"John Howard is an asshole"

[Torsten]

Today on the National Press Club address David Suzuki gave one of his usual spirited and informative talks. After abusing the food they had been served, President Bush, and the very press and media he was talking to, he then hypothesised about "what would happen if I called John Howard an asshole?"

It was the most elegant way I have ever seen a public speaker abuse a politician with such crudity and without actually being guilty of defamation. It has made me smile all day

I wonder if it will make the headlines as he predicted.

[_e_]

David Suzuki is one of my idols.

Has been ever since i was about twelve or thirteen and started getting into the environment.

He is speaking tonight in sydney.. i really wish i was in the country to see him.

taken from OT-

Quote:

The Australian Conservation Foundation presents:

DAVID SUZUKI

TAKING ACTION FOR A SUSTAINABLE AUSTRALIA

The Australian Conservation Foundation invites you to hear internationally renowned scientist and environmentalist David Suzuki discuss why and how we can create healthier cities and enjoy more sustainable lives.

With an introduction by Don Henry, ACF’s Executive Director, this evening is your final chance to catch David Suzuki on the last stop of his Australian tour.

Don’t miss this opportunity to be inspired by one of the world’s greatest environmental leaders, and hear how you can be part of ACF’s sustainable living program, GreenHome.

Copies and signings of David Suzuki’s new autobiography will be available on the night.

Thursday 19 October 2006

6pm for 6.30pm

Leighton Hall in The Scientia

The University of NSW

Anzac Parade

Kensington, Sydney

For location details visit: www.conferencing.unsw.edu.au/text/venues/scientia/scientia1.htm

$25 full admission fee

$15 concession admission fee (full time student, pensioner or unemployed)

All proceeds from this event go towards ACF’s important work to protect, restore and sustain our environment.

RSVP to the Australian Conservation Foundation: Freecall 1800 223 669

Hawt Canadian elders FTW.

And i second his sentiments entirely!

howard, bush, blair, and all their cronies... what a pack of assholes!

Edited October 18, 2006 by ({E})

[nabraxas]

he's the only person who's signature i ever bothered to get, after he gave a talk on his book "The Japan We Never Knew", even when he's not really talking about the enviroment he's still engaging...

[incognito]

i wonder what ecosystem has been poisoned with the byproducts of the poisonous dye that colored his fashionable blue shirt that HE paid for?

Or what environment has been degraded to aquire the silver that coats his lovely necklace.

Or how much consumption of non renewable fossil fuels is he responsible for thus making extra demand on these resources as a CONSUMER globetrotting around the world? so easy to wave ur finger around at the govt and media, and even be so self righteous to abuse food that u are being served whilst so many people die of hunger. I mean from what i know of him(next to nothing)_ he seems like a great guy.

Just thought id point out some observations.

[_e_]

i wonder what ecosystem has been poisoned with the byproducts of the poisonous dye that colored his fashionable blue shirt that HE paid for?

Or what environment has been degraded to aquire the silver that coats his lovely necklace.

Or how much consumption of non renewable fossil fuels is he responsible for thus making extra demand on these resources as a CONSUMER globetrotting around the world? so easy to wave ur finger around at the govt and media, and even be so self righteous to abuse food that u are being served whilst so many people die of hunger. I mean from what i know of him(next to nothing)_ he seems like a great guy.

Just thought id point out some observations.

jono, i think thats a really cynical way of seeing things.

everything has an ecological footprint, and everyone their own personal 'impact'.

But you really cant get caught up in seeing things in such a way, when really it is a lot more complex then that.

I think its good to aspire to be as sustainable and in balance as possible... but u cant be overtly judgemental of another human, who has done a hell of a lot to get the message throught to western society, because he is human and lives just like you or me.

If anyone should feel less guilt about their impact on the environment, its this guy.

Are u familiar with 'the wisdom of the elders' , or 'the sacred balance' ?

I strongly suggest you purchase and read one of these books, and yes they are made out of dead trees!

[incognito]

fair enough.

i really shouldnt have commented as i know absolutely nothin about the guy,

its just a thought that has been playing on me for a while, that those that profess (loudly) to be all spiritual,pro-earth and at one with the universe are in fact actively destroying it with the rest of us.

Dont get me wrong im not preaching, im as big an ecoterrorist as the next guy.

Ill try and explain my perspective

I am against the war in iraq.The slaughter of innocents, of innocent children.

I mean u dont have to be a genius to realise that the war is about obtaining cheap oil and to fill the pockets of rich men who profit from it. Us as consumers provide the need for that oil. I bet if everyone stopped using oil right now alot of wars and destruction of ecosytems would stop.Is it possible? fuken oath-its a CHOICE. I do think that the consumers have the power and the choice.

I mean i could ride my bike to work, walk to the shops that are 50 metres away instead of driving, get a bloody horse , use a scy (spelling) instead of a wipper snipper, utilize alternate bio-fuels power sources. why not? cos im bloody lazy. Oil is only one consumption of my own that adversely effects the environment.I am providing the demand for this oil, along with millions of others. what do i doi when fuel prices go up??? i whinge. Yet i am terribly against a war on people that i do not know, for which reason is to provide me with a more comfortable way of life.

the reason of the rant i believe is to draw a comparison to suzuki.

i mean he opposes mining, yet he supports it. He is against pollution, yet he supports it.

who is more to blame the person who provides the resource, or the consumer who demands it?

we are all at fault here, no one is innocent.

[gomaos]

What about those ppl who live in the bush where there's no bus?

They depend on cars...

other than that:

John Howard= Asshole!!!

David Suzuki= a truely great man

plus I missed out on the madonna thread:

Madonna= cool, makes many ppl happy (don't like her music much but she's cool)

Bush=the worst asshole in the world, makes many ppl suffer so his buddies in Texas live like millionaire (or are millionaires)

[noun]

Ecological impact and personal "footprint" are issues that I have spent much time thinking about (thanks to ({E}) for putting it succinctly).

I'm self employed as a futures trader (trade financial instruments). This is a job that does very little in essence, except helping to facilitate business namely big business. Now, i'm a bit of lubrication in the dirty wheel that is capitalism, as we all are to differing degrees. It is what we decide to do with our resources (time and money) that counts. Growing our plants, supporting SAB, giving time/money to environmental groups and other groups whose values we share etc etc. Striking the balance. Trying to lessen that "footprint".

As for Howard. Never voted for him or that CONSERVATIVE party. It's a major indictment on the voters of Australia he's been in power for so many terms.

Vote GREENS

[Viking]

I saw the thread title and have to say 'I agree completely'

[spiders]

Like he said - he could just say that he didnt agree with Howard and his policies, and then get ignored, or he could come out and call him a swear word and get in the papers. Sadly in the Herald Scum it only got some minor press, near where a journalist decided to have their weekly anti-greens scare campaign - suggesting their policies are 'like big brother' - so unlike their beloved Howard/Fuhrer... The man who has a minister on his cabenit who thinks that sleep deprivation is an acceptable form of 'interrogation'...

The only thing i was concerned about with Suziki's telling us that Atlantic Salmon farmed in Tasmania is 'full of toxins' - was that because it was smoked? I happen to know a bit about fish farming and there isnt really any scope for them getting more toxins in them than the average fish - their mercury levels are low compared to fish higher up the food chain. Although after criticising the audience for eating it, he admitted he ate it as well...

Someone told me recently that his favourite catch cry is wanting people to act and behave like they did in prehistory - in balance with the land. Sadly, the only reason that lifestyle was sustainable was because there was so few of us - the land could never sustain us if we actively attempted to live like peoples before the rise of agriculture 10000 years ago. So what do we do? I mean things arent great now, but at least now people are held accountable for some of their actions - in the past there was no accountability - unless you believed in God and expected to go to hell for being bad, and before the current organised religion it was just down to the ruler or the dude that 'communicated' or channelled their god - and anything went.

maybe im being cynical but none of the answers are simple - we need to be accountable now, but looking at the past isnt the answer. The past isnt perfect and in some ways its worse...

[spiders]

'the wisdom of the elders' , or 'the sacred balance' ?

I havent read these but can it be really accepted that tribal cultures in the past lived sustainably because of their inate understandings of the environment or more because there were so few of them that their 'footprint' was negliable??

[occidentalis]

I havent read these but can it be really accepted that tribal cultures in the past lived sustainably because of their inate understandings of the environment or more because there were so few of them that their 'footprint' was negliable??

I read them a long time ago, and I'm a little more cynical these days, but I think Suzuki's position is a good one. He's a scientist, but he sees how scientific and subjective/intuitive thinking can work together.

The Wisdom of the Elders was about the ways that indigenous people had included ecologically sustainable practices into their spiritual and mythological beliefs. You're right that low populations were important in the sustainability of indigenous societies but they did have some understanding of environmental processes and how to live within them sufficiently .

I've heard many criticisms of David Suzuki and some are no doubt accurate. But overall I think he makes a real contribution to the sustainability discussion from a holistic scientific POV - which IMO is the viewpoint that will provide us with real change.

Check out his TV series "the nature of things" if you want to see what he does.

[Torsten]

Someone told me recently that his favourite catch cry is wanting people to act and behave like they did in prehistory - in balance with the land.

Far from it on the first part, but pretty close on the second part.

No, he does not advocate a return to prehistoric times and he is well aware that population density makes this a futile proposition. But he does believe in living in balance with the land.

One of his greatest concepts is that anything we do needs to be seen in it's full context and with all it's connections. So, for example, if you want to burn a litre of petrol, you don't just calculate the cost of pumping it from the ground, but you also have to factor in the costs to the environment at the oil well site, to the community at that site, to the indigenous people at the site, and not least the costs incurred for future generations who will have to clean up the carbon dioxide that is released and the cascade effects this may bring about. Once you add all this into the cost of your petrol most of us would not be driving much at all because we could not afford it. By not calculating these costs we are borrowing (ie stealing) wealth from our future generations.

So, first and formost we must establish the true cost of everything and whatever is left that can't be remedied at that point of time has to be improved elsewhere. eg, if we can't regenerate a mining site or oil well site right now because it is still being used, then we need to find an old site that needs fixing. How can we hope to wind back the clock on pollution etc if we can't even maintain a status quo? And that's the core message he is spreading now.

He has moved on from the small detail of pinchng pennies here and there and has engaged governments, industry and NGOs into a grand concept of sustainability. The gist of it is that he has identified 9 elements of sustainability, eg soil, air, drinking water, etc. Then he goes and ask people whether they believe they would truely WANT clean air in 25 years and everyone answers yes, because they know it is important for their children. Once he has the committment for the target it is then up to scientists and politicians to work out how to achieve this. Kyoto is just one minor step in the right direction, but it is time to now apply this to the whole world and to all resources that we need to make sustainable.

Fact is that if we continue what we are doing we will poison ourselves in a few centuries. We can't keep hoping someone eles ein the future will sort out the mess we created. Imagine how the history books will describe us as the decadent, selfish, greedy and ignorant fools we are.

I think David Susuki 'wasting' fuel to spread his message is a minor consideration in all this. Don't forget that the oil lobby spends much more in order to silence people like him. Educators often have to look beyond that.

To get back to the original statement, I think a lot of people are scared of his ideas because he often draws on things he has learnt from indigenous people. That does not mean he wants us to return to some primitive existence though. he is a geneticist after all and he loves science - which is obviously not compatible with prehistoric existence. Let's stick to the facts.

[nabraxas]

I havent read these but can it be really accepted that tribal cultures in the past lived sustainably because of their inate understandings of the environment or more because there were so few of them that their 'footprint' was negliable??

sounds like you've been reading the Herald Scum's Andrew Bolt :

THIS weird love our cultural elite has for the Noble Savage can, of course, be as innocent as Rebecca Hossack's dream of being buried like an Aboriginal.

Hossack, who runs a swish art gallery in London and was the first cultural attache at our High Commission, has two Aboriginal burial poles in her basement: one for herself and one for her husband.

As the glossy Melbourne Magazine ooh-ahhed this month: "When she dies, Hossack says, her bones will be bleached on the roof of her London house, placed in her burial pole and sent back to Australia."

Like I say, it's innocent. No one is inconvenienced, unless Hossack's heirs get the creeps waiting for the skeleton on the roof to turn white. Or the neighbours take fright at the vultures suddenly settling on the gutters of Notting Hill, clutching looser bits of Hossack's rotting remains.

You might think other signs of this new craze for the myth of deeply spiritual savages living in some Garden of eco-Eden -- with white capitalists cast as the snake -- are just as harmless.

Who cares if the ladies of Armadale decree that dot paintings by artists certified as genuinely Aboriginal and genuinely poor are a must for the well-dressed wall? At least some artists out bush will get a few honorably earned dollars out of it.

And the dry-cleaners of Melbourne could only have profited from the salvation seekers who queued at a phony Aboriginal "sacred fire" at Kings Domain during the Commonwealth Games to get themselves ritually smoked.

But not all of this romanticising about the good old Stone Age is quite so cute.

I'm thinking, for instance, of Tom Calma's attack on the Howard Government's Bill to stop Aboriginal wife-bashers and child-abusers from using the excuse that their barbarity was permitted by "tribal law".

(The Government had in mind the 55-year-old man who was initially jailed for just one month for anally raping a 14-year-old girl, the judge accepting that under tribal law the victim was his promised bride.)

Wrote Calma, paid big to be our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner: "The problem is that this Bill does not address family violence in the indigenous communities in any meaningful way.

"Rather, it will undermine attempts to solve the problem and perpetuate harmful stereotypes about Aboriginal customary law."

Hmm. Does Calma seems more worried by the damage done to the image of tribal law than by the damage such laws do to a 14-year-old girl?

But he is not alone in re-imagining tribal ways to be gentler -- and greener -- than they really were and are. Many others want to forget the truth -- that even an anthropologist as sympathetic to Aboriginal causes as Professor Peter Sutton says in his essay The Politics of Suffering that "a man's right to beat his wife without interference" can be described by Aborigines as the "Blackfella way" and "high levels of interpersonal violence" have long been "sanctioned" by Aboriginal laws.

No, no, no. Our assorted earth-worshippers, snowfield socialists and freedom-fearers don't want to hear that.

They prefer to hear High Priests of the primitive like . . . why, David Suzuki!

Suzuki, the famed green guru and broadcaster from Canada, is in Australia yet again, this time for a month-long "farewell" tour from Byron Bay to Broome.

I heard him recently at a government-sponsored conference in Ballarat as I waited my own turn to speak, and was astonished to find how crazed his hectoring had become -- yet how rapturously an audience of public servants cheered him.

The capitalist world was eating up the world and was "on a suicidal path", I heard him cry. "We live in a world that is absolutely shattered."

How grimly pleased the audience was to hear it.

The ways of the West were rotten, he stormed. "Conventional economics is a form of brain damage" and science was just "bulls--- to baffle".

We needed no more scientific discoveries, or even research. "The last thing in the world people need is more information." (Except, of course, for the information in Suzuki's book, which he duly plugged, sold and signed.)

And it was "disgusting" we lived in bigger houses than did our grandparents: "What kind of a world is this that regards this as progress?"

Oh, how the audience loved it all. For the culturally privileged, this is the anti-rational, back to womb-cave, message of our times.

So what was Suzuki offering in place of the reason that has made us so rich and free?

Indian ways. Aboriginal ways. Like those wise tribal folk, he said, we had to treat nature as "sacred" and live "in balance" with it.

And then Suzuki, who boasts of being an honorary chief of the Cree Indians and an honorary "Mountain Man" of South Australia's Kaurna Aborigines, did a riff that borrowed from his book Wisdom of the Elders.

As he says there, "The Native Mind is imbued with a deep sense of reverence for nature" and "Native wisdom . . . regards the human obligation to maintain the balance of the health of the natural world as a solemn spiritual duty".

On he went, urging us to worship the earth as Noble Savages allegedly did back when humans led "more stable" lives "in a state of nature". Think Eden.

IT'S all as Harvard anthropologist Steven A. LeBlanc says in his fine new book, Constant Battles -- not only is the myth of the Noble Savage back in fashion, "it seems that the native people of North America, along with a few other social groups like the Australian Aborigines, have become the poster children for the 'noble savage' concept today".

But the Noble Savage is a fraud. "To think that we have lost our 'roots' or are somehow out of touch with our ancient ancestors -- and have lost the ability to live in peace and in ecological balance -- is a myth and a dangerous one", LeBlanc says.

In fact, from the very first days humans emerged, they have constantly and bloodily fought for more to eat after first plundering the land they already have.

Forget any of that tribal looking-after-nature stuff. LeBlanc tells of Indians hunting buffalo by driving whole herds over cliffs. He shows how other tribal hunter-gathers tore down branches from fruit trees to make huts, hunted animals to extinction and didn't care if their animal prey were males or females pregnant with next year's dinner.

The story was no different here. LeBlanc could have quoted Edward Curr, a squatter from the Murray who saw how the Bangerang hunted in the 1840s:

"(T)hey never spared a young animal with a view to its growing bigger. I have often seen them, at an instance, land large quantities of fish with their nets and leave all small ones to die within a yard of the water."

Indeed, LeBlanc went through 30 years of issues of Human Ecology, a top journal of anthropology, looking for evidence of tribes living in harmony with nature in the way Suzuki claims, but concluded: "There are no clear examples of conservationist behaviour in any traditional societies reported during the last three decades."

Why is he so keen to finish off the Noble Savage? Because we won't otherwise see what a great chance we've been given by our Western ways -- our science, our technology and our reason.

"For the first time in history, technology and science enable us to understand Earth's ecology and our impact on it, to control population growth, and to increase the carrying capacity in ways never before imagined. The opportunity for humans to live in long-term balance with nature is within our grasp if we do it right."

THAT means using our brains -- not some fake native "wisdom" that never was -- to feed and house everyone without exhausting the land, so eliminating the greatest cause of wars.

Already we are less likely to die in battle than our tribal ancestors ever were. Kill off the Noble Savage for good, and we may yet live in that peace and "balance" of which Suzuki dreams -- but with, and thanks to, the wealth he claims he spurns.

Join Andrew on his blog at http:// blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/ andrewbolt

[spiders]

my god! I feel physically ill - I was unaware of that editorial, but i now know why someone was talking about that issue at work... Disregard all my comments and please let me do 400 hail marys to cleanse my soul for having suggested I had an opinion similar to his for the first time in my life thusfar...

[spiders]

I thought it was funny that Andrew Bolt released a book of his 'best editorials' entitled 'still not sorry' - at least he acknowledges the fact that he should feel sorry for writing such hate-fuelled drivel

[Hagakure]

david suzuki recording from sbs radio

http://www20.sbs.com.au/podcasting/media/a..._f110578263.mp3

[spice]

'the wisdom of the elders' , or 'the sacred balance' ?

I havent read these but can it be really accepted that tribal cultures in the past lived sustainably because of their inate understandings of the environment or more because there were so few of them that their 'footprint' was negliable??

They lacked the technological capacity to do any real damage, and they were small in numbers. I think we are still so hooked to the romantic 'noble savage' idea.

[themagicmushroom]

Maybe "noble savage" and "capitalist rampage" are both untenable situations. How about choosing/designing a future, using the technology we have now, and are on the verge of developing, to create a better world?? one where technology is not a consumer product, but a tool for the long term benefit of the species? simple, sustainable lives, with pockets of science and high-technology (space exploration, agricultural techniques, nanotech stuff....). i'm not sure that the human race is,as a whole, self-realised enough to actually conceptualise it's own future, I look out my window and all I see are monkeys with really fucking BIG sticks... (actually, I look out the window and see kookaburras and the beautiful Tasmanian bush. It's a proverbial window, OK??)

[FungalFractoids]

I always though Suzuki was such a wanker, in a kind o canadian offensively inoffensive manner, but have changed my mind after seeing him speak a few times. I saw him on the Press Club, he even impressed my less than intellectual housemate, the guy is a gun.

[gomaos]

I thought, what would happen if you typed it into the media browser

John Howard is an arsehole

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/1...ment.php#132656

How do solve a problem like John Howard?

by Maria Westsidestory Sunday October 22, 2006 at 12:02 PM

How do solve a problem like John Howard? Do we go through him or just around? How do we deal with a bastard like John Howard? Can we geosequester him underground?

How do solve a problem like John Howard?

Do we go through him or just around?

How do we deal with a bastard like John Howard?

Can we geosequester him underground?

Many a thing you know you'd like to tell him

Many a thing you'd like him to understand.

But how do you make him pay

When all they do is bray

Krim Beastley is just another name for bland

Oh, how do you solve a problem like John Howard?

How do you get his throat into your hand?

When I hear him I'm confused

Out of sorts and not amused

And wonder why my class puts up with him

Especially after Iraq

You'd think they'd try another track.

But they left him with his skin and voted him back in

And now they pay the price that ignorance brings.

How do solve a problem like John Howard?

Do we go through him or just around?

How do we deal with a bastard like John Howard?

Can we geosequester him underground?

He can outpester any pest

Gargle shit with the very best

He can turn his back on David Hicks and still smile

He's a con! He's just skum!

He's an shit! He's a bum!

On the asshole of life he is the pile

He is vile.

http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/20...005_comment.php

(and it did make the press)

John Howard is an arsehole'

by pr Wednesday October 18, 2006 at 04:37 PM

Dr David Suzuki, the famous scientist, writer and activist spoke today at the National Press club. He called that little shit John Howard what he so obviously is...an arsehole.

Dr Suzuki was in fine form on the ABC today, giving a lively, intelligent and entertaining speech to the National Press club in Canberra. This is in stark shocking contrast with the usual porations delivered in deadly eanest by nameless, clueless droids that represents the fare favoured by the walking corpse media in this benighted brown land.

Dr Suzuki was especially effective in highlighting the menu for the lunch - what went into it and where it was headed - sadly many of those who could have benefited the most from such sage advice from a disinterested scientist were too busy interfacing with their second bottle of claret by this stage.

The street fighter activist side of Dr S was shown with some scathing commentary in passing on the Kyoto farce. If Australia is really on track to deliver Kyoto class outcomes then why not sign the bloody thing?

Au is said to be an observer at all Kyoto meetings and is now recognizing climate change as a reality.

The real problem here seems to be a failing faded regime based on concentration of power, secrecy and lies. They cannot be regarded as acting in good faith with the desperate way that they seize on the slightest wedge issue in order to divide-and-rule.

From orange bellied parrots to nuclear fission the right-wing simply can't be trusted. They clearly regard most Aussies as mushrooms - keep them in the dark and feed them on bullshit.

For an interesting contrast in learning from indigenous traditions just try this simple exercise. Try substituting ' first Australians' with ' farmers' in all the hot air emissions and rhetoric coming out of the coalition lately.

Scientists such as Dr Suzuki know that there is a lot we can learn through ( albeit critical and limited) solidarity with indigenous peoples and struggles.

And that there is some link between top down, command-and-control, ' megaprojects' and the ecological crisis. That the answers to this onrushing crisis, if it's not too late to find them, will most probably be distributed, diverse, ground-up and small-scale, the opposite of micro-management.

Some of the worst environmental vandals on the face of the earth were also the most brutal dictatorships that mass murdered millions through slow torture or Holomodors.

Dr Suzuki was pressed for time but I'm sure he will cover this in his next exciting, invigorating and inspiring, thought provoking ' fireside chat'.

Cong rats Dr S - You ROCK!

add your comments

Suzuki might hate Howard, but didn't actually call him an arsehole (should have)

1. John Howard is apparently trying to out-asshole Bush

Lately, he has been giving the Chimp a run for his money.

Aussies, I feel sorry for you. It seems your country is on the front edge of a conservative, superiority complex wave. It swept over us in the 80's and we are suffering the backwash wave right now of the Chimp, just barely beginning to again see the shore.

I fear you Aussies have a painful lesson or two to learn before some of that dies down.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...2625727#2625808

Lucky that I'm not Australian, that is. Because if I were, this website would be the All-John-Howard, All-The-Time edition of You Are Dumb Dot Net.

Seriously. I don't know why you people keep electing him, or pulling his name out of a koala bear's ass, or however the hell you choose your leaders down there, but maybe you should cut it out? I know, as an American, I'm not speaking from the moral high ground here, but at least we can pretend to have excuses like "voter fraud". Last time I checked, Diebold didn't start manufacturing eucalyptus suppositories, so you're on the hook for your asshole.

And oh, is John Howard an asshole. John Howard's Australia strikes me as the kind of place America would be if Dick Cheney were actually openly in charge, and not running things from behind his frat-boy sock puppet. Oh, and if we weren't a huge military superpower. We can start wars, they can get a complete English sentence out of their head of state, but otherwise, it's a lot of same shit, different hemisphere.

For example, one common trait the two countries share. Whenever anyone in the establishment denies fervently that racism had anything to do with it, it's because racism blatantly, obviously, had something to do with it. We had it during Katrina, and Australia has theirs with this statement from Howard on two days of mob violence in the suburbs of Sydney. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"I do not accept that there is underlying racism in this country. I have always taken a more optimistic view of the character of the Australian people. I do not believe Australians are racist." - Prime Minister John Howard, probably within 30 minutes either side of opening another detention camp for immigrants and refugees.

Nope, no underlying racism in Australia. Never mind the riots, which, according to reports, started when a bunch of drunken white youths, sparked by a false report of a lifeguard being attacked, started going after anyone they thought might be an Arab.

Nope, no underlying racism in Australia. And certainly no underlying organizations of white power, neo-nazi groups who were able to release a video called "The Battle Of Cronulla" within a day of the start of the riots, and call for non-whites to be banned from Australian beaches.

Nope, no underlying racism in Australia, despite a national history of native oppression and xenophobia that puts it nicely on par with the rest of the Western world, who haven't exactly become pan-ethnic utopias either.

People were painting "We grew here, you flew here" on their back and beating up anyone with more melanin than Morrissey. In a country that has been pushing the War On The Swarthy as hard, if not harder, than the US and Britain have.

But racism isn't a problem, if you ask Howard. He said the riots were a "law and order issue". In other words, it's not the hate, it's the expression of that hate via brick and fist. The problem isn't underlying racism, it's that the racism simply isn't underlying enough.

http://www.youaredumb.net/node/497

Edited November 28, 2006 by gomaos