Ross Gittins of the Sydney Morning Herald recently wrote a piece bemoaning the destructive partisanship in the federal political sphere at present read it here , with comments along the line of "what he's saying (Tony Abbott) to the nation is: I'll do all in my power to make Parliament unworkable until you make me leader".
Well Gittins is certainly correct in criticizing Abbott - just about the most objectionable Opposition Leader we've had in modern memory - and the public in general for not supporting the quite mild flood levy. But in order to understand why that's happening, we have to look at the other side of the political divide, and there I think lies our answer?
In power at present we have the extraordinarily lightweight Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who since rolling Kevin Rudd last year for the top job has gone on to underwhelm us all with her performance. While Deputy Prime Minister, she took on the role of Question Time comedian in chief, and revelled in the all puff piece profiles of our lady in waiting by the journalistic sisterhood. So as the speculation continued to mount about a possible challenge, I naively held to the belief that the factional warlords wouldn't roll a first term PM who led Australia successfully through the GFC. And I didn't want to listen to my contact (who likes to ingratiate himself with those same warlords) who prophesized that Gillard would come to power with enormous fanfare, and be swept to victory in a honeymoon election a few months later.
Well he got the first part right, she successfully knifed Rudd, but only fell over the line in a hung parliament election, and this only because the Opposition were led by the unelectable ideologue Abbott.
So she came into the job a pragmatic centrist with no strong ideological views (a careerist in my view), and with me being a cynic my expectations for her were very low to begin with, but since taking over she has managed to prove to everyone that even I had overestimated her talents! She is showing the nation with every passing day that she is dangerously out of her depth, and her wooden, scripted responses to issues are certainly not endearing her to the electorate.
So getting back to Gittins' point, I believe the reason that Gillard has suffered such blow back to the levy, with Abbott feeling empowered to attack it, is because everyone can so clearly see through her; she inspires NO ONE, with confidence in the institutions of Government being at historic lows.
I came to the conclusion that after her embarrassing wikileaks comments late last year that her position was now terminal, and only a matter of time before her demise. This of course doesn't necessarily mean that Abbott will be the next Prime Minister, it's quite possible that there'll be two new people sitting in the PM and Opposition Leader's chairs by the time of the next election?
And Gillard?.....well she may take up her rightful place as a Madame Tussauds exhibit?
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
Justin Madden and Scientology
I've never particularly been much of a fan of former footballer and Victorian Planning Minister Justin Madden, but I usually tolerated his awkward goofiness, that is until now. His decision to come out on the weekend and ingratiate himself with the wicked cult Scientology at the opening of one of their new churches in Melbourne read here was the straw that broke the camel's back. He's now made my metaphorical Nixonesque "enemies list".
When we even take just a cursory look back, this guy seems to have had poor judgement his entire political career? But that's what you get when you pick "celebrity" candidates for high office.
It all started for me when he first entered the Parliament (and the Ministry) in 1999 where at the swearing in ceremony photo op he made a bizarre reference to being thrilled to be getting a State funeral when he dies.
While that may've been a display of poor judgement for a green MP, his record since then hasn't been much better.
When we even take just a cursory look back, this guy seems to have had poor judgement his entire political career? But that's what you get when you pick "celebrity" candidates for high office.
It all started for me when he first entered the Parliament (and the Ministry) in 1999 where at the swearing in ceremony photo op he made a bizarre reference to being thrilled to be getting a State funeral when he dies.
While that may've been a display of poor judgement for a green MP, his record since then hasn't been much better.
Let's see; his Turkish staffer Hakki Suleyman, right under his nose, was up to all sorts of mischief in Brimbank Council while his daughter was the Mayor.
He's responsible for corrupting the planning process in the Windsor Hotel redevelopment.
Fast tracking planning approval of property owned by his first cousin.
And this is the same guy who has the audacity to say he wouldn't mind being Premier one day. Unfortunately for Madden, a potential Premier has to have sound judgement, and for a guy who comes out heaping praise on a vicious cult, his judgement is sadly lacking.
the Right are terrified of Arab "democracy"
Just at the moment that Arab people power is on the brink of overthrowing a corrupt brutal regime with passionate calls for democracy to be introduced into Egypt, the usual right wing flame fanners are suddenly back tracking on this whole democracy thing see here .
But here's what's troubling the "democracy seekers"; when a western sponsored dictatorship crumbles, who is left to fill the void? The Islamists of course, who have a genuine grass roots following and can at least be counted on to act ethically in a country rife with systematic corruption. If they rise to power, then so be it! So despite the reservations of the Right, do you think that a country like Egypt which has had so much exposure to the western world (compared with Afghanistan) will fall into the trap of tolerating Taliban style fanatics in power? I can't envision tourist resorts with bikini clad women being shut down by the religious police should the Islamists take power, their economy relies way too heavily on tourism for that.
But once again, it's a case of stay tuned.......
But here's what's troubling the "democracy seekers"; when a western sponsored dictatorship crumbles, who is left to fill the void? The Islamists of course, who have a genuine grass roots following and can at least be counted on to act ethically in a country rife with systematic corruption. If they rise to power, then so be it! So despite the reservations of the Right, do you think that a country like Egypt which has had so much exposure to the western world (compared with Afghanistan) will fall into the trap of tolerating Taliban style fanatics in power? I can't envision tourist resorts with bikini clad women being shut down by the religious police should the Islamists take power, their economy relies way too heavily on tourism for that.
But once again, it's a case of stay tuned.......
Saturday, January 29, 2011
the Egypt "dilemma"
Following on from the Tunisian inspired protests, the Egyptian people are courageously taking a stand against the western backed autocratic regime of President Hosni Mubarak.
At the time of writing, the President has sacked the government and is installing a "new government".....whatever that actually means?
But herein lies the dilemma for the President, does he take the usually accepted method (by the west in any case with a nudge and a wink) of bringing in the security forces and brutally crushing the rebellion and showing everyone who's boss?
Or does he take option B, which involves accommodating the wishes of the people and bringing in some democratic reforms?
In this day and age with satellite tv, internet, social media etc, it's alot harder to crush a revolt without having to deal with the blow back of all the uncomfortable pictures flashing around the world of your brutal regime in action. You're probably not likely to win any Nobel Peace Prizes after that?
Or as we've seen with option B already, once you provide oxygen to the protesters demands, they become empowered and ask for more freedoms (ie, real democracy)...the cheek of them?
Mubarak really seems to have painted himself into a corner now by trying to "appease" the protesters. While it's difficult to see someone who's been in (autocratic) power for so long voluntarily stepping away into a quiet retirement, it's increasingly looking like he may have no other choice? Unless he decides to unleash a wave of brutality? Stay tuned.......
At the time of writing, the President has sacked the government and is installing a "new government".....whatever that actually means?
But herein lies the dilemma for the President, does he take the usually accepted method (by the west in any case with a nudge and a wink) of bringing in the security forces and brutally crushing the rebellion and showing everyone who's boss?
Or does he take option B, which involves accommodating the wishes of the people and bringing in some democratic reforms?
In this day and age with satellite tv, internet, social media etc, it's alot harder to crush a revolt without having to deal with the blow back of all the uncomfortable pictures flashing around the world of your brutal regime in action. You're probably not likely to win any Nobel Peace Prizes after that?
Or as we've seen with option B already, once you provide oxygen to the protesters demands, they become empowered and ask for more freedoms (ie, real democracy)...the cheek of them?
Mubarak really seems to have painted himself into a corner now by trying to "appease" the protesters. While it's difficult to see someone who's been in (autocratic) power for so long voluntarily stepping away into a quiet retirement, it's increasingly looking like he may have no other choice? Unless he decides to unleash a wave of brutality? Stay tuned.......
Friday, January 28, 2011
Olympics are not worth the money
As the preparations get into full swing for the 2012 Olympics in London, one again has to step back for a moment and look at the enormous cost of hosting this monstrous event.
And when we look at the recent history of this event (when held in democracies), it's not a pretty site.
Many Greeks still blame the Games for the beginnings of their current state of crisis, and one can't help but have some sympathy for that position. Their security costs just kept skyrocketing on the back of massive pressure from America and its Anglo allies to "do more". One of the guiltiest offenders in this regard were the Australian media who pummeled Greece for months with terrifying stories insinuating that the only surprise would be if a bomb DIDN'T go off. So when it was all over and done with, the Greeks were left to pick up (essentially) the American's tab.
Sydneysiders are not far behind either, they also pinpoint the beginning of their decline with the closing ceremony at Homebush.....admittedly the've had an incompetent State Government the whole time which hasn't helped.
The Atlanta Games were a well documented disaster, so you'd have to go back to 1992 to find a city that actually benefited from the event?
So while London gets deeper and deeper into debt ensuring we have a safe Games (by having the military parading around with machines guns on every street corner like a tin pot dictatorship presumably?), who is going to pay the bill once all the corporate jets have left the tarmac? The taxpayer of course, or more accurately, their offspring.
So once again the question needs to be asked, with most sports already discredited with steroid abuse, how many billions need to be wasted before we say; "that's too much" to pay for a two week ego boost?
And when we look at the recent history of this event (when held in democracies), it's not a pretty site.
Many Greeks still blame the Games for the beginnings of their current state of crisis, and one can't help but have some sympathy for that position. Their security costs just kept skyrocketing on the back of massive pressure from America and its Anglo allies to "do more". One of the guiltiest offenders in this regard were the Australian media who pummeled Greece for months with terrifying stories insinuating that the only surprise would be if a bomb DIDN'T go off. So when it was all over and done with, the Greeks were left to pick up (essentially) the American's tab.
Sydneysiders are not far behind either, they also pinpoint the beginning of their decline with the closing ceremony at Homebush.....admittedly the've had an incompetent State Government the whole time which hasn't helped.
The Atlanta Games were a well documented disaster, so you'd have to go back to 1992 to find a city that actually benefited from the event?
So while London gets deeper and deeper into debt ensuring we have a safe Games (by having the military parading around with machines guns on every street corner like a tin pot dictatorship presumably?), who is going to pay the bill once all the corporate jets have left the tarmac? The taxpayer of course, or more accurately, their offspring.
So once again the question needs to be asked, with most sports already discredited with steroid abuse, how many billions need to be wasted before we say; "that's too much" to pay for a two week ego boost?
Obama and the deficit
It was recently reported that the US budget deficit has now hit $1.5 trillion, or in more ominous language, 9.8% of GDP.
We're talking about some serious debt here, so bad in fact that it's getting close to the tipping point of being unmanageable. So what is Obama to do? He's recently caved in on the high income tax cuts (with the obvious plan of opposing then when they expire in an election year), and the Republican vultures are now circling around "Obamacare", and to a lesser extent Medicare. Republican House Leader John Boehner joined in the ridiculing of Obama with the jibe that "America's Sputnik moment is the fact that we're broke, and the American people know we're broke and we've got to do something about our spending''.
Well Boehner is dead right about that, and any responsible government would start looking at what's massively bloated and in need of a trim? The obvious logical answer is the Defense budget, which is around 5% of GDP. But this of course is the untouchable sacred cow of US politics, not even the Democrats want to touch this one and be accused of being "soft". But sooner or later the US will realise that it has no other option than to abandon its overseas follies. But as they say, pride comes before the fall, and the only real danger here in the years ahead is just how far are the political establishment going to allow the US to tumble before they face the inevitable? My instinct tells me they have a Saddam Husseinesque pigheadedness to these things, and they will fall embarrassingly low before admitting the reality?
We're talking about some serious debt here, so bad in fact that it's getting close to the tipping point of being unmanageable. So what is Obama to do? He's recently caved in on the high income tax cuts (with the obvious plan of opposing then when they expire in an election year), and the Republican vultures are now circling around "Obamacare", and to a lesser extent Medicare. Republican House Leader John Boehner joined in the ridiculing of Obama with the jibe that "America's Sputnik moment is the fact that we're broke, and the American people know we're broke and we've got to do something about our spending''.
Well Boehner is dead right about that, and any responsible government would start looking at what's massively bloated and in need of a trim? The obvious logical answer is the Defense budget, which is around 5% of GDP. But this of course is the untouchable sacred cow of US politics, not even the Democrats want to touch this one and be accused of being "soft". But sooner or later the US will realise that it has no other option than to abandon its overseas follies. But as they say, pride comes before the fall, and the only real danger here in the years ahead is just how far are the political establishment going to allow the US to tumble before they face the inevitable? My instinct tells me they have a Saddam Husseinesque pigheadedness to these things, and they will fall embarrassingly low before admitting the reality?
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Broadmeadows pre-selection
It now looks increasingly likely that non ALP member Frank McGuire (or as he will soon be known as, "Eddie's brother") will be parachuted into the vacant seat of Broadmeadows at the upcoming by-election (if he survives the threats of legal action?).
Despite the embarrassment of not even being a member of the party (what do political beliefs have to do with anything anyway?), lives in plush Brighton, and used to work for an ex Democrats leader, the Shorten-Conroy cabal have brushed aside the normal pre-selection procedure to install yet another celebrity candidate (anyone remember Kirsty Marshall?).
While this would normally call for cynicism, I guess it's better than having that branch stacking Turk Burhan Yigit propped into one of Labor's safest seats. And it is oh so safe, the simpletons of the Broadmeadows region are not smart enough to vote for anyone else on an issue by issue basis, they're completely rusted on (and there to be taken advantage of by the ALP).
I guess voters in safe seats get the representatives they deserve at times?
Despite the embarrassment of not even being a member of the party (what do political beliefs have to do with anything anyway?), lives in plush Brighton, and used to work for an ex Democrats leader, the Shorten-Conroy cabal have brushed aside the normal pre-selection procedure to install yet another celebrity candidate (anyone remember Kirsty Marshall?).
While this would normally call for cynicism, I guess it's better than having that branch stacking Turk Burhan Yigit propped into one of Labor's safest seats. And it is oh so safe, the simpletons of the Broadmeadows region are not smart enough to vote for anyone else on an issue by issue basis, they're completely rusted on (and there to be taken advantage of by the ALP).
I guess voters in safe seats get the representatives they deserve at times?
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
drugged up athletes denying the undeniable
While I was reading a recent article about celebrity (or socialite to be exact) Totti Goldsmith getting busted for allegedly being in possession of cocaine at a rock music festival, her denials of the allegations got me thinking of all those god awful athletes (especially cyclists and track and field competitors) who when caught, immediately switch to plausible deniability mode, and plead that there's been some kind of terrible mistake and that they're innocent of the allegations. Well there's been a mistake alright, they didn't use enough masking agent and got caught! While making no aspersions on dear old Totti, this appalling mindset that exists in professional sport that we just deny everything really has got to change. And perhaps it might if we had journalists who actually took these athletes to task for their crimes, instead we usually see an instinctive maternal response where the media laps up their denials while continuing to portray them in the best possible light.
And if the media are not bad enough, when these allegations finally go before the relevant authorities, (as an example I'll use cyclist Nathan O'Neill) they're found guilty of a violation, yet the Arbitrator slaps them on the wrist with a "no significant fault or negligence" finding! I mean no wonder these guys can just keep blatantly taking drugs, because they know that even if they get caught with something in their system, they can usually come up with a plausible denial that we'll gladly swallow. The media won't vilify them too much, they'll keep their sponsors, and at worst they'll have a short ban for an "unintended" violation. That's how these things seem to work I'm afraid.
And btw, does anybody still remember that Shane Warne is a convicted drug cheat?
And if the media are not bad enough, when these allegations finally go before the relevant authorities, (as an example I'll use cyclist Nathan O'Neill) they're found guilty of a violation, yet the Arbitrator slaps them on the wrist with a "no significant fault or negligence" finding! I mean no wonder these guys can just keep blatantly taking drugs, because they know that even if they get caught with something in their system, they can usually come up with a plausible denial that we'll gladly swallow. The media won't vilify them too much, they'll keep their sponsors, and at worst they'll have a short ban for an "unintended" violation. That's how these things seem to work I'm afraid.
And btw, does anybody still remember that Shane Warne is a convicted drug cheat?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Australia day
As we approach Australia Day, it's that time again to see the usual jingoistic articles and photos of drunken blond haired cultureless teenagers draped in the Australian flag chanting oi oi oi telling us how "proud" they are to be Australian.
Well I'll tell what I'm proud of this Australia Day, I'm proud of;
universal health insurance
quality public schools
compulsory voting
having a national broadcaster
While I'm certainly NOT proud that we invaded a peaceful peoples and virtually made them extinct,
that we have (or are) fighting others colonial wars
that we have a head of state who is hereditary (and not even Australian)
that we have a "Queen's birthday" public holiday (which is not even on her birthday)
that we demonise the less fortunate (ie refugees) while espouting the Aussie fair go.
Australia is a country with alot going for it, but constitutional maturity is not our strongest virtue. Perhaps when (or if?) we become a Republic that has acknowledged our ancestor's mistakes, I'll have something to be proud of on Australia Day.
Well I'll tell what I'm proud of this Australia Day, I'm proud of;
universal health insurance
quality public schools
compulsory voting
having a national broadcaster
While I'm certainly NOT proud that we invaded a peaceful peoples and virtually made them extinct,
that we have (or are) fighting others colonial wars
that we have a head of state who is hereditary (and not even Australian)
that we have a "Queen's birthday" public holiday (which is not even on her birthday)
that we demonise the less fortunate (ie refugees) while espouting the Aussie fair go.
Australia is a country with alot going for it, but constitutional maturity is not our strongest virtue. Perhaps when (or if?) we become a Republic that has acknowledged our ancestor's mistakes, I'll have something to be proud of on Australia Day.
real policing, not terror laws catches criminals
Following the Moscow airport bombing today read here we are likely to see a crackdown from the Russian Security forces against the predominantly Muslim Northern Caucasus, with the predictable round up of the usual suspects for their annual beatings and the like. But this of course will not solve the problem (in all likelihood exacerbate it?), and nor will blaming the perceived lax security at the airport. While less than enlightened governments rush to bring in draconian legislation in order to look tuff after a terrorist attack, there's very little evidence to show that standard competent police investigations wouldn't have brought in the same result. If the state is relying on bag searches at airports, train stations etc to stop a suicide bomber then they're in for a sad reality check. A potential terrorist needs to be caught at the plotting stage, ie alarm bells should be ringing when person X purchases excessive fertiliser, or components for other terror making equipment. This is how real police catch criminals, not rounding up "enemies" for a beating...which is valuable time lost looking for real criminals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)