Friday, June 30, 2023

In which the pond spares a thought for our Glad, then fails the hole in bucket man exam ...

 


The pond had gone into training to prepare for an encounter with desiccated coconut Henry, but as things often do, the undertoad struck, and the reptiles went into a frenzy, and this was the day of the Gladys ...

Both the tree killer and digital editions had Gladys front and centre ...


 


The pond is sure that Optus would love nothing better than our Glad taking legal action and keeping the brand in the news ...

And that "guilty of loving a weirdo" set the tone ... no wonder the reptiles want more legal action ...

...and that "may prompt" was so neatly hedged, it was impossible to resist, so the pond tossed aside other temptations lined up by the reptiles ...


 


It's surely nice to know that Covid isn't entirely responsible for the devastation of everything, but the pond couldn't be bothered to shed a tear with cackling Claire and the transphobe activist prof ...

No, it had to be Gladys, but who to chose?

The meretricious Merritt was to hand taking a firm stand ...




Always reliable, but there was a problem in the reptile ranks, a feuding and a fussing ...




So we're mugs, but ICAC is terrible, as is any accounting for public behaviour in the eyes of the reptiles?

The pond rarely turns to ancient Troy, but this was an emergency ...




But what says the defence? Here the pond avoided the meretricious Merritt and turned to the lizard Oz editorialist ...




Oh dear, there was a billy goat butt in there ... "Given what has been revealed by ICAC, we in no way suggest Ms Berejiklian is without fault" ... but there was the lizard Oz editorialist quoting the meretricious Merritt, so it seems pretty fair game to drop public money on your lover's love of Wagga Wagga ...

Meanwhile, ancient Troy wasn't entirely convinced ...




At this point the reptiles dropped in a snap of Glad waving to the world ...




...but the pond wanted to wrap up the lizard Oz editorialist defence ...




Oh the poor biddy, but at least she knew her place. 

There are simply too many women who don't know their place and refuse to be complimentary women and that's why angry Anglicans must take a stand on the weevils of homosexuality ...






Thank you Graudian, more than the pond ever needed to know, and yet ancient Troy was still blathering on ...




At this point the reptiles interrupted with a very large snap of the happy couple posing for the camera in better times, but the pond thought there was no need to make it terribly large ...




Best get on with ancient Troy saying mean and nasty things...




For some reason at this point the reptiles decided a very large snap of a former premier was needed ...




For those who care he's off in Xian care ... still grinning away like a loon ...




Well no need to make it big in the reptile style, because there was still a gobbet of ancient Troy to go, albeit a doddle ...


What was the point of this exercise? Why, it was entirely a set-up for the day's infallible Pope ...




And it also confirmed to the pond that it was likely that everything written had been done by AI, as noted in this Crikey story ... (paywall, and just a sample) ...




Desperate times and now for the pond's strict training regime for our Henry. It began with a reading of Mary Beard in The New Yorker, The Divine Comedy of Roman Emperors’ Last Words:

In the end, godlike aspirations often met with all too human final moments. (possible paywall)




Blimey, it turned out that all the pond's training was for naught. 

Woe and alas, our Henry delivered a rant about Vlad the Impaler ... and so the pond includes it for the record, but only so it can note how misguided it was in its studies ...




It's true that our Henry wandered off down history's byways, but the pond remembered the time it had prepared for all the questions in an exam, and none of them were the ones the pond had prepped. 

So the pond wastes time on Mary Beard, and then blow the pond down, our Henry's off to the English East India Company and mercenaries in the eighteenth century.

Is there nothing the pompous, portentous blowhard can't turn to his cause, the boring of the reptile readership into insensibility? A bludgeoning, with the past some sort of weird baseball bat?

Sensing this, the reptiles quickly flung in a snap, but the pond is well over footage from the war zone ...




More to the point, would the hole in the bucket man settle, and get to the point? Sorry, it might take a while, and there's much more meandering through the byways to be done ...



Dear sweet long absent lord, he does like hearing the clacking of his keyboard...

There's the pond thinking it a simple matter of condemning that thug Vlad the impaler, and the possibly bigger thug, his onetime chef ...

So little did the pond know, so useless was that reading of the Beard ...




There was some mild comedy in that use of "plainly illegal", as if in a dictatorship criminal codes mattered, and confronted by our Henry's endless desire to parade his ability to gaze at his navel, the pond introduced a huge snap of a smirking mercenary ...




Still, with all that, at last there was just a short gobbet to go, and finally our Henry got close to a point ...



Meanwhile, it seems a few stray generals have gone missing, but at least that mention of Saddam Hussein allowed the pond to end with a joke, thanks to the roving Rove ...






Get it? The master mind behind the war criminal thinks that Wag the Dog is a joke, but the joke is that the mastermind and his puppet embarked on a war crime ...

And then in 2016 everybody agreed it was fine that the emperor should eat burgers and wander around in an orange buff colour, and false narratives were the go, and remain the go until this very day ...






Meanwhile, for those who might have missed Eric Foner's A Regional Reign of Terror in the NYRB ...

