... and the bastards get away with it. Again.

What does 'responsible' mean?

"She was not personally aware of any these circumstances, in those circumstances to say, 'well she has got to go anyway', that has never been a doctrine of Ministerial Responsibility, ever."
  —— John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia as heard on ABC news, JJJ radio, 11:00am edition.

...

What the FUCK?

Children Overboard? WMDs? Familiar?

One gets an image of the entire Cabinet with their hands over their ears going "Lalalalalalalala if I can't hear it, it didn't happen lalalalala..."


At what point does this bullshit get recognised for rank incompetence in the absolute best case? Vanstone and Ruddock are responsible for the culture of a department that, in case anyone's forgotten, exiled an Australian citizen who had only days before become a quadraplegic, and didn't tell anyone when they realised what they'd done. The officers who personally perpetrated this outrage look like they'll be fired, and that's a good thing. But Vanstone, as Ratbastard Johnny explicitely says, has no responsibility at all, whatsoever, none.

I wish I could get a job like that. All care, no responsibility, only there's no care either, in either sense. No care taken, no human feeling. And mistakes result in outcomes a little more severe than a botched plumbing job.


And calling for open revolt against what has now obviously become an elected Absolute Monarchy is a Terrorist Offence now, isn't it? How convenient.


Shakespeare got it wrong. What we'll do is: first kill all the politicians, then start on the lawyers. Storm the Bastille Villawood.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go somewhere quiet and let my head explode from outrage overload. Again.

---

Edit: It occurred to me that the only moral sense which allows someone no responsibility over something is when they have no power over it. Vanstone, Howard, et al have just, therefore, admitted that either they really have no responsibility, and thus have no power over their departments, or else they do have power and are thus lying or deluded about the encumbent responsibility.

Moreover, as I have said before, if Vanstone (and Ruddock) didn't know about the endemic abuses through their department, that makes them incompetant. If they did know, but could do nothing, that makes them irrelevant (and incompetant). If they had the knowledge and power, and chose to allow it to continue, that makes them actively malevolant.

If she keeps to her story that she "didn't know", then we have the right to demand that she give an excellent explanation as to why not. It is her godsdamned job to know. If she failed at that, why do we pay her?

Israel -- now 23% less evil.

This disturbs me.

Not that it has been banned.

But because it needed to be banned.

( saved for posterity )

Isn't a rule written down somewhere that if you want to be treated like a civilised country, then you have to damn well be civilised?
Pulling shit like this, and then complaining bitterly when 1) others call you on it, and 2) your enemies do it too, is just plain hypocritical.


And don't whinge about how no-one holds Palestine to the same standards. That's simply not relevant. You want to be treated like a grownup, fucking act like one, don't yell about how "but Muuuum! Timmy was doin' it too!"