Friday, October 21, 2005

I don’t want to get all parochial or anything, but I feel the question needs to be asked…Why are we importing pigeons? We HAVE pigeons. We even had some pigeon expert come out last year to educate us about reducing our pigeon numbers (his basic advice: don’t feed them, you batty old dears). Now, I am not a pigeon-hater, nor am I a pigeon-fancier. Thus, I am the best and most qualified person to lead this discussion in an objective and disinterested way. And this is where I’m directing it: What’s wrong with our fair dinkum true blue Aussie pigeons? What have Canadian pigeons got that ours don’t (other than avian influenza antibodies)? Yes, perhaps this is an idiotic and jingoistic line to take, but it’s based on sound evidentiary research and thorough consideration of observed phenomena. You see, I’ve seen our pigeons. In the streets and in the sky and what have you. And they look pretty damn pigeon-y to me. Yep, I declare them to be decidedly pigeon-y in a universal, perhaps even ‘world class’, way. So what gives? Anyway, let us just sit back now and appreciate this book...

Now, to another thing. And although I am very pleased that the state premiers seem to be putting up what some might recall as ‘a fight’ regarding the shoot-to-kill part of the federal government’s proposed anti-terrorism legislation, I’m also experiencing the sinking sensation that Howard is sitting back in an "all exactly as I planned" fashion. Because, the debate seems to have become not
"JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! You want to make WHAT legal? And you haven’t even attempted to demonstrate that this unprecedented derogation of civil liberties, which opens HUGE opportunities for abuses, will in ANY way make people SAFER? Get lost, idiot. We are SO not won over, nor are we even CONSIDERING your fucked up plan as a distant possibility. BECAUSE IT IS SO PATENTLY ABSURD AND DANGEROUS AND AGAINST BASIC AND STRONGLY HELD - FOR GOOD REASON – PRINCIPLES RE: HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY. SO GET BENT, NUTTER!"
No, that is not the tenor of the debate we are having. Rather, it’s become all
STATES: "Oh yes, we’ll sign off on these insanities. Absolutely. We have no problem with anything you’ve suggested based on the scanty detail you’ve supplied about control orders, preventative detention, etc. 14 days without charge, you say? Sign me up. It’s only for suspected terrorists, right? Good show. Suspected terrorists are bad (and almost definitely guilty. Where there’s smoke there’s fire, we say. And we completely trust the people you have put in charge of identifying smoke. They’re not called ‘competent authorities’ for nothing). And of course, this is the best and wisest and only way to be anti-terrorist. Truly, we have no problem with this AT ALL. But, hang on a second. What’s this bit here? WE DID NOT AGREE TO THIS! We will NOT support it. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES will we support it! Who do you think you’re dealing with here?!"
FEDERAL: "But everything else is okay, right?"
STATES: "Oh yes. Everything else is fine. As long as you get rid of this shoot-to-kill part, we support you all the way."
FEDERAL: "So, can we make a deal on that?"
STATES: "Oh yes. Absolutely. You get rid of this shoot-to-kill bit and everything's A-OK."
FEDERAL: "Excellent."
STATES: "Why thank you. Yes, we really are excellent chaps, aren’t we? We definitely showed you a thing or two. And we MOST definitely gave the impression to the public at large that we had reigned in and/or expunged any excesses you had in the works. Yesiree. You’ll think twice before trying to dictate terms to US again. Because WE are a very difficult and demanding bunch who vehemently STAND OUR GROUND, however incidental that ground may be. Sweet sweet victory. Did you SEE how masterfully and righteously we positioned ourselves to reduce the parameters of the debate?! Hey..."
This is not good.

No comments: