Not foreigners

Tony Abbott explains to the Parliament why people like him are so much more concerned about the plight of the victims of this week natural disaster in New Zealand than they have been when even more devastating disasters, with even greater loss of life, have recently occurred in other countries:

New Zealanders are family, they’re not foreigners and that’s why this disaster has especially touched the hearts of every Australian. Whatever New Zealand asks, Australia will give. Whatever the Government does, the Coalition will back.

Of course! THEY’RE NOT FOREIGNERS. Well, sure, technically they are, but, well, you know what he means.

You don’t know what he means because it’s an absurd thing to say?

He means that many of them are of Anglo-Saxon descent who speak English as a first language – just like the kind of Australians he thinks of when he’s trying to figure out who’s “foreign” or not.


This one’s even a Roman Catholic like me!

Yes, apparently “that’s why” the Coalition is 100% on board this time, why no expense is to be spared. But remember the qualification. If they weren’t “family” – ie, ethnically similar to Tony Abbott – then things would, it seems, be quite different.

Tony’s unsympathetic attitude towards asylum seekers from non-English-speaking countries makes a lot more sense after that admission.

UPDATE (26/2): The full Hansard record of that debate is now online (it wasn’t when I wrote this post). I’d only heard Abbott’s remarks; turns out Julia Gillard said something similar moments earlier:

I know that the thoughts of all Australians are with New Zealanders as we have watched the devastation on our TV screens. New Zealanders are like family to us. They are like family in good times and bad.

She didn’t make the link between their alleged “family” status and support quite as explicitly as Abbott (whose full remarks, unedited by the ABC, are also available on the above link – he also added, rather unbelievably, that “Almost all of us have family and friends across the Tasman”), but the sentiment was still that New Zealanders are “family” in a way that those in other countries aren’t, and we should therefore care more when they’re suffering. You draw your own conclusions as to the assumptions on which she was relying to make that claim.

That said, only Abbott went on about which “foreigners” aren’t really “foreigners”.

About these ads

80 responses to “Not foreigners

  1. Here’s me thinking I was the only one who noticed Abbott’s little moment of truth. Just after he gave ol Scottie and arse kicking too, for being honest.

    Wiser heads in the Liberal party(that’s the people who really run it in business central Sydney/Melbourne) know this type of Realpolitik is a recipe for disaster. They will soon be off loading Abbott and my money (I will take bets in my Swiss account) is on the face of compassion, faux or otherwise, on the Ice Hockey.

  2. Does Mr. Abbott include the Maoris and the Islanders ot only those that share his bloodlines?

  3. I suspect not. I’ve never heard him refer to the (much closer geographically) East Timorese, PNGians or Indonesians as “not foreigners”.

  4. Splatterbottom

    Sadly that is a bitter bitchy bilious comment typical of those stuck in the little green fart-bubble that is “progressive” politics in this country.

    Australia and New Zealand have long had common bonds celebrated every year on ANZAC day. There is nothing wrong with anyone mentioning this when expressing compassion to the victims of this tragedy.

    No doubt the venomous vermin of the left despise ANZAC day, but they can hardly claim ignorance of it given the amount of time they spend belittling it and much else that has made Australia a decent country.

  5. I don’t think he can help himself. His xenophobia is so ingrained that his usage of a term like “foreigners” in a public statement comes naturally to him.

    Either that, or it’s a very clever dog-whistle – almost subliminal. But I don’t think he’s that clever.

  6. SB said; “Australia and New Zealand have long had common bonds celebrated every year on ANZAC day. There is nothing wrong with anyone mentioning this when expressing compassion to the victims of this tragedy. “

    What ARE you talking about? The quote Jeremy is referring to mentions nothing about the ANZACS.

    Here’s the quote again, in case you missed it the first time:
    New Zealanders are family, they’re not foreigners and that’s why this disaster has especially touched the hearts of every Australian. Whatever New Zealand asks, Australia will give. Whatever the Government does, the Coalition will back.

  7. So BS, I mean SB is prepared to defend a guy who will (rightly) spare no expense of tax payers money to help white people but will complain and dog whistle when footing the bill to help non whites?
    Any way you try and slice it – such as using it as an attack on the left (how unusual…), that’s some racist shit right there.

    Also not the difference in response to Haiti.
    Here Australia and other countries send search and rescue teams, which is clearly a good thing.
    But when Haitians get trapped under rubble the US and Canada instead send (more) troops with guns, which is clearly not what was required.
    I mean I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure if somebody is trapped under a building, you cant just shoot the building to solve the problem…

  8. “Sadly that is a bitter bitchy bilious comment typical of those stuck in the little green fart-bubble that is “progressive” politics in this country.”

    Always standing up for the bigots, the religious conservatives who despicably question Australia’s compassion when we pay for Muslim funerals for asylum seekers who are in our care (detention). NZers ARE foreigners (there’s nothing wrong with that, 99% or so of our fellow human beings are foreigners, but they look like us (NZers)), and they’re culturally similar, well the white NZers and white Australians are. So in Abbotts eyes their lives are worth more.

    Everybody in such circumstances (natural disater) has urgent needs, to classify one group as more important than the others is sick but so often religious conservatives are sick fuckers, they’re walking contradictions!

    “No doubt the venomous vermin of the left despise ANZAC day”

    Can you back that up? I’m a lefty, I have no problem with ANZAS day.

    “venomous vermin ”

    Scott Morrison, he’s ‘venemous vermin’, wants to exploit the idiot bigots irrational fear of Muslim immigration, hasn’t even got the balls to admit it. And his latest concern, it turns out that nearly all Afghans that arrive by boat are fair dinkum refugees, Morrison’s solution? Give them less visas. What a nasty piece of work he is!

  9. Don’t we need a passport to go to NZ.

  10. Did not NZ make it very clear it wanted to be independent of Australia. I think this argument is ridiculous. I hope Australians continue to give aid, regardless of color, race or religion based on need.

  11. Splatterbottom

    PJH the words ‘family’ and ‘foreigners’ were not used literally. Abbott was clearly talking about the common bonds between Australia and New Zealand. My primary reference was to those common bonds.

  12. Tags fixed, PJH. (The forward slash needs to go before the letter i to end an italic tag.)

    But I blame WordPress for poor programming, not you – every comment should start fresh with default formatting and be ended with default formatting so it doesn’t alter, and isn’t altered by, other commenters.

