dieter

I can't see any contact to the head: I've seen all the replays. The commentators are either blind or just flucking morons, probably both.

??????

He took about 4 pack marks that day, kicked them from anywhere. The full back was a Hawthorn player....

Look, his operas are very long but once you get the hang of it you'll never go back. You'll always say from that moment on he was one of the greatest geniuses who walked this earth..

No wonder T. Mac has a sore big toe. Goodwin's been stickin voodoo needles into his effigy.

I've always been critical of Tyson's turnover ratio. Last night, for example, some commentators - Richardson was one - were raving about the work rate of Cripps. I wasn't. I wanted to throw darts at the screen because the goose kept turning the ball over. Still, I would have played him and Brayshaw before Maynard and Wagner... Perhaps there are fitness clouds over both, Brayshaw with his recently departed molars, Tyson perhaps still needing more time to fully recover.

I saw him kick 6 goals in the first half against the Box Hill hawks last year. The boy has got it...

He's just a swell dude, our Donald. Upholder of democracy for the underprivileged, the great swamp drainer, the man with the vision to make America great again. Wow. And he has such a beautiful and intelligent daughter. You ask him, he'll tell you. In fact, he'll tell ya, if she wasn't his daughter he'd be dating her. True dinks, that's what he's said.

As Randy Newman sang, 'Ain't that America...'

I ask the doubters, how long did it take for Hawkins, the current Don Daniher, Josh kennedy, Darcy Moore to come good???

Gary Leupp, American journalis, publihed today in Counter Punch: Donald Trump seems unconcerned with such matters. Following the May 2017 sword dance in Riyadh he has cozied up with the Saudi king and crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, who just visited Washington. The pair celebrated the $ 200 billion arms deal last year and more sales to come. Trump noted that the Saudis are “a very wealthy nation, and they’re going to give the United States some of that wealth.” The prince’s visit drew out Codepink and other protestors targeting Saudi repression and the vicious Saudi assault on Yemen, which has killed at least 10,000 civilians an is currently experiencing what the UN terms the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe. The U.S. abets this assault with military intelligence and refueling. It justifies the Saudi effort to crush the Houthis and restore the former (unelected) president as a necessary move to counter Iranian influence in the region. Even though there is little evidence for Iranian support for the Houthis. The evidence is rather that the Saudi leaders fear and hate Shiism, and tend to depict any Shiites (in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen etc.) as Iranian pawns.

What part of Fantasyland to you live in, bro? The Saudis have been arming ISIS and commit atrocities on a daily basis in Yemen. Mainstream media doesn't tell you this , it looks the other way.

If you're Italian you need a mirror anyway. Unions have been known to do very stupid things. My father always used to say it's because we inherited the British Trade Relations model where it's all about confrontation instead of co-operation. Go Dees. I mention Doug because I used to work with him at Tisdall in the early 80's. Doug is a keen Demon man...

All you need is a mirror. They must have them in Echuca. Do you know Doug Goldsworthy?

We already know that...

So you are just masquerading as a Bogan???/

you are truly a bogan... Anyway, his real name was post modern: ken handsell.

No, leave it, no retraction just this for your impartial consideration. Chomsky, The Guardian: ''In retrospect The two most crucial questions about the missile crisis are how it began, and how it ended. It began with Kennedy's terrorist attack against Cuba, with a threat of invasion in October 1962. It ended with the president's rejection of Russian offers that would seem fair to a rational person, but were unthinkable because they would undermine the fundamental principle that the US has the unilateral right to deploy nuclear missiles anywhere, aimed at China or Russia or anyone else, and right on their borders; and the accompanying principle that Cuba had no right to have missiles for defense against what appeared to be an imminent US invasion. To establish these principles firmly, it was entirely proper to face a high risk of war of unimaginable destruction, and to reject simple, and admittedly fair, ways to end the threat. Garthoff observes that "in the United States, there was almost universal approbation for President Kennedy's handling of the crisis." Dobbs writes that "the relentlessly upbeat tone was established by the court historian, Arthur M Schlesinger Jr, who wrote that Kennedy had 'dazzled the world' through a 'combination of toughness and restraint, of will, nerve and wisdom, so brilliantly controlled, so matchlessly calibrated'." Rather more soberly, Stern partially agrees, noting that Kennedy repeatedly rejected the militant advice of his advisers and associates who called for military force and dismissal of peaceful options. The events of October 1962 are widely hailed as Kennedy's finest hour. Graham Allison joins many others in presenting them as "a guide for how to defuse conflicts, manage great-power relationships, and make sound decisions about foreign policy in general". In a very narrow sense, that judgment seems reasonable. The ExComm tapes reveal that the president stood apart from others, sometimes almost all others, in rejecting premature violence. There is, however, a further question: how should JFK's relative moderation in management of the crisis be evaluated against the background of the broader considerations just reviewed? But that question does not arise in a disciplined intellectual and moral culture, which accepts without question the basic principle that the US effectively owns the world by right, and is, by definition, a force for good despite occasional errors and misunderstandings, so that it is plainly entirely proper for the US to deploy massive offensive force all over the world, while it is an outrage for others (allies and clients apart) to make even the slightest gesture in that direction, or even to think of deterring the threatened use of violence by the benign global hegemon. That doctrine is the primary official charge against Iran today: it might pose a deterrent to US and Israeli force. It was a consideration during the missile crisis as well. In internal discussion, the Kennedy brothers expressed their fears that Cuban missiles might deter a US invasion of Venezuela then under consideration. So "the Bay of Pigs was really right," JFK concluded. The principles still contribute to the constant risk of nuclear war. There has been no shortage of severe dangers since the missile crisis. Ten years later, during the 1973 Israel-Arab war, Henry Kissinger called a high-level nuclear alert (Defcon 3) to warn the Russians to keep hands off while he was secretly authorizing Israel to violate the ceasefire imposed by the US and Russia. When Reagan came into office a few years later, the US launched operations probing Russian defenses and simulating air and naval attacks, while placing Pershing missiles in Germany with a five-minute flight time to Russian targets, providing what the CIA called a "super-sudden first strike" capability. Naturally, this caused great alarm in Russia, which, unlike the US, has repeatedly been invaded and virtually destroyed. That led to a major war scare in 1983. There have been hundreds of cases when human intervention aborted a first strike minutes before launch, after automated systems gave false alarms. We don't have Russian records, but there's no doubt that their systems are far more accident-prone. Meanwhile, India and Pakistan have come close to nuclear war several times, and the sources of the conflict remain. Both have refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty, along with Israel, and have received US support for development of their nuclear weapons programs – until today, in the case of India, now a US ally. War threats in the Middle East, which might become reality very soon, once again escalate the dangers. In 1962, war was avoided by Khrushchev's willingness to accept Kennedy's hegemonic demands. But we can hardly count on such sanity forever. It's a near miracle that nuclear war has so far been avoided. There is more reason than ever to attend to the warning of Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein, almost 60 years ago, that we must face a choice that is "stark and dreadful and inescapable": Topics

You mean 1963. I was there! That's all ok but I don't understand why we keep focusing on Russian aggression. Do you recall USA aggression in Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Greece, not to mention Guatamala and the other southern American countries etc. The Cuban aggression happened in Kennedy's time. There's also a book published in the US about a plan to drop a nuclear device in Massachusetts, Russia would be blamed and off they'd go, those weapons of mass destruction which the USA has stock-piled to the far horizon. Also, keep in mind the USA is still the only country to use nuclear weapons...

It's like a former CIA executive telling someone on CNN that the USA interfered in countless countries, then proceeded to name them, Chile, Iran, Venezuela, Colombia etc etc etc

This Cambridge Group rings a bell. If I'm not mistaken one of their top dudes came to Melbourne not that long ago and John Fain interviewed him. Either that or there was someone trying to alert us about this group, and the more I think about it, the more I think it was the latter...Do you recall coming across them before?

That made me laugh...

I wish something could put me to sleep when my wife snores like a full symphony orchestra.

Not trying to impress, young man, just responding to a question from Red and Bluebeard, by the sounds of it, the only other chap of culture on this site. ( Demonland is fast becoming Boganville! I am attempting to lead you bogans to the path of culture and beauty. )

It was written in the late 1920's. It's a Pagan Mass, if you like, it's full of passion and joy in life. It's exuberant like Verdi's Requiem is at times, nothing like Bach except in its sense of exhilaration, and, thankfully, nothing like Mahler's 8 which, to my ears is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The only decent music in it is the orchestral prelude to the Second Part. No, Janacek is more down to earth and passionate. There's really no-one to compare him to, you know. I suggest - if you have Spotify - to listen to it, or, there are performances on You Tube.