h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

My country is at war. Despite what some think, it is a war that nobody wanted. Whether people agreed with the “need” to get involved or not no one wanted war. President Bush said that war could be averted if Iraq complied fully with the UN resolutions passed since the last gulf war. But full compliance was interpreted differently by different nations.

I don’t know how it played-out worldwide but here, when France declared that they would veto any resolution that allowed force to be a response for non-compliance, some felt like we had no diplomatic option left. How can a security council oversee world security if it isn’t wiling to wield force when absolutely necessary? It must be a cultural thing. The idea of a policeman attempting to stop an armed robbery without a gun is ludicrous to me.

I confess I am a typical American isolationist. My first reaction is not to get involved in anything. After all, what do I know about their lives? Let Israel and Palestine duke it out. Africa will develop democracies if it wants, etc. -- Build a big fence and play in my own playground. Of course I know that it can’t work that way, if for no other reason than that the US consumes so much more than it makes here in its own playground. So we have to think globally and we should be concerned about more than ensuring that our conspicuous consumption remains uninhibited by world events.

Even so, is the US supposed to be the policeman of the world? If we are expected to step in (and out) of conflicts then who decides when? And how? Our judgment is certainly fallible. Is the UN’s better? Does decision-making by consensus always result in better decisions? Will the American people tolerate its government handing over decision-making power to the UN? I wouldn’t.

My brother is a surgeon in the Army. He was working as a professor of surgery until this war began. So far, he is substantially poorer than he was a month ago but safe. How long? My grandfather fought in WWI. My father in WWII. My uncle died in the Battle of the Bulge. My father-in-law fought in the Korean War. I thank God that my husband missed the draft by four years. My family is not unique. Most people I know have lost family members to wars fought for the liberation of other countries, other peoples, for the purpose of stopping an “evil dictator” or regime.

You may say Saddam Hussein is no Hitler. Whatever. This isn’t new behavior on the part of my government. We just decided to go first this time. Maybe in this war my family won’t lose anyone but if we do it will be because someone thought we needed to stop an evil dictator. I may not agree but I do understand the motivation. And while you work up to a healthy hate of the US and all things America because of our heavy-handed diplomacy and horrible war I hope that you also remember that there are real people out there with real families who would probably rather be just about anywhere else but they are soldiers, devoted to a country that does many, many things right.

Interestingly enough, my country is one of the three in the initial "coalition of the willing". Despite the fact that the vast majority of the electors seem to have rejected the idea of going to war, the Government persisted. Six weeks before the fighting began, the troopships were stationed in the Gulf and the parliamentary debates continued.

I can't help but feeling that this whole thing is far more complex than I can possibly comprehend. My father joined the navy when I was three and left when I was fifteen. I know the way the navy works, since I lived with it so closely during my early years: going to navy schools (run normally, but 90% of the children was navy children), living in navy houses and wandering around naval depots. Wars are rarely easy or straightfoward. The five day war is from Boy's Own Adventure books, not the stuff that the people who live their lives on warships even think about.

Australia is an outward looking country and always has been. Issolationism is not even a dream. We like participating in the world. America is a cool place with a national vision that many Australian's enjoin, even if Americans themselves can't speak english properly and own too many guns. Britain, despite its unnecessary poverty, has a national vision that we colonials still share and (mostly) aspire to.

World order is not always about this war but often also about the next one. They can be a reaction against Munich agreements. I felt that the French possition in the UN of "we will not negotiate, we will not participate in full diplomacy with Britain, the US (and Australia)" stopped any chance of peace. World order requires total flexibility. The next aspriant to superpower status may be far less civilised that the current one.

Politics, as one of the greatest statesmen of the nineteenth century said, is about the art of the possible. If it is possible then its part of the art of politics. In international politics, anything is possible.

Hi PT. Y'all say what we caint speak? I'll learn ya!

I felt that France forced an end to our efforts at diplomacy. I know that we had to invade at that point or we would have no credibility. I just struggle with this war. Too many people that I care about are involved. War used to be for the young men but now it involves middle aged parents and old, washed up olympic atheletes-turned surgeons. I don't like seeing the images on TV and hearing constant coverage on the radio.

My heart aches for the soldiers. My dad didn't speak of his war experiences until he was in his 70s. What he did say was horrifying. When I wanted to go to West Point (officer school) he asked me not to. That was how strongly he felt about keeping at least his daughters out of war.

Isolationism... I am not proud that I have this tendency. I just know that it is there. I wish that the world didn't look to the US. It would be easier to comment on others' actions rather than to be the one expected to take action or not. On vacation this last summer we had a chance to talk with some Parisians. They were incredibly bright people and were talking about the Israeli-Palesinian conflict. They wanted the US to be less biased. I'm not upset with the way the US is handling that issue. I know that I don't have better ideas.

There are a few countries/governments that a typical average American would say were cool. Australia is one of them. I think everyone I know would like to visit there someday. Long before this war Australia was a friend. We root for your atheletes (as long as they aren't competing against us) and generally like y'all.

I don't know what you mean about national vision. From the inside I look at our Bill of Rights and Constitution as the national vision -- free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to be as much of an idiot as you want as long as you don't break decency laws. It's a very good place to live.

Freedom to own guns... I know this is a weird issue to many. We own guns. Many of us own lots of them. They are no big deal. Ours are locked in a safe and have additional trigger locks. Two are antique and would never be fired. Two are for deer hunting (different types of guns are required for hunting in different areas) one is for varmit or big game hunting and one is for squirrel/rabbit hunting. Wild game makes up a significant portion of our diet. We don't own handguns -- not because we have an aversion to them but because we don't need them. We don't hang them on the wall, show them off, or keep them so we can blow someone away who might wander onto our (very rural) property. They are just tools that we use once in a while to get meat. (Cats love venison.)

So your dad was in the navy? My dad was out of the military looong before I came into the picture. Was your dad gone a lot? Did he have to go to war? Does Australia have a draft (or did it)?

[This is a very rambly posting!]

I went for a long run with my brother this morning. He told me that he thinks he is becomming a pacifist - and asked me if I would go in this year's Palm Sunday peace march (I can't, I am meant to be doing something else when it is on).

We both share the same concerns about this war. If it so obviously necessary, why can't someone in either White House, No 10 Downing St or Canberra say why in ways that intelligent elctors, like myself (cough, cough) can understand? It is not my job to say yay or nay to a war, but it is my job as a responsible citizen to follow these issues and engage in the national debate. I am being treated like a happy mushroom and I don't like it.

The second very major objection that he raised - and I agree fully, is that every Iraqi civilian death is treated by the media as a human tragedy but the deaths of half of the Iraqi army through "bunker bombs" is passed off as a good thing. While I agree that soldiers take their chances and that military/naval deaths and civilian deaths are not the same thing, I disagree that every soldier's death is any less of a tragedy than the death of a child. Deaths of Coalition soldiers seem to have their own list.

I have been given no justification for the war that make sense, but I can invent some very good ones. I am ambivalent about it really. The Murdoch owned media is almost unreadable - possibly becuase of political deals made in the US (News Corporation is named after the Adelaide paper "The News" believe it or not, owned by Rupert Murdoch's father, Sir Keith - and as a result it is all we have now).

US foreign policy appears to me, at least, as striving between isolationism and promoting political lobby group's ideas overseas. If it isn't US farmers demanding beef import tarrifs (are you a demanding beef farmer's cat?) it is the Jewish Lobby pursuing a pro-Israeli policy that is out of proportion to anything else known in international politics (that shows my bias doesn't it!). So much appears to be based on who is President and whether H. Kissenger (spelling) is back in favour.

The dream of the Bill of Rights in a world where all are created equal is a great dream - it is a brilliant dream! But it is enforced by people by people how appear to miss the point. Military law seems to bypass dreams about fair trials. If you are not a US Citizen then you were not created equal when it comes to rights. If you are being jailed in a small beach front location in Cuba then no-one dreams for you at all. The Supreme Court decision 5-4 that being jailed in California for 50 years for stealing US$120 worth of videos (in a third offence) in not a cruel or unusual punishment makes me wonder what is going on (I think it made a lot of people wonder what is going on!).

These are all fringe issues I suspect to the reality of living with the dream. In Australia there are things going on that would make my little list above seem trivial. The holding of illegal immigrants in desert camps indefinitely seems a triffle over-reactive. The complete failure to provide a fair, mutually agreeable culture for everyone including the aboriginal Australian poulation is a failure for the entire Australian people (can't blame this one on the Government). Third and Fourth generation unemployed people living in Adelaide's outer suburbs is tacky in the extreme.

But you are right, life in the free world is pretty good. The Australian government tried to introduce detention without trial or a phone call (an anti-terrorism measure) but Parliamentry democracy kicked into action and the proposal got the raspberry. I like the French. The actions of their government are possibly as in-explicable to them as the actions of my governments can be to me. One can be against war without closing other people's options which is what I think they did.

I still don't get the gun thing. On a farm there are real uses for guns, including high powered guns. I have fired military SLRs but it gave me no desire to continue to do so. In suburban areas it seems like an easy receipe for getting people killed. This is probably solely because I live in an anti-gun land. If they were asked, half the population would request the police to disarm when they are on city foot patrols.

My Dad joined just at the end of the Vietnam war - he went through the very serious training programs (Mum said that they changed him quite a bit) but he never was posted onto a warship that went there. Mostly he was at shore establishments but he was rarely home nevertheless: 7:30 starts and 8:30 finishes. He had been in the navy earlier when Australia still had National Service as an ordinary seaman. I did live at the officer training school for a few years. It was a beautiful place. Mum taught the midshipmen ballroom dancing and general deportment!

A big difference between the Australian naval and militrary systems and the US is that the Australian Defence Forces offer themselves as a career rather than a three year option. Most sailors and soldiers join for a full 15 years. In the navy they start to pension you out at about 35 unless you keep getting promoted. This keeps the old codgers from holding up the young'uns on the ladders.

The government may not talk about the Iraqi deaths but we certainly know they are happening. What is a "seriously degraded" military? One that has had a very large number of soldiers killed or injured. I don't think anyone with a conscience can say that these deaths are good -- except that it means that fewer of our soldiers die. I'm selfish. I'll accept the death of a stranger before the death of a family member.

Also, I keep reminding myself that Iraq had the power to prevent this war but chose not to.

I still think about the number of Iraqi moms right now that are wondering about their sons. I pray for them.

I liked your long rambling message by the way. I know they take time to write and I appreciate your thoughts.

When you meet people in real life you get non-verbal as well as verbal cues about them. You can look at a person and figure out age. Attire can indicate preferences or professions. People are fascinating criters. Posts on the other hand are like puzzle pieces that you put together to get to a person.

You are a very obscure post. (My guess is intentionally.) What's a flame war by the way? The subject matter that you chose to write about made me suspect that you were a guy my age or younger. Your writing style pointed to younger. Plus you play footy. It appears to be a younger man's sport or else it would have to be age bracketed. Still to sustain an injury one season and to be able to continue to play the next... Definitely younger than me. (I'm 38 - people not cat years) I'm guessing late 20's.

That's it. I haven't figured out precisely what religion you are. Your preferences on your home page are unidentifying. You are pretty opaque. This last post was fun because it told me a little more of who you were rather than what you know.

You don't like the three strikes you're out law huh? Neither do I. How about making the crime fit the offense? It's California - a very strange place. One of the things about our Supreme Court that I think must be weird to people in other countries is that it is not supposed to create new laws. (That's called legislating from the bench.) It is only supposed to interpret laws already on the books. So a law like the 3 strikes law can be upheld because a state legislature made up of duly elected officials voted for it. A state court system found it not to violate any other existing state laws or the state constitution. And the US Supreme Court could not point to any portion of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that the law violated. I think its cruel and unusual punishment but apparently our courts did not.

Military courts are weird things. We have a TV show here (that I never watch) called JAG that is about military courts. Apparently the Guantonimo Bay detainees fall under some international law that says that if we call them enemy combatants then all the rights that normal citizens of the free world have don't apply. I listen to BBC broadcasts a lot and it seems that there is some international agreement with this. We see stuff about how well they are being treated and with what respect. I'm sceptical but even international watch dog groups that are stationed there have said that they are being treated well. I wish we would proceed to trial though. It isn't fair to them to just be held idefinitely.

We too hold illegal immigrants in camps indefinitely. Most of the camps are in Florida. They are Cuban refugees who have come here to apply for amnesty. If they have a criminal record they are refused amnesty. We would then typically ship them home but Cuba won't take them back. So they wait for years. It's tragic because some crimes have a much lighter sentence than the time they serve in the detention camps.

We also have our issues with our Native American populations. I think the researcher I'm thinking of is named Anhenga. She has some interesting thoughts about the way the American government has handled Native American issues. As a non-native some of her posts seem pretty virulent but I know that some really horrible things were done to Indians in the name of the US. They are getting their revenge now. Because reservations are sovereign nations they are putting up casinos all over. They may eventually win the war.

In Wisconsin the police can detain you for 3 days without charging you for anything. After that they have to let you go. The US government passed a bill called the Patriot Act that makes serious inroads into personal privacy rights. I think the courts will end up deciding what pieces of that will have to be thrown away.

The irony is that these invasive individual-busting laws were all passed by Republicans. It seems weird to me that the party of cowboys wanted to give up their personal freedoms for the greater good. Maybe they wrote in an exemption for members of Congress.

I don't live on a farm by the way. I live in the country. There are farms as well as woods and barren land around my home. I know the gun thing is strange to people who live where guns are highly regulated. Here they really aren't that big of a deal to have. It's the disarming that would be a very big deal. Even some suburban folks have them here because many city dwellers still hunt.

Was Australia involved in Vietnam? I didn't know. The military always changes people. My Dad went into Iwo Jima on day 2. Some things you never forget.

[Since you like rambly posts!]

I think you can safely say that every war a US foot soldier has fought in this century has had an Australian there before hand or shortly afterwards. But generally in fewer numbers.

The greatest idea in the US Constitution for human rights is, in my opinion, that the rights it confers apply to everyone. This is a idea that most countries never get the hang of. Australia modelled its constitution on the US's, didn't include a Bill of Rights (for which I am glad) but made the rights implied in the legalese of the document. It is not real writing like the US constitution and it reads like law. It has also meant that the Australian High Court has never made up law (except in the last few years and it has been told off roundly for doing it - not that anyone can prevent it). But the constitution here does apply to everyone: I don't think (but I really don't know) that military courts can avoid the general laws. Obviously they have their own special laws (their professional activities are special in their own right) but I don't think that holding people off-shore doesn't mean that the Australian government can exempt itself from Australian law.

On the other hand, illegal immigrants who don't make landfall are treated under international law as being different to those who did. So Australia keeps a number of friendly pacific islands well stocked with refugees who never quite made it... Many locals 'round here think that this is problematic.

I don't mind people being held without charge for some amount of time. Mind you, if you do not know what it is that you think that they did, it seems mildly uncivilised to hold them against their will for them having done it. And if you do know what it is that you think that they did, tell them: that is what it means to charge them!

The treatment of Australian aborigines in no way parallels that with the colonial treatment of the North American natives. Europeans learnt a lot in the 250 years between the colonisation of the Americas and Australia. It certainly was not all sweetness and light and many people lost their lives, but it was mostly through disease. It is only now that the scholars are managing to work out that Aboriginal populations may have been 3 or 4 times higher before colonisation than accurate surveys taken after colonisation indicated. There really wasn't much of a war (there was still a fair bit of violence) and there was no string of forts created to protect the settlers. Maybe I have watched too much early Clint Eastward to have a fair idea of what really went on in the US, but some of the tales that come out of the place are pretty nasty. But Clint didn't ever seem to have much truck with the power plays of the North East of your country - but then he also doesn't mind some of the art or science from them localities. Maybe it is a bit like London: the politics sucks but the culture is as good as it gets.

The patriot act was amazing. We stare with open eyes at everything American (sometimes like small children too I suspect) - yes I too have to opportunity not to watch JAG (an opportunity that I, like you, have taken). Because nothing really happened here in September (let alone on the 11th), their was no emergency recalling of Parliament and cart-blanche powers handed over to the Government. Instead, the government has had to fight to suspend every civil liberty it could, one by one. Mostly it succeeded but not always. I think we came off better in two ways, not only did we not get a terrorist attack, but we also didn't react to one.

One comment I heard was that Britain has had to put up with terrorist attacks for years. Big nasty ones too. Maybe if Bush had given Blair a ring and said: how do you deal with an IRA?, the US response would have been more proportionate. An argument could be put forward that the President's difficultly in sorting out a (I'll reuse the word) proportionate response to Sept 11, has lead to the escalation to the Iraq war. There is an article in today's Advertiser (Murdoch's surviving daily in Adelaide - the News dying a few years ago and, anyway, why would Murdoch want two papers in Adelaide?) commenting on the US's alienation of the pro-American Iran of 2001-2003, by his naming them as part of the Axis of Evil. This was while they were having populist sympathy street rallies for the US in Tehran. Moderate Muslims who were on the US's side and against terrorism found themselves named as being evil. Having had the rug swept out from beneath them, the moderate Muslims (who currently hold government) are caught between an Axis of Evil western mentality or an extremist Muslim mentality that doesn't want to negotiate with the West. The article implied that Iran will become the place US President most fears because he has treated it as if it were already that place. (I can't find this article on the Advertiser web site).

Life is a strange place. By the way, I don't play footy but I umpire it. Holding a whistle gives one a few more years of dashing over the turf. Apparently you can watch Aussie Rules on ESPN (but only AFL rubbish, not the classy local stuff).

Wow... Not only would you not cop to your age but you left a red herring. OK. I'm curious (all cats are) but willing to accept that you are the Keeper of Secrets. Besides you're interesting enough as it is. If not for your church side I'd be picturing a gleefully chuckling, shadowy (gimped-up) figure hunched over a computer screen in a darkened tower. Oh wait - I pictured that anyway. Gordy also enjoys controlling precisely what parcels of information he allows others to know about himself. Thankfully, he knows I adore him so he's pretty forthcoming with me.

Speaking of Gordy, he said the same as you, that Australia has been there with us in all of our 20th century forays. I'm from the psychology era of America education. I had two history classes in high school and four psychology classes. Hence, I have no idea what happened after the American revolutionary war but I can tell you why. Inexcusable. I've trying to rectify it by reading but clearly haven't scratched the surface yet.

I was reading over your post again (the first one) and noticed the career military thing. So you're saying that Australia doesn't let people enlist for 30-40 years? Its 15 and out unless you're an officer? What is general deportment? Manners and movement? What we would call upbringin'?

Regarding rights, what is the deal with the aboriginal people? I know that Australia had that really great runner at the last Olymipcs, Kathy something, and part of the coolness of her victory was that she was aboriginal. Why was that so important?

And about Clint Eastwood movies (I confess to owning all of them available on DVD) they are not representative of the American west. I live in a state that has a substantial Native American population although not as many as a few of the western states. Our governments have issues almost continually because of the whole sovereign nation thing. I went to school with non-reservation Indians. They were cool. The few reservation Indians I have interacted with have been in business settings and they were professional so I have the impression that the problems are governmental more than individual. I mind my p's and q's when on a reservation but that has more to do with the fact that I don't know the laws than that I am afraid of the people. I know that our government routinely cheated Native Americans out of both land and opportunity. But on the flip side, Native American men could vote before caucasian women.

So, groan, you could watch JAG if you wanted? Please tell me that you don't know what Survivor or American Idol are. The Bachelor? The Simpsons? I had this idea that if I only lived somewhere else I could get away from the excessive amounts of manure that piles out of our TV. (Or would pile out if it was turned on.) I don't have cable by the way. It doesn't reach to the middle of nowhere where I live. So no ESPN.

September 11th's events caused all sorts of weirdnesses here. We were actually in Canada when it happened and had to try to get home. Gas prices went up $2 a gallon instantly. (A lot of gas stations got fined for that later.) People kept talking about how life as we knew it was going to change forever. I think we heard it so much that when the government stepped in and said, "Y'all don't need so much privacy. After all whatcha got to hide?" we all stood up straight and dutifully said, "Nothing." The Patriot Act was passed while President Bush was polishing his "It's not revenge its security" rhetoric. I think there would have been a recall election for anyone in Congress that disagreed with him at that point. Even devout Bush haters gave him grudging respect.

Regarding a proportionate response... It is very ingrained in my culture that you do not turn the other cheek. Had President Bush reacted in a less forceful manner we would have called him weak (that's the nicest word I could think of). If there would have been someone to bomb on the 12th we'd have done it -- with nukes if you ask some people here. Proportionate wasn't an option even if it would have been wise. In that we identify with the Israelis. Kill one of ours and we'll kill at least two of yours. As a Christian, I know that this is not the way to be but it is very deeply ingrained in out culture.

Lastly the Axis of Evil speech... Glad to hear someone else thought it unwise. I didn't understand the motivation for calling them names at all. If I stick my finger in your eye are you likely to be nicer to me? I think not.

[These posts are taking forever to write!]

I feel a little secretive about my age. I am not young enough to excuse shallowness nor am I old enough to dispense wisdom from my tower. Picture me in a tower if you wish (although I mostly work by daylight - it is much easier) but make sure you include a titanium G4 Apple Powerbook in your image.

I can't speak for the military but the navy has a 15 year rule for ratings and officers (actually there is an age limit for going to sea, but everything sort of boils down the to same thing by the time you take in the pension qualification rules and stuff). Promotion gets you extra sea-time on both the lower and upper decks. The army and airforce have different operational characteristics and possibly have different retirement rules.

There was a theory for a while that naval officers had to be able to dance, converse in foreign ports with princes, powers and potentates, run a colony at a pinch and know which knife to use with which glass at an eighteen course formal dinner. A good naval officer is never phased by having raw monkey's eyeballs served at a state dinner. Nor should they bruise a good red through poor pouring technique. They may be rouges, overly-ambitious or pirates but they will know how to be charming while they pursue their chosen vices. Hence the deportment classes.

The "reconciliation" problem between the colonist decedents and their invitee immigrants and the aboriginal population is a complex one. There is a trait in Australian academia to draw comparisons between here and the US because the US controls many of the journals and interesting international academic positions. Given that the differences between Australia and the US are quite significant, the result is that nobody quite knows what is going on here. The key to the problem (as opposed to the analysis) is that the local population were stone age: without a wheel or inclined plane, but they were culturally diverse and certainly no idiots. It is only recently that generally people have started to realise that cultural sophistication is not dependent on technological sophistication. That is, Bach would have not written "A Well Tempered Klavier" had he not had one, but he might have woven a basket with equal artistic standards: technology provides a medium for cultural sophistication but does not determine it.

In the US, the pre-colonial locals were actually quite up with it all and as a result there was real conflict and treaties and take-overs, politics, deception and great tunes composed like "Please Mr Custer, I Don't Wanna Go". Australia missed all that and as a result people are still trying to work out what the wrong was that the colonists perpetrated on the locals other than simply nicking the land. I don't know any more than the next person, but just talking a lot about land-rights almost certainly won't be addressing the whole issue.

And I think that is why Kathy Freeman's 400m win was so important. It was about everybody in country hoping the one person would win for all sorts of reasons, all at the same time. Actually I think it was more important for us latecomers than the aborigines (since many aboriginal groups have no significant cultural links to Kathy Freeman and so for them it was cool to see an Australian win rather than it being cool to see someone like "us" win - because she wasn't). Naturally everybody wanted to beat the yanks (a term light-heartedly applied to all US citizens) and the 400m (like the 100m and marathon) is a special race.

In general you won't find many Aborigines in important positions. This is partly because only about 3% of the population is even part aboriginal. But partly also for the reasons that need to be addressed (whatever they are). But until the experts start thinking clearly about the problem (rather than nifty cultural studies ideas) I don't think we will start to think clearly about the solution. The government can't throw money at it and hope that that will solve it. Nor is the government really happy about allowing for the use of traditional law (which is very diverse and often involved wife beating and trial by combat - neither of which modern jurisprudence trusts to produce accurate, fair or just outcomes) on native title lands. It has to come from the people and Kathy's win shows the amount of good will there is out there to achieve it. I suspect the big thing about her race was the relief felt by everyone that there is a universal of the good will for this process which has survived the lies, political machinations and fringe-group rallies that have sought to undermine it for private purposes.

Mind you this is just my opinion...

On the subject of who could vote when. Interestingly women got the vote in South Australia before women elsewhere in the world. However, Aborigines were excluded from voting in the Commonwealth elections (but not necessarily state elections) until 1967 when they changed the constitution. The Australian Constitution can only be changed by referendum (with a compulsory vote for everyone). The 1967 vote was won easily.

The list of TV shows that I can choose not to watch includes all of those listed as well as Temptation Island, Judge Judy and Oprah. I think we may have escaped American Idol - the name would cause problems here. The only saving grace is that we get about 50/50 US and British shows. Some of the US material is good (Jim Lehrer NewsHour and Clint) but the Brits really know how to do crime and (dare I say it) comedy (yes I did). Australian television is pretty much awful unless you like the soaps (which are nothing like the US soaps). Australian soaps are really quite good for what they are, although I don't bother with them myself.

The proportionate response thing does not mean that one turns the other cheek or it wouldn't be proportionate. Just ask the Northern Irish what they think of having the Royal Marines and the SAS living in town with them. The Brits have responded to terrorism through judicial process - and have pushed it hard and long for a while. A lot of IRA terrorists are locked up in British jails. Famously some not-really-IRA terrorists have also been locked up (fewer I think that Hollywood would have us think, but enough to make us grateful that Britain has no death penalty). I can't help thinking that a very clever response to 11/Sept would have been firm and fair. Instead it cornered everyone, including it seems, the people of the US and, most unfortunately, Mr Bush.

I think the tower/night came from your smilie and the night time dream trading. Be secretive about what ever you want. That's the nice thing about this medium, we can hopefully see people's ideas before we see them. (If ever.) Cats are, well, confident in themselves. They don't really need to hide anything because their innate mystery makes people think there's something there even when there isn't. Sometimes a blank look is a blank look but a cat doesn't have to admit it.

I have computer envy. I've worked on PCs forever and can't justify cross-platforming for a preference.

I would guess that in the area of deportment we Americans are generally pretty lacking. We receive no training on manners or etiquette other than what our parents provide and generally I'd say that is insufficient. It sounds cool that the navy encouraged its officers to develop those skills. Very useful in diplomatic situations -- unlike our military to whom diplomacy appears to be irrelevant.

Thanks for your discussion of the Aboriginal issues. It does sound messy and practically impossible to resolve but you're thinking about it. Probably lots of people are and that matters. You've got me thinking about our Native American populations vs leadership positions. I know that we have a few Native Americans in Congress and the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs probably is NA. Now I'm going to have to look it up.

Don't tell any other Americans this but I love British humor. We get a few British comedies on our Public Broadcasting System and they are hilarious. I don't know that I've ever seen a British crime drama. I'll have to see if any are available on my 5 TV stations. I can get at least one Australian show called "Pearl Bay". Is that a soap? I've watched it twice I think. The lead actress was in The Man from Snowy River so I was curious.

Proportionate response... I guess we'll never know how it could have been. Waiting, using legal channels, putting people in prison for proven crimes (like Septemer 11th) would be seen as weakness - not proportionate - in the eyes of many Americans. Maybe its the wild west gun culture coming out. As a nation we wanted blood. A showdown. "Me 'n you against them rabble. Now draw!" As time passes maybe we will come to the realization that blowing Afganistan and now Iraq to smithereens isn't protecting our homes and families. I doubt it. Well that bummed me out. Time for a kitty treat and a nap in a sunny place. It's daytime there so no dreams for you!

PS. In these threads I am beginning to realize that I have green grass syndrome. I always thought that the grass was greener in Australia and New Zealand particularly. It is interesting to realize that we are all in similar situations. Danged fallibility.

I have spent most of my life working (when using a computer) on Unix platforms - that is why I ended up with a Mac, OSX is Unix with a nice interface (from this you may deduce that when I am a techie, I am quite technical). Mind you it is very yummy and very portable and easy to carry around in a bag that looks more manilla-folder than notebook-computer. Good for the image (and probably good for anti-theft). It also hooks into the Microsoft World easily.

Pearl Bay (called Seachange here) was a 2x or 3x13 part series. The first series was a hoot, the second series was quite good. I don't recall if there was a third series. The central premise is of a small country town with a bridge that blew down in a storm but with a local mayor (a property developer naturally) who never can bring himself to sign off on the new bridge because it is never grand enough. The two main characters are a highly stressed city lawyer (whose husband goes to jail in the first episode for fraud) who comes to town as the local magistrate and some unassuming guy who runs the bait shop for tourists. He turns out to really cool, of course, (but he never admits it) and she has to preside over all sorts of silly cases (often involving the mayor). It is good fun but not a soap since the stories progressed to an end.

So you watch British comedies, eh?

Perhaps one problem with my proportional response argument is that the initial terrorist attack was not proportionate to the problems caused by American foreign policy. Many people in these parts said that "although nothing justified the terrorist attack, America obviously had it coming to them". The point is, yes, the US had some sort of correction owed (fair enough, so does Australia for its actions in its back yard) but not what happened. A proportionate response was going to be difficult because the oppressed peoples of the middle east didn't offer a correction but a gross attack.

The comments about the relative value of "innocent civilians" and naval and military staff we made earlier, bare review here. Had the planes just attacked the Pentagon, and maybe other military targets, there would have been a different feeling to it than also attacking civilians, trade and commerce. I note that the US networks refused to show the wreckage of the Pentagon because it was more hurtful to the American people than the wreckage of the WTC. Ground Zero (a nuclear bomb detonation term) was declared to be in NY not at the Pentagon. I suspect that this was a national pride thing but that the rest of the world viewed it differently. Not withstanding that civilian airliners were used and not military planes, a proper attack on the Pentagon would not have been terrorism. But it was the WTC that was flown into and it was terrorism and the people killed were "innocent civilians".

Arguably the escalation had already happened by the scale of the attack, the method used and the choice of target. The escape lies in that Bush and the people of the United States are civilised and are constituted on reason and who hold the goals like liberty, justice and equality. Further Christianity should ideally break religiously enforced cycles of violence (the very reason it was welcomed into the pacific islands). But I don't think that proportionality was invited by the terrorists. But the fact that their attack was so gross makes me wonder what they would have done with a rigourous and relentless attack on the perpetrators. A bunch of US commandos stealing into the Ausie BinLiner's hut and extracted him to face a US court and a dead-boring televised trial (you might not get those in America - I am thinking of OJ). The terrorists may have gone on to do worse things because that is not what I think they would have considered an appropriate response.

Who knows. I certainly don't.

oooooh... Unix. I know nothing about Unix other than "real" computer people are Unix people. My computer skills are adequate but I definitely don't enjoy playing about on computers for no good reason. I get given a lot of computer-related projects both at work and at church because I'm a good translator. I can bridge the techie/non-techie communication divide.

Now that I think about it that show was called Seachange here as well. I just remembered it as Pearl Bay. I think we must be getting the first season because I saw the first episode you described last fall sometime. It runs on Sunday evenings when I'm typically at church so I don't see it often.

The Pentagon vs the World Trade Center is an interesting discussion. I don't thing the media concentrated less on it because they saw that attack as more hurtful to the American people. I think the Pentagon was less emphasized for two basic reasons. First, a lot fewer people died at the Pentagon and the damage was significantly less. Second, it was a military target and therefore more "fair game" if there was such a thing. We have seen a reasonable amount of coverage on the Pentagon here. There was a special not that long ago about the rebuilding - bigger, better, faster, stronger. We also occasionally see coverage about the site where the plane went down in Pensylvania too.

Did you see the Time Magazine photo history of September 11th? In it there is a picture of a skinny redheaded woman in business attire covered with dust and with blood running down her face and arms. To me that picture represented so much of why the WTC attack, in particular, was so wrong. She looked like she couldn't hurt a flea but she clearly represented so much that Islamic extremists hate about the US. You have to understand that in our "good ole boy" fashion we really can't understand why anyone would hate us (the people). Our government, sure. We often can't stand the idiots we elect. But not us. The WTC attack was about _us_ the people of the US rather than the government. It was personal.

The relative value of civilians versus military personnel isn't what it is about either, I don't think. All people are equally valuable. In fact we, as a country, invest significantly more into our military personnel than our general population. I really believe that the response among Americans and their elected leaders was because the attack was directed at us peronally - our way of life, our value system, our religious beliefs (or lack thereof). How can you respond to someone who says I hate you just because you're you? What is an appropriate response? I don't know either.

_Please_ tell me that you couldn't watch the OJ trial. I may never travel abroad if other countries get the same trash exported to them as you have. No wonder Americans have such a terrible reputation. It isn't just our uncouth speech it's the unending hours of irrelevant, mind numbing media images that others mistake for Americans.

I agree that military and civilian lives are the same, but I also believe that one needs two lists to record deaths and injuries. Partly because soldiers (at least in Australia) choose their profession, but also because soldiers are trained and equiped to face dangerous situations.

I must admit that I never thought of the attack on the WTC as an attack on "people like us" (incidently the name of a _very_ funny British comedy made 2 years ago) but an attack on the hubris of naming a NY building the "World Trade Centre" when it represented economic exclusion of those not in the G7. My brother (who lives in Sydney) had colleagues who were killed in the attack and I know how close he felt to the tragedy. I had confused the sense of what I thought the target was meant to be and what it actually was.

I don't think that Australian's would understand that by our very lifestyle and values represent something that other people could hate. I was thinking about the "Bali Bombing" in Indonesia - a nightclub bombing in which about 100 Autralians and people of other nationalities were killed. In some ways I see a nightclub as a legitimate target for moralist terrorists (this could get me flamed). It represents all that is worst in Western decadence - booze, sex, late nights and (in Bali) forcing the locals to work as servants for .jet-setting Westerners. This parallels other legitimate targets but does not match the WTC: the WTC was a political and economic target not a moral target. Your comment about people like us, shows, I think, why it was a shocking target.

The people in the WTC were just doing their jobs. Things like insurance, IT, port management etc. There is nothing morally bankrupt about them. People in all countries at all times have managed insurance, information management and harbour mastering. That is not only are they people like us, they are people like the terrorist's families! There is no moral dimension. But the target was political (my guess) and so people have been killed for political ends. Reminds me in a vague way of the first world war (the British Empire WWI experience might be different to the US cultural recollection since the US didn't join in until fairly late).

Anyway I have just read this page: privacy international's security awards for pointless security measures. Some of them are quite funny.

http://www.privacyinternational.org/activities/stupidsecurity/

I think that we missed the OJ trial. I caught it by reading Doonesbury. Although much if what is broadcast on TV is American, we only have 5 channels (one of which is foreign language, the other mostly Australian content (including Seachange) + news, and three commercial channels). The commercial channels show about equal amounts of Brit, Aust and US content.

As much as we might know that American's can't possibly be like the caricatures we see on telly, we can't help wondering...

Hey! I figured out what flame wars are. Your reference to being flamed put it together. That must be when guys and girls rip on each other about how stupid and awful the other is. What fun. Too bad I missed that (not).

I think that in some ways the WTC was also a moral target. That was why I mentioned that specific photograph. A woman working, legs, arms and head exposed is enough to require death in some countries. The Bali bombing was awful and involved similar people. They may have been partying there that night but I'm guessing most had jobs and families. Even if the party lifestyle were extremely offensive to me or violated my religion I could never justify killing the participants. Moral terrorism is still terrorism. Civilians, are never legitimate targets.

I think that's the crux of it for me. If I disagree with someone I either try to reach them personally (if I care) or I blow them off and try to not let them influence me. Al Queda didn't want to convert the West they just wanted destruction. Probably their intended target _was_ the image of the WTC or the image of the Bali nightclub but it felt personal.

Maybe I shouldn't take it personally but I do. Given a chance, there are people in this world that would choose to kill me simply because I'm an American with all the baggage that entails - materialistic, oblivious to others beliefs, marginally Christian (definitely not Islamic), pro-Israel, etc. It doesn't matter what I personally believe.

The Security awards were a hoot. I subscribe to The Register a British news site that focuses on IT and they also had an article about the Security awards. Very funny. Did you put up your refridgerator magnet? I wish I had one. Our government just issues color alerts and then says, "We can't tell you why."

Regarding counting soldiers, I agree that they are important and should be counted but also kept separate from civilian numbers. All military folks volunteer in the US, too. If I said something different I wasn't saying what I meant: equal value different status.

PS. Sorry about the "blow them off" pun. I really can't resist.

I can understand why, as an American, you feel yourself to be a target in a way, as an Australian, I cannot. Simply put, Australians have only ever been collateral damage in terrorist attacks. Why would you blow up an Australian? An American on the other hand: you represent Christianity, Israel, economic oppression of the third world, loose lifestyles, bad television, poorly spoken English etc Australians? Umm, we just play sport (about half the Australian's in the Bali bombings associated with end of season sport's trips!).

I don't know if I agree with the point that a woman dressed in modern western attire makes her a moral target for terrorism. Certainly whacko extremists will find some thing to be offended by in anyone. But I wonder if the terrorist groups that pose the most threat are actually that whacko: if they get too wierd I would imagine that internal fragementation would be a problem and organisation and cash would be impossible. I have come to understand through these posts that she was the actual target (obvious really), but I wonder if she (and what she represents) was the intended target. I think my confusion on this critical point may be mirrored elsewhere and if so, could it be the cause of some international muddledness?

I got the reference to the awards from The Register too. I read it to keep up with why I don't like monopolies and why GSM phones are better than CDMA (or something).

You actually read El Reg's phone articles? I skip the mac, broadband, and phone stuff altogether because it has nothing to do with me. I love BOFH. Not because I am one but because I know some. I think I mostly read The Register because it makes me believe for a brief moment that I have a clue. It's also very entertaining. Did you visit the website with the Iraqi minister's quotes? Very funny.

So nobody dislikes Australians? Now that you say it I guess you're probably right. And you manage to be liked even though you're not neutral. Hmmm. Maybe it's because you can speak English properly. I was listening to a reporter from Iraq who had to be Australian (is it proper to call people Aussies or is that US slang?). I attempted to mimic a few words and ended up nearly driving off the road laughing. Fortunately I was the only one in the car. I definitely don't talk like you.

Regarding the woman in western attire. I'm not sure that I agree that only wacko extremists would find her offensive. Remember the Saudi girls school fire? Girls died because the rescuers would not allow them outside without head converings. I'm pretty sure these weren't wackos compared to the general Saudi public. Their modesty standards are very strict. Even if its only 10% of the Islamic faith that adheres to such a strict interpretation of the Quran that is a very large number of people with an extremely defined view of right and infidel.

That being said, I'm sure you are right about the intended target versus the actual target. I think there is also a level of personalization that Americans do compared to, for example, Australians in the Bali bombing. You said yourself that you didn't take that as a personal attack against Australians. I can understand that in part because it didn't happen on Australian soil. Would it have felt personal if it had? Or would it be an objection to a group or lifestyle rather than to a nation of people?

Watching the news this weekend I was struck with the looting in Iraq. I could understand (even though I don't agree) with looting government buildings but I was shocked when the Iraqis looted their own hospitals, clinics and museums. Why would a person do that? I hope we can get it stopped and set up some kind of police force to maintain order but I _never_ expected them to destroy their own institutions. I wonder if my government did.

There was a interview with an English-speaking Iraqi who said "We won't love America if they can't stop this." As if we ever thought they would love us anyway. We didn't do this for their (or anyone else's) love or for the cheering crowds that would have just as easily shot at us had we been a little less efficient. I doubt that we did it for the Iraqi people. I read in an news article that Iran and North Korea have both asked for talks. Great. We are now beyond a doubt the biggest, baddest bully in town. Perhaps that is what we really did it for. Like you said in the beginning - world order comes at very high a price.

I realized as I was reading this that the idea that we don't care whether anyone loves us is pretty isolationist. (I was wondering, during one of these posts, if I could think of an example of American isolationism. I know you could name them. I wondered if I could recognize them.) I'm sure that attitude is one of the reasons we are disliked by so many. I doesn't matter what alliance you have. If its not with us it might not matter. We are a bully indeed.

That being said, I still believe that we are a generally well-intentioned (if self serving) bully - if there is such a thing.

The Monroe (spelling?) Doctrine is an example of American isolationism. But also the very late entry of the US into the Second World War is still a matter for public discussion here. There is a theory that if US interests in the Pacific hadn't been threatened, the US would never have joined in. I can think of more examples if I try hard. US foreign policy seems to be in tension between armed conflict and isolationism - without a natural middle ground between them.

I recall reading a number of stories similar to the girls who died in a fire rather than be allowed out without their head coverings. In places like Saudi Arabia I understand (but am not expert) that Christian's do not have to cover their heads and are not expected to. That is, they enforce their own dress codes but accept that they are not universal. This sounds fine, except that it seems a bit rabid to burn your own children rather than have them look Christian!

The looting of the museums is very sad. Given that it happened in the first Gulf War, I would have hoped that it could have been prevented this time. There must be so much gold in there that no-one wanted to take the risk that they might not be able to get some. Most of it will probably be sold to American private collectors (who can pay in US dollars) and reappear over the next few centuries. Here's hoping.

International bullying is an interesting phenomena. The famous Pax Romana was built upon constant war. The legions never stopped fighting and then one century they lost every battle and Rome fell. There is a difference between nuclear backed threatening behaviour though and bullying. Transparent processes, fair economic redistribution of wealth and ethical behaviours make a huge difference. I don't think that the US will necessarily do all of these things well (I think Bush is too personally greedy and will want to repatriate as much wealth for himself as he can via supporters and corporate America), but it will do a fair job. The US public service is too big, too well educated, too professional and too civilised to permit it.

This is probably what makes me ambivalent about the war. I don't trust the US President nor the US Supreme Court (which currently seems to be in la-la land). But I do trust the US middle classes totally. Someone commented that their are more US citizens with solid degrees from first rate universities than there are Australians (of any kind). The fact that none of them seem to be able to speak or write properly shouldn't be allowed to adversely influence the judgement of rest of the world.

I don't know how I would have taken the Bali bombing had it occurred here in Australia. We do have urban violence, though nothing like the US since there are relatively few firearms in circulation here. Nightclubs get blown up every now and then as bikey gangs or racial gangs launch campaigns against each other (few reputable social groups seem to own nightclubs). The trick is just not to be inside one when it goes up.

My views are probably atypical. But I can't distinguish between a spat between a Vietnamese gang and a Cambodian gang in a nightclub and a disgruntled Afghan. The WTC is a different story. Despite the printing of 19 000 000 fridge magnets (I still have mine but I haven't put it on the fridge - I can post it to you if you want it), most Australians can't believe that anyone would spend the money to perpetrate a such a magnificent terrorist attack here, it would be wasted (it really was a first class effort and may never be equalled - you do realise this don't you: it shows the esteem America is held in).

I started reading El Reg because the BOFH archives were there (I was a BOFH once, in my early days). I read the kit watch and mac stuff. I have just bought a new phone. It is lovely. See, you have to put up with second rate technology in your TV, phones and heaven knows what else because companies in your home country play for monopolies. A bit a technical interoperability regulation and you could have a phone like mine (which was probably made in the US, but it works best anywhere but).

Weaaal now pardner that's goin a bit too far. Sayin I caint talk is one thang. Sayin I caint wraht is somethin else in-tirly! Why that's like cough'n up a hairball in front o' comp'ny.

I think deep down there must still be a little envy for the colony that got completely away. We are quite happy with our words. We know boots go on feet, bonnets on heads and lift is a verb. While I admire the colorful words and lilt of accented English (translate yours) I'm happy with my oh-so-Webster's-dictionary proper Midwest English. Seriously - you think we write badly also? And here I thought that might be a common ground.

I read up on the Monroe doctrine (briefly) and I understand why that would be a prime example of American isolationism. One of the articles I read specifically discussed how it may have impacted our entry into the WWs. I think that we have been significantly less isolationist since WWII in actions if not attitude. One of the things that was interesting to me about your post is that the Monroe Doctrine is still relevant to you. I bet I haven't read anything about it since history class in junior high. I can't remember ever reading it cited as a reason for the US doing (or not doing) something.

Why would a country enter a war if not for some semblance of self-interest? (As opposed to strictly humanitarian reasons.) I don't think the US is unique in needing to prove to its people that a war is justified by how it relates to our interests. If our interests were not considered (at least somewhat) we would be involving ourselves in every civil and regional war. Besides that, there are countries that would assist the opposite side simply because they wanted to oppose US interests. It would be Vietnam revisited in local conflicts all over the world.

That being said, I don't believe that we can use self-interest as the sole reason for engaging in war or peace. Self-interest must be weighed alongside humanitarian needs, regional peace and ultimately world stability. We pay more attention to the Middle East rather than central Africa because the Middle East has a greater potential to destabilize the world. Yes, because of oil. The central African conflicts are horrendous. But can our government justify to us expending American lives to save people who appear from this side of the Atlantic to be unable to govern themselves? It's like the Iraqi's raiding their own museums and hospitals. When human beings display such animal-like behavior am I willing to send my brother there to die? Hard questions for one feline with a brain the size of a pea to noodle through.

Do you think that it is appropriate for the US to try to recoup the money it is spending in the Iraqi conflict by repatriating funds or should we write off the costs of the war as part of doing business on the world stage? What role should France, Germany and Russia play now? Can the UN justifiably claim that they should be given authority in the reconstruction (even though European governments have already stated that they will not fund the rebuilding)? Why exactly should the US not direct funds back to itself if it is spending a _lot_ of money to "free" the Iraqi people? These are questions I'm struggling with.

My reaction to the recent summit of the veto-ers was who cares? They exempted themselves from having a voice when the unilaterally refused to ever use force. Now they want to have a say in the spoils? I realize that the reality of playing in a world-sized sandbox is that you let the weenies play alongside the bullies. (...speaking of getting flamed...) I am certain that long-term world peace requires the inclusion of everyone and it is the right thing to do to include them. I'm not sure I would be above toying with them a bit just like I do with mice that are silly enough to wander into my neck of the woods. Perhaps mice aren't a good example. After toying... well nevermind.

Regarding the US Supreme Court, I do trust them. I think that our court system is one of the best in the world. The individuals making up the US Court are there because they are extrordinary. The issues they wrestle with are complex and have already been through substantial review and dissent prior to reaching their level. I don't agree with every decision. Neither do they. They are currently reviewing a case that has every chance of overturning three prior decisions. They often say, (Hermi paraphrase) "If the idiots in Congress would make better laws this decision would be different."

On the world stage they probably seem to make some bizarre decisions. I know that the last presidential election was shocking to the world. I read the actual decision and the portions of the laws upon which the decision was based rather than just the news reports about the decision. I believe it was valid. If the American people have a problem with the results of the last election then they need to review the concept of the Electoral College and reform local election laws. Did the Supreme Court decision determine who would be president? Yes. Could they have decided differently and remained within the laws already on the books? I don't think so.

Are you really saying that you don't differentiate between a local gang of hoodlums and a terrorist organization? The results might be similar but the big difference is the level of organization and intent. Also gang people tend to be within the country. They are much easier to find and punish for their crimes than people halfway across the globe.

Wow, you would really mail the ultra-cool Australian terrorism hotline fridge magnet? You're a true friend but I couldn't ask that of you. Perhaps you'll trade it to me in a dream. How well do you do with feline dreams? I bet the blood and gore stretches the ole deportment arena.

Esteem huh? I think we could do with a little less of that type of esteem and I would certainly not wish it on anyone else.

Telephones... well seeing as how I can't log into h2g2 with my regular old 44k dial-up service, yeah, we're challenged. When I purchased my last PDA and cell phone I bought them together thinking that I would be able to hook one into the other and pick up email from anywhere (as phone and PDA claimed). No more lugging heavy laptops. Fat chance. That was almost two years ago and even yet the cellular service with the most coverage here in rural America doesn't handle any digital service. You have to purchase an analog adapter for laptops. No options at all for PDAs. Allegedly, we will be upgraded by the end of the year so I can call my ISP from my cell phone/PDA and surf, get emails etc. I'll believe it when I see it. What does the rest of the world have? What does a cool phone do? What second rate TV technology? We have 800 channels of junk available through cable or satellite (if you want them).

You were a BOFH? Were you a B or were you a reasonable semblance of a human being taking occasional pity on us poor mewling users? Our BOFH uses me to run interference with the powers that be. We work well together. I protect the BOFH the BOFH lets me buy all sorts of toys and programs for my computer. Happy kitty...

Oh, the main problem you Yanks have with writing is your habit of dropping "ly" of vast numbers of your adverbs. However, we forgive you.

US foreign policy is far more interesting to us here in Oz than US domestic policy. It gets gobs of time in schools. The Monroe Doctrine is used as a way of formally capturing a continuing political philosophy of isolationism in the US. On the whole US foreign policy has not meshed with Australia's domestic inclination to go with a) Britain b) Europe c) never-go-it-alone. Mostly we have no idea what happens inside of the US except that our commercial television and radio is inundated by cheap US news content (watching this leaves us no more informed but it does fill the gaps between the ads on the telly).

When you mention the "little envy for the colony that got completely away" is that us or you?

I doubt if any country would ever go to war without some self interest but what that interest might be could be impossible to fathom. Indeed, try and list the causes of the first world war . I have no objection to bringing the wealth back home after a war, but there must be a distinction that the experts can draw between corporate looting and placing strategic contracts. According to El Reg vocal congress members want to make Iraq to use CDMA rather than GSM phones, so they are tied into the Qualcomm patent monopoly rather than in the world phone technology standard. I think that would be looting. On the other hand, ensuring wheat and sheep shipments were all sourced from the US's good ally Australia would be totally responsible.

I don't believe locking any company out of the rebuilding process is good because the people it will hurt most are the Iraqis (I know the US companies wouldn't ever price gouge or seek unfair oil concessions in practice, but that isn't the point). Unless the trading world is open there won't be rebuilding but a system of continued contractual dependencies and other issues related to post-colonial separation. On the other hand, I wouldn't let those countries who refused to negotiate before the war (and possibly hastened its start) suddenly enter negotiations now it's all over and that participation is all reward and no risk. How one goes about this I do not know. I understand that the US maintains a very large government department full of experts to do this.

If you get a chance reread/re-watch "Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister". It has a lot to say about negotiating with the French. In particular there is a line in the Yes Prime Minister story about the State Funeral and the seating arrangements in Westminster Abbey.

My distrust of the US Supreme Court is not based on anything so rational as actually reading their decisions. Australia has, in the last fifteen years, acquired a High Court that has started to make law from the bench rather than interpreting law from Parliament. The transition has not gone smoothly and I maybe transferring my distrust from here to there. How do you explain the court voting on the Presidential issue on party-political lines? Mind you I do find the idea of an electoral college curious (a great idea that was never going to work) and letting local authorities control voting appears absurd to my Australian sensitivities.

I am not sure how I distinguish between terrorism and gangs with bombs. My model of terrorism would be the IRA in London or the KKK in the southern US. Aircraft hijacks (as resolved by Dirty Harry) are also included as are hostage takers. Essentially the terrorists in all of these cases are closely tied to the political process they are trying to change. One of the features of WTC was that the terrorists had nothing personally to gain. In fact I am not sure that I have seen a traditional "list of demands" to go with the WTC. The Eta separatists have made it very clear what their terrorism is all about. So I think that I am arguing that the difference between traditional terrorism and inter-racial/gang violence is much less than the WTC and inter-racial/gang violence. I will ponder further.

I looked for my ultra-cool anti-terrorism fridge magnet this morning. I couldn't find it but I have also just done a big tidy-up. I will continue the search.

My portable technology now is a PDA/Phone combined (a SonyErricson P800) which is everything I wanted (a bit fat maybe and the battery usage is a wake-up after using a stingy Palm). My laptop is a 15.2 inch Titanium Powerbook - which gives me Unix on the desktop and Microsoft Office. It might be an Apple, but it works well in an all Windows workspace. My next trick to get full Internet (mail, web and ftp) access over the phone and use Bluetooth, in addition, to seamlessly connect the notebook. The technology is in my hand but I need to choose a Phone provider (I can pick between at least 6: comparing prices is tricky). Right now I need to synch my Palm to a PC and Outlook and then synch the phone to Outlook too. I shall have to find one... My phone plays chess too!

My BOFH days were the days when I learnt what power was in the work place. I am not proud of my behaviour from those heady days. Mind you I can still do that maniacal laugh late at night.

Firstly, you might be interested to know that Yank is an acceptable term for Americans living north of the Mason Dixon Line but could be offensive for a true Southerner. I am a Northerner and therefore a true Yankee and not at all offended by the term. (Just in case you ever post to someone who really is from Georgia, for example.)

Secondly, the "little envy for the colony that got completely away" refers to other British colonials envy for the US. On our most recent foray into Canada (the British part) we had an opportunity to talk a bit about differences in culture, politics etc with a native. (He was very cool - didn't mind talking cats at all.) He said that most former British colonies are exactly that - former British colonies. It remains a large part of their cultural identity. The US was the one that truly got away. Most Americans would bristle at the idea that we were a former British colony (even though it's true) and we have definitely established a national identity that has little to do with our British beginnings. He said, "Look at how many former colonies still have British monarchy on their currency and British standards running their culture. To some degree we lack the ability to establish a culture unique to Canada. We're still largely a British colony. A peaceful separation resulted in no distinction at all."

Not that I'm advocating revolt. I just thought it was an interesting concept. Most British colonials appear to be pretty proud of their British heritage. We chose to be a black sheep. No tea for us - coffee and a myriad of other little rebellions against the British way. It even goes back to the Monroe doctrine a bit.

I think you have more confidence in the US than most others. My impression is that the world is just waiting for us to begin mass-pillaging Iraqi resources. I too hope that we would never consider such a thing. As far as directing fair contracts to allies who assisted (and incurred debt) in the war effort, that seems very fair to me. (Especially sheep. Send _all_ the sheep there. Nasty, stinky, horrible tasting critters.) Inflicting our bad ideas onto another country (like the phone technology idea) is really short sighted. I hope there are good brains that can speak loudly enough to prevent that. We'll see. Often it seems to be the loudest voice that wins out rather than the brightest idea.

Enter Hermi the Pollyanna cat. I really don't think that the US Supreme Court voted along political lines. There are conservative and liberal justices. Two of the liberal justices have commented about "changing the course of history" through judicial decisions. (Ginsberg and Kennedy) They have openly agreed that some degree of legislating from the bench is needed to keep the country on track. Justices are appointed by presidents (confirmed by the senate) who are affiliated with a political party but the justices themselves are not allowed to be affiliated with a political party. So, instead they tend to divide into conservative=republican and liberal=democrat.

It is a disservice to the parties to imply that all democrats are progressive and morally bankrupt and the converse for republicans. Typically the court does tend to split conservative vs liberal on most decisions. There are degrees to the conservatism and liberalism but generally the split occurs whether it is a political issue like the Florida voting process or a moral issue like abortion. Conservatives tend to favor states rights. Liberals tend to prefer federal oversight. I'm sure you get the picture.

I prefer a more conservative court because they are less likely to reinterpret prior decisions, more likely to honor state autonomy and generally more likely to place a higher value on moral, ethical and decency standards. Conservatives are less likely to say, "The world is changing and our rulings need to be adapted to the changing world." I believe in absolute truth, right and wrong and I want our highest court to hold to similar values.

I'm sorry that you've lost faith in Australia's highest court. I have found that when I question rulings over the years I tend to gain confidence by reading the actual decisions. Also, there have been periods of time when I did not believe that our court was right. My only option is to ensure that the person I vote for as president is someone who I am confident will appoint justices that will rule wisely. Judicial appointment is the number one issue influencing my presidential vote.

Still Pollyanna Hermi, I also believe that the Electoral College is an important and necessary step in ensuring that all regions as well as people are represented in the election process. Without the EC presidential candidates need only substantially carry the four largest cities to carry the country. In that scenario urban issues would be critical and the need to garner support from rural states would be unnecessary. The end result would be a country governed by the needs of the majority of the people but not necessarily the needs of the country.

Resources and contributions to the overall health of the nation come from everywhere. In 1990 Wisconsin was the 14th largest exporter in the world. We don't have a huge population but we contribute significantly to the national product. The EC ensures that our voice is heard, if just a little. Another of my favorite states is Wyoming. With a population under 300,000 in the entire state, Wyoming is nothing to a national candidate without the EC. Yet Wyoming has some very critical environmental issues that they need dealt with. The EC forces at least a cursory discussion of those issues.

Lastly, the EC in theory provides a rational mind should the general population jump behind a charismatic leader that really is unfit to govern the nation. I can't imagine that scenario ever happening but then I wouldn't have predicted Nazi Germany either.

I read the reviews on your phone. Very nice. I am stuck with a phone and a PDA. I hope to upgrade to a combination phone/PDA but I really like my iPAQ so I will be pretty picky when I upgrade.

If I understand the issues it is my phone provider that prevents me from connecting my PDA to the Internet. I want the ability to dial up my existing ISP rather than pay separately for Bluetooth technology. I don't remember all the facts anymore because I researched it so long ago. I have coverages issues as well. Only one provider has coverage at my home and that barely. I think I have to give it more time.

So, you were a power monger BOFH? Did you like the Salmon Days thing on the Reg? I didn't expect something quite so crude and so was unprepared when I watched it. Definitely not the sort of British humor I enjoy.

In my comments about the EC, I had forgotten about the simplicity of the Presidential voting system. In Australia the people vote for local members of Parliament (one per 75000 voters, compulsory voting). They meet and form a government, the members who belong to the majority party choosing a leader who selects the executive from the Parliament. It gives a similar outcome to the US system but forces the legislature and the executive to be drawn from the same body of people. We then have the Crown to act as a sanity check on the whole process.

Australia has a similar problem in that if all votes counted equally, 80% of the votes would come from a strip of land 100km wide, drawn between the Melbourne CBD and the Sydney CBD. This would be very bad. There are some clauses in our Constitution that prohibit the Federal Parliament making distinctions between states, but the main block on the Sydney/Melbourne axis being too favoured in everything is the Senate election. It is the same (almost exactly) as the US system. If a government were to annoy a single state too much it would loose one sixth of the entire Senate at the next election (there are 6 states in Australia) and hence could not get bills through both houses of Parliament.

My trust in the US professional classes isn't magical (not that you said it was). They will stuff up as every other group of self-interesting people does. However I think that they will not be uneducated hicks when they do it. I would have less faith in the Ugandan public service.

The idea that the US got away is interesting. I don't envy the US at all because, I ask, at what cost? Economically it has done very well since the end of the second world war but it has lost political and social integration with the rest of the world. This might be tied to economic success in which case I have no point, but I don't think it is. The "go west" dream of the US is a bit sad. I like the social integration utopian view of Australia more, where everybody participates in a huge socially integrated network of people and nations (all of whom enjoy eating lamb and wheat). The idea of being a gun totin' sheriff in your own house will lead inevitably (and to different degrees) a culture of "this space ain't big enough for the two of us".

How's that for gross generalisations without facts?

My days of BOFH... I generally didn't keep naked women in my office while I swilled beer. But I was also young. I didn't have much of a clue at all really.