The miners and labour organizers at the turn of the century weren't encouraging the strikers to start the violence, were they?

You bet they were...people were FED UP. Read "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn for an excellent summation of all that jazz...great read.

The government and industry both gave in to all kinds of concessions because they were afraid of an uprising/revolution.

Legato, I hate to tell you man, but the Sydney Opera House is a nice piece of architecture, but that's about it. As far as a national treasure, well, I can think of numerous things more valuable to Australia than a pretty looking building.

I had no idea how important opera was to those aussies! They loves them some fat ladies singing!

Reality Check: There was no permanent damage. No individuals were hurt in the making of this graffiti.

If they had written "Hi Mom" on there, would you be so indignant and enraged?

The Sydney Opera House,

Makes for a great postcard!

NO WAR!!

I mean, they defaced a national landmark--what else could you expect?

stache, you are absolutely right. I can't beleive I screwed up the " Walk softly and carry a big stick" quote from one of my favorite presidents, Teddy Roosevelt.

Thank you for reminding me, d'oh!

whidbey65

The government and industry both gave in to all kinds of concessions because they were afraid of an uprising/revolution.

You see, to me that isn't "civil disobedience", it's revolt, or the next nearest thing. That's an escalation beyond mere disobedience.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

civil disobedience
n.

Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.

I get the impression that the notion of revolt or near-revolt enthuses you, and that's fine, it certainly does have its place. But I think it's apparent that it's an option reserved for "Plan B: When Civil Disobedience Doesn't Work".

ok, this is my last post, but I have to understand something. Is there a difference between a NATIONAL landmark and just a regular old landmark? It seems to me there is. Seems as though a National landmark should have some historic or national significance. Maybe I just don't know enough about the history of Australia and their love for opera?

BTW, that thing reminds me of the San Diego Convention Center. Is the San Diego Convention Center a national landmark?

BTW Fink, you should be a cop, if you aren't already. If you don't go into police academy, I see some serious prison time in your future.

Microbe

ok, this is my last post, but I have to understand something. Is there a difference between a NATIONAL landmark and just a regular old landmark? It seems to me there is. Seems as though a National landmark should have some historic or national significance.

I guess a national landmark is whatever citizens of said nation decide to consider as such. The Sydney Opera House is an internationally recognized archetectural achievement, it's unique and distinctive and quite beautiful. Your rather snide comments about elitist snobs aside, it's an important cultural centre as well. Australians are justifiably proud of it, and it's as much a symbol of Australia as Ayers Rock or...well, The Croc Hunter (now if someone had spray-painted him...)

At any rate, it's not your place to decide what is and what isn't an important national symbol to the Australians, it's up to them. Your opinion about that sort of thing may count in your country, but not theirs.

Maybe I just don't know enough about the history of Australia and their love for opera?

Indeed.

El Swino, pardon me, I've had a few beers and am finding this completely fascinating.

A building can become a national landmark simply because people decide it is? It doesn't have to have any historic significance other than being nice to look at?

I am not pretending here, I am truly as dumb as you expect. I actually thought that a national landmark had to have some sort of national (such as the congress building or white house in the states), or historic (plymouth rock, pearl harbor, Appomatox Courthouse, etc.) or even heroic (Washington Monument, Vietnam Memmorial, Tomb of the Unknown Soldier) value.

I had no idea that really good architecture counted. interesting

Yes pontechango, "asshats" (what a tired farking word) do exist just like in my little fantasy, and you are one of them.

Remember, you'd "be happy to dredge up all your repressed memories of daddy kicking your raped little ass". Now that's not very tolerant is it? Hypocrite much? I now understand what is at the core of your oh so typical, over-emotional reaction to my tale. Your drunk ass roomies got a pummeling for hurling a pie plate at some guy's Coupe De Ville... what a tragic, tragic story, I can see why you'd be emotionally crippled and my yarn would touch you so deeply and raise such ire.

I know the planet is full of simple, two faced little fellas like yourself and sometimes I just cant help playing the mark. I apologize.

Your Pal,
Fink

Microbe.

I should be a cop? are you implying all cops go arond busting people up unjustly?
If so, you are an idiot. If not, my apologies. I've had a couple of run ins with the police, why? because I was acting like an ass. Not once, ever, have I been harrassed by a cop in a situation that I didn't deserve it, nor have any of my friends or family. Seems to me most of the people that have problems with police are either stupid, or drunk and doing stupid things. This is the freest country in the world, if you have an overall problem with police, you're probably clinically stupid. Genetics are a cruel thing, aint they hoss?

fink

Now that's not very tolerant is it? Hypocrite much?

Why should I be tolerant when you claimed to have attacked somebody? I don't tolerate violence. I didn't threaten you. There's nothing hypocritical about pondering if your father abused you when you were a youngster. In fact, it's a rather typical pathology. Sorry if you don't understand.


Your drunk ass roomies

They weren't my roommates. OK. I've wasted enough time with you Fink. Have a nice life.

Microbe

A building can become a national landmark simply because people decide it is? It doesn't have to have any historic significance other than being nice to look at?

Sure can. It doesn't even have to be nice to look at, really, just "distinctive". I live almost at the foot of one of my country's "national symbols", the CN Tower. It's ugly and weird looking, and it's basically just a radio antenna, but everyone knows what it is. In your country, there's the Guggenheim, as an architectural example, or Carnegie Hall, as a cultural one. London's Big Ben is another - it's just a clock, but it's also much more.

I actually thought that a national landmark had to have some sort of national (such as the congress building or white house in the states), or historic (plymouth rock, pearl harbor, Appomatox Courthouse, etc.) or even heroic (Washington Monument, Vietnam Memmorial, Tomb of the Unknown Soldier) value.

Those would be designated national landmarks, created with the intent of being so. Other landmarks just kind of work their way into peoples' consciousness indirectly. Think of the VAB at Kennedy Space Centre.

I had no idea that really good architecture counted.

Really good or really bad.

It's a bit more democratic, when you think about it, if the people decide what's important to them, rather than the government.

these guys are heroes

El_Swino,

Excellent, thank you. I guess you're right. So the law allows for a greater fine when one graffitis a national monument? Hmmm...

That allows for the price of cleaning up the mess and punishment for defacing a nationally recognized landmark. $110,000.00.

Hate to say it, but still seems a bit steep. I guess there's no chance that politics had anything to do with it eh? Who knows, maybe politics had nothing to do with the fine, only in the fact that the world knows about it.

Anyway, I've heard the perpetrators are rich and can afford it. Probably why they did it, they were prepared to pay the penalty. I guess that's how it goes when you really believe in something.

You are prepared to pay the penalty.

In any situation where the worst is thrust upon you, you always find a way to get through it. But you must also wonder how those that willingly thrust it upon you were able to do so? How is it that people justify their violence, like for instance fink?

I think it will always be a wonderment to peaceful folk why their fellow man can so openly promote violence. There is even a certain pride associated with the ability to kill among war mongers. Its almost as if its some kind of game. It is a matter of pride.

It seems to be pride in the most disgraceful act before God. A pride in weakness. A pride in apeishness. I'm not even religious, and that seems apparent. It is not to be taken lightly, the killing of families and men. For those whose duty it is, let them be resolved in the righteous and wise decisions of their leaders.

Their leaders should not, without great deliberation, or urgent necessity, enter upon war; risking the lives of the brave while leaders sit comfortably in peace.

Life is too sacred to be casually discussed in a 15 second blurb on the 6:00 news. Just because it didn't warrant the 30 second sound bite doesn't mean it was less important. Perspective is present in every piece of information we receive. The tellers perspective, the perspective of the reporter, the editors perpective (15 sec vs 30 sec. slot)
or even here obviously. Too sacred to be discussed casually.

I've rambled too long here, to myself.

Microbe

So the law allows for a greater fine when one graffitis a national monument?

Maybe, maybe not. What the law allowed for in this case was a pretty heavy fine, whether or not that was national monument-related can only be determined by studying the relavant Australian laws (and I ain't doin' that tonight!)

Hate to say it, but still seems a bit steep. I guess there's no chance that politics had anything to do with it eh? Who knows, maybe politics had nothing to do with the fine, only in the fact that the world knows about it.

To be honest, I think it's a bit steep myself. There's definitely a political point being made here. I just happen to think that the point being made is not related to the war/no war argument. Rather, I think the judge was sending the very firm message: "You do NOT fark with our treasured national symbols, no matter what your cause may be." The fact that one of these fellows came from England didn't help, either. The Australians aren't too terribly fond of the Poms, so the message being sent could be expanded to include: "...and most especially, you do NOT come from a foreign country to do your politicking here."

I guess that's how it goes when you really believe in something.

Quite so. I do respect their motivations, I just think the way they implemented their action was totally incorrect. You don't convince people you're right by yelling at them and wrecking things. It didn't work for my ex-wife, and it doesn't work for anyone else, either.

I think it will always be a wonderment to peaceful folk why their fellow man can so openly promote violence. There is even a certain pride associated with the ability to kill among war mongers. Its almost as if its some kind of game. It is a matter of pride.

Well, I'm not going to give you the "nature, red of tooth and claw" argument. I firmly believe that humans are capable of rising above the bestial level of kill or be killed. And if you look around, we actually manage to pull that off fairly successfully. Why, I haven't had to fight for my life since...forever. 1000 years ago, someone my age (36) would be someone with countless brawls and battles under their belt - if I survived the experience. So things have improved, and they continue to do so, if somewhat slowly. For what it's worth, the homicide rate in primitive hunter-gatherer tribal groups is higher than we typically expect in western society. Less to fight over, but still we fight...

Whether we like it or not, there are people and groups of people in this world who simply aren't willing to live and let live. Call them sociopaths, call them throwbacks, call them culturally or socially underpriveged, whatever. For that matter, history is full of examples of perfectly viable cultures where extreme violence is not only accepted, but expected under some circumstances. Our general cultural taste for peace is simply that - a cultural taste, and a relatively recent one at that.

When these "throwbacks" are individuals within a given society, they're called criminals. To deal with them, we have cops and courts and jails. On a larger scale, we have the military. We can view all of this with distaste, but history demonstrates pretty conclusively that societies who aren't willing or able to protect themselves don't last very long.

I said all that because I think we need to differentiate between the sorts of people who accept violence. Properly applied violence is a science and an art. Not all who choose this path are the sort of animals you envision. Most senior professional soldiers I've met are some of the most decent, gentle, honourable men you'll ever encounter. I've found that most of the "kill 'em all, let's kick ass!" types are either non-military wannabes, very junior troops who haven't had sense smacked into their heads yet, or support/logistics types who've had a few too many in the mess and are feeling a bit inadequate. The good ones just quietly accept the need for what they do, and they do it to the best of their ability. Sure, they've got pride, because they're good at what they do. It's okay to be proud of what one does for a living, assuming one does it with honour and integrity. The ones who've killed aren't necessarily proud of that, they just accept it and try to move on. I think it's important for you to try to understand this sort of person more fully. You're intimidated by violence. That's fine, you're the product of a civilized society, but don't let it close you off from studying it and trying to understand its permutations. There are many forms of violence, and they're not always as negative as they seem. Surgery is often ugly and messy and painful, but we don't stop trying to dig tumours out of people.

It is not to be taken lightly, the killing of families and men. For those whose duty it is, let them be resolved in the righteous and wise decisions of their leaders.

Their leaders should not, without great deliberation, or urgent necessity, enter upon war; risking the lives of the brave while leaders sit comfortably in peace.

100% agreement.

Life is too sacred to be casually discussed in a 15 second blurb on the 6:00 news. Just because it didn't warrant the 30 second sound bite doesn't mean it was less important. Perspective is present in every piece of information we receive. The tellers perspective, the perspective of the reporter, the editors perpective (15 sec vs 30 sec. slot)

I work in television, and believe me, I would never rely on TV news for anything more substantial than the weather, the scores or maybe watching a shuttle launch or something equally "Live". If you're looking for perspective on war and violence, hit the library.

Too sacred to be discussed casually.

This I disagree with. I think casual discussion of serious issues is an important step in getting people to think about things. So many folks avoid "serious discussions" as a matter of course - how would we reach them otherwise? Slip it in, guerilla style. Get people thinking and asking questions, rather than simply repeating what they hear from the boob tube.

And that is enough, more than enough. Thanks for a good discussion.

2004-01-30 06:16:19 PM whidbey65

"Yeah, I'll bet it was shocking...even more so since you really don't hear much about Oz being involved in the war...I guess I would have more respect for the vandals if they'd graffiti'd something here in the US or in Britain...

But y'all got Midnight Oil, so there's got to be some crazy protest d00ds running around there..."

Probably a bit late with this, but too bad. I don't know what you mean by not hearing much about our involvment in the war. Are you implying that we didn't help, or that our help was minimal? As I said, I am not sure so don't take it as an attack. The reason little was heard about our involvment was because we mostly sent our SAS troops over there, we didn't send large amounts of troops because we are not a military superpower, and the SAS are shrouded in secrecy. The most we would hear about them was "SAS troops were involved in something somewhere."


Also, don't bag Peter Garret! Nothing will ever beat his retarded chicken-esque dancing.

WTF? They corrected the headlin'e!

WTF!! These Guy were champions! Screw u who eva called them idiots they Ruled at least they had the balls to get up and say that most of australia didnt want bushs war. sigh if only they wrote that Howard was one of Bushs biatchs sigh if only..

The only thing sadder than the incessant whining most of the anti-American Fark camp spews out, is the fact you stereotype each and every person who lives here while doing so.

sarcasm
The war is actually really popular here. You won't hear anyone complaining about our wonderful crusade in Iraq from an American citizen, nosiree.
/sarcasm

pepsitim2001: those people aren't champions, they're asshats. Don't get me wrong, I didn't support the war in Iraq either. But theres a right way and a wrong way to protest something, and vandalising a national icon like the Opera House is well and truely the wrong way to go about it. Serves them bloody well right, I say!

*Comrade_Russ steps down from his soap box*

since i consider this a very liberal site, can I ask you people if the tree's ever hug back?

If the tree's what ever hugs back? You left out a word.