William Burroughs' Baboon

I mistrust all systematizers and I avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity - Nietzsche

Live 8

by William Burroughs Baboon on 5 June 05

One of the lies in the Africa debate is that aid does not work. This is a lie rather than a proposition because of the simple fact that nobody knows if aid works in Africa.

And until aid to Africa is tried we won’t know. In 2002 according to the World Bank, aid to Africa was 12 billion dollars.

This is such a paltry sum that no meaningful conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of its application.

Bob Geldof et al are again going to try to do something about Africa. Live Aid in 1983 proved that emergency relief, while a moral imperative, does not provide a lasting solution.

This time they are not going to raise any money, as they realise that it is both futile and that it also can be counter-productive in that it leaves people with the feeling that they have made a meaningful contribution and hence can move on. Meanwhile the problem remains.

In July the G8 meets in Scotland. In July Live 8 will attempt to influence the outcome of that meeting. Live 8 will use the power of popular culture to galvanise large numbers of people, as was shown in 1983, but this time in an attempt to directly force political change. Not through argument and submission, but through a Ghandian application of numbers.

The orthodox political class will resent this dilettantism and will swap op-eds with each other on the jejeune and hideously untheoretical exuberance of the masses. They may even try to smear the process by claiming that Live 8 will be counter-productive in some way.

The retort available to anyone wanting to defend the right of ordinary people in a Live 8 type strategy to do more than vote once every few years, is that you can’t be counter-productive when there is nothing productive to be counter to.

The problem of Africa is ongoing and long-standing. If the arch-capitalists with their free-trade mantra or the neo-cons with their mumbo-jumbo about the power of democracy were to have a shred of credibility, then we should have seen some evidence of the success of their methods by now.

The power elite and economic elite do not have any answers for Africa. Live 8 will attempt to demand that instead of lip-service and hyperlinks to the hopelessly theoretical formulations of Nobel Prize winning economists, the rich world gives real aid, real market access and real cancellation of the debt to Africa.

It’s a longshot, but when that many kids are dying in their own puke, then it’s impossible to deny that it should at least be tried.

Comment

Guy on Mon Jun 6th, 12:44pm

I’ll second that.

Why am I not surprised that the miracle of the invisible hand has not already miraculously raised all these people out of poverty.

dj on Mon Jun 6th, 1:37pm

The Invisible Hand is to busy wanking the Invisible Dick.

dariuskan on Tue Jun 7th, 1:19am

“If the arch-capitalists with their free-trade mantra”

Wow, you guys really are deluded.

“seen some evidence of the success of their methods by now.”

What? Try telling that to your precious EU. Stop trying to pretend that free trade has been attempted on a large scale. The Cairns group, ok. Kinda insignificant on a world scale. But who else? Free trade is the only fair trade. Don’t act as though it’s been tried and it’s failed. Free trade for African produce would advantage that continent mightily; much more than your aid cheques, which finance the lifestyles of African dictators.

Zorro on Tue Jun 7th, 8:00pm

Sounds preferable to my tax cheque funding your miserable student existence Darius. Get a job long-hair.

the saintly alan greenspan on Tue Jun 7th, 8:04pm

Steve, you’ve inadvertently hit on a good point—free trade has never been tried, even by the rich countries who would force it on Africa. No state has ever become wealthy throwing itself upon mercy of world markets. Why anyone expects Africa to prove an exception this is less than clear.

Nabakov on Tue Jun 7th, 10:32pm

Damn right, sanctified Fed Chairperson.

And in a true global free market, Steve would be outsourcing his D1 sockpuppet to Mumbai. Just before he’s outsourced himself to Bangalore.

I mean, it’s not like you actually create, run or contribute to any productive businesses yerself Steveistan do you? Are you just another liberto fundie student prince subsidised by my hard-earned taxes as you grimly wade through post-grad studies?

By the by, can I recommend to everyone here, Ian McDonald’s “River of Gods”, one of the best books I’ve read in a long time. Written by a superbright young Scot and with the strapline “August 15, 2047. Happy Birthday India.” And then it just gets better.

Steve Edwards on Wed Jun 8th, 12:33am

Don’t call Darius Steve. I am Steve, here me roar.

“Are you just another liberto fundie student prince subsidised by my hard-earned taxes as you grimly wade through post-grad studies?”

Pfff. Nice try Nabakov, the moral high ground is crumbling under your feet…

“I mean, it’s not like you actually create, run or contribute to any productive businesses yerself Steveistan do you?”

I work three jobs, you imbecile! And have had at least two for most of my studies. How many barefoot, bearded, unemployable lefty undergrads (i.e. your friends) come close to that?

Good grief!

I should sue Nabakov for slander one of these days, because every claim he’s ever made has been a masturbatory delusion. You should at least try closing a couple of porn windows while commenting on this blog Nabakov – it’ll spare us the wild one-handed adolescent fantasies. I understand politics for you is really about blowing your load, but some of us are uncomfortable with discussing the world in the presence of an overweight, panting, 50 year old.

dariuskan on Wed Jun 8th, 1:42am

“Sounds preferable to my tax cheque funding your miserable student existence Darius. Get a job long-hair.”

Zorro – you are a fool, pure and simple, for assuming you know anything about me. Your (possibly self-reflecting? Well you are a bunch of lefties so you fit the mould to a tee) perception of my existence is diametrically opposed to the reality, bar your accusation that I am a student. That bit is correct. Incidentally, Zorro, you don’t happen to work for the public service, do you?

“free trade has never been tried, even by the rich countries who would force it on Africa.”

Hilarious, truly. Africa stands to benefit the most from the dismantling of trade barriers. It’s the sane African representatives and leaders (no, I’m not talking about your “egalitarian” mate Mugabe) who are calling for an end to tariffs.

“No state has ever become wealthy throwing itself upon mercy of world markets.”

But it’s “never been tried” so how do you know it won’t work?

“Why anyone expects Africa to prove an exception this is less than clear.”

Why you assert something will not work even though you couldn’t possibly know that because you’ve claimed it has “never been tried” is not only less than clear, it also shows you arguing yourself into a wet paper bag with no exit in sight. Congrats.

Incidentally, Hong Kong and Singapore might have rather a lot to say about your claim of “no state has ever become wealthy throwing itself upon mercy of world markets.” Almost forgot Chile…aaargh! Pinochet, that bastard! How dare he turn Chile into the richest nation in South America by liberalising and opening up its economy! Moving right along…as a general rule, the nations of the world with less trade protection are generally wealthier than those with more, bar a couple of notable exceptions like Japan. However, its protectionist ways have contributed to its decade and a half long recession. And the countries that are progressively dismantling their tariffs are, as a general rule, the dynamic, growing ones vs. the stagnating high-tariff, restricted economies of, say, Old Europe, Russia and Africa.

Really, Greenspan, Nabakov and the rest of you intellectual bantamweights (to partially paraphrase a movie), see what happens when you mess with the bull? You could at least be courteous enough to provide Steve and myself with some half decent opposition by getting your facts straight. Although, from what I’ve seen here and in other threads, facts don’t seem to enjoy even a brief cameo appearance in the dramatic farce that is your worldview.