    SB – we have “common bonds” with many countries – and, more importantly when we’re talking about tragedies befalling people, who their government is shouldn’t matter. Our compassion should be to victims as human beings, not subjects of governments we like or dislike.

    It’s very obvious what they mean when certain politicians only talk of people in other countries being “family” and “not foreigners” when they’re white and speak English.

  13. narcoticmusing

    PJH – Yes, you have brooken the interwebs, please proceed to the hall of shame.

    “I mean I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure if somebody is trapped under a building, you cant just shoot the building to solve the problem…” -BT

    Clearly you do not understand American strategy – even global warming can be solved by shooting at it, providing you first decry “it’s coming right for us”

  14. Splatterbottom

    BT: “I’m no expert”

    That was the only sensible thing in your comment. The rest was just projecting your racism onto Abbott. He didn’t say anything racist at all.

    “I’m pretty sure if somebody is trapped under a building, you cant just shoot the building to solve the problem…”

    Haiti had a law and order problem. There was a particular problem with sexual assault. The US sent troops both to do rescue work and to maintain law and order and to prevent women being raped with impunity. Obviously you don’t give a shit about them, or you wouldn’t be whining about the troops.

  15. Rumour is Phony has been studiously going through the Libs archives and came across the White Australia Policy. And was observed grinning and nodding.

  16. Tags fixed, PJH. (The forward slash needs to go before the letter i to end an italic tag.)

    Thanks Jeremy. Sorry for temporarily breaking your blog. Worpress is great but not perfect. Especially in its comments sections.

    SB; I think The Tone was completely unambiguous when he used the word “foreigner” here.

  17. Splatterbottom

    Autonomy, I doubt Abbott would endorse a policy formulated by leftists and unionists and implemented by the ALP. John Curtin said:

    ‘This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race’.

  18. Splatterbottom

    PJH: “I think The Tone was completely unambiguous when he used the word “foreigner” here

    So do I. He was clearly noting the depth of the close relationship we have with New Zealand.

    I suppose the leftist approach would be to tell the Kiwis that they are nothing special to us and that they need to harden the fuck up. It reminds of the way Obama pisses all over America’s friends and grovels to its enemies. The progressive elite in our society are ashamed of who they are and where they have come from.

  19. “I suppose the leftist approach would be to tell the Kiwis that they are nothing special to us and that they need to harden the fuck up”

    You are so full of shit, how about the left’s compassion isn’t limited to our neighbours, unlike say Scott Morrison (religious conservative (Khomeni was a religious conservative too!)) who wants to restrict visas to Afghans who arrive by boat because as it turns out most of them are real refugees. Or the suggestion that we should cut foreign aid? Why do you constantly defend these nasty bigots?

    “It reminds of the way Obama pisses all over America’s friends and grovels to its enemies.”

    Errr what does Obama have to do with the left?

  20. Haiti had a law and order problem. There was a particular problem with sexual assault. The US sent troops both to do rescue work and to maintain law and order and to prevent women being raped with impunity. Obviously you don’t give a shit about them, or you wouldn’t be whining about the troops.

    Ah I see how it happened. The earth shook, buildings collapsed and right then and there all those degenerate Blacks started raping each other!
    Where do you come up with this stuff?
    But i guess if Fox News reports on poor black people raping and pillaging, who are you to question it eh SB?

    I prefer to get my news from more reliable sources that aren’t beholden to corporate interests:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/doctor_misinformation_and_racism_have_frozen

    Clearly those barbaric Haitians weren’t the real problem in post earthquake Haiti you dick head.

    Also, as for your fake compassion for rape victims, spare us your crocodile tears.
    Only pathetic excuse for a human being would use the crime of rape to make a political point or attack.
    Unsurprisingly you’re not above this SB.
    So let me ask, what changed in the US administration between the 1990’s and 2010 that made them going from paying FRAPH to rape Haitians, in order to terrorize them and suppress dissent, to deciding to “helping” rape victims by sending the troops in eh?
    When was the moment of conscience on the part of the US government when they decided to go from pro-rape to anti rape eh SB? Can you give me a year or particular political figure who made this change?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raboteau_Massacre

    I wont be holding my breath for an answer to that question…

  21. narcoticmusing

    SB – I think you are being very harsh. No one is suggesting for one moment that assistance should not be provided to NZ. Nor do we doubt the ties and bonds formed via the ANZAC tradtion. I for one often feel that we do not give enough credit to the richness and depth of inherited institutions that we share with nations, like NZ, such as the common law system.

    However, the issue people have is the suggestion that NZ aren’t foreigners and people from other countries are. In your extremly defensive responses, you have fail to consider the broader context – such as Abbott advocating for a cut in aid and his hostility towards asylum seakers. To assume that his comment is not even remotely indicitive of a pattern of behaviour I think is naive at best, at worst, just making excuses.

    We saw the same sort of excuse makers when defending Abbott’s clearly sexist views. Many came up with excuses for his many comments as if each one were in isolation; however when taken together along with his policy preferences and actions when he was a Minister, it demonstrates an overall viewpoint.

    Is this not what we, as the electorate, should be encouraged to do? If politicians refuse to be straight with us, should we not investigate for ourselves and look at all the trees to see if we can determine the shade of the forest? Which, in this case, looks whiter than the bleak hills of Queenstown in Tassie.

  22. “No doubt the venomous vermin of the left despise ANZAC day, but they can hardly claim ignorance of it given the amount of time they spend belittling it and much else that has made Australia a decent country.”

    Dear oh dreary dear, so now it’s about ANZAC Day. S.B. if bulls*&^% was a penny a pound, you’d be a dead set millionaire. You can squirm all ya like, spin like a Catherine wheel, invent context as ya go, and just generally insult every ones intelligence. But you see me ol China, under that faux veneer of respectability that most conservatives have that shines like the sun, scratch a conservative and you will find a mean spirited red necked died in the wool racist.

    Oh btw come ANZAC day, I will be there with all my medals, sorry my fathers medals, where I will celebrate the defeat of right wing fascist totalitarian nut jobs. I will then proceed to get pissed up with the mates I served with.

  23. narcoticmusing

    Apologies for my many typos btw – I tend to just mash the keys with my palm on this new bloody phone.

  24. “I suppose the leftist approach would be to tell the Kiwis that they are nothing special to us and that they need to harden the fuck up.”

