There is (obviously!) great tension between those who want to preserve correct international etiquette above all, and those who prefer to disregard any short-term ethnic sensitivities and deal with the substantive problem in isolation.

The former thus concentrate on the commercial media’s crass presentation and the resulting xenophobic response. The latter, perhaps rashly given the reality of the former’s fears, promote the Corby case in order to attack inhumane anti-drug laws regardless of jurisdiction.

My position was staked out well before the hysteria went critical. It boils down to a repugnance for the tribe sacrificing the few in the name of protecting the many who, however, happen to be in very large part complicit in the “substance abuse” problem. I didn’t even mention Corby’s name in that first post, as my position didn’t originate with her story.

Now the current episode has turned insane. To the point that I very largely concur with Mark’s points - even while finding the “white woman being violated” explanation a bit reductionist - there have been more strands involved than that.

Therefore I propose to follow Andrew Bartlett’s advice from here on in.

However, Andrew’s point is a good one. Panem et circenses.

More importantly, are there any big-breasted [WHITE!] damsels involved?

Like many people, I think Schapelle Corby has had a raw deal. I also think comments along the way from Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty have not been helpful and the assistance provided by the Australian Government has been fairly l…

I’ll wager your sainted cargo pants that few nerds can name the opera containing the verse I lifted. An obscenely detailed recollection of The Simpsons might prove of some assistance, however.

“For I’m called Little Buttercup — dear Little Buttercup,

Though I could never tell why,

But still I’m called Buttercup — poor little Buttercup,

Sweet Little Buttercup I!”

Goddamn pinko/yellow bastards pay out my Shapelle. They didn’t even like her tits for God’s sake. Deviants I tell you. Deviants.

The people asking for their donations back is, well stupid, but supports this idea. (I made sure that the organisation I donated money to was directing it to Aceh.) The donations smack of an older sibling helping the younger with the unspoken expectation that the younger will grow to be like the older. I really don’t think it’s much more deep than that.
But now, with Corby, we have the younger asserting that their ‘backward’ way is superior to the older’s way. The older has responded by saying that the only reason I helped you in the first place was to make you better, ie like me, and if you reject that then you get nothing and you can get stuffed.
The linking of tsunami relief and Corby is nonsensical apart from one thing and one thing only - they are both personalised and they are the only connection the average Aussie has ever had with Indonesia. The donation was from one person to the people. Due to the media attention Corby has been personalised ie we all have buy-in by the same process that makes BigBrother a success. The people marching into court at the start of the trial waving placards reading ‘Shoot her’ were a slap in the face.

Essentially we were moved by compassion to help you with the tsunami and we expect you to show compassion for one of ours. You didn’t, so we strike back.