MEDIA: Numbered paragraphs on scandalous tapping ...

Far be it from me to revel in someone else's sorry. But seriously, the Murdoch press has caused sorrow to so many people that it's time to have a good laugh. So here goes.

[01] Here is an excellent summary and analysis of the line taken by that American newspaper that calls itself The Australian. .

[02] Here are some legalistic thoughts ...

It’s midnight. I’m sitting in front of the TV with two work colleagues. One is an experienced crown prosecutor who has run major jury trials in two common law countries and has over 3 decades advocacy experience. The second is a criminal defence lawyer who has practised in three Australian states. And then there is me, a humble civil and employment litigator.

We’d just finished washing our sides off the sofa after they were split by viewing The Naked Gun. We switched onto BBC. We’re watching history being made. And we can’t help but watch with our lawyer’s glasses on. Here are some of my colleagues’ responses.

“This poor old man is passing the buck,” says the former prosecutor. “He’s trying to dodge the question. It’s not working. It’s so obvious.”

“This bloke’s the client from hell. Fancy admitting you take tax issues seriously but not hacking phones,” says the defence lawyer.

“These are simple questions. Why is he taking so long to answer them? Is Rupert’s dementia natural or deliberate?” says the prosecutor again.

To say the least, the Murdochs were clearly unprepared. The MP’s on the Committee asked simple, direct and at best only mildly probing questions that would have sent Rumpole to sleep. One female MP asked a super-gentle question. James Murdoch thanked her and praised her question. My criminal defence colleague said: “The reason he’s thanking her is because she gave him a question he’s actually prepared for”.

Unlike the Murdochs, the MP’s were on top of the brief. They seemed to know more about News Corporation than the two men claiming to run the show. One interesting thing Mr ex-Prosecutor noted is that a number of the MP’s kept referring to Rupert as “Mr Murdoch” and James simply as “James”.

And I lost count of the number of times one MP called out words to this effect: “James, I will come to you later. My question is for Mr Murdoch.”

“Why is that young fella always butting in?” It wasn’t so much a question from the former prosecutor as an observation. James Murdoch seemed to play a Saif al-Islam type of role in selling and then defending his father’s regime to the world. But my learned colleagues were left with the impression that James was just a young upstart kid trying to protect his dad from the assassin’s bullets using a water pistol.

Here’s one you don’t have to have a practising certificate to understand. The CEO/Chairman and directors of a company like News Corp would have no knowledge of serious wrongdoing, if not serious criminal activity, is quite frankly unbelievable. Murdoch explained it away by telling us that News of the World represented a mere 1% of the entire organisation. So how big must a proportion of the empire be before criminal conduct is worthy of becoming a serious issue of corporate governance?

What shocked me as an employment lawyer was the complete absence of any internal investigative and disciplinary procedures to deal with unethical (if not unlawful and downright criminal) conduct. At least that was my impression after watching Mr Murdoch (as opposed to James) giving his testimony. It was a case of “well, I didn’t know it was going on and in any event the police are now handling it.”

What kind of company sees police investigation as a substitute for serious internal disciplinary investigation?

Based on their performance before the UK Parliamentary Committee, I can’t help thinking that perhaps Lieutenant Frank Drebin of Police Squad was better at policing LA than the Murdochs are at policing their own empire.

VIDEO: Fox News reports a terrorist attack in America

Russian cable news network RT asks some pertinent questions.



Bookmark this on Delicious

VIDEO: Veteran from a family of veterans warns of a "modern day Salem witch hunt" ...

Bookmark this on Delicious

HATEWATCH: Michelle Malkin spews all over Rachel Ray's Dunkin' kafiyyeh ...

Thanks to Crikey for pointing out how far-Right morons like Michelle Malkin continue to exercise control over News Corporation (which, as we all know, is at least 7% Saudi-owned).

Crikey linked to a report from the Boston Globe which reports of American donut giant Dunkin' Donuts which ...

... has abruptly canceled an ad in which the domestic diva wears a scarf that looks like a keffiyeh, a traditional headdress worn by Arab men.

This came after pressure from FoxNews commentator and blogger Michelle Malkin made this interesting anthropological observation ...

The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad ... Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant and not-so-ignorant fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.

Malkin is right. Anyone who accepts her version of Arab culture is clueless.

For the benefit of this minority of clueless far-Right fruitloops, Dunkin' has removed the advertisement. In her typically hysterical fashion, Malkin made this observation on her hate-blog ...

It's refreshing to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists.

Yep. No doubt Rupert Murdoch will now ban members of the Saudi royal family from buying any further shares in his all-American company!

By the way, Michelle, judging by your facial features, my guess is that many FoxNews viewers might doubt that you are a true-blue American. Then again, their ideological equivalent in Australia often get confused by my ethnic background as well.

For those who want to learn more about Malkin, her book In Defence of Internment has now been remaindered and can be purchased for under $5 at Basement Books in central Sydney. But don't buy it yet. Wait until they start giving it out.



Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

RACISM: From killing Muslims to perfecting Jews ...

Ann Coulter is neo-Conservative America’s thick-Sheik extraordinairre. She suffers from chronic foot-in-mouth disease, repeatedly and deliberately saying things to offend. Yet she also has a loyal cheersquad ready to defend her at all costs.

On October 8, Coulter appeared on CNBC’s Big Ideas program and suggested that American Jews needed to be converted to Christianity en masse so as to become “perfected”. Charming.

Still, it’s not as bad as what she wrote the day after September 11. On that occasion, Coulter had this foreign policy suggestion: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity”. She also called for mass deportation of immigrants.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, Coulter then wrote in her 2005 book Godless: The Church of Liberalism that September 11 widows were ...

... self-obsessed women ... These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them ... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.

Coulter was also caught out using a speech to the 34th Conservative Political Action Conference to describe Democratic Party presidential candidate John Edwards as a “faggot”. Mr & Mrs Edwards soon got their revenge, raising $100,000 in “Coulter cash” for his campaign.

But getting back to her “perfected Jews” theory, Coulter has actually been defended by some neo-Con Jewish commentators. These include Dick Prager who says Coulter’s evangelical Christian supporters are Israel’s best friends.

Many Israelis beg to differ. Writing under the headline "Ann Coulter's dream of a Jew-free America", Haaretz columnist Bradley Burston wites ...

This month, Coulter waded into the mess first made by Republican White House hopeful John McCain, when he referred to America as a nation founded on the principles of Christianity, indicating that he would prefer to see a fellow Christian in the White House.

Barely a week after McCain's comments, Coulter told an exasperated Jewish talk-show host that in her dreams, heaven - for that matter, America - is a place where everyone is Christian.

Where would the Jews have gone? She went on to explain that that Jews needed to convert to Christians in order to be "perfected," noting that Christians have a "fast track" to God.

Burston recognises the parallel existence of Coulter's anti-Semitism and Muslim-phobia ...

Until recently, I failed to take Ann Coulter seriously. I was wrong.

I was wrong to write off as mere stand-up racism her advice after the September 11 attacks ["We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males."]

I was wrong to write off as scattershot shtick her comments against women's right to vote, her suggestion that John Edwards was a "faggot" who should have been assassinated by terrorists, her depiction of Islam as a religion whose whose tenets are "along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed.'"

I was wrong to see her as some highly intelligent, well-educated, perversely gifted panderer to the lower common denominator. I was wrong to see her as some overqualified infotainment shock jock. I should have taken her seriously.

Ann Coulter is my enemy. Ann Coulter is the kind of patriotic, persuasive, powerful American who is precisely what is wrong with America.

I'll never underestimate her again. Ann Coulter has a plan for the Jews. She has one for Muslims as well. And it's her people who are exactly the kind of Americans who could find the way to try to carry it out. (emphasis mine)

They question whether Coulter’s support for Israel should be enough for American Jews to ignore the anti-Semitic undertones of her remarks. Others recognise that far-Right Zionists who make alliances with Muslim-phobic evangelical Christians are harming Judaism and Zionism in the long run. As Ellen Horowitz writes ...

Coulter has always worn her cross on her sleeve (when she wears sleeves), but Jews never seem to notice these things until the crucifix is dangling within an inch of our eyes. In response to 9/11 she wrote, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". But "them" wasn't us, and so we let it pass.

At a lecture at Northwestern University a few years back she declared: "This is a religious war, not against Islam but for Christianity, for a Christian nation ... The concept of equality, especially when it comes to gender equality, was not invented by Gloria Steinem. It was invented by Jesus Christ. As long as people look long enough, they will always come to Christianity." Good thing we weren't looking.

But Jews in the Diaspora are always shocked when they are finally reminded of who they are, and recent declarations of Christian nationalism by John McCain and Ann Coulter have stirred Lady Liberty's simmering melting pot and sensitivities. American Jews are feeling the heat.

Things are getting sticky for us Jews in Israel too. What was supposed to be a practical marriage of convenience to improve and strengthen our economic, political, and security standing in Israel, has been converted into a full blown love affair of biblical proportions. And our evangelical partners are pushing for a Judeo-Christian consummation -- a spiritual bonding -- of our relationship. Maybe we should have had a pre-nup drawn up before embarking on this precarious interfaith venture ...

Knowing what we now know about Coulter and company, do we really want to pursue theologically-based bonds with Christians who are so passionate about their beliefs? And if we do opt to continue our relationship, how far do we take it?

Should the Jewish people attempt to form a union with another faith whose members can't keep their mouths shut about what they perceive to be the sacred truth -- but which to us is utter and explosive blasphemy?

With headlines from major Christian Zionist and Jewish Messianic publications boasting that "Jews Beg Christians to Save the Temple Mount", it appears that we have been handed the short end of the grafted Judeo-Christian stick. (emphasis mine)

Many US-based Jewish organisations such as the Anti-Defamation League have also condemned Coulter.

But the folks at Rupert Murdoch’s FoxNews don’t seem to mind Coulter’s thinly-veiled anti-Semitism. Coulter continues to appear regularly on Fox. On her most recent appearance, Bill O’Reilly defended Coulter and said he didn’t really care about the comments. And the silence among Aussie News Limited media has been deafening. Go to the search feature of news.com.au, type in “ann coulter” and you’ll see what I mean.

And as expected, Coulter’s supporters are using the classic thick-Sheik defence – that seen in their “proper” context, her remarks were not anti-Semitic or otherwise offensive. If Coulter spoke as much Arabic and as little English as many thick-Sheiks, I just might be tempted to believe them.

MEDIA: Sydney Slickers Meet Forrest Gump @ South Park

Picture this. I am sitting at my best mate Don’s place in the inner suburbs of Sydney. We have just had dinner, prepared by Carol, his lovely Chinese-Australian wife. And we move to his lounge-room to watch the idiotbox (affectionately known as the ‘TV’). Don has recently signed up with that entertainment novelty we call ‘pay-TV’. We switch to the Fox Channel. And we are amazed.

Right there, before our very eyes, are a bunch of TV hosts behaving more like those poor school kids suffering from ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder). The subject?

"THE CASE AGAINST IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Problem was, we could not see much of a case. All we saw was pictures of Colin Powell walking around the UN, shaking hands, receiving pats on the back (and no doubt requests for hard cash in return for a crucial vote). And pictures from the multi-media demonstration that formed an integral part of Powell’s 80-minute address.

All this whilst the ADD kids are just budding into each other’s comments. "Saddam stole my eraser in class! He’s gonna pay!" says the female host with the appropriately-colored hair.

"Yeh, well so what. Saddam took all my pencils and is throwing them at that fat kid Ariel. Oh my God, Ariel’s crying! Poor Ariel, what a victim!" says the dude with the over-ironed suit and hyperactive face that looks like it has been shaven 20 times that morning.

"Hey here comes Ariel with nuclear-powered crayons. And look! He’s poking Saddam’s eyes out. That’s a bit much, isn’t it?" says the third fellow who looks more like Jerry Seinfeld than Jerry Seinfeld.

On and on it goes. We sit there stunned, waiting for Jerry Springer to enter at some stage. Don’s wife Carol is shocked and surprised. "Is this serious TV or Sesame Street? They are just talking over each other like kids. I wonder if all Americans are like this," she says with her eyes wide open.

Don’s impressions are not much more flattering.

"These guys look like a bunch of used car salesmen. Check out that guy. He’s not interviewing the guest. He’s lecturing him!"

