Memo To Labor, Your Advertising Sucks

If Labor do actually get over the line this coming election it won't be thanks to their election advertising. In short, it's shit. Every time a program is interrupted by that whining housewife complaining about this, that and everything else I cringe and (for some weird reason) hope that whoever else is in the room has tuned out and isn't really paying attention.

Don't get me wrong, I think all election advertisements are shit, but while we all accept this, we can still rate them in order from the shittest to the less shit and the whining women, this year, rates as the shittest by far. She makes me pine for those glory days when Latham would appear on the screen preceding every sentence with "Labor is ready..." (and I found THAT annoying).

When they call her 'Whinging Wendy' they aren't lying. Thinking about it has put me in the awkward position of agreeing with Janet Albrechtsen today:

'The perception, however, is governments are somehow responsible for "mortgage stress" and the so-called housing affordability crisis. But let's face it. The price of continued prosperity is that many people have simply abandoned financial responsibility, racking up debt to buy bigger homes than they can afford, pumping more money into the housing market and driving prices higher.'

'It won't win you votes to say so but notions of financial restraint and thrift have been replaced with a "have it all now" mentality driven by easy access to debt. The Howard Government has only fuelled that mentality. As The Sun-Herald reported on Sunday, the Government's original first home buyers grant of $7000 is being accessed by those buying million-dollar houses. And then, when interest rates rise off the back of a booming economy, those ungrateful sods cry foul.'

When the Saturday Age runs a profile on a "typical" family previously on a combined income of 140,000 now "struggling" after the arrival of kids on just one income of 120,000 you know something is up. I found it particularly hard to sympathise with the fact that they were forced to sell the Porche for a RAV4. During a boom as large as this where most people's troubles are that they have too much I find Whinging Wendy a bit hard to swallow. Give me the dodgy profiles coupled with slamming door noises are dark music any day.

(On a side note Albrechtsen completely contradicts herself when she later attacks Clive Hamilton's criticisms of today's mentality, they're very close to her above comments)

"Me-Tooism" All Round 2

Well, well, it appears that the much hyped "me-tooism" that Rudd's consistently accused of is actually a contagious bug:

'Mr Howard announced there would be a tax rebate for education expenses, beginning with kindergarten through to the end of secondary school, covering fees, excursions, text books, tools and computer equipment.'

Me-too!!!

'The home ownership plans will involve several schemes for boosting savings, The tax-free home saver account, available from next financial year, would allow $1000 tax deductible contributions with all earnings tax free.'

Me-too!!! And let's not forget:

'Mr Howard went through a number of commitments already made: measures to combat climate change, but not at the expense of the coal industry, the proposed constitutional recognition of aboriginal people in the Constitution.'

Me-too, me-too!!! He also added this complete fallacy:

'The Prime Minister praised Peter Costello describing him as the principle architect of the economic achievement.'

"Principle architect"??? Howard's always been fond of revisionism but this is a bit much. Costello had nothing to do with the early economic reforms made by Labor, which most economists agree, were far more instrumental in the current boom, leading Howard to say in 1996:

'I inherited an economy in not bad shape, not bad shape at all.'

Nor has he any responsibility for China's immense growth which has had such an impact here. (He did give us the GST though)

But back to their sudden breakout of "me-tooism".

It leads me to wonder, who will the government copy when Rudd's not around???

The Interest Rates Rock

I'm so confused right now, and considering the amount of conflicting messages coming our way on interest rates who could blame me?

Originally the Coalition argued that it must remain in office in order for interest rates to remain at "record lows". This at least suggested that government held some control of rates through its use of "economic levers", and that these "levers" would be wrongly tweaked by a Labor government. Argument = government IS responsible for high or low interest rates. So when rates are low, the government can claim credit, and when they're high this logic suggests that the government can be blamed.

Yet now, according to Howard, this sixth rate rise since 2004 is actually not their fault, rather it's the product of a strong world economy, high oil prices and the drought. This may all be partly true but it also leaves one asking why, if it is out of their control, did they campaign that they would keep interest rates at "record lows"? Howard's denial of any responsibility for rate rises since 2004 directly contradicts the Coalition's last campaign theme. But then, Costello isn't buying it:

'The Treasurer said yesterday unemployment was at its lowest level since 1974, but this may be having an effect on inflation.'

"Because unemployment is so low and employers are in some places competing with each other to get employees, that's putting upward pressure on wages," he said.

So it is their fault now, even though the argument he's making is that the government is just too damn good for its own good, he is admitting some blame. You've got to love Costello here as he attempts to turn the rise into a positive for the government, but doesn't this acknowledgement hint at what Labor's been attacking them for all along, ignoring the skills shortage? This has to be one of the key problems for inflation these days and it is something that the government does have some responsibility for. So why did Howard bullshit us? Or was it just semi-bullshit?

With Australians in so much debt it's predictable that politicians will try to use things like interest rates to scare votes out of us. So the layers of lies concerning what's behind rate rises are products of our own making. We need to stop living out of our means, shed some of our excessive materialism and relax. Why be slaves to "things"?

The Daydreaming Australian Is In For A Big Surprise

Did everyone read today's editorial in The Australian? It's been at least three months since the anonymous twit over there has had another explosion so this one was long over due.

'THERE is the real election campaign in which a centre-left challenger is fighting to regain the middle ground from a centre-right pragmatist. And then there's the fantasy election in which a left-liberal socialist is fighting to end 11 dark years of despotic rule by a scheming far-right culture-warrior.'

It must be getting itchy over there with all the straw men they've created over the years so why they're intent on creating more is a mystery. Considering that Rudd has himself denied being a socialist I'd be very amazed if anyone on the left believed he were one. Not that he needs to deny it, when one claims to be an economic conservative one need not denounce socialism as well, it's implied. As for Howard being a culture warrior, let's call a spade a spade here. The man has stood firm against symbolic reconciliation, "black armband" history, denounced all forms of leftism and spoken out against so-called left wing bias in all areas. What the hell is a culture warrior if not Howard?

'In an essay in The Monthly, Robert Manne details the manifesto of the fantasy Labor leader.'

Robert Manne again!? The obsession continues.

"If Rudd is elected, the kind of mimetic foreign policy that followed our blank-cheque endorsement of the US in every twist and turn of policy in its war on terror, which led us into the catastrophe of Iraq, will be reversed," Manne muses.

And considering Rudd's different approach toward Iraq, I'd say that Manne muses correctly.

"If Rudd is elected, the industrial relations laws will be softened and humanised ...'

Again, Manne muses correctly.

'universities will most likely be more generously funded ... some elements of the former independence of the public service and of the former vigour of the parliament (may) be revived ... the gulf between the government and the country's creative artists will be bridged." Well dream on.'

Dream on about what exactly? And since when was "dream on" a rebuttal?

'The banal truth is that Howard's Australia was never the nightmare of the Left's imaginings and Rudd's Australia would not be the liberal utopia of its dreams.'

Itchy itchy! How can they stand it!?

'These must be dull times for the class warriors who refuse to accept that the use-by date on Das Kapital is well and truly passed. Kevin Rudd does not look like Che Guevara and, prudently for a candidate who sees popular election rather than a proletarian uprising as a route to power, he is fundamentally conservative.'

WTF!? Exactly what is this anonymous twit talking about? They must have a serious crow problem over there to need so many straw men.

'He is delivering on his promise in an interview with The Weekend Australian's Christine Jackman earlier this year to "mess with Howard's mind", but his secret has been to outflank the Prime Minister on the Right rather than attack him from the Left.'

No shit Sherlock, this guys a genius. After painting us as guerrilla fighting revolutionaries he skillfully provides us with the truth about Rudd, and what a shock it is folks.

'A sober analysis of the Howard years, however, does not support the portrayal of the Prime Minister as a culture warrior. If indeed he has been waging war against the insidious forces of liberalism entrenched in universities, public broadcasters and publishing houses, Mr Howard has lost.'

Again, what the hell constitutes a culture warrior if not Howard? He's fought on every key conservative cultural concern during his stint, and on a regular basis. And losing the "war" doesn't instantly mean that he hasn't been fighting it. Who do they think he is, the John Rambo of culture warriors?

'As Christopher Pearson wryly observes elsewhere in these columns, Australia's universities are still, in effect, 37 publicly funded leftist think tanks. No fair-minded listener of Radio National or viewer of The 7.30 Report would conclude that Mr Howard's culture offensive, real or imagined, has made any more progress at the ABC.'

These guys are nuts!!! The 7:30 Report? These new McCarthyists will obviously stop at nothing to out the "reds" in the system. For ages now they've attacked Kerry O'Brien as uneven in his interviewing, but no rational minded individual could come to any other conclusion than that O'Brien is an evenly hard interviewer. Both Labor and the Coalition cop it in his studio in even measures. Did anyone see Latham do the rounds at the last election? Geez!

'The agenda of a Rudd government is likely to be much closer to the position advocated in the editorial columns of this newspaper than the outdated, soft-left manifesto supported by our broadsheet rivals.'

ooooh! What utter bullshit! I doubt Rudd was cheering on The Oz's past editorials like, "The Coalition Of The Whining Got It Wrong", or "Psycho Left...etc (forgot the rest)". These guys are clearly worried that they may lose their poster boy culture warrior Howard, so now they're taking credit for Rudd. What else explains such a concoction of fallacies and straw men?

A Pack Of Whingers, Or The New McCarthyists?

If there's one issue of interest to today's conservative commentariat that consumes more of their time than any other it's bias, or "left-wing" bias to be more precise. They see it everywhere, on T.V, on radio, in newspapers, even in worms and it drives them nuts. Some evidence was on show this week when Andrew Bolt, Gerard Henderson and George Megalogenis got together (two aggressive conservatives and one purely economical one) on the lefty ABC (fancy that) where the first two got stuck into the worm and that champion of the left, Ray Martin:

ANDREW BOLT: That said, I suspect there's something dodgy about that worm. I accept what George said that perhaps it's measuring a voter boredom with John Howard, but for Kevin Rudd to simply draw breath and the worm goes skyrocketing upwards which literally occurred, suggests that Channel Nine wasn't quite honest in saying that this was a group of uncommitted swinging voters split right down the middle. I don't think that was the case and I think Channel Nine polluted the discussion of this debate and influenced poorly I think, the reception that that debate got.

GERARD HENDERSON: As I saw it, the worm sort of stood on its tail and gave Kevin Rudd a standing ovation even before he had started talking. I mean, this was not a group of swinging voters, unless you're talking about voters who are swinging for Kevin07. I mean this... and I think Channel Nine and those who put together the group have got some explaining to do. We don't really need lectures, unprofessional lectures from Ray Martin who is making serious allegations about the Liberal Party and the Government on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. I mean, if you went before Ray Martin and made that comment in an interview, he would ask you what your evidence is. But Ray Martin is making all these allegations about improper...

ANDREW BOLT: Hear, hear, Gerard, right on.

GERARD HENDERSON: ...about improper influence. There's no evidence of improper influence. What there is evidence from, is growing incompetence of Channel Nine, which I think a couple of years ago was the leading current affairs organisation in the country, and it's now slipping very rapidly. And if that's the best they can do, then they ought to have their act looked at. And then what then happens is when John Howard has got a very anti... a very hostile media, that kind of very unprofessional gig with the worm then runs into papers like The Age, which are hostile to the Government. 'Rudd's decisive win, 65 to 29'. Well, I thought John Howard didn't do badly.

TONY JONES: Your own main organ of record, the Sydney Morning Herald, did pretty much the same thing?

GERARD HENDERSON: No, much more professional, it didn't run that at all. have a look at the front page. I think the Sydney Morning Herald handled it well...

So what are the implications for Channel Nine now that they've upset the culture warriors? Well Bolt explains today:

'Attention, Ray: The issue at stake is not that of the right to speak, but of the right to a fair hearing. A hearing free for just a few minutes from Nine’s spin - and yours.
Nine’s disgraceful and, in my opinion, deceitful behaviour this past week also raises other issues.
Here’s one: How honest is this Left-lurching station, and how trustworthy its most famous face?'

Oh No! It seems that now Nine joins the ABC, SBS, Fairfax and countless journalists on the naughty naughty bias list.

'As the journalist-run club told the TV stations: “Clean feed of the debate to be available to all media outlets on condition live broadcast is not ‘wormed’ or otherwise changed . . .”
Why? Because the Liberals wanted viewers to be free to watch Howard (and Rudd) debate and draw their own conclusions, without some TV station first trying a stunt to manipulate opinions. '

Is Bolt serious? 'to manipulate opinions'? The most rational reason why Nine wanted a worm is because it's a commercial television station, hence why they love corny gimmicks like these to draw in the crowds. This is far from evidence of a left-wing conspiracy, it's evidence of what the ABC would be like were these guys to get their wish for it to be privatised. The conspiracy continues:

'You’d think Martin would have been pleased, given we read only last month he’d agreed to host a Labor fundraiser.'

Again, Oh No!!! A Labor fundraiser!

'It’s also true that for half the debate the Canberra journalists on the panel steered him on to topics of raging interest for Howard haters - reconciliation, global warming and Iraq - and well away from more practical concerns, such as hospitals, water and jobs for the next generation.'

Once again Oh NO!!! Those dam lefties in the panel! Who put comrade Paul Kelly there? What's alarming is how low Bolt appears to rate the Iraq war, global warming and reconciliation. "let's do away with such rubbish and get to more practical concerns" he cries.

And after all this whinging and alluding to a conspiracy of reds what in the end was the catalyst? A fucking worm. A bullshit gimmick of the sort we're all now very used to from commercial television. Their McCarthy-like behaviour has reached brand new heights all because of a little, silly, tiny worm. Of course Bolt's argument is completely overshadowed by the fact that the National Press Club pulled the feed to Channel Nine, intending for viewers screens to go black, because it had offended a political party.

A fucking worm.

Wormy Troubles

Things are definitely fishy when a channel loses it's feed of a political debate simply because it uses a worm. Conveniently for the Gov, that worm appeared to be cold on them that night:

'Nine Network news boss John Westacott has criticised the National Press Club and the ABC for "doing the bidding of the Liberal Party" when it pulled the network's election debate feed last night.

"It was a disgraceful performance," Westacott told ninemsn.
Westacott said Nine was warned twice — first by the public broadcaster's production chief and then by the Press Club's chief executive — that its live feed would be pulled if it continued using the worm, an interactive graphic that measures audience reaction to the speakers .'

'Westacott described the eventual decision to cut Nine's feed to the debate between Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition leader Kevin Rudd as "the most disgraceful act of censorship I've seen in 40 years of journalism".'

It's all a bit odd. Why should the ABC care if Nine uses the worm?

Press Club vice president Glen Milne said the political parties set the terms and conditions of the debate.
"We were chosen as the neutral venue and provider and the broadcasters, of their own free will, entered into agreements about those constraints as well," he said to the ABC.
"Now when Nine walked away from that agreement and used the worm, it breached an agreement it had with the parties, not with the National Press Club."

Concerning.

Bravo!!!

Pop quiz.

1) An adviser of which government made the following statement?:

'Jews are the source of deadly diseases such as the plague and typhus.'

2) Which president consistently denies the Holocaust and once held a convention for Holocaust denial?

3) Which president vowed to 'wipe Israel off the map.'?

Of course the government is Iran's and the president is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A more openly anti-semitic bigot you are unlikely to find as the leader of a nation, and well deserving of the charge of incitement to genocide.

The article that got me thinking about it (as I figure that I must have been OS when this subject was debated) was Dore Gold's today in The Australian:

'As the horrors of the Holocaust sank into the conscience of the newly formed UN, this resolution evolved into a binding international treaty. The resulting convention, however, was conceived to punish the crime of genocide and to prevent genocide. To accomplish this goal, article three of the convention stated that "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" was a punishable act.'

There's no doubt that Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term 'genocide' and pushed for so long for the U.N to adopt the 'genocide' convention, would've believed Ahmadinejad to be the exact kind of leader that the convention was supposed to stop. It's ridiculous that he rails against Jews in the same way Hitler did, yet continues to be treated seriously.

'Actions in Canada against Ahmadinejad are particularly interesting. Irwin Cotler, Canada's former attorney-general, undertook legal proceedings in Canada against Rwandan Hutus involved in incitement to genocide. According to Cotler, Ahmadinejad's rhetoric was "as direct and public, clear and compelling" a case of incitement to genocide as he had seen, even in comparison with the Rwandan case. He did not leave this as a rhetorical judgment alone.'

What's interesting about this in the Australian context is who raised it:

'THE debate in Australia - kick-started by Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd last month - over the applicability of the genocide convention to the threats of mass murder made by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not only welcome. It is part of a larger global movement to find effective ways of stopping Iran from carrying out its declared plan to dominate its neighbours and wipe Israel off the map.'

So "stand for nothing" Rudd (who incidentally stands for varying policies in IR, health, communication, climate change and education) took a stand against someone who is clearly tyrannical. But, as with everything else, this went over their heads also (we know who they are).

Thoughts On Rudd

Every election time it's interesting to watch commentators barrack for their chosen sides. We all know that someone like Piers Ackerman will write himself into a frenzy of anti-whoever's in charge of the Labor Party vitriol, but usually the others remain more subdued in their attacks. Of course we all know who they'll be voting for, but they generally don't preach the Coalition line as transparently as Ackerman.

Janet Albrechtsen, as we all know, just adores this government. The hardest piece she's ever had to write entailed her advising the Liberal Party to drop Howard as leader, it was a real tear jerker and I'm sure one she'll never forget. Today she seems to have read straight from Howard's speech:

'The Prime Minister is undaunted by a presidential campaign. Indeed, on the day the real election campaign began, Howard pinpointed Rudd's weakness. As he said on Sunday when announcing the November 24 election, love him or loathe him, voters have always known where the PM stands on an issue and what he believes in. During the past decade he has earned himself a reputation as a conviction politician, tackling issues unfazed by the howls of opposition from some quarters. Witness his long-time involvement in the culture wars, his sponsorship of gun controls, the introduction of the GST, Australia's involvement in the Iraq war, the intervention into indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. Each was pursued because of Howard's conviction on these issues.'

Of course this is all presented in order to highlight that we know little about Rudd's convictions which is the latest Liberal Party line.

'By contrast, Rudd risks being labelled as a craven politician of convenience. That came to the fore last week with his opportunistic rebuke of Labor's foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland for stating Labor Party policy on its opposition to the death penalty.'

'Rudd's pursuit of me-tooism also reeks of opportunism. Rudd has pitched his copycat commitments as the sign of a sensible leader who will not oppose for opposition sake.'

And on it goes. Not just in the pages of The Australian but in the Herald Sun also with Andrew Bolt:

'He also copied Howard’s policy to send troops to Afghanistan, keep training troops in Iraq, and maintain logging levels in Tasmania. He even did a me-too on Howard’s May Budget.
How much of that was sincere? Take Rudd’s most recent me-toos - on the Government’s decisions to take in fewer African refugees, approve a pulp mill and keep up funds to private schools. Was that politics or principle?'

'Here’s a more troubling example. Just before last week’s Bali bombing anniversary, Rudd ran into strife over his policy to lobby everywhere against the death penalty, even for terrorists.
He responded not only by junking his policy, but by waving a Liberal document on TV, and protesting: “The Liberal Party’s policy, like Labor’s policy, is identical.”
Identical to Howard’s? That’s all right then. But who will Rudd copy when Howard is gone?'

That last sentence is now fairly popular.

What's evidently clear here is that Rudd's strategy is driving these people mad. Howard has had many attempts at wedging Kev but he simply will not bite, and he's smart not to. Howard's past is full of these little stunts and they've nearly always worked, so it would seem that Kev has been paying close attention. Now he may not be please with some of the decisions he's had to make, but politics sometimes requires such sacrifices from those in charge of major parties. What everyone should be aware of is how far to the right Australian society has swung under Howard. A Paul Keating simply wouldn't get in now, let alone a Bob Brown.

But before the Iain Hall's of the blogosphere cry "so he's a liar then!" they should consider Howard (the conviction politician) when he's been at work in the past. Does he really now believe in AGW, or is it politically necessary for him to now accept it and act? There's simply no difference in behaviour here, the same people lambasting Rudd for recognising what's politically safe acknowledge (with some relief) that this is all Howard is doing in regards to AGW. So this provokes me to ask, so what?

Robert Manne sums it up nicely:

“I think that we will only know what the Rudd government will do in three or four years time because at the moment the Rudd government is avoiding the kind of polemical stoushes with Howard because it knows it can’t win ... when he gets into government then we’ll begin to see the differences again.”

When you read what Rudd has written in the past (his Monthly essays) you realise that this will be the most likely outcome. Does anyone seriously believe that Rudd would pull a Tampa? Does anyone seriously believe that Rudd would dream up Work Choices? Does anyone seriously think that Rudd would be as hostile to symbolic actions when addressing reconciliation? Clearly Rudd is very far from another Howard.

Five Words From Honesty

Of course this news doesn't surprise us anymore:

'UP to $61 million of taxpayers' money has been allocated by the Howard Government to promote Work Choices over the past four months in a bid to neutralise the ACTU campaign against the workplace laws.'

'A government spokeswoman would confirm only that the latest figures showed $23 million of the $61million allocated had been spent by August 8. Since then, there have been countless government ads on television and other media.'

When we all know that this is just more of our money being wasted on partisan political propaganda the Government conveniently comes just five words from admitting its crime:

'But the Government insisted the spending was necessary to rebut the ACTU "scare campaign".'........ to improve it's election chances.

What other reason could there possibly be for such a frenzied spend fest prior to an election? Where is the disgust from conservatives over this behaviour? (....crickets)

Hypocrites.

Me Tooism All Round

Today must be a painful day for Rudd's critics after Howard's announced support for symbolic reconciliation, a stance long held by Labor and consistently rejected by the conservatives champion John Howard:

The Prime Minister has overturned more than a decade of opposition to reconciliation involving symbolism, reviving the idea of a constitutional recognition of the achievements and the place of indigenous people in Australia.

"I believe we must find room in our national life to formally recognise the special status of Aboriginal (people) and Torres Strait Islanders as the first peoples of our nation," he said last night.

Ouch! There is of course good reason to feel cynical about the timing of such a turnaround, and many already do, but in the main such an announcement should be welcome. Symbolic gestures can go a long way toward putting the past behind us eternally by recognising it, then moving on, and I think Howard may have now realised this, albeit after 11 years of saying the opposite and on the eve of an election in which he faces defeat, but are there really any votes to score from it? I'm doubtful.

What will of course be fun to watch is what his barrackers will now do. Will they continue to denounce symbolism as they always have, or will they now tow Howard's line? I can't wait!

UPDATE:

I found this possibility expressed at Larvatus Prodeo very interesting:

'Howard is trying to get both Labor and the broader progressive left talking about apologies, treaties, land rights, shared sovereignty, …and scare some “cultural conservatives” who switched to Labor because of WorkChoices back into the Coalition camp. At worst for Howard, Rudd clamps down on any such talk within Labor ranks, thus sending people who care about such issues (and, perhaps, things like opposition to the death penalty) into further despair.'

Since I'm not at all convinced that his turnaround is a vote grabber I find the above, as an alternative to him being honest, far move believable.

UPDATE 2:

Some evidence of LP's theory is arising. The debate on apologies has been revived to a degree with Howard making this statement this morning:

"From my point of view and the point of view of millions of Australians, to go down the apology road, is simply to try and deal with the matter through apportionment of blame and guilt," he said.

"And impliedly at the very least, a repudiation of a history of a nation which I believe has been profoundly positive."

This is old, yet effective, ground for Howard. If he can keep this going as an issue for the entire election campaign it may indeed prove to be disastrous for Labor. And, if it grants them victory, after the dust has settled Indigenous Australian's will realise that winning was all it was about. For their sakes, and the for the harmony of the country, I hope this is wrong.

I Don't Get It

Can anyone tell me what the point is to the bizarre refugee exchange program we have struck with the U.S? I mean if refugees are fleeing persecution and wish to find sanctuary in the west what difference will it make whether that sanctuary is here or in the States? The whole thing is just confusing!!

After seventy-two Sri Lankans were deemed to be genuine refugees:

...the men will not be allowed to come to Australia and could instead be sent to the US under a controversial exchange arrangement that would involve Cuban refugees from Guantanamo Bay being resettled here in return.'

Great, how incredible spiteful Australia has become. If conservatives need any more proof of the long argued nastiness of the Howard Government here it is. I've long found our treatment of genuine refugees (because most of those who've arrived on boat have been found to be so including the vast majority of those on the Tampa) to be the most embarrassing aspect of current day Australia. The deliberate attempts to demonise them since 2001 have been transparent and appalling, they've been called everything from "que jumpers"and "illegals" to potential terrorists. But now things are just getting pathetic.

"The reduction in the number of people seeking to enter Australia unlawfully has been a direct result of the Howard Government's clear policy that persons who seek to enter Australia illegally will not be settled in Australia," Mr Andrews said.

They have no idea whether asylum seeker levels have dropped because of their "clear policy". The fact is that world asylum seeker levels declined immediately after the U.S invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, so in announcing their policy as victorious they've deliberately ignored large and important parts of the equation knowing full well that the vast majority of Australians won't bother to look up the whole truth. (I was hoping to show a graph here but I can't seem to get it working, see the above link) Nor am I certain that refugees entering Australia are actually "illegal".

The government's continuing line on asylum seekers is an echo from its 2001 election shame where it pitted Australians against desperate refugees using misinformation and smear, and it's just ridiculous that they continue to carry on in this fashion.

And So It Comes To This.

It seems that the whole unwholesome business regarding Rudd and the girly bar is one big beat-up after all. The owner of the club has come out with the "saucy" details of Rudd's "sexy" escapade:

'"I remember we got a call from I think it was the owner of the Post, or the editor of the Post, saying that he was coming in with some political figures from Australia, some bigwigs," Mr Osher recalled.

"It was only a one-time thing 'cos I remember that was the only time the editor of the Post came in.

"They came in, we took them to the Champagne Room which is on the main floor and they only stayed for about 15 minutes.

"When you walk into our club, you walk down a long corridor and you don't really know what kind of club it is until you've been inside."

"I guess when he sat down, he realised it was a strip club, and he said, 'Oh no, this won't do' and he really wanted to leave but the editor, the Post guy, he wanted to stay.

"The guy from the Post wanted to stay, not the Australian guy, he wanted to go."

Mr Osher also denied newspaper claims that Mr Rudd had to be cautioned for inappropriate behaviour.

"I saw a couple of stories about people grabbing, touching dancers - nobody in the party grabbed anybody. Nobody was thrown out of the place, they ordered a round of beers and the Australian guys acted like gentlemen.

"He didn't even have time to drink (the beer) he just said, 'Oh no, this won't do'.

"''Cos you're looking at the screen and you just see like a soccer game or a boxing match, and all of a sudden a girl's taking off her dress, and he's like 'Oh no, this won't do'."

Clearly whoever Glenn Milne got the story from, was engaging in some artistic license with the details. The big question now is where did all the bullshit surrounding this incident come from? Any thoughts?

Not the government of course.

Coalition "Weak" On Iraq

Who'd have thought that Labor would find themselves in a position to call the coalition "weak" on Iraq. But now you have it:

'LABOR has accused the Howard Government of delivering a weak and poll-motivated warning to the Iraqi regime over its failure to end sectarian violence and political deadlock.'

'Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland said yesterday John Howard's warnings, delivered to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in a letter two weeks ago, were shallow because they contained no threat of withdrawing troops from the country if Baghdad did not deliver on its promises. '

Of course the coalition have pulled a bit of an about face on this issue after sensing all of a sudden that the war may be unpopular within the electorate, and that means nasty stuff in an election year. The fabled letter sent to al-Maliki recently has left poor puffed-up Downer in a bit of a fix considering that his favourite pastime has been to lay into Labor for wanting to "cut and run":

'"What the Prime Minister's letter says, and what I said to Prime Minister Maliki, is look, you know, a number of governments have made a commitment to keep troops there and provide ongoing assistance in Iraq, but to be absolutely honest, and we know this only too well in Australia ... the public's patience is wearing pretty thin on this issue. "

From memory Alex, the public's patience was wearing thin on invasion day.

"And not that our governments are committed to just walking away from Iraq,"

Meaning, we're still tough and all that.

'but you will get people electing governments that do just want to walk away from Iraq."

Like those pussies over in Labor.

I love watching a politician wiggle.

I actually agree with what the PM's done, it's become pretty clear that more pressure needs to be applied on political figures within Iraq to settle disputes and move forward in governing the country. What I'm unsure about still is whether announcing a deadline for troop withdrawal is the best thing. I can certainly appreciate the argument in that this would apply the ultimate amount of pressure on the Iraqi government, but I can't see anything good coming from leaving Iraq to fester and I've so far not heard any predictions from those on the Left who advocate it, of what troop withdrawal may mean for Iraq's immediate security. This is, in my opinion, a large failing.

The Backlash Effect

While reading this article in The New York Times I was reminded of an essay I once wrote.

My argument at the time was that due to such large amounts of financial support, as well as weapons, given the Israeli government by America, whatever Israel does is viewed as being inseparable from what the U.S desires. So you get the situation where Israel may attack, or retaliate against, it's neighbour, and this act is inevitably connected to the U.S. Hence why during the last incursion into Lebanon it's not uncommon to hear such statements as President Ahmadinejad's:

'Britain and America, as the main associates of the Zionist regime... should answer for their crimes in Lebanon'

Of course we know that Ahmadinejad simply never misses a chance to blame everything on America, but there's reason to believe that many instantly make the same connection. Bin Laden once said:

'America will not live in peace before peace reigns in Palestine'

Their stocks in the Middle East clearly aren't as high as they think. So when they have a problem getting the candidates they back into government, such as in the Palestinian elections, and now a by-election in Lebanon, I don't think it should be at all surprising.

If I were the American President, I'd just shut up and let democracy do it's thing. Clearly the practice of openly supporting one side against the other isn't working:

“It’s the kiss of death,” said Turki al-Rasheed, a Saudi reformer who watched last Sunday’s elections closely. “The minute you are counted on or backed by the Americans, kiss it goodbye, you will never win.”