| |
Behind the news
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for
selfishness." : John Kenneth Galbraith
Obama must win.
Posted at 8:05 AM, 17/9/2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/the-final-distraction-mcc_b_126672.html
Posted September 15, 2008 | 08:27 PM (EST)
We all know McCain has sold his soul to win. Big mistake: the Democrats are taking the GOP bait, especially on Palin. She is the ultimate distraction. If we're not careful she'll be the final distraction. The perfect new celebrity -- Sarah Barracuda -- to capture the message in the 24-hour spin orgy, all the while attacking Obama as an elite celebrity. Any narrative that focuses on her -- any -- is a win for Republicans, carrying an undercurrent of race wars, gender wars, class wars. All ending with a debate on God and a return visit to Rev. Wright.
Palin is a gateway drug to a back-alley brawl Obama can't win. A Joseph Conrad-produced reality show/sitcom with Palin replacing Roseanne Barr fighting for the little guy with sass and sex. Wonderful.
Watch McCain repeat "maverick" 300 times a day, like a mantra, 'til Election Day. Republicans and hockey moms against corruption and Lear jets. Orwell for second graders: distraction and chaos, phony scandals and bullshit patriotics from the crew that would install an inexperienced neophyte -- not even put through the crucible of the national stage -- a heartbeat away from the greatest nuclear arsenal the world has ever known, and not blink. Darkest reptilian politics that speak to the ultimate calcified cynicism of Republicans.
Democrats need to ignore her -- unless she speaks about policy -- maybe she can explain and solve the collapsing world markets -- and keep the focus relentlessly on the disastrous results of Bush/McCain/Republican rule. They need to remind voters of the disasters of the last seven-plus years. Specifically. And as people have been saying, we need to be mad as well as inspired.
John McCain is the Republican Party as much as Bush -- we need to be constantly reminded of the policies (and, yes, the crimes) that are threatening this country from within.
Obama must hit Republicans ten times harder. Let's hear about war profiteering, taxpayer-funded mercenary armies and privatizing core functions of state, habeas corpus and warrantless wiretapping and presidential signing statements, and Katrina and justice department politicization, and phony intel and Abu Ghraib, rendition and torture.
If the Democratic leadership wants to disregard its base and continue to disregard the rule of law, they deserve to lose...and will. Let's hope the Obama campaign doesn't come to this conclusion 10 days out. He needs to articulate his vision of the future, but he also needs to articulate a version of reality. The fiercest urgency is needed now.
But some other fundamentals seem to be lost in the frenzy. McCain is no maverick, but it is worth understanding why the rabid right wing is cheering his call for government "reform" and to change "how government works at every level."
McCain won't just be more of the same -- it will be worse than Bush-Cheney -- using the disasters of the past eight years and the actual crises we face to double down on the American Enterprise/Heritage Foundation vision of government that desires, as Grover Norquist said, to shrink government until "we can drown it in a bathtub."
I would recommend a return visit to the groundbreaking Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.
McCain, who said he knows nothing about economics, will surely hand over the reins to the Friedmanites and neoconservatives who have sent the country on a path to ruin. Anyone looking at his team could tell you that. Palin and the interests she represents are even further to the right.
Now, no one in their right mind -- including reasonable independents and Republicans -- wants to double down on neocon ideology, but here comes the "maverick" and his economic advisers to use the crises we face to implement more "change" and "reform" to the system by privatizing everything in sight. Is this what the American people want? When they are aware of it, the answer is always no. It's the same bullshit re-branded.
It may happen in a shock therapy in the first 100 days, or financial chaos may force them to wait until things stabilize, but sooner or later they will follow their fundamentalist creed. Ruin the government you are purporting to run and turn it over to privatization frenzy, creating a shadow government of private corporate rule. That's the whole idea.
So let's brand bust this maverick gibberish but understand the coded language that belies their true mission... we should take them at the true meaning of their words.
Not just more of the same -- worse than the same. Times of crisis are great opportunities to implement the radical agendas we usually reject.
That's also the idea.
McCain and the neocon ideologues won't "reform" government, they will gut government and privatize everything in sight in the name of responding to the crises they helped engineer through Bush and Cheney. Their view of government is the reverse of the Hippocratic Oath: do harm and then when the patient is sick, give the wrong medicine, watch him die, and sell off the body parts.
They will destroy the Department of Energy, HUD and anything else they can get their hands on. With this crew, all you need to do is destroy government, privatize it and get out of the way, and then a magic utopia appears. Well, actually it doesn't, but a lot of connected people get rich, and in the privatized war business, blood money flows and a fuck of a lot of innocent people die. The numbers and the misery are staggering. The legacy of Bush/McCain is a legacy of shame. Any man that stood with this criminal administration should be forced to answer for it.
The Republicans have been ruinous and most of it stems from an ideology that leaves the government in ruins. McCain has been on board hook, line and sinker. He voted with Bush over 90% of the time. End of story.
It is fundamentally corrupt and dishonest to call it reform when leaders want to cripple government, then hand it over to private industry, usually subsidized by taxpayers, but for other people's profits. More like contempt for government.
Red meat for dummies... a horror show for the rest of us.
Obama needs to explain to the country what this will cost us in real terms -- however many billions a day in Iraq and what that could buy, repair, fix, and allow in human terms -- ask us if can we afford it, and Obama must -- to use imagery the neocons can understand -- knock them down, put his boots on their throats, and never let up.
Mission accomplished.
Posted at 11:10 PM, 24/11/2007
We now have a Labor Government.
Anyone who may want to read more will find me at http://snowy938.vox.com/
So there's no difference between Rudd and Howard?
Posted at 9:37 PM, 16/10/2007
1. John Howard introduced Workchoices.
Kevin Rudd will get rid of Workchoices.
2. John Howard refuses to sign the Kyoto Protocol and set emission targets.
Kevin Rudd will sign the Kyoto Protocol and has set emission targets.
3. John Howard wants to use nuclear power.
Kevin Rudd is against the use of nuclear power.
4. John Howard supports the invasion of Iraq and refuses to bring Australian troops home.
Kevin Rudd does not support the invasion of Iraq, and will bring the troops home.
5. John Howard refuses to say sorry to aboriginals for past injustices, and commits to reconciliation a whole three days before the election is called.
Kevin Rudd will say sorry to aborigines and will move towards meaningful reconciliation.
6. John Howard is anti republic
Kevin Rudd is pro republic.
7. Howard wastes a million dollars a day on taxpayer funded self promotional advertising right up to the day he announces the election.
Rudd will ban taxpayer funded advertising three months before an election.
8. Howard's door is open to sects such as the Exclusive Brethren who don't vote, but refuses to consult with organisations representing workers, such as trade unions.
Rudd consults with all Australians including trade unions.
9. Kevin Rudd wants to build a fast broadband.
Howard is still trying to figure out how to use a calculator.
10. Kevin Rudd will engage with the booming Chinese economy.
Howard cuddles up to George W. Bush, getting screwed by him in the process.
11. Kevin Rudd has an education revolution plan.
Howard just tries to buy votes.
It's all your money, folks.
Posted at 4:09 PM, 16/10/2007
http://www.alp.org.au/media/1007/msirpaa160.php
Work Choices Advertising Hits $121 Million
Text size:   Media Statement - 16th October 2007
Mr Howard has added the insult of wasting $121 million advertising Work Choices to the injury of lost wages and conditions under these extreme and unfair laws.
The working Australians who have been ripped off by these laws are also the taxpayers who have been ripped off by these ads.
It’s no wonder Australian working families think Mr Howard has lost touch - if only they had the choice between paying for groceries rather than ads.
The Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) released by the Howard Government confirmed what every television viewer had suspected: that Mr Howard had wasted taxpayers’ money at record speed in an attempt to sell his unfair Work Choices laws.
The appendix of MYEFO details that $66 million has been spent on the second wave of Work Choices advertising since earlier this year.
This second wave was an extravagant attempt to repair Mr Howard’s image after the first $55 million Work Choices campaign only served to remind Australians how unfair his laws were.
In effect, Mr Howard wasted $55 to launch Work Choices and another $66 million to bury it.
During the fifteen weeks between the start of the 2007-08 financial year and the calling of the election, the Howard Government spent $61 million dollars on this advertising - more than $4 million per week just on Work Choices advertising.
This is the campaign that brought Australians such memorable moments as the actor who had himself underpaid workers and actors pretending to be Workplace Authority staff.
The ads were as fake as the Howard Government’s fairness test - which it turned out was administered by backpackers.
Take a chance on Kev
Posted at 1:56 PM, 16/10/2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIWc773VSgc
Just another Howard/Costello con job.
Posted at 12:40 PM, 16/10/2007
Tax cuts won't compensate for Liberals' IR plan
Published: 16/10/2007
The tax cuts promised by John Howard & Peter Costello will not compensate working families for the Work Choices IR laws and the Govt’s plan to push a further 1.5 million workers onto AWAs if it is re-elected, the ACTU said today.
A recent government-funded study by Sydney University found workers on the Howard Government’s AWA individual contracts earn on average $106 a week less than workers on collective agreements.
Of further concern is the Coalition’s plan to push an extra 1.5 million workers onto AWAs, as revealed in a previously confidential Department of Employment and Workplace Relations document recently reported in the media.
The $20 a week tax cut for average workers promised by the Liberals yesterday is nowhere near enough to cover the loss in pay from Work Choices & the increases in housing, petrol, and other living costs for working families says the ACTU.
ACTU President Sharan Burrow said:
“The facts show that people are losing out under AWAs and the Work Choices laws are putting downward pressure on wages.
“It is also clear that John Howard and Peter Costello intend to take Work Choices further. Their denials on this issue cannot be trusted,” said Ms Burrow.
“A Dept of Employment and Workplace Relations document shows the Government already has a plan to lift the proportion of the workforce on AWAs from 5% to 20% — this would mean around an extra 1.5 million workers being pushed onto AWAs.
“The rising costs of housing, petrol, childcare, health and food are already leaving working families struggling to keep their heads above water.
“There have been five interest rate rises since the last election and mortgage repayments are up an average of $65 a week for working families.
“There is no way the Liberals’ promised tax cuts can cover working families’ rising living costs as well as the impact of Work Choices,” said Ms Burrow.
These lunatics have access to Howard even though they don't vote. Trade unions get shown the door.
Posted at 8:09 AM, 16/10/2007
Two MPs sponsor Brethren lobbyists
Two senior elders of the Exclusive Brethren sect have gained permanent access to Federal Parliament, as lobbyists, under the sponsorship of two Howard Government MPs.
The Age has discovered that Sydney-based elders Stephen Hales and Warwick John were issued lobbyists' passes after being vouched for by former minister Danna Vale and the member for the Tasmanian seat of Bass, Michael Ferguson.
Mr Hales, a Sydney businessman, is the brother of Bruce D. Hales, who leads the world-wide sect of 40,000 devotees.
The Age has also confirmed the church has retained Liberal-connected public relations firm Jackson Wells Morris to provide them with political advice and deal with "hostile media".
A Four Corners report on ABC TV tonight will reveal further details of the secretive religious sect's attempts, since 2004, to secure the election of conservative politicians world-wide - including massive flows of money, advertising and phone canvassing.
The political activism comes despite the sect's strict rules of separation from the world, which mean members do not vote in elections.
The lobbyist passes allow Mr Hales and Mr John access to the offices of ministers and backbenchers, and both attended the Brethren's controversial meeting with John Howard in his prime ministerial office in early August.
The meeting was also attended by Bruce Hales, known as the Man of God, or the Elect Vessel, and another Brethren man, Mark Mackenzie, the director of a company that funnelled $370,000 into pro-Howard advertising at the last election. That spending is now under investigation by the Australian Federal Police.
One of the Brethren lobbyists' sponsors, Ms Vale, the member for Hughes in NSW, is a key Howard backer and former minister for veterans' affairs. She has come to prominence for, among other things, her comments that Australia was becoming a Muslim nation by "aborting ourselves almost out of existence". Her spokesman said she had sponsored Mr John "because he's a constituent".
Mr Ferguson is a committed Christian who owes victory in his seat of Bass in the 2004 election to Mr Howard's pledge to save the Tasmanian forest industry. He holds it by a slender 2.7 per cent margin.
A Brethren spokesman told The Age that "many churches have members who hold lobbyists' passes for parliaments, to allow them to advocate for issues and on matters of conscience and morality".
A statement from Jackson Wells Morris said the company "has provided advice to the Brethren on how to deal with some of the issues they face and to engage with a hostile media".
"In recent years, sections of the media have subjected the Brethren to unwarranted scrutiny bordering on harassment. It has been a witch- hunt. If the Brethren had been given a fair hearing they would be much better understood, like any other church or religious organisation."
Bob Lawrence, who handles the Brethren account for the PR firm, has worked for senior ministers Helen Coonan and Joe Hockey. He also worked for Liberal Party campaign headquarters in 2004.
Roll on, November 24th, roll on.
Posted at 7:32 AM, 15/10/2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Coalition-faces-annihilation-poll/2007/10/15/1192300631308.html
Coalition faces annihilation: poll
The latest Newspoll shows the Coalition is facing annihilation in the federal election on November 24, with Labor sitting on 56 per cent of the vote, compared to 44 for the Coalition, on a two-party preferred basis.
The poll, published in The Australian newspaper on Monday, shows Labor's primary vote remains on 48 per cent and the Coalition's is unchanged on 39 per cent.
However, the poll appears to show a negative reaction to Labor leader Kevin Rudd after Labor's confusion over the death penalty for the Bali bombers.
His personal approval rating has dropped two points to 60 per cent since the last poll two weeks ago, and is down five percentage points since mid-September.
By comparison, Prime Minister John Howard has received a positive reaction to his promise of constitutional recognition for indigenous Australians.
Mr Howard's personal approval rating has lifted to a 12 month high of 47 per cent.
But voters still think Mr Rudd would make the better prime minister, with 48 per cent of the vote - up one point on the last poll - compared to Mr Howard's 39 per cent - also up one point.
Up to 75 per cent of the Newspoll survey was carried out before Mr Howard called the election.
And they'll have no-one to blame except themselves...
Posted at 7:15 AM, 20/9/2007
Work Choices ads 'a waste of time'
THE ACTU has called for the Federal Government to stop wasting taxpayers' money on promoting its Work Choices laws, after research showed 65 per cent of voters believe it is a waste.
ACTU president Sharan Burrow said the research, conducted by Essential Research, showed the more the Government runs the ads, the stronger the public opposes Work Choices.
The poll of 800 voters nationally was conducted in late August.
It showed 60 per cent of voters had seen the ads, which feature Workplace Authority head Barbara Bennett.
But just 17 per cent said they felt more favourable towards the Government's IR laws while 33 per cent felt less favourable.
A total of 65 per cent said they totally agreed with the proposition that the ad campaign was a "terrible waste of money" and was more likely to make them vote against the Government than before.
"The Government's Work Choices ads are a con job and a $93 million waste of taxpayers' money," Ms Burrow said.
"The simple fact is that the Work Choices IR laws are bad for working families and the only way to fix the laws is to get rid of them.
"The ads should be halted immediately."
Why Rudd says me too again and again
Posted at 6:34 AM, 16/8/2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/why-rudd-says-me-too-again-and-again/2007/08/05/1186252546386.html
Ross Gittins
August 6, 2007
THAT old business school favourite, Hotelling's law, is all you need to explain why Kevin Rudd is saying "me too" on so many issues in the months before this year's federal election.
In some circumstances the firms in a market will seek to differentiate their products, while in other circumstances they seek to make their products as similar as possible.
In the classic example, the law enunciated in 1929 by the American economist Harold Hotelling predicts that a beach with two ice cream sellers - and an evenly distributed population of bathers - will find both sellers next to each other in the middle of the beach.
This isn't the ideal distribution from the viewpoint of bathers wishing to minimise the distance they have to walk to get an ice cream, but it's where the forces of competition tend to push the players.
The political application of Hotelling's law is that both candidates tend to gravitate towards positions that, given the circumstances of the time, are regarded as middle-of-the-road.
In this election campaign, Mr Rudd is making sure he's close to Mr Howard on all those issues where the Liberals have the advantage and differentiating himself only on those issues where Labor has the advantage.
Which is which? You can see which party has the advantage on which issue from the opinion polls that ask voters to say which candidate they believe is more capable on a certain issue.
When you study those polls a clear pattern emerges: the public's views about who's better at what are highly stereotyped. If you start from the premise that Labor is the party of the workers while the Libs are the party of the bosses, you can easily predict which side will be regarded as better at which issue.
So Labor is regarded as better at the soft, caring, spending issues, such as social security, health, education and the environment. Labor's also better at industrial relations.
By contrast, the Libs are regarded as better at the hard issues where we want our leaders to take a firm hand: the economy - including inflation and interest rates but not unemployment - taxation, defence and national security.
(A point to note, however, is that the salience or prominence of particular issues varies from election to election, according to the circumstances of the time.)
Once you understand that, you see why and where Mr Rudd is saying "me too". He has no desire to take on Mr Howard on the economy, so has said "me too" on the Government's policies of balancing the budget on average over the cycle, limiting the growth of taxation as a proportion of gross domestic product, an independent central bank and the target of holding inflation between 2 and 3 per cent on average over the cycle.
Similarly, he's saying "me too" on defence issues and the roughing up of individuals in the name of anti-terrorism and border protection. Only when the Dr Haneef case proved such a disaster did Labor afford itself the luxury of calling for a judicial inquiry.
Labor's also seeking to avoid controversy on the question of federal assistance to private schools.
This acquiescence is causing some disquiet among Labor's less compliant supporters but that's nothing to the frustration it's causing the Government. It can't get a fight going on its own turf.
But don't let all the criticism of Labor's me-tooism convince you Labor's small-target strategy is the only thing it's doing. Not at all.
Labor is keen to differentiate its product in those areas where it's fighting on its own strong ground: Work Choices, climate change, housing affordability, education and training, broadband, housing affordability and the cost of living.
But here's the twist: on almost all these issues Mr Howard has conformed to the prediction of Hotelling's law by seeking to roughly match Labor's policy proposals and thereby neutralise the issue.
With Work Choices, the fairness test Mr Howard unveiled in May - after claiming for months that the original legislation was perfectly fair - has significantly reduced the objectionable features of this change.
With climate change, Mr Howard's immediate acceptance of his task group's report on the dimensions of a national carbon emissions trading scheme has greatly narrowed the gap between the two side's commitments.
As we speak, a new section of Mr Howard's department is beavering away on the details of the scheme's introduction.
The remaining differences between the parties are largely just debating points.
Mr Howard's ill-considered $10 billion scheme for the Murray-Darling basin is also part of his attempt to neutralise climate change and the environment as issues favouring Labor.
Labor was on to a populist winner with its plan to speed the rollout of high-speed broadband - who doesn't want to download movies faster? - so it was only a matter of time before the Government matched it with an equally dubious plan.
Mr Howard hasn't yet come up with policies purporting to help hard-pressed first home buyers but, if the issue keeps biting with voters, it's a safe bet he will.
Now it gets messy. One of the tricks both sides are using is to redefine issues so as to get them off the other side's strong ground and on to its own.
So Mr Howard is trying to shift climate change from being seen as an environmental issue to being seen as economic.
Thus Labor's target of reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050 - which isn't likely to be much different from the target a re-elected Liberal government would announce after the election - would do unimaginable damage to the economy in general and coal-mining electorates in particular.
And Mr Rudd wants the Government's inadequate spending on education and training to be seen not as an education issue but as an economic issue.
A further twist is that being judged by the electorate to be better at some issue can allow you to take liberties the other side wouldn't dare to.
It's because the Libs are so firmly entrenched in the public's mind as being good economic managers that Mr Howard thinks he can get away with blatant pre-election pork barrelling. It will be interesting to see if Mr Rudd takes this as an opportunity to assert his own deeper commitment to economic responsibility, or meekly says "me too".
Ross Gittins is Herald Economics Editor.
Go Kevin07!!!!
Posted at 7:27 AM, 7/8/2007
And he wants us to re-elect him?
Posted at 3:54 PM, 16/7/2007
From Crikey today.
As two Australians die in Iraq we turn for consolation to Hansard, and its record of debate in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, 14 May 2003. It's hard to imagine what all the current fuss can be about: the war is over. We won. Hurrah.
JOHN HOWARD: I again take the opportunity of reaffirming the correctness of the government’s assessment in predeploying our forces, and I record the bitter opposition of the Australian Labor Party when that decision was taken. Not only was the military operation completed quickly and successfully but it is also worth recording that all of the doomsday predictions, particularly the many that came from those who sit opposite, were not realised.
The oilwells were not set on fire; there were not millions of refugees; the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers were not breached to bring on catastrophic flooding; and there was no long, drawn out, bloody, Stalingrad style street-to-street fighting in Baghdad. For all of this we must be immensely grateful, but it is a reminder of the hysteria and the doomsday predictions that often accompany operations of this kind. And, just as many of the predictions about a Western Front style holocaust that were made in 1991 when the land war commenced were proved wrong, so the predictions on this occasion have been proved wrong.
The decisive victory of the American led coalition reflects enormous credit on the strength and the determination of the leadership of President Bush. Again I remind the House of the way in which his role was vilified and traduced by many of those who sit opposite and of the way in which speaker after speaker from the Australian Labor Party impugned his integrity, assaulted his judgment and called into question his ability to lead the United States in this very difficult conflict. History has proved them wrong.
The performance of the President has illustrated how infantile their protests were, and the leadership that he has given on this occasion, I believe, will bring about a permanent change in attitudes in the Middle East.
She's a bombing survivor. Our chance to help her.
Posted at 3:18 PM, 6/7/2007
Dear GetUp members,
Two years ago I was on a bus that was blown up by terrorists. Three months in traction and six operations later, I'm asking for your help to prevent this from happening to any more Australians.
These recent attacks in the UK have not only brought back some really painful memories, they've prompted me to make a television ad - and we need your help to show it. Please watch my urgent plea here:
www.getup.org.au/campaign/PleaseMrHoward
I thought going to war in Iraq was supposed to make us safer, not put us in more danger. And now we're hearing it was for their oil. Some of you may have seen me ask John Howard from my hospital bed whether he thought what happened to me was a result of the war in Iraq.
I did not think then that two years later we would be still be in this position, where I feel compelled to ask Mr Howard the same question. Yet here we are - our military presence is not making the Iraqis any safer; it is not making Australians any safer. Why, exactly, are we there then?
www.getup.org.au/campaign/PleaseMrHoward
I want to help the Iraqi people, but not at the end of a gun. Our involvement in the violence in Iraq will only lead to more violence. Why can't we instead spend the money on reconstruction programs?
I'm no expert, but I do know something about the real cost of terrorism. Please, help me tell this to the Prime Minister.
Thank you,
Louise Barry
Survivor, 2005 London Bombings
GetUp member
So, the truth finally outs. The real reason why we're there is oil. Pack of lying bastards!!!
Posted at 8:47 AM, 5/7/2007
Government admits oil behind Iraq war
THE government has admitted the need to secure oil supplies is a factor in Australia's continued military involvement in Iraq.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said today oil was a factor in Australia's contribution to the unpopular war, as "energy security'' and stability in the Middle East would be crucial to the nation's future.
Speaking ahead of a key foreign policy speech today by Prime Minister John Howard, Dr Nelson said defence was about protecting the economy as well as physical security, and it was important to support the "prestige'' of the US and UK.
"The defence update we're releasing today sets out many priorities for Australia's defence and security, and resource security is one of them,'' he told ABC radio.
"The entire (Middle East) region is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world.
"Australians and all of us need to think well what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq?''
Dr Nelson said the primary reason for Australian troops remaining in Iraq was to prevent violence between the Sunni and Shia population, and to bring stability to the region.
"We're also there to support our key ally - that's the United States of America - and we're there to ensure that we don't have terrorism driven from Iraq which would destabilise our own region,'' he said.
"For all of those reasons, one of which is energy security, it's extremely important that Australia take the view that it's in our interests ... to make sure we leave the Middle East and leave Iraq in particular in a position of sustainable security.''
Isolationism would not make Australia safer, he said.
When Australia joined the US-led invasion force of Iraq in 2003, the government said it was primarily because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could pose a threat to the US and its allies.
Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd will outline a section of Labor's foreign policy today in a speech in Sydney.
ICH on Apathy
Posted at 10:45 AM, 28/6/2007
Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph: Haile Selassie
=
"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein
=
There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country - if the people lose their confidence in themselves - and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance. - Walt Whitman
===
Click here for text only version of the site (great for dialup users)!
http://www.ichblog.eu/text/
===
Read this newsletter online
http://tinyurl.com/dy6yy
It hasn't worked yet.
Posted at 10:22 AM, 20/6/2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21936690-1702,00.html
Fat pay 'needed to attract brains to politics'
FEDERAL MPs need large pay packets to attract the best brains in the country to politics, one former Liberal minister says.
Federal politicians are set to vote themselves a 6.7 per cent boost in pay - about $150 a week extra for the average backbencher - after the Remuneration Tribunal announced its latest review of salaries.
Queensland Liberal MP David Jull, a former minister, today said the pay rise was justified.
"The reality is if you're going have people offering themselves for this particular job you've got to start paying them some money or you won't attract the best brains in the country," he said.
Asked to defend the pay increase on performance grounds, Mr Jull said: "I guess you can look at the amount of work that comes out of this place and you can look at the state of Australia at the moment and I think this crowd that's here at the moment has done a pretty good job."
Mr Jull said people would be surprised at how hard MPs worked.
"Mate, if you really went round with a member of parliament all day every day, seven days a week and see what they do, see the hours that they work, I think you'd be very, very surprised," he said.
Families Minister Mal Brough said he would also support the rise.
"I believe that MPs are worth what they are paid," Mr Brough said on ABC radio.
Labor's public accountability spokeswoman Penny Wong admitted it was a big increase but said the tribunal's decision should be respected.
"Politician's salaries are set by an independent tribunal, and that's as it should be, and that is the system that is in place," she said.
Labor MP Graeme Edwards criticised the pay rise but said he would not vote against it.
Mr Edwards, a disabled Vietnam war veteran, said it was hypocritical for politicians to get a pay rise when veterans' pensions had not been indexed.
Mr Edwards ruled out supporting a motion by Independent MP Peter Andren to disallow the pay increases because it would be futile.
Opposition treasury spokesman Wayne Swan said he understood public concern over the pay rise, but said it was set by an independent body and he would not be voting against it.
Greens leader Bob Brown challenged Kevin Rudd to follow the example of former Labor leader Mark Latham and vote against the pay rise.
Prime Minister John Howard's salary will increase by about $21,000 to $330,000 a year, while Mr Rudd will get an extra $15,000.
Mr Latham got the upper hand on Mr Howard in 2004 when he pledged to get rid of the politicians' generous superannuation scheme.
The Government was forced to follow Mr Latham's lead after a public outcry but last year did an about face and approved a 6 per cent increase in entitlements.
Senator Brown said Mr Howard should take the lead on this issue but if he refused then Mr Rudd should act.
"The Prime Minister ... has the easy ability here to get rid of this, (he) should stop it," he said on ABC TV.
"I would hope that if he doesn't that Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party will and we will get one or two decent Liberals to cross the floor in the Senate.
Senator Brown will himself seek to have the Senate block the pay rise.
"It is an intense and responsible job, but it's more than double the average income for Australians at the moment," he said on ABC radio.
Australian Democrats Leader Lyn Allison had similar sentiments.
"It's not fair. In fact it's an insult, I would say, to working people," she said. She said she would consider giving her pay rise to charity.
And if it was a pensioner, or someone on the dole, he'd be howling for them to go to gaol.
Posted at 7:42 PM, 19/6/2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Federal-MP-repays-electoral-allowances/2007/06/19/1182019109062.html
Federal MP repays electoral allowances
A federal Liberal backbencher at the centre of an alleged electoral allowance fraud probe has repaid almost $24,000.
Queensland MP Ross Vasta, who holds the marginal Brisbane seat of Bonner by less than one per cent, says he repaid the money as soon as he discovered the administrative error.
Mr Vasta is one of three government backbenchers being investigated by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for allegedly using their taxpayer-funded printing allowances to prop up last year's state election campaign.
"Whilst personally undertaking an audit I discovered an administration error," Mr Vasta said in a statement.
"In accordance with standard parliamentary practices, I informed the Department of Finance and Administration immediately and rectified the error.
"There was no loss to the commonwealth and the Department of Finance and Administration was completely satisfied.
"From time to time members from both sides of parliament find errors and reimburse."
The amount repaid was $23,757.80, he said.
Police raided the offices of Mr Vasta, Andrew Laming and former minister Gary Hardgrave in March.
All three MPs - who hold marginal Brisbane seats - have denied any wrongdoing.
AFP officers raided the Liberal state headquarters in Brisbane earlier this month, seizing a number of documents and computer files.
State Liberal director Geoff Greene and the three federal backbenchers were named on the search warrants used for the raid.
And now he'll tell us that it didn't do him any harm. Which is just about the best advertisement AGAINST corporal punishment that I can think of.
Posted at 9:28 AM, 15/6/2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Abbott-want-corporal-punishment-return/2007/06/15/1181414499212.html
Abbott wants corporal punishment return
Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott has suggested a return to corporal punishment to ensure discipline returns to schools.
The comments came after Mr Abbott watched footage of a vicious attack on a Melbourne schoolgirl.
The grainy vision from a mobile phone showed a teenage girl repeatedly kicked in the head and body by two other teenagers.
Mr Abbott was alarmed by the footage and said it showed that current methods of discipline in schools were not working.
"I mean, we've taken corporal punishment out of the schools because we think that's brutal and yet our playgrounds seem to be becoming more brutal than ever," the minister told the Nine Network.
"Maybe a little bit more discipline in the schools would prevent some of the ugliness that we've just seen."
Mr Abbott said it was a different situation in his day.
"When I was a kid at school, if you got up to mischief you were punished, not severely, but never-the-less you were punished."
Victoria Police have cautioned two teenage girls over the assault which took place last year in Melbourne's western suburbs.
ICH today
Posted at 9:18 AM, 15/6/2007
I have named the destroyers of nations: comfort, plenty, and security - out of which grow a bored and slothful cynicism, in which rebellion against the world as it is, and myself as I am, are submerged in listless self-satisfaction : John Steinbeck: American novelist, Nobel Prize for Literature for 1962, 1902-1968
=
The only security for the American people today, or for any people, is to be found through the control of force rather than the use of force : Norman Cousins: American essayist and editor, long associated with the Saturday Review, 1912-1990
=
Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in secret, especially under the cloak of national security, is doubly dangerous : William Proxmire
=
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.: Groucho Marx: American comedian, actor and singer, 1890-1977
=
In war, there are no unwounded soldiers: Jose Narosky
=
If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one would remain in the ranks: Frederick The Great
===
Click here for text only version of the site (great for dialup users)!
http://www.ichblog.eu/text/
===
Read this newsletter online http://tinyurl.com/dy6yy
Meanwhile, Howard continues to waste hundreds of millions of our dollars on HIS propaganda.
Posted at 11:52 AM, 11/6/2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21884968-1702,00.html
Children's IR kit 'Labor propaganda'
A KIT for children explaining the Government's industrial relations laws is Labor Party propaganda, Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey says.
The kit, designed for HSC students, was given to high school teachers and career advisers at a recent forum in Sydney.
The kit states its aim is to give students a better understanding of the laws but Mr Hockey said the lessons were pro-union.
"They (the lessons) aren't serious about helping children understand their rights at work," Mr Hockey said.
"This is part of the slick and tricky political campaign being run by the Labor Party and unions."
Mr Hockey said the kit should explain the WorkChoices legislation as it stood and cover protections like the fairness test.
"The unions have found a despicable way of wiggling anti-government propaganda into our classrooms while (Opposition Leader) Kevin Rudd stands by in silence," he said.
"The classroom is no place for Labor Party propaganda. The union movement is the heart and soul of the Labor party, from the campaign funds to their policies to their candidates.
NSW Teachers Federation president Maree O'Halloran said some syllabus material required students to be taught about workplace law, and required teachers to do so objectively and from all perspectives.
"It would be negligent of teachers not to teach students about workplace law," Ms O'Halloran said.
"Parents would expect their students to know about workplace law. Teachers don't do any political party's bidding, they provide information to students and make sure they go into the workplace informed."
Meanwhile, The Australian reported today that peak business groups will spend millions of dollars promoting the workplace laws through advertising.
The Business Council of Australia and The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry had signed off on a joint advertising campaign.
The advertisements, due to start within weeks, had been tested on focus groups and had the backing of the Master Builders Australia and the Minerals Council.
They would focus on the Government's Workchoices policy and the shift to enterprise bargaining under the Keating government.
The new campaign comes as employers accuse the ACTU of trying to disable government attempts to defend the Workchoices laws.
Mr Hockey hinted today that taxpayer-funded ads explaining changes to WorkChoices, including the fairness test were likely to reappear on television.
"There's a strong possibility there will be more ads but it would be after the legislation passes through parliament," a spokesman for Mr Hockey said.
The fairness test, aimed at ensuring employees on AWAs are no worse off than they would be under the relevant award, could be approved by the Senate as early as Thursday.
The Government has already spent more than $4 million for a one-week advertising campaign explaining the test, which it introduced to allay concern about WorkChoices.
{ Last Page } { Next Page }
|
|