"Yep", I continue, "Isn’t it great how Uncle Rupert [i.e. Murdoch] can get away with making so much money selling such a crappy product over there in America. Imagine if he tried to do that here. He’d be laughed out of town!"

Why on earth am I telling you all this, my North American bruzzerz and sistarrz? I guess because it would be good if more and more Americans knew how the rest of the world views them, including citizens of allied countries like Australia.

Aussies have always viewed Yanks (as we call you) as eccentric, over-flourished, and a bit manic. It was an Australian psychiatrist who discovered that salt lithium carbonate could be used to treat mood swings. And most Aussies would agree with me when I say more Yanks take the stuff than we do.

But even these pre-conceived notions we have of our allies could not prepare Don, his wife and me for what came next on Fox News. The volume was pretty high on the TV, and I had gone to the bathroom. As I was walking back, I heard this accent that I recalled from a bad movie with really good music. It was unmistakable. I could hear Don laughing and shouting, "Run, Richard, run!"

And as I walked into the idiotbox room, I saw on the screen someone who talked like Forrest, sounded like Forrest, even seemed to think like Forrest. But no, it was not Forrest Gump. It was Richard Shelby, an elected Republican Senator from Alabama.

Saddaam Husseyyn ayand Al Kayyda both haav da saym aym!

I sat with my friend and wondered whether this guy was reading something his "mamma" wrote for him. And as Senator Shelby continued to insult Saddam, we were just waiting any moment for Forrest Gump to turn into another episode of South Park. "Ma Mamma told me dat drugs ar bayad. Ayand Aah hate drugs!! Ayand that Saddaam gah--whah Aah reckon he is havin sodomy with thah devil!"

Once Senator Shelby was disposed of and shipped back to the land where life is like a chocolate cake, the hosts decided to see what the newspapers were saying. They held up the covers of numerous tabloids which all spoke of war and hard evidence and why Bush is good and why we should go and kick some Ay-rab butt. What they did not tell us was that each of these newspapers was owned by their employer, the Australian-born ex-Australian Rupert Murdoch.

The final straw for us was when our ADD-afflicted hosts brought on the token Ay-rab (and indeed the token expert). Professor Walid Phares taught something-to-do- with-Ay-rabs at the Murdoch Heights University. And his hosts were determined to impose their stamp on his attempts at letting loose his flair of "expertise."

Look, Professor. We Americans know Saddam is a lunatic. And we all saw he has weapons of mass seduction … woops … I meant de-suction. All us Americans think that. But what about you Arabs? I mean, what does the Arab on the street think?

And just as Professor Phares was about to speak, another host intervened.

Surely the Mozzlem world and the rest of the Arabs could not accept all of Saddam’s propaganda. And what about all our friends in democratic states like Saudi Arabia and Jordan?

Again the Professor tried to respond.

I’ll bet they don’t watch programs like ours where we invite independent experts to speak. They probably watch real-bad TV channels like Al Jazeera ...

... said the hostess with hair colored to reflect her IQ (sorry, that was really cruel).

By this stage, Professor Phares was probably wondering what he was doing here. After 5 minutes he just could not get a word in. What did they want him to say? What expertise was he meant to share with them? What was the whole point of the exercise?

But at the mention of Al Jazeera, the good Professor realized what his role was--to beat the living shit out of a network Rupert could never buy off.

Yes, my friendz, Al Jazeera iz just full ov consbiracy theories. In za Arab vuld, all za beebil vash zis nonsense ...

... the Professor spoke with a tabloid nod.

Hey I like this professor. We should invite you on more often. How do I go about enrolling in one of your courses?

... said the Seinfeld-look-alike.

By this time, my own hosts had had enough of this trash. Carol and Don reached for the aspirin tablets while I switched to watching animals from the Amazon jungle imitating UN Security Council delegates on Discovery Channel.

(This article first appeared in some pinko-lefty US-based Moslem-terrorist fundamentalist fanatic extremist website called 'MuslimWakeup!'. Clearly the site has been funded by al-Qaida and should be investigated and shut down. Alternately, perhaps Uncle Rupert could make them an offer!)

Words © 2003 Irfan Yusuf





Bookmark this on Delicious