Most of the acts of violence related in By Hands Now Known were committed by law enforcement officials or by persons, such as bus drivers, performing public functions. This is significant because beginning in the late nineteenth century the Supreme Court embraced the legal concept of “state action,” according to which the federal government’s ability to prosecute violations of Blacks’ constitutional rights was limited to crimes committed by public officials, not by private individuals. Police officers and sheriffs were certainly state actors, and the federal government could have taken legal action against them but almost never did. The justices also adopted a rigid understanding of states’ rights and federalism, ruling as early as 1873 in the Slaughter-House Cases that despite the Fourteenth Amendment, which barred states from denying to any person the equal protection of the laws, most of the constitutional rights enjoyed by Americans remained under the purview of the states, not the nation.
The Court’s limited interpretation of the constitutional changes brought about during Reconstruction continued well into the twentieth century. In a ruling in a 1945 murder case, the Court declared that the instructions in the case failed to require the jury to find that the defendants acted willfully if it voted to convict. The case involved a sheriff, Claude Screws, and two deputies who beat a Black man to death on a courthouse lawn in Baker County, Georgia. Screws was prosecuted and convicted in federal court, but the Supreme Court overturned the verdict. Even though Georgia authorities refused to take action against the killers, the hands of the federal government were tied.
For good measure, three justices—Owen Roberts, Felix Frankfurter, and Robert Jackson—reflecting the prevailing historical orthodoxy, declared in a separate opinion that Reconstruction legislation authorizing federal protection of Blacks’ rights was motivated by a “vengeful spirit” on the part of northerners after the Civil War. For members of the Supreme Court to view expanding the rights of Blacks as a form of punishment to whites did not bode well for a broader understanding of the federal government’s power to protect Black citizens. Overall, Burnham writes, the federal courts “rendered nearly toothless the Reconstruction-era statutes that specifically targeted racist terror.” As for Screws, in 1958 he was elected to the Georgia Senate.
Along with Supreme Court rulings, a combination of other circumstances helps explain why so many persons guilty of heinous crimes walked away scot-free. These include the exclusion of virtually all Black southerners from jury service, the FBI’s reluctance to investigate these crimes, and the power of the Jim Crow South in the Democratic Party, which made it impossible to enact federal antilynching legislation....

And this ...

...The rule of law—a legal system based on principles that apply equally to all persons (including the police)—is a hallmark of civilized societies. A perversion of the rule of law in the Jim Crow South—the conviction of an innocent Black man charged with raping a white woman—is the centerpiece of Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird (which a 2021 survey of 200,000 readers of The New York Times named the best book published in the last 125 years). Lee’s hero is the white lawyer Atticus Finch, who understands that racism makes it impossible for southern courts to dispense justice fairly. He associates racial bigotry with the “cruel poverty and ignorance” of the accusers, a rural white family. Lee’s implication is that change will come to the South through the actions of well-meaning better-off whites like Finch. There is no room in this narrative for Black activism.
In reality, as Burnham amply demonstrates, respectable whites—public officials; newspaper reporters who deemed the murder of a Black person, as she puts it, “too trivial to report”; and businessmen who profited from the availability of cheap Black labor—all helped to maintain the Jim Crow system. Judges, from local courts all the way to the Supreme Court, violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution, while members of Congress refused to enact laws against lynching. The incidents detailed in By Hands Now Known were not the work of prejudiced poor whites. Nor were they random occurrences or the actions of a few bad apples—entire communities were to blame for the perversion of the criminal justice system. In 1947, just as the United States was embarking on the cold war, J. Edgar Hoover told President Truman’s Committee on Civil Rights that an “iron curtain” in the American South made it impossible for the FBI to conduct adequate investigations, since white residents at all levels of society refused to provide information (not that Hoover had any real interest in investigating these crimes).
As Burnham makes clear, the events she chronicles must be understood as expressions of “systemic” racism (a concept whose mention can today cost a teacher in some states his or her job for discussing “divisive topics” in the classroom). Not long ago, admirers of Lee’s novel were shocked when Go Set a Watchman, which she had written before Mockingbird, was finally published. It depicted Finch not as a heroic man of principle but as an outspoken racist who could not accept the idea of Blacks challenging Jim Crow. Of the two portrayals of the character, this is more realistic. But it is the Finch of To Kill a Mockingbird who remains in the minds of readers and of admirers of the celebrated film version starring Gregory Peck.






16 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct Mercurial that "The only refrom ICAC needs is to make "seriously corrupt" conduct a criminal offence".

      I tried to inform someone last night that Gladys was corrupt, not a law breaker. They railed against ICAC - waste o money - no charges - the cognitive dissonance was audible.

      Delete
    2. The only reform ICAC needs is to make "seriously corrupt" conduct a criminal offence. That might shut the reptiles up.

      Delete
    3. It would be nice if “serious incompetence” was also an offence. In fairness, incompetence and corruption often come as a set.

      Delete
  2. For once, Henry’s stroll through history was on a vaguely interesting subject - albeit delivered in his usual dull, desiccated manner. I’m a mite surprised that he didn’t extend his history back to Classical times though - surely Thucydides must have had something to say about armies for hire (it’s several decades since I studied “The Peloponnesian War” for 3 Unit Ancient History, and I simply don’t remember) ? After all that, however, Henry arrives at the stunning insight that the use of mercenaries often doesn’t work out too well; never would have guessed that one.

    Actually, all of the Reptiles -and much of the rest of the MSM - have been even more pissweak than usual when writing about Vlad’s recent problems. With the exception of an academic or two who are honest enough to admit they have no clear idea what’s going on and what is likely to happen, it’s been bluster and bullshit all round. Henry is no exception - if any of them had any integrity, they’d donate their fees to an appropriate Ukraine charity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't say I've ever really studied the Peloponnesian war, Anony, but I do know that there were mercenaries galore in the Punic Wars.

      So:
      1. The Pyrrhic War was the first time that Rome confronted the professional mercenary armies of the Hellenistic states of the eastern Mediterranean.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_War
      2. [Hannibal's] arrival immediately restored the predominance of the war party, which placed him in command of a combined force of African levies and his mercenaries from Italy.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal

      Delete
    2. And just as a matter of pointless triviality, we do all know who Surus was, don't we.

      Delete
    3. Like Anonymous above, I am a mite surprised (given the quote attributed to Max Weber that our Henry leads with) that it seems he has made no reference to the discussions that produced Article II of the Bill of Rights for citizens of the USA - the one most of them call the '2nd Amendment'. People like James Madison are on record as emphasizing that a 'well regulated militia' would be the ultimate defence of a state against the 'regular' troops of a federal army. All this was discussed, vigorously, through much of the period that the Henry observes in Europe, but it seems the idea of such a militia turning out to repel a professional army, put together by those dreadful federal types, just did not spark his interest.

      Given the numbers, and kinds, of firearms now held by those potential members of militia, quite possibly there are many 'patriots' now who would give the militia of any of the states a fair chance against the Feds. Those chances would be helped if the citizens were prepared to turn up for militia drill at regular times, but, it seems, that might be too much to ask. Imagine an officer of the Georgia State Militia trying to give an order to Militiaman M. Taylor Greene? Perhaps that is why the Henry looked deeper into the European buckets.

      Delete
    4. But it isn't just the hand-held weapons that count, Chad, in pitting the militia against the military there's all those 'remote' weapons and drones and choppers and missiles and discipline and leadership and experience and so on and so forth. I'd put my wad on the military nowadays.

      Of course there wasn't such a divergence back in 1775, so aided by some British indifference versus American independence passion, the militia could, and did, win. Not so much now.

      Delete
    5. There's always a wiki ...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_mercenaries

      And then there's the foederati ...

      https://www.historynet.com/romes-barbarian-mercenaries/

      They were useful in China too ...

      In 756, over 4,000 Arab mercenaries joined the Chinese against An Lushan. They remained in China, and some of them were ancestors of the Hui people. During the Tang dynasty, 3,000 Chinese soldiers, and 3,000 Muslim soldiers were traded to each other in an agreement.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_China_before_1911



      Delete
    6. Oh - and was Surus the elephant in the room?

      Delete
    7. Indeed so, Chad: Hannibal's most effective mercenary. The elephant he is supposed to have ridden most often on his way over the Pyrenees and Alps and the last surviving elephant (broken tusk and all) of the campaign. Surus, though, was not an African elephant - they can't cross the Sahara - he was an Indian elephant acquired though the elephant market in Syria (hence his name which apparently means 'Sirian') which was the main international elephant market at the time.

      Oh my, the trivia of Earthly existence.

      Delete
  3. Interesting that there’s some division amongst the Reptiles on the subject of Our Glad; unlike the various TV news bulletins I saw last night, they haven’t all automatically bought into the “Saint Gladys, loved by all, greatest NSW Premier in decades, brought down by a dud root and an unjust kangaroo court” narrative. What’s the likelihood of the Reptiles actually demonstrating a reasonable variety of views? It brings to mind that old story about the typewriting monkeys eventually pounding out the works of Shakespeare if they pound the keys for long enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those monkeys might be at it for quite a while: maybe only one or two years short of eternity.

      But hey, Gladys is an immigrant female - plenty of reptiles think that that's, well, unthinkable. How did one of them, and of that gender, end up as Premier - who couldn't even get a half-way decent f.ck ?

      Delete
  4. Karl “Turdblossom” Rove continues to claim as irrefutable fact that Biden is mentally decrepit, and to deny that it’s merely a “GOP talking point” (and a Murdoch media obsession). Gee, funny how he manages to run political rings around the Republicans……

    As for Kissinger still being “sharp as a tack” at 100, it’s probably a lot easier to give that impression when you can control your public appearances rather than being scrutinised 24 /7. Some of his pronouncements in recent years also seem to be based on the assumption that the world hasn’t changed in the last half-century.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who says 'GOP' says liar, Anony ?

      Biden is just moderately old, and we oldies do have our mental characteristics which can make us appear to be a little confused occasionally (mostly in slow and sometimes faulty recall), but your point about 24/7 scrutiny is the key.

      Delete

Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.