completely fooled again

Responsibility, its a favourite word to slap people over the head with, unless you are a government minister, then just look above the ministers head, theres a sign there:

all care,

no ministerial

responsibility

downer: progressively handing over responsibility for security to the Iraqis.

downer: no responsibility for the war, see the US, they gave us the inteligence

howard: even the french believed that saddam had WMD.
so the french were in favour of invading? not even a weeny little bit, but they are good to handle the responsiblilty for our invasion, they dont speak english or watch neighbours.

mal brough: aboriginals must take responsibility for thier communities.
coz the government sure as hell wont take any.

to cut a long word short, you are responsible if you are:

a state government
muslim
indigenous/black
a refugee
unemployed
a 17 yo signing an agreement with a multinational company
on any form of welfare
multicultural
palestinian
in the firing line of a coalition weapon
saddam hussien
in jail
on drugs
in a union
(but not a gay union)
any religion except christian
french

but never if you are a minister in the howard government. Have fun, spend the day fucking pigs and email the photos to underage latvian prostitutes, who cares, a royal commission will be called which will place the blame on the pig, some on the nation of latvia for having underage children, and the rest on the guy who doesnt speak english.

Homer: "Ahh Tibor, how many times have you saved my bacon."

to add weight heres some more responsibility
what the fukc > cleared:

Mr Lindberg (chairman AWB) gave faltering evidence to the inquiry, claiming he could not recall key dates and events and being asked by counsel assisting, John Agius, SC:
"Are you a complete fool?"
("no sir, I have my lucid moments.")
The report completely clears him,
describing the former chief executive as "a truthful witness" who was "not well served" by those who reported to him.

to stop my mental implosion:

http://archimedespalimpsest.org/

http://skeptically.org/newtestament/

juan cole makes a good point about a pointless situation:

http://www.juancole.com/

Every time you hear someone say that we have to keep the troops in Iraq, press that person to explain what the mission is exactly and how and when it will be accomplished.

At what point will the people of Ramadi wake up in the morning and say, 'We've changed our minds. We like the new government dominated by Shiite ayatollahs and Kurdish warlords. We're happy to host Western Occupation troops on our soil. We don't care if those troops are allied with the Israeli military, which is daily bombing our brethren in Gaza and killing them and keeping them down. We're changed persons. We're not going to bother to set any IEDs tonight and we've put away our sniping rifles.'

(You could substitute Tikrit, Samarra', Baquba, and other Sunni Arab cities for Ramadi).

It is not going to happen. In fall, 2003, 14 percent of Sunni Arabs thought it was legitimate to attack US personnel in Iraq. Now over 70 percent do. Isn't it going toward 100 percent? How would more or less keeping the people of Ramadi in a cage help things in that regard, especially if they perceive us to be doing it on behalf of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (founded by Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran) and the Kurdish Peshmerga and the Israeli army?

.......................................
naomi robson makes a good point: "i quit"
I make a better one: "so what"
one less story on single mothers cheating on thier lawnmowers with tax payer funds as the MAIN STORY? or does it mean that another weather girl will get to play journalist and ask the tough questions "your mother died a minute ago, how does that make you feel? Is that a welfare cheque in your pocket or are you just back from the pokies. This will disturb you..."
........................................
http://www.archaeologica.org/NewsPage.htm

mmmmmmmmmdirt