Month: November 2014

Will the Ukraine army change sides?

Ukrainian army to rise against Poