Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

First Dog Onthemoon

Jun 25, 2012

The good and the ugly

Crikey's First Dog On The Moon elegantly highlights the hideous flaw in anti-"boat people" rheto

Share

Crikey‘s First Dog On The Moon elegantly highlights the hideous flaw in anti-“boat people” rhetoric:


I’m posting it to Reddit next.

Elsewhere, The Age publishes former Senator Amanda Vanstone comparing refugees who arrive on boats with ants chasing after our precious sugar. Who wouldn’t want to live in Australia, she asks, before demanding we remove the “pull factors” that entice people to want to come here (like not treating them as monstrously as certain other countries in our region).

Also, do you know what’s monstrous about people pretending to care about the lives of refugees but being opposed to making the boats safer because really they’re more worried about the refugees who get here safely? It’s that Malcolm Fraser called their policy “evil and inhumane”. Oh, the “hate-style politics”.

Because, really, isn’t it the lucky Australians living an incredibly fortunate existence whilst demanding we pull up the drawbridge and use dangerous boats as a disincentive for people to come here who are the real victims?

85 comments

85 thoughts on “The good and the ugly

  1. jules

    The great man is a goose Howie.

    A few extra taxes when I can afford it are worth it. or returning some tax return money to rescue choppers and the like. Deliberately not claiming some valid deductions. Whats wrong with that?

    You may call me stupid but I have seen those systems that our taxpaying supports save lives that otherwise would have been lost anywhere else in the world. Including developed countries like the US. For example.

    [And I’m sure have an objective measure of what constitutes “fair share” and are not just ranting on nothing more than some deadlocked, bong-addled vibe.]

    Its purely subjective, but bongs are bad, m’kay. I recommend you invest in a vaporizer Howie. It’ll save your lungs.

    [It was my understanding that it was the states, not the Commonwealth, that own the mineral wealth. Hence state royalties.]

    Its a flawed system and needs a change.

    [There’s several economies in collapse right there. You goose.]

    Yes – lots of manufacturing has moved offshore. Why encourage more? This destroys our middle class which in turn destroys jobs. I buy local produce (Australian made) where I can tho it sometimes costs more. I also buy stuff second hand if I can and its produced overseas. I never buy stuff online cos those distribution networks destroy jobs and conditions, tho it costs a little more. These are my choices and I’m happy with them.

    If I was in Rinehart’s position I’d buy Australian steel, it might cost more but the benefits of a healthier society are more important, and it wouldn’t send me broke. If anything it would strengthen my position. Whats the point of making all that money if you don’t do something useful and constructive with it? (And yes propping up an expensive local industry in a place like Australia at this point in time is useful and constructive.)

    [Yes, terrible business all this not being in the stone age.]

    You’re an idiot. There’s nothing wrong with mining if its done responsibly. I’m typing on a computer, drive a vehicle that uses petrol and use synthetic materials.

    I’d be happy to pay more to ensure that my (potential) grandkids aren’t living in a toxic waste dump. If I can’t grow organic garlic cos the land has been flooded by escaped evaporation pond waste, or show tourists round cos they don’t want to look at gas wells and pipelines that also destroys their future. if my mate can’t sell his cattle overseas cos the water they drink has contaminants they absorb that is foreign income that doesn’t come onshore.

    [You could say that about any section of the economy you have some irrational grudge against. I suggest a specific tax on rambling northern NSW hippies: they wouldn’t exist without us.]

    Oh I see … I’m a hippie. Better than a goat rooter I spose.

    (I could think of some very useful taxes on hippies actually.)

  2. fractious

    That’s the difference between the left and the rest of the world – most people don’t believed they are owed a living like you do.

    While you’re there, what is the price of straw these days?

    Project your own fantasies of what a “lefty” is and what I “believe” all you want, it’s just hand-waving.

    If you can’t see for yourself that the resources the super-rich dig up and make super-fat profits from belong in part to all of us and all of our successors, and that they therefore ought to be paying a helluva lot more in duties and putting a lot more back into affected communities and especially the ecology they happily destroy – instead of sucking up billions in tax concessions every year – then there’s nothing I can say to enlighten you.

    Let me put it in single syllable words: I do not think I am owed. I think we are ALL owed. Big time.

    Got it?

  3. Howard,B.

    Jules

    [ Its…our minerals.. This country belongs to Australians and is called the Commonwealth of Australia…]

    It was my understanding that it was the states, not the Commonwealth, that own the mineral wealth. Hence state royalties.

    [And yet the pricks don’t want to pay their fair share of tax…]

    And I’m sure have an objective measure of what constitutes “fair share” and are not just ranting on nothing more than some deadlocked, bong-addled vibe.

    [… doesn’t like paying… unlike you and I, who do pay.]

    You ‘pay’, Jules? To loosely quote a great man: “Anyone who pays more tax than they have to needs their head read”.

    [Look at the asbestos heiress and her refusal to use Australian made steel. There’s a whole economy in collapse right there.]

    I’m sure you only buy more expensive Australian made textiles, ceramics, tools and just about anything else Jules, and there’s not single item in your house made in China. There’s several economies in collapse right there. You goose.

    It’s not anyone’s responsibility to prop-up uncompetitive local industry by paying more for things.

    [The general “mining is bad” ramble]

    Yes, terrible business all this not being in the stone age.

    [But it owes my society a hell of a lot. It wouldn’t exist without us, not the other way around.]

    You could say that about any section of the economy you have some irrational grudge against. I suggest a specific tax on rambling northern NSW hippies: they wouldn’t exist without us.

  4. jules

    “The mining sector owes you nothing. Zero. Zilch. Unless you had an instrumental part digging those raw minerals out of the ground and manufacturing them into a product it don’t owe you sweet-FA.”

    Bullshit pip. Its our country, our land, our water, our minerals. Don’t you get that. This country belongs to Australians and is called the Commonwealth of Australia cos being the lefty socialist country we are, we hold that wealth in common. The mining industry owes this country, and doesn’t like paying. Its wreaked havoc here and across the planet. But I’m glad you mentioned manufacturing them into a product, cos today the industry runs from its responsibility to maintain manufacturing. Look at the asbestos heiress and her refusal to use Australian made steel. There’s a whole economy in collapse right there. There are plenty of communities where FIFO has ruined the local economy, wrecked local lives and businesses and priced local people out of everything (cept that local shop … but you wouldn’t want to go there.) And cos some of that money trickles down to the cities you think thats a good thing?

    What about farming communities in the darling Downs that are in the process of being destroyed? All those jobs, and livelihoods. In my part of the world, its not just farming, its tourism too. The worlds in recession now, but when it comes out people are still gonna want to spend money to see the Reef in Queensland. Unless its fucked in which case there’s another industry down the tubes thanks to mining. And yet the pricks don’t want to pay their fair share of tax unlike you and I, who do pay.

    The only way the mining industry will owe me personally in future is if it fucks the water table and contaminates the soil, which it looks like its well on the way to doing. But it owes my society a hell of a lot. It wouldn’t exist without us, not the other way around.

  5. PipBoy

    Oh dog, here we go. You want to play “where did I say that”? Fine. Where did Jules say anything about being “entitled” to anything?

    Troll.

    *Sigh* Many times fractious many times.

    But like him, you think you’re entitled to the mining profits because you live on connected soil hundreds if not thousands of kilometres away – right?

    The mining sector owes you nothing. Zero. Zilch. Unless you had an instrumental part digging those raw minerals out of the ground and manufacturing them into a product it don’t owe you sweet-FA.

    That’s the difference between the left and the rest of the world – most people don’t believed they are owed a living like you do.

    So foreign investment comes into Australia, sets up a mine and employs Australians and pays them pretty damn well, pays royalties and a whole heap of tax. The spin off of work comes all the way into the cities didn’t you know! I’ve worked for three companies now that rely on mining as their biggest clients. That’s not good enough for you though.

    I don’t believe incentive is in your highly evolved vocabulary – all you see is rich Gina, and what YOU would do with that money.

    You know, cause you’re entitled.

  6. fred p

    It’s a terrible business enough without having to be subjected to the nauseating cant of moral posers

    Yes, indeed. We’ve all read your contributions on the topic…

  7. jules

    Seeking asylum is one thing, our refugee intake is another, and its been years since we took refugees from the Indonesian UNHCR that we set up there anyway. I think we need to increase our places for refugees by 300 to 500%, and perhaps keep people who seek Asylum here as a separate category.

    Here’s a thought – if we nationalised the mines and seized all of … say G Rinehart’s assets then we’d have plenty of money to facilitate the settlement of refugees here and elsewhere.

    Perhaps we should only seize the assets that amount to the money made from asbestos mining, or any further profits made with that blood stained money as start up capital. Just to be fair.

    Anyway in the time its taken me to type this comment another 1000 or so children have died around the world from easily preventable causes. we’re all complicit in that to some extent, tho us here in Australia perhaps aren’t as guilty as those in Chimerica who have basically kept Africa at war with itself for the last 15 years in order to scam all its resources at bottom dollar.

    So lets drop this compassion bullshit totally yeah, and revel in the blood on our hands.

