeches and parasites that infest the military-industrial complex. If you're not blowing the everloving shit out of everything, Halliburton can't charge you $2,000 per brick and sell you concrete at $50 a gallon when rebuilding it.


As for boat people, we change our visa system enough so that asylum seekers can actually get on a plane instead of a boat. We employ (many, many) more assessors in the Immigration department, and we house asylum seekers on the mainland, give them all the medical help they need. Treat them as probably traumatised people fleeing repression, as potential productive Australians in need of help, not condemned criminals fit only for being confined to disease-ridden concentration camps in tropical hell-holes. These people already have job skills, it's not like they some kind of uneducated ignorant fucking savages. Have a government actually interested in full employment again, rather than captive to business interests that demand an unemployment rate high enough to put significant downward pressure on wages. Have government interested and willing to invest in having a highly educated populace. And, if instead of firing Tax department employees who are out there hunting down owed taxes from corporate criminals, we hire more of them and force the likes of Apple and Murdoch's Empire of Shit Media to actually pay what they owe, and return to Australia's Social Democratic past to have a sensible progressive tax system, we can afford all of it. Plus a pony and even a fucking ice cream.

[pant]
[pant]
[pant]

Slightly more incoherent and ranty than intended, but I can't be arse editing. Enjoy.

Halwes would have you know...

Posted October 8, 2014
Gees there are some thinkers on here. The contributions to this blog would even make Christopher Pyne think again. If he ever read them and if he could think.

NBlob has opinions thus...

Posted October 8, 2014
Ranty Peanut.
Good. That's good.
Let the rant fill you, feel the fire coursing through you.
The next stage is to visualise the rant as vortices of pure energy. See the eddies and flow.
Rant masters have been known to use that energy to levitate and allegedly eventually to strike down opponents.

NBlob puts forth...

Posted October 8, 2014
Sorry, my snark sometimes runs amok.



Darth Greybeard has opinions thus...

Posted October 8, 2014
Peanut for PM.

damian reckons...

Posted October 9, 2014
That's okay, the world needs more amok smugglers.

Paul_Nicholas_Boylan has opinions thus...

Posted October 9, 2014
Peanut said:

"Can we do an about face and work with Iran to stabilise [sic] and not by
having us just stomp in again an overthrow their government"

Yes, of course we can, and we are. It is happening now. Our theoretical concern about the destabilizing effect of Iranian nuclear weapons has been displaced by the very real and present desire to provide Europe with an alternative to Russian natural gas - and the Iranian natural gas reserves are enormous.

It is a very exciting negotiation, much more exciting than the monodimensional discussion over the price necessary to purchase the Iranian nuclear weapon threat. That threat was, at best, a far future occurrence, whereas, at this very moment, the winter chill is creeping into an economically depressed and rapidly disintegrating European Union.

AuntyLou reckons...

Posted October 9, 2014
Bravo Ranty Peanut! Well ranted! I think you have quite nicely put forward some excellent points. Now if only someone with actual power would listen. Ah well...guess we will just have to keep shouting at the darkness.....
PNB - glad to hear that some semblance of sense has entered the Iran debate. Now if someone could just apply sense to the Saudi question. But they are our pally-wallies.

Ranty Peanut mumbles...

Posted October 9, 2014
Paul quotes
" [...] stabilise [sic] [...]"

Only good "Z"'s a dead "Z". :P

...and good. Because, frankly, if I've had any thoughts that the Powers That Be haven't already been presented with then we might all as well give up.

I'm not even a "proper" nut - just a ground nut, not one of those bloody high-and-mighty tree nuts.

Darth Greybeard puts forth...

Posted October 9, 2014
Don't be afraid to be a proper nut. There's rather a lot of them around here but even the sane and sensible ones like me don't mind.

Paul_Nicholas_Boylan swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted October 9, 2014
Sorry about the [sic]. It is a professional habit that I realize looks very dickish.

NBlob is gonna tell you...

Posted October 9, 2014

Not significantly more dickish than the fish tie you wear.

Ranty Peanut is gonna tell you...

Posted October 9, 2014
Nah, all good. Figured the [sic] was just because of US Cultural Imperialist<tm> "Z" infection. :)

Respond to this thread

Halwes reckons...

Posted October 7, 2014
I don't think that anyone who lived through the last 10 years in Australia expects governments to act in the peoples best interests and not their own. I certainly see as little merit in the competencies of either side. We live in an age of Murdochism where the great unwashed believe anything fed to them. As a lefty I broadly agree with Mr Havocs post but if I was an ALP member I would have to vehemently counter these excellent questions with spin doctor bullshit. I will say this though. Our lefty people are infinitely nicer than their right wing people. We believe in a fair go for everyone, they believe in winner takes all. We believe in collectivism and they believe in individualism. We believe in socialised medicine and they would feed us the American experience. Our women are the earth mothers who nurture and tend their families and communities and their women fuck like there is no tomorrow. Which side am I on again?

HAVOCK21 mumbles...

Posted October 7, 2014
Is the risk factor different to us, depending on where we take refugee's from and is the social integration and sustainment costs higher? I'm curious, Cambodian V Sudan, V afghani, V Iraqi V somali, are they all the same?

Respond to this thread

HAVOCK21 reckons...

Posted October 7, 2014
Is the risk factor different to us, deopending on where we take refugee's from and is the social intergration and sustainment costs higher? I'm curious, Cambodian V Sudan, V afghani, V Iraqi V somali, are they all the same?

Barnesm asserts...

Posted October 7, 2014

Thats an interesting question, also is there a culture lag on this side. Was it easier to intergrate in 80s, or 90s than it is now?

insomniac would have you know...

Posted October 7, 2014
Even with the current xenophobic chatter, most people wouldn't know someone was a refugee unless it was spelled out in crayon, so integration in terms of not being outed is probably easier than actual assimilation into society.

Barnesm reckons...

Posted October 7, 2014
Aren't we making them wear big neon illegal immigrant labels? Wasn't that part of the recent legislation for TPVs?

Respond to this thread

HAVOCK21 reckons...

Posted October 7, 2014
That’s interesting because I have spent the last20 minutes on and off thinking about this. TWO things we use to detect people and that is typically eye sight and noise or the person’s accent. So a person from the Sudan typically has far darker skin, more so than a person from Cambodia and let’s remember they have been here longer as a rule. And the issue of voice does not then really present itself. Also, have you notices that the average height of Sudanese youths seems to be quite tall. That’s another small factor in standing out in the crowd.

So if you then adopt the position that a reasonable proportion of the populous are racially skewed in the wrong direction, be it through ignorance or other more dangerous reasons, then having a presence where you are very readily identifiable unfortunately does not help. And short of trimming the legs, I wish I had an immediate answer.
I think it’s a time process, keep pushing and keep telling the community what is acceptable, but I also think, depending on where they have come from and the circumstances of their arrival we must tailor the integration process for this. If we do not, the integration fails, segregation succeeds and we have a divided community………… and that’s dangerous in our current climate.

Barnesm swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted October 7, 2014
I think whilst there have been problems, historically Australia has done better than some country's at integrating immigrants. I have no idea why given how much shit they have been given when they arrive.

Paul_Nicholas_Boylan mutters...

Posted October 7, 2014
Barnes - institutional racism/bigotry is not relevant unless coupled with widespread societal racism/bigotry. Sure, you give them hell before and as they arrive, but you provide a reasonably fair playing field after that.

Respond to this thread

Chaz swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted October 7, 2014
As soon as someone starts quoting Russel Brand as a font of all wisdom you know the comment thread is FK'd

Darth Greybeard has opinions thus...

Posted October 7, 2014
I think Comic Sans is the font of all wisdom?

I don't like Russell Brand much. That "joke" on Andrew Sachs was cruel, gross and utterly uncalled for. Having said that, humans are complex beasts and I have found some of his comments sensible, accurate and bitterly angry about things which deserve anger. There are people I like whose beliefs seem illogical and destructive and people I don't like who have the same social justice triggers I do.

There are plenty of complaints about the composition of our current Senate but it's been interesting to see that even people like Leyonhjelm or Day or Muir (god bless him) and even Clivasaurus can, just sometimes, support a sensible idea. Before going back to barking mad. Considering our near-invisible opposition, this loopy Senate might be the best hope of minimising the "IPA list" damage of Abbott's first term.

Barnesm is gonna tell you...

Posted October 7, 2014
When they announced with High confidence that the Higgs Boson had been found the physicists used comic sans font. They then petitioned Microsoft to change the name to cosmic sans.

Chaz swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted October 8, 2014

Greg, the problem is I think he's very false. I don't truly think he believes what he says but is doing it to be maintain a media presence. But yes the Andrew Sachs gag shows the sort of person he is.

Paul, think you mean Bertrand Russel!!


Paul_Nicholas_Boylan reckons...

Posted October 8, 2014
Chaz - one of these days you and I will lift a pint together. But until then, bugger off: I know the difference between Russell Brand and Bertrand Russel - one of them is gay; the other had weird sex with Katie Perry. And I do mean weird: I have pictures to prove it. That poor woman. My heart goes out to her. No one should be forced, by love, to endure such machinations.

Barnesm is gonna tell you...

Posted October 8, 2014
Wow never new he had it in him. Did it involve a teapot?

Respond to this thread

Des would have you know...

Posted October 8, 2014
Best Blunty i have read in ages….funny how this trend in Labor was already under way when we were at UQ back in the eighties…even then it was clear that the top end of the party (of which uni politics is the petri dish) was being overtaken by sociopathic little monsters and hacks…and here we are a quarter of a century later, with Shorten (another strange Jesuit like Tony), and Anastasia as the state opposition leader…one might have thought that in between there would be some intervening change of direction. i suppose Latham might have been that moment, had it not been for Latham's own wiring problems.

Respond to this comment

Respond to 'Worst. Opposition. Ever'

Follow along with RSS