Nabakov on Wed Jun 8th, 3:15am

Youse guys are even funnier when you splutter.

“here me roar.”

Well, me here too, listening. And laffing.

“the moral high ground is crumbling under your feet…”

And the sky gods are pooping on yer head. Equally provable.

“I work three jobs, you imbecile! ”

They must be shit jobs if you need three of ‘em at once. But not for much longer. Those dusky-skinned hordes are gonna undercut you.

Hmm, an “aha!” moment here. Those pesky Indians are stealing your 7-11 late shift aren’t they?

Why not have one great job instead of three shit ones? Better still, why not do something that actually creates more jobs? I found doing just that very bloody hard work at first but ultimately very rewarding, and not just financially either. Try it yerself sometime. Mind you I’d hire an Indian student over you any day. They don’t waste time whinging on blogs.

“You should at least try closing a couple of porn windows while commenting on this blog.”

That thought hadn’t occurred to me. Why did it occur to you?

“See what happens when you mess with the bull? ”

Yes, we’re seeing the bull in action right now. Colour us condescendingly amused. Now if you could swallow Meccano instead of Lego in one effortless flowing gulp, then we’d put down our drinks for a polite round of applause.

Nabakov on Wed Jun 8th, 3:39am

Again, sorry about the mess wwb. Nice carpets though. Persian? What’s the thread count?

dariuskan on Wed Jun 8th, 4:09am

Another pathetic effort – although not out of character coming from you, Nabakov. Do you even know what you stand for, apart from a love of wheeling out the same tired old japes about boozing and cleaning up mess? Get a position, counter me on something, anything concrete, I dare you.

Steve Edwards on Wed Jun 8th, 4:41am

According to his own words, it “hadn’t occurred” to Nabakov that he should stop beating off to porn and politics simultaneously. You must be onto some hot shit if you haven’t even contemplated taking a rest!

Darius, we’d better be off to www.naughtyfemalelaborpremiers.com if we want to get in on the good stuff. Carmen Lawrence, Joan Kirner… Hubba Hubba! Just think what Nabakov’s been keeping secret from us for so long.

What you have to understand, Darius, is that all present company are engaging in projection. Nabakov is clearly sexually repressed, and thus he accuses everyone else, who he has never met, of his own sexual repression.

Obviously, he has a terrible job, and is now in the throes of a midlife crisis (assuming my parallel suspicion he just failed his Year 11 exams is incorrect), and so we must be exactly like him.

It’s only fair, indeed “egalitarian”, that we have miserable lives like any good self-hating Leftist.

And that’s why we shouldn’t give aid to Africa. It’ll turn their middle-aged leaders into a gang of bloated mendicants. They’ll spend all the proceeds on booze and become drooling mental cripples. Why would we want to inflict our own failures on starving children?

“One of the lies in the Africa debate is that aid does not work. This is a lie rather than a proposition because of the simple fact that nobody knows if aid works in Africa.

And until aid to Africa is tried we won’t know. In 2002 according to the World Bank, aid to Africa was 12 billion dollars.

This is such a paltry sum that no meaningful conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of its application.”

That’s a very peculiar reversal of the standard onus of proof – “I’ve got a big idea that failed when it was a small idea, and it’s your obligation to prove it won’t work!”

Well! Let’s try it elsewhere shall we?

“One of the lies in the Cuba debate is that war does not work. This is a lie rather than a proposition because of the simple fact that nobody knows if war works in Cuba.

And until war against Cuba is tried we won’t know. In 1961, according to the CIA, war against Cuba totalled 1,500 exiles.

This is such a paltry force that no meaningful conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of its application.”

the saintly alan greenspan on Wed Jun 8th, 3:12pm

Darius, you dopey shit, none of the statements you highlight actually contradict one another. The ‘free trade’ mantra is premised upon theoretical benefits, not historical ones, and is underlain by the unspoken assumption that protectionism is fine for us, but not for you.

I don’t know many Chileans who share your high opinion of Pinochet, but whatever, you’re an idiot. Singapore and Hong Kong at the mercy of markets? Heavy state intervention in Singapore’s economic development is hardly a secret. Neither is HK’s substantial manufacturing reliance upon slave labour on the mainland (a Communist country, you muppet). And neither example is remotely instructive re: Africa’s likely future.

wbb on Wed Jun 8th, 10:15pm

I don’t mind the booze on the rug, Nabob, but those ruffians in the backroom, I swear, if they’re making out with my wall-hangings?! So we may have to sort out something on that score, but otherwise, it’s tip-top.

Steve, only a very pinched soul would ask for proof before trying to halt mass human suffering. It’s one thing I’ll give to your Poodle Blair, he’s over there asking Bush to bend over this time trying to get meaningful assistance for Africa on the table. Maybe Bush can counter with your brilliant- we need a formal proof line. That’d hose Tony down.

Steve Edwards on Wed Jun 8th, 10:47pm

Bush has already done it, WBB. He ain’t budging an inch.

You know, I’m surprised that this discussion about Africa that no one has brought up the IMF. I mean, no outside institution, along with foreign aid generally, has had a more disastrous effect on Africans – yet everyone here would rather demonise trade. The obvious thing to do instead would be to liberalise trade and abolish the IMF – which has succeeded in doling out submarket loans to tyrannical dictators.

Zorro on Wed Jun 8th, 11:18pm

Almost forgot Chile…aaargh! Pinochet, that bastard! How dare he turn Chile into the richest nation in South America by liberalising and opening up its economy!

DaDa, the clarity of your vision for the third world’s potential to roar like a bull on the back of a free trade in dust futures is only outshone by your bizarre take on history.

Apart from the claim to being the “richest nation in Sth America” ranking up there with being smartest student in your Chicago School Economics tutorial, your means (is irrelevant to the) ends thinking (and I use that term lightly in your case) serves to highlight how shit-fights like Iraq can be entered into so lightly by the likes of you and your fellow-travellers. You can blithely ‘move-on’ from, in Chile’s case, a coup d’etat of a democratically elected government, a police state and mass extra-judiciary torture and murder, so long as American copper mining interests keep making money.

That you can champion a blood-soaked regime like Pinochet’s because you claim it liberalised an economy is both chilling in it’s total lack of empathy for the thousands who suffered and died at its hands, but also strangely satisfying, because it closes the case once and for all on your ability to be taken seriously.

And saddest of all, the consensus is that all of those Chicago Boys and their Noble prizes actually stymied the Chilean economy, the ‘Miracle’ was short, sharp and a mirage and the dead are still dead.

wbb on Wed Jun 8th, 11:45pm

Yeah, I’m sorry, Darius. I have to endorse Zorro’s view on this.

To praise a murderous military dictatorship for its adherence to the IMF guidelines of the day, is either rhetorical over-reach or a sign that you really are here only to be spanked.

You cannot mean what you said.

And Steve, nobody’s demonising trade. The thing is that you deify trade – and you ignore that such trade as we usually see is written with rules to the advantage of the rich. Actually you just use the idea of “if only they had free-trade” as a mental crux to ignore the problem.

African problems are not caused by their import tarrifs. It’ll take more than Paul Keating to fix some of their problems.

Steve Edwards on Thu Jun 9th, 1:43am

I think you may have misread my comment. Nobody is getting praised here – and certainly no military dictatorship is being praised for abiding by the IMF. I oppose the IMF and military dictators.

The IMF has been been doling out submarket loans to African tyrants and is thus condemned. The results have been an economic failure – and if anything will have increased the risk premium that Africans must now pay on open market loans, if they are ever lucky to secure any.

And IMF “structural adjustment” packages are never going to build viable institutions, or change political cultures. Once assets are privatised in lawless states, the result will inevitably be capital flight. The loan itself will probably be pocketed.

So IMF loan packages are not going to work, because the governments simply do not have the financial infrastructure to deal with them. The best we can hope for, in the meantime, is for microcredit to take off (did you know that 2005 is the UN International Year of Microcredit?).

Unfortunately, aid is no better than a concessional loan. For example, in December 2004, William Easterly delivered an SAIS lecture (SAIS publish a prominent foreign affairs journal) showing that the top Third World aid recipients (as a % of GDP) between 1960-2002 had the lowest per-capita growth rates, and vice-versa.

Generally, the aid was consumed, rather than invested, and thus made no difference to long term economic growth.

The other reason I oppose foreign aid as presently constituted is because it reduces the impetus for reform, and radically alters the constituency base of the receiving government – instead of taxing the citizens and being held to account by them, the government is beholden to foreign interests. In turn, the aid provided is used as a political weapon and thus increases corruption. Often, the aid can compete with domestic industries and thus effectively collapse the terms of trade. Eventually, the receiving country loses its national sovereignty.

See here:

http://www.netnomad.com/might.html

and here:

http://www.netnomad.com/foodscam.htm

Steve Edwards on Thu Jun 9th, 1:51am

My apologies wbb, I assumed you were talking about my reference to the IMF/dictator axis (in your second paragraph). It turns out you were referring to Dariuskan’s defence of Pinochet.

This is confusing, because Darius never mentioned the IMF, so I assumed you were arguing with me.

Nevertheless, my point stands.

I didn’t address your fifth paragraph, because it is confounding:

“African problems are not caused by their import tarrifs.”

No, their problems are related to their non-existent infrastructure and thus high effective levels of protection, combined with the big stick of western protectionism.

“It’ll take more than Paul Keating to fix some of their problems.”

!!!

Either that was a vague point about protectionism, or you are deliberately trying to upset me.

the saintly alan greenspan on Fri Jun 10th, 3:41pm

Steven, Steve, Steve-O, bud: how can you support neoliberal economics but oppose the IMF? Without Wolfowitz’s bootheel upon their throats, do you really expect the developing world to get on board the neoliberal programme? ‘Cos contrary to your apparent belief, most people do not see the value in low growth coupled with massive upward redistribution of wealth. (I do, but I’m rich, so hey, whatever.)

Steve Edwards on Fri Jun 10th, 4:31pm

Despite appearances, the IMF has nothing to do with neo-liberal economics – it is part of a vast, global, loose monetary scheme that has funnelled cheap money to tyrannical governments.

Loose monetary policies have been a disaster in Australia, yet people actually thought it would succeed on a global scale, encompassing countries with terrible financial institutions.

The IMF has distorted capital markets and instituted disastrous economic policies in the Third World – thus in the interests of limited government, I call for the abolition of international bureaucracies like the IMF.

wbb on Fri Jun 10th, 5:26pm

The IMF did some of its best work in burdening 3W countries with enough debt so that they’d be forever in hock and thus in control of Washington.

So I agree with you there.

Government in the poorest of countries barely exists, btw. They couldn’t get any smaller if they tried.

Steve Edwards on Fri Jun 10th, 6:16pm

They may be small, i.e. poor governments, but they are certainly not limited or in any way constitutional constrained from arbitrary, lawless, governance.

the saintly alan greenspan on Fri Jun 10th, 9:00pm

Steve, I’m not sure who’s been filling your head with crazy stories, but the IMF advocates the so-called “Washington consensus” on development i.e. the neoliberal economic programme. This is not a secret.

dariuskan on Sat Jun 11th, 1:09am

Oh dear. I go on holidays for a couple of days and look what I come back to. More idiotic, ill-informed ranting. Don’t you guys read?

Greenspan, you need to work on your reading comprehension. The statements I highlighted clearly do contradict each other. And onto another topic. Met many Chileans? I have. Yes, you do find many who are stridently anti-Pinochet. However, there are also many who are big fans. And there are many who have a balanced view – that he did some very bad things at the start of his reign, however many of his actions and policies also stood the country in good stead. Pinochet is by no means a universally loathed figure in Chile – although he’s not as popular as he once was, this is true. It is also true that many admire him. Go check out the place, you’ll see I’m right.

Greenspan, you clearly have no understanding of the aims of the movement calling for free trade; that’s fine if you want to remain an ignorant ranter. And I really can’t be bothered educating you – I have a strong feeling you’re too far gone. But I may as well fisk what is masquerading as your argument.

“Heavy state intervention in Singapore’s economic development is hardly a secret.” No, not state intervention. Singapore has historically been (go do some research on a chap called Stamford Raffles) and still is a free port. There are a number of companies that are owned by the Singaporean government, however it does not intervene in the economy. It is a major asset holder, but it monitors one of the most level playing fields in the world.

“Neither is HK’s substantial manufacturing reliance upon slave labour on the mainland”

Pardon? Slave labour? Um…what the fuck are you on about, “you muppet”? I am assuming what you consider “slave labour” is merely cheap labour. Not quite so insidious, so, yes, HK is an example of how free trade can make a nation prosperous.

“And neither example is remotely instructive re: Africa’s likely future.”

If other rich western countries removed their trade barriers in the same way Australia has, Africa’s future would be considerably brighter. Because trade deals are by nature reciprocal, if EU’s CAP was to be discarded, EU nations would have every right to expect African nations to remove their own tariffs. The comparative advantage of some African produce comes down to Africa’s cheap (or, as you curmudgeonly like to regard it, “slave”) labour. Dropping the CAP would allow Africans to broaden their income base. Look, this stuff is pretty obvious. It’s embarrassing to have to argue with you over such a truism. Anyway, the principles of free trade and market liberalisation that made Hong Kong, Singapore and Chile rich can work just as well in Africa, with the confluence of other factors such as responsible governance. Even without that, free trade would only have a positive effect.

“DaDa, the clarity of your vision for the third world’s potential to roar like a bull on the back of a free trade in dust futures is only outshone by your bizarre take on history.”

“Apart from the claim to being the “richest nation in Sth America” ranking up there with being smartest student in your Chicago School Economics tutorial, your means (is irrelevant to the) ends thinking (and I use that term lightly in your case) serves to highlight how shit-fights like Iraq can be entered into so lightly by the likes of you and your fellow-travellers.”

Zorro, your one eyed view of history is only outstripped by your unintelligible sentence construction. What the hell are you going on about, you idiot?

Perhaps it isn’t the richest country in South America, damn, I could be wrong there. Did a bit of research; it vies with Argentina for that title. Still, the fact remains it’s either first or second, and before Pinochet took over it was an economic basket case in freefall. Chile’s market reforms made it the fastest growing country in the region throughout the 80s and 90s, and now it’s the most resilient economy in South America. These are such orthodox opinions that if you wish to demur, your opinion on the matter is analagous to that of your colleagues over at the Flat Earth Society. However, I guess if you’re getting all your info from a Green Left magazine, then you could be forgiven for believing something different. Chile is actually the poorest nation in South America. Its economic reforms were deliberately enacted to make everyone poor, bar a small group of evil American capitalists. Its alliance with the USA further underlines the obvious economic poverty endemic in the country. The richest nation in South America? Why, that beacon of health and education, that workers’ paradise, that democratic paragon – CUBA! Yep, black is white, you got it. And Cuba’s not even in South America, but hey, got to plug Castro using any means. See Flat Earth Society or any post of Zorro’s or Greenspan’s if level of denial is not sufficient.

Zorro – go do some research on the Chilean economy and its recent history. You’re living in a fantasy land if you think that the economic reforms initially begun by Pinochet and his henchmen were “short, sharp and a mirage”. I don’t support what Pinochet did at the start of his regime, nor many aspects of his rule, but only a fool will deny history and attempt to assert that the economic reforms he enacted under the tutelage of the Noble (sic) laureates were anything but beneficial for the country. Anyway, I never “championed” Pinochet’s regime. I was a little mischevious; I knew you’d all scream blue fucking murder if I mentioned the economic reforms Pinochet introduced and the beneficial effects this had on the Chilean economy. And I was dead right, you all went berko assuming this and that, adding two plus two and coming up with sixteen. Typical hysteria I’d expect from those of your intellectual pedigree; and an objective view of history and historical figures is hardly your strongpoint, huh? No doubt you all adore and admire that murdering communist thug Che Guevara.

“Yeah, I’m sorry, Darius. I have to endorse Zorro’s view on this. ”

WBB – why am I not surprised? See above.

the saintly alan greenspan on Sat Jun 11th, 2:11am

I’ll only note that the situation you posit, with everyone dropping their trade barriers and linking hands and singing Kumbaya and so forth, is not actually being proposed by anyone. What pass for free trade agreements are basically designed to guarantee investor rights, and as with the recent AUSFTA, often substantially boost protectionist measures. I know I sound like a condescending prick, but what they teach you in macroec at school correlates poorly with what actually goes on. The theory may be sound, but I can’t remember the last time I made a decision based on sound economic principles. That’s why I’m rich.

dariuskan on Sat Jun 11th, 4:57am

Greenspan – it’s actually being posited by many people. Get out there, check out the world, there’s this whole political movement called ‘libertarianism’. Read up about what they stand for, then get back to me.

And as to your chest thumping about being rich, I’m going to have a stab in the dark – you’re not rich. Wait, I shouldn’t say that – you might be. But you wouldn’t be rich from your own devices. I’m positive about that.

dariuskan on Sat Jun 11th, 5:02am

And I’m not surprised that’s all you’ll note. I don’t expect a stern debate from the sympathetic commentariat on this blog.

Zorro on Sat Jun 11th, 2:13pm

I was a little mischevious (sic – see, we all make the odd typo) – No Darius, you were a little dense. I’d hoped that your absence was due to a sense of shame, however…

You continue to excuse the coup and the murders in the name of economic liberalisation, as if the two were unrelated. I guess that is ultimately your problem.

But perhaps in your pin-narrow view of the world, there should be more of it? Which African country might best benefit from your ‘Chilean solution’?

And btw, you might discover a sense of humour beneath all of the bile if you go to bed occasionally.

dariuskan on Sat Jun 11th, 3:06pm

“You continue to excuse the coup and the murders in the name of economic liberalisation”

Please point out where I did this. Once again with the reading comprehension!

“Which African country might best benefit from your ‘Chilean solution’?”

If by “Chilean solution” you mean the dismantling of trade barriers – and other countries following suit – well, all African nations will benefit. Why don’t you start arguing against what I’ve written, as opposed to what you’d like me to have written? I guess that is ultimately your problem.

“And btw, you might discover a sense of humour beneath all of the bile if you go to bed occasionally.”

I have a sense of humour. However, I don’t find your turgid prose the least bit amusing. You seem to think it’s the height of wit. I suggest that you start reading some more and discover humourous writers, so that you have a benchmark to measure your drivel against. Let’s start you off slowly. Ask your mum if you can go down to the local library, and take out an Asterix comic. In about 20 years, you should be advanced enough to move on to Spike Milligan.

“if you go to bed occasionally.”

Where I live sometimes we’re allowed to stay up over 9pm! Wizard!!!

the saintly alan greenspan on Sat Jun 11th, 4:19pm

Darius, the Libertarian solution is not actually under consideration by any policymakers or stakeholders, as the past decade of wheeling and dealing under the rubric of ‘free trade’ makes clear. This is principally because it isn’t taken seriously by anyone besides a few gunworshippers in the American midwest, and pajama-clad, keyboard-wielding status quotists with no apparent grasp of economic history or reality. And of course I’m not rich on my own account; who is? You humorless clod.

dariuskan on Sat Jun 11th, 5:27pm

Greenspan, you really are a moron. Are you familiar with the Cairns group? I rarely come across someone who is so misinformed.

Libertarianism is a considerably more influential source of ideas than your intellectually bankrupt creed.

If you are indeed rich (and I am not convinced of that fact at all), I reckon you either inherited it or maybe you got lucky on the back of the property boom. A self-made rich man would never say something as moronic as :

“I can’t remember the last time I made a decision based on sound economic principles.”

dariuskan on Sat Jun 11th, 5:29pm

Ok, I’m overusing the insult ‘moron’ a bit there. However, it so readily springs to mind when reading your posts, Greenspan.

the saintly alan greenspan on Sat Jun 11th, 5:56pm

You’re a peach, dk. Yes, the Cairns group is working towards removing export subsidies in agricultural production, which makes up an ever-dwindling share of global trade, and involves mainly developed nations. Clearly, they’re the rudder of trade policymaking, and of special relevance to the third world.

And, obviously, I am saddened that my low-key attempt at humour has failed to convince you of my status as a self-made millionaire, a paragon of rugged, heroic individualism, a master conductor of the glorious symphony that is the market &c.

dariuskan on Sun Jun 12th, 12:31am

Oh my god. Greenspan…..words almost fail me. Almost.

“Yes, the Cairns group is working towards removing export subsidies in agricultural production”

Well, I’m glad you now concede that I was correct, and you were wrong in your statement that

“everyone dropping their trade barriers…is not actually being proposed by anyone.”

So…

“agricultural production, which makes up an ever-dwindling share of global trade”

If someone has ever so effectively shot themselves in the foot, it would be you with this last post. Tell me, what sector are the vast majority of Africans employed in? Which sector of the entire African economy would immediately benefit the most from free trade? Uh…AGRICULTURE!! And, contrary to your assertion, the majority of nations that make up the Cairns group are developing nations, you dunce. In fact, the only three members of the group that could be termed ‘developed’ are Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The other fourteen members are developing countries.

Now, the Cairns group has particular relevance to the third world. Its aims are notably intertwined with the wellbeing of Africa. The fact that you would would claim the complete opposite of the above – which is blatantly obvious – shows you have an incredibly acute case of what my buddy Steve calls cognitive dissonance.

Steve Edwards on Sun Jun 12th, 5:13am

There is certainly cognitive dissonance on the subject of trade around here. Two general beliefs appear to have emerged (simultaneously):

1) That free trade is not being practised by developed nations, and, therefore, developing nations are worse off due to the absence of free trade;

and

2) Free trade is a fiction that is not going to be implemented because we all know free trade doesn’t work.

Either (1) is true, or (2) is true.

the saintly alan greenspan on Sun Jun 12th, 2:40pm

Kids, please.

dk, we’re going in circles. The point I’ve tried (and apparently failed) to make is that no country has ever developed by dropping trade barriers, and that goes double re: commodities, which are obviously subject to large price volatility. The fact that you are arguing against economic history and common sense suggests that I am wasting my time. It’s my fault; I knew you were a Libertarian when I asked you to dance.

Steve, actually, both are wrong. Free trade is a nice idea, assuming a level playing field, and the ability of labour to move as freely as capital (i.e. your dreaded “Open Borders”). Apply truism to current situation, shake, bake.

dariuskan on Sun Jun 12th, 3:17pm

Wrong, Greenspan, as I have explained ad nauseum above. I’m not going to do it again. If you want to ignore the clear evidence and concrete examples that completely demolish your assertions, and continue to insist that the sky is indeed green, then I’ll let you live quietly in your little world of denial. I’m done with you.

wbb on Sun Jun 12th, 3:30pm

The European and US agricultural sectors are massively subsidised. Of course it would help some Africans if they were allowed access to the rich world’s food markets. And this is one of the demands of Live 8.

It won’t help those in Africa who don’t have enough food for themselves, let alone a surplus to trade for Ipods.

Debt relief from the crippling interest repayments that have been tied around the neck of Africans by corrupt dictatorships in cahoots with the IMF, the oil industry, the US arms traders etc is also a mandatory precursor to improving their situation.

Direct aid is also critical as some African countries are in a failed state, and thus the social infrsastructure needs to be funded as a first step to get anywhere at all. This is contentious becuase of pre-existing corruption. However where there is a will there is a way. If the will existed then with a bit of money, progress can be made. The alternative is to sit back and talk theory about democracy, free markets and the cult of individualism – all absolutely chimerical in many parts of Africa. But that’s ok, because for every wind-bagger there are plenty more such as those involved in Live 8 who will actually have a go at doing something.

dariuskan on Mon Jun 13th, 4:17pm

“The European and US agricultural sectors are massively subsidised. ”

That’s right. In Europe, farms are subsidised by the amount of surplus they produce. Where does this surplus go? It gets dumped on Africa. That is the worst kind of aid – making the job of African farmers that much more difficult. How are they supposed to compete against free food from the West? No wonder so many millions can’t eke out a living and starve. Who knows how many deaths can be ascribed to the CAP. The EU has pulled the first rung – agriculture – out of the societal development ladder. (Thanks for the inspiration, Latho)

European food aid is the most despicable form of aid. It’s dressed up as humanitarian, but don’t kid yourselves. It’s only there to benefit European farmers. It’s a major factor working to keep Africa poor.

“by corrupt dictatorships in cahoots with the IMF, the oil industry, the US arms traders”

Oh my god! There’s an old man waiting at a pedestrian crossing! American imperialism, big oil, Detroit, Howard the lackey, privatised white paint producers, privatisation in general, Halliburton, Enron, VSU, non ratification of Kyoto & ICC, ALL THESE FACTORS ARE COLLUDING to HINDER THIS OLD MAN! CONSPIRACY!! CONSPIRACY, I TELL YOU!!!!

wbb on Mon Jun 13th, 11:38pm

OK, so all agreed that Africa is hurt by rich world protectionism. Good.

The conspiracy between Shell and the Nigerian government is proven

As is the conspiracy between Texaco and the government in Ecuador is proven

The conspiracy between ChevronTexaco and the Angolan government is proven

Typing the word conspiracy in capital letters over and over with lots of exclamation marks may be enjoyable but it doesn’t make much of an argument.

Corporate greed in the third world is a serious problem. Big companies can buy local despots for two dissolute nights in Paris and a few hundred million dollars.

And further, the exercise of getting strategically useful countries into massive debt and hence client status in return for say a white elepahnt infrastructure project such as a 4 lane national highway in a country where nobody drives is standard USA practice.

As an aside, Bechtel has done very well out of this foreign policy strategy.

It’s not a conspiracy, it’s piracy.

dariuskan on Tue Jun 14th, 12:39am

“OK, so all agreed that Africa is hurt by rich world protectionism. Good.”

So let’s all start trading freely. All agreed? Good.

“The conspiracy between Shell and the Nigerian” etc etc

I just had a look at the Shell/Nigeria link. I’m finding it hard to find any “conspiracy”, apart from the assertions of some rebel group. I’m a little embarrassed for your argument if you reckon a conspiracy is “proven” on the say-so of a group of criminals. And the government is acting by sending in troops to stop rebels from illegally extracting oil. No mention of Shell here. Why is this a conspiracy? Why is it so wrong for the Nigerian government to protect the assets of the state? And moving right along, how do you expect the Nigerian government to exploit its resources? It clearly does not have the money to invest in oil extraction infrastructure. Shell does. It’s not unreasonable for Shell to ask for protection for its personnel and assets from the Nigerian government. Due to the risky nature of the region, it’s also not unreasonable for Shell to expect higher than usual returns. I have yet to read the other links, and I doubt I’ll bother. They’re all of the same ilk – the domain names scream “CONSPIRACY!!!” with lots of exclamation marks, you got it. You know the type: nastyamericancorporationsarefuckingovertheworld.org
Excuse me if I’m not blown away by the quality of your sources.

“4 lane national highway in a country where nobody drives”

Which are generally constructed at the behest of some megalomaniacal dictator who has a penchant for prestige projects. Rulers like that, funnily enough, aren’t exactly thin on the ground in Africa. Why would you expect a company, American or otherwise, to say “no, we’re not going to build that, we don’t think you can use it.” How ridiculous! Should we apply this nannying rule to all aspects of our society as well? “No, you’ve had three coffees already, any more might make you sick.” Imagine it.

It’s about time you guys realised the contradiction in your worldview. On the one hand, you whinge about imperialism, neo or otherwise. On the other, you complain that Western companies are treating them as sovereign nations (we shouldn’t be building them four lane expressways!!! Protect them from themselves, QUICK!) – free to make stupid decisions as well as good ones. You’d rather we nanny them and treat them like children. Sounds like neo-imperialism to me.

dariuskan on Tue Jun 14th, 2:59pm

Re. my last paragraph, when I say “them”, I am referring to former colonial countries – esp. the busted arse ones in Africa. Apologies for the infelicity of phraseology there.