  8. Bloods05

    Before PP expires Pip, pray tell: are you related to RadPipper?

  9. Bloods05

    [I see now. You’re entitled to that money are you? Cause its yours ain’t it jules.]

    Of course we’re entitled to some of it Pip. And we aren’t getting enough of a share of it to ensure that the resources boom sets all of us up for a better and more prosperous future. What on earth do you think is wrong with that, for God’s sake?

  10. Bloods05

    First this:

    [I have no ideological problem with filling the humanitarian intake with those with the money and means to get here first, as it introduces an element of competitive selection.]

    Then this:

    [So let’s drop the compassion competition.]

    So:

    No.

  11. Bloods05

    [Calling you Pigboy was a genuine typo.]

    But an extremely felicitous one.

  12. paul of albury

    Howard, personally I would also concede there’s a degree of intellectual consistency in your view on taking the more entrepreneurial refugees – I think I have in the past posted about my puzzlement that the Libs seem to dislike the small businessmen of ‘people smuggling’ and the incentivated people who use them. These arrangements should surely select for their type of people?

    At the same time I don’t believe we have too many refugees to accommodate both. And there is no moral justification for adding new challenges to test refugees’ incentivation.

    And we should be improving our support for refugee processing ‘through the proper channels’ in Indonesia and other transitional points to remove the need for the additional risky journey from Indonesia. One of today’s other posts refers to 24 refugees processed ‘officially’ in 5 months. Who wouldn’t risk a leaky boat?

  13. Howard,B.

    Trippi Taka

    [By law, it is not illegal to seek refuge in a country no matter how you get there. Whether that be via boat , plane or our refugee intake.]

    As said before, I have no problem with filling the limited humanitarian quota with onshore arrivals or the legalistic argument for it.

    I would simply have people realize the reality that in the paradigm of a fixed and finite humanitarian intake, support for filling that quota with those who get here first is not a badge of moral superiority or compassionate virtue.

    There will always be refugees dying whilst waiting, or striving, for one of those limited places no matter how we chose to fill those places. This will always be so as no one who can be taken seriously in this debate is advocating a limitless humanitarian intake.

    It’s a terrible business enough without having to be subjected to the nauseating cant of moral posers wilfully ignoring quantitative reality.

  14. Trippi Taka

    Howard @ 68.

    I’m pretty sure that you identify as a conservative (I may be wrong?) and therefore I assume you would hold highly the rule of law?

    By law, it is not illegal to seek refuge in a country no matter how you get there. Whether that be via boat , plane or our refugee intake. Therefore we cannot treat people who arrive by boat differently than we do people who arrive by planes or through the camps.

    I appreciate your argument about it being unfair which I think, to a degree, there is a legitimate point. But until the law is changed – we need to respect that law and treat all people equally under it. Asylum seekers coming by boat make up a small percentage of unauthorised arrivals compared with those by plane. Why are the people who can afford a plane ticket who are also jumping this “queue” not subjected to the same processes? It is simply not a consistent application of the law.

  15. fractious

    You subscribe to the notion that there is a refugee “queue”,..?

    Figure of speech, Howard.

    The most ‘compassionate’ thing, according to the trendy set, is to give those places to those with the money and means to get here first.

    Source and reference needed.

  16. fractious

    Did I say that? Did I write that? Nope, I said jules feels he\she is ‘entitled’ to it.

    Oh dog, here we go. You want to play “where did I say that”? Fine. Where did Jules say anything about being “entitled” to anything?

    Troll.

  17. PipBoy

    Jesus, Mary and Joseph, are you really so terminally fucking stupid that you can’t see that at least some part of

    Did I say that? Did I write that? Nope, I said jules feels he\she is ‘entitled’ to it. It’s great how many ideas he has on how to spend other peoples money. It’s his country after all.

    But its me with a sense of entitlement!

    Dolt.

  18. Howard,B.

    Fractious

    [Pointing out that others at the back of the queue…]

    You subscribe to the notion that there is a refugee “queue”, Fractious? Better keep that one to yourself, else you’ll have the usual Keepers of The Faith here denounce you as a nasty right-winger.

    But allow me to congratulate you on being the first regular here to at least offer a hint of acknowledgement to the unpleasant calculus that all the other moral posers so wish to ignore: whilst there is no “queue” per se, there is a fixed and finite quota.

    In light of this, I have always thought the most compassionate and ‘left-wing’ of approaches would be to take as many of the long-term destitute from the refugees camps as possible, but apparently not. The most ‘compassionate’ thing, according to the trendy set, is to give those places to those with the money and means to get here first.

    See, I would’ve thought it would only be sociopathic right-wingers like myself who would give a limited humanitarian visa to someone with money and means who has arrived from a third-party country in which they are in no immediate danger, whilst leaving the diseased, malnourished and destitute of African refugee camps to rot.

    It’s a funny ol’ world.

  19. jules

    Reread your post @ 7 Pip.

    and this:

    [I go to job interviews, I get a job, I work hard, I pay my bills, I have zero benefits. Yep, I am born in a country where I am able to do that. So I must forever be a serf.]

    And as far as the money for Australia’s resources go – all Australians are entitled to that cash actually. It could be spent on a number of things that need spending on. Public transport in major cities, health services, education services, the roads in NSW (and probably elsewhere). Big Solar. Junior sport. Ads laughing at you. The RFS. Supporting Murray Darling communities and researching technologies that enable sufficient water flow and effective irrigation. Cleaning up the toxic waste littered throughout the country. Nuclear weapons. Ways around peak oil. Space exploration and mining asteroids. Keeping Clive fucking Palmer off television. Nano tech scrubbers to lower atmospheric CO2. Digital television that works. More funding for the abc. Defense force Drone Swarms. Scientific literacy training for media organisations. The list could go on and on.

    So fuck yeah, its my country and if its gonna be sold off I’m entitled to it – well the society I belong to is. Not me personally.

    Your sense of entitlement is a pathetic childish whinge. That is a significant difference.

  20. fractious

    but mining companies pay less than they should considering they get rich selling our actual country.

    I see now. You’re entitled to that money are you? Cause its yours ain’t it jules.

    Jesus, Mary and Joseph, are you really so terminally fucking stupid that you can’t see that at least some part of the extraordinary wealth that the Rineharts and Palmers and various foreign-owned mining conglomerates earn belongs here, to all of us?

  21. fractious

    I have no ideological problem with filling the humanitarian intake with those with the money and means to get here first, as it introduces an element of competitive selection.

    Well there you have it people – as far as Die Howardweltanschauung goes, only those who get here first with the most dough are deserving of Australians’ “humanitarian” sympathies.

    Pointing out that others at the back of the queue with fuck all money may be equally entitled to consideration on humantarian grounds is just group-hugging hemp weaving wank because those who can’t compete are just losers and the sooner Lefties suck it up the better.

    Some say that those who hold and espouse views like Howard’s are beneath contempt. I disagree. Those are exactly the sorts of views I reserve my contempt for.

  22. fractious

    Am I alone in finding PipBoy’s fourth paragraph (@53) deliciously ironic given the mangled syntax, atrocious puncutation and garbled grammar in his third?

    Nope. But don’t make the mistake of expecting that observation to have any discernible impact on the subject.

  23. PipBoy

    ‘And going on like someone should give you a medal for having a job – FFS.’

    ‘by refugees but you hate the idea of sharing a half decent life with them. That much is clear.

    Is that what I said? Staggering because it’s not what I said anywhere, or even nearly implied.

    but mining companies pay less than they should considering they get rich selling our actual country.

    I see now. You’re entitled to that money are you? Cause its yours ain’t it jules.

    You’re a dingleberry of the highest order jules, just a silly one really.

  24. jules

    [jules trust me. You can fiddle.]

    Pippa I know, but not as well as that guy on that video.

    Unfortunately you can’t think, or write, or hold a position based on anything other than your own self interest. And the only fiddling you’re capable of requires tweezers.

    You have everything you need by the sound of it, and aren’t threatened (cept in your own small mind) by refugees but you hate the idea of sharing a half decent life with them. That much is clear. And going on like someone should give you a medal for having a job – FFS. We all pay taxes, even pensioners pay taxes when they buy stuff, but mining companies pay less than they should considering they get rich selling our actual country. We should nationalise the mines and use some of the profits to take out ads laughing at you until you grow up.

  25. Brizben

    Abbott says he will not condone the Malaysia solution because they are not signatories of the UNHCR but he will turn the boats back to Indonesia which is not a signatory of the UNHCR!!

  26. fred p

    That’s what’s been great about Pure Poison, the fringe opinions. I’ve found Sear not only to be supercilious but his writing style to be awful. Generally all articles are disjointed and the paragraphs very hard to read. Some of them I read twice and still can’t figure out what this guy actually means. Maybe you need a leftie mind to understand.

    I can’t remember the article, but I think there has only been one time – where I’ve thought ‘that is pure poison’. It was with vain hope that I would read an interesting article that set my mind right. But really it’s just been an exercise of reading this site to have a giggle at the crazies.

    Believe me, the quality of your contributions here doesn’t really justify your obvious superiority complex. It’s also difficult to fathom why you would offer up your opinion of the hosts or the regular posters here, given it’s clear nobody here has any respect for you or places any value on the things that you have to say.

    Ironically, you should be thankful for the benevolence shown by Jeremy and the other PP hosts for allowing you to come here and indulge your imbecilic need to troll; they would’ve been within their rights to ban you years ago. And certainly there would have been few tears shed if they had.

  27. fred p

    A wise man once told me you can’t argue with lefties. They’re always right, no matter how ridiculous, stupid, vacuous or from a completely different dimension their argument may be.

    So you’re definitely a troll then, in which case by all means f*ck off and we’ll all be happier.

  28. Mephistopheles

    Am I alone in finding PipBoy’s fourth paragraph (@53) deliciously ironic given the mangled syntax, atrocious puncutation and garbled grammar in his third?

  29. Howard,B.

    Doc ‘Bat

    Given this may be our last liaison before Crikey rids itself of Dave and Jeremy, I felt it only proper to put your farewell febrile fulmination to bed.

    I have no ideological problem with filling the humanitarian intake with those with the money and means to get here first, as it introduces an element of competitive selection.

    All I ask is that it be recognized that there is a fixed and finite number of humanitarian places, and that either way genuine refugees will perish. Whether they die trying to get here or die waiting in a camp or elsewhere, it does not matter: there will be refugees dying and not all will be able to be saved.

    So I have no time for the likes of Andy Bolt espousing the faux compassion of political opportunism as I have no time for the likes of Jeremy Sear ignoring quantitative realities and espousing the genuine yet untempered compassion of fools.

    So let’s drop the compassion competition.

  30. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    Pipboy,

    Calling your Pigboy was a genuine typo. Reading your posts here I don’t have it in me to apologise.

    I find it interesting how a major ‘debating’ technique of the right is to try to tar the other side with what they are guilt. Thus climate change deniers call scientist illogical, believers in a cult, closed-minded, etc.

    PipBoy seems to agree that allowing boats to go back would increase the quality of the boats used and prevent drownings. But he rejects this easy solution because it does not do what he really wants, stopping people arriving by boat. This immorality is the point of the cartoon, and his only rebuttal is that “you can’t argue with lefties”.

    The rest of his post is just more Trolling so I’ll not say more.

  31. Craigy

    Zoot, thanks for that….Yes I think that number was wrong, I should have said 300 arrive in Indonesia, by plane, each week

    Still, can anyone answer why we aren’t placing some responsibility on the Indonesian Government for their corruption and policies that allow people to get to the boats?

  32. Jack Sparraaggghhh

    Some of them I read twice and still can’t figure out what this guy actually means.

    Poor petal, cognitive dissonance can be so disorienting, even traumatic.

  33. PipBoy

    PigBoy,

    Thanks for confirming that to some of the right the problem to solve is not how to prevent drownings, but how to stop the boats.

    Michael at least make up your own names instead of copying Doc. I would have thought preventing drownings and stopping boats are synonymous, but whatever.

    A wise man once told me you can’t argue with lefties. They’re always right, no matter how ridiculous, stupid, vacuous or from a completely different dimension their argument may be.

    This ‘sense of entitlement’ that is supposed to be the deal closer for any argument has always confused me. I go to job interviews, I get a job, I work hard, I pay my bills, I have zero benefits. Yep, I am born in a country where I am able to do that. So I must forever be a serf. In your view people like myself sit here all day every day thinking I’m ‘entitled’ to something. I don’t think I’m ‘entitled’ to anything DOC. Yet you’re all entitled to the mining profits, or any other rich persons money. Just a show of hands – how many of you are on pensions?

    That’s what’s been great about Pure Poison, the fringe opinions. I’ve found Sear not only to be supercilious but his writing style to be awful. Generally all articles are disjointed and the paragraphs very hard to read. Some of them I read twice and still can’t figure out what this guy actually means. Maybe you need a leftie mind to understand.

    I can’t remember the article, but I think there has only been one time – where I’ve thought ‘that is pure poison’. It was with vain hope that I would read an interesting article that set my mind right. But really it’s just been an exercise of reading this site to have a giggle at the crazies.

  34. PipBoy

    jules trust me. You can fiddle.

  35. zoot

    Craigy @41:

    I read yesterday that 300 asylum seekers a day arrive by plane in Indonesia. They arrive with fake documents on one way tickets and are then taken to holding areas set-up by people smugglers to wait for their turn on a boat.

    That’s roughly 110,000 a year.

    A helluva lot of them aren’t getting to Australia.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2012/06/25/the-good-and-the-ugly/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

Free Trial form on Pop Up

Free Trial form on Pop Up
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.