both sides now, or again

Glen Milne has an apology to Stephen Mayne in the paper today which, inevitably perhaps, ends up implying that it's Mayne's fault because he's a snarky independent journalist. What was that about individual responsibility again?

We got delivered the wrong paper this morning It was the right colour and shape and it was only after a couple of pages of NSW-ish 'news' that I came up against Miranda Devine. And so I have discovered a paper that's worse than the Sunday Mail, which only has Andrew Bolt. It's the Sun-Herald. Today, Ms Devine explains the propensity of some young men to hit women (and believe me, the stories she cited were appalling) by noting that Paris Hilton goes out without any underwear on. What was that about individual responsibility again?

After that I needed shriving and I went and toiled against the leaves for a while. It was a particularly unsatisfying bit of toil because the bag in the garden vacuum has got a hole in it and so now picks up whole leaves on one side and distributes chewed up leaves out the other side. So I got the broom and pan and brush. This saga of the leaf vacuum bags is a long one. The bags cost $56 each and the actual mean number of uses before they bugger up is three - ie one weekend's use. We've tried all sorts of fiddles and for this current one, Mrs V V B took out the zip (which is the bit that goes) and sewed velcro on instead. But it's now all frayed where I drag it on the ground, but at least we've had about 6 month's use out of it.

Then I came back for a dose of Sunday refreshment, in which Jeremy Clarkson again points out that Communists can't make machinery for nuts (well actually they do make machinery for nuts, just a different kind).

Back to the more serious pursuits that the Times offers, Andrew Sullivan ponders on what Bush will now do in Iraq. Not a bad column but some implicit assumptions still creep in that nation building in Iraq was the original goal. Never. It was always about control of vital resources. Saddam's regime may have been crumbling (not that this appeared obvious to the general public, I can't remember much in the way of news and/or commentary before all of a sudden we (ie the west) was pulling out of Afghanistan and about to invade Iraq. The key sentence that jumps out at you:

But Bush is not a responsible president of the United States. He is a reckless
gambler of other people’s money and other people’s lives.

You can imagine the reaction if a columnist or someone here expressed such views. Remember Mark Latham?

This article, also in the Times, by Michael Portillo, a former Minister in the Conservative Government, is also insightful. The last para is interesting: I read it as Portillo having two bob each way. It's a criticism of how the UK deals with the US, rather than why. I also wonder what the reaction from the Tories will be? Do they take this sort of stuff onthe chin or go the biff? For example, if Malcom Fraser penned something similar here, the 'attack dogs' of the right would go for the throat - old, out of touch, and so on.