« Canterbury Tales: Cross Iowahawk and Chaucer | Main | Ad Hominem Begins »

February 13, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Chuck Pelto

TO: Manny
RE: Soooo....

.....when are they going to have a similar event for not establishing Sharia Law in Australia a generation ago?


[Bad resolutions are more likely to be supplemented than repealed. -- Oaks's Laws]

Jim O'Sullivan

From over here in the States, I was said to see him go. A good, reliable, and unapologetic friend.


If not for an inconvenient clause in Art. II of our Constitution, Howard might have had a good shot at the White House, this year. His plain, blunt style reminds us of what people used to (grudgingly) admire in Americans.

Gregory Koster

Dear Manny: Why so pessimistic? So far as corrupt youth go, do not forget that the notorious Corey Worthington:


"grew up" if you'll pardon the phrase (hatched might be better) during Howard's tenure, and Howard's presence didn't prevent him from becoming an imbecile with appetites, with a first class seat on the Hell-bound train...

I hope you will not mind me, an American, commenting on a domestic Australian matter, i.e. the Rudd government's apology to the "Stolen Generation" of aborigines. I have read Noel Pearson's thoughts on this:


and agree with Tim Blair that they make "massive sense." (Many thanks to Mr. Blair for linking this.) To apologize without offering some sort of compensation is grotesque, but Mr. Pearson makes the case that compensation is most unlikely to come from Australia's parliament. This leaves the courts. I am not familiar with the Australian court system, and do not know if the apology opens the door for hordes of rapacious lawyers to whoop with glee while running wild in the public treasury, the taxpayers being shackled to a turbine powered lemon squeezer. Could be; it could also be that Rudd & Co. are content to let this happen so when the damage awards begin flying out of the courtrooms, and the dismayingly large bill is presented to the taxpayers, they can shrug and say, Well, it's the courts that are making us do this, not our fault.

Finally, I think John Howard would be indignant at your comparison of him to John Galt. John Galt was a fantasy, created by an author whose grasp of the real world was weak, as her notably gaudy private life showed. The only way Rand could make John Galt work in her book is to have him discover "a new principle of power" generation that would make him master of the world. In the old days, such notions were called "magic wands," and recognized as such. No "new principles of power" exist as Rand has described them. No, Howard was successful because he was a politician of great skill, determination, and energy. This is what brought him four terms in office, not any semi-mystical semi-bunkum qualities by Nietzsche out of Richard Wagner. You are right to think that Australia owes him a debt. But the book of Ecclesiates, chapter 3, is also right:

"To everything there is a season, and
a time to every purpose under heaven..."

Howard's time was (and is) done. For what it is worth, I think he will have a high place among Australian and world leaders.

Many thanks.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster


Jim - Even from the city of Sydney, it was good to have a "good, unapologetic and reliable friend". John Howard knew where Australia's priorities should lie, he had a clear understanding of the jihadi threat and was a canny Kulturkaempfer. As Glenn noted in his post, it easier to appreciate Howard after he's gone.

Greg - Whether or not Howard would be indignant with the comparison I made with Galt, is largely irrelevant. The comparison rests on two Galtian characteristics: his damming of leftist tripe and the left's unruliness after he is taken away. However, agree that he will have a high place among Australian and world leaders. I was at a Young Liberals meeting two nights ago and it was remarked that posterity would call John Howard Australia's best prime minister. I am not sure about that: Sir Robert Menzies set him a high bar. But he got pretty damn close.


I was truly sorry that he lost his own seat as well.

I invite him to settle in the US and let Australia's loss be our gain.

wayne corey

I certainly agree that John Howard should have the opportunity to run for U.S. President. We are outsourcing more and more work - why not the Presidency, especially considering our current candidates? Besides, John Howard speaks excellent English.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31