    Sadly, I can only see two possibilities that explain that comment from SB:

    1. He doesn’t actually believe it, and knows perfectly well that it’s an utter lie but spread it anyway for whatever reason.

    2. He does actually believe it, because despite commenting here regularly he still has absolutely no idea what the people with whom he argues actually believe because he has a serious comprehension problem.

    Dishonest or stupid, those are the only two explanations for SB’s comment above.

  25. The former, which to me is inexcusable, in fact I would say it’s evil to spread horrible lies.

  26. “No doubt the venomous vermin of the left despise ANZAC day…” – Splatterbottom

    Well, I certainly despise what it’s become; a nationalistic rah-rah celebration of the “glory” of war. I liked it better when it was a relatively quiet day of remembrance, commemoration, and gratitude for everyone who has and continues to serve in the defence forces.

    And again, from SB – “I suppose the leftist approach would be to tell the Kiwis that they are nothing special to us and that they need to harden the fuck up.

    As opposed to the rightist approach which is to tell everyone who isn’t white and/or English-speaking that they’re nothing special and should harden the fuck up.

    Do you even notice the hypocrisy you post?

  27. “I suppose the leftist approach would be to tell the Kiwis that they are nothing special to us and that they need to harden the fuck up”

    I don’t consider myself particularly leftist SB; more of a centrist or libertarian. I just come here for the reasoned debate and to occasionally fuck up Jeremy’s blog formatting…

    But seriously, SB, the above’s a stupid comment and you know it. It also has very little to do with the debate at hand.

    I, for one, don’t think The Tone was trying to be deliberately or overtly racist by his comment, but listening to him talk is akin to listening to my ageing Mum talk about WWII. Some of the things she says make me squirm with their racist overtones but I have to remind myself, and my kids, that she lived through a period whereby racism wasn’t just condoned, it was actively promoted.

    That’s Mum’s excuse; Tone’s I’m not so sure about…

  28. Why use the word foreigners at all?

    While he is looking for what Labor leaders said decades ago, I suggest he also look at his side and maybe be prudent enough to let the matter drop. Politicians covered themselves in glory about this matter.

    He will come across a comment a very young Mr. Howard, gaping after PM Fraser announced in cabinet that he would be allowing Asians into the country. Mr. Howard managed to get out it won’t permanent will it. Mr. Fraser replied that indeed it would to Mr. Howard’s disgust.

    He will find that Mr. Whitlam also made a similar remark “over my dead body.” Mr. Whitlam, in spite of his own lapse, did go onto deal with multi-cultural problems.

    He will find another Labor leader voiced the words that two wongs do not make right.

    What interests me is what Mr. Whitlam’s response would be today. We all know that Mr. Howard’s view is very much the same.

  29. Splatterbottom

    BT, being a moderate I scan the news from many sources, including PBS and Amnesty International whereas you seem to want to ignore them in favour of the darker recesses of Moonbat Central.

    Narcotic, my comment is about the predictable pile-on every time Abbott opens his mouth. This time it is completely irrational and says a lot more about the feverish fanaticism of the leftist horde than it says about Abbott. There are a lot of Abbott’s ideas I disagree with, including his refugee policy. It is better to nail him on his actual failings than to parse and twist his words beyond all recognition every time he opens his mouth.

    What Abbott did was to comfort the people of a neighbouring country which has just suffered a great disaster. It is like when a friend suffers some tragedy and you put your arm around their shoulders and comfort them. You might even tell them that they are family, and that you will give them whatever they need or ask for. To attack Abbott for doing this is utterly pathetic. Hence my sarcastic remark about what it is that Abbott’s critics wanted if saying kind words is wrong.

    The use of the phrase “not foreigners” is merely reinforcing the “family” comment a few words before. How this gets twisted into racism, I don’t know. Sometimes it is better to step away from one’s ideological prejudices and pathological hatreds in order to get a better perspective. Bitter twisted minds eventually fold in on their own prejudice until reality is replaced by delusion, as in this case.

  30. Splatterbottom

    Jeremy: “Dishonest or stupid, those are the only two explanations for SB’s comment above.”

    Genuinely puzzled and slightly sarcastic more like. If you attack Abbott for his words of comfort and support, what exactly id you have in mind?

    CU, Howard did apologise, but I have no idea how sincere he was. By then he was probably happy with Asians and had a new migrant group in his sights.

    Whitlam never apologised for his “fucking yellow Balts” comment and was responsible for much misery and hardship, but no doubt he prevented a lot of anti-communists from getting in. They would have never voted for Labor.

  31. Sometimes it is better to step away from one’s ideological prejudices and pathological hatreds in order to get a better perspective. Bitter twisted minds eventually fold in on their own prejudice until reality is replaced by delusion, as in this case.

    That’s really good advice, SB. Why don’t you act on it instead of projecting it on to others?

  32. “every time Abbott opens his mouth. ”

    Exaggerate much? Abbott gets dogpiled by the decent when he says stupid things. FFS he wants to be PM!

    Every time he opens his mouth? Do you ever tyre of spewing your constant shit?

    “being a moderate ”

    Hmmm, I was hasty earlier, maybe you are stupid (or insane??)

  33. BT, being a moderate I scan the news from many sources, including PBS and Amnesty International whereas you seem to want to ignore them in favour of the darker recesses of Moonbat Central.

    A moderate eh? nobody believes it SB, why do you continue to peddle that shite?
    One day you’ll rubbish Amnesty International (I mean, you want nothing to do with their criticisms of Israel) but when they suit your argument then they’re reliable as houses. Fucking hypocrite.

    Democracy Now is Moonbat Central is it SB? What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean that Dr Evan Lyon from Partners in Health was lying about the situation in Haiti? Or that he’s just some crazy leftist that doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Or do you just deride any site that doesn’t agree with your arguments?

    Also, your article is dated January THIS YEAR. Although it discusses the problems of violence against women increasing since the Earthquake, it does NOT back up your argument that in the immediate aftermath (within the first week) of an earthquake that killed at least 150,000 and left 2 million homeless, there was wide spread rape happening.
    Your article also indicates there was an already existing culture of violence against women. I wonder where this culture came from eh?
    I mean, the only times that violence has decreased in Haiti is when the US DIDN’T have a dictator in the form of Baby Doc or Papa Doc, or in recent years a highly compliant government under Preval.
    Maybe if the US kept their greedy little hands to themselves and let Haitians run their own country there wouldn’t have been this problem at all?

    And as for the current situation regarding violence against women: Women are much safer when living in a house with a door and a lock, than they are living under a fucking tarp.
    So maybe the US could spend a little less money on guns, a little less money on MINUSTAH and build some fucking houses if they cared so much.
    But guess what, they don’t care about anything but the business interests in Haiti.
    And those worthless cretins in the US complaining about foreign aid certainly don’t think Haitian women should live in houses either by the sounds of it.

  34. Mr. Howard did indeed apoligise but not until his electrate was invaded by Asians.

  35. narcoticmusing

    …the predictable pile-on every time Abbott opens his mouth. This time it is completely irrational and says a lot more about the feverish fanaticism of the leftist horde than it says about Abbott… – SB

    But surely SB, you recognise that your comments were equally irrational and akin to feverish fanaticism to defend Abbott’s statement without considering the general stance of Abbott. Your responses have been particularly vitriolic, intentially provocative and not at all moderate (as you claim to be). Defending at all costs, adding bits in that weren’t said to create a defence, etc etc, the same things you claim the left are doing to criticise Abbot – which I would consider pretty much meets the ‘feverish fanaticism’ definition.

    Context is important. Abbott’s words don’t exist in a vaccuum, they exist within a context of a continual stream of policies that are or border on racist (at the very least you could concede his policies and statements could be interpreted as such). Abbott didn’t mention ANZACs and while he may or may not have had that in mind, the concerns here are about the general animosity Abbott displays against non-WASP-esk (esk because of course, he is happy for Catholics too) peoples.

    I don’t live in a vaccuum.

  36. SB – Tony Abbott’s effusiveness brings into stark relief his attitude when the victim of disasters have darker skin.

    Stating that New Zealanders are ‘not foreigners’ is one of the clearest examples of someone’s racial animus bubbling through in an unintended way that I can remember seeing in the recent politicial sphere.

  37. “If you attack Abbott for his words of comfort and support, what exactly id you have in mind?”

    I criticised Abbott for making his “words of comfort and support” conditional on the victims not being “foreign”.

    What exactly did I have in mind as an alternative?

    Not doing that. Offering comfort and support to victims regardless of the country in which they live or the ethnic group to which they belong.

    You’ve been hanging around here for a long time. Does this really puzzle you? Did you really think that, rather than calling for us to be compassionate to all such victims of disasters regardless of their race or country, I was suggesting that we shouldn’t care for the New Zealanders at all? Really?

  38. being a moderate

    But you’re not a moderate. You keep telling us over and over that you are one – protesting too much, you might say – but that doesn’t make it so. We know you’re not a moderate from the comments you make here, which we all get to read, roughly 90% of which are standard right-wing talking points and apologia. I’m sure you’ll agree that you’re the least qualified to make an objective assessment as to whether or not you’re a moderate, and that nobody else here would agree with your assessment of yourself as “moderate”.

    Plus, by definition, moderates don’t share your obvious seething hatred of Teh Left.

  39. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic: “adding bits in that weren’t said”

    That is precisely the problem with the Abbott-bashers on this thread. Abbott said nothing racist. It is only by a speculative and tortuous parsing of his words that the claim that he is racist can be made.

    Aussiesmurf: “Stating that New Zealanders are ‘not foreigners’ is one of the clearest examples of someone’s racial animus bubbling through in an unintended way that I can remember seeing in the recent politicial sphere.”

    Words fail me! What does nationality have to do with race? – You know that they are different concepts. That people of many races are Australian citizens.

    Jeremy: “I criticised Abbott for making his “words of comfort and support” conditional on the victims not being “foreign”.

    Huh? His words of comfort and support were unconditional. He said that he would treat them like family, like fellow Australians (“not foreigners”). That is a perfectly proper and decent thing to say in this case.

    “Does this really puzzle you?”

    The attack on Abbott is completely beyond reason. The main justification for it seems to be that these words of comfort and support become, in Abbott’s mouth, some form of vile racism because we all know Abbott is a racist. In fact Abbott’s words were nothing more than a genuine expression of compassion and a re-affirmation of the close bonds between Australia and New Zealand.

    “Did you really think that, rather than calling for us to be compassionate to all such victims of disasters regardless of their race or country, I was suggesting that we shouldn’t care for the New Zealanders at all? Really?”

    You were attacking Abbott on totally spurious grounds for a perfectly decent expression of condolences to New Zealanders (who are people of many races). Why on earth would Abbott, in that statement refer to any other country? Why would he refer to race at all?

    As I said before, my suggested leftist response was sarcastic. Sarcasm involves and inversion of the literal meaning to highlight the ridiculous nature of the object of the sarcasm. In this case that was the proposition that Abbott’s impugned words (which were nothing more than an affirmation of the close ties between Australia and New Zealand) were somehow offensive.

    To be clear, I do not think you are insensitive to the suffering of New Zealanders. I do think you are overly sensitive to any opportunity to attack Abbott as a racist, so much so that you went over the top on this one.

  40. “His words of comfort and support were unconditional. He said that he would treat them like family, like fellow Australians (“not foreigners”).”

    Um, no. That’s not what he said. He said they are “family”, they are “not foreigners”, and THAT IS WHY it’s “touched our hearts”; THAT IS WHY we’re going to offer unconditional support:

    “New Zealanders are family, they’re not foreigners and that’s why this disaster has especially touched the hearts of every Australian. Whatever New Zealand asks, Australia will give. Whatever the Government does, the Coalition will back.”

    QED.

  41. Why do you feel obliged to apologise for this, SB? We know you are smart enough to understand what is being said here, so don’t pretend otherwise.

    In reference to how we should respond to the tragedy, Abbott felt obliged to point out that New Zealanders are “not foreigners”. The corollary is that if they were “foreigners”, we ought to react differently. If Abbott’s reaction to the tragedy were not to be any different if “foreigners” were the victims, can you explain why he saw the need to emphasise that, in this instance, the victims were “not foreigners”? At best, he’s implying there’s two tiers of victims, and doing it in the course of stating what he feels Australia’s response should be. Not a good look.

  42. My great-uncle died at Gallipoli. While it may be nearly 96 years ago, he has been remembered in my family. To me Anzac Day is a day of mourning, a day to show our respect for those who fought in various conflicts, and (to quote Paul Carson, who put it so well earlier in this discussion) “a day of remembrance, commemoration, and gratitude for everyone who has and continues to serve in the defence forces.”

    To say that lefties are anti-Anzac is a ridiculous statement.

    I acknowledge the close ties we have with our NZ neighbours, and of course we should be helping out, just as we helped people in neighbouring countries after the 2004 tsunami. But those close ties don’t change the fact that New Zealanders are foreigners.

    There are Muslim Australians who are currently being made to feel unwelcome in this country by dog whistling politicians and those sections of the media who are suggesting we limit further Muslim immigration – I wonder how these people feel as Australians, being made to feel unwelcome in their country of citizenship, while citizens of a foreign country are being described as “not foreigners”.

    I’m astounded by the contradiction of those politicians, media personalities and members of the public who treat some Australians as “them” (based on skin colour or religion), while treating citizens of a foreign country as “us”.

  43. narcoticmusing

    SB said:
    “Narcotic: “adding bits in that weren’t said”
    That is precisely the problem with the Abbott-bashers on this thread. Abbott said nothing racist. It is only by a speculative and tortuous parsing of his words that the claim that he is racist can be made.”

    Jeremy has saved me the trouble of re-quoting Abbott. I concede that there is likely an ANZAC context to his pro-NZ component, but to suggest there is no other context, such as a racist one, is to ignore anything else Abbott has ever said or done.

    How can we ever judge if a person is fit to be a leader if we take every single thing they do or say in isolation? Ergo, we should, as you suggest, consider the pro-ANZAC component as relevant. Similarly, we should consider his anti-asylum seeker, anti-[insert non-white country other than Israel] commentary – ie the racist/xenophobic connotations also.

    Abbott has certainly said more and acted upon more xenophobic policies than he has pro-ANZAC ones (unless you count his pro-war stance regardless of the views of the population he is meant to represent, who, while he was a government minister, provided a statement against war with the biggest protest in Australian history).

    What does nationality have to do with race? – Are you suggesting these are not related? If so, I’d disagree. I agree it isn’t the same thing, but it is really the whole, all roses are flowers but not all flowers are roses… Linked, no? Regardless of how you label it, it is discriminatory behaviour; providing lesser to another due to their race and/or nationality. Abbott displays both interchangeably, and it is unclear if he understands the difference, particularly when you consider his response to those we have obligations to under UN conventions.

    BT – I’m not sure democracynow is the best example of an objective, agenda free voice. It isn’t as extreme as FoxNews, I’ll grant you (is there anything more extreme than FoxNews?), but I don’t think it is free of bias. I of course go to the Onion and Colbert Report for all my news… :)

  44. “In reference to how we should respond to the tragedy, Abbott felt obliged to point out that New Zealanders are “not foreigners”. The corollary is that if they were “foreigners”, we ought to react differently. ”

    In a nut shell. The rest is all weasal words. SB as per usual goes off half cocked, trys to apologise in code, then throws in a few non seq

  45. cont – sequiters and ‘voilà ‘the world according to SB.

  46. Splatterbottom

    Buns: ““In reference to how we should respond to the tragedy, Abbott felt obliged to point out that New Zealanders are “not foreigners”. The corollary is that if they were “foreigners”, we ought to react differently.”

    You are right lynot in that this is as close as there is in this thread to a logical argument. And it isn’t very logical is it.? The use of the expression “not foreigners” occurring as it does immediately after the word “family” is merely emphasising the concept of family. He is syaing in effect that Australia should put the same effort into this emergency as if it were a domestic emergency. There may be a bit of hyperbole in this, but it doesn’t make him a racist.

    If the implication is that Australians ought to spend no more on a domestic emergency than on a foreign emergency, then it is clearly wrong. In fact we don’t do that nor should we.

    If the suggestion is that we are going to treat the NZ earthquake more like a domestic emergency and give the Kiwis more than we would some other foreign disaster, that is something reasonable people can argue the toss on. I don’t think that should be the rule, at least to any great extent, although I can see a good argument for doing more in the region, and for doing more for friendly or neutral countries than for hostile countries.

    However, there is no basis and no excuse for this hideous comment:

    “He means that many of them are of Anglo-Saxon descent who speak English as a first language”

    None at all.

  47. BT – I’m not sure democracynow is the best example of an objective, agenda free voice. It isn’t as extreme as FoxNews, I’ll grant you (is there anything more extreme than FoxNews?), but I don’t think it is free of bias. I of course go to the Onion and Colbert Report for all my news… :)

    yes well, as much as I love the Onion it’s not exactly a ‘real’ news site… I mean c’mon – Joad Crestbeckler isn’t actually running a third party campaign (anymore).
    I dont see the issue with DemNow. Comparing it to Fox News is just plain ridiculous. They interview people involved in various topics, they always invite the other side to put their point of view but surprisingly enough they dont respond.
    But Narco, if you think it’s biased – tell me what you think Dr Evan Lyon’s angle is?
    Clearly Fox is biased. The owner is a major funder of the Republicans since the start of Ronnie’s campaign in the 80’s and they clearly push the Republican line.
    DemNow however are community funded, so I think it’s just cheap to have a go at the to disapprove of a source because it’s left wing.
    Sure it may have may not be centrist, but that doesn’t mean it’s not objective. Basically I find they speak truth to power, and that’s what we need more of.
    But if you think otherwise – point to me just ONE story which is a clearly biased piece of shit on DemNow.

    SB, no reply eh? C’mon, tell me when exactly did your hero’s in the US go from pro rape to anti rape?
    You’re so sure of their benevolence, it cant be that hard. Unless of course you are in fact just a simple shit eating racist wanker.

  48. “The rest is all weasal words.”

    Nah, you just failed to detect the saaaaaaarcaaaaaasm. ;)

    “However, there is no basis and no excuse for this hideous comment:”

    There is, ‘stop the boats’. I mean there’s plenty of basis, look at his past record, hell, he even defended Scott Morrisson’s disgusting attack on the commonwealth for showing compassion to non-Anglo-Saxon’s who don’t speak English as a first language, (he should have sacked him) and just like you, and all other ‘religious conservative’, hypocritical, vindictive pricks, he tries to back pedal when he realises all the decent people can see him for what he is! I guess you just can’t see it ;)

    By the way SB, what’s the basis for your hideous comments, apart from your irrational fears of anyone left of Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott.

  49. Splatterbottom

    BT, sorry I missed your earlier comment.

    “One day you’ll rubbish Amnesty International “

    In all likelihood probably will. That is the point of not signing up with a particular ideology. You are free to judge things on their merits.

    I made two points about the US military being involved in Haiti. One was about the ability of the military to deliver aid and contribute to the rescue effort. You had no answer to that.

    In fact the military are often involved in emergency situations, and it is not exceptional that this is the case in Haiti.

    The second point was that the troops were sent to maintain order.

    Your answer to that has been derisory. You quote a highly politicised website pushing its own barrow. You find one doctor saying they don’t think the troops are necessary, and there you have it – case closed according to you.

    The rest of your post is an incoherent rant. Apparently there is no need for security anymore, and the whole problem can be solved by building a million or so houses next week.

    I suspect the left wants the troops out so they can corrupt the politcal process with another Bolivarian revolution. In fact peacekeeping is necessary if there is to be a fair election.

    The moderate position is to recognise that Haiti needs both aid and peacekeepers. It also needs less carping leftists playing their political games.

  50. I realise you’re pretending to ignore me SB but the reality is that I’m showing you up for what you are, a hysterical, dishonest hypocrite who jumps to the defence of the most despicable bigots. And there’s bugger all you can reasonably write that rebuts my points without further exposing your hypocrisy. :)

  51. Splatterbottom

    Sorry RobJ, the Moonbats are out in force on this thread and it’s hard to keep track of them all.

    Your point seems to be that :

    1. Abbott wants to ‘stop the boats’ ;
    2. This is evidence of Abbott’s racism;
    3. Therefore things Abbott says which don’t appear to be racist actually are racist.

    Propositions 2 and 3 do not follow from the premise which is why your conclusion is wrong.

  52. My point is that you’re a hypocrite who sticks up for bigots, though you masquerade as a ‘moderate’ – ‘religious conservative’ (LOL). It’s really simple yet you still seem confused.

  53. Splatterbottom

    RobJ that is abuse not argument. I can give you plenty of that if you really want, but not today. If its abuse you want, visit Noreen at Emerald Bile or the ever charming Mr Agreeable.

  54. In all likelihood probably will. That is the point of not signing up with a particular ideology. You are free to judge things on their merits.

    No, it just means you’re a hypocrite. You site AI as a reliable and moderate source – but only when they agree with your ideology.

    The rest of your post is an incoherent rant.
    Translation = questions are asked of SB he is unable to answer whilst staying within the narrow confines of conservative wank think. So SB just dismisses it.

    Apparently there is no need for security anymore, and the whole problem can be solved by building a million or so houses next week.
    Urm, what do you think MINNUSTAH is SB? A bunch of girl scouts? So according to you – 8,000 UN peacekeepers was not enough, Haiti needed more troops.
    Well I think clearing the rubble and building homes for these people would actually go a long way to solving the problems.
    You on the other hand seem to think they should spend the rest of their lives living under tarps.

    I made two points about the US military being involved in Haiti. One was about the ability of the military to deliver aid and contribute to the rescue effort. You had no answer to that.
    I didn’t see that comment however it’s clearly bullshit. Even the members of the conservative French and Italian governments were critical of the US sending troops instead of search and rescue teams.
    Tell me SB, how do you pull people trapped from rubble with guns?
    The fact is that Haitians themselves saved far more people that US soldiers, who from most credible reports spent most of their time patrolling streets and guarding desperately needed aid not being handed out.

    If it’s such a standard process then why doesn’t Australia send more troops to NZ instead of search and rescue teams?

    It’s funny how you accuse people of ignoring questions you’ve posted when you haven’t answered any of the straight up questions I’ve asked you.
    So I’ll repeat it: When did the US go from sponsoring rape as a weapon of terror against it’s political opponents in Haiti to becoming an advocate for the protection of Haitian women SB?
    It’s really quite simple a question. You believe the US government is actually concerned with the plight of Haitian women, however evidence is that they were not always this way. So when did the change happen?

    In fact peacekeeping is necessary if there is to be a fair election.
    So the troops have gone from protecting women, to ensuring a fair election eh?
    The worm continues to squirm.
    As for a fair election, what a joke. The most popular political party is not allowed to compete in the election. In violation of International Law and the Haitian constitution their most popular politician is kept in exile in South Africa 7 years after a US sponsored coup (and following US sponsored massacre) And the result is only about 23% of Haitians actually bother to vote. Yeah, real fair.

    The moderate position is to recognise that Haiti needs both aid and peacekeepers. It also needs less carping leftists playing their political games.
    No, that is the conservative ideological position.
    The left position is to allow Haitians to decide their future rather than denying their rights to vote for who they want, denying their rights to a decent wage and continuing to hold them down with US sponsored occupations.

    You quote a highly politicised website pushing its own barrow. You find one doctor saying they don’t think the troops are necessary, and there you have it – case closed according to you.
    Oh my god SB, my apologies! Can you possibly list the websites you will accept as reliable for my future refence? And how many do I require to list, is 5 enough for you?

    Anyway, I’m done with your bullshit for this post unless you can actually answer the above question I’ve asked about 3 times now. I never intend to convince you of anything, because you’re clearly too in love with bashing lefties to actually think logically.
    It’s just amusing to draw out how full of shit you are.

  55. “RobJ that is abuse not argument”

    If you say so, you rarely make a post without abusing the ‘left’ again you’re a hypocrite. You don’t like it when your beliefs are ridiculed but you constantly ridicule others beliefs because…….. You’re a hypocrite.

    In this thread alone, your very first post:

    “Sadly that is a bitter bitchy bilious comment typical of those stuck in the little green fart-bubble that is “progressive” politics in this country.”

    Fair do’s, you crack me up… Cheers.

    “I can give you plenty of that if you really want, but not today. ”

    Chicken. (I didn’t bother clicking your links)

  56. Splatterbottom

    Cheers RobJ, but not today.

    There is a difference between adding a bit of spice to a logical argument which is what I do, and sometimes even you do, and the complete absence of logic exhibited in your penultimate post. I tried to tease out some form of rational argument from your earlier comment but you didn’t attempt to answer that, responding instead with abuse. I am not going to waste my time responding in kind.

  57. Splatterbottom

    BT: “So I’ll repeat it: When did the US go from sponsoring rape as a weapon of terror against it’s political opponents in Haiti to becoming an advocate for the protection of Haitian women SB?
    It’s really quite simple a question.”

    BT I can’t tell you when something happened if it didn’t happen.

    Tell me when did brillig and the slithy toves gyre and gimble in the wabe?

  58. “I tried to tease out some form of rational argument ”

    You need to post a rational argument yourself.. You’re arguments consist of left = bad and moderate = religious right winger. I’m not making any argument I’m saying you’re a hypocrite.

    “Cheers RobJ, but not today”

    No probs….

    “responding instead with abuse.”

    You only think it’s abuse because it’s showing you up for what you are.

    ” I am not going to waste my time responding in kind.”

    It’s because you’ve got nothing, I might be harsh but I’m not a liar, I stand by my posts.

  59. narcoticmusing

    “There is a difference between adding a bit of spice to a logical argument which is what I do, and sometimes even you do, and the complete absence of logic”

    SB, I would hope you would consider this in the spirit of balance, if, indeed you are a moderate. You have heaped abuse, not added spice, throughout this thread. It is a bit rich, when you provoke and abuse others, to simply act as if you are a victim. I agree, some comments here have been abusive towards you and often highly inappropriate. But I would also contend that the old maxim of a taste of one’s own medicine may apply.

    If I may, for the purpose of your reflection as to how some of your comments may have been considered ‘abuse’ or at least inappropriate, quickly remind you a few things you’ve said. It isn’t all just excusable with ‘sarcasm’ or ‘spice’ anymore than statements said in disagreement with you.

    1. “… bitter bitchy bilious comment typical of those stuck in the little green fart-bubble that is “progressive” politics in this country.”
    2. “… venomous vermin of the left…”
    3. “BT: “I’m no expert” That was the only sensible thing in your comment”
    4. “Obviously you don’t give a shit about them, or you wouldn’t be whining about the troops.”
    5. “I suppose the leftist approach would be to tell the Kiwis that they are nothing special to us and that they need to harden the fuck up.”
    6. …”in favour of the darker recesses of Moonbat Central”
    7. “…the feverish fanaticism of the leftist horde…”
    8. “…Bitter twisted minds…”
    9. “…speculative and tortuous…”
    10. “…your post is an incoherent rant”
    11 “I suspect the left wants the troops out so they can corrupt the politcal proces…”
    12 “…carping leftists playing their political games”
    13. “…the Moonbats are out in force…”

    You may have noticed significant offence to some of these comments, such as (5) and your overall vitriol against the left. If you truly are a moderate, a more balanced approach would garner more respect for your position.

    My disagreement with you, does not make me wrong or playing some political game (I should ask what game do you think you are playing at if you are so certain the left is?) or a “moonbat”. It simply means I disagree.

  60. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic: “I would hope you would consider this in the spirit of balance”

    Funnily enough your list wasn’t balanced. Somehow you missed the following quips:

    “He means that many of them are of Anglo-Saxon descent who speak English as a first language “

    “So BS, I mean SB”

    “religious conservatives are sick fuckers”

    “Scott Morrison, he’s ‘venemous vermin’”

    “You are so full of shit”

    “as for your fake compassion for rape victims, spare us your crocodile tears.”

    “S.B. if bulls*&^% was a penny a pound, you’d be a dead set millionaire.”

    “ scratch a conservative and you will find a mean spirited red necked died in the wool racist”

    “ Fucking hypocrite.”

    “Unless of course you are in fact just a simple shit eating racist wanker.”

    “just like you, and all other ‘religious conservative’, hypocritical, vindictive pricks”

    “Chicken”

    “you are, a hysterical, dishonest hypocrite who jumps to the defence of the most despicable bigots.”

    Now I haven’t complained about any of this. With RobJ, I did dredge through is incoherent sludge and formulate the best argument I could from it, and then explained what was wrong with it. His following post ignored the argument, and was nothing but abuse. I don’t mind the abuse at all. In this case I was not complaining about it, just explaining to RobJ that I wasn’t going to bother replying if he couldn’t also formulate a logical argument to go with it.

    So here is the deal:

    1. A bit of spice coupled with a reasonable argument is fun.

    2. Pure abuse on its own is boring.

    In this thread I tried to provide some balance. I see the original post and many of the replies as an example of the hair-trigger readiness to vilify hated “others”. I noted that there was plenty about Abbott that I disagreed with, including his stand on refugees, but that there was no basis for attacking as racist his statement of support to New Zealand.

    For all the disingenuous parsing of his words and all the paranoid conspiracy linkages, no one has made a compelling case against that analysis.

  61. narcoticmusing

    I should note, SB, in your defense, that I’m not suggesting or advocating you censor your comments or attempt to speak in some “acceptable” manner. You also don’t have to respond to abusive comments, just that you ought expect when you are abusive, someone may reply in kind.

  62. Goodness gracious.

    (1) Abbott made a comment which was factually wrong. He referred to people from New Zealand as ‘not foreigners’. Now, clearly, this is no correct. New Zealand is a foreign country, clearly separate from Australia.

    (2) SB has stated that this factually incorrect statement was made because Abbott was trying, in a clumsy way, to emphasise the historical similarities between Australia and New Zealand, and has referenced the reference to ‘family’ and part of this.

    (3) Myself and others note the different words Abbott has used when tragedies have occurred to countries with a different racial mix, and consider that the reference to New Zealanders as ‘not foreigners’ indicates a conscious or unconscious use by Abbott of the word ‘foreigners’ as indicative of cultural and / or racial make-up rather than nationality.

    All this back and forth isn’t going to change the above.

  63. “Funnily enough your list wasn’t balanced. Somehow you missed the following quips:”

    Did you miss this:

    ” agree, some comments here have been abusive towards you and often highly inappropriate. But I would also contend that the old maxim of a taste of one’s own medicine may apply. ”

    My ones:

    ““Scott Morrison, he’s ‘venemous vermin’”

    ““ Fucking hypocrite.”
    You are, I don’t have to prove it, read your own posts.

    ““You are so full of shit”

    I admit I was rude, but you know, so are you.

    I stand by that statement, it’s OK for you to refer to others as venemous shit but how dare I call Scott Morrison on his despicable behavoir.

