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.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Any talk of Interest Rates always hurts Labor more
I am not very old, and yet I remember the adults in my house when I was a kid screaming about interest rates under Keating. If I can remember that so can 90% of the electorate. Anyone who doesn't has older people to remind them.
Howard dealt well with his slip on rates last week with his declaration, "There's one rate we all remember, and that's the 17% rate under the last Labour govt."
Incidentally the 22% rate when Howard was treasuer was some bond rate that never translated into consumer rates, which never topped 13%. Significantly less than Keating's record.
Once again most voters can remember back that far and remember that the real cause for financial pain in the Fraser era was Whitlams's emptying of the government's coffers.
Labor = socialist spending = recession
Costello was right to insist that the coalition had done it's upmost to stop inflation. Their only flaw was to make the economy so strong. The media takes every turn to portray strong economic data and low unemployment as negative because it might result in high interest rates. Howard is dead right to push the line that they would not be any lower under the ALP, indeed they would be higher. This is choice people face, not a consequence-free whinging session.
The ALP's socialist ideology is the enemy of growth. Managing the economy at the governmental level is not just about fine-tuning, it's about ideology as well as experience and expertise. The coalition has it all over the ALP on all 3 counts.
The Rudd plan to address capacity constrainst in the economy is bollocks.
Newsflash: the biggest capacity constraint is the unemployment rate, and the coalition have done brilliantly in bringing that down. They can take direct credit because of WorkChoices and the eradication of unfair dismissal laws. A further attack on entrenched dole-bludgers will sort that out even more. The ALP voted against all these capacity boosters.
If there is a skills crisis in this country, which I doubt, the ALP will only make it worse with their socialist education agenda. Education is not about preparing people for work in a communist bee-hive, it's about the finer things in life, like poetry, independent thought etc. Techical colleges prepare people for work and Howard has brought them back. Rudd wants to take them away and blur the line between workforce training and education by building these workshops in schools (at great expense). Rudd's mantra that a trade-cert is just as valuable as a university degree is the greatest deterrent to education there is. It will rob the country of thinkers and leaders because youngsters will think 'why bother being smart. the chicks/blokes think i'm a nerd and now i cant even get respect from society. i might as well start doing drugs, or apply my brains to dealing them'.
Not all people are the same intellgence. Pretending that they are is part of Australia's cringing past that Rudd wants to bring back. if we stop making smart people feel guilty, they will be more likely to help the country.
One other way of addressing man-power and skills shortages is by increasing the polulation. Costello's 'one for Australia' speech has helped, as has immigration. The Coalition's insistence on skilled migration over bleeding-heart family reunions has aswell. In addition the insistence on learning English would probably help migrants be productive in the economy, dont you think?
Infrastructure might help build capacity, but funding infrastructure has always been a State responsibility and Labor has failed here. This started with the Franklin dam. People have been terrified of infratructure investment since the media portrayed the blockage of the franklin dam as the reason hawke won office - this is a falsehood, but that's another story. The coalition has done it's best to show the political irrelevance of the anti-job environmental lobby, as demonstrated by Rudd's me-too policy on the Pulp Mill. This achievement is the single biggest thing that has put this country back on a pro-development footing. The coalition copped the heat, but won out in the end and Australia aswell. Now the fight is over the ALP are pretending they were not the cause of it all.
The Coalition is the party of growth. The ALP is party of the economic past. We all remember 'the recession we had to have'. The memory of Keating and Whitlam is much more terrifying to the Australian public than the devil they know, Howard.
Howard dealt well with his slip on rates last week with his declaration, "There's one rate we all remember, and that's the 17% rate under the last Labour govt."
Incidentally the 22% rate when Howard was treasuer was some bond rate that never translated into consumer rates, which never topped 13%. Significantly less than Keating's record.
Once again most voters can remember back that far and remember that the real cause for financial pain in the Fraser era was Whitlams's emptying of the government's coffers.
Labor = socialist spending = recession
Costello was right to insist that the coalition had done it's upmost to stop inflation. Their only flaw was to make the economy so strong. The media takes every turn to portray strong economic data and low unemployment as negative because it might result in high interest rates. Howard is dead right to push the line that they would not be any lower under the ALP, indeed they would be higher. This is choice people face, not a consequence-free whinging session.
The ALP's socialist ideology is the enemy of growth. Managing the economy at the governmental level is not just about fine-tuning, it's about ideology as well as experience and expertise. The coalition has it all over the ALP on all 3 counts.
The Rudd plan to address capacity constrainst in the economy is bollocks.
Newsflash: the biggest capacity constraint is the unemployment rate, and the coalition have done brilliantly in bringing that down. They can take direct credit because of WorkChoices and the eradication of unfair dismissal laws. A further attack on entrenched dole-bludgers will sort that out even more. The ALP voted against all these capacity boosters.
If there is a skills crisis in this country, which I doubt, the ALP will only make it worse with their socialist education agenda. Education is not about preparing people for work in a communist bee-hive, it's about the finer things in life, like poetry, independent thought etc. Techical colleges prepare people for work and Howard has brought them back. Rudd wants to take them away and blur the line between workforce training and education by building these workshops in schools (at great expense). Rudd's mantra that a trade-cert is just as valuable as a university degree is the greatest deterrent to education there is. It will rob the country of thinkers and leaders because youngsters will think 'why bother being smart. the chicks/blokes think i'm a nerd and now i cant even get respect from society. i might as well start doing drugs, or apply my brains to dealing them'.
Not all people are the same intellgence. Pretending that they are is part of Australia's cringing past that Rudd wants to bring back. if we stop making smart people feel guilty, they will be more likely to help the country.
One other way of addressing man-power and skills shortages is by increasing the polulation. Costello's 'one for Australia' speech has helped, as has immigration. The Coalition's insistence on skilled migration over bleeding-heart family reunions has aswell. In addition the insistence on learning English would probably help migrants be productive in the economy, dont you think?
Infrastructure might help build capacity, but funding infrastructure has always been a State responsibility and Labor has failed here. This started with the Franklin dam. People have been terrified of infratructure investment since the media portrayed the blockage of the franklin dam as the reason hawke won office - this is a falsehood, but that's another story. The coalition has done it's best to show the political irrelevance of the anti-job environmental lobby, as demonstrated by Rudd's me-too policy on the Pulp Mill. This achievement is the single biggest thing that has put this country back on a pro-development footing. The coalition copped the heat, but won out in the end and Australia aswell. Now the fight is over the ALP are pretending they were not the cause of it all.
The Coalition is the party of growth. The ALP is party of the economic past. We all remember 'the recession we had to have'. The memory of Keating and Whitlam is much more terrifying to the Australian public than the devil they know, Howard.
Chairman Rudd
As Murdoch famously said to the editor of the Sunday Times "This is showbusiness". Murdoch gives his readers what he thinks they want. The problem now is that he can't figure out if they want Rudd or Howard.
The Australian has now dropped the link to this youtube video so i thought i'd include it here.
This is the best bit of poltical showbusiness i've ever seen. Sorry i didn't embed it but i'm having webtroubles.
The video portrays 'the Rudd' as a communist dictator manipulating the impressionable masses into his service. It follows the socialist line i've been taking in this blog for some time. Rudd is just creepy. He's all about re-education - a theme that comes up in the video on the way he dealt with McLellan.
Thanks heavens there are other people out there who can see this. They are also a damn sight better than me at getting the message across because this video was shown almost in its entirity on the 7:30 report last night. Brissenden described is as light humour. To me it's deadly serious, it's just a brilliant way of getting the message accross by taking the piss.
This all started with Team America the best film ever made.
The threat is real.
The Australian has now dropped the link to this youtube video so i thought i'd include it here.
This is the best bit of poltical showbusiness i've ever seen. Sorry i didn't embed it but i'm having webtroubles.
The video portrays 'the Rudd' as a communist dictator manipulating the impressionable masses into his service. It follows the socialist line i've been taking in this blog for some time. Rudd is just creepy. He's all about re-education - a theme that comes up in the video on the way he dealt with McLellan.
Thanks heavens there are other people out there who can see this. They are also a damn sight better than me at getting the message across because this video was shown almost in its entirity on the 7:30 report last night. Brissenden described is as light humour. To me it's deadly serious, it's just a brilliant way of getting the message accross by taking the piss.
This all started with Team America the best film ever made.
The threat is real.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Stubbornness the last Virtue
Why is it so bad for Howard to be stubborn?
Some people choose to call this strength of will.
He was/is stubborn on Iraq and we are finally seeing results because of the determination of the coalition to finish what they started.
He was/is stubborn on climate change. He refused to give in to gesture poltics and mother-earth mysticism that surrounded the issue. He refused to ratify Kyoto so as not to offend the USA, whilst at the same time achieving our Kyoto targets. Now he has come round to believing in the issue, but he is the only person saying 'y'know what? this is gonna cost money'. I loved his pensioner power-bill fund. When he announced it the whole country went 'oh shit. he's right. this is gonna cost money. Maybe we will just wait for that modelling to come in before we commit to this stuff'.
He was/is stubborn on Indigenous issues, and has been proven to be right. The left's policies have taken away jobs from the first australians and pushed them to the fringes. We all saw the result. It's too aweful to even talk about, not that that deterred Kevin Rudd during the debate. Howard was much more sensitive that Rudd about mentioning what happenned, he just mentioned his intervention.
Howard was/is stubborn on immigration and integration. As a result we have a much lower crime rate and more cohesive communities than any country in Europe, but we haven't slowed the rate of immigration rather increased it.
It's not stubbornness if you are right.
And Howard is practically always right. The electorate has backed him 4 times so far. If anything is the Australian polulation that are stubborn. And good on 'em. In the face of a never ending media/cultural barrage of lefty propaganda (eg The John Butler Trio) they have refused to back down. They have refused to feel guilty, wring their hands and apologise for daring to have an opinion.
This growing confidence has unleashed entrepeneurial forces, talent, innovation. If you dont have confidence in your own judement, your ideas never take flight. Rejecting criticism, and selecting only the helpful bits is fundamental to creativity.
Nietzsche writes in Beyond Good And Evil (BGE to the cool kids) that to close your mind to even the strongest counter- argument once the decision is made is the sign of a strong character. 'Thus the occaissional will to stupidity.'
It's not stubbornness if you are right. Howard can't help it if his instincts for these issues are far superior to anyone else's in the country, if not the world. He's just right and he knows it. No-one can prove him wrong. The best they can do is label him stubborn.
One cannot lead without a strong will. One cannot lead without being stubborn. One cannot lead without occaissionally getting it wrong, but refusing to back down anyway.
Howard is a leader. Rudd's slogan is New Leadership. He should take a lesson in intransigence from Howard, rather than follow him.
Some people choose to call this strength of will.
He was/is stubborn on Iraq and we are finally seeing results because of the determination of the coalition to finish what they started.
He was/is stubborn on climate change. He refused to give in to gesture poltics and mother-earth mysticism that surrounded the issue. He refused to ratify Kyoto so as not to offend the USA, whilst at the same time achieving our Kyoto targets. Now he has come round to believing in the issue, but he is the only person saying 'y'know what? this is gonna cost money'. I loved his pensioner power-bill fund. When he announced it the whole country went 'oh shit. he's right. this is gonna cost money. Maybe we will just wait for that modelling to come in before we commit to this stuff'.
He was/is stubborn on Indigenous issues, and has been proven to be right. The left's policies have taken away jobs from the first australians and pushed them to the fringes. We all saw the result. It's too aweful to even talk about, not that that deterred Kevin Rudd during the debate. Howard was much more sensitive that Rudd about mentioning what happenned, he just mentioned his intervention.
Howard was/is stubborn on immigration and integration. As a result we have a much lower crime rate and more cohesive communities than any country in Europe, but we haven't slowed the rate of immigration rather increased it.
It's not stubbornness if you are right.
And Howard is practically always right. The electorate has backed him 4 times so far. If anything is the Australian polulation that are stubborn. And good on 'em. In the face of a never ending media/cultural barrage of lefty propaganda (eg The John Butler Trio) they have refused to back down. They have refused to feel guilty, wring their hands and apologise for daring to have an opinion.
This growing confidence has unleashed entrepeneurial forces, talent, innovation. If you dont have confidence in your own judement, your ideas never take flight. Rejecting criticism, and selecting only the helpful bits is fundamental to creativity.
Nietzsche writes in Beyond Good And Evil (BGE to the cool kids) that to close your mind to even the strongest counter- argument once the decision is made is the sign of a strong character. 'Thus the occaissional will to stupidity.'
It's not stubbornness if you are right. Howard can't help it if his instincts for these issues are far superior to anyone else's in the country, if not the world. He's just right and he knows it. No-one can prove him wrong. The best they can do is label him stubborn.
One cannot lead without a strong will. One cannot lead without being stubborn. One cannot lead without occaissionally getting it wrong, but refusing to back down anyway.
Howard is a leader. Rudd's slogan is New Leadership. He should take a lesson in intransigence from Howard, rather than follow him.
Paul Kelly getting too wrapped up in politics, overlooking issues
Paul Kelly, editor-at-large and head political commentator of the Australian is losing sight of the issues, and concentrating on the political skills of either opponent in this election. Latest example is on the kyoto protocol (damn editor can't paste in the link for some reason)
He keeps saying that Howard's policy is right, but he is stubborn for sticking to this position. He keeps saying that Rudd is a me-too policy copycat and anything beyond that is glib symbolism, but praises him for doing it.
Either there is some practical point to signing kyoto of there isn't.
If you deny there is any benefit and then by praising people who sign up for politically symbolic reasons you are praising spin.
More politely you are praising political skill, but this has nothing to do with the issue at hand as as such is irrelevant to the debate.
We are not going to vote for Rudd because we think he is a skilled politician. Rudd is furiously trying to spin Howard's political skill as a reason not to vote for him. People need to know where Rudd stands and if it makes a difference. They will make there decision based on that.
Paul Kelly can have as much admiration for Rudd's facade as he wants. He job as a journalist is to penetrate it on behalf of his readers. Paul please give us the facts about where each candidates stand on the issues and allow us to be awed or bored by the polical skill of either leader on our own.
He keeps saying that Howard's policy is right, but he is stubborn for sticking to this position. He keeps saying that Rudd is a me-too policy copycat and anything beyond that is glib symbolism, but praises him for doing it.
Either there is some practical point to signing kyoto of there isn't.
If you deny there is any benefit and then by praising people who sign up for politically symbolic reasons you are praising spin.
More politely you are praising political skill, but this has nothing to do with the issue at hand as as such is irrelevant to the debate.
We are not going to vote for Rudd because we think he is a skilled politician. Rudd is furiously trying to spin Howard's political skill as a reason not to vote for him. People need to know where Rudd stands and if it makes a difference. They will make there decision based on that.
Paul Kelly can have as much admiration for Rudd's facade as he wants. He job as a journalist is to penetrate it on behalf of his readers. Paul please give us the facts about where each candidates stand on the issues and allow us to be awed or bored by the polical skill of either leader on our own.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Swansong
Like a lamb to the slaughter, Swan is to debate Costello next Tuesday night on the economy, tax etc. This will be like Tyson against ... well, me in the boxing ring. I'm pretty sure it's against the Geneva Convention.
Rudd's arrogant taunt offerring to debate Costello and Howard at once has backfired nicely.
Costello ideally should have closed ranks with the PM on the worm, rather than permitting it. But given the ethics of the media in this country it was going to be used dispite his objections, so might as well not be afraid of it.
The worm is bad for 3 reasons.
Firsly, the worm, like the ABC's debate pre-amble and wrap-up is just another way of the media telling the viewer what to think, and it should be discouraged. People can make up their own minds. This is supposed to be a democracy.
Secondly, The worm is not scientific and does not necessarily indicate the mood of the general public. It is open to manipulation. The controllers can be put in the hands of anyone. These people are not necessarily are representative sample of the population. We have to take it on trust from Channel 9, the people who openly broke the trust of the broadcasting regulatory body by including the worm, to not fiddle the figures by skewing the sample. Leave the figure out and it can't be fiddled.
Thirdly, The worm's encourages, and it's results are distorted by, herd-behaviour. The worm tempts people to behave in a herd-like concensus-driven way rather than make up their minds on their own about the various issues and points raised in the debate.
The whole reason why we have secret ballot not just to protect the voter from politcal persecution, but because the results of a non-secret voting process where everyone can see how other's are voting - like the worm or a focus group - is distorted by interactions between the people. People feel intimidated if they are not part of the concensus, and chance votes because of fear. People want to get with the winning team, and chance votes because of amition. People deliberately rebel sometimes just to be different but without an invidual reason, and chance votes because of infantile posturing. All of this is herd behaviour.
The worm, like the ALP, is the enemy of individuality.
Rudd's arrogant taunt offerring to debate Costello and Howard at once has backfired nicely.
Costello ideally should have closed ranks with the PM on the worm, rather than permitting it. But given the ethics of the media in this country it was going to be used dispite his objections, so might as well not be afraid of it.
The worm is bad for 3 reasons.
Firsly, the worm, like the ABC's debate pre-amble and wrap-up is just another way of the media telling the viewer what to think, and it should be discouraged. People can make up their own minds. This is supposed to be a democracy.
Secondly, The worm is not scientific and does not necessarily indicate the mood of the general public. It is open to manipulation. The controllers can be put in the hands of anyone. These people are not necessarily are representative sample of the population. We have to take it on trust from Channel 9, the people who openly broke the trust of the broadcasting regulatory body by including the worm, to not fiddle the figures by skewing the sample. Leave the figure out and it can't be fiddled.
Thirdly, The worm's encourages, and it's results are distorted by, herd-behaviour. The worm tempts people to behave in a herd-like concensus-driven way rather than make up their minds on their own about the various issues and points raised in the debate.
The whole reason why we have secret ballot not just to protect the voter from politcal persecution, but because the results of a non-secret voting process where everyone can see how other's are voting - like the worm or a focus group - is distorted by interactions between the people. People feel intimidated if they are not part of the concensus, and chance votes because of fear. People want to get with the winning team, and chance votes because of amition. People deliberately rebel sometimes just to be different but without an invidual reason, and chance votes because of infantile posturing. All of this is herd behaviour.
The worm, like the ALP, is the enemy of individuality.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Great Job in Opposition, Rudd. Now stay there.
Something amazing has happened in Australia and the USA recently. The mobilisation of effective oppostion in politics has produced better policy from the executive by forcing them to address values issues. In the states it's the democrat controlled congress here it's the Rudd-led Labour party.
Don't get me wrong, neither head of government has changed course, and neither will they. Dubya and John are the only two conviction politicians left in the world, except for Giulianni (It's too early to say for Costello). They don't budge from what they believe. What has happenned is that both have had to articulate the best possibile values-based arguments for the direction they are heading. In addition the leaders have introspectively reviewed their principles had been able to accomodate a broader view and adopt more inclusive policy. This has brought alot of doubters onside as they finally see that Conservatives are not the bastards they thought they were.
The major upshot of this in Austalia was John Howard's reconciliation speech just over a week ago. When I saw the headline I thought 'oh no. Now is not the time to cave in to pressure from the left. Even if it does make for good policy it looks like you're running scared.' Then i read the contents of the speech in a few papers, and my jaw dropped. Howard has re-defined reconciliation. He has reconciled reconciliation with his principles by defining it to mean a one-country, one-law, responsibilities as well as rights agenda. Paul Kelly's blog in the Australian has the best take on it and i wont repeat it here.
The obvious question is why make this mea culpa now? The answer is obviously that the polls are bad and Rudd has applied major pressure on Howard by making him looking sneaky and heartless with this scare campaign. Howard had to soften his image or this mud would stick. It could be seen as a cynical stunt, and it was descibed as a deathbed repentance by Keating (Keating is the one who's policially dead. Howard is still alive and kicking). I however take Howard completely as his word, as does Kelly.
The fact is that not only is an election coming up but circumstances has changed in the electorate. What has happenned is that the NT intevention into Indigenous communities has changed the public mood and created the opportunity for Howard to meet his opponents half-way. Before now they had all the power and support and Howard could only wait for the inevitable failure of left-wing Keating-era indigenous policy.
But if Rudd has not applied the huge political pressure that he has, then Howard would not have had to embrace symbolic reconciliation, and probably would not have having repudiated it as pointless for years. But Howard has embraced it, and more than that has publically reconciled it with his long held principles. He believes in it too!
As a result all the Liberal supporters like me are alot more confortable with reconciliation. We don't see it as a guilt-trip. He is bringing about unity on the issue, thanks to the pressure of Kevin Rudd. Well done Kevin, you have helped, in an indirect way, to solve a major policy problem for this country. You could not have solved it yourself, but the pressure you applied forced it on to the agenda and the people who can solve it have done.
This caused me to form a theory. It's a bit like Plato's republic in that it draws parallels between the brain and body politic. Here goes:
Conservative politics is the drive to self-assertion of the body politic. The left-wing parties see themselves as the political conscience. For as long as they see themselves that way and try and acheive things by blaming the well-off and inducing guilt in others they must remain in the secondary role, just like the consience is subordinate to the drive to self-assertion in an human being.'s brain.
Within the brain the drive for self-preservation and self-assertion must dominate the inhibiting drive of the conscience for the health of the organism. As soon as the guilty feelings dominate the organism cannot operate with the freedom needed to survive in a competative environments. It becomes crippled by doubts. It needs to react quickly to stimuli, not hesitate. It needs to be confident to survive.
The conscience has a crucial function. It makes us consider the adverse consequences of our actions to other people. But when push comes to shove we need to do what's best for us even though it might run contrary to what others expect and want. We have to live our own lives, because if we dont someone else will take our lives over. The priority for each individual must be the health and happiniess of that individual.
The assertive drive must be the primary function in the brain, the conscience the secondary funtion. The two functions work together to help us make complex decisions, and they give us our human complexity and beauty. They are both vital, but one must dominate the other or the organism will perish and both drives along with it.
Similarly conservatives must dominate the guilt-ridden left for the health and preservation of the body politic. If the left gains acendence over the body politic the country grinds to a halt for lack of direction and confidence. The retarding forces in the community are strengthened. The community is not free grow stronger. The conservatives are necessarily biased toward assertive, direct decisions that strengthen the most successful part of the community, in order to stengthen the whole. This success gives the whole community confidence and benefits everyone, but this distribution process is by nature imperfect and unequal. The left-wing opposition plays an important role forcing the conservatives to make decisions that are complex and cater to as many divergent interest as possible. If they are at the helm they cripple the assertive drive that is fundamental to the ongoing success of the comminity.
For as long as the left see themselves as the concience of society they will help society best if they remain the in conscience's alotted secondary position.
Conclusion: Conservatives Rule!
Don't get me wrong, neither head of government has changed course, and neither will they. Dubya and John are the only two conviction politicians left in the world, except for Giulianni (It's too early to say for Costello). They don't budge from what they believe. What has happenned is that both have had to articulate the best possibile values-based arguments for the direction they are heading. In addition the leaders have introspectively reviewed their principles had been able to accomodate a broader view and adopt more inclusive policy. This has brought alot of doubters onside as they finally see that Conservatives are not the bastards they thought they were.
The major upshot of this in Austalia was John Howard's reconciliation speech just over a week ago. When I saw the headline I thought 'oh no. Now is not the time to cave in to pressure from the left. Even if it does make for good policy it looks like you're running scared.' Then i read the contents of the speech in a few papers, and my jaw dropped. Howard has re-defined reconciliation. He has reconciled reconciliation with his principles by defining it to mean a one-country, one-law, responsibilities as well as rights agenda. Paul Kelly's blog in the Australian has the best take on it and i wont repeat it here.
The obvious question is why make this mea culpa now? The answer is obviously that the polls are bad and Rudd has applied major pressure on Howard by making him looking sneaky and heartless with this scare campaign. Howard had to soften his image or this mud would stick. It could be seen as a cynical stunt, and it was descibed as a deathbed repentance by Keating (Keating is the one who's policially dead. Howard is still alive and kicking). I however take Howard completely as his word, as does Kelly.
The fact is that not only is an election coming up but circumstances has changed in the electorate. What has happenned is that the NT intevention into Indigenous communities has changed the public mood and created the opportunity for Howard to meet his opponents half-way. Before now they had all the power and support and Howard could only wait for the inevitable failure of left-wing Keating-era indigenous policy.
But if Rudd has not applied the huge political pressure that he has, then Howard would not have had to embrace symbolic reconciliation, and probably would not have having repudiated it as pointless for years. But Howard has embraced it, and more than that has publically reconciled it with his long held principles. He believes in it too!
As a result all the Liberal supporters like me are alot more confortable with reconciliation. We don't see it as a guilt-trip. He is bringing about unity on the issue, thanks to the pressure of Kevin Rudd. Well done Kevin, you have helped, in an indirect way, to solve a major policy problem for this country. You could not have solved it yourself, but the pressure you applied forced it on to the agenda and the people who can solve it have done.
This caused me to form a theory. It's a bit like Plato's republic in that it draws parallels between the brain and body politic. Here goes:
Conservative politics is the drive to self-assertion of the body politic. The left-wing parties see themselves as the political conscience. For as long as they see themselves that way and try and acheive things by blaming the well-off and inducing guilt in others they must remain in the secondary role, just like the consience is subordinate to the drive to self-assertion in an human being.'s brain.
Within the brain the drive for self-preservation and self-assertion must dominate the inhibiting drive of the conscience for the health of the organism. As soon as the guilty feelings dominate the organism cannot operate with the freedom needed to survive in a competative environments. It becomes crippled by doubts. It needs to react quickly to stimuli, not hesitate. It needs to be confident to survive.
The conscience has a crucial function. It makes us consider the adverse consequences of our actions to other people. But when push comes to shove we need to do what's best for us even though it might run contrary to what others expect and want. We have to live our own lives, because if we dont someone else will take our lives over. The priority for each individual must be the health and happiniess of that individual.
The assertive drive must be the primary function in the brain, the conscience the secondary funtion. The two functions work together to help us make complex decisions, and they give us our human complexity and beauty. They are both vital, but one must dominate the other or the organism will perish and both drives along with it.
Similarly conservatives must dominate the guilt-ridden left for the health and preservation of the body politic. If the left gains acendence over the body politic the country grinds to a halt for lack of direction and confidence. The retarding forces in the community are strengthened. The community is not free grow stronger. The conservatives are necessarily biased toward assertive, direct decisions that strengthen the most successful part of the community, in order to stengthen the whole. This success gives the whole community confidence and benefits everyone, but this distribution process is by nature imperfect and unequal. The left-wing opposition plays an important role forcing the conservatives to make decisions that are complex and cater to as many divergent interest as possible. If they are at the helm they cripple the assertive drive that is fundamental to the ongoing success of the comminity.
For as long as the left see themselves as the concience of society they will help society best if they remain the in conscience's alotted secondary position.
Conclusion: Conservatives Rule!
A Nation of Receipt-keepers
That's the Rudd Vision for Australia. Why give people their money back in a tax-break when you can give them some red tape instead? He has made all education supplies 50% tax deductable. If you want you're money back you,ll have to keep all those receipts for pencilcases and uniforms and send them all off to Kev once a year to look over. He'll check you've been looking after your kids and decide whether you deserve your money back.
Make them earn it, says Rudd. He wants to reduce all of us to subservient bean counters like him. Why not just give people their money back and trust them to spend it as they see fit the Howard/Costello way?
Increasing detail makes things easier: the double-think of the bureaucrat. Out in the real world we see perverse results of this kind of Keynesian tampering. At one fell swoop he has made all computing products 50% tax deductable. All you have to say is you are buying it for your kid. Will anyone be suprised if the cost of computers go up by the difference? He's messing with the market in a boom economy with excess wealth. The money will follow the incentives. As a result the taxpayer will be subsidising Telstra's broadband fees and second computers for homes that are already well-off.
This is the kind of middle-class welfare he attacks Howard for, just a more convoluted and misplaced version of it. This is another bit of pointless policy fluff from Rudd which reveals his lack of stomach for real reforms .
The genuinely badly-off kids dont have parents who are on-the-ball enough to take advantage of tax deductions. What those kids need is for their parents to have jobs. Howard's strong economic management and a modern IR system will make sure of that. Along with the Government's welfare crackdowns and anti-drug policies.
What really pisses me off about this tax policy is that it follows the Rudd formula to the letter : ALP Policy = Liberal Policy - substance + guilt-trip. Without Howard he would not have a policy platform, but he puts enough crappy trimming on his almost identical policy to make it look morally superior to Howard. If you scratch the surface you see it's all bullshit.
If you really want to help poor kids get laptops vote Howard. Give their parents jobs, don't give them a pissy little tax-deduction. Heck, if they are on a low-tax bracket then a 50% tax deduction is fuck all anyway. If they are on the 15% marginal rate they get back a measly 7% of what they spend. If they are not earning enough to pay tax they get SFA. This measure is all gesture and no benefit. This just boosts my point that this will benefit the well-off only. Just like we all know tax-deductablitly for child-care does.
It's cunning i'll give him that. He had to make a move fast as he was slipping behind in the polls and he's put his best guilt-inducing foot forward, but fact that he had to copy it goes to show as Costello says that they can't have had a tax policy to start with. They had a year in opposition to work one out. Like my Dad says union officials are lazy. They talk while others do the work.
The good thing, from my perspective, about this policy is that the differences, however small, have shown up the ALP's priorities. This tax policy makes a mockery of Rudd's claim to be an economic conservative. He and the ALP want to tax and spend. They are redistributionists like all socialists. They dont believe in wealth and incentives. They believe in indulging their guilty consciences with your money.
I can't believe he said that people earning more than 180K 'don't need the money now'. Who the fuck is he to say that? This all works on the assumption that a bureacrat knows better than you what your money should be spent on. This is old-world European thinking. It's 1970's stuff. It's pre-Thatcher, pre-Raegan, pre-Howard, hell it's pre-Keating and it's sure as heck pre-late 20th C western properity. We can't afford to go back to the Nanny State model. If we are going to compete in a global market and keep jobs here in Aus we can't afford to apply the breaks.
Rudd will sap the economy and throw money at his perceived social-justice priorities, but just like any other socialist approach it won't work. How many times does this have to try and fail before people see that? The reduced steam in the economy and the bureaucratic wastage will give us the wost of both worlds. What little tax revenue there is to spend will be wasted.
The tax cuts Howard and Costello promise will stimulate growth, increase workforce participation though incentives, promote enterprise and create wealth. This will fill Govt. coffers for years to come (tax is still too high even after their pretty-big cuts) and that money can be spent wisely by tough decision-makers in politics on infrastructure for transport, water, education and health.
It's a virtuous circle: more tax revenue money, better spent and without taking the economy back 30 years. That's what we'll get with Howard and Costello. It's been happening for the last 12 years. The Government is now taking it further, bedding it down, forcing this country to accept it needs to have a low-tax economy to have a future. We need consolidation right now, not a change of course.
One last word. Rudd's tax-cuts are delayed and not guaranteed. He has doubled the timeline for their introduction from 3 to 6 years (into his second term if he has one) and made them contingent on continued economic growth. That's right. He will damage growth by not cutting tax in the beginning, and once growth slows he will use that as a pretext for not cutting tax at all. This is a typical Rudd promise-that's-not-really-a-promise just like the 'vote for me and IF the States stay crap at health management and IF you vote for a referendum THEN i'll take over the hospitals. It's a con. He's trying to appear concerned but promising nothing.
The botton line is, don't trust Rudd with your money. He's a petty bureaucrat with a love for red-tape, commitees, review-boards and centralised control by pencil-pushers. He'll do more harm than good. If you really want to help poor kids get laptops vote Howard.
Vote for prosperity, not pomposity.
Make them earn it, says Rudd. He wants to reduce all of us to subservient bean counters like him. Why not just give people their money back and trust them to spend it as they see fit the Howard/Costello way?
Increasing detail makes things easier: the double-think of the bureaucrat. Out in the real world we see perverse results of this kind of Keynesian tampering. At one fell swoop he has made all computing products 50% tax deductable. All you have to say is you are buying it for your kid. Will anyone be suprised if the cost of computers go up by the difference? He's messing with the market in a boom economy with excess wealth. The money will follow the incentives. As a result the taxpayer will be subsidising Telstra's broadband fees and second computers for homes that are already well-off.
This is the kind of middle-class welfare he attacks Howard for, just a more convoluted and misplaced version of it. This is another bit of pointless policy fluff from Rudd which reveals his lack of stomach for real reforms .
The genuinely badly-off kids dont have parents who are on-the-ball enough to take advantage of tax deductions. What those kids need is for their parents to have jobs. Howard's strong economic management and a modern IR system will make sure of that. Along with the Government's welfare crackdowns and anti-drug policies.
What really pisses me off about this tax policy is that it follows the Rudd formula to the letter : ALP Policy = Liberal Policy - substance + guilt-trip. Without Howard he would not have a policy platform, but he puts enough crappy trimming on his almost identical policy to make it look morally superior to Howard. If you scratch the surface you see it's all bullshit.
If you really want to help poor kids get laptops vote Howard. Give their parents jobs, don't give them a pissy little tax-deduction. Heck, if they are on a low-tax bracket then a 50% tax deduction is fuck all anyway. If they are on the 15% marginal rate they get back a measly 7% of what they spend. If they are not earning enough to pay tax they get SFA. This measure is all gesture and no benefit. This just boosts my point that this will benefit the well-off only. Just like we all know tax-deductablitly for child-care does.
It's cunning i'll give him that. He had to make a move fast as he was slipping behind in the polls and he's put his best guilt-inducing foot forward, but fact that he had to copy it goes to show as Costello says that they can't have had a tax policy to start with. They had a year in opposition to work one out. Like my Dad says union officials are lazy. They talk while others do the work.
The good thing, from my perspective, about this policy is that the differences, however small, have shown up the ALP's priorities. This tax policy makes a mockery of Rudd's claim to be an economic conservative. He and the ALP want to tax and spend. They are redistributionists like all socialists. They dont believe in wealth and incentives. They believe in indulging their guilty consciences with your money.
I can't believe he said that people earning more than 180K 'don't need the money now'. Who the fuck is he to say that? This all works on the assumption that a bureacrat knows better than you what your money should be spent on. This is old-world European thinking. It's 1970's stuff. It's pre-Thatcher, pre-Raegan, pre-Howard, hell it's pre-Keating and it's sure as heck pre-late 20th C western properity. We can't afford to go back to the Nanny State model. If we are going to compete in a global market and keep jobs here in Aus we can't afford to apply the breaks.
Rudd will sap the economy and throw money at his perceived social-justice priorities, but just like any other socialist approach it won't work. How many times does this have to try and fail before people see that? The reduced steam in the economy and the bureaucratic wastage will give us the wost of both worlds. What little tax revenue there is to spend will be wasted.
The tax cuts Howard and Costello promise will stimulate growth, increase workforce participation though incentives, promote enterprise and create wealth. This will fill Govt. coffers for years to come (tax is still too high even after their pretty-big cuts) and that money can be spent wisely by tough decision-makers in politics on infrastructure for transport, water, education and health.
It's a virtuous circle: more tax revenue money, better spent and without taking the economy back 30 years. That's what we'll get with Howard and Costello. It's been happening for the last 12 years. The Government is now taking it further, bedding it down, forcing this country to accept it needs to have a low-tax economy to have a future. We need consolidation right now, not a change of course.
One last word. Rudd's tax-cuts are delayed and not guaranteed. He has doubled the timeline for their introduction from 3 to 6 years (into his second term if he has one) and made them contingent on continued economic growth. That's right. He will damage growth by not cutting tax in the beginning, and once growth slows he will use that as a pretext for not cutting tax at all. This is a typical Rudd promise-that's-not-really-a-promise just like the 'vote for me and IF the States stay crap at health management and IF you vote for a referendum THEN i'll take over the hospitals. It's a con. He's trying to appear concerned but promising nothing.
The botton line is, don't trust Rudd with your money. He's a petty bureaucrat with a love for red-tape, commitees, review-boards and centralised control by pencil-pushers. He'll do more harm than good. If you really want to help poor kids get laptops vote Howard.
Vote for prosperity, not pomposity.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Drunken sex in NSW ruled illegal
NSW Premier Morris Iemma thinks everyone in Australia over the age of 16 is a rape victim because we've all got drunk and had sex!!
The NSW ALP is legislating to define the nature of sexual consent because of political pressure over the lack of convictions at rape trials. The new move follows actions to prevent plaintifs in such cases from being cross-examined. It is perceived that defendents in such cases are exploiting loopholes in the law. The new definition of consent contains much that is laudible, one cannot consent to sex if one is subjected to or threatened with phycical violence, if one is detailed unlawfully, or asleep, unconcsious or drugged. That makes perfect sense to me.
But under the new law it will be impossible for you to legally consent to sex IF YOU ARE DRUNK!!!!
I didn't realise that all those times i got drunk and got laid I was not actually consenting to sex. Those women took advantage of me and although I enjoyed every minute of it I AM A VICTIM! The ALP tells me so.
I commend the desire to remove confusion in the law but what is the motivation here, to protect the rights of women or to scare the living hell out of men?
The idea that everyone, man or woman, who has sex with someone who is drunk is a rapist is madness. It's terrifying. It will cause a huge drop in the fertility rate.
This is Australia not France. We are not very good at seduction. Like the British we rely on alcohol to lubricate procedings. Ask yourself how many of your relationships have begun as drunken flings. A majority in my case, and up until the age of 26 or so when i got more confident it was 100% or thereabouts.
Sex without alcohol in Australia is inconceivable (no pun intended). Nobody will ever have sex in NSW again if Labour gets their way. Jeepers! NSW has enough wankers in it as it is.
OK. Maybe it's just a load of cobblers like the law against serving alcohol to drunk people in pubs. It's never supposed to be enforced. But what if it is enforced? The penalty is not a fine. It's a long-ass jail term.
OK. Maybe it's all about the definition of being drunk. How much is enough? If you've a had a few drinks yourself I doubt you will be able to judge the fine line between mild intoxiation and major enibriation. And why should you bear sole reponsibility? It takes two to tango.
What message do you think this gives to a Paris Hilton-type woman: young, sexually active, naive, immature, a little irresponsible and attention-seeking. The message is that it's ok for a woman to demand a jail sentence for a man of she feels guilty in the morning. She wont think twice about ruining the guy's life. She never thinks twice about anything. Not all women have good intentions and this legislation allows such women to use a cannonball to swat a fly.
Rape exists I know. No means no. I understand that. Sadly some men don't. Sometimes women get forced into unconsensual sex. That's 100% wrong and evil and illegal. I think rapists should go to jail for a long time. But what's to be gained from making every bloke who gets drunk with a woman and gets lucky feel like a rapist. This looks like an old fashioned gender-revenge agenda to me. I can't see a case like this stacking up if a man is the plaintif.
Sadly in date rape cases convictions are hard to get. There are no witnesses to the act of sexual violence. I sympathise with the victims. Refining the definition of consent so that fewer rapists get off is a good thing. This should not however absolve women from any responsibility for putting alcohol in their own mouths, even if the guy paid for it.
Women, like men, should take responsibility for their own actions. If somebody drugs you against your knowledge and (obviously) against your will then it's rape. If you put the drugs or alcohol in your own body yourself and as a consequence felt more inclined to say 'yes' then you cannot ruin a man's life because he was johnny on the spot who benefited from that.
That's not justice. That is PC Tyranny. That is what the ALP brings because it cannot control it's own guilty conscience and caves in to any pressure group that presses the right buttons.
The ALP's ethos is to encourage people to feel like victims and blame someone else. They are enacting it in the NSW parliament. They will do the same at the federal level too if you vote them in. The PC police will be back in force mark my words. If you've got any balls you better get ready to snip them off if you want to get anywhere in the labour victim-world to come.
The NSW ALP is legislating to define the nature of sexual consent because of political pressure over the lack of convictions at rape trials. The new move follows actions to prevent plaintifs in such cases from being cross-examined. It is perceived that defendents in such cases are exploiting loopholes in the law. The new definition of consent contains much that is laudible, one cannot consent to sex if one is subjected to or threatened with phycical violence, if one is detailed unlawfully, or asleep, unconcsious or drugged. That makes perfect sense to me.
But under the new law it will be impossible for you to legally consent to sex IF YOU ARE DRUNK!!!!
I didn't realise that all those times i got drunk and got laid I was not actually consenting to sex. Those women took advantage of me and although I enjoyed every minute of it I AM A VICTIM! The ALP tells me so.
I commend the desire to remove confusion in the law but what is the motivation here, to protect the rights of women or to scare the living hell out of men?
The idea that everyone, man or woman, who has sex with someone who is drunk is a rapist is madness. It's terrifying. It will cause a huge drop in the fertility rate.
This is Australia not France. We are not very good at seduction. Like the British we rely on alcohol to lubricate procedings. Ask yourself how many of your relationships have begun as drunken flings. A majority in my case, and up until the age of 26 or so when i got more confident it was 100% or thereabouts.
Sex without alcohol in Australia is inconceivable (no pun intended). Nobody will ever have sex in NSW again if Labour gets their way. Jeepers! NSW has enough wankers in it as it is.
OK. Maybe it's just a load of cobblers like the law against serving alcohol to drunk people in pubs. It's never supposed to be enforced. But what if it is enforced? The penalty is not a fine. It's a long-ass jail term.
OK. Maybe it's all about the definition of being drunk. How much is enough? If you've a had a few drinks yourself I doubt you will be able to judge the fine line between mild intoxiation and major enibriation. And why should you bear sole reponsibility? It takes two to tango.
What message do you think this gives to a Paris Hilton-type woman: young, sexually active, naive, immature, a little irresponsible and attention-seeking. The message is that it's ok for a woman to demand a jail sentence for a man of she feels guilty in the morning. She wont think twice about ruining the guy's life. She never thinks twice about anything. Not all women have good intentions and this legislation allows such women to use a cannonball to swat a fly.
Rape exists I know. No means no. I understand that. Sadly some men don't. Sometimes women get forced into unconsensual sex. That's 100% wrong and evil and illegal. I think rapists should go to jail for a long time. But what's to be gained from making every bloke who gets drunk with a woman and gets lucky feel like a rapist. This looks like an old fashioned gender-revenge agenda to me. I can't see a case like this stacking up if a man is the plaintif.
Sadly in date rape cases convictions are hard to get. There are no witnesses to the act of sexual violence. I sympathise with the victims. Refining the definition of consent so that fewer rapists get off is a good thing. This should not however absolve women from any responsibility for putting alcohol in their own mouths, even if the guy paid for it.
Women, like men, should take responsibility for their own actions. If somebody drugs you against your knowledge and (obviously) against your will then it's rape. If you put the drugs or alcohol in your own body yourself and as a consequence felt more inclined to say 'yes' then you cannot ruin a man's life because he was johnny on the spot who benefited from that.
That's not justice. That is PC Tyranny. That is what the ALP brings because it cannot control it's own guilty conscience and caves in to any pressure group that presses the right buttons.
The ALP's ethos is to encourage people to feel like victims and blame someone else. They are enacting it in the NSW parliament. They will do the same at the federal level too if you vote them in. The PC police will be back in force mark my words. If you've got any balls you better get ready to snip them off if you want to get anywhere in the labour victim-world to come.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
OK so I'm naive compared to the PM, but Rudd still scares me
Yesterday I blogged that Rudd's backflip on the death penalty for terrorists was scary because he said was re-educating his staff to fall in line. I still think that's scary but it's not the main problem that this u-turn exposed, as the PM pointed out.
Johnny said that for Kevin to put the responsibility on his Foreign affairs spokesman and his staffers for Labour Party policy is the sort of buck-passing and blame-game tactics that he keeps trying to pin on the Liberals. It's just another example of hypocrisy and of weak leadership.
Rudd approves all ALP policy, he's the boss, he should carry the can for it. I fell for Rudd's line that the other people were responsible. Johnny didn't.
That's why he's the PM and I'm not.
It was classic Rudd 'nuance' to deflect attention from a policy that is insensitive to terror victims, by claiming that it was the timing of the announcement that was the insensitive. He's too smart by half. He even confused Kerry O'Brien last night, the silk who does the 7:30 reports. I too was bamboozeled by Rudd's gymnastic stonewalling. It was quite a feat for him to support his own policy and somehow not support announcing it, but he managed. Somehow I dont think Joe Public is going to get the subtlety.
As we see in The Age today. On the front page writ large is the impression that Lefty Joe Public got. The headline read something about another me-too-u-turn, illustrated by a big picture of Rudd looking sneaky and two quotes from Rudd: one 5 days ago against the death penalty in Asia and yesterday's repudiation of that quote. The Age is going a better job of showing up Rudd's hypocrisy than the PM! They must have figured this out because now this article is no where to be seen on homepage of The Age's website.
Rudd has miscalculated in taking the lefty vote for granted. He's pushing them towards the greens with his attempts to woo the meat-eaters. But he's not getting that right either. Rudd's most hard-line quote yesterday was that ALP policy was to "hunt terrorists down and put them in jail, where they should rot for the term of their natural lives and be carried out in a pine box". He was trying to sound butch and nearly pulled it off, but not quite.
He didn't go far enough. Why wait for nature to take its course? Why not top the bastards now? Same result. He wants them to die but does not want to pull the trigger. What a gutless wonder.
My policy would be exactly the same that of Maliki the Iraqi PM, that is we should "hunt terrorists down and kill them." kaput. end-of. If we meet them on the battlefield kill them then and there, or if the throw down their guns and we capture them we should charge them, put them on trial, convict them, and then kill them.
I support the death penalty for mass murderers like Bin Laden, Saddam and the Bali Bombers. My guess is so do most people in the world, not just Australia.
Both the policy of opposing the death penalty for terrorists and announcing it 3 days before the anniversary of the Bali bombings will be disaggreable, if not offensive, to most Australians. Both show that the ALP cares more about lefty ideals than they do about Australian lives lost. The 360 degree u-turn on policy executed Mr Rudd shows that he cares more about getting into power then telling you the truth about what he thinks and what he will do once he gets there.
Johnny said that for Kevin to put the responsibility on his Foreign affairs spokesman and his staffers for Labour Party policy is the sort of buck-passing and blame-game tactics that he keeps trying to pin on the Liberals. It's just another example of hypocrisy and of weak leadership.
Rudd approves all ALP policy, he's the boss, he should carry the can for it. I fell for Rudd's line that the other people were responsible. Johnny didn't.
That's why he's the PM and I'm not.
It was classic Rudd 'nuance' to deflect attention from a policy that is insensitive to terror victims, by claiming that it was the timing of the announcement that was the insensitive. He's too smart by half. He even confused Kerry O'Brien last night, the silk who does the 7:30 reports. I too was bamboozeled by Rudd's gymnastic stonewalling. It was quite a feat for him to support his own policy and somehow not support announcing it, but he managed. Somehow I dont think Joe Public is going to get the subtlety.
As we see in The Age today. On the front page writ large is the impression that Lefty Joe Public got. The headline read something about another me-too-u-turn, illustrated by a big picture of Rudd looking sneaky and two quotes from Rudd: one 5 days ago against the death penalty in Asia and yesterday's repudiation of that quote. The Age is going a better job of showing up Rudd's hypocrisy than the PM! They must have figured this out because now this article is no where to be seen on homepage of The Age's website.
Rudd has miscalculated in taking the lefty vote for granted. He's pushing them towards the greens with his attempts to woo the meat-eaters. But he's not getting that right either. Rudd's most hard-line quote yesterday was that ALP policy was to "hunt terrorists down and put them in jail, where they should rot for the term of their natural lives and be carried out in a pine box". He was trying to sound butch and nearly pulled it off, but not quite.
He didn't go far enough. Why wait for nature to take its course? Why not top the bastards now? Same result. He wants them to die but does not want to pull the trigger. What a gutless wonder.
My policy would be exactly the same that of Maliki the Iraqi PM, that is we should "hunt terrorists down and kill them." kaput. end-of. If we meet them on the battlefield kill them then and there, or if the throw down their guns and we capture them we should charge them, put them on trial, convict them, and then kill them.
I support the death penalty for mass murderers like Bin Laden, Saddam and the Bali Bombers. My guess is so do most people in the world, not just Australia.
Both the policy of opposing the death penalty for terrorists and announcing it 3 days before the anniversary of the Bali bombings will be disaggreable, if not offensive, to most Australians. Both show that the ALP cares more about lefty ideals than they do about Australian lives lost. The 360 degree u-turn on policy executed Mr Rudd shows that he cares more about getting into power then telling you the truth about what he thinks and what he will do once he gets there.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Rudd staffer sent to Ministry of Love for Re-education
The cracks in Rudd's facade are spreading. He may masquerade as a conservative but his minions are not. In attempting to pull them on he is revealing that he, like all Laborites, are Stalinists at heart. He must have control by any means necessary.
First, the Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesman makes a speech pleading for the lives of terrorists only 3 days before the anniversary of the Bali bombings.
Rudd quite rightly repudiates the speach the following morning especially denouncing the timing as 'insensitive'. Now that's understatement.
He also says that staffer in his office who scrutinised the speech but missed these majorly offensive items is currently being 'councelled'.
What did I tell ya?!! Rudd believes everyone can and should be re-educated to adopt his line of thinking. Rudd thinks people can be forced to do things voluntarily. Oxymoron, anyone? This is classic socialist double-think. It scares the shit out of me.
The pretense is made of soothing and calming and helping a person in order to help them with some sort of affliction. That terrible disease is having your own opinion.
It is far more honest and honourable to admit that you are punishing someone for stepping out of line. That admits that differing opinions in sane people are possible and good and should resolved politically, by compromise.
But Rudd knows that it's much more effective to encourage people to stop themselves from behaving in a certain way by attaching the shameful stigma of illness or insanity to that behaviour under the pretence of helping them. It saves the effort of punishment and saves face because you don't look like a tyrant, even though behind the scenes your tyranny is perfected.
A chill runs down my spine at the thought of this man running the country. I can hear the thought police coming for me already.
Dont' scoff! Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you. They're coming for you too. They can't put you in jail (yet) but if the cultural left invades everyone's workplaces, schools and homelives they will take away your career, your friends, your sex-life and the loyalty of any children you may have. The only reason they need is that you once voted for John Howard. I remember the 90's. I'm never going back to that PC tyranny again.
Back to now. All is not lost. How is Rudd going to deal with his opposition affairs spokesman? Is he going to presume to 'counsel' him? I guess he has to. He can't allow the perception to spread further than his party disagrees with his official line on almost every issue. They are all deluded, Kevvy. Keep telling yourself that. Keep telling yourself that the magnetism of your massive sense of self-righteousness will bring them in, eventually.
Kevin Rudd should openly punish his opposition affairs spokesman with stronger words than 'insensitive'. Try 'downright disrespectful to Australian terror victims'. We need to know if Rudd can control his party for real? He needs to genuinely crack the whip against socialists in his own party and in the the union movement if he has any hope of convincing a sceptical electorate that a vote for Rudd is anything other than a step back to Australia's culturally crippled past of herd-thuggery and tall-poppy lopping at the hands of the ACTU and their allies in academia.
First, the Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesman makes a speech pleading for the lives of terrorists only 3 days before the anniversary of the Bali bombings.
Rudd quite rightly repudiates the speach the following morning especially denouncing the timing as 'insensitive'. Now that's understatement.
He also says that staffer in his office who scrutinised the speech but missed these majorly offensive items is currently being 'councelled'.
What did I tell ya?!! Rudd believes everyone can and should be re-educated to adopt his line of thinking. Rudd thinks people can be forced to do things voluntarily. Oxymoron, anyone? This is classic socialist double-think. It scares the shit out of me.
The pretense is made of soothing and calming and helping a person in order to help them with some sort of affliction. That terrible disease is having your own opinion.
It is far more honest and honourable to admit that you are punishing someone for stepping out of line. That admits that differing opinions in sane people are possible and good and should resolved politically, by compromise.
But Rudd knows that it's much more effective to encourage people to stop themselves from behaving in a certain way by attaching the shameful stigma of illness or insanity to that behaviour under the pretence of helping them. It saves the effort of punishment and saves face because you don't look like a tyrant, even though behind the scenes your tyranny is perfected.
A chill runs down my spine at the thought of this man running the country. I can hear the thought police coming for me already.
Dont' scoff! Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you. They're coming for you too. They can't put you in jail (yet) but if the cultural left invades everyone's workplaces, schools and homelives they will take away your career, your friends, your sex-life and the loyalty of any children you may have. The only reason they need is that you once voted for John Howard. I remember the 90's. I'm never going back to that PC tyranny again.
Back to now. All is not lost. How is Rudd going to deal with his opposition affairs spokesman? Is he going to presume to 'counsel' him? I guess he has to. He can't allow the perception to spread further than his party disagrees with his official line on almost every issue. They are all deluded, Kevvy. Keep telling yourself that. Keep telling yourself that the magnetism of your massive sense of self-righteousness will bring them in, eventually.
Kevin Rudd should openly punish his opposition affairs spokesman with stronger words than 'insensitive'. Try 'downright disrespectful to Australian terror victims'. We need to know if Rudd can control his party for real? He needs to genuinely crack the whip against socialists in his own party and in the the union movement if he has any hope of convincing a sceptical electorate that a vote for Rudd is anything other than a step back to Australia's culturally crippled past of herd-thuggery and tall-poppy lopping at the hands of the ACTU and their allies in academia.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Rudd: Parliament a waste of money
Rudd says the recalling of parliament within the constitutionally permitted period of time is a waste of money.
I think this indicates his instincts brilliantly. He does not like the constitutional democratic process. It just gets in his way. Tell ya what Kevvy, why dont you say you'll do away with politicians altogether, that sort of super populist nonsensical noise is right up your street. Let's replace them all with bureaucrats pushing pencils working out how the rest of us should live our lives, rather than people representing divergent interest unpeasantly disagreeing.
My Dad made great point to me that Rudd is a bureaucrat not a politician. He does not believe in different points of view. He does not believe in debate. Rudd thinks that there is one solution to every problem that can be worked out with a pencil by one guy on his own - namely Kevin Rudd.
Pollies believe solutions at a governmental level involve debate (read: negotiation) between different groups with competing interests. The job of the polly is to prioritise. To make hard choices where some people lose out, at least this time, but the community benifits as a whole. This may seem harsh, but not when you acknowledge that you can't be everything to everyone. Certain courses of actions are mutually exclusive and you must choose one. Paradoxically overuling people actually acknowledges that they disagree, it's just that their needs can't be accomodated this time. Dissent is permitted, even encouraged, just not always acted upon.
Rudd as a died-in-the-wool socialist believes that all people can and should be made to accept their fate, and dissent is immoral. Rudd and all of the left are intolerant of other idealogies. All Socialists are Stalinists. Rudd has form here. Witness the Brisbane Gulag. Thought crime will be on the statute books in Australia like in Britain if New Labor gets in. You will think good thoughts about other people all the time, or else!
Hands up who wants intellectual freedom. These rights we take for granted are by no means guaranteed in the 21st century.
I think this indicates his instincts brilliantly. He does not like the constitutional democratic process. It just gets in his way. Tell ya what Kevvy, why dont you say you'll do away with politicians altogether, that sort of super populist nonsensical noise is right up your street. Let's replace them all with bureaucrats pushing pencils working out how the rest of us should live our lives, rather than people representing divergent interest unpeasantly disagreeing.
My Dad made great point to me that Rudd is a bureaucrat not a politician. He does not believe in different points of view. He does not believe in debate. Rudd thinks that there is one solution to every problem that can be worked out with a pencil by one guy on his own - namely Kevin Rudd.
Pollies believe solutions at a governmental level involve debate (read: negotiation) between different groups with competing interests. The job of the polly is to prioritise. To make hard choices where some people lose out, at least this time, but the community benifits as a whole. This may seem harsh, but not when you acknowledge that you can't be everything to everyone. Certain courses of actions are mutually exclusive and you must choose one. Paradoxically overuling people actually acknowledges that they disagree, it's just that their needs can't be accomodated this time. Dissent is permitted, even encouraged, just not always acted upon.
Rudd as a died-in-the-wool socialist believes that all people can and should be made to accept their fate, and dissent is immoral. Rudd and all of the left are intolerant of other idealogies. All Socialists are Stalinists. Rudd has form here. Witness the Brisbane Gulag. Thought crime will be on the statute books in Australia like in Britain if New Labor gets in. You will think good thoughts about other people all the time, or else!
Hands up who wants intellectual freedom. These rights we take for granted are by no means guaranteed in the 21st century.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
S'pose I should say something about Gunns
No not firearms. The pulp mill in Tassie. Y'know. That big one with effluent and world best proctology or whatever. Oh right, so when a journo or blogger like myself says "Gunns" you don't immediately think of trees and stuff. I guess you won't have understood all the stupid headlines over the last few weeks then. Don't blame ya. I personally couldn't give a toss.
All I can say is that Malcolm Turnbull is just going to have to put the national interest ahead of his own prospects in his electorate, just like the PM. It's a perfectly noble position to take. People claim to like conviction pollies nowadays. Losing your seat for the sake of good policy sure looks good on the conviction CV.
Mal could make a good comeback, but I don't think he'll lose. I reckon most of the doctor's wives in Wentworth are Jewish. We about to see some serious shit go down in the form of an Israeli or US air-strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. This will be very devisive and the Libs are way more pro-Israel than Labour. Rudd wants to charge Ahmadenajad (sp) in some court with no jurisdiction. Howard wants to kick his butt.
The wedge is yet to come. That wedge it Terror. Or as W says, "trrr".
All I can say is that Malcolm Turnbull is just going to have to put the national interest ahead of his own prospects in his electorate, just like the PM. It's a perfectly noble position to take. People claim to like conviction pollies nowadays. Losing your seat for the sake of good policy sure looks good on the conviction CV.
Mal could make a good comeback, but I don't think he'll lose. I reckon most of the doctor's wives in Wentworth are Jewish. We about to see some serious shit go down in the form of an Israeli or US air-strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. This will be very devisive and the Libs are way more pro-Israel than Labour. Rudd wants to charge Ahmadenajad (sp) in some court with no jurisdiction. Howard wants to kick his butt.
The wedge is yet to come. That wedge it Terror. Or as W says, "trrr".
Rudd tears up the Australian Constitution
First Rudd blamed the Liberal federal government for Labor failings at the state level in health. Now he's doing it with education. The Liberals big mistake according to him is to blame the states for screwing up in areas that are clearly delineated as their responsibiltiy under the constitution.
The what?
That's right. The Australian Constitution. We've got one, but you would not think so if you listened to Rudd. He disregards and disrespects the Constitution at every turn. In doing so he shows contempt for the foresight or our forefathers like Edmund Barton who took such care in crafting the document which forms the bedrock of Australian democracy and, apart from a couple of important additions, has hardly changed at all from it's initial inception over a century ago.
Firstly he disregards elections, usurping the authority of the PM and claiming to speak for Australians at APEC when he is not the constitutionally elected representative but merely ahead in the polls. There is only one poll that indicates the will of the people, the Constitutional election. Those that respect democracy wait for the result of that poll before presuming to speak to other heads of government on our behalf.
Secondly, he disregards the length of parliamentary terms by insisting that the Govt call the election now, sorry 3 weeks ago, when the 3 year time-limit of the current parliament is not over for another month or more. Rudd has gone into righteous fury mode (just why does he think everyone but him is evil?) on this issue by saying he'll call a referendum if he wins to entrench 4 year terms in the constitution. Can anyone see the major hypocrisy here? He want's to entrench 4 year terms, 1 year longer than the current term, and yet demands the the PM call the election before the current 3 year term is up? Helloooooo!
On the bright-side I guess it shows that he has heard of the Constitution, but he has no respect for the stuff in it that's been working for 107 years here (longer back in Westminster). The flexible election date allows for the PM to call an election as a plebicite on an issue - like the GST election in '98. Then the PM called an early election and won a mandate to engage in major reform. He was able to give the people a choice then and there rather than wait 2 years for a mandate, or plough on not knowing whether he had one.
Rudd's official motivation for the 4-year terms is that it's supposed to stop the government running adds in a phoney campaign. How would a fixed term stop govt advertising exactly? They can do it at any point in their term, and should if the opposition is running an add campaign to mislead the public. Might i remind Rudd that the phoney campaign started when he became leader a year ago with him parading his ugly mug around the media.
Soon the Rudd will demand a one-person tango.
Thirdly on State's rights, areas of commonwealth responsibility, like defense, are clearly oulined in the constitution. All other areas of responsibility fall to the states. Health and education are two of these. Rudd is making concerned noises and visiting hospitals but as Health Minister Tony Abbot pointed out he is just a tourist. He he would have no direct power over the hospitals as PM unless a refendum was passed to change the constitution by a majority people of people in a majority of the states. In the present situation the PM can withhold funding if certain goals are not met, but he can't operate the machinery. The States run public hospitals and public (state) schools. It's just that they run them very badly. Rudd is blaming the federal Libs but State Labor is to blame for failings at state level. Why does Rudd think that lying in this way will work? I'll answer my own question here. Because he thinks you're stupid.
Kevin Rudd thinks that Aussies can't tell the difference between state and federal issues. He thinks that he can con us into thinking that a state issue is a federal issue, and that concentrating power on health and education in the hands of federal Labor is a good idea. The people of Australia like division of power, not concentration of power in one man or one party. All of us may not fully understand that health and education are state issues not federal ones, but our healthy distrust of bureaucracy and concentrated power is demonstrated in our nationwide tendency to vote liberal federally, and labor at state level. On some instinctive level even the most politically apathetic can differentiate between state and federal politics (perhaps the more apathetic the more distrusting and the more likely to vote for a division of power.) We are smarter than know-it-all Rudd thinks, even though most of us don't speak mandarin.
If we were to credit Rudd with good intentions, against our better judgement and all good taste, we might say that it's good that Rudd wants to take responsibilty for the States and (try to) fix the problem. But is this a really good thing? Is a centralised bureacracy necessarily better at providing public services. Even if it was why should we trust federal Labor to run it any any better than state Labor? Simple, according to Rudd, he is the man. The solution shines out of his arse.
Rudd thinks that he alone can fix all the problems of the nation. Only he can pull the states on and get them to deliver. He claims to be the master of co-operative federalism. On the contrary Rudd is a master of coercion. Rudd is a bureaucratic bully. His time as a public servant in QLD demonstrates that he refuses to co-operate with anyone of a different political persuasion. So too for the ALP generally. Labor is holding the nation to ransom. They are refusing to co-operate with Howard and demanding that a federal ALP be elected, and the unions re-installed as power-brokers in return for their co-operation. Australians can sense this, they can smell it. It stinks of two-faced manipulation from Rudd and bare-faced indimidation from Labor. Is this the behaviour of a man and a party who are willing to co-operate with people of different views? Obviously not. Still, Rudd would have us believe this with his shiny spin.
I don't know if Rudd wants to face down the entrenched sectional interests in his own party. My personal belief is that Rudd does not want to rein them in. Why would he join the Labor party if he was not a socialist? If he was a real conservative surely he's be in the Liberal Party. It's a con, but let's for a second suspend disbelief of the Big Lie. The fact is that even if did want to defeat them he can't. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The unions fund the ALP and through the factions and states they get their way. All of the opposition front bench are former unions reps and for Rudd to say he hand-picked them instead of caucus is a lie. There were installed by the machinery along with him. Rudd is an opportunist who stabbed Beazley in the back at the behest of the union movement so that they could get rid of the new IR laws. There is an army of unions officials and bureaucrats with their own agendas who can't wait to get into power and get their payback. As Bob Katter Jr says, "Rudd is one, they are many".
Health and Education are the two areas of the public service bureacracy with strong union membership. Although their members do valuable work, the teachers and nurses unions are hard-left. The teachers unions in particular are famed for their ideological intolerance. Concentrating power in the hands of the ALP at federal level on health and education increase the power of these unions and stifle future debate in the public service over how best to deliver. The socialist agenda will be entrenched and next thing you know the public coffers will be emptied in the service of socialist agendas. The number of bureaucrats will increase, the GST will go up and Australians who now are able to take a privately funded path for the education and health of their families will be dragged back under the one-size-fits all yolk of socialist public service provision.
Rudd can't stop this, and I don't believe he wants to. His centralising plans are the exact opposite to what the county needs. We need fewer bureaucrats and more freedom. The division of powers enshrined in our constitution have served the Australian people well so far by stopping the creation of health and education mega-bureacracies. In countries like Britain and France the exam questions faced by school kids and the number beds set aside for intensive-care can be changed at the stroke of a bureacrat's pen without the consulation of the minister, let alone the people. In this country Rudd would have to win an election and a referendum to usurp the power he craves. Even he knows how hard this is going to be. That's why he is is showing so much contempt for the document that began and still symbolises Australia's democracy.
Oh yeah, Jeez. I nearly forgot Rudd wheezed a few weeks back that there could well be a referendum on the Monarchy if he were PM. Heck, Kevvy. Why don't ya just throw the Constitution in the bin. There's obviously not alot you want to keep so just start again. After all, Nanny knows best.
The what?
That's right. The Australian Constitution. We've got one, but you would not think so if you listened to Rudd. He disregards and disrespects the Constitution at every turn. In doing so he shows contempt for the foresight or our forefathers like Edmund Barton who took such care in crafting the document which forms the bedrock of Australian democracy and, apart from a couple of important additions, has hardly changed at all from it's initial inception over a century ago.
Firstly he disregards elections, usurping the authority of the PM and claiming to speak for Australians at APEC when he is not the constitutionally elected representative but merely ahead in the polls. There is only one poll that indicates the will of the people, the Constitutional election. Those that respect democracy wait for the result of that poll before presuming to speak to other heads of government on our behalf.
Secondly, he disregards the length of parliamentary terms by insisting that the Govt call the election now, sorry 3 weeks ago, when the 3 year time-limit of the current parliament is not over for another month or more. Rudd has gone into righteous fury mode (just why does he think everyone but him is evil?) on this issue by saying he'll call a referendum if he wins to entrench 4 year terms in the constitution. Can anyone see the major hypocrisy here? He want's to entrench 4 year terms, 1 year longer than the current term, and yet demands the the PM call the election before the current 3 year term is up? Helloooooo!
On the bright-side I guess it shows that he has heard of the Constitution, but he has no respect for the stuff in it that's been working for 107 years here (longer back in Westminster). The flexible election date allows for the PM to call an election as a plebicite on an issue - like the GST election in '98. Then the PM called an early election and won a mandate to engage in major reform. He was able to give the people a choice then and there rather than wait 2 years for a mandate, or plough on not knowing whether he had one.
Rudd's official motivation for the 4-year terms is that it's supposed to stop the government running adds in a phoney campaign. How would a fixed term stop govt advertising exactly? They can do it at any point in their term, and should if the opposition is running an add campaign to mislead the public. Might i remind Rudd that the phoney campaign started when he became leader a year ago with him parading his ugly mug around the media.
Soon the Rudd will demand a one-person tango.
Thirdly on State's rights, areas of commonwealth responsibility, like defense, are clearly oulined in the constitution. All other areas of responsibility fall to the states. Health and education are two of these. Rudd is making concerned noises and visiting hospitals but as Health Minister Tony Abbot pointed out he is just a tourist. He he would have no direct power over the hospitals as PM unless a refendum was passed to change the constitution by a majority people of people in a majority of the states. In the present situation the PM can withhold funding if certain goals are not met, but he can't operate the machinery. The States run public hospitals and public (state) schools. It's just that they run them very badly. Rudd is blaming the federal Libs but State Labor is to blame for failings at state level. Why does Rudd think that lying in this way will work? I'll answer my own question here. Because he thinks you're stupid.
Kevin Rudd thinks that Aussies can't tell the difference between state and federal issues. He thinks that he can con us into thinking that a state issue is a federal issue, and that concentrating power on health and education in the hands of federal Labor is a good idea. The people of Australia like division of power, not concentration of power in one man or one party. All of us may not fully understand that health and education are state issues not federal ones, but our healthy distrust of bureaucracy and concentrated power is demonstrated in our nationwide tendency to vote liberal federally, and labor at state level. On some instinctive level even the most politically apathetic can differentiate between state and federal politics (perhaps the more apathetic the more distrusting and the more likely to vote for a division of power.) We are smarter than know-it-all Rudd thinks, even though most of us don't speak mandarin.
If we were to credit Rudd with good intentions, against our better judgement and all good taste, we might say that it's good that Rudd wants to take responsibilty for the States and (try to) fix the problem. But is this a really good thing? Is a centralised bureacracy necessarily better at providing public services. Even if it was why should we trust federal Labor to run it any any better than state Labor? Simple, according to Rudd, he is the man. The solution shines out of his arse.
Rudd thinks that he alone can fix all the problems of the nation. Only he can pull the states on and get them to deliver. He claims to be the master of co-operative federalism. On the contrary Rudd is a master of coercion. Rudd is a bureaucratic bully. His time as a public servant in QLD demonstrates that he refuses to co-operate with anyone of a different political persuasion. So too for the ALP generally. Labor is holding the nation to ransom. They are refusing to co-operate with Howard and demanding that a federal ALP be elected, and the unions re-installed as power-brokers in return for their co-operation. Australians can sense this, they can smell it. It stinks of two-faced manipulation from Rudd and bare-faced indimidation from Labor. Is this the behaviour of a man and a party who are willing to co-operate with people of different views? Obviously not. Still, Rudd would have us believe this with his shiny spin.
I don't know if Rudd wants to face down the entrenched sectional interests in his own party. My personal belief is that Rudd does not want to rein them in. Why would he join the Labor party if he was not a socialist? If he was a real conservative surely he's be in the Liberal Party. It's a con, but let's for a second suspend disbelief of the Big Lie. The fact is that even if did want to defeat them he can't. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The unions fund the ALP and through the factions and states they get their way. All of the opposition front bench are former unions reps and for Rudd to say he hand-picked them instead of caucus is a lie. There were installed by the machinery along with him. Rudd is an opportunist who stabbed Beazley in the back at the behest of the union movement so that they could get rid of the new IR laws. There is an army of unions officials and bureaucrats with their own agendas who can't wait to get into power and get their payback. As Bob Katter Jr says, "Rudd is one, they are many".
Health and Education are the two areas of the public service bureacracy with strong union membership. Although their members do valuable work, the teachers and nurses unions are hard-left. The teachers unions in particular are famed for their ideological intolerance. Concentrating power in the hands of the ALP at federal level on health and education increase the power of these unions and stifle future debate in the public service over how best to deliver. The socialist agenda will be entrenched and next thing you know the public coffers will be emptied in the service of socialist agendas. The number of bureaucrats will increase, the GST will go up and Australians who now are able to take a privately funded path for the education and health of their families will be dragged back under the one-size-fits all yolk of socialist public service provision.
Rudd can't stop this, and I don't believe he wants to. His centralising plans are the exact opposite to what the county needs. We need fewer bureaucrats and more freedom. The division of powers enshrined in our constitution have served the Australian people well so far by stopping the creation of health and education mega-bureacracies. In countries like Britain and France the exam questions faced by school kids and the number beds set aside for intensive-care can be changed at the stroke of a bureacrat's pen without the consulation of the minister, let alone the people. In this country Rudd would have to win an election and a referendum to usurp the power he craves. Even he knows how hard this is going to be. That's why he is is showing so much contempt for the document that began and still symbolises Australia's democracy.
Oh yeah, Jeez. I nearly forgot Rudd wheezed a few weeks back that there could well be a referendum on the Monarchy if he were PM. Heck, Kevvy. Why don't ya just throw the Constitution in the bin. There's obviously not alot you want to keep so just start again. After all, Nanny knows best.
A Socialist at Sydney Uni? Who'da thunk it?
Janet Albrechsten has been doing her homework finding that the academic who wrote the Australia@Work report as about as red as you can get. In the wake of the last Howard Victory in 2004 he had a personal crisis. Let's hope he has a complete organ failure after the next one. He told a crowd of lefties in a public forum in Surry Hills (figures) at that time about how cool Mao was and a bunch of other crazy stuff.
He is now crying foul saying that people should read his report rather than attack him personally. C'mon, man. Who has time for that? Nobody except pollies and other acedemics. The broader public is entitiled to make a perfectly reasonable assessment of his aims in writing the report from other remarks he has made in public. Especially when they are so inflamatory. This guy is biased. very biased.
Good thing for us in the general public that other academics have read the report and are scathing about its conclusion that workers on AWAs earn 100 a week less than those on union collective agreements. This article in the Australian yesterday shows just how far the commie was willing to go to mislead people. He failed to take into account that AWAs are more popular in the private sector than the public, and in certain industries and job types. Basically they have concluded that cleaning staff on AWAs earn less than teachers on unions agreements - or something like that. It says nothing at all about AWAs.
AWAs and their flexibiltiy have contibuted directly to the increase in jobs in Australia because small business is the engine of jobs growth. Small-time bosses almost always work harder than their staff and they need to be able to negotiate with individual employees over the rates of pay. That's a fair go. Why should small business be forced to deal with big unions?
Every business starts out small. Every small business starts out with an idea. A culture that encourages small business is a country that encourages innovation and enterprise. The ALP/ACTU is firmly opposed to allowing people the freedom to act on their own ideas. For as long as the unions run this country it won't be worth the hassle. If you want a future of ideas, optimism and confidence Vote Liberal.
Props to Janet aswell for her recent peice on Rudd as 'girly-boy'. The more women kicking butt on the conservative front the more the phoney image of Rudd will fade.
He is now crying foul saying that people should read his report rather than attack him personally. C'mon, man. Who has time for that? Nobody except pollies and other acedemics. The broader public is entitiled to make a perfectly reasonable assessment of his aims in writing the report from other remarks he has made in public. Especially when they are so inflamatory. This guy is biased. very biased.
Good thing for us in the general public that other academics have read the report and are scathing about its conclusion that workers on AWAs earn 100 a week less than those on union collective agreements. This article in the Australian yesterday shows just how far the commie was willing to go to mislead people. He failed to take into account that AWAs are more popular in the private sector than the public, and in certain industries and job types. Basically they have concluded that cleaning staff on AWAs earn less than teachers on unions agreements - or something like that. It says nothing at all about AWAs.
AWAs and their flexibiltiy have contibuted directly to the increase in jobs in Australia because small business is the engine of jobs growth. Small-time bosses almost always work harder than their staff and they need to be able to negotiate with individual employees over the rates of pay. That's a fair go. Why should small business be forced to deal with big unions?
Every business starts out small. Every small business starts out with an idea. A culture that encourages small business is a country that encourages innovation and enterprise. The ALP/ACTU is firmly opposed to allowing people the freedom to act on their own ideas. For as long as the unions run this country it won't be worth the hassle. If you want a future of ideas, optimism and confidence Vote Liberal.
Props to Janet aswell for her recent peice on Rudd as 'girly-boy'. The more women kicking butt on the conservative front the more the phoney image of Rudd will fade.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Kerry Vs Coonan
Holy Cow! It's not often that I see Kerry O'Brien on the 7:30 report intimidated but I just watched Helen Coonan the Minister for Communications do just that. She dismissed a question out-of-hand and accused him of not knowing even the basics about broadband in such a front-foot and head-kicking way and I was almost aroused. Ooops, i should tone it down a bit as I emailed Julie Bishop to try and get her to read this blog. Nah, i'm sure she can hack it.
Well the Libs obviously read my mind. We needed to bring out some female heavy hitters as i just blogged a hour ago. As it turned out it was not Julie Bishop but Helen Coonan to take the first swing.
I just love this issue aswell, refer to my earlier blog 'Telstra tellsya howta vote' for more info. Labour is playing businiess favourites like the sleazy thugs they are. They want to help Telstra keep monopoly power and bully consumers. Just like they support big unions bashing small business.
Well the Libs obviously read my mind. We needed to bring out some female heavy hitters as i just blogged a hour ago. As it turned out it was not Julie Bishop but Helen Coonan to take the first swing.
I just love this issue aswell, refer to my earlier blog 'Telstra tellsya howta vote' for more info. Labour is playing businiess favourites like the sleazy thugs they are. They want to help Telstra keep monopoly power and bully consumers. Just like they support big unions bashing small business.
Where is Julie Bishop?
I read something in The Age yesterday, can't find it now, that was about how Julia Gillard draws a huge crowd of female admirers wherever she goes on the campaign trail. She's seen as a real go-girl amongst the fairer sex and dispite her major drawbacks from an economics/IR/commie perspective she is getting grass-roots support. Labour are able to capitalize on sisterhood factor because the Libs are allowing them a monopoly on women in the political spotlight.
The Libs don't want to look like Bullies. You can beat up Rudd, but unfortunately women attract more sympathy. There's a stark contrast between the style of Gillard and the Labour health spokesperson (forgot her name) and Abbot, Turnbull and Downer whenever they come head-to-head on the 7:30 report etc. The Libs are also starting to fight much harder, Abbot apparently almost bringing Gillard to tears on the radio over health issues last week. Ok, she has to be able to cop the heat if she's going to play with the big boys but why can't we bring in our female talent to hit back so she does not benefit from underdog sympathy? If not all the time how about some of the time? At the moments it's none of the time.
Where is Bishop? Has she really pissed someone off or what because I can't understand why she is not more prominent in the media at present? There must be other women in high-profile positions in the government aswell. I recall when Howard came to power he majorly trumped the ALP with number of female members. A blokey approach was part of the ALP's knuckle-dragging chest-beating culture back then. Now the libs are looking old-fashioned.
In my experience the people who always argue hardest for conservative social causes like excellence in education and realism in health care are women. Janet Albrechsten is hard-core conservative! Sometimes women are a bit pacifistic on the foreign affairs front i've found, but not always. Condi Rice has bigger nuts than Colon Powell and no foolin'. Women are also by far the most passionate about immigration and failure to integrate people from cultures where women are not equal.
Women are passionate about trad. conservative values issues, and can be brought on side other issues. The female vote is key to this election because of IR. Apart from nurses and teachers in the public system, i'm guessing women have historically not had as much union representation in the past as men at least in the private sector. They and are therefore less likely to be loyal to the union movement. Women are traditionally not as prominent on the factory floor they will have less sympathy for unions and the macho class-war culture that Howard is trying to dissemble. Women will be less tribal in their voting patterns, unlike blokes supporting their union or football team, and so will make up a large proportion of the swinging IR voters (and swinging voters in general in my estimation). If Rudd can spin WorkChoices as bad for our kids, as the unionists in the Melbourne street protest were trying to do, then women will vote against Howard. If Howard can dismiss these concerns with facts, play up the benefits to kids of a long-term upward trend in employment and conditions and then trump it Labour by emphasising that WorkChoices is good for meritocracy - equal pay for equal work - and against the entrenched and often sexist interests in the union movement then he will win Women voters over.
Bring the women on board and the Libs will win it. Rudd has given us a head start by going to a strip club whilst married and with a daughter in her 20's. The Libs can punch a hole in the ALP campaign by bringing out some big-gun women like Julie Bishop. Allowing Julia Gillard to be the only prominent female voice on the airwaves is a big mistake.
The Libs don't want to look like Bullies. You can beat up Rudd, but unfortunately women attract more sympathy. There's a stark contrast between the style of Gillard and the Labour health spokesperson (forgot her name) and Abbot, Turnbull and Downer whenever they come head-to-head on the 7:30 report etc. The Libs are also starting to fight much harder, Abbot apparently almost bringing Gillard to tears on the radio over health issues last week. Ok, she has to be able to cop the heat if she's going to play with the big boys but why can't we bring in our female talent to hit back so she does not benefit from underdog sympathy? If not all the time how about some of the time? At the moments it's none of the time.
Where is Bishop? Has she really pissed someone off or what because I can't understand why she is not more prominent in the media at present? There must be other women in high-profile positions in the government aswell. I recall when Howard came to power he majorly trumped the ALP with number of female members. A blokey approach was part of the ALP's knuckle-dragging chest-beating culture back then. Now the libs are looking old-fashioned.
In my experience the people who always argue hardest for conservative social causes like excellence in education and realism in health care are women. Janet Albrechsten is hard-core conservative! Sometimes women are a bit pacifistic on the foreign affairs front i've found, but not always. Condi Rice has bigger nuts than Colon Powell and no foolin'. Women are also by far the most passionate about immigration and failure to integrate people from cultures where women are not equal.
Women are passionate about trad. conservative values issues, and can be brought on side other issues. The female vote is key to this election because of IR. Apart from nurses and teachers in the public system, i'm guessing women have historically not had as much union representation in the past as men at least in the private sector. They and are therefore less likely to be loyal to the union movement. Women are traditionally not as prominent on the factory floor they will have less sympathy for unions and the macho class-war culture that Howard is trying to dissemble. Women will be less tribal in their voting patterns, unlike blokes supporting their union or football team, and so will make up a large proportion of the swinging IR voters (and swinging voters in general in my estimation). If Rudd can spin WorkChoices as bad for our kids, as the unionists in the Melbourne street protest were trying to do, then women will vote against Howard. If Howard can dismiss these concerns with facts, play up the benefits to kids of a long-term upward trend in employment and conditions and then trump it Labour by emphasising that WorkChoices is good for meritocracy - equal pay for equal work - and against the entrenched and often sexist interests in the union movement then he will win Women voters over.
Bring the women on board and the Libs will win it. Rudd has given us a head start by going to a strip club whilst married and with a daughter in her 20's. The Libs can punch a hole in the ALP campaign by bringing out some big-gun women like Julie Bishop. Allowing Julia Gillard to be the only prominent female voice on the airwaves is a big mistake.
Bennelong time, and there's a long way to go yet
The press, including Maxine McKew, have taken it upon themselves to insult the voters of Bennelong.
To suggest, as some pundits have done, that people in the PM's electorate would make a decision that fundamentally affects the future direction of this country on the basis of whether they would be inconvenienced by a by-election down the track is insulting to the people of Bennelong. Honesly, do these poll-watching pundits really think so little of people? I bet the PM doesn't.
According to the Australian he's been 'bogged down' (paraphrasing as I can't find their front page article on line) in his own seat for the last week sureing up support as Rudd has begun his faux campaign hopping around the marginals in the east. Howard will have chosen to start in Bennelong before the camaign proper and so he can focus on local concerns and maintiain the relationships that have kepts him the member there as long as ... well, forever.
Once that is done he will say to the people of Bennelong that unlike McKew, he is the elected representative of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia and he has to speak to the whole nation. The nation includes the people of Bennelong and the issues Howard will address will affect them as much as any local ones, if not more. He will be speaking to his constituents indirectly and they will listen.
Essentially Howard will have to say, "I wish I could be here more but in the interests of the Nation I will be campaigning thoughout the country. That might put me at a disadvantage at home but I would sooner the government won and I lost my seat, than I retain my seat and have my goverment lose and my work undone. I am willing to put Australia ahead of my own self-interest. Are you?" (or is it that I can see that Australias interest are aligned with my own, and by serving them i serve myself best?)
To suggest that Bennelong residents are so petty as to vote Howard out because he could not set aside enough baby kissing time in Eastwood shopping mall is indicative of the sleazy spin that poll-obsessed political admen put on everthing. They see people as a set of buttons to be pushed. Howard knows that it's the convictions that tie him to his constituents, in Bennelong and the nation as a whole. These are people with opinions and gut-feelings and the ability and desire to make their own decisions.
Why is it the Left is so insulting to the average Joe whom they claim so publically to represent?
McKew has had the nerve to suggest that Asian voters in Benelong would be more likely to vote against Howard because they 'might think they have not been made to feel as welcome as they might have been' under a coalition goverment (paraphrasing again) . My Grandparents used to live in Benelong, Eastwoodto be precise, and i've spent many weeks of my life riding a bike around this leafy 'burb. It's an aspirational Asian enclave if ever i have seen one. About half the residents are Asian and really well off. Lots of cars in the driveway. Why would they feel 'unwelcome' having led prosperous lives in a great economy in a law-abiding environment with political freedoms (unlike China). Oh yeah and did i mention state subsidised tertairy education and equal opportunities for the female kids. There are plenty of really quite hot young Asain women driving those cars in the driveway to Uni and back. Welcome folks. The more the merrier.
Why is it that The ALP thinks that everyone who is not a WASP wants to vote for them? Why do they project their own class envy onto everyone else? 'Don't you hate the Liberals and their Mercides Benzes as much as us?' they ask the Chinese entrepreneur, whose car in the driveway is more than likely a Mercedes Benz. The hard-working law-abiding elders-respecting ethos of conservative politics is WAY more in line with the values of just about every immigrant community than the ALP's values of business-bashing, criminal-sympathising, surrendering and pot-legalisation.
Oh, but wait. My lefty friends end every argument by saying that Howard is racist because he did not put the solidiers who dressed up as Klansmen for a pissup on front of the firing squad. For McKew to suggest that the Asian migrant community in Bennelong would vote against Howard because he could have made them feel 'more welcome' is to belittle them by inferring they see themselves as a downtrodden minority. It is pandering to people's baser instincts of envy and weaker instinct of seeking sympathy, rather than giving them enough credit to see themselves as fulling contribing and important community members, integrated into the fabric of a society where they are happy to live. It's not racist to insist that we obey the same laws and speak the same language. It is racist to bring all hell to pay against any white person who strays from the PC script for a second. Only white people get this scrutiny and that's mostly because we can all understand what they are sayin'.
McKew's remarks suggest the the Asian community cares more about gesture politics than results. Asian immigrants are all about getting ahead and going places. They are going to look at what's in it for them and they are going to vote for the person who can best protect the prosperity they came to this country to enjoy. They are not going to vote for a person who sucks up to the President of China by talking Mandarin. Many of these people fled China for economic and political reasons. Besides, everyone from Hong Kong, and most, or at least half, of the Chinese diaspora speak Cantonese anyway. They understand Rudd just as much as the rest of us, i.e. not at all. If you order a Steamed Pork Bun it's Char Siu Bao in any Cantonese-speaking restaurant in Australia (which they all are). If you try and order this in Beijing lord know's what you'll get. How do I know this? Because I worked for an oil company with a bloke from China and I asked them over a meal. I asked much more interesting and tuned-in questions than any timid PC lefty at my work. The Chinese guy respected me more because of my straight talking. Same goes for Howard I reckon.
To suggest, as some pundits have done, that people in the PM's electorate would make a decision that fundamentally affects the future direction of this country on the basis of whether they would be inconvenienced by a by-election down the track is insulting to the people of Bennelong. Honesly, do these poll-watching pundits really think so little of people? I bet the PM doesn't.
According to the Australian he's been 'bogged down' (paraphrasing as I can't find their front page article on line) in his own seat for the last week sureing up support as Rudd has begun his faux campaign hopping around the marginals in the east. Howard will have chosen to start in Bennelong before the camaign proper and so he can focus on local concerns and maintiain the relationships that have kepts him the member there as long as ... well, forever.
Once that is done he will say to the people of Bennelong that unlike McKew, he is the elected representative of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia and he has to speak to the whole nation. The nation includes the people of Bennelong and the issues Howard will address will affect them as much as any local ones, if not more. He will be speaking to his constituents indirectly and they will listen.
Essentially Howard will have to say, "I wish I could be here more but in the interests of the Nation I will be campaigning thoughout the country. That might put me at a disadvantage at home but I would sooner the government won and I lost my seat, than I retain my seat and have my goverment lose and my work undone. I am willing to put Australia ahead of my own self-interest. Are you?" (or is it that I can see that Australias interest are aligned with my own, and by serving them i serve myself best?)
To suggest that Bennelong residents are so petty as to vote Howard out because he could not set aside enough baby kissing time in Eastwood shopping mall is indicative of the sleazy spin that poll-obsessed political admen put on everthing. They see people as a set of buttons to be pushed. Howard knows that it's the convictions that tie him to his constituents, in Bennelong and the nation as a whole. These are people with opinions and gut-feelings and the ability and desire to make their own decisions.
Why is it the Left is so insulting to the average Joe whom they claim so publically to represent?
McKew has had the nerve to suggest that Asian voters in Benelong would be more likely to vote against Howard because they 'might think they have not been made to feel as welcome as they might have been' under a coalition goverment (paraphrasing again) . My Grandparents used to live in Benelong, Eastwoodto be precise, and i've spent many weeks of my life riding a bike around this leafy 'burb. It's an aspirational Asian enclave if ever i have seen one. About half the residents are Asian and really well off. Lots of cars in the driveway. Why would they feel 'unwelcome' having led prosperous lives in a great economy in a law-abiding environment with political freedoms (unlike China). Oh yeah and did i mention state subsidised tertairy education and equal opportunities for the female kids. There are plenty of really quite hot young Asain women driving those cars in the driveway to Uni and back. Welcome folks. The more the merrier.
Why is it that The ALP thinks that everyone who is not a WASP wants to vote for them? Why do they project their own class envy onto everyone else? 'Don't you hate the Liberals and their Mercides Benzes as much as us?' they ask the Chinese entrepreneur, whose car in the driveway is more than likely a Mercedes Benz. The hard-working law-abiding elders-respecting ethos of conservative politics is WAY more in line with the values of just about every immigrant community than the ALP's values of business-bashing, criminal-sympathising, surrendering and pot-legalisation.
Oh, but wait. My lefty friends end every argument by saying that Howard is racist because he did not put the solidiers who dressed up as Klansmen for a pissup on front of the firing squad. For McKew to suggest that the Asian migrant community in Bennelong would vote against Howard because he could have made them feel 'more welcome' is to belittle them by inferring they see themselves as a downtrodden minority. It is pandering to people's baser instincts of envy and weaker instinct of seeking sympathy, rather than giving them enough credit to see themselves as fulling contribing and important community members, integrated into the fabric of a society where they are happy to live. It's not racist to insist that we obey the same laws and speak the same language. It is racist to bring all hell to pay against any white person who strays from the PC script for a second. Only white people get this scrutiny and that's mostly because we can all understand what they are sayin'.
McKew's remarks suggest the the Asian community cares more about gesture politics than results. Asian immigrants are all about getting ahead and going places. They are going to look at what's in it for them and they are going to vote for the person who can best protect the prosperity they came to this country to enjoy. They are not going to vote for a person who sucks up to the President of China by talking Mandarin. Many of these people fled China for economic and political reasons. Besides, everyone from Hong Kong, and most, or at least half, of the Chinese diaspora speak Cantonese anyway. They understand Rudd just as much as the rest of us, i.e. not at all. If you order a Steamed Pork Bun it's Char Siu Bao in any Cantonese-speaking restaurant in Australia (which they all are). If you try and order this in Beijing lord know's what you'll get. How do I know this? Because I worked for an oil company with a bloke from China and I asked them over a meal. I asked much more interesting and tuned-in questions than any timid PC lefty at my work. The Chinese guy respected me more because of my straight talking. Same goes for Howard I reckon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)