Great piece from Gerrard Henderson in the smh about the original basic wage decision 100 years ago, how it is is lauded by leftwingers and how it contributed to the depression.
I wonder if rolling back workchoices in the face of an international stock market crash might cause economic damage at this time?
(Oops. Irony again)
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Santa comes to muslims, but not jews
The Australian government has doubled it's aid to the Palestinian territories to 45b with these words on French radio:
"The sense of manifest injustice about the situation in the territories is a significant cause of terrorism in the world."
So is giving them more money going to heal their sense of injustice, man?
These pro-extremist messages are coming thick and fast. What did I tell ya? Lefties think that terrorist just want to be left alone.
I got news for McMullan: You are thinking in a 20th century outdated hippie way. You are insulting the Palestinians by thinking they will be happy if you give them our money. You are also insulting Israel by implying they are so unjust and you are insulting Australia by unconditionally funding a country which is, in part, run by terrorists.
Admittedly, the people who say they are in change of the territories, Fatah, are not terrorists (any more). They are making moves toward a peace treaty with Isreal, but they can't bring all of the palestinians with them. Fatah is nominally in charge, but Hamas still controls Gaza and they are still sworn to drive the Isrealis into the sea. They were also the winners in the most recent parliamentary elections, so quite rightly claim to represent most Palestinians.
Any fool could see that what pisses the Palestnians off is not lack of money, but Israel. They want Israel to go away. That is their ideal position and all this sympathy from the world community makes them think it's going to happen. Scratch a Palestinian sympathiser and they will always admit they think Israel has no right to exist. I've never met one yet that doesn't.
Well here's the deal. Israel does exist. Israel is going to keep existing. Israel is one of the few viable democracies in the middle east and deserves our support.
(BTW I noticed how the sacked former head of Hezbollah was a 'hero' in a headline in the Australia the other day. Just how many of you anti-Israelis are out there. Be honest)
I support aid to the Palestinian territories on two conditions:
(1) The country is stable and democratically so and
(2) that the democratically elected government recognises Israel's right to exist now and for the furture, the whole future.
This is not the ALP's position. Suprize suprize. After yesterday's announcment from the 'defense' minister that we are losing in Afganistan, today we have the statement from the foreign minister and unconditional aid.
Some would say that Rudd has lost control of his cabinet. I believe that Rudd is a leftie and has no intention of being a conservative in anything more than an economic sense, and he does not have the ability or the instinct to do that properly either. Rudd has full confidence in the lunatics that are running the asylum.
The ALP is indulging its misdirected guilty conscience at your expense and what's worse, it will lead to worse results at home and abroad.
Giving money to the Palestinians unconditionally will not help a peace treaty and a two-state solution come about. Withholding money from Gaza has been the only way to force hateful Hamas to even think about dealing with Fatah, let alone recognize Israel. Palestine and Israel are economically interlocked. Palestine needs Israel, and vice versa. The resentments of the Islamists need to be reigned in before a peaceful and prosperous solution can be found. Giving money unconditionally sends the wrong message. Making statements about how unjust the situation is for the Palestinians sends the wrong message.
That message wont do the Palestinians any good in the long run.
That message will be also heard at home as I keep saying. The home grown jihad has just begun.
"The sense of manifest injustice about the situation in the territories is a significant cause of terrorism in the world."
So is giving them more money going to heal their sense of injustice, man?
These pro-extremist messages are coming thick and fast. What did I tell ya? Lefties think that terrorist just want to be left alone.
I got news for McMullan: You are thinking in a 20th century outdated hippie way. You are insulting the Palestinians by thinking they will be happy if you give them our money. You are also insulting Israel by implying they are so unjust and you are insulting Australia by unconditionally funding a country which is, in part, run by terrorists.
Admittedly, the people who say they are in change of the territories, Fatah, are not terrorists (any more). They are making moves toward a peace treaty with Isreal, but they can't bring all of the palestinians with them. Fatah is nominally in charge, but Hamas still controls Gaza and they are still sworn to drive the Isrealis into the sea. They were also the winners in the most recent parliamentary elections, so quite rightly claim to represent most Palestinians.
Any fool could see that what pisses the Palestnians off is not lack of money, but Israel. They want Israel to go away. That is their ideal position and all this sympathy from the world community makes them think it's going to happen. Scratch a Palestinian sympathiser and they will always admit they think Israel has no right to exist. I've never met one yet that doesn't.
Well here's the deal. Israel does exist. Israel is going to keep existing. Israel is one of the few viable democracies in the middle east and deserves our support.
(BTW I noticed how the sacked former head of Hezbollah was a 'hero' in a headline in the Australia the other day. Just how many of you anti-Israelis are out there. Be honest)
I support aid to the Palestinian territories on two conditions:
(1) The country is stable and democratically so and
(2) that the democratically elected government recognises Israel's right to exist now and for the furture, the whole future.
This is not the ALP's position. Suprize suprize. After yesterday's announcment from the 'defense' minister that we are losing in Afganistan, today we have the statement from the foreign minister and unconditional aid.
Some would say that Rudd has lost control of his cabinet. I believe that Rudd is a leftie and has no intention of being a conservative in anything more than an economic sense, and he does not have the ability or the instinct to do that properly either. Rudd has full confidence in the lunatics that are running the asylum.
The ALP is indulging its misdirected guilty conscience at your expense and what's worse, it will lead to worse results at home and abroad.
Giving money to the Palestinians unconditionally will not help a peace treaty and a two-state solution come about. Withholding money from Gaza has been the only way to force hateful Hamas to even think about dealing with Fatah, let alone recognize Israel. Palestine and Israel are economically interlocked. Palestine needs Israel, and vice versa. The resentments of the Islamists need to be reigned in before a peaceful and prosperous solution can be found. Giving money unconditionally sends the wrong message. Making statements about how unjust the situation is for the Palestinians sends the wrong message.
That message wont do the Palestinians any good in the long run.
That message will be also heard at home as I keep saying. The home grown jihad has just begun.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Rudd a self-writing comedy show?
Who needs YouTube parodies when the Rudd comes up with stuff like this ?
"I intend not to use COAG as a whipping boy, I have no interest in allowing COAG to become the dead horse," he said.
"I want it to be a workhorse not a dead horse, I don't want to whip it - I just want to stroke it gently."
Is it a silver bullet? No, but you know somethin'? When it comes to gaffe's Rudd is the new "dubya"
"I intend not to use COAG as a whipping boy, I have no interest in allowing COAG to become the dead horse," he said.
"I want it to be a workhorse not a dead horse, I don't want to whip it - I just want to stroke it gently."
Is it a silver bullet? No, but you know somethin'? When it comes to gaffe's Rudd is the new "dubya"
Chairman Rudd Propaganda Part II
Genius new parody of the Rudd Victory in YouTube from the same guy that brought you the Chairman Rudd propaganda video.
Another war we are 'losing'
Damn, I didn't realise we sucked so much. I thought for a second we were winning in Iraq, and had made great progress against the Taliban in Afganistan.
Not so according to the new 'defense' minister Joel Fitzgibbon.
I just realised that most of by posts today have been delivered with Irony (not to say sarcasm). So i'll wipe away a couple of layers of meaning...
I think the Rudd government is softening up the public to accept another bit of bad news, just like they they are with interest rates. They are doing this now while memories of Howard are fresh, so that we associate the bad news with him. That bad news is the withdrawal of our brave troops from Afganistan. Here's why I think that is coming.
The ALP are pacifists. They believe that terrorists only started attacking us because we treated them so badly, or rather our allies did. They believe on some level that the deaths of Aussies in the Bali-bombings was payback, and deserved - at least in part. Ideally they think people can live beside one another with no conflict, but revenge attacks against big powers are OK. The very existance of a big power to them is an affront to the natural order, which is equality (although this state have never occurred in nature, and only occurs under the most extreme human controls - and even then does not really because dome humans have to do the controlling). If we stop fighting the terrosist will leave us alone. This is the firmly held belief of the left.
Their activism extends only to immasculating Western powers, rather than applying the same liberal standards to the treatment of people, and in particular women in third world countries.
Dispite Rudd's posturing, his actions will reveal his convictions. This retreat is the first such action. The conviction it betrays is that Muslim extremists cannot and should not be resisted. Anything they do, including violence against Australian citizens must be tolerated on some level. There will be investigations and stuff, but the focus will be on the cause of their extreme views. And the cause will be us.
It is no joke that terrorists will be emboldened by our withdrawal from Afganistan. I dont think this will have an immidiate impact on our shores, but it will have an effect mainly on recruitment to the jihadi groups operating in OZ. There will be a growing tendency for young muslim youth to become marginalised and hostile to Australia from within. It's not foreign terrorists we have to worry about. It's locals.
These kids are Aussies like you and me, but will now be subtly encouraged to think otherwise and to nurture their grieviances. Their loyalties should be to the nation that nurtures them, but this nation will be tacitly seen as evil as long as we are allied to the US. Their loyalty will shift to their religion, or rather an extreme sect as they are manipulated by Mullahs already operating here.
This will take 5 years to show results. Those results will be fractured communites, increased crime and at worst bombings by home-grown perpetrators as in Britain.
The retreat will start in Iraq and Afganstan and it will end by retreating into our own homes right here in our own country. A country we would be able to share if were able to stand up for it. If we could show people Aussies are proud and strong, and not weak and cowardly, they would admire us all the more. How can we expect loyalty if we should no strength, no courage? The figure of John Howard was the hard-headed personification of pride that commanded respect from allies and enemies alike. That's gone, and the natural beligerence of young men of every creed and colour is now unchecked, and officially unrecognised. These kids need a strong person to look up to. They are not angry because of injustices in other countries. They are angry because they are kids.
The ALP honestly think that all terrorists want is to be left alone. That is the real message the 'defense' minister sent out today. It's bullshit. Phycologists call it projection. The ALP are projecting their ideals onto other people, and getting it very wrong in the process. It's the ALP, not the terrorists, who want to be left alone because they are lazy unionists that watch while others work. The terrorists are bad-asses, not sitting on their asses.
Australia is not a desert island holiday home for lazy lefties anymore. We are a proud nation ready to defend ourselves against all comers.
Show some balls, Fitzgibbon.
Not so according to the new 'defense' minister Joel Fitzgibbon.
I just realised that most of by posts today have been delivered with Irony (not to say sarcasm). So i'll wipe away a couple of layers of meaning...
I think the Rudd government is softening up the public to accept another bit of bad news, just like they they are with interest rates. They are doing this now while memories of Howard are fresh, so that we associate the bad news with him. That bad news is the withdrawal of our brave troops from Afganistan. Here's why I think that is coming.
The ALP are pacifists. They believe that terrorists only started attacking us because we treated them so badly, or rather our allies did. They believe on some level that the deaths of Aussies in the Bali-bombings was payback, and deserved - at least in part. Ideally they think people can live beside one another with no conflict, but revenge attacks against big powers are OK. The very existance of a big power to them is an affront to the natural order, which is equality (although this state have never occurred in nature, and only occurs under the most extreme human controls - and even then does not really because dome humans have to do the controlling). If we stop fighting the terrosist will leave us alone. This is the firmly held belief of the left.
Their activism extends only to immasculating Western powers, rather than applying the same liberal standards to the treatment of people, and in particular women in third world countries.
Dispite Rudd's posturing, his actions will reveal his convictions. This retreat is the first such action. The conviction it betrays is that Muslim extremists cannot and should not be resisted. Anything they do, including violence against Australian citizens must be tolerated on some level. There will be investigations and stuff, but the focus will be on the cause of their extreme views. And the cause will be us.
It is no joke that terrorists will be emboldened by our withdrawal from Afganistan. I dont think this will have an immidiate impact on our shores, but it will have an effect mainly on recruitment to the jihadi groups operating in OZ. There will be a growing tendency for young muslim youth to become marginalised and hostile to Australia from within. It's not foreign terrorists we have to worry about. It's locals.
These kids are Aussies like you and me, but will now be subtly encouraged to think otherwise and to nurture their grieviances. Their loyalties should be to the nation that nurtures them, but this nation will be tacitly seen as evil as long as we are allied to the US. Their loyalty will shift to their religion, or rather an extreme sect as they are manipulated by Mullahs already operating here.
This will take 5 years to show results. Those results will be fractured communites, increased crime and at worst bombings by home-grown perpetrators as in Britain.
The retreat will start in Iraq and Afganstan and it will end by retreating into our own homes right here in our own country. A country we would be able to share if were able to stand up for it. If we could show people Aussies are proud and strong, and not weak and cowardly, they would admire us all the more. How can we expect loyalty if we should no strength, no courage? The figure of John Howard was the hard-headed personification of pride that commanded respect from allies and enemies alike. That's gone, and the natural beligerence of young men of every creed and colour is now unchecked, and officially unrecognised. These kids need a strong person to look up to. They are not angry because of injustices in other countries. They are angry because they are kids.
The ALP honestly think that all terrorists want is to be left alone. That is the real message the 'defense' minister sent out today. It's bullshit. Phycologists call it projection. The ALP are projecting their ideals onto other people, and getting it very wrong in the process. It's the ALP, not the terrorists, who want to be left alone because they are lazy unionists that watch while others work. The terrorists are bad-asses, not sitting on their asses.
Australia is not a desert island holiday home for lazy lefties anymore. We are a proud nation ready to defend ourselves against all comers.
Show some balls, Fitzgibbon.
Iraq: US media bias breaks new records!
And you thought the ABC was biased? Sure, they have stopped reporting Iraq because we are winning, but the America mainstream media is making shit up to make us look like we are losing!! Latest count six bogus news stories in six weeks.
Sorry, did I say 'us'? I'm stuck thinking we are still the fighting the bad guys. *Sigh*
If you stop fighting, are you still one of the good guys, or are you just one of the spectators?
Sorry, did I say 'us'? I'm stuck thinking we are still the fighting the bad guys. *Sigh*
If you stop fighting, are you still one of the good guys, or are you just one of the spectators?
How to get people to sign a climate declaration
Step 1: Lock the delegates in a room until they are all exhausted and say they will sign anything to get some sleep.
Step 2: When they realise they goofed the next day, lock them in a room again and subject them to herd-intimidation even the most die-hard unionist would cringe at. You want them to feel alone, un-loved, even hated - officially: 'isolated'. At all stages question their motives and make them feel guilty for defending their interests of the people they are here to represent. The more you can make them look bad, the more people will jump on your band wagon for personal and political gain. Thus increases the 'isolation' of the target(s).
Step 3: When that doesn't work change the wording of the document so that it does not commit anyone to targets binding or otherwise, just to saying they like the sound of targets; or in the case of poor countries, to making power-point presentations about how they did their best to reach non-existent targets.
Step 4: Cheer and shout and get smashed in business-class on the flight home. Arrive to rapturous applause about how you ended your country's 'isolation'. Attempt to shag idealistic impressionable young members of the ALP impressed by your 'achievements'.
Step 5: Wake up with a hangover and realise the agreement you got is a step-backward compared to John Howard's Sydney declaration where developing and developed countries actually said they would accept non-binding targets, which are better than no targets. Immediately call newspaper editors to repress this information by threat of withdrawing interviews with the new masters. Accept their supplication with calm benevolence.
Step 6: Book your flights for XMAS holiday. Job done.
Step 2: When they realise they goofed the next day, lock them in a room again and subject them to herd-intimidation even the most die-hard unionist would cringe at. You want them to feel alone, un-loved, even hated - officially: 'isolated'. At all stages question their motives and make them feel guilty for defending their interests of the people they are here to represent. The more you can make them look bad, the more people will jump on your band wagon for personal and political gain. Thus increases the 'isolation' of the target(s).
Step 3: If the delegates who don't want to sign are from poor countries lock them outside because they dont count. You would not want them siding with the target(s) of your intimidation, and exposing the myth of their 'isolation'.
Step 3: When that doesn't work change the wording of the document so that it does not commit anyone to targets binding or otherwise, just to saying they like the sound of targets; or in the case of poor countries, to making power-point presentations about how they did their best to reach non-existent targets.
Step 4: Cheer and shout and get smashed in business-class on the flight home. Arrive to rapturous applause about how you ended your country's 'isolation'. Attempt to shag idealistic impressionable young members of the ALP impressed by your 'achievements'.
Step 5: Wake up with a hangover and realise the agreement you got is a step-backward compared to John Howard's Sydney declaration where developing and developed countries actually said they would accept non-binding targets, which are better than no targets. Immediately call newspaper editors to repress this information by threat of withdrawing interviews with the new masters. Accept their supplication with calm benevolence.
Step 6: Book your flights for XMAS holiday. Job done.
Econobabble
News is running an article about Howard's economic wrongs written by a guy from ACCESS economics. Economists looking to ingratiate themselves with the new masters are quick to join the grotty media mob uprising against Howardian Royalty. Avert your eyes, scum, and stifle your all too frequent bodily noises in the presence of him with the divine right to rule. Above all, do not touch. Howards' head may lie in a basket at the bottom of a guillotine but it still has more wisdom in it than all of yours put together.
A guy from Access economics, i'm guessing the same guy, was a regular guest on the 7:30 report this year whenever they wanted some favourable comment on interest rates that tarnished Howard. Is ACCESS's core business economic advice or public relations?
I'd love to spend all day calling their motives into question, but I suppose I should attack their rediculous arguments aswell.
This guy's main beef with howard is his spending 'splurge'.
Mr Richardson described the Howard government's spending in recent years as "positively Whitlamesque", saying the Coalition had handed back more than half the China-driven revenue windfall in a series of personal income tax cuts, with the rest directed to increased spending.
My beef is with all these 'experts' who deliberately misrepresent the information they portray. Why do they keep saying that tax cuts are the same as government expenditure? They aren't. One is when the government takes peoples money are spends it elsewhere. The other is when the give the money back, or better yet dont take it in the first place. In the latter option the money is not necessarily spent. The taxpayers might save on invest it- exactly as the government would do if they did not spend it themselves. A tax cut does not necessarily increase demand. Like transfer payments (welfare, childcare rebates etc) they are not counted as spending when calculating GDP, because the money has been given to another person to spend, rather than exchanged for goods and services.
I repeat tax-cuts are NOT government spending. They are the OPPOSITE of government spending. How can he use the world 'splurge' when the government is not taking the money in the first place? (actually it was the journalist that used this specific work, see UPDATE below)
The argument that both tax-cuts and government spending increase demand and inflationary pressure is not an argument for blurring the distincting between the two. I shudder to think what a left-wing government has planned when they are encouraging the electorate to think that giving them money back is the same as taking it away.
This bollocks started with the whinging of the economically-challenged labor-voters about middle class welfare. Why are the people who support the welfare state all of a sudden against this sort of welfare? Because it's a tax cut that's why!!! The people who earned the money are getting it back, so they can spend it themselves, albeit in ways pre-approved by the government. The left believe that the middle class don't deserve to have their money. End of Story. They are re-distributionists trying to overcome the 'injustices' of the past. They want to take your money are give it to people that didn't earn it. The more permanent their lack of motivation the more they deserve your money.
Of course it's not just those are obviously unproductive who will get your money. Other people who appear to be doing something helpful, but aren't are also in the running. People who provide consulting services to the incoming government will recieve big contracts. People like ACCESS economics. They will get paid your money to oversee the process whereby lost more of your money goes into areas that the government thinks it should go (hint: not your wallet).
Before they get your money they have to toe the labor line. They firstly have to explain that all the rate-rises to come are Howard's fault, and nothing to do with Labor's inflationary IR policy. Next they have to help blur the line between governement spending and tax cuts, so you wont notice you are being bled dry. If you get a feeling that you are, you will experience a confusing sensation as the concepts in your brain diverge from the 'variable certainty'. Will you fall foul of the double-think, or will shake off this creeping malaise and get hang on to reality?
Snap out of it, taxpayers! It's not just your cash they want, but your soul!!!
UPDATE: After re-reading the article I can see that at no stage were tax-cuts actually equated with government spending by the guy from ACCESS economics, but in collusion with the journalist that impression was firmly given. 'Splurge' was the world used in the article by the journalist to talk about the combination of tax-cuts and spending. It was used immidiately after these lines:
But he said much of the growth in spending under John Howard had been in areas such as security and family benefits, and the new Government would require political courage to make cuts in these areas.
We see here that 'family benefits' i'm guess thing child rebates and other tax breaks that families get which fall under the middle-class welfare banner outlines above were bunched together. As stated transfer payments are strictly speaking not expenditure in economic sense, in that they dont buy a good or service, although i think they are counted as expenditure by the Aus govt (but not the NZ govt) because they reflect a passing of money away from the govt. That money happens to be going back to the people that earned it. So as I said it's a tax cut or sorts and doubly should not be counted as expenditure in any serious economic analysis.
Analysing the quote above, the equating tax-cuts with spending could have been the work of the journalist not the econmist. The structure of the sentence includes tax cuts as a part of expenditure, then mentions expenditure seperately, as a part-component of itself ?????
Mr Richardson described the Howard government's spending in recent years as "positively Whitlamesque", saying the Coalition had handed back more than half the China-driven revenue windfall in a series of personal income tax cuts, with the rest directed to increased spending.
The rest spending was directed to spending. WTF??? By implication the other spending , the tax cuts, was also spending. Confused?? It looks like the journalist was. I still place the blame firmly on the economist who lead the journalist, and me and the rest of the public firmly to the belief that tax-cuts are govt expenditure are the same, and not opposites as is truly the case. But i'll call the journalist a conman too if you like.
A guy from Access economics, i'm guessing the same guy, was a regular guest on the 7:30 report this year whenever they wanted some favourable comment on interest rates that tarnished Howard. Is ACCESS's core business economic advice or public relations?
I'd love to spend all day calling their motives into question, but I suppose I should attack their rediculous arguments aswell.
This guy's main beef with howard is his spending 'splurge'.
Mr Richardson described the Howard government's spending in recent years as "positively Whitlamesque", saying the Coalition had handed back more than half the China-driven revenue windfall in a series of personal income tax cuts, with the rest directed to increased spending.
My beef is with all these 'experts' who deliberately misrepresent the information they portray. Why do they keep saying that tax cuts are the same as government expenditure? They aren't. One is when the government takes peoples money are spends it elsewhere. The other is when the give the money back, or better yet dont take it in the first place. In the latter option the money is not necessarily spent. The taxpayers might save on invest it- exactly as the government would do if they did not spend it themselves. A tax cut does not necessarily increase demand. Like transfer payments (welfare, childcare rebates etc) they are not counted as spending when calculating GDP, because the money has been given to another person to spend, rather than exchanged for goods and services.
I repeat tax-cuts are NOT government spending. They are the OPPOSITE of government spending. How can he use the world 'splurge' when the government is not taking the money in the first place? (actually it was the journalist that used this specific work, see UPDATE below)
The argument that both tax-cuts and government spending increase demand and inflationary pressure is not an argument for blurring the distincting between the two. I shudder to think what a left-wing government has planned when they are encouraging the electorate to think that giving them money back is the same as taking it away.
This bollocks started with the whinging of the economically-challenged labor-voters about middle class welfare. Why are the people who support the welfare state all of a sudden against this sort of welfare? Because it's a tax cut that's why!!! The people who earned the money are getting it back, so they can spend it themselves, albeit in ways pre-approved by the government. The left believe that the middle class don't deserve to have their money. End of Story. They are re-distributionists trying to overcome the 'injustices' of the past. They want to take your money are give it to people that didn't earn it. The more permanent their lack of motivation the more they deserve your money.
Of course it's not just those are obviously unproductive who will get your money. Other people who appear to be doing something helpful, but aren't are also in the running. People who provide consulting services to the incoming government will recieve big contracts. People like ACCESS economics. They will get paid your money to oversee the process whereby lost more of your money goes into areas that the government thinks it should go (hint: not your wallet).
Before they get your money they have to toe the labor line. They firstly have to explain that all the rate-rises to come are Howard's fault, and nothing to do with Labor's inflationary IR policy. Next they have to help blur the line between governement spending and tax cuts, so you wont notice you are being bled dry. If you get a feeling that you are, you will experience a confusing sensation as the concepts in your brain diverge from the 'variable certainty'. Will you fall foul of the double-think, or will shake off this creeping malaise and get hang on to reality?
Snap out of it, taxpayers! It's not just your cash they want, but your soul!!!
UPDATE: After re-reading the article I can see that at no stage were tax-cuts actually equated with government spending by the guy from ACCESS economics, but in collusion with the journalist that impression was firmly given. 'Splurge' was the world used in the article by the journalist to talk about the combination of tax-cuts and spending. It was used immidiately after these lines:
But he said much of the growth in spending under John Howard had been in areas such as security and family benefits, and the new Government would require political courage to make cuts in these areas.
We see here that 'family benefits' i'm guess thing child rebates and other tax breaks that families get which fall under the middle-class welfare banner outlines above were bunched together. As stated transfer payments are strictly speaking not expenditure in economic sense, in that they dont buy a good or service, although i think they are counted as expenditure by the Aus govt (but not the NZ govt) because they reflect a passing of money away from the govt. That money happens to be going back to the people that earned it. So as I said it's a tax cut or sorts and doubly should not be counted as expenditure in any serious economic analysis.
Analysing the quote above, the equating tax-cuts with spending could have been the work of the journalist not the econmist. The structure of the sentence includes tax cuts as a part of expenditure, then mentions expenditure seperately, as a part-component of itself ?????
Mr Richardson described the Howard government's spending in recent years as "positively Whitlamesque", saying the Coalition had handed back more than half the China-driven revenue windfall in a series of personal income tax cuts, with the rest directed to increased spending.
The rest spending was directed to spending. WTF??? By implication the other spending , the tax cuts, was also spending. Confused?? It looks like the journalist was. I still place the blame firmly on the economist who lead the journalist, and me and the rest of the public firmly to the belief that tax-cuts are govt expenditure are the same, and not opposites as is truly the case. But i'll call the journalist a conman too if you like.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Arguing and Silencing the opposition: two different things
Janet Albrechsten has written a good piece attacking the call from who must be the most non-democratic blogger in the world, Guy Rundle of Crikey.
My comment on the piece is repeated here:
I'm prepared to stand up an be counted as a conservative and I fully support what Janet has said. So what if the tone was harsh. Her job is on the line. I'd prefer she fight back rather than than whine like an actor in an ALP election advert.
Might I remind the other commentators here that arguing against another's opinion, say by describing left-wing opinions (correctly) as 'anti-american', and asking for opposing opinions to be silenced are two completely different things. Janet does one. The left does the other. Arguing against you is an invitation for you to try to justify yourselves. You cannot, or at least not very well, so instead of argue back you demand that the argument be ended my herd intimidation of the media.
The gloating of the cultural left will be short-lived when they realise that Rudd is just a populist. He will not be implementing your agenda if he wants to stay in power.
I lived in Britain under New Labour. I know all I have to do is sit back and wait for you all to turn on Rudd.
Soon you will wish you had Howard back so you could fantasize that conservatives were what was wrong with the world.
This is going to be a right laugh.
My comment on the piece is repeated here:
I'm prepared to stand up an be counted as a conservative and I fully support what Janet has said. So what if the tone was harsh. Her job is on the line. I'd prefer she fight back rather than than whine like an actor in an ALP election advert.
Might I remind the other commentators here that arguing against another's opinion, say by describing left-wing opinions (correctly) as 'anti-american', and asking for opposing opinions to be silenced are two completely different things. Janet does one. The left does the other. Arguing against you is an invitation for you to try to justify yourselves. You cannot, or at least not very well, so instead of argue back you demand that the argument be ended my herd intimidation of the media.
The gloating of the cultural left will be short-lived when they realise that Rudd is just a populist. He will not be implementing your agenda if he wants to stay in power.
I lived in Britain under New Labour. I know all I have to do is sit back and wait for you all to turn on Rudd.
Soon you will wish you had Howard back so you could fantasize that conservatives were what was wrong with the world.
This is going to be a right laugh.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Et tu, Abbot?!!
Abbott has written a decent if slightly boring piece for fairfax here. Where he defends the previous government and its legislation, and poo-poos the idea that labor has any mandate for change because of their me-too stance. He does not mention Howard by name but apart from that he has totally agreed with me, so what grounds would I have for complaint, I hear you ask.
I'll tell you what. This:
Abbott has adopted the expressionless mona lisa smile of Rudd!
Lord help us! Abbot!!!! of all people. Our kead-kicker in chief brought low before the alter of trendy metrosexual androgeny.
For me his haste to proove his 'people skills' here has just put Abbot even further out or reach of the leadership. He shouldn't hang up his boots thought. Based on what he wrote and not what he looks like he is perfectly qualified to defend Nelson against the (almost irresistable) forces dragging the party left.
If the ALP gets in by moving right it does not mean we have to move left. We do not have to go all touchy-feely in substance or in style(*). It might make the ABC like us but it's tasteless and we'll have to retract it to get taken seriously by our base, as David Cameron has had to do in England.
We should not become the party of bullshit ande hypocrisy. People will be sick of that from Rudd and co soon enough. We have to wait for that to happen.
(*) Note this comment does not contradict my recommendation of showing feelings. Being determined and hard is a feeling too!
I'll tell you what. This:
Abbott has adopted the expressionless mona lisa smile of Rudd!
Lord help us! Abbot!!!! of all people. Our kead-kicker in chief brought low before the alter of trendy metrosexual androgeny.
For me his haste to proove his 'people skills' here has just put Abbot even further out or reach of the leadership. He shouldn't hang up his boots thought. Based on what he wrote and not what he looks like he is perfectly qualified to defend Nelson against the (almost irresistable) forces dragging the party left.
If the ALP gets in by moving right it does not mean we have to move left. We do not have to go all touchy-feely in substance or in style(*). It might make the ABC like us but it's tasteless and we'll have to retract it to get taken seriously by our base, as David Cameron has had to do in England.
We should not become the party of bullshit ande hypocrisy. People will be sick of that from Rudd and co soon enough. We have to wait for that to happen.
(*) Note this comment does not contradict my recommendation of showing feelings. Being determined and hard is a feeling too!
Monday, December 3, 2007
Rudd rolls over on IR rollback
Nelson's decision to right the ALP on the rollback of WorkChoices is already paying off. Gillard is delaying the rollback of unfair dismissal laws until mid next year at the earliest, knowing that the legislation had no chance of passing in the meantime (unless Turbull rolls Nelson).
I told you. Rudd will want to me-too the Liberals even in government. His policy is still a work-in-progress. If he gave in to his lefty bureaucratic insicts he would be out on his ear like Whitlam in no time. He want's to tread very carefully and never stray far from the path set by Howard.
If Rudd wants to be PM for all Australians he will listen to the Liberals who understand business, and especially small business - the engine of jobs growth. If Rudd want's to stay PM he will doing everything possible to avoid the unemployment rate going up.
I told you. Rudd will want to me-too the Liberals even in government. His policy is still a work-in-progress. If he gave in to his lefty bureaucratic insicts he would be out on his ear like Whitlam in no time. He want's to tread very carefully and never stray far from the path set by Howard.
If Rudd wants to be PM for all Australians he will listen to the Liberals who understand business, and especially small business - the engine of jobs growth. If Rudd want's to stay PM he will doing everything possible to avoid the unemployment rate going up.
SMH: Libs need a hero
Opinion piece in the smh that agrees with me that the biggest risk for the Liberal Party is that it will turn away from Howard's legacy.
The dumping at the poll is just as likely to be a vote against Costello's proposed take-over. Howard's approval ratings were still way higher than Keating's at the end of his term. The polls shifted at the when Rudd took over, but had shited back by election day.
Some people in the Libs, according to the article are lamenting that Howard stayed too long and 'this was our chance to have a hero' and he blew it. He's still my hero, all the more so for not stepping aside.
Hawke never stepped aside. He's an ALP hero.
Keating was beating out of office with baseball bats by the electorate. He's and ALP Hero.
Whitlam was sacked, beaten and dispised by the entire population. He's an ALP hero.
The fact that some Libs don't see Howard as a hero says more about them than about Howard.
I'm beginning to think there's alot of immaturity in the Liberal Party. They can't stick by someone who's had a hard time. When Howard was winning he was god. Now he's lost he's the devil.
This is too much of a beugious attitude. Howard is bad for business. If the customers dont want him well take him off the shelves like a product.
We are not a nation of shopkeepers. We are a nation of battlers. Pull your fucking socks up Libs. Show some of Howard's warrior instinct.
Howard was well-liked by the electorate, the only reason Rudd got it was because he looked and sounded and acted like Howard, minus the part that insisted you work for a living rather than sit on your union-protected arse.
The Rudd me-too approach in opposition and now in government is the proof that nobody knew the electorate better than him. We forget Howard and his achievments at our electoral peril.
Whether or not you can endure the shame of disloyalty and dishonour of betrayal is up to you. You can be a jerk if you like, but it wont help you win in this case.
The dumping at the poll is just as likely to be a vote against Costello's proposed take-over. Howard's approval ratings were still way higher than Keating's at the end of his term. The polls shifted at the when Rudd took over, but had shited back by election day.
Some people in the Libs, according to the article are lamenting that Howard stayed too long and 'this was our chance to have a hero' and he blew it. He's still my hero, all the more so for not stepping aside.
Hawke never stepped aside. He's an ALP hero.
Keating was beating out of office with baseball bats by the electorate. He's and ALP Hero.
Whitlam was sacked, beaten and dispised by the entire population. He's an ALP hero.
The fact that some Libs don't see Howard as a hero says more about them than about Howard.
I'm beginning to think there's alot of immaturity in the Liberal Party. They can't stick by someone who's had a hard time. When Howard was winning he was god. Now he's lost he's the devil.
This is too much of a beugious attitude. Howard is bad for business. If the customers dont want him well take him off the shelves like a product.
We are not a nation of shopkeepers. We are a nation of battlers. Pull your fucking socks up Libs. Show some of Howard's warrior instinct.
Howard was well-liked by the electorate, the only reason Rudd got it was because he looked and sounded and acted like Howard, minus the part that insisted you work for a living rather than sit on your union-protected arse.
The Rudd me-too approach in opposition and now in government is the proof that nobody knew the electorate better than him. We forget Howard and his achievments at our electoral peril.
Whether or not you can endure the shame of disloyalty and dishonour of betrayal is up to you. You can be a jerk if you like, but it wont help you win in this case.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Liberal Emotions, and Turnbull's lack thereof
The one thing Liberals need to do to their image is to show the emotion that has been a part of their decision making all along. When Brendan Nelson shows this emotion by choking up when he is elected leader what does Turbull his main opponent do? He strides into his office and berates him on his first day as leader.
Turnbull talks of softening the Libral image. He might like to start with his own.
If Turnbull wants to act like a bully I suggest he go join a union. If Turnbull wants to invade other people's offices and verbally abuse them he should join a union. If Turnbull wants to trespass into the bosses office and use his large physical presence to intimidate he sould join a union. Preferably a construction union. He'll find plenty of friends there. He'll be able to disrupt progress really well there.
Turnbull's behaviour is a bad look. He has, like Costello, vindicated the party's decision not to back him. He is an opportunist and only in it for his own ambition. He would rather see the whole thing go down than accept the party's judgement and play second fiddle. Turbull wants to bury Howard by riding the wave of media condemnation. He wants to sacrifice th progress we have made for his own ambition. His selfish lack of consideration is now on display for all to see.
The thing that boggles me is the Turnbull would think showing emotion is so bad. Nelson showing emotions will do alot more to convince people that Liberals are people too than tagging along behind the Mardi Gras like Turnbull.
Being PC does not make you a good person. Rudd's wholesale acceptance of Howards cultural approach is the final nail in the electoral coffin of the PC agenda. Only the media still go on about it. Soon the media will move on to the next story. We need to resist the tempation to joing their bonfire of the vanities.
John Howard and the Liberal Party are not evil. We are the staunch supporters of individuals freedoms and virtues like individual responsiblity. We are the defenders of democracy, which is not the ALP model of a tyranny of the majority, or the media. We are ready to make huge sacrifices and suffer long for what we think, believe, know is right - not that I want to measure the value of a person by the amount they have sufferred as the Left do.
We do all this because we have deep, strong powerful feelings. Does anyone suggest that we do it make money? Any or all of us have lucrative careers beconing in the private sector we could have gone for if we wanted money. Instead we wanted to make a difference. To make the world a better place.
Do you think we do it for the Glory? There is precious little glory handed to conservatives in the modern world. We endure the lack of glory because we know what we are doing is right in our hearts.
I am a staunch Liberal and am proud of my emotions: the highs and the lows.
I am also proud of the empathy I feel towards other people. I have musicians, preachers and psychiatrists in my family tree. I know my own feelings and those of others.
I am writing a book about feelings, and how much bullshit is written about them.
The the Labor party to whoop and holler in the tally room at the suffering of the liberals and then to turn around and accuse us of lacking empathy simply shows their self-delusion and hypocrisy. They think they are empathetic but they empathise most with others that share their resentment of an outside group, namely the privaledged.
We have been portrayed by the media and the not-so-intelligencia as being heartless. Howard was the focus for all that venom. It was all bullshit.
Hooray for Brendan Nelson showing that Liberals are real people that suffer in defeat. Sportmen, the most most macho of all people, cry when the lose a final because they put every last drop of their blood, sweat and tears into the game. They had no reserves left in defeat because they fought with all their hearts.
It is not half-time as Turnbull suggests. We just lost the world cup and have 3 years to go before we get a chance to win it back. Introspection is good and necessary at this time. Hastily adopting other team's cynical playing style is not. Let us feel as well as think ourselves out of this sad situation.
If this is all too woosy for you, then think of it like Bruce Lee. In Enter the Dragon he instructs his student to punch as hard as he can by saying,
"What we need is emotional content."
Let's deliver the ALP a big whack of serious-ass emotional content.
Love,
A Liberal
Turnbull talks of softening the Libral image. He might like to start with his own.
If Turnbull wants to act like a bully I suggest he go join a union. If Turnbull wants to invade other people's offices and verbally abuse them he should join a union. If Turnbull wants to trespass into the bosses office and use his large physical presence to intimidate he sould join a union. Preferably a construction union. He'll find plenty of friends there. He'll be able to disrupt progress really well there.
Turnbull's behaviour is a bad look. He has, like Costello, vindicated the party's decision not to back him. He is an opportunist and only in it for his own ambition. He would rather see the whole thing go down than accept the party's judgement and play second fiddle. Turbull wants to bury Howard by riding the wave of media condemnation. He wants to sacrifice th progress we have made for his own ambition. His selfish lack of consideration is now on display for all to see.
The thing that boggles me is the Turnbull would think showing emotion is so bad. Nelson showing emotions will do alot more to convince people that Liberals are people too than tagging along behind the Mardi Gras like Turnbull.
Being PC does not make you a good person. Rudd's wholesale acceptance of Howards cultural approach is the final nail in the electoral coffin of the PC agenda. Only the media still go on about it. Soon the media will move on to the next story. We need to resist the tempation to joing their bonfire of the vanities.
John Howard and the Liberal Party are not evil. We are the staunch supporters of individuals freedoms and virtues like individual responsiblity. We are the defenders of democracy, which is not the ALP model of a tyranny of the majority, or the media. We are ready to make huge sacrifices and suffer long for what we think, believe, know is right - not that I want to measure the value of a person by the amount they have sufferred as the Left do.
We do all this because we have deep, strong powerful feelings. Does anyone suggest that we do it make money? Any or all of us have lucrative careers beconing in the private sector we could have gone for if we wanted money. Instead we wanted to make a difference. To make the world a better place.
Do you think we do it for the Glory? There is precious little glory handed to conservatives in the modern world. We endure the lack of glory because we know what we are doing is right in our hearts.
I am a staunch Liberal and am proud of my emotions: the highs and the lows.
I am also proud of the empathy I feel towards other people. I have musicians, preachers and psychiatrists in my family tree. I know my own feelings and those of others.
I am writing a book about feelings, and how much bullshit is written about them.
The the Labor party to whoop and holler in the tally room at the suffering of the liberals and then to turn around and accuse us of lacking empathy simply shows their self-delusion and hypocrisy. They think they are empathetic but they empathise most with others that share their resentment of an outside group, namely the privaledged.
We have been portrayed by the media and the not-so-intelligencia as being heartless. Howard was the focus for all that venom. It was all bullshit.
Hooray for Brendan Nelson showing that Liberals are real people that suffer in defeat. Sportmen, the most most macho of all people, cry when the lose a final because they put every last drop of their blood, sweat and tears into the game. They had no reserves left in defeat because they fought with all their hearts.
It is not half-time as Turnbull suggests. We just lost the world cup and have 3 years to go before we get a chance to win it back. Introspection is good and necessary at this time. Hastily adopting other team's cynical playing style is not. Let us feel as well as think ourselves out of this sad situation.
If this is all too woosy for you, then think of it like Bruce Lee. In Enter the Dragon he instructs his student to punch as hard as he can by saying,
"What we need is emotional content."
Let's deliver the ALP a big whack of serious-ass emotional content.
Love,
A Liberal
Friday, November 30, 2007
Aftermath IV: Operation Skewer McKew
No i'm not suggesting that Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull perform an unspeakable act. I would never suggest that a Liberal should stoop to sex with a member of the ALP.
What I am saying is that media have usurped control of politics in this country and one person symbolises this more than any other: Maxine McKew.
The media shafted Howard. They didn't challenge Rudd and backed up his and the union's anti-Howard message unquestioningly. Their failure to even cover Rudd's lateness for his campaign launch whilst bashing Abbott mercilessly for his was the final proof of their duplicity and neglect of their duty to keel the public informed.
The ABC was the most biased of the lot. Of course i'd prefer it if Howard had not lost his seat, but if Howard was to lose his seat I am glad it happened at the hands of someone so obviously tied to and aided and abetted by a flawed institution in need of public scrutiny. (I know she's attached to two such institutions but the ALP will never open itself up to public accountability, whereas there is hope for the ABC.) McKew has raised the media profile of the media's bias. Doh! How fitting it is that McKew is now in the position that Howard was all those years on the other side of the camera. It's time for the double-standard to be removed. I thank Maxine for offering herself up for this sacrifice.
She will now have to take the shit she's been dishing out for 11 years, and it's our job to give it to her. I'm beginning to think that there should be a concerted effort within the Liberal party to subject McKew to the same treatment the ABC extended to Howard. We have to question her motivations at every turn. We have to assume she is evil and ignore any evidence to the contrary. We have to label her with every damaging slur available, too many and too harmful to list here. All personal quirks must be magnified and ridiculed. We have to laugh at all her defeats and credit someone else with all her victories. We have to base entire satirical programs on her the run weekly with fresh material supplied by an army of trendy haters. On the other hand i guess we can't do this. We dont have the power the ABC has. Neither do we share their poor taste.
Then again, maybe we should leave her there. Maxine, the smiling assassin, is a reminder that conservatives are woefully underrepresented in the mainstream media. For as long as she is the member for Bennelong all of Australia will be reminded that the media, in particular the broadcast media, is hugely partisan and that what they say needs to be filtered though and anti-bias prism first, if you bother to listen to it at all. Her presence on the political scene perversely helps our cause.
Nevertheless, something needs to be done about media bias in this country. The Liberals need a bigger presence in the media as a whole, in particualr the TV news. The papers are fairly well balanced in Australia, the Australian is carrying on it's conservative commentary particilarly with thanks to Sid Marris whis is taking the piss out of Rudd and Gillard already. This is a good thing and offers hope and a springboard from which to attack, sorry approach, the rest of the media.
Then of course there is the blogosphere and yours truly. I provide balance by being skewed way out to the die-hard right. With all the jokers on the other end of the see-saw there needs to be a few thousand more like me before the thing gets close to being level.
What I am saying is that media have usurped control of politics in this country and one person symbolises this more than any other: Maxine McKew.
The media shafted Howard. They didn't challenge Rudd and backed up his and the union's anti-Howard message unquestioningly. Their failure to even cover Rudd's lateness for his campaign launch whilst bashing Abbott mercilessly for his was the final proof of their duplicity and neglect of their duty to keel the public informed.
The ABC was the most biased of the lot. Of course i'd prefer it if Howard had not lost his seat, but if Howard was to lose his seat I am glad it happened at the hands of someone so obviously tied to and aided and abetted by a flawed institution in need of public scrutiny. (I know she's attached to two such institutions but the ALP will never open itself up to public accountability, whereas there is hope for the ABC.) McKew has raised the media profile of the media's bias. Doh! How fitting it is that McKew is now in the position that Howard was all those years on the other side of the camera. It's time for the double-standard to be removed. I thank Maxine for offering herself up for this sacrifice.
She will now have to take the shit she's been dishing out for 11 years, and it's our job to give it to her. I'm beginning to think that there should be a concerted effort within the Liberal party to subject McKew to the same treatment the ABC extended to Howard. We have to question her motivations at every turn. We have to assume she is evil and ignore any evidence to the contrary. We have to label her with every damaging slur available, too many and too harmful to list here. All personal quirks must be magnified and ridiculed. We have to laugh at all her defeats and credit someone else with all her victories. We have to base entire satirical programs on her the run weekly with fresh material supplied by an army of trendy haters. On the other hand i guess we can't do this. We dont have the power the ABC has. Neither do we share their poor taste.
Then again, maybe we should leave her there. Maxine, the smiling assassin, is a reminder that conservatives are woefully underrepresented in the mainstream media. For as long as she is the member for Bennelong all of Australia will be reminded that the media, in particular the broadcast media, is hugely partisan and that what they say needs to be filtered though and anti-bias prism first, if you bother to listen to it at all. Her presence on the political scene perversely helps our cause.
Nevertheless, something needs to be done about media bias in this country. The Liberals need a bigger presence in the media as a whole, in particualr the TV news. The papers are fairly well balanced in Australia, the Australian is carrying on it's conservative commentary particilarly with thanks to Sid Marris whis is taking the piss out of Rudd and Gillard already. This is a good thing and offers hope and a springboard from which to attack, sorry approach, the rest of the media.
Then of course there is the blogosphere and yours truly. I provide balance by being skewed way out to the die-hard right. With all the jokers on the other end of the see-saw there needs to be a few thousand more like me before the thing gets close to being level.
Aftermath III: If its Revolution you want
Holy Crap!! It's worse than I thought. The all powerul Rudd has handed Gillard the power to conduct the education revolution as well as roll back IR. That's right. A Marxist is now in change of the kiddies' brains.
There have been comments from teachers on-line about who education is about more than productivity. Not to the ALP it isn't. It's about creating an army of indoctrinated drones to overturn the beurgois(sp) social order.
There is only one solution to this: private education.
The choice is clear. When I have kids they are going to private school to keep them away from the teacher's union.
The universities in Australia should leave the public system and go private like Bond and Charles Sturt universities. They should charge fees, make money and improve the standard of the education they give. Sydney university was by no means a world-standard insitution when I went. It stank of mediocrity. It was boring. Understimulating. Smart kids need more than universities are giving them. They are heading in a bolder direction now and they can't stop just because the ACTU, sorry Labor party doesn't like it.
If the unversities are not private by the time my kinds are 17 i'm going to encourage them and pay for them to go to Oxford or Harvard. Maybe they can get a scholarship like Hawke or Beazley.
Progress cannot be stopped no matter how hard the revolutionaries try. We want our kids the think for themselves. They need good strong values to allows them stand independently. We want to give them the experiences of winning and losing and toughen them up. We want to give them the pleasures of poetry, music and literature, not drugs.
We are now a confident nation. A free country in the proud Western Liberal Democratic tradition. There are ways of taking these bastards on. Democracy is not the tyranny of the majority. It's about individual freedoms. In the face of the withdrawing of educational freedoms like full-fee university places hopefully the activist judiciary and legal profession will be won back to the Liberal cause. With them side we can successfully defend out rights as individuals to be more than just part of a collective.
Many readers will not know that the doctors faught the creation of an Australian NHS in the High Court in the 40's when Chifley was PM and won on the grounds that forcing doctors into the employ of the state was civilian conscription. Medicare is a compromise solution that is a lot less than what the ALP originally wanted. Expect more of these choice-destroying takovers. Expect a fight.
The great thing about 21st century Australia is that the hostility between dictatorship of the proletariat and the freedoms of the educated is now in full view. People like me used to be too scared to say anything let alone do anything, and that was only if they even allowed them selves to recognise the problem before their own eyes. Once apon a time the poverty of ambition was a strange mystery. Now we see it is the end product of a shaming of smart-kids from the moment the realise they are smart, and could out-smart the herd if they wanted.
This happened me and I refuse to let it happen to my kids.
There have been comments from teachers on-line about who education is about more than productivity. Not to the ALP it isn't. It's about creating an army of indoctrinated drones to overturn the beurgois(sp) social order.
There is only one solution to this: private education.
The choice is clear. When I have kids they are going to private school to keep them away from the teacher's union.
The universities in Australia should leave the public system and go private like Bond and Charles Sturt universities. They should charge fees, make money and improve the standard of the education they give. Sydney university was by no means a world-standard insitution when I went. It stank of mediocrity. It was boring. Understimulating. Smart kids need more than universities are giving them. They are heading in a bolder direction now and they can't stop just because the ACTU, sorry Labor party doesn't like it.
If the unversities are not private by the time my kinds are 17 i'm going to encourage them and pay for them to go to Oxford or Harvard. Maybe they can get a scholarship like Hawke or Beazley.
Progress cannot be stopped no matter how hard the revolutionaries try. We want our kids the think for themselves. They need good strong values to allows them stand independently. We want to give them the experiences of winning and losing and toughen them up. We want to give them the pleasures of poetry, music and literature, not drugs.
We are now a confident nation. A free country in the proud Western Liberal Democratic tradition. There are ways of taking these bastards on. Democracy is not the tyranny of the majority. It's about individual freedoms. In the face of the withdrawing of educational freedoms like full-fee university places hopefully the activist judiciary and legal profession will be won back to the Liberal cause. With them side we can successfully defend out rights as individuals to be more than just part of a collective.
Many readers will not know that the doctors faught the creation of an Australian NHS in the High Court in the 40's when Chifley was PM and won on the grounds that forcing doctors into the employ of the state was civilian conscription. Medicare is a compromise solution that is a lot less than what the ALP originally wanted. Expect more of these choice-destroying takovers. Expect a fight.
The great thing about 21st century Australia is that the hostility between dictatorship of the proletariat and the freedoms of the educated is now in full view. People like me used to be too scared to say anything let alone do anything, and that was only if they even allowed them selves to recognise the problem before their own eyes. Once apon a time the poverty of ambition was a strange mystery. Now we see it is the end product of a shaming of smart-kids from the moment the realise they are smart, and could out-smart the herd if they wanted.
This happened me and I refuse to let it happen to my kids.
Aftermath II: The Question of Costello
Costello's decision not to contest the leadership of the party had vindicated the party's choice not to support his tilt for the Prime Ministership, and Howard's decision not to step aside for him.
Costello refused to take the leadership and defend his own government's record if the face of unprecidented hostility from the media and a drubbing from the electorate. The libs are in power nowhere in the country and we need to sure up Victoria, Costello's home state, as a powerbase and what does he do? He walks.
Costello's decision was gutless and selfish. Thank heavens there was another person ready to defend the track record and the policies of the Howard govt in the form of Brendan Nelson. We could easily have lurched to the left and gone the way of the British Conservatives, and taken our country to the dog house along with us.
Costello took his action out of a desire for revenge, as revealed by his i-told-you-so comments about generational change. He wanted revenge against Howard and against the party for frustrating his ambitions.
Not only does this reveal his selfishness, but also his cowardice (as pointed out by Rudd in parliament, albeit in a scheriking high pitched voice) and his naivety. Power is never given. It must be taken. Costello did not have the naus to realise this, and if he did he lacked the balls to wield the knife.
He cannot blame Howard for not stepping aside. Hawke never stepped aside for Keating. A will to power is essential in any national leader. Costello cannot blame others for his own lack in this regard.
Neither can he blame the party for supporting Howard. Howard had just gone 10 years as PM and looked invincible. Is it not reasonable that they should be absolutely sure of the alternative before dumping him?
Whether the party room was wrong or right to back Howard 18 months ago is up to them. In the face of that decision he could have gone to the back bench and worked on his numbers like Keating did. When Rudd became opposition leader a year ago and the polls changed Costello would have pissed it in. Things could have been very different for hims and the party.
But he didn't go to the back bench did he? He didn't go because he is a show pony. He wanted to show off in the chamber and take the piss. To be fair he is the best parliamentary performer there has ever been in Australia and probably the entire world. He is a man of talent, but he has revealed himself to be a performer with the vanity and mood-swings of a performer.
He could have taken Rudd to pieces in these first months of the new government and had the time of his life in responsibility-free opposition. He could have sured up morale in the libs and helped to heal the sting of the election loss. He could have pillored Rudd on his many and hilarious hypocrisies. Instead he handed Rudd another scalp.
Jeff Kennett wrote in the Herald Sun that Costello's actions had verified many of the things he had previously thought about Costello. He did not say what they were, but they can't have been good. I am beginning to see think them myself now.
Costello is and always was mainy concerned with his own ambition. You could see it in his face everytime people hinted he would never make PM. He got all sulky.
I personally think that Costello's ambition and selfishness damaged the party's campaign irreperably. He his solely to blame for destroying Howard's image of invulnerability. Polls can be ignored, but a party room pressure is decisive. By hanging around like a bad smell with clear designs on the leadership but never having the balls to openly state his hand he did more harm than good.
I wrote my first post on this blog as Howard emerged from the post APEC leadership tussle. He had fought the whole way and for a few hours seemed to emerge triumphant. I called him the UBERBATTLER. Then within hours he had announced the planned transition to Costello. The shield was smashed in that moment. The spear broken. His helm cleft and crest fallen. Howard's weakness within his own party had been revealed. That was the first big victory for Rudd and the media.
I blogged it as TEAM AUSTRALIA, but in my heart I knew the public announcement of a handover was poison. It handed Rudd the 'What's the point in voting for Howard?' line. Rudd had a point.
Why did Costello have to insist on a public declaration? Because he did not trust Howard after he renegged on his supposed first private agreement to hand after winning office. He did not trust the party room as witnesses either, only the media and the public. What a fool. His purposes could not have been served by torpeding his own ship.
And then there was the comments from Costello in the Howard biography, and the infamous off-the-record interview with Brissenden et al that was published dispite Costello's objections. The drip drip drip of Costello's bitterness did more damage to the libs this year than most other things.
All the time he was waiting to be handed the leadership on a plate, dispite the polls not showing that he was favoured over Howard.
His insistence on damaging the party every time he was knocked back, and on clinging to the central role he had been given, rather than resiging and making a forceful point reveal that he cared more about his own ambition than the Party.
His bitter admission that 'The Liberal Party always came first' is maddenning. Why wouldn't they come first?
Costello's belief that others should elevate him to power without him having to fight them for it reveals his vanity, naivety, selfishness and cowardice. Thank goodness he never became Liberal leader. We were right not to back him. Obviously at the time he made his pitch Howard and the party knew more about him than I did.
We can't blame Costello for the loss. Howard must be held responsible for the election defeat because he was in charge. He would want to be. He understands the responsibities of power. But Howard was right not to second guess the electorate and abandon his mission and leave on a high. This would have appealed to the vanity of lesser men but Howard wanted to fight. If Costello was not prepared to fight him, we was going to have to fight Rudd. In the end this gave the electorate a clear choice, or as clear has Howard could make it in the face or Rudd's me-tooism.
Costello knew Howard was well loved within the party and did not want to knife him, but had he done so and affected generational change and won the election, or got it closer, then he would have been a hero too. Had he matched his ambition with action then Liberals would have loved him as much now as they did for the whole time he was our effervescent treasurer.
Costello, you are a great entertainer, you are a big thinker, but you are not a warrior. No guts no glory, man. Sorry. I'll miss your jokes, but that's about it.
Costello refused to take the leadership and defend his own government's record if the face of unprecidented hostility from the media and a drubbing from the electorate. The libs are in power nowhere in the country and we need to sure up Victoria, Costello's home state, as a powerbase and what does he do? He walks.
Costello's decision was gutless and selfish. Thank heavens there was another person ready to defend the track record and the policies of the Howard govt in the form of Brendan Nelson. We could easily have lurched to the left and gone the way of the British Conservatives, and taken our country to the dog house along with us.
Costello took his action out of a desire for revenge, as revealed by his i-told-you-so comments about generational change. He wanted revenge against Howard and against the party for frustrating his ambitions.
Not only does this reveal his selfishness, but also his cowardice (as pointed out by Rudd in parliament, albeit in a scheriking high pitched voice) and his naivety. Power is never given. It must be taken. Costello did not have the naus to realise this, and if he did he lacked the balls to wield the knife.
He cannot blame Howard for not stepping aside. Hawke never stepped aside for Keating. A will to power is essential in any national leader. Costello cannot blame others for his own lack in this regard.
Neither can he blame the party for supporting Howard. Howard had just gone 10 years as PM and looked invincible. Is it not reasonable that they should be absolutely sure of the alternative before dumping him?
Whether the party room was wrong or right to back Howard 18 months ago is up to them. In the face of that decision he could have gone to the back bench and worked on his numbers like Keating did. When Rudd became opposition leader a year ago and the polls changed Costello would have pissed it in. Things could have been very different for hims and the party.
But he didn't go to the back bench did he? He didn't go because he is a show pony. He wanted to show off in the chamber and take the piss. To be fair he is the best parliamentary performer there has ever been in Australia and probably the entire world. He is a man of talent, but he has revealed himself to be a performer with the vanity and mood-swings of a performer.
He could have taken Rudd to pieces in these first months of the new government and had the time of his life in responsibility-free opposition. He could have sured up morale in the libs and helped to heal the sting of the election loss. He could have pillored Rudd on his many and hilarious hypocrisies. Instead he handed Rudd another scalp.
Jeff Kennett wrote in the Herald Sun that Costello's actions had verified many of the things he had previously thought about Costello. He did not say what they were, but they can't have been good. I am beginning to see think them myself now.
Costello is and always was mainy concerned with his own ambition. You could see it in his face everytime people hinted he would never make PM. He got all sulky.
I personally think that Costello's ambition and selfishness damaged the party's campaign irreperably. He his solely to blame for destroying Howard's image of invulnerability. Polls can be ignored, but a party room pressure is decisive. By hanging around like a bad smell with clear designs on the leadership but never having the balls to openly state his hand he did more harm than good.
I wrote my first post on this blog as Howard emerged from the post APEC leadership tussle. He had fought the whole way and for a few hours seemed to emerge triumphant. I called him the UBERBATTLER. Then within hours he had announced the planned transition to Costello. The shield was smashed in that moment. The spear broken. His helm cleft and crest fallen. Howard's weakness within his own party had been revealed. That was the first big victory for Rudd and the media.
I blogged it as TEAM AUSTRALIA, but in my heart I knew the public announcement of a handover was poison. It handed Rudd the 'What's the point in voting for Howard?' line. Rudd had a point.
Why did Costello have to insist on a public declaration? Because he did not trust Howard after he renegged on his supposed first private agreement to hand after winning office. He did not trust the party room as witnesses either, only the media and the public. What a fool. His purposes could not have been served by torpeding his own ship.
And then there was the comments from Costello in the Howard biography, and the infamous off-the-record interview with Brissenden et al that was published dispite Costello's objections. The drip drip drip of Costello's bitterness did more damage to the libs this year than most other things.
All the time he was waiting to be handed the leadership on a plate, dispite the polls not showing that he was favoured over Howard.
His insistence on damaging the party every time he was knocked back, and on clinging to the central role he had been given, rather than resiging and making a forceful point reveal that he cared more about his own ambition than the Party.
His bitter admission that 'The Liberal Party always came first' is maddenning. Why wouldn't they come first?
Costello's belief that others should elevate him to power without him having to fight them for it reveals his vanity, naivety, selfishness and cowardice. Thank goodness he never became Liberal leader. We were right not to back him. Obviously at the time he made his pitch Howard and the party knew more about him than I did.
We can't blame Costello for the loss. Howard must be held responsible for the election defeat because he was in charge. He would want to be. He understands the responsibities of power. But Howard was right not to second guess the electorate and abandon his mission and leave on a high. This would have appealed to the vanity of lesser men but Howard wanted to fight. If Costello was not prepared to fight him, we was going to have to fight Rudd. In the end this gave the electorate a clear choice, or as clear has Howard could make it in the face or Rudd's me-tooism.
Costello knew Howard was well loved within the party and did not want to knife him, but had he done so and affected generational change and won the election, or got it closer, then he would have been a hero too. Had he matched his ambition with action then Liberals would have loved him as much now as they did for the whole time he was our effervescent treasurer.
Costello, you are a great entertainer, you are a big thinker, but you are not a warrior. No guts no glory, man. Sorry. I'll miss your jokes, but that's about it.
Aftermath: Howard's legacy in safe hands
I have been catatonic since the election. I can only now bring myself to blog. Time heals all wounds, but the gaping ones need medical attention first, or time simply makes you bleed to death.
I got my medical attention from Dr Brenden Nelson. I'm not recovering well - no solids yet but i'm keeping down my jelly and ice-cream. The wound he sewed up was my feeling that the Howard legacy was dead and buried.
If the Liberals are to remain a potent force in Australian politics we must honour our achievements and the leaders that brought them. We must stand by our past leaders and our policies and defend them even in opposition. In the wake of the election defeat certain forces threatened to make the Liberals in impotent force, devoid of balls and direction. Those forces are called Costello and Turnbull. I'll deal with Costello later, he's no longer important. The bigger threat was and still is Turnbull.
Turnbull had the momentum for the leadership because he held his seat against difficult odds, and took a more media-friendly position on Kyoto during the campaign. He smelled an opportunity in the days immediately after the election and he was playing to win. His leaked advice to cabinet gave him profile, but it opposed the official party line and damaged Howard. This is all clever politics and one can't get too upset about the dis-loyalty. Turbull hardly toppled Howard, the media did that, Turnbull was just make the best of a losing battle. It's more honourable to fight and die alongside your commander but not everyone is as virtuous as I am.
The real problem with Turnbull was not Kyoto, which there is no longer any point in opposing, but rather that he was quick to repudiate WorkChoices, which was and still is a good policy that this country needs.
Turbull could have got his wish, and moved the Liberals to the left, if only he had been more like Rudd, and kept his trap shut about his real feelings until after the vote (more on this later). Instead he shot his mouth off about gay rights, Kyoto and WorkChoices on ABC radio. This led to the headline in the Fin Review 'Turbull Slams Howard'. Alot of right-wing Liberal party members read the Fin Review. These are the same people who refused to back Costello (a right-winger) against Howards. Why would they endorse a lefty who lauds political imagery above hard-headed policy?
Brenden Nelson did not win this contest. Turbull lost it. Turbull is vain and thought people actually shared, or cared about, his views. If he had kept them to himself he'd be leader now. He misreads the party base, and the electorate.
Kudos to the Liberal Party room for electing Brenden Nelson as leader. We now have a doctor to oppose Rudd's National Health System(yes he wants and Aussie NHS literally!!!), and a former Education Minister Julie Biship as deputy to oppose what was Rudd's and is now Gillard's education-revolution. Game on. Nelson knows how much power we can wield from opposition 'we have to make sure labour gets it right'. Rudd wants to hold onto power by avoiding a Whitlamesque surge to the left, and consequent dumping. Rudd will still want to me-too the Libs in opposition. We won the culture wars don't forget.
Nelson is a no bullshit kinda guy, and as such cannot be anything other than a defender of the Howard Legacy. Howard is the second last conviction politican left in the world. Howard is the enemy of bullshit.
The Howard Legacy revolves around one issue: Iraq. Nelson has form for shooting from the hip on this one. Nelson is known all around the world for saying what no-one else had the guts to say. As Defense Minister he was the one political world-wide who said publically that energy security was one of the reasons for military involvement in the middle east. There was a brilliant cartoon of this in the Times of London (i'll find it later) which showed the British PM and the US and everyone globally running in panic and feigned shock at the Austrtalian govt's remarks. Brenden Nelson is a man of balls coming from a ballsy portfolio. He's perfect to lead the Libs.
Nelson's remarks on Iraq seem unpalatable to those on the left because they admit we acted in national self-interest, and to those on the right right because we admitted anything. The great thing about the remarks, apart from the fact that they are obviously true, is that they dismiss out of hand the WMD motivation for war. We did NOT go to war on a lie. We went to war because out national (self)interest was to install democracy in the middle east by force. The WMD angle was a joke cooked up by Blair and Colin powell to convence the poms (who never fought in Vietnam and a peaceniks as long as their empire is not under threat) to go along with the war. But this post is not about defending the war. Nelson already did that.
Nelson's defense of Howards and the coaltion on the most unpopular decision of the last decade shows him to be the best person, indeed the only person, that can be trusted to stand by Howard's legacy when the chips are down, and when they are already bet and lost and being cashed by the ALP. It doesn't matter that we lost. Well obviously it matters, Australia is now in great danger of becoming socialist, but it does not mean we were wrong.
The other key issue over which Howard's legacy is in danger, and the one still to be played out in parliament, is of course IR. Nelson is opposed to the immediate rollback of WorkChoices. This brought him the votes of the Liberal right in NSW lead by Abbot, and made him leader.
I fully support the position that the Libs should stick to what they believe and oppose the rollback of WorkChoices for as long as they hold the senate. The ALP never respected the Liberal 'mandate' on the GST so fuck them.
The idea that the election was all about WorkChoices is in large part a media-beat up, but I accept that most of the Australian people didn't like it, or at least they didn't like what the ACTU ads said about it. Children don't like to eat Brussell sprouts either. It does not mean it isn't good for them. WorkChoices might taste yucky but it will help Australia grow up to be big and strong. Patronising? Who me?
If the Australian people voted Howard out that's all fair enough. It's a democracy. They got what they wanted, for now, and we paid the price, but we can't be too hasty to get re-elected by jetissoning all our ideas. They are good ideas and there will come a time when they are needed again. This is the political cycle and conservatism must remain a potent political force for the sake of the country.
Turnbull was all for rolling over, for the sake of getting re-elected. He is too quick to change tack. He's not a conviction poltician. Does anyone believe that a self-made multi-millionair could possible believe honestly in a more regulated workforce? We all know from her actions in Britain that Kevin Rudd's millionaire wife doesn't.
Turnbull is just saying what he thinks is popular. OK he's saying was is popular, right now at least. The thing is that we are looking at a long period in opposition. We wont win the next election, or the one after that unless Labour fucks up big time. I think Rudd is too smart to let that happen. He'll just bracket creep and stealth taxed like Brown and Blair to fund his social engineering. He wont do it so quickly that people will notice.
But eventually people will see the drift to the left, the loss of individuality and confidence and the inevitable resulting brain drain. They will see their taxes go up. They will see PC thuggery legislated. They will see the community fracture under a devisive immigration policy. These things will happen, and when they do we have to say I TOLD YOU SO, really loudly.
We have to stick by the free-market principles that have been proven to be right time and time again. We dont only need to stick to them, we have to be proud of them and sell them to a new generation. To be proud of our principles we must be proud of our achievments and our leaders, dispite their unpopularity with certain sections of the media and the public.
The Liberal Party must honour the achievements of John Howard for the sake of the country and for it's own political survival. We honour John Howard by defending his legacy and his legislation in the face of hostility.
Howard was right. We were right. We are still right and time will prove us right. Australia cannot go back to being a holiday home for unionist meatheads and pot-smoking middle-class university drop-outs. Howard's reforms were ambitious but Australia needs ambition to compete in the Global economy. If the prospect of a bit of reform scares the Australian people then the alternative will scare them more.
We won't have to wait too long, maybe a year or three, until the unemployment rate starts to go up again and the welfare bills increase. I am right behind employers and employees who are rushing to take advantage of WorkChoices whilst the legislation is still in effect. We can give them another 6 months to keep driving the jobless figure down. There really can be no going back. If Rudd want's compromise he is going to have to give ground on the unfair dismissal laws. I forsee legal challenges in the high court against unions imposing a group-agreement on 100% or a workplace even in with 51% support. It's against individual freedom. This fight is not over.
I am Proud to have supported John Howard to the bitter end. I even poo-pooed the polls untill we got the late swing back. I refused to believe we were done for. That's what loyal supportes do. That's what team players do. That's what Shane Warne did in the 2005 ashes series. He faught tooth and nail and screamed at his teammates to do the same. And when defeat inevitably came he laughed in it's face. He was laughing at himself and his own delusion as much as anything - but he still laughed.
Warne was a warrior. So was Howard. He lost in the end but he never ran from a fight. He chose political death before dishonour. Howard is a hero of mine and i'm proud to say so. I'll go you if you say a bad word about him.
I got my medical attention from Dr Brenden Nelson. I'm not recovering well - no solids yet but i'm keeping down my jelly and ice-cream. The wound he sewed up was my feeling that the Howard legacy was dead and buried.
If the Liberals are to remain a potent force in Australian politics we must honour our achievements and the leaders that brought them. We must stand by our past leaders and our policies and defend them even in opposition. In the wake of the election defeat certain forces threatened to make the Liberals in impotent force, devoid of balls and direction. Those forces are called Costello and Turnbull. I'll deal with Costello later, he's no longer important. The bigger threat was and still is Turnbull.
Turnbull had the momentum for the leadership because he held his seat against difficult odds, and took a more media-friendly position on Kyoto during the campaign. He smelled an opportunity in the days immediately after the election and he was playing to win. His leaked advice to cabinet gave him profile, but it opposed the official party line and damaged Howard. This is all clever politics and one can't get too upset about the dis-loyalty. Turbull hardly toppled Howard, the media did that, Turnbull was just make the best of a losing battle. It's more honourable to fight and die alongside your commander but not everyone is as virtuous as I am.
The real problem with Turnbull was not Kyoto, which there is no longer any point in opposing, but rather that he was quick to repudiate WorkChoices, which was and still is a good policy that this country needs.
Turbull could have got his wish, and moved the Liberals to the left, if only he had been more like Rudd, and kept his trap shut about his real feelings until after the vote (more on this later). Instead he shot his mouth off about gay rights, Kyoto and WorkChoices on ABC radio. This led to the headline in the Fin Review 'Turbull Slams Howard'. Alot of right-wing Liberal party members read the Fin Review. These are the same people who refused to back Costello (a right-winger) against Howards. Why would they endorse a lefty who lauds political imagery above hard-headed policy?
Brenden Nelson did not win this contest. Turbull lost it. Turbull is vain and thought people actually shared, or cared about, his views. If he had kept them to himself he'd be leader now. He misreads the party base, and the electorate.
Kudos to the Liberal Party room for electing Brenden Nelson as leader. We now have a doctor to oppose Rudd's National Health System(yes he wants and Aussie NHS literally!!!), and a former Education Minister Julie Biship as deputy to oppose what was Rudd's and is now Gillard's education-revolution. Game on. Nelson knows how much power we can wield from opposition 'we have to make sure labour gets it right'. Rudd wants to hold onto power by avoiding a Whitlamesque surge to the left, and consequent dumping. Rudd will still want to me-too the Libs in opposition. We won the culture wars don't forget.
Nelson is a no bullshit kinda guy, and as such cannot be anything other than a defender of the Howard Legacy. Howard is the second last conviction politican left in the world. Howard is the enemy of bullshit.
The Howard Legacy revolves around one issue: Iraq. Nelson has form for shooting from the hip on this one. Nelson is known all around the world for saying what no-one else had the guts to say. As Defense Minister he was the one political world-wide who said publically that energy security was one of the reasons for military involvement in the middle east. There was a brilliant cartoon of this in the Times of London (i'll find it later) which showed the British PM and the US and everyone globally running in panic and feigned shock at the Austrtalian govt's remarks. Brenden Nelson is a man of balls coming from a ballsy portfolio. He's perfect to lead the Libs.
Nelson's remarks on Iraq seem unpalatable to those on the left because they admit we acted in national self-interest, and to those on the right right because we admitted anything. The great thing about the remarks, apart from the fact that they are obviously true, is that they dismiss out of hand the WMD motivation for war. We did NOT go to war on a lie. We went to war because out national (self)interest was to install democracy in the middle east by force. The WMD angle was a joke cooked up by Blair and Colin powell to convence the poms (who never fought in Vietnam and a peaceniks as long as their empire is not under threat) to go along with the war. But this post is not about defending the war. Nelson already did that.
Nelson's defense of Howards and the coaltion on the most unpopular decision of the last decade shows him to be the best person, indeed the only person, that can be trusted to stand by Howard's legacy when the chips are down, and when they are already bet and lost and being cashed by the ALP. It doesn't matter that we lost. Well obviously it matters, Australia is now in great danger of becoming socialist, but it does not mean we were wrong.
The other key issue over which Howard's legacy is in danger, and the one still to be played out in parliament, is of course IR. Nelson is opposed to the immediate rollback of WorkChoices. This brought him the votes of the Liberal right in NSW lead by Abbot, and made him leader.
I fully support the position that the Libs should stick to what they believe and oppose the rollback of WorkChoices for as long as they hold the senate. The ALP never respected the Liberal 'mandate' on the GST so fuck them.
The idea that the election was all about WorkChoices is in large part a media-beat up, but I accept that most of the Australian people didn't like it, or at least they didn't like what the ACTU ads said about it. Children don't like to eat Brussell sprouts either. It does not mean it isn't good for them. WorkChoices might taste yucky but it will help Australia grow up to be big and strong. Patronising? Who me?
If the Australian people voted Howard out that's all fair enough. It's a democracy. They got what they wanted, for now, and we paid the price, but we can't be too hasty to get re-elected by jetissoning all our ideas. They are good ideas and there will come a time when they are needed again. This is the political cycle and conservatism must remain a potent political force for the sake of the country.
Turnbull was all for rolling over, for the sake of getting re-elected. He is too quick to change tack. He's not a conviction poltician. Does anyone believe that a self-made multi-millionair could possible believe honestly in a more regulated workforce? We all know from her actions in Britain that Kevin Rudd's millionaire wife doesn't.
Turnbull is just saying what he thinks is popular. OK he's saying was is popular, right now at least. The thing is that we are looking at a long period in opposition. We wont win the next election, or the one after that unless Labour fucks up big time. I think Rudd is too smart to let that happen. He'll just bracket creep and stealth taxed like Brown and Blair to fund his social engineering. He wont do it so quickly that people will notice.
But eventually people will see the drift to the left, the loss of individuality and confidence and the inevitable resulting brain drain. They will see their taxes go up. They will see PC thuggery legislated. They will see the community fracture under a devisive immigration policy. These things will happen, and when they do we have to say I TOLD YOU SO, really loudly.
We have to stick by the free-market principles that have been proven to be right time and time again. We dont only need to stick to them, we have to be proud of them and sell them to a new generation. To be proud of our principles we must be proud of our achievments and our leaders, dispite their unpopularity with certain sections of the media and the public.
The Liberal Party must honour the achievements of John Howard for the sake of the country and for it's own political survival. We honour John Howard by defending his legacy and his legislation in the face of hostility.
Howard was right. We were right. We are still right and time will prove us right. Australia cannot go back to being a holiday home for unionist meatheads and pot-smoking middle-class university drop-outs. Howard's reforms were ambitious but Australia needs ambition to compete in the Global economy. If the prospect of a bit of reform scares the Australian people then the alternative will scare them more.
We won't have to wait too long, maybe a year or three, until the unemployment rate starts to go up again and the welfare bills increase. I am right behind employers and employees who are rushing to take advantage of WorkChoices whilst the legislation is still in effect. We can give them another 6 months to keep driving the jobless figure down. There really can be no going back. If Rudd want's compromise he is going to have to give ground on the unfair dismissal laws. I forsee legal challenges in the high court against unions imposing a group-agreement on 100% or a workplace even in with 51% support. It's against individual freedom. This fight is not over.
I am Proud to have supported John Howard to the bitter end. I even poo-pooed the polls untill we got the late swing back. I refused to believe we were done for. That's what loyal supportes do. That's what team players do. That's what Shane Warne did in the 2005 ashes series. He faught tooth and nail and screamed at his teammates to do the same. And when defeat inevitably came he laughed in it's face. He was laughing at himself and his own delusion as much as anything - but he still laughed.
Warne was a warrior. So was Howard. He lost in the end but he never ran from a fight. He chose political death before dishonour. Howard is a hero of mine and i'm proud to say so. I'll go you if you say a bad word about him.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
The Brain drain is about to start again
And where's that blasted brain?!
On the plane! On the plane!
Finally the universit sector has said something, or rather someone has published that they said something about the lost of funds from universities because the ALP's proposed abolition of full-fee places.
[quoting]
"The big missing point in the whole discussion is not the compensation (for universities losing full-fee revenue) but what is going to happen to those places," higher education commentator Andrew Norton said. "That is a vital detail which we've heard nothing about."
...
[From Julie Bishop (education minister)]
"The other point is that the small number of full-fee places we've got are in the areas of skills shortage, in medicine and dentistry, and it's illogical to strip universities and students of the opportunity to take up full-fee places in skills shortage areas. "
--------
How and you solve the skills 'crisis' and have a world class education system if your chances acutually rob universities of money and reduce university places?
-------
Monash University vice-chancellor Richard Larkins said a straight swap of HECS places for full-fee places would leave institutions out of pocket.
"Expanding the number of commonwealth-supported places to compensate would be logical, but the income from these full-fee places is significantly more per place per student," Professor Larkins said.
---------
I guess they'll just have to offer more places at a dumbed down standard to get the money back off the government.
Forward to the past with Rudd we go. This is exactly how universities were going under Keating. I was there. They were hotbeds of complacency and dispair for the intelligent and understimulated. You were better off going to Oxford like Hawke and Beazley did.
I'm sure Rudd thinks he can solve the skills crisis he invented without allowing people to the freedom to pay for their education, or the universities to get paid. He's a master of self-deception like Tony Blair. The fact remains however that people are not motivated unless they are free to succeed, and free to fail. He's a lefty. They class idiot will always get more attention under him. The smart kids will continue to leave, as I did.
I came back to fight for individuality in my home country. Most wouldn't be so stupid.
On the plane! On the plane!
Finally the universit sector has said something, or rather someone has published that they said something about the lost of funds from universities because the ALP's proposed abolition of full-fee places.
[quoting]
"The big missing point in the whole discussion is not the compensation (for universities losing full-fee revenue) but what is going to happen to those places," higher education commentator Andrew Norton said. "That is a vital detail which we've heard nothing about."
...
[From Julie Bishop (education minister)]
"The other point is that the small number of full-fee places we've got are in the areas of skills shortage, in medicine and dentistry, and it's illogical to strip universities and students of the opportunity to take up full-fee places in skills shortage areas. "
--------
How and you solve the skills 'crisis' and have a world class education system if your chances acutually rob universities of money and reduce university places?
-------
Monash University vice-chancellor Richard Larkins said a straight swap of HECS places for full-fee places would leave institutions out of pocket.
"Expanding the number of commonwealth-supported places to compensate would be logical, but the income from these full-fee places is significantly more per place per student," Professor Larkins said.
---------
I guess they'll just have to offer more places at a dumbed down standard to get the money back off the government.
Forward to the past with Rudd we go. This is exactly how universities were going under Keating. I was there. They were hotbeds of complacency and dispair for the intelligent and understimulated. You were better off going to Oxford like Hawke and Beazley did.
I'm sure Rudd thinks he can solve the skills crisis he invented without allowing people to the freedom to pay for their education, or the universities to get paid. He's a master of self-deception like Tony Blair. The fact remains however that people are not motivated unless they are free to succeed, and free to fail. He's a lefty. They class idiot will always get more attention under him. The smart kids will continue to leave, as I did.
I came back to fight for individuality in my home country. Most wouldn't be so stupid.
Howard knows why he wins elections
I love it how in this speach just given, summarised in the Aus, Howard talks loads about the end of political correctness, or rather it's pairing back to 'sustainable' levels under his leadership as one of his greatest achievements.
I believe this is his single greatest achievement. The whole of the West has moved this way but Australia had a singlular problem with it's identity and it's confidence which resulted in the emasculation of it's culture under Keating. To get to the stage we are at now where young people embrace Australian history and culture as a a source of pride could not have been predicted in 1995. It's all thanks to Howard with the backing of Costello and the other Libs.
Today we laugh at the John Butler Trio, only New Zealanders like him. Back then Iota was getting started to rave reviews and rapturous enthusiams from beaded tofu-eaters. The Lord is merciful. All that is in the past.
But it may very well come back under Rudd with his army of do-gooders. Howard knows that average Joe hates the idea of being lectured by know-it-all lefties: people who have no aboriginal or ethnic people in their neighbourhoods let alone at their dinner table, and yet decree that everyone else should step aside to make room for their special needs.
The loser must be elevated to the status of winner. Only then is justice done. The successful culture must be humbled. So say the left. Newsflash commies: you can't humble the people by force in a democracy.
The war on balls is about to commence. I only hope that if Rudd gets in he understands that the culture wars are a lost cause for the left electorally. The people are determined to hang onto their pride. We are the good guys. Just like the Americans. The ALP had better be ready for Giulianni presidency and an continuation, and possibly an escalation of the War on Terror (pronouced "Trrrr" in the "W" style)
Of course avoiding political correctness is not just about saving the pride of the majority of people. Reducing the mainstream to the moral second rung also brings about bad policy. It entrenches welfare dependency and lawlessness in minority communities. The victimhood badge is justification for any crime or any demand.
The crowning glory of Howard's premiership to date has been the NT intervention. The nation irreversably stepped down a path to unity. One law, one country, one language, one shit load of opportunities for everyone.
The threat of break-away Islamic communities remains. If the ALP gets in there will much less emphasis on skilled immigration and on integration. Separation will be encouraged though multiculturalism and distrust will reign. People will quit Western Sydney and Inner West Melbourne in droves. The areas will become un-inhabitable ghettos where not even the cops go. Crime will escalate.
This is what happenned in England in 'New Labour'. They are still captives of an old morality that does not believe the law needs enforcing of that people need to love and respect their country.
The country will get more racist for having to repress legitamate fears. They will vote with their feet and move to white enclaves or just leave the country.
All this is avoidable if we speak the truth rather than have our tongues tied with PC nonsense. If I see a certain behavour being mainly displayed by a certain group in society, be they muslims, vegetarians, overweight children or saxophone-playing midgets i'm gonna say so.
I'm not going back to the way things were no matter who gets in.
I believe this is his single greatest achievement. The whole of the West has moved this way but Australia had a singlular problem with it's identity and it's confidence which resulted in the emasculation of it's culture under Keating. To get to the stage we are at now where young people embrace Australian history and culture as a a source of pride could not have been predicted in 1995. It's all thanks to Howard with the backing of Costello and the other Libs.
Today we laugh at the John Butler Trio, only New Zealanders like him. Back then Iota was getting started to rave reviews and rapturous enthusiams from beaded tofu-eaters. The Lord is merciful. All that is in the past.
But it may very well come back under Rudd with his army of do-gooders. Howard knows that average Joe hates the idea of being lectured by know-it-all lefties: people who have no aboriginal or ethnic people in their neighbourhoods let alone at their dinner table, and yet decree that everyone else should step aside to make room for their special needs.
The loser must be elevated to the status of winner. Only then is justice done. The successful culture must be humbled. So say the left. Newsflash commies: you can't humble the people by force in a democracy.
The war on balls is about to commence. I only hope that if Rudd gets in he understands that the culture wars are a lost cause for the left electorally. The people are determined to hang onto their pride. We are the good guys. Just like the Americans. The ALP had better be ready for Giulianni presidency and an continuation, and possibly an escalation of the War on Terror (pronouced "Trrrr" in the "W" style)
Of course avoiding political correctness is not just about saving the pride of the majority of people. Reducing the mainstream to the moral second rung also brings about bad policy. It entrenches welfare dependency and lawlessness in minority communities. The victimhood badge is justification for any crime or any demand.
The crowning glory of Howard's premiership to date has been the NT intervention. The nation irreversably stepped down a path to unity. One law, one country, one language, one shit load of opportunities for everyone.
The threat of break-away Islamic communities remains. If the ALP gets in there will much less emphasis on skilled immigration and on integration. Separation will be encouraged though multiculturalism and distrust will reign. People will quit Western Sydney and Inner West Melbourne in droves. The areas will become un-inhabitable ghettos where not even the cops go. Crime will escalate.
This is what happenned in England in 'New Labour'. They are still captives of an old morality that does not believe the law needs enforcing of that people need to love and respect their country.
The country will get more racist for having to repress legitamate fears. They will vote with their feet and move to white enclaves or just leave the country.
All this is avoidable if we speak the truth rather than have our tongues tied with PC nonsense. If I see a certain behavour being mainly displayed by a certain group in society, be they muslims, vegetarians, overweight children or saxophone-playing midgets i'm gonna say so.
I'm not going back to the way things were no matter who gets in.
Greens ads plunge new depths of stupidity
Follow this link to a story in the Australia and take a peek at the ad up the top.
It's a banner that flashes...
IN HOWARD'S EYES THE SOLUTION IS NUCLEAR
IN RUDD'S EYES THE SOLUTION IS COAL
IN BOB (BROWN)'S EYES THE SOLUTION IS YOU
NUCLEAR POWER, COAL POWER OR PEOPLE POWER?
VOTE 1 GREENS etc
Are they suggesting that we burn people to create power? Is so, can we start the turbines moving by burning Bob Brown first? It would be an honour for him surely.
Perhaps they just mean we should power our houses with by peddling generators?
Or maybe they mean we should be the solution by not as much power. If we reduce power usage enough, like to zero, then we wont need coal or nuclear. We could all go back to the stone age and live happily ever after on fruits and berries.
I'm tired of these pants. Hand me my loin cloth.
What a bunch of fucking morons.
---------
Incidentally if you read the story at the above link it shows how the public service and the police are after you if you say anything, or rather print anything that criticises muslims. Is it defamatory if you say something about someone that is true, but they wont admit to? It will be under labour. All the thoughtcrime laws will be the first ones through the parliament on the greens-labour axis, just like under Blair.
Image is nothing
Thirst is everything
Obey your thirst for a free society
Vote Howard
It's a banner that flashes...
IN HOWARD'S EYES THE SOLUTION IS NUCLEAR
IN RUDD'S EYES THE SOLUTION IS COAL
IN BOB (BROWN)'S EYES THE SOLUTION IS YOU
NUCLEAR POWER, COAL POWER OR PEOPLE POWER?
VOTE 1 GREENS etc
Are they suggesting that we burn people to create power? Is so, can we start the turbines moving by burning Bob Brown first? It would be an honour for him surely.
Perhaps they just mean we should power our houses with by peddling generators?
Or maybe they mean we should be the solution by not as much power. If we reduce power usage enough, like to zero, then we wont need coal or nuclear. We could all go back to the stone age and live happily ever after on fruits and berries.
I'm tired of these pants. Hand me my loin cloth.
What a bunch of fucking morons.
---------
Incidentally if you read the story at the above link it shows how the public service and the police are after you if you say anything, or rather print anything that criticises muslims. Is it defamatory if you say something about someone that is true, but they wont admit to? It will be under labour. All the thoughtcrime laws will be the first ones through the parliament on the greens-labour axis, just like under Blair.
Image is nothing
Thirst is everything
Obey your thirst for a free society
Vote Howard
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Another polly late. It's always news when it ain't Rudd
Julia Gillard this time. I love it how all the accuations of being out of touch and stuff that Roxon made about Abbot have all backfired on the ALP. It's all 'bullshit' like Abbot said. Roxon must believe that Gillard 'could have been on time if she wanted to'. Gillard's excuse was the torrential downpours turned the steets in to car parks. I guess that's another indictment against State Labor lack of infrastructure.
The Age wants to write about lateness but they have been intimidated by Rudd press gang into not printing that Rudd was late for his big campaign launch and that no satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming.
Pollies being late IS news. Abbot was news. Abbot got slammed in the media. Now it's gillard and another got covered, i can't remember who,
but the big one was Rudd, and there's not a mention in any of the papers and 99% of the news programs.
It's been a week now. The only person to ask the question has been the guy who hosts the Insiders. I never thought i'd thank the ABC for this lack of bias, but on this occassion they have shown why we need a national tax-payer funded news service. Because their revenues can't be held to ransom by the party in power withholding scoops and press releases when the broadcaster doesn't toe their line.
Murdoch does not defend the right-wing point of view. He chases where he thinks the money is. Contrary to the opinions of the left the money, ie the support of the population, is on the right. The latest ads for the Australian and the presence of one soft question and one slightly harder question from news ltd journos at the Rudd's speech just finished demonstrate that he is that he is trying to go for both camps at present - a broader view. The Aus is including more left commentary and a one left-wing and one right-wing headline on each story, depending on whether you read the paper, the net or the poster. The problem with the idea is that he just offending all his readers, not just half. Murdoch offers some balance, and thanks to him for that, but it's not principled. It's not quaranteed. Thanks again to the ABC for asking the questions Murdoch will not.
The principled opposition to the easy ride Rudd has been given in the press came from the ABC. Not everyone watches the Insiders at 9am on Sunday morning, but the opinion leaders do. They all know Rudd was late. They all know there has been no explanation. They all know there's a coverup. They must be speculating about why this would be. Why doesn't he just dismiss it? They must have concluded that health problems would create the need for a coverup.
They all also know he never showed up to answer questions during the campaign. The left-wing opinion leaders were denied a chance to support their leader. He expects his minons to defend him, but refuses to defend himself. The bright sparks, right and left, who watched the Insiders last Sunday are talking to all their mates right now. They are expressing their doubts, their dissapointment their dissillusionment with Rudd. He's shine has rubbed off and he's not even PM yet! George Megalogenis complains he's dumbing down politics by only appearing on Rove last Sunday. You can't get more left than Megalogenis!
Rudd did not answer about half the questions put to him today at his press club speech (the ones on union power, national security and whether he could honestly promise to keep grocery prices low when he attacks Howard for doing the same thing with interest rates at the last election) but he did appear pretty focused and less drugged-out than at the policy launch. At the speech he made too many jokes with, or rather at, reporters who asked tricky questions (those questions above). Rudd's policy: Don't answer, attack. Just more intimidation. Journos will make jokes, have attitude, and ask loaded questions. So what? Howard has copped it sweet for 11 years and Rudd must be able to do the same. But he can't take it. He shuts people out who oppose him.
He did it in QLD with his public service gulag. He has done it to the media as demonstrated by the lack of questions about his lateness, and he's going to do it to you too. Now will be the last chance you ever get to oppose Rudd. Once he's in it's over.
Rudd's overtures about openness in government are a con. it's all spin and no substance. He'll talk about it for the cameras, but the behind the scenes manipulation will go on. More evidence of this, if it were needed, is that in a response to a question today he promised the ABC news reporter to have a press conference after each cabinet meeting. Apart from the from the fact that a press conference is not openness, its a spin-session, and an excess of them just makes people switch off, the main issue here is that the answer to the reporters question made it appear that Rudd wants openness but he must have arranged for the guy to ask that question beforehand. Rudd probably believes he wants openness, just like Blair did, but it's double-think. Either he coverly arranged for a dorothy dix question or Rudd is making his openness policy up as he goes along.
He has arranged for everyone NOT to ask the big question, so I will.
Mr Rudd, why were you late for the most important speech of the campain and can you deny that your lateness was not caused by ill-health and that you were not on (legal) drugs during the speech when you did finally give it.
UPDATE: The Australian has reported Gillard's lateness and hypocrisy at abusing Abbott for the same thing earlier on and lo and behold there is a one line at the bottom of the article that mentions the fact that Rudd was late for his launch 'mysteriously' with no explanation given. Pleeessaaaseeee can we see a Lathesque implosion in the dying days? All it would take would for one question. I've written to the jouno's i've been in contact with but no takers so far. Fingers crossed
The Age wants to write about lateness but they have been intimidated by Rudd press gang into not printing that Rudd was late for his big campaign launch and that no satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming.
Pollies being late IS news. Abbot was news. Abbot got slammed in the media. Now it's gillard and another got covered, i can't remember who,
but the big one was Rudd, and there's not a mention in any of the papers and 99% of the news programs.
It's been a week now. The only person to ask the question has been the guy who hosts the Insiders. I never thought i'd thank the ABC for this lack of bias, but on this occassion they have shown why we need a national tax-payer funded news service. Because their revenues can't be held to ransom by the party in power withholding scoops and press releases when the broadcaster doesn't toe their line.
Murdoch does not defend the right-wing point of view. He chases where he thinks the money is. Contrary to the opinions of the left the money, ie the support of the population, is on the right. The latest ads for the Australian and the presence of one soft question and one slightly harder question from news ltd journos at the Rudd's speech just finished demonstrate that he is that he is trying to go for both camps at present - a broader view. The Aus is including more left commentary and a one left-wing and one right-wing headline on each story, depending on whether you read the paper, the net or the poster. The problem with the idea is that he just offending all his readers, not just half. Murdoch offers some balance, and thanks to him for that, but it's not principled. It's not quaranteed. Thanks again to the ABC for asking the questions Murdoch will not.
The principled opposition to the easy ride Rudd has been given in the press came from the ABC. Not everyone watches the Insiders at 9am on Sunday morning, but the opinion leaders do. They all know Rudd was late. They all know there has been no explanation. They all know there's a coverup. They must be speculating about why this would be. Why doesn't he just dismiss it? They must have concluded that health problems would create the need for a coverup.
They all also know he never showed up to answer questions during the campaign. The left-wing opinion leaders were denied a chance to support their leader. He expects his minons to defend him, but refuses to defend himself. The bright sparks, right and left, who watched the Insiders last Sunday are talking to all their mates right now. They are expressing their doubts, their dissapointment their dissillusionment with Rudd. He's shine has rubbed off and he's not even PM yet! George Megalogenis complains he's dumbing down politics by only appearing on Rove last Sunday. You can't get more left than Megalogenis!
Rudd did not answer about half the questions put to him today at his press club speech (the ones on union power, national security and whether he could honestly promise to keep grocery prices low when he attacks Howard for doing the same thing with interest rates at the last election) but he did appear pretty focused and less drugged-out than at the policy launch. At the speech he made too many jokes with, or rather at, reporters who asked tricky questions (those questions above). Rudd's policy: Don't answer, attack. Just more intimidation. Journos will make jokes, have attitude, and ask loaded questions. So what? Howard has copped it sweet for 11 years and Rudd must be able to do the same. But he can't take it. He shuts people out who oppose him.
He did it in QLD with his public service gulag. He has done it to the media as demonstrated by the lack of questions about his lateness, and he's going to do it to you too. Now will be the last chance you ever get to oppose Rudd. Once he's in it's over.
Rudd's overtures about openness in government are a con. it's all spin and no substance. He'll talk about it for the cameras, but the behind the scenes manipulation will go on. More evidence of this, if it were needed, is that in a response to a question today he promised the ABC news reporter to have a press conference after each cabinet meeting. Apart from the from the fact that a press conference is not openness, its a spin-session, and an excess of them just makes people switch off, the main issue here is that the answer to the reporters question made it appear that Rudd wants openness but he must have arranged for the guy to ask that question beforehand. Rudd probably believes he wants openness, just like Blair did, but it's double-think. Either he coverly arranged for a dorothy dix question or Rudd is making his openness policy up as he goes along.
He has arranged for everyone NOT to ask the big question, so I will.
Mr Rudd, why were you late for the most important speech of the campain and can you deny that your lateness was not caused by ill-health and that you were not on (legal) drugs during the speech when you did finally give it.
UPDATE: The Australian has reported Gillard's lateness and hypocrisy at abusing Abbott for the same thing earlier on and lo and behold there is a one line at the bottom of the article that mentions the fact that Rudd was late for his launch 'mysteriously' with no explanation given. Pleeessaaaseeee can we see a Lathesque implosion in the dying days? All it would take would for one question. I've written to the jouno's i've been in contact with but no takers so far. Fingers crossed
Rudd's 'Revolution' inspired by Asia
Rudd has made it perfectly clear on a number of occaissions in his final speech to the national press club before the election that his 'education revolution' is an idea of his that will take us down and Asian path.
He mentioned the huge numbers of graduates being churned out by Asian nations and compared them favourably to Western economies.
Dude, it's about quality not quantity. Any one of those Asian graduates would have preferred to go to Oxford, Harvard or MIT. The education is better there.
But they would not have expressed this preferrence in China because they would have been locked up for going against the official line.
Rudd's Asian approach to education which, in his words sees education as an engine of productivity is just plain scary.
An army of drones at Rudd's disposal. That's the 'education revolution'.
Is it any wonder that after the speech's channel 9 coverage Ray Martin used the words 'economic revolution' by mistake. If you are adopting a Maoist style and borrowing his langauge in part, then dont be suprised if some people think your a commie, Rudd.
Training is about productivity. Education is something else entirely. It's about independent thinking. Australian universities have been heading in this direction since the late 80's by restucuring their undergrad courses in a broader and less vocational way. They had to to differentiate themselves from the Keating class-war policy of naming all the techincal colleges 'universities'. QUT, UTS etc.
Rudd is all about getting kids early and indoctrinating them from pre-school to high- school. That is where his spending has gone. That's where his computers will be. He has not pledged anything for Higher Education athough he riles at the Howard govt for reducing education spending. Howard had a positive agenda of reducing university dependence on the state. He gave them the freedom to charge full fees. The only thing Rudd is sure to do for Higher Ed is to take away that freedom. This will take away a huge chunk of money for universities and reverse a good trend. It will also ensure that the uni's curricula remains tailored to fee-paying Asian students.
Aussies need to understand that Higher Education costs alot of money. Those who benefit should pay. Those that go to universities should pay for universities, either now or when they get their jobs. A student loan scheme and full fees would sort that out. Plus a few scholarships, quite a few really, for underprivaleged smart kids. If he restrict the amount that unis can charge our uni's will just have to dumbed down their courses to get more subsidised places.
Quality or quantity? Make your choice. We all know lefties want 50% of people in higher ed. It's not 'higher' anymore when that happens. That's the way they like it.
The Asian model where quantity of trained people, not quality or uniqueness of thought is sought will reduce educational ourcomes, and more importantly to me reduce individuality.
We all know that the liberal Western democratic tradtion of the English-speaking nations is the defender of individual freedoms, from John Stuart Mill to the present day.
We all know the Asian nations have not benefitted from this tradition to the same degree. Asian cultures place more emphasis on the group and less on the individual. They would benefit from us leading them, not us following down the path to conformity and uniformity.
Rudd's Asian education path is not fitting for this proud democratic Western country. We should follow a freer model like Oxford and Harvard. If we dont our brightest students will end up going there anyway.
Individual responsibility is the only way to preserve individuality. If we hand our duties over to the benevolent Rudd we will give sp our freedom to be different. We will have a duty to toe Rudd's lefty line.
His national curriculum will be carefully tailored to maintain loyalty to his 'revolution'. All revolutions have an enemy. I ask who is Rudd's scapegoat?
The individual, that's who.
Me.
You.
He mentioned the huge numbers of graduates being churned out by Asian nations and compared them favourably to Western economies.
Dude, it's about quality not quantity. Any one of those Asian graduates would have preferred to go to Oxford, Harvard or MIT. The education is better there.
But they would not have expressed this preferrence in China because they would have been locked up for going against the official line.
Rudd's Asian approach to education which, in his words sees education as an engine of productivity is just plain scary.
An army of drones at Rudd's disposal. That's the 'education revolution'.
Is it any wonder that after the speech's channel 9 coverage Ray Martin used the words 'economic revolution' by mistake. If you are adopting a Maoist style and borrowing his langauge in part, then dont be suprised if some people think your a commie, Rudd.
Training is about productivity. Education is something else entirely. It's about independent thinking. Australian universities have been heading in this direction since the late 80's by restucuring their undergrad courses in a broader and less vocational way. They had to to differentiate themselves from the Keating class-war policy of naming all the techincal colleges 'universities'. QUT, UTS etc.
Rudd is all about getting kids early and indoctrinating them from pre-school to high- school. That is where his spending has gone. That's where his computers will be. He has not pledged anything for Higher Education athough he riles at the Howard govt for reducing education spending. Howard had a positive agenda of reducing university dependence on the state. He gave them the freedom to charge full fees. The only thing Rudd is sure to do for Higher Ed is to take away that freedom. This will take away a huge chunk of money for universities and reverse a good trend. It will also ensure that the uni's curricula remains tailored to fee-paying Asian students.
Aussies need to understand that Higher Education costs alot of money. Those who benefit should pay. Those that go to universities should pay for universities, either now or when they get their jobs. A student loan scheme and full fees would sort that out. Plus a few scholarships, quite a few really, for underprivaleged smart kids. If he restrict the amount that unis can charge our uni's will just have to dumbed down their courses to get more subsidised places.
Quality or quantity? Make your choice. We all know lefties want 50% of people in higher ed. It's not 'higher' anymore when that happens. That's the way they like it.
The Asian model where quantity of trained people, not quality or uniqueness of thought is sought will reduce educational ourcomes, and more importantly to me reduce individuality.
We all know that the liberal Western democratic tradtion of the English-speaking nations is the defender of individual freedoms, from John Stuart Mill to the present day.
We all know the Asian nations have not benefitted from this tradition to the same degree. Asian cultures place more emphasis on the group and less on the individual. They would benefit from us leading them, not us following down the path to conformity and uniformity.
Rudd's Asian education path is not fitting for this proud democratic Western country. We should follow a freer model like Oxford and Harvard. If we dont our brightest students will end up going there anyway.
Individual responsibility is the only way to preserve individuality. If we hand our duties over to the benevolent Rudd we will give sp our freedom to be different. We will have a duty to toe Rudd's lefty line.
His national curriculum will be carefully tailored to maintain loyalty to his 'revolution'. All revolutions have an enemy. I ask who is Rudd's scapegoat?
The individual, that's who.
Me.
You.
Monday, November 19, 2007
About time drugs got a mention
and who mentioned it? Who gives a shit about this? Howard that's who.
Rudd has had the whole campaign to say something on any of the moral issues facing society - and no climate change is not a 'moral challenge' it's an economic one. Actually he mentioned gambling. So what. I just went to the melbourne cup and gambled. If he's got an issue he should talk to state Labor about that.
Howard waited to see if he had anything to say on drugs, terror, indigenous affairs. He said SFA. Howard could not say anything earlier as he knew Rudd would just me to it. So he had to leave his big statements till the end.
Now the values issues will come out in the last week. Just like the last election.
Why is it Labour supporters feel they are the sole fount of all moral virtue? It's THEIR candidate that has been encouraging the Aussie populace to whinge about the cost of child-care and mortgage repayments on McMansions. Rudd is the wallet candidate. Newsflash to the ALP: Morality and class war are not the same thing. Lefty values are just soooo 20th-century.
Howard is the candidate with the values, yes, the VALUES that this country needs: Individual Freedom, Enterprise, Patriotism, Respect for the law, Working hard for your family, taking responsibility for your own life.
The fact that he knows he is the values candidate has been revealed by his kicking off the last week by tackling drugs and welfare abuse. These are the number one and two problems in this country.
Howard has once again shown his genius at knowing the concerns of the battler. Remember the battler lives next to the bludger. The battler's kids and the bludger's kids play together. These people are scared of the future because their kids are off their chops every weekend, not because interest rates are a little higher.
Kevin Rudd's shrill bark is worse than his bite. Howard the underdog is about to tear him to shreds. Fur is gonna fly next saturday. I can't wait.
PS Did anyone see how THE AGE's editors could not find sufficient difference between the major parties to recommend their readers vote for Labour? Donkey votes might see some ALP marginals fall to the Libs in victoria. They are considered so safe on a margin of 1% no-one has polled them. Hubris, apathy and complecency may well end this for Rudd.
No news yet on why he was late for his big date. Hats off to the insiders for asking Gillard
Rudd has had the whole campaign to say something on any of the moral issues facing society - and no climate change is not a 'moral challenge' it's an economic one. Actually he mentioned gambling. So what. I just went to the melbourne cup and gambled. If he's got an issue he should talk to state Labor about that.
Howard waited to see if he had anything to say on drugs, terror, indigenous affairs. He said SFA. Howard could not say anything earlier as he knew Rudd would just me to it. So he had to leave his big statements till the end.
Now the values issues will come out in the last week. Just like the last election.
Why is it Labour supporters feel they are the sole fount of all moral virtue? It's THEIR candidate that has been encouraging the Aussie populace to whinge about the cost of child-care and mortgage repayments on McMansions. Rudd is the wallet candidate. Newsflash to the ALP: Morality and class war are not the same thing. Lefty values are just soooo 20th-century.
Howard is the candidate with the values, yes, the VALUES that this country needs: Individual Freedom, Enterprise, Patriotism, Respect for the law, Working hard for your family, taking responsibility for your own life.
The fact that he knows he is the values candidate has been revealed by his kicking off the last week by tackling drugs and welfare abuse. These are the number one and two problems in this country.
Howard has once again shown his genius at knowing the concerns of the battler. Remember the battler lives next to the bludger. The battler's kids and the bludger's kids play together. These people are scared of the future because their kids are off their chops every weekend, not because interest rates are a little higher.
Kevin Rudd's shrill bark is worse than his bite. Howard the underdog is about to tear him to shreds. Fur is gonna fly next saturday. I can't wait.
PS Did anyone see how THE AGE's editors could not find sufficient difference between the major parties to recommend their readers vote for Labour? Donkey votes might see some ALP marginals fall to the Libs in victoria. They are considered so safe on a margin of 1% no-one has polled them. Hubris, apathy and complecency may well end this for Rudd.
No news yet on why he was late for his big date. Hats off to the insiders for asking Gillard
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Crime: the non-existant issue
In Australia that is. Every other country in the world has a problem with it. Apparently not here given the amount of coverage the issue has had in the media during the election campaign.
But there appears to be gangland-style shootings going on the in comfy cosmopolitan Sydney district of Leichart now. Some of those bullets probably whisked past Sydney Uni academics on a break, or Glebe-residents lefty journos doing lunch.
Maybe the papers might start giving a shit about crime now.
The sensationalist TV current affairs shows give it a run, but they know the supermarkets are the real bad guys, right?
I guess it's technically a state issue, but that has not stopped Rudd from blaming Howard for everthing else that not his fault or his juristiction.
Maybe it's best Howard left it off the agenda, but for me that's gutless. Of course if Howard says anything about the failure of the NSW Labor govt to enforce the law the Ruddites will carp on about 'eleven long years' of Howard ignoring it.
On the contrary. Howard's immigration policy of strict integration has gone a long way from stopping Australia's cities from going the way of Europe's - roamed by lawless criminal gangs with no allegiance but to their rebellious identity - certainly not to the country. And don't gimme that lefty shit. We all know immigration and crime are related.
It's all about loyalties. Young men are violent by nature, it has to be channelled properly. They have to be brought to heel - white and black and every shade in between. They need to salute the flag, or they'll start shooting at it.
The lefty arguments about every crime being a 'cry for help' are bollocks.
Lefty arguments about supposed Australian racism being the cause of ethinic gang violence are also crap. We just call a crim a crim. As Jack White says, 'you just can't take the effect and make it the cause'.
Immigration is great, if we all assymilate. The numbers have increased, so must the emphasis on becoming a patriotic Aussie. The recent increase in crime in places like Victoria is a consequence of complacency on this issue and a reluctance of the Police to enforce the law.
PC hand-cuffs will be applied to the cops if Rudd gets in, and the ALP will not push the integration agenda.
Welcome to New Labour Australia. This is going to get alot worse if Rudd get's in just like it did in Britain.
Maybe I should see that as a chance for Liberals to get in at State level and actually fix the Labour mess. Thank goodness for the division of power in this country.
But there appears to be gangland-style shootings going on the in comfy cosmopolitan Sydney district of Leichart now. Some of those bullets probably whisked past Sydney Uni academics on a break, or Glebe-residents lefty journos doing lunch.
Maybe the papers might start giving a shit about crime now.
The sensationalist TV current affairs shows give it a run, but they know the supermarkets are the real bad guys, right?
I guess it's technically a state issue, but that has not stopped Rudd from blaming Howard for everthing else that not his fault or his juristiction.
Maybe it's best Howard left it off the agenda, but for me that's gutless. Of course if Howard says anything about the failure of the NSW Labor govt to enforce the law the Ruddites will carp on about 'eleven long years' of Howard ignoring it.
On the contrary. Howard's immigration policy of strict integration has gone a long way from stopping Australia's cities from going the way of Europe's - roamed by lawless criminal gangs with no allegiance but to their rebellious identity - certainly not to the country. And don't gimme that lefty shit. We all know immigration and crime are related.
It's all about loyalties. Young men are violent by nature, it has to be channelled properly. They have to be brought to heel - white and black and every shade in between. They need to salute the flag, or they'll start shooting at it.
The lefty arguments about every crime being a 'cry for help' are bollocks.
Lefty arguments about supposed Australian racism being the cause of ethinic gang violence are also crap. We just call a crim a crim. As Jack White says, 'you just can't take the effect and make it the cause'.
Immigration is great, if we all assymilate. The numbers have increased, so must the emphasis on becoming a patriotic Aussie. The recent increase in crime in places like Victoria is a consequence of complacency on this issue and a reluctance of the Police to enforce the law.
PC hand-cuffs will be applied to the cops if Rudd gets in, and the ALP will not push the integration agenda.
Welcome to New Labour Australia. This is going to get alot worse if Rudd get's in just like it did in Britain.
Maybe I should see that as a chance for Liberals to get in at State level and actually fix the Labour mess. Thank goodness for the division of power in this country.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Delay on Rudd's big day. What was the cause
Why was Rudd an hour late for his big speech at the ALP campaign launch?
At this stage of course I can only speculate, but i'd say it was quite likely that the excessive adrenaline in the minutes before he was about to go on Rudd may have have heart trouble. If so he would have had a shot in the arm before he went on from a doctor. This would have explained the delay.
If course this is just speculation as I say, but I swear that when was speaking early on he looked a bit weird to me: kind-of blissed-out and repressing a semi-detached smile. This could have been a (legal) drug high or he could have been intoxicated by a power-trip brought on by the robotic ovations he kept getting. I don't like either possiblity myself.
If Rudd's health was the reason for the delay the ALP would have quickly drafted a confidentiality agreement with the doctor before the visit took place, if they had not done so already. The ALP would have been immidiately on the phone to the press to repress coverage of the delay as well.
The delay has to be explained by the ALP. It can't have happened for no reason. Was he sick or was it harmless? We need to know.
The health of the nation's leader has a big impact on how he/she can deal with crises. If the leader dies in the middle of a crisis the crises gets bigger, Also the leader is a little worse off than they otherwise might have been.
Will the media do their duty, or will the keep Rudd alive just long enough to kick Howard out? Do they care about the country? If they do they will care about Rudd's health and not poo-poo this delay.
At this stage of course I can only speculate, but i'd say it was quite likely that the excessive adrenaline in the minutes before he was about to go on Rudd may have have heart trouble. If so he would have had a shot in the arm before he went on from a doctor. This would have explained the delay.
If course this is just speculation as I say, but I swear that when was speaking early on he looked a bit weird to me: kind-of blissed-out and repressing a semi-detached smile. This could have been a (legal) drug high or he could have been intoxicated by a power-trip brought on by the robotic ovations he kept getting. I don't like either possiblity myself.
If Rudd's health was the reason for the delay the ALP would have quickly drafted a confidentiality agreement with the doctor before the visit took place, if they had not done so already. The ALP would have been immidiately on the phone to the press to repress coverage of the delay as well.
The delay has to be explained by the ALP. It can't have happened for no reason. Was he sick or was it harmless? We need to know.
The health of the nation's leader has a big impact on how he/she can deal with crises. If the leader dies in the middle of a crisis the crises gets bigger, Also the leader is a little worse off than they otherwise might have been.
Will the media do their duty, or will the keep Rudd alive just long enough to kick Howard out? Do they care about the country? If they do they will care about Rudd's health and not poo-poo this delay.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Garrett Payback?
Class. Peter Garrett basically has said today that Rudd is full of shit. Sure the comment was casual, but he has refused to withdraw it. He said to some radio DJ that the ALP will change the me-too policies it has ripped of the government.
Many a serious thing has said in jest.
I think it was totally deliberate. Garrett has been humilated by having to endorse Rudd's slithering into a conservative skin. Uranium mining and US bases was the start. The Gunns pulp mill was first time his credibility has been seriously questioned by his enviro-fans. Bob Brown showed he was greatly dissapointed with his old mate. This must have hurt Garrett. I think the forced public retraction of the post-Kyoto position was the last straw. Garrett wanted to blow Rudd's cover. Rudd humialted him for stating Labour policy. Rudd dodged the blows and the media let him. The media directed their punch to the guts of Garrett.
(Warning: Australian toilet humour in next two paragraphs)
Garrett's guts have come out as a result. Ooohh, nice metaphor. Garrett's guts have come out in a projectile poo directed at Rudd. Garrett's gut reaction was to expel the foecal matter he had been forced to hold-inside for the sake of Rudd's reputation. I bet he feels very relieved now.
Don't worry Peter. It's perfectly natural. Rudd's shit stinks aswell, he just doesn't know it. Yet.
Garrett is playing a long game. He's a potential PM. Even i would consider voting for him just on the strength of Midnight Oil's back catalog - as long as he makes drummer Hirst his backup-singing deputy. Garrett knows he does not need Rudd and he does not want to be a part of not-quite-conservative government.
Time is on Garrett's side. He knows he needs time to evolve in the eyes of the Aussie public into a mature politician. It's too soon for him to be PM. He can and should wait it out in opposition until the economic cycle turns (yes this is inevitable and no you can't pin that on Howard when it comes. You can thank him for keeping the boom as long as it has been). The cycle may well last another 5 ot 10 years. When the economic growth that transcends the cycle is well and truly bedded down by an enterprise culture, and when the unions understand they will never run the country again, then the ALP have a chance to make some social changes of the sort they like without sending our prosperity south.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Garrett has f*cked Rudd.
I told you he was a man of principles, albeit the wrong ones.
UPDATED: Thanks to my girlfriend for telling me about a press conference a day or two ago where Garrett was further humiliated when after his public renouncement of his and Labor's post-Kyoto position Rudd still refused to endorse him in the environment portfolio after the election ... when he was standing right behind him! There were more straws on the camel's back than I thought.
Many a serious thing has said in jest.
I think it was totally deliberate. Garrett has been humilated by having to endorse Rudd's slithering into a conservative skin. Uranium mining and US bases was the start. The Gunns pulp mill was first time his credibility has been seriously questioned by his enviro-fans. Bob Brown showed he was greatly dissapointed with his old mate. This must have hurt Garrett. I think the forced public retraction of the post-Kyoto position was the last straw. Garrett wanted to blow Rudd's cover. Rudd humialted him for stating Labour policy. Rudd dodged the blows and the media let him. The media directed their punch to the guts of Garrett.
(Warning: Australian toilet humour in next two paragraphs)
Garrett's guts have come out as a result. Ooohh, nice metaphor. Garrett's guts have come out in a projectile poo directed at Rudd. Garrett's gut reaction was to expel the foecal matter he had been forced to hold-inside for the sake of Rudd's reputation. I bet he feels very relieved now.
Don't worry Peter. It's perfectly natural. Rudd's shit stinks aswell, he just doesn't know it. Yet.
Garrett is playing a long game. He's a potential PM. Even i would consider voting for him just on the strength of Midnight Oil's back catalog - as long as he makes drummer Hirst his backup-singing deputy. Garrett knows he does not need Rudd and he does not want to be a part of not-quite-conservative government.
Time is on Garrett's side. He knows he needs time to evolve in the eyes of the Aussie public into a mature politician. It's too soon for him to be PM. He can and should wait it out in opposition until the economic cycle turns (yes this is inevitable and no you can't pin that on Howard when it comes. You can thank him for keeping the boom as long as it has been). The cycle may well last another 5 ot 10 years. When the economic growth that transcends the cycle is well and truly bedded down by an enterprise culture, and when the unions understand they will never run the country again, then the ALP have a chance to make some social changes of the sort they like without sending our prosperity south.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Garrett has f*cked Rudd.
I told you he was a man of principles, albeit the wrong ones.
UPDATED: Thanks to my girlfriend for telling me about a press conference a day or two ago where Garrett was further humiliated when after his public renouncement of his and Labor's post-Kyoto position Rudd still refused to endorse him in the environment portfolio after the election ... when he was standing right behind him! There were more straws on the camel's back than I thought.
Renewable election defeats
The ALP have made the coal-miners of QLD into the new Tasmanian timber-workers.
To Rudd, the beautiful ring of the policy rhyme of '20% renewable-energy by 2020' is worth a thousand coal-miners jobs. Heck, ten, twenty thousand.*
Their sacrifice for the good of the Rudd will noted, and filed away in the anals of the uber-bureaucracy to come.
Unless that is if they decide to vote for the Nationals or Liberals, as Queensland blue-collar types often like to do. Howard with his technical college funding is pitching for their votes at the same time as Rudd is ditching them in favour of Keating's 'basket weavers of Balmain'.
It's not just QLD that he is risking by this hasty policy announcement. Nobody in the country believes that the cost of wind, solar etc will be negligable. The UK has just backed away from such ambitious targets because they are so hard and costly to achieve - and they have perfectly good and safe nuclear power-stations. I guess Rudd had to throw economic caution to the wind when he had just thown away the one unassailable electoral advantage he had: the brain-numbing power of Kyoto-powered environmental symbolism.
It was genius for Howard to announce at the debate a fund to help pensioners pay the power bills that will inevitably rise as we factor climate costs in. That bit of news was just sinking in when Rudd pooed in his pants and plucked his target out of the air. Oops. He did it again. He's too hasty to be like Howard. Conviction politicians take a long time, 11 years in some cases, to make decisions. They take time to decide, like the Ents in LOTR (hi nerds), because the decisions are that important. Screwing them up can be very damaging.
(*thanks to my Dad for pointing out that the main motivation for the 20% by 2020 policy figure was poetic, not economic or environmental).
To Rudd, the beautiful ring of the policy rhyme of '20% renewable-energy by 2020' is worth a thousand coal-miners jobs. Heck, ten, twenty thousand.*
Their sacrifice for the good of the Rudd will noted, and filed away in the anals of the uber-bureaucracy to come.
Unless that is if they decide to vote for the Nationals or Liberals, as Queensland blue-collar types often like to do. Howard with his technical college funding is pitching for their votes at the same time as Rudd is ditching them in favour of Keating's 'basket weavers of Balmain'.
It's not just QLD that he is risking by this hasty policy announcement. Nobody in the country believes that the cost of wind, solar etc will be negligable. The UK has just backed away from such ambitious targets because they are so hard and costly to achieve - and they have perfectly good and safe nuclear power-stations. I guess Rudd had to throw economic caution to the wind when he had just thown away the one unassailable electoral advantage he had: the brain-numbing power of Kyoto-powered environmental symbolism.
It was genius for Howard to announce at the debate a fund to help pensioners pay the power bills that will inevitably rise as we factor climate costs in. That bit of news was just sinking in when Rudd pooed in his pants and plucked his target out of the air. Oops. He did it again. He's too hasty to be like Howard. Conviction politicians take a long time, 11 years in some cases, to make decisions. They take time to decide, like the Ents in LOTR (hi nerds), because the decisions are that important. Screwing them up can be very damaging.
(*thanks to my Dad for pointing out that the main motivation for the 20% by 2020 policy figure was poetic, not economic or environmental).
The week the climate changed
Paul Kelly could not contain his anti-Rudd thoughts in this article from Tuesday no matter how much the Aus is leaning the ALP way. Headline: 'Fiasco exposes Labor weakness'.
In the words of Dixon Baimbridge, 'You said it, bitch'. I'm amased the on-line headline has not been changed to something softer retrospectively.
More from Kelly in said article: "Labour has now embraced Howards position [on Kyoto] post-2012. That's right, Labor is following Howard on climate change.
... Think about it"
I know i'm quoting after the fact. You don't come to this blog to get live updates. You come here for 3-dimensional truth nuggets. They have to pass through my poltical digestive system before the plop out the other end. I can feel one coming on now. Ohhhh, yeah.
Rudd could have walked both sides of the street on climate change and Kyoto. A week ago Turnbull's supposed leak about debate in the Howard cabinet on the topic of Kyoto was pounced on by the media as showing the divisions in the coalition. This just goes to show how the media are just swallowing Rudd's line on everything to do with climate. Normally debate on topics is welcome. Turbull, as envirominister, is perfectly entitled to suggest that we sign Kyoto just to get some browny points, even if it wont help the climate (which it wont). Howard is will within his rights to knock him back and take a (very important) stand against environmental hocus-pocus symbolism, which is at all times in danger of hijacking the debate and the funding which could be used to get results that work. Cabinets debate things. That's what they are for.
But the media forgot this because they just accept that anything the ALP says on the environment is gospel, well maybe not but they take what Howard says to be straight outta the Necronomicon (one for the nerds).
The media is coming to the Rudd view of what debate should be. That is that Rudd dictates the 'variable certainty' and anyone who diverges from that is morally wrong and must be subjected to public humilation. Even if they say some thing that agrees with the ALP policy line one day, if that policy line later changes, the same rule applied. They are 'out-of-touch' with the 'new leadership' and must repent. It started with McLellan. Who annouced labour party policy only to be 'councelled' that is was wrong. The next victim was Garrett.
The environmental problems for the ALP started when Peter Garrett thought he was entitled to search for consistent set of principles behind ALP environment policy. Garrett is a man of principles, unlike Rudd. He naturally assumed that the same criteria the the ALP uses for signing Kyoto would be applied to signing the next round of Kyoto talks. He failed to grasp the double-think. Garrett failed to see that the Rudd is right to attack Howard for not signing Kyoto, because it shows lack of 'new leadership' in relation to his most honorable friends in China. The Rudd is also right to repudiate that idea, to vary the certainty, for the sake of the Ruddite ascendency. He is Right to copy Howard and refuse to sign the new round of Kyoto talks if China does not sign too.
Garrett should have known. Rudd should have told him. He would have, but he was busy telling him the opposite. Because The Rudd himself does not always know what revalation will alter the 'variable certainty' before it happens. He must wait for inspiration from the policy god Howardi. When Howardi utters the words 'Australian jobs', the Rudd he falls into an econmically-conservative trance, enduring painful policy upheaval which twist his gut-instincts and make him to back-flips . When The Rudd emerges the trance his minions hang off his everyword. He speaks, it shall be so and so, and they publically disembowel themelves in his name.
As so it was that Garrett, not Rudd, dutifully distorted the truth for Rudd, and claimed that the new leadership had been right all along. China's non participation was 'no deal-breaker' and it was also fundamental pre-requisite. The media accepted the new trust and carefully omitted their reports that only hours becuase The Rudd had defended Garrett. He had believed the lie that letting developing nations off the hook in the new round of Kyoto talks would help defeat climate change. Howard had the stronger policy, and Rudd adopted it. It is the same but different. It used to be bad Howard policy. Now it is good Rudd policy.
Only one small sacrifice had to be made for this blessed merging of truths to occur. The ALP cannot consistently attack the government on Kyoto for the rest of the campaign. Of course that does not mean they will not try. The dissenters are easily silenced by refusing to give them interviews and other favours when the Rudd ascension inevitable occurs.
In the words of Dixon Baimbridge, 'You said it, bitch'. I'm amased the on-line headline has not been changed to something softer retrospectively.
More from Kelly in said article: "Labour has now embraced Howards position [on Kyoto] post-2012. That's right, Labor is following Howard on climate change.
... Think about it"
I know i'm quoting after the fact. You don't come to this blog to get live updates. You come here for 3-dimensional truth nuggets. They have to pass through my poltical digestive system before the plop out the other end. I can feel one coming on now. Ohhhh, yeah.
Rudd could have walked both sides of the street on climate change and Kyoto. A week ago Turnbull's supposed leak about debate in the Howard cabinet on the topic of Kyoto was pounced on by the media as showing the divisions in the coalition. This just goes to show how the media are just swallowing Rudd's line on everything to do with climate. Normally debate on topics is welcome. Turbull, as envirominister, is perfectly entitled to suggest that we sign Kyoto just to get some browny points, even if it wont help the climate (which it wont). Howard is will within his rights to knock him back and take a (very important) stand against environmental hocus-pocus symbolism, which is at all times in danger of hijacking the debate and the funding which could be used to get results that work. Cabinets debate things. That's what they are for.
But the media forgot this because they just accept that anything the ALP says on the environment is gospel, well maybe not but they take what Howard says to be straight outta the Necronomicon (one for the nerds).
The media is coming to the Rudd view of what debate should be. That is that Rudd dictates the 'variable certainty' and anyone who diverges from that is morally wrong and must be subjected to public humilation. Even if they say some thing that agrees with the ALP policy line one day, if that policy line later changes, the same rule applied. They are 'out-of-touch' with the 'new leadership' and must repent. It started with McLellan. Who annouced labour party policy only to be 'councelled' that is was wrong. The next victim was Garrett.
The environmental problems for the ALP started when Peter Garrett thought he was entitled to search for consistent set of principles behind ALP environment policy. Garrett is a man of principles, unlike Rudd. He naturally assumed that the same criteria the the ALP uses for signing Kyoto would be applied to signing the next round of Kyoto talks. He failed to grasp the double-think. Garrett failed to see that the Rudd is right to attack Howard for not signing Kyoto, because it shows lack of 'new leadership' in relation to his most honorable friends in China. The Rudd is also right to repudiate that idea, to vary the certainty, for the sake of the Ruddite ascendency. He is Right to copy Howard and refuse to sign the new round of Kyoto talks if China does not sign too.
Garrett should have known. Rudd should have told him. He would have, but he was busy telling him the opposite. Because The Rudd himself does not always know what revalation will alter the 'variable certainty' before it happens. He must wait for inspiration from the policy god Howardi. When Howardi utters the words 'Australian jobs', the Rudd he falls into an econmically-conservative trance, enduring painful policy upheaval which twist his gut-instincts and make him to back-flips . When The Rudd emerges the trance his minions hang off his everyword. He speaks, it shall be so and so, and they publically disembowel themelves in his name.
As so it was that Garrett, not Rudd, dutifully distorted the truth for Rudd, and claimed that the new leadership had been right all along. China's non participation was 'no deal-breaker' and it was also fundamental pre-requisite. The media accepted the new trust and carefully omitted their reports that only hours becuase The Rudd had defended Garrett. He had believed the lie that letting developing nations off the hook in the new round of Kyoto talks would help defeat climate change. Howard had the stronger policy, and Rudd adopted it. It is the same but different. It used to be bad Howard policy. Now it is good Rudd policy.
Only one small sacrifice had to be made for this blessed merging of truths to occur. The ALP cannot consistently attack the government on Kyoto for the rest of the campaign. Of course that does not mean they will not try. The dissenters are easily silenced by refusing to give them interviews and other favours when the Rudd ascension inevitable occurs.
Abbott attracts male sympathisers
I'm sure it's happened to most blokes out there. You are half an hour late to meet your girlfriend, wife. You are majorly embarrassed. You know it's looks bad. You say sorry, but try not to collapse in a heap of repentance. After all, it's not a 100% your fault because of delays on transport and something came up at work. Still you try and take the rap for what IS your fault, not leaving enough time, and then try and get on with the night.
Then comes the guilt-trip. Your lateness epitomises your bad attitude, your total lack of respect, your fundamental selfishness your being 'out-of-touch' with her needs ... and on and on and on it goes.
By admitting the smallest amount of guilt it's almost as if you've made it worse. The floodgates of moral superiority open. All your achievements are derided, all your concessions forgotten, all her mistakes written out of history. This one incident comes to represent the whole relationship.
What do you say to that? You say what Tony Abbott said, of course.
"That's bullshit"
Then comes the guilt-trip. Your lateness epitomises your bad attitude, your total lack of respect, your fundamental selfishness your being 'out-of-touch' with her needs ... and on and on and on it goes.
By admitting the smallest amount of guilt it's almost as if you've made it worse. The floodgates of moral superiority open. All your achievements are derided, all your concessions forgotten, all her mistakes written out of history. This one incident comes to represent the whole relationship.
What do you say to that? You say what Tony Abbott said, of course.
"That's bullshit"
Monday, October 29, 2007
No choice but to go on the attack in the Culture Wars.
There was a piece from Noel Pearson deriding the devisive yet effective campaign tactics of W advisor Karl Rove in the Oz on the weekend. He was saying it does more harm than good in the fight against terror, a threat he regards as real. He's right about the threat but i'm afraid it would be far worse for the war on terror if John Kerry had got in than a bunch of NYT reading whingers get upset. Unity is not everything. You can't have peace at any price.
Pearson contends that because division is bad, conservatives should stop pointing out disgareements and stess the points of unity. Basically he is saying that conservatives need to agree with progressives on certain points of difference in order to win them over. The fact is that the progressive left are totally convinced they are right on every point and cannot be won over by persuasion. The only thing we can do is push them out the debate by appealing to the broader electorate, let them complain, carry on doing the job properly and then when we get the results they never could turn around and say 'See! Told you we were right. Are you going to shut up now?' I doubt they will shut up even then. They will indulge in fantasy that because of their greater sensitivity to diverse opinion (read: spinelessness) they would have done it better. Nevertheless tangible results are a alot harder to argue with and this approach gives us the greatest change that they will eventually see reality. Unity should be on conservative terms.
Unity is best served if the people who are wrong are shown to be wrong, and eventually come to agree with those that are right. If those that are right back down in the face of herd pressure from those that are wrong then we all suffer. Sure we will all suffer together, maybe that's what the left means by unity, but eventually because of the enaction of bad policy disunity and demoralisation ensues.
My beef is not with Pearson, who has done more than anyone in the country to help JH this year. I do however think Howard should ignore his implied advice at this stage.
John Howard is going to have to fight this campaign the way he has fought all the others, mercilessly. He is going to have to divide and conquer. He must make Labor feel they do not represent Australian people. His attempts at a wedge have failed so far, because of Rudd's me-too clone-ass policy making, but there are elements of policy that the public supports that the ALP could never have introduced because of their left-wing bias. The NT intervention is the prime example. I dare any Labor supporter to argue that a Labor government would have changed the land-tenue arrangements and removed the permit-holders sceme. Howard is bringing indigenous and mainstreams society's together by ignoring lefties.
The left-wing definition of unity is that everyone agrees with them. This flows from their religious fanatical moral-superiority. They fail to see in all aspects of Australian life apart from the media they are an out-of-touch elitist minority. Even in culture they are now irrelevant. Go ahead, try and write a joke that uses guilt as it's prime motivator and see if the crown laughs. Nobody wants to go back to the PC 90's, not even the lefties.
In the 90's the only people who used the word 'lefty' were the right-wing of the ALP. It was not a general term of derision. This just goes to show. That Howard has won the culture wars by refusing to respond to the guilt-based philosophy of the 60's that engulfed every generation after the war up to gen-Y. The reason why these kids nowadays are so carefree is because Howard has made a country where they can fly the flag without fear. I dont believe for a second the gen-Y are against Howard. My girlfriend is gen-Y and she hates Rudd's guts.
So here's the point i'm getting at. Rudd has captured the campaign by portaying Howard as dishonest. Howard is a politician. People expect the you would duck and cover from the odd question. The important thing is that the same standards (however low) should be applied to Rudd. Howard and co have chickened out from tarring Rudd with the same brush. They have failed to capitalise on the Brian Burke affair, strippergate and shreddergate. In all these cases it is obvious that Rudd was bullshitting. They allowed the Rudd camp to offer Howard's record on WMD, children overboard and AWB as a defense. Rudd was merciless on these issues. He behaves like a man that never lied in his life. This attitude works. Howard has to do the same, even if he has lied - not that i'm concedeing that for a second. The Coalition are behaving as if they feel guilty by not hitting back. The are not guilty, they are polticians who do what it takes to get the right thing done for the Aussie people. They are realistic altruists - OK maybe not Turnbull, who's just a tosser - but Howard is a good man. He retains my total loyalty. Howard knows what right for the country and does what's right for the country and says what's on his mind better than anyone. That is honesty. People see his as less cunning than Rudd. His lack of nuance makes him easier to read.
I'm getting to my point. The point is that it's time for Howard to embrace the negative labels everyone gives him and say something that voices the underlying concerns, not matter now un-PC, of the Aussie public. He has to be the one to say what scares people, but is true. This is the reason why Howard is PM. Not the economic measure. Howard is a values leader. A conviction politician. His economic success is an indirect result of his values, which are good and right and in-tune with the hearts of Aussies.
My point is this. Howard has to attack Rudd for being to close to China.
The YouTube video showing Rudd as Mao exposed the soft-underbelly of Rudd's support amongst the intelligencia. You could not have asked for a better campaign gift than that. The FAIRFAX press gave it a long run. People are scared of Rudd, and they like laughing at him. Sure they like laughing at Howard too, but that's good. The same standard is applying. Rudd should be exposed to the same riducule the Howard has had to endure. Backing off simply allows him to appear above it, when his famous glass-jaw demonstrates he is not.
People will accuse Howard of being racist. So what? It's the same white people doing this who have been saying the same thing since 1996. It's not about Chinese people, it's definitely not about Chinese Australians. It's about a country CHINA, you know, the communist dictatorship. Taking a position against China's anti-democratic ways is actually sympathetic toward chinese people, both in China and here. I'm guessing that most Chinese people in Australia are here because they dont want to be in China. They dont like its tyranny and or its language. Most speak Cantonese not Mandarin like Rudd. Mandarin is the language of Imperial Beijing, not the Chinese diaspora.
China is not a democracy. It's president is a Communist Dicatator. Rudd is a too close to them in his thinking. He is creepy. He's a stalinist. He invited this attack by by-passing the constitution and presuming to speak on behalf of the Australian people to the Chinese President IN MANDARIN!! This is a very clumsy diplomatic signal. This is sucking up. Australia is an English speaking country. We have an awful lot more in common with the USA than China.
Keating sold his pig farm to the Indonesians for a killing and then went into bat for Suharto, voted the most currupt politician ever! Will Rudd do the same. Will he sell this country out to China, or will he just take the same heavy-handed approach to economic management by playing favourites in business, as we are seeing with Telstra already and the broadband rollout. Will he just take the same anti-individualistic philoshophy to teaching your kids? Will he take the socialist scalpel to health.
When Doc Evatt waved a letter from Krushchev in parliament Menzies knew 'the lord hath delivered him into (his) hands.' Rudd has done the same thing. Menzies stayed in power by rightly painting the ALP out to be communists. Our prosperity and our freedoms are once again at risk. It is Howard's duty to run the biggest fear campaign the world has ever seen. As Hockey says it's right to fear the facts.
Howard has tried the soft route. There is nothing left to lose. Wimpy condidates can delete Howard from their election pamphlets if they like. I dispise this kind of disloyalty. Howard's image can hardly get worse amongst those who should show him respect. The bell has tolled and it's time for Howard and the Australian people to show their true colours.
Howard is the devil you know. Ask yourself do you trust Rudd or do your just hate Howard? How much is your pride worth? Just remember when you vote for a Socialist you screw up my life too.
Pearson contends that because division is bad, conservatives should stop pointing out disgareements and stess the points of unity. Basically he is saying that conservatives need to agree with progressives on certain points of difference in order to win them over. The fact is that the progressive left are totally convinced they are right on every point and cannot be won over by persuasion. The only thing we can do is push them out the debate by appealing to the broader electorate, let them complain, carry on doing the job properly and then when we get the results they never could turn around and say 'See! Told you we were right. Are you going to shut up now?' I doubt they will shut up even then. They will indulge in fantasy that because of their greater sensitivity to diverse opinion (read: spinelessness) they would have done it better. Nevertheless tangible results are a alot harder to argue with and this approach gives us the greatest change that they will eventually see reality. Unity should be on conservative terms.
Unity is best served if the people who are wrong are shown to be wrong, and eventually come to agree with those that are right. If those that are right back down in the face of herd pressure from those that are wrong then we all suffer. Sure we will all suffer together, maybe that's what the left means by unity, but eventually because of the enaction of bad policy disunity and demoralisation ensues.
My beef is not with Pearson, who has done more than anyone in the country to help JH this year. I do however think Howard should ignore his implied advice at this stage.
John Howard is going to have to fight this campaign the way he has fought all the others, mercilessly. He is going to have to divide and conquer. He must make Labor feel they do not represent Australian people. His attempts at a wedge have failed so far, because of Rudd's me-too clone-ass policy making, but there are elements of policy that the public supports that the ALP could never have introduced because of their left-wing bias. The NT intervention is the prime example. I dare any Labor supporter to argue that a Labor government would have changed the land-tenue arrangements and removed the permit-holders sceme. Howard is bringing indigenous and mainstreams society's together by ignoring lefties.
The left-wing definition of unity is that everyone agrees with them. This flows from their religious fanatical moral-superiority. They fail to see in all aspects of Australian life apart from the media they are an out-of-touch elitist minority. Even in culture they are now irrelevant. Go ahead, try and write a joke that uses guilt as it's prime motivator and see if the crown laughs. Nobody wants to go back to the PC 90's, not even the lefties.
In the 90's the only people who used the word 'lefty' were the right-wing of the ALP. It was not a general term of derision. This just goes to show. That Howard has won the culture wars by refusing to respond to the guilt-based philosophy of the 60's that engulfed every generation after the war up to gen-Y. The reason why these kids nowadays are so carefree is because Howard has made a country where they can fly the flag without fear. I dont believe for a second the gen-Y are against Howard. My girlfriend is gen-Y and she hates Rudd's guts.
So here's the point i'm getting at. Rudd has captured the campaign by portaying Howard as dishonest. Howard is a politician. People expect the you would duck and cover from the odd question. The important thing is that the same standards (however low) should be applied to Rudd. Howard and co have chickened out from tarring Rudd with the same brush. They have failed to capitalise on the Brian Burke affair, strippergate and shreddergate. In all these cases it is obvious that Rudd was bullshitting. They allowed the Rudd camp to offer Howard's record on WMD, children overboard and AWB as a defense. Rudd was merciless on these issues. He behaves like a man that never lied in his life. This attitude works. Howard has to do the same, even if he has lied - not that i'm concedeing that for a second. The Coalition are behaving as if they feel guilty by not hitting back. The are not guilty, they are polticians who do what it takes to get the right thing done for the Aussie people. They are realistic altruists - OK maybe not Turnbull, who's just a tosser - but Howard is a good man. He retains my total loyalty. Howard knows what right for the country and does what's right for the country and says what's on his mind better than anyone. That is honesty. People see his as less cunning than Rudd. His lack of nuance makes him easier to read.
I'm getting to my point. The point is that it's time for Howard to embrace the negative labels everyone gives him and say something that voices the underlying concerns, not matter now un-PC, of the Aussie public. He has to be the one to say what scares people, but is true. This is the reason why Howard is PM. Not the economic measure. Howard is a values leader. A conviction politician. His economic success is an indirect result of his values, which are good and right and in-tune with the hearts of Aussies.
My point is this. Howard has to attack Rudd for being to close to China.
The YouTube video showing Rudd as Mao exposed the soft-underbelly of Rudd's support amongst the intelligencia. You could not have asked for a better campaign gift than that. The FAIRFAX press gave it a long run. People are scared of Rudd, and they like laughing at him. Sure they like laughing at Howard too, but that's good. The same standard is applying. Rudd should be exposed to the same riducule the Howard has had to endure. Backing off simply allows him to appear above it, when his famous glass-jaw demonstrates he is not.
People will accuse Howard of being racist. So what? It's the same white people doing this who have been saying the same thing since 1996. It's not about Chinese people, it's definitely not about Chinese Australians. It's about a country CHINA, you know, the communist dictatorship. Taking a position against China's anti-democratic ways is actually sympathetic toward chinese people, both in China and here. I'm guessing that most Chinese people in Australia are here because they dont want to be in China. They dont like its tyranny and or its language. Most speak Cantonese not Mandarin like Rudd. Mandarin is the language of Imperial Beijing, not the Chinese diaspora.
China is not a democracy. It's president is a Communist Dicatator. Rudd is a too close to them in his thinking. He is creepy. He's a stalinist. He invited this attack by by-passing the constitution and presuming to speak on behalf of the Australian people to the Chinese President IN MANDARIN!! This is a very clumsy diplomatic signal. This is sucking up. Australia is an English speaking country. We have an awful lot more in common with the USA than China.
Keating sold his pig farm to the Indonesians for a killing and then went into bat for Suharto, voted the most currupt politician ever! Will Rudd do the same. Will he sell this country out to China, or will he just take the same heavy-handed approach to economic management by playing favourites in business, as we are seeing with Telstra already and the broadband rollout. Will he just take the same anti-individualistic philoshophy to teaching your kids? Will he take the socialist scalpel to health.
When Doc Evatt waved a letter from Krushchev in parliament Menzies knew 'the lord hath delivered him into (his) hands.' Rudd has done the same thing. Menzies stayed in power by rightly painting the ALP out to be communists. Our prosperity and our freedoms are once again at risk. It is Howard's duty to run the biggest fear campaign the world has ever seen. As Hockey says it's right to fear the facts.
Howard has tried the soft route. There is nothing left to lose. Wimpy condidates can delete Howard from their election pamphlets if they like. I dispise this kind of disloyalty. Howard's image can hardly get worse amongst those who should show him respect. The bell has tolled and it's time for Howard and the Australian people to show their true colours.
Howard is the devil you know. Ask yourself do you trust Rudd or do your just hate Howard? How much is your pride worth? Just remember when you vote for a Socialist you screw up my life too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)