    “just like you, and all other ‘religious conservative’, hypocritical, vindictive pricks”

    I stand by that. Khomeni was a religious conservative too :p

    “Chicken”

    I was being light hearted, you aren’t a chicken, you dish out heaps, you have a nice thick skin (I like that).

    “n this thread I tried to provide some balance”

    LOLOLOLOL.

  64. Sorry about the mixed up order of my last post.. You’ll get the gist.

  65. narcoticmusing

    SB – I did note that there were abusive remarks against you also. Apologies for not trawling the thread for them, but it simply because it was you claiming abuse at you, not others. Hence, you already had a claim and I was demonstrating the other side – no need for you to re-assert the other side. Nevertheless, point re-taken.

    “For all the disingenuous parsing of his words and all the paranoid conspiracy linkages, no one has made a compelling case against that analysis.”

    No, no one has made a case that has convinced you – but that is ok, we can agree to disagree. I believe that there was a pretty strong case in both Jeremy’s original article and in many of the subsequent posts that suggest Abbott’s words were indicative of a broader set of behaviours & views that could easily be described as racist or xenophobic.

  66. Splatterbottom

    Agreed Aussiesmurf.

    Rob J don’t mind me. I actually enjoy it when someone hits me with a zinger, and I’m pretty sure others don’t take my comments too seriously. It is all good fun and we do cover some interesting issues along the way.

  67. narcoticmusing

    SB – 3:55

    QFE :)

  68. BT I can’t tell you when something happened if it didn’t happen.

    Ah ok, so you don’t actually believe that the US sponsored FRAPH? or that FRAPH commited these atrocities?
    I guess you would know more about the US involvement in Haiti than a Federal Court in New York eh?
    What a strange fantasy land you’ve constructed for yourself, you sick pathetic little turd.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Constant

    “In mid-1993, after the 1991 Haitian coup d’état, Constant, a Central Intelligence Agency operative, organised FRAPH, a Haitian death squad, to terrorize supporters of exiled president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raboteau_Massacre

    “In 2006, Constant was ordered by a New York state court to pay $19 million in civil damages to three women who had been raped and tortured by FRAPH.”

  69. Splatterbottom

    BT that has nothing to do with your idiotic question. Do try to talk sense old thing.

  70. Would someone inform the Rhodes Scholar, Tony Abbott, that the disaster in N.Z.did not discriminate, the forces of nature did not discriminate the family or foreigners, both lots were killed in the earthquake. Pauline Hanson was happy with Abbott’s quote I hear, sad really as Abbott is the man who played a part in the jailing of this racist. Regards, Richard Ryan.

  71. From your link:

    “Mr Bennie said many religious conservatives lived in the American mid-west, and felt threatened by changing social attitudes.”

    C’mon, they couldn’t be religious conservatives, they must be ‘venomous vermin’ progressive ‘leftists’

    Come to think of it SB, when I use your very own words (venomous vermin) it’s abuse??? Do you not see the contradiction?

  72. “No doubt the venomous vermin of the left despise ANZAC day, but they can hardly claim ignorance of it given the amount of time they spend belittling it and much else that has made Australia a decent country.”

    Damn you are so full of shit SB. Don’t pretend to know what progressives think of ANZAC Day. It means a lot to me.

  73. And damn my use of HTML.

  74. BT that has nothing to do with your idiotic question. Do try to talk sense old thing.

    Translation = “I can’t answer that question because the answer doesn’t fall within the narrow confines of my anti left idiology”

    It’s pretty simple really SB. You said the US government is concerned for Haiti’s women and wants to protect them from rape.
    All I’d like to know is: Since when?

    Now it’s stated as absolutely simply as it possibly could be. It’s a two syllable question that even a three year old would probably understand.
    You are smarter than a three year old right SB?

  75. Splatterbottom

    Apparently not BT. When did you stop sodomising your parrott?

  76. “In mid-1993, after the 1991 Haitian coup d’état, Constant, a Central Intelligence Agency operative, organised FRAPH, a Haitian death squad, to terrorize supporters of exiled president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.”

    “In 2006, Constant was ordered by a New York state court to pay $19 million in civil damages to three women who had been raped and tortured by FRAPH.”

    Let me see, 1993 — 18 years ago, how many administrations have been in the Whitehouse since then and who was there in 2006 ?
    Or do you think that Constant was somehow brought to trial in New York without the knowledge of the US government ?

  77. Blast Tyrant

    Apparently not BT. When did you stop sodomising your parrott?

    yeah, didn’t think so. And i thought sodomising was the Catholics department.

    Let me see, 1993 — 18 years ago, how many administrations have been in the Whitehouse since then and who was there in 2006 ?

    Well 1993 was Clinton and 2006 was Bush Jnr. So 1 change.
    Not sure what that has to do with anything though.

    Or do you think that Constant was somehow brought to trial in New York without the knowledge of the US government ?

    Not sure what your point is. The 2006 ruling seems to be a civil suite brought about by the survivors.
    It’s hardly as though the Bush administration (or Obama after him) decided to right the wrongs of 1993 and bring some criminal charges against Constant (or anybody else in FRAPH) or his paymasters in the CIA or Clinton administration.

  78. Without wanting to agree with Abbott’s POV at all, I’ll just point out 2 things. (Well actually a few more.)

    The first is that NZ has a sporting team playing in an Australian domestic sporting competition (the NRL, tho sport is probably pushing that description.) The second – I also have a copy of the Australian Constitution and NZ is in the mentioned as a future state even tho they chose to maintain independence.

    They are also the only place further into the “middle of nowhere” than us. I grew up in Hobart and you could look south from my place and see nothing but ocean to Antarctica, and following that line of site there are a few spots of land but basically its the Atlantic Oceans all the way to the Arctic. You can do it from the Victorian Coast in places too and you’ll feel you’re on the edge of the world there – I imagine NZ is the same.

    So Australia does have a unique relationship with NZ, (and yes its based on the idea that we are both Pommy outposts in the savage lands or something equally silly.) They are “family” in that Kiwis are more like Australians than any other people on Earth. Thats why the NRL can have Benji Marshall as the face of its year, why Russell Crowe is an “Aussie” and why pretty much no one else on the planet can pick how weird their accent is.

    But thats a separate issue to the subtext of what Abbot said – and his use of the word “Foreigner” which I haven’t heard in public this century.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s