Tony Abbott, the politics of Machiavellian bastardry, and one dimensional views of Afghanistan ...

(Above: here's to bastardry, I'll drink to that).

What to do?

Paul Sheehan's column in today's Herald, Fake or fact? Shining the light on the Facebook phenomenon brings us vaguely up to date with a story published in The New Yorker on September 20, by Jose Antonio Vargas, under the header The Face of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg opens up.

Vargas has the advantage of actually having spoken to Zuckerberg, and so offers up playful anecdotes about Zuckerberg's one time favourite TV show The West Wing, and his ambivalent arm's length relationship to its creator Aaron Sorkin, who also wrote The Social Network, directed by David Fincher and soon, belatedly, to hit the antipodes. And by actually talking to Zuckerberg he has some interesting insights into the creation and selling of the Facebook phenomenon.

Grumpy old Sheehan offers his hairdresser harrumphing about one of his friends, a flight attendant, listing 1500 friends on his Facebook page. This tells me more about Sheehan than I care to know ...

What to do? Read Sheehan casting a candle light on a phenomenon from a distance, or re-read Vargas?

Well it'll be awhile before we're friending Sheehan ...

Moving right along, it was pleasing to see that Tony Abbott today invoked the word "bastardry" in his ongoing low level guerilla war with Julia Gillard.

This splendid Australianism causes much confusion abroad, as the poor bastards simply fail to understand the distinction between bastardy and bastardry.

Abbott hit peak form, by accusing Gillard of an act of "low bastardry" in relation to his travel plans, but actually he should have reserved his ammunition for some friendly fire directed at his shadow defence spokesperson Senator David Johnston.

Johnston set the cat amongst the desert tribes by whipping up a sandstorm, as summarised in Coalition says it doesn't trust Defence chief's advice.

SABRA LANE: In a speech to Parliament yesterday the Senator detailed the numbers and equipment he says are urgently required in Afghanistan to support the 1550 troops there now.

DAVID JOHNSTON: Such support would be in the nature of a signal squadron, engineer squadron, cavalry squadron, gun regiment and elements of armour and aviation.

These additions would require the deployment of a further 360 personnel.

Gung ho, Gunga Din. But did you clear all this with Abbott, and if not, why not? And if you did, and Abbott said 'yes, let's make some mischief', why hasn't this been the topic of some fair media concern? Because they should have belted you and flayed you, by the living gawd that made you, because you're more of a goose than I am, Gunga Din.

You see, here's the latest from the opposition, in Abbott opens fire at 'low' PM:

Mr Abbott had a day of briefings and inspections, including a live firing demonstration by troops, light armoured vehicles.

He took the opportunity to fire a Steyr rifle, a .50 calibre machinegun and the 25mm main gun on a light armoured vehicle.

Later he said that ''one of the reasons why they turned on that firepower demonstration was to make crystal clear that there is an abundance of firepower available to our forces'', contradicting opposition suggestions that the troops needed more.

That's right. Thanks to the opposition leader's firepower demonstration, it is now abundantly, perhaps even crystal, clear that the honourable opposition Senator is a goose. And so the leader of the opposition contradicts the opposition ...

Back in the day Johnston added to his goose status by calling out Angus Houston:

SABRA LANE: He's also told the ABC that when it comes to advice on Afghanistan, he now trusts information from troops on the ground, over and above the advice from the Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Houston.

By golly sir in the good old days that would have been called treason, and seen you shot at dawn, and a starring role in Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory, or at least given a good whipping and sent to the dunce's corner.

Abbott himself has since compounded the felony:

Mr Abbott also used the brief visit to encourage soldiers to come forward if they have concerns about equipment or resources. (here)

That's right chaps, dob in a general today. Send all emails to David Johnston promptly. Fragging is a tad extreme, but we're happy to make hay turning a useless war into a wretched political exercise.

It was all much worse, and much sillier than Abbott's lame excuse about jetlag in relation to an Afgahnistan visit, but the more that Abbott broods about his ability to stuff his shoe in his mouth, the more he keeps that controversy alive. Now he blames Gillard and her office for his foot in mouth disease ...

However, the Herald's chief political reporter, Phillip Coorey, who broke the story, said it had not come from the Prime Minister or her office.

Let it go Tony, and instead keep delivering lines that soon might see you battling with Donald Rumsfeld in a bid for a 'hall of fame' place in the meaningless gibberish stakes:

''It seems that the coalition is being effectively proactive rather than being not necessarily that effectively reactive, which seems to have been the situation pre the surge.''

Indeed. It seems the unknown unknowns are reactively proactive.

Still, Abbott's visit did give The Australian a splendid opportunity to run an Abbott 'man of action' snap in its version of the story, Abbott takes aim at Julia Gillard over Afghan trip:

The Oz also recited the details of the Gillard-Abbott spat, along with this poignant note:

"The Prime Minster has not made a big deal of Mr Abbott's travel plans," the spokeswoman said. "She has only made brief comments when asked, and repeatedly said his travel plans are a matter for him. The only people that have made extensive comments are the Liberal Party and the media."

And meanwhile, how many commentariat commentators have taken aim at David Johnston and his own version of jumped up foot in mouth disease?

All this blather about travel arrangements, and there's a war going on.

Well it almost kills me to honour The Punch, but today they published an interesting insight by Jason Thomas into the actual war going down, under the header Our leaders have no idea how to "win" in Afghanistan.

The Australian public are being fed a one dimensional view of Afghanistan by both sides of politics that is misleading and will only result in further domestic political frustration and a public continuing to question why our troops are not winning the war.

One dimensional? You mean all this blather about travel plans, and jet lag, and low bastardry and breath-taking news that Major General John Cantwell had delayed leave to show Mr Abbott around Tarin Kowt is one dimensional?

In the middle of a war zone, the best Abbott can offer is confected rage about his travel plans?

"When it comes to Machiavellian bastardry, she's up there with the best of them," Mr Abbott said.

In a war zone, where people are killing and being killed, and people are dying, or barely living, and the fighting and feuding has been going on for decades, Abbott's rabbiting on about Machiavellian bastardry because he got caught out talking about his jetlag?

Jesus wept, but then looking at the world today, Jesus probably weeps 24/7/12/365/∞.

What was that Jason Thomas said about one dimensional insights in to Afghanistan?

Here's a solution.

Take Abbott, Gillard and Johnston out the back and have the lot of them shot.

That'd sharpen up the political debate on Afghanistan a little, and put an end to the needlessly reactive proactive blather and petty political feuding ...

And now since we mentioned paths of glory, here it is in Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. The full annotated version is available here at the University of Oxford's spiffing Thomas Gray archive:

The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power,
And all that beauty, all that wealth e'er gave,
Awaits alike th' inevitable hour:-
The paths of glory lead but to the grave.

(Below: a long way from Afghanistan, and yet in one key respect, so close).