Steve Edwards on Tue Jun 14th, 8:11pm

Of course, whether or not a bunch of oil companies are bankrolling Afro-dictators to protect their assets (I wouldn’t be surprised), it’s pretty obvious that the best thing to do is absolutely nothing.

After all, people always treat other people like garbage. That’s history. Get used to it, dude. Have a beer. Hire some prostitutes. Why do you even complain, anyway? Anyone who wants to change anything about the world is obviously sexually repressed, and “yerself” is no exception WBB. Do you masturbate often? I’d say yer desperate for a bottle of whiskey and some shaggin’, aren’t yer WBB? By the time yer up to yer 15th standard drink, yer’ll be out of yer mind, just like me WBB. You should aspire to be just like me, WBB.

dariuskan on Wed Jun 15th, 3:40am

Nabakov, are you posting as Steve or what?

Nabakov on Wed Jun 15th, 4:27am

“After all, people always treat other people like garbage.”

Gee, and all this time I thought Libertarianism was just anarchy for nerds.

Not sure though that aynrand wanted it clarified just like that. Still maybe that’s its appeal for geeky WA students who are yearning for an easily grasped meccano philosophy instead of getting a life.

Look wwb, when I started taunting Steviskan I had no idea he/she/it would so rapidly devolve into such heavyhanded sarky bile. I do feel a bit guilty here for helping to trigger stuff that doesn’t work on any level for anyone, like so;

“Hire some prostitutes. Why do you even complain, anyway? Anyone who wants to change anything about the world is obviously sexually repressed, and “yerself” is no exception WBB. Do you masturbate often? I’d say yer desperate for a bottle of whiskey and some shaggin’, aren’t yer WBB?”

But hey big gallic shoulder shrug I am not my brother’s keeper, ne c’est pas dude?

I reckon Steviskan is either still smarting over me poking him about the withers with a sardonic boat hook…or the idea of a strawmen sex doll is really getting his juices flowing.

Either way I suggest that, after my latest goad under his twitchy hide here and now, everyone pushes their chair back from their screen…in five elephants…in four elephants…in three elephants…in two elephants….in about now!

And you thought “Scanners” was a work of fiction. Now I’ve straddled the target, I reckon I’ll soon be able to pop Steviskan’s mind at long distance like a ping pong ball under a wellington boot.

wbb on Wed Jun 15th, 7:36am

Steve, your satirical parody needs work. But, hey, I never criticise a bloke for having a go. So 1/10 this time but don’t give up.

“Have a beer. Hire some prostitutes.” !!!

Makes me feel all dirty in a nasty Donald Trump kind of way. Reverse the quantities and it would have punched a bit more.

By the way your subs for the last masterclass with Doktor Nabakov are overdue. See the Fraulein on your way out.

Steve Edwards on Wed Jun 15th, 12:38pm

Pfft. What would you know about parody, wbb? I guess putting a UN flag on a blog is a kind of self-parody in a we’re-so-incredibly-sophisticated-around-here way. It can’t possibly be serious… can it?

Nabakov’s comment on the other hand was a brilliant satire of a ageing brain-fried hippy. “Blah blah blah, need more viagra, blah blah blah, somebody pass the crack pipe.” Or something like that.

Dude, get your hand off it. One of these days, anyhow.

I like conspiracies though. And WBB’s brilliant prose is only the beginning.

“The conspiracy between Shell and the Nigerian government is proven

As is the conspiracy between Texaco and the government in Ecuador is proven

The conspiracy between ChevronTexaco and the Angolan government is proven”

The conspiracy between Nabakov, a head towel, and a can of Dulux, is proven.

Sorry about the lack of links, but you’ll just have to take my word for it.

dariuskan on Wed Jun 15th, 2:11pm

Enough of the Steve/Nabakov sideshow, amusing as it is. Well, Steve was funny. More of the same from Nabakov. Like the man himself, it got old long ago. He doesn’t seem to know much about politics or political philosophy either.

WBB – are you going to respond to my most recent posts?

Fyodor on Wed Jun 15th, 2:11pm

Truly devastating wit, Steve. Now do that imitation of Scared Little White Boy again. That so funny – make me laugh long time!

dariuskan on Wed Jun 15th, 2:13pm

Although

“easily grasped meccano philosophy”

very succinctly sums up socialism. Which is why so many clueless 16 year olds are lefties.

Nabakov on Wed Jun 15th, 2:20pm

Aha, so it was a parody Steviskan was it?

Suddenly so much about your writing becomes clearer.

Look mate, a few words of advice. Not having a sense of humour is like not being able to dance. Nothing to be ashamed of but it is worth having a few lessons in private before trying the moves in public.

And gee, 24 and already suffering from male pattern baldness along with that recessive humour gene. Yer just not gonna age gracefully on any level are you?

Fyodor on Wed Jun 15th, 2:31pm

That’s a little harsh, Nabsy. It’s obvious that Steve was born a cranky old white bloke – there’s no ageing required. Unfortunately, because he’s gone to some uni somewhere he thinks he’s an intellectual cut above his fellow taxi drivers, sorry, peers.

the saintly alan greenspan on Wed Jun 15th, 3:12pm

Just for fun, some college republicans

Steve Edwards on Wed Jun 15th, 10:07pm

“Although

“easily grasped meccano philosophy”

very succinctly sums up socialism. Which is why so many clueless 16 year olds are lefties.”

A salient point Darius. It forms part of the reason I’m befuddled as to the average age around here. It’s either 16 or it’s 55. Sometimes they’re playing naive bolshie lovers but otherwise they’re dirty old toothless vagrants.

At least the vagrant constituency has heard of humour, but only through at least three degrees of separation. Humour means I’d get to ramble something incoherant about elephants and perhaps even elephants getting it on. It works for geriatrics apparently.

Steve Edwards on Wed Jun 15th, 10:31pm

Well well well, it looks like the entire North Shore Red Brigades have taken time out from polishing their Saladin busts and found their way down to WBB’s lair of toothless crones. It’s nice to see you again Fyodor – a good Red Russian name to be sure.

Now, one (on a slightly more serious note) thing I was meaning to bring up with you ol’ Fyodor (who I’m certain is a lapsed Liberal and now a hard leftist of the Petro/Fraser fold) is whether you voted for Howard in 2001. It is recalled you said somewhere you did. Is that a true recollection?

dariuskan on Wed Jun 15th, 11:18pm

Stevo – tres witty. Although, I think you may have to detune your wittiness for consumption around these parts – otherwise it will go over heads – they won’t realise what you’re saying is humorous. Hence all the “get a sense of humour” comments. Only the most rudimentary japes will do for the knuckledraggers around here. I couldn’t help having a chuckle at this, however:

” a few words of advice. Not having a sense of humour is like…” etc

Sage words indeed. One wonders, however, why Nabakov refuses to follow his own advice? Out of all of them, he’s the one who would really benefit from it.

Incidentally, WBB -and for the second time – I wonder if you’d care to comment on my earlier, more serious post.

wbb on Wed Jun 15th, 11:55pm

“Why would you expect a company, American or otherwise, to say “no, we’re not going to build that, we don’t think you can use it.” How ridiculous! Should we apply this nannying rule to all aspects of our society as well?”

Darius, lending money to thieving, absconding dictators and then expecting the impoverished populace to keep up with the repayment schedule is a low form of capitalism. It’s hardly nannying to side with the victims rather than with the crims. If even the G8 has finally grown a conscience and decided to call off the debt collectors, you shoudl be able to see it too. The extortion has gone on for too long and too many people have realised the reality of a shameful decades long episode where the rich world screwed over the poorest members of the global community to make a buck and to gain a little geo-strategic advantage.

Was this the serious comment you’ve been badgering me to respond to?

Look, Noam Chomsky’s got a blog. Why don’t you go dazzle him with your wit and learning.

Steve Edwards on Thu Jun 16th, 12:21am

I don’t think Darius was referring to either the IMF or debt relief in the excerpt you quote. Indeed, Darius has not (to my knowledge) expressed any strong opinions on the IMF.

“Darius, lending money to thieving, absconding dictators and then expecting the impoverished populace to keep up with the repayment schedule is a low form of capitalism.”

Handing aid to absconding dictators is likely to have a vaguely similar effect to giving them a loan. Although, on one hand, a loan ties their hands somewhat meaning they can’t kill and starve ALL their opponents; on the other hand, the dictator doesn’t personally pay back the loan (except perhaps, in foregone palaces) but the people more or less do.

Either way, we’re damned. Both foreign aid and sub-market loans are disastrous ideas that have served to create a long line of mendicant states that are forever needing to be bailed out by yet more foreign aid and loans.

Whether or not debt relief will achieve its stated objectives is unknown. Perhaps because (unlike foreign aid) managed debt relief IS untried, it is well worth implementing for the heck of it. Sure, why not? It’ll do.

wbb on Thu Jun 16th, 12:26am

Good, because that’s what we are trying. The Jubilee 2000 people deserve a drink.

And it is only one plank in the approach. I hope. Once the Live 8 and G8 circuses leave town it may all go back to business as usual. But for now – we can be hopeful.

the saintly alan greenspan on Thu Jun 16th, 1:50am

Good Christ, this darius kid is such a wiener. dk, pls post a picture of your haircut, so that we may laugh at it.

dariuskan on Thu Jun 16th, 3:01am

The idiot who posted on Thursday, June 16th at 1.50am – remember, I’m done with you. You have once again proven to be beneath recognition.

“Darius, lending money to thieving, absconding dictators and then expecting the impoverished populace to keep up with the repayment schedule is a low form of capitalism.”

WBB, in the 1970s it was people like yourself who were screaming for Western governments to lend money to these African despots. Had to assuage your white man’s guilt somehow, eh? Fast forward thirty years or so; now you get to be all clever after the fact. What a deal!

Anyway, Greenspan isn’t the only one who has problems with his reading comprehension. Or was it Nabakov. Hell, they both do. Anyway, you’ve erroneously fisked my comment, you buffoon. When I said

“Why would you expect a company, American or otherwise, to say “no, we’re not going to build that, we don’t think you can use it.” How ridiculous! Should we apply this nannying rule to all aspects of our society as well?””

I didn’t once mention “lending money” in that post. I was commenting on the part where you were whingeing that nasty American companies were – sin of sins! – being contracted by sovereign states to build infrastructure projects. So, you’ve shown that you’re utterly scatterbrained, and you’ve basically put forward nothing of any use. If you’re up to the job, can you please order your thoughts and get back to me? To make things easier for you, here’s what you failed to respond to.

*You failed to respond to me pointing out the flaws in your ridiculous conspiracy theories.

*You failed to respond to my assertion that your world view on the issue of troubled former colonial countries is totally contradictory.

*You failed to respond to my query as to why an American company – hell, any company, but you do love to bash the Yanks – should decline infrastructure projects in the above countries because said countries, in your opinion, shouldn’t have them.

So. How about having a proper crack at these babies. I don’t know how I can make it any more comprehensible for you.

dariuskan on Thu Jun 16th, 3:53am

And to whoever it was making fun of “college Republicans”, I wouldn’t be laughing too hard if I were you. People like that are liable to be driving you out of business as well as screwing your wife at the same time.

Fyodor on Thu Jun 16th, 8:19am

And a big How Do? to you too, Stevie. Come off the late shift, have you? BTW, that towel is actually meant for the back seats, not the driver.

Seeing as you asked so nicely, I will confirm that I voted Liberal in 2001. I’m still not so sure it was the wrong thing to do, either, as Labor was all over the shop. You’re obviously keen to know me in a deep and intimate fashion, so I’ll go a little further and state that I’m not a lapsed anything.

I should caution you, however, on jumping to geographic conclusions. You may believe you have a commanding view of the globe from the rarefied atmos of Perth, but your guesswork needs more, well, work.

As suggested by Nabsy, your sense of humour is not so much in need of work as concealment. “Toothless crones” indeed! We’ve already worked out what you do in your spare time – it’d be preferable if you kept your particular fetishes to yourself.

Stick to the paranoid white boy conspiracies. It is, as they say, your core competency. One day you might even develop enough charisma to start your own militia group, and finally become interesting, albeit in a nutjob ASIO kinda way. ‘Cos you gotta have goals, Stevieboy, you gotta have goals.

Steve Edwards on Thu Jun 16th, 12:14pm

Interesting. A Howard voting Howard hater. I suspected as much.

“I should caution you, however, on jumping to geographic conclusions.”’

It’s too late, I’m afraid. You’re already pidgeon-holed as a self-flagellator; I’d say geographically…a Lygone Street regular.

Fyodor on Thu Jun 16th, 2:14pm

Oh dear. Are you studying at a TAFE, Steve? OK, that’s a little unkind: it’s clear that politics isn’t your strong suit, so I’ll explain the flaws in your argument.

Under the Westminster parliamentary system, the executive arm of government is determined by the party holding the majority of the seats in the representative house. One therefore does not vote for the head of the executive, one votes indirectly for the party that one wishes to control the executive. As I don’t reside in the seat of Bennelong, I didn’t vote “for Howard”. I held my nose and voted for the Liberal [sic] Party. There’s a difference. Hope that clears things up.

“It’s too late, I’m afraid. You’re already pidgeon-holed as a self-flagellator; I’d say geographically…a Lygone Street regular.”

Look, I can see where you’re going with this, Steve, and I just want to assure you that it’s quite normal for a minority of young blokes like yourself to find themselves questioning their sexuality. Having a narcissistic streak like yours, you’re already familiar with erotic attachment to men, but you’re just not used to those men being other people. It’s all quite natural and normal [well, apart from your fixation on geriatric porn- that really is quite aberrant, you deviant], and nothing for you to be ashamed about. However, I must disappoint you by stating that I’m not your way inclined. I suggest you fixate yourself on someone more attainable and, well, a bit more like you. Bob Brown, perhaps.

BTW, if you want to make friends in your new sub-culture, I suggest you learn how to spell Lygon. That sort of fox paw could mark you out as a clueless hick. Oops…

the saintly alan greenspan on Thu Jun 16th, 2:19pm

dk, you’ll no doubt make another show of not making a show of ignoring me, but were you not quite so thick, you’d realise that loans and infrastructure projects are rather closely related, i.e. the former were frequently conditioned upon the latter.

dariuskan on Thu Jun 16th, 3:38pm

Fyodor – get your hand off it, you pedantic wanker. No need to get technical; we all know how the Australian parliamentary system works. Since we all know how the system works, we should all know how influential figures can affect party policy. Who has been the most dominant, influential Liberal MP since Menzies? Who best personifies the Liberal Party these days? Steve’s absolutely correct in calling you on your 2001 preference. I doubt there’s a sane person in the country who can’t stand Howard, loathes and despises everything he stands for, and still votes Liberal.

Fyodor on Thu Jun 16th, 3:49pm

Another devastating argument, DK – you’re obviously a master logician.

However, your contribution was typically pointless as I don’t STILL vote Liberal. Care to try again?

dariuskan on Thu Jun 16th, 4:19pm

“Another devastating argument, DK – you’re obviously a master logician.”

I’m not claiming that status, however I seem to have bested you, since you couldn’t lash together a response with any substance.

“as I don’t STILL vote Liberal.”

Now that is typically pointless, because, if you care to actually read what I’d written in my post, I said “Steve’s absolutely correct in calling you on your 2001 preference.” The fact that you don’t now vote Liberal was irrelevant to what I’d said in my post and still is. There. Happy now?

Fyodor on Thu Jun 16th, 4:46pm

OK, I take back that bit about you being logical. No doubt you benefited from beginner’s luck the first time, as this time you’ve merely repeated what you wrote and repeated what I wrote, and you’ve dressed up the charade as an argument. Absolutely masterful comprehension.

What’s next? A verbatim quote of this post? Dazzle me with your intellect and verve.

dariuskan on Thu Jun 16th, 5:10pm

Fyodor – Good god. And you have the cheek to be sarcastic about my comprehension. Okay, you’re in the same basket as that other basket case – enjoy your shared intellectual poverty together. I’m done with you, too.

Fyodor on Thu Jun 16th, 5:18pm

No worship necessary, but appreciated all the same. There’s more cheek where that came from, Brains Trust. See you next time.

Nabakov on Fri Jun 17th, 1:16am

“You have once again proven to be beneath recognition.”

But you still keep coming back. What’s Steviskan’s other hand doing in the meantime?

This is how it looks to rest of us of us. We’re all farting around, goofing off and having a bit of chinwag here when suddenly up pops a unworldly, intense, rather paranoid young student (and his sock puppet) from one of the world’s most remote and boring cities, desperate to brandish all the exciting new stuff he just discovered at Uni and on internet at someone, anymore, so he can feel good about his brain, if nothing else.

And when the folks here respond as they would to a Maltese terrier puppy that’s eaten too much chocolate, the young student in question (let’s call him Steviskan for argument’s sake), he completely blows his top.

Given such a scenario, who wouldn’t want to haul out the ole pointed stick and goose him some more?

And it just occurred to me folks – isn’t “Young Perth Libertarians” a great name for a not very good thrash band?

Steve Edwards on Fri Jun 17th, 2:54am

Now, now, Nabakov, that’s a very silly lad. Very naughty. You don’t mean any of that.

Look o’ Nabakov, we could always buzz off and leave the goofing farting geriatrics to their little rotten borough if you wish, Nabakov, WBB, chaps. But we’re enjoying ourselves, and driving WBB’s comments-count through the Blairist stratosphere. Everybody wins, no-one complains.

Things were too cloistered and cliquey around these parts. A few meandering posts on oil conspiracies here, a couple of love poems to dear Gough there, followed by occasional clatterings of polite applause. It won’t do. Too much backscratching and boostering, I’m afraid. Now, suddenly, the old gents are alive in the true spirit of Greco-Roman festivities. This place is on fire. Even the austere and reserved Fyodor is now gently prying open the closet door, exploring the true meaning of his masculinity in ways hitherto not pondered.

Nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all.

But what do we get for our troubles? Why, this: “And it just occurred to me folks – isn’t “Young Perth Libertarians” a great name for a not very good thrash band?”

Politely, I couldn’t see it up in lights, myself, old boy.

Well, that’s it, Darius, old bean. The Melburnian park bench residents just don’t want us anymore. Perhaps we should charitably donate our Herald Suns (Sunday edition – extra warmth I’m told) and bid them Godspeed.

Nabakov on Fri Jun 17th, 3:53am

Jeez Steviskan, that’s some really clunky and clenched teeth prose there. It seems you have a seriously tin ear to go with your metallic hairline.

“Look o’ Nabakov”
“Look ole Nabakov, it’s that time o’ the clock when you should be abed.”

“occasional clatterings of polite applause”
Try “occasional claques”. It’s more rhythmic and pointed.

“boostering,”
“boosterism”

“Greco-Roman festivities”
You have no idea either what that means in this context do you? You just chucked it in ‘cos it sounded posh.

” Politely, I couldn’t see it up in lights, myself, old boy.”
“Frankly old fruit, I can’t see it in lights m’self.”
See, that’s how to wring a grammatically correct yet evocative cadence out of archaic arsing about.

”...just don’t want us anymore. ...bid them Godspeed.”
You’ll be back. Your gnawing little ego won’t let you sleep otherwise.

And I leave it to M. Fyodor to point out how excitable you get whenever the s.e.x. word is mentioned.

Fyodor on Fri Jun 17th, 8:52am

Less said on Fruityloopy’s preferences the better, I think. We’ve looked into that bowl of spaghetti and it wasn’t pleasant the first time.

“Greco-Roman Festivities”.

Priceless. That one’s going straight to the poolroom. Who said “open-mike” night at the RSL was a waste of time?

Jason Soon on Fri Jun 17th, 9:32am

Nabs
Call l’il Stevie Wonder anything you want but don’t call him libertarian! Have you actually read his blog? He’s a flamin’ Buchananite. I disown the young pup from my brood.

dariuskan on Fri Jun 17th, 2:32pm

Well, whaddaya know! Mind out Steve, Nabakov’s had another blast of air to the head.

Attention discount shoppers! As per our community inclusiveness programme, one of our ‘special’ employees has had a little accident. So when you’re browsing in the pet food section, be aware of the large pile of drool adjacent to the Go-Cat. Housekeeping, cleanup in aisle seven!

dariuskan on Fri Jun 17th, 2:37pm

Jason – I don’t think anyone here bar Go-Cat boy reckons Steve’s a libertarian, least of Steve himself.

Fyodor on Fri Jun 17th, 2:42pm

Hey, Brains Trust is back! Hiya, BT! You must work in the same Quickie Mart as Stevie Wonder. You’ve no doubt benefited from labour market reform: two hicks for the price of one illegal immigrant. Noyce.

Come up with something interesting to say yet? Just trollin’, eh? Typical.

dariuskan on Fri Jun 17th, 3:59pm

yawn

Review your comment below
html shortcuts *bold* _italic_ "link to wbb":http://wbbaboon.com

Previous		Next
Deep Throat II	Home	Sociologists Having Pink Fits

William Burroughs' Baboon

Live 8

by William Burroughs Baboon on 5 June 05

Comment

Leave a response: