"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???

You've Got To Admit It, The Old Farts Have A Point

It's become abundantly clear these days that ministerial accountability is a thing of the past. Never do we see a minister fall for even the most obvious of wrong doings or mistakes, and we are worse for it. Thankfully two ex-PM's have spoken out in condemnation at today's decline in standards:

'IN the past two decades the constitutional principle that ministers should be held accountable for the failings of their policies or administration has been seriously undermined. No matter how grave their failings may be, ministers no longer resign.

This principle is the bedrock of responsible government. In its absence, the capacity of the parliament and the people to hold a government to account for its actions is substantially weakened.

It is 31 years since the last official inquiry regarding the principles of ministerial accountability at a federal level. That inquiry framed the doctrine for simpler times. It could not anticipate the major changes in governance that have occurred since then.

These include an enormous growth in the power of the executive, the now pivotal role of ministerial advisers, the outsourcing of many crucial government functions and the expanding influence of the lobbying industry.

The Freedom of Information Act, an important safeguard introduced in 1982, has also been undermined significantly by the practice of recent governments and restrictive interpretation by the courts.

The Canadian and British governments (of different political persuasions) have recently taken steps to strengthen ministerial accountability.

They have recognised its fundamental importance and the need to re-evaluate and fortify it so that representative democracy may function as it should.

We believe it is critical that this issue is addressed in the forthcoming national election and then acted upon by whichever party forms the new government.

We take this opportunity to urge all political parties to commit to the establishment of an independent and comprehensive review of the operation of ministerial accountability so as to modernise and strengthen it.

This is a matter that transcends party politics. It goes to the very heart of the way we are governed.'

Gough Whitlam, Sydney

Malcolm Fraser, Melbourne

Of course, off the top of my head I can easily think of a few who should have gone by now. Alexander Downer can count his lucky stars that he's part of a government which cares very little for ministerial accountability after failing to act on 20 warnings that AWB was bankrolling Saddam Hussein for example. Kevin Andrews can also consider himself charmed after the whole Haneef affair, which incidentally gets worse and worse as time goes on. And Amanda Vanstone can also praise today's decline in standards after escaping the chop when her department wrongly deported an Australian citizen and detained another due to a culture of suspicion within immigration (geez, I wonder how that grew?).

So all in all, the old farts have a point wouldn't you say?

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"?

Is The Oz Admitting Its Mistake?

In its editorial 'Reality Bites The Psychotic Left' of June 11th this year The Australian launched a scathing attack on Australia's "Left". Of particular focus were the economist Clive Hamilton and intellectual Robert Manne (the last of which the paper in question is quite obsessed with). The editorial had this to say about 'Silencing Dissent', a book edited by Hamilton and Sarah Maddison and introduced by Manne:

'This is the institute after all that believes in a vast corporate conspiracy to stall action on climate change, accuses David Jones and Myers of "corporate pedophilia" and claims that Australia is becoming an increasingly authoritarian state where dissidents are silenced.'

'This last thesis, expounded at length in Silencing Dissent published earlier this year, would seem difficult to sustain at a time when the marketplace of ideas has never been so crowded. In newspaper opinion sections and magazines and on radio and televisions and increasingly online, Australians are engaged in intelligent conversation about the issues of the day great and small. Blogs and internet chat rooms have given everyone a seat at the debating table. Technology has lowered the barriers to publishing. A host of new periodicals online and in print including The Monthly, New Matilda and The Australian's own Australian Literary Review are providing new platforms for discussion while established journals such as Quadrant and the Griffith Review are reaching new readers and providing a home for new writers.'

As I've argued before, this is a dishonest distortion of the main thesis of 'Silencing Dissent'. The book doesn't ever try to claim that people aren't allowed to express their opinions publicly, the main point of the book is that the Government has shown contempt for public debate by vigorously prosecuting whistleblowers, plugging leaks and politicising the public service and all this without a word of objection from its barrackers, until now that is.

A coalition of concerned media companies began a campaign a while back called 'Australia's Right To Know', of which News Ltd is a key supporter, and they commissioned a report to look into the state of today's freedom of information laws, the prognosis sounds familiar:

'The report's findings show how little dissent the federal Government is willing to tolerate when it comes to the unauthorised disclosure of information'

What's that you say!?

'In each of these cases, the disclosure of the information caused no damage except political embarrassment for the Government'

'Moss accuses the federal Government of harbouring a cold and calculating attitude to whistleblowers, criticising its "dogged refusal"to provide them with legal protection and a "relentless determination to track them down"'

Moss' comments appear to me as though she is actually reading straight from the pages of 'Silencing Dissent', these are two of its core criticisms after all. So where does this put The Australian's editorial position after lambasting Hamilton, Maddison and Manne for daring to say such things not 6 months earlier?

'News Limited, publisher of The Australian, long ago grew weary of the erosion of press freedom and appealed all the way to the High Court for the right to know. It lost the battle, but still fights the war. In May last year, a coalition of media organisations known as "Right to Know" -- led by News Limited and including Fairfax Media, FreeTV Australia, commercial radio, ABC, SBS, Sky News, ASTRA, West Australian Newspapers, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, AAP and APN News and Media -- funded an independent audit into media freedom.'

'The report, launched by News Limited chairman and chief executive John Hartigan yesterday, finds that journalists are struggling to gain access to court documents for no apparent reason. Sometimes, nobody in the court has any idea who is allowed access to what, and all tend to err on the side of secrecy. There is too little protection for whistleblowers, and none at all for journalists such as Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus, also of the Herald Sun, who today have criminal convictions because they refused to reveal the source of a story about planned cuts to veterans' benefits.'

'If you, as a reader, care at all for the exhausted, crumbling pillar of democracy that is a free press, demand at this election that both parties breathe life into the Freedom of Information legislation, protect whistleblowers, provide the media with a shield law so journalists can protect their sources, and open the courts to scrutiny.'

It doesn't acknowledge it and proceeds to paint itself as a pioneer on these issues. Are they admitting a mistake? Hell no!

Stormin' Norman Podhoretz At It Again

It seems that Norman Podhoretz is intent on spinning himself completely and utterly out of all relevance, as his recent debate with Fareed Zakaria has demonstrated. I'm sure that we're all familiar with Podhoretz; he's the one who had this to say about the Iraq War:

'it's an amazing success' and.. 'There were WMD (weapons of mass destruction), and they were shipped to Syria ... This picture of a country in total chaos with no security is false. It has been a triumph. It couldn't have gone better.'

And when probed about the fact that (at the time) polls were saying that 80% of Iraqis wanted the U.S out of Iraq he replied:

"I don't much care,...nobody was tortured in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo"

Now Norman is having his say on the next mission, Iran, and as you might imagine, considering how well the Iraq War has gone, he's all for an attack:

'...only one terrible choice, which is to bomb those facilities and retard their program, or even cut it off altogether, or allow them to go nuclear. US senator John McCain is right to say: "The only thing worse than bombing Iran is to allow Iran to get the bomb." '

Zakaria replies:

'Well, there is a third choice, which is the choice we have used for pretty much every other country that has developed nuclear weapons. That is deterrence. We allowed Mao Zedong to get a nuclear weapon and have used deterrence against the Chinese. We allowed the Soviet Union to get nuclear weapons and used deterrence against the Russians. We've allowed the North Koreans to get nuclear weapons and have used deterrence against them.'

Podhoretz responds in a manner that's become far too predictable for U.S foreign policy hawks:

'This attitude represents an irresponsible complacency that I think is comparable to the denial in the early 1930s of the intentions of Adolf Hitler, which led to what Winston Churchill called an unnecessary war involving millions of deaths that might have been averted if the West had acted early enough.'

The attempts at painting all opponents as potential Chamberlains has always been tempting for such Hawks, but it's a massive twist of today's reality. Saddam may have been an evil son of a bitch but he was no Hitler. Hitler, Stalin etc... were the heads of major powers in their day representing a colossal threat. Saddam and Ahmadinejad were, and are, leaders of minor powers by international standards. The threat wasn't, and isn't, even comparable to Hitler's Germany. Iraq was a basket case before it was made into a.......well.........basket case.

Of course Podhoretz makes the claim that Iran's Islamic rulers may be fanatical enough to use the bomb regardless of the repercussions:

'The reason deterrence can't work with Iran is that there's a different element involved here than was involved with Mao or Kim or Joseph Stalin, and that is religious fanaticism. With a religious fanatic such as Ahmadinejad and the "mullahcracy" ruling Iran generally, there is no assurance that the idea of self-preservation or the protection of the nation will deter them.'

Zakaria destroys this position by looking at the history:

'"If the worst came to worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain, while imperialism would be razed to the ground." This is what Mao said. And it wasn't just his words. It was his actions. He was actively aiding revolutionary movements and killing Americans all over the world. So the question about Iran's rationality rests on this: The mullahs have been in power for nearly 30 years. What have they done? Iran has followed a pretty rational, national interest-oriented foreign policy. Look at how they opposed al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, another Islamic revolutionary movement. You'd think that they would have been sympathetic, but no, the Iranians were the sworn enemies of al-Qa'ida and they helped the US depose the Taliban in Afghanistan. They've been fairly calculating, they have followed their national interest. When it has bumped up against the US, they have worked against us. When they have thought that our interests were in common, as in Afghanistan, they've worked with us.'

Iran's Ahmadinejad is a racist wanker, and the Mullahs rule is tyrannical, but Zakaria's reply above is correct which makes Podhoretz's appraisal rubbish.

The scary thing about Norman Podhoretz isn't that some still take him seriously after his comments on the Iraq invasion, it's the fact that he's a foreign policy adviser to Republican Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani. The world simply can't afford another one of these nut jobs whispering into the ears of another stupid President.

Those Poor Muslim Men

Sometimes words just speak for themselves......you know what I mean:

Attacking the appeal of modern Malaysian women, Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat - a fundamentalist Muslim cleric who controls the main opposition party and one of the country's 13 states - said provocative clothes were a form of "emotional abuse".

Clothes that are modest by Western standards were, he said, stopping the country's men getting a good night's sleep.

"We always (hear about) the abuse of children and wives in households, which is easily perceived by the eye but the emotional abuse of men cannot be seen," Mr Nik Abdul Aziz said.
"Our prayers become unfocused and our sleep is often disturbed."

So I'm a victim here! I've suffered abuse my whole life and all at the hands of evil women who dare to show their flesh.

DAMN YOU BIKINI!!!!!!

Call An Inquiry

The dirt on the Haneef affair appears to be leaking with the contents of an e-mail revealed today. The key passage of the document reads like this:

"Contingencies for containing Mr HANEEF and detaining him under the Migration Act, if it is the case he is granted bail on Monday, are in place as per arrangements today."

What an incredible revelation! So the fact that Andrews' decision to revoke Haneef's visa coincided with the magistrates decision to grant him bail actually wasn't a coincidence!

I feel so violated.