Sunday, January 09, 2005

ALARM-BELLS FOR AUSTRALIAN BLOGGERS!

Some academics from the peacenik end of the Australian church community were recently commissioned by the Australian Federal government to do a report on "Multi-faith" (translation: Islam-promoting) activities in Australia. Summary here. The full report (PDF) is mostly a combination of mush and political correctness but one of its recommendations is downright hilarious: It recommends that public use of the cross be discontinued and a "composite symbol" be developed to replace it. My mind it quietly boggling at what a composite of the Christian cross and the Muslim crescent might look like! Pretty confusing, I guess.

Another recommendation is not so hilarious, however. Under "Websites and Web Links" it says (p. 115): "The monitoring of Australian-based religious websites by religious leaders themselves and by government authorities charged with administering legislative acts concerning racial and religious discrimination has become a priority". And in their final recommendations under the heading "Constructing a Multi-Faith Australia" (p.125), it says this about websites: "The study uncovered legitimate concerns about the material of several websites of faith communities, particularly their links to racist websites offshore. At this stage, it is appropriate that a process of self-regulation remain in place but the issue needs to be monitored by the Council for Multicultural Australia. Accordingly, it is recommended that: All faith communities be encouraged to put in place mechanisms for a continual monitoring of their websites for materials or links whose content might damage the harmony of Australia's multi-faith society." (Translation: Criticism of Islam on the net must be censored).

So they think the government should censor websites that are critical of Islam but are being all moderate at the moment and are recommending self-censorship only. But the whole idea of political censorship of the net is of course obnoxious. So Australian readers should talk to whomever they can to make sure that this bit of Fascism goes no further. It WOULD of course be the Leftists who want political censorship. Hiding inconvenient information is essential to the Left and they are pretty good at it. How many people know, for instance, that Marx and Engels were antisemitic German nationalists long before Hitler thought of it? But for the web, I doubt that anybody reading this would know that. See MarxWords.

*************************************

ELSEWHERE

Wow! You learn every day! Like most people I had always accepted that Hitler's stated reason for invading Russia -- to beat the Russians to the punch before they invaded him -- was just a pretext. I should have known better. Hitler was as brilliant a political operator as he was an incompetent General. Up until the invasion of Poland, all his many victories -- including the annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia -- had been political. It now turns out that he was absolutely right about Russia. He may have beaten them to the punch only by months. A book written by Victor Suvorov -- a former major in Soviet military intelligence -- has been excerpted here and what is tells is stunning. Just one point: The Soviets had over a thousand fast WHEELED (trackless) tanks by 1941 -- tanks which could only be used on Germany's autobahns. They would have sunk (and did sink) into the ground on Russia's rough roads. By striking into Russia first, Hitler rendered them all useless. A must-read for anybody interested in history or in militaria.

There was some stunning hypocrisy and inconsistency coming from the Democrats during the confirmation hearing for the Attorney General designate, Alberto Gonzales. All normal form for Leftists, I suppose. See here

Why the rules allowing filibustering may have to be changed: "It is worth recalling that Mr. Bush campaigned throughout 2004 against the Democrats' obstructionism in the Senate, which was most clearly epitomized by the unprecedented filibuster campaign the minority party waged against 10 judicial nominees to the nation's circuit courts of appeal. Indeed, the president's coattails played an indispensable role in ousting Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the leader of the filibuster campaign whose judicial obstructionism played a major role in his electoral defeat. ... During the 108th Congress, in a campaign of unprecedented scope and breadth, Democrat senators successfully voted 20 times to deny cloture on judicial nominees. Invoking cloture would have ended the Democrat filibusters being waged to prevent an up or down vote for the 10 nominees to the appellate courts. ... A review of Senate history illustrates just how unprecedented the Democrats' filibustering campaign against judicial appellate nominees has been. ... From 1949 through 2000, cloture was sought on only 13 judicial nominations, including twice for William Rehnquist, whose nominations as both associate justice and chief justice of the Supreme Court were filibustered. ... During President Bush's first term, however, cloture has been sought on 14 judicial nominations. ... Democrats have successfully filibustered 10 of the 45 circuit court nominations by President Bush that have made it to the Senate floor. That's more than 20 percent. It is a campaign that has been as unprecedented as it has been outrageous."

There is a pompous Leftist ass (as in donkey) called Steve Kangas who claims to have all the answers to why Leftists are right and others are wrong. I guess he has convinced himself but convincing others will be harder. I have shown here how far-Left and quite stupid is his treatment of one topic at least. He starts out by defining socialism in such a way that only Communists can be socialists and then defines socialism in a way that would exclude Stalin from being one! So is ANYBODY a socialist according to Kangas? Only Mr Brain-dead Kangas himself, I guess

One of my readers recommends the book The Virtue of War as making the case for the Iraq involvement from a Christian "just war" perspective. There is an interview with one of the authors of the book here

Awkward for the Left: "Those who made their annual trip to church on Christmas day will have to think again. Research shows that regular churchgoers live longer than non-believers. A 12-year study tracking mortality rates of more than 550 adults over the age of 65 found that those who attend services at least once a week were 35 per cent more likely to live longer than those who never attended church. The research also found that going to church boosted an elderly person's immune system and made them less likely to suffer clogged arteries or high blood pressure. Susan Lutgendorf, psychology professor at the University of Iowa, who carried out the study, said: "There's something involved in the act of religious attendance, whether it's the group interaction, the world view or just the exercise to get out of the house. There's something that seems to be beneficial."

There is an interesting review in Commentary of the book Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare by Jason DeParle. It shows from life-histories how 1990s welfare reform actually worked. Most dole recipients were working anyway and just worked harder when they lost benefits. The review also mentions calls for the government to somehow make black males into better fathers! That strikes me as terminally weird. There really are SOME limits on what governments can be expected to do.

The latest posting on MarxWords shows that Engels thought Germany had a right to conquer other countries because it was more civilized. Yes. That was Engels, not Adolf.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftists is perfectly shown by the Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftists are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions.


Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

********************************

No comments: