After the bloodbath in Moscow, many fluffs will now be quacking on about the validity of the Chechen cause. They might even make the rebel leader, Movsar Barayev, into some sort of terrorist poster boy, like Che Guevara. But in this story about him it's obvious that like Osama bin Laden he was just a nasty piece of work who cited religious righteousness or the quest for justice as reasons for his brutal acts.

 
The Washington sniper is a convert to Islam who praised the S11 attacks. The Chechen rebels who stormed that theatre in Moscow are Muslims, prepared to die and kill the "infidels". This info has not been given a high priority in reports I've seen and heard lately.

Imagine if the perpetrators of these acts were Bible bashers. The mainstream media would be awash with anti-Christian bile, I reckon.

 
Just as well these guys got some sort of recognition for their efforts, 'cause they sure as shit didn't get paid (unlike the bureaucrats who run the festival, who do very nicely, thank you!).

 
There are three great posts for Friday 25th by Andrew Sullivan about the Washington sniper.

 
Apparently there's a bra (the Brava) that increases breast size through suction. Although it's not as drastic as surgery, it does seem to be an extremely uncomfortable and embarrassing thing to wear. As the article states: "When you see a Brava being worn, it looks terrifying. It's Barbarella meets Lara Croft - and there is something inherently risible about spending so long with your breasts strapped up in a vacuum, all in aid of making them that little bit bigger. But that's what women want."

Well I suppose they do. It always amazes me what some women will do to make themselves more attractive to men.

Afterthought: Just noticed the damn thing costs close to two thousand pounds. Why not have a baby and breastfeed it? It's cheaper.

 
Here's a great article on George Orwell's less than flattering view of pacifists.

 
I saw a bit of a Crean speech to Labor party members during that reformation-fest a couple of weeks back (on Four Courners). One line really stood out as a prime example of why Labor is becoming increasingly irrelevant: "We must not be afraid of reform. We are the party of reform." It struck me as really dumb. Shouldn't reform occur because it's needed, not because, "Er, that's just what we do."?

That said, the party definitely does need to reform. How best to do it? How about starting by cutting back on all this bloody reforming. If they all sit down, shut up, and have a think about the big picture they'll realise just how shat off most people are with what Labor represents: bimbo feminism, unionist corruption and thuggery, multi-culti monomania, Aboriginal separatism, and all that yammering about "truth overboard" -- which was a yawn when it happened ("What? Reith tells porkies? Tell me something I don't know!") and is a bloody great bottle of industrial strength sleeping pills now.

Once they do this they'll realise there's only one way to truly reform (and save) the party: join the Libs in a coalition.

 
Apparently the incidence of depression in Canada has increased dramatically over the last several years, as it has in many western countries. But what's the cause? I concur with the article, which puts it down to a combination of greater awareness, and all that family break-down and constant work and change. But I also think that it's a self perpetuating phenomena. That is, there's nothing more depressing than hearing how bloody miserable everyone is! And even if that doesn't get you down, and you are a reasonably well-adjusted person, you're quickly alienated from the rest of society since they're all bloody misery-gutses. So, even being happy is ultimately depressing.

So, how to combat it? I reckon we should just ignore it and it will all go away.

 
Here's an interesting and amusing piece about that old conflict: is society to blame for slack-arsedness, or just the slack-arse himself?

 
What? Feminists using their clout unethically to hussle funds for their organizations. How dare anyone suggest it! The accuser must be part of a vast right wing conspiracy.

 
Just when thought that all Australian uni students were fluffy wuffies in training, along comes this one to confound me. Please, let there be many others like her on the way!

 
Ever thought that the Bible's story of our origins was a crock, and that Darwin was full of it too? Well, here's another alternative: we are descended from aquatic apes.

 
Here's a great opinion piece about the tendency for shrinks to pathologise bloody everything, including the universal, inevitable tension between family members.

 
Just found an interesting blog. These guys seem to be pretty thoughtful, without taking themselves too seriously.

 
I know I'm gonna sound like one of those leftie academics who quack on about America being so entranced with showbiz that real life there emulates it. But this Washington sniper drama is panning out like a Hollywood fillum, don't you reckon? He leaves calling cards at the scene, just like the serial killers in any number of Seppo slasher flicks.

And look at this. The cops are sending messages to him through the TV. So the media is a participant, not just an observer. Kind of like the plot of this crap Travolta movie from a few years back.

Spooky.

 
I've heard some fluffs complaining that plans to thwock Saddam are mad, because North Korea already has nukes. "Why not nail that country, too, Dubya? Bit of a double standard there!" they squitter. "And why not go into that other Axis of Evil nation Iran, hey Dubya? What are you, a scaredy cat?"

But they are also invoking double and triple standards. In condemning the use of violence against Iraq, they implicitly condone Saddam's present violence against his people, and potential violence against other states. Also, when they complain that there is only diplomacy with North Korea they are implicitly condoning the use of violence against that country. Sometimes they even commit violence themselves when they rock up to peace marches and hurl nails and firecrackers at the horses (okay, so they're not using WMDs, but it's still pretty mean. Da big happy horsies are nice and fwiendly, after all.)

This is the fluffs' relationship to violence: condemn, then condone, then occasionally commit it. Condemn, condone, commit. Round and round they go, endlessly contradicting themselves, never once being silent or still long enough to really think about things, even for a moment.

I imagine that Bush's answer to the "why not North Korea as well?" question is: "We can't invade every rogue nation on earth simultaneously. One crazed dictator at a time, okay. And let's tread softly with North Korea. It already has a nuke. But with Saddam, prevention is better than a cure."

(For a more thorough description of this theory, read Monday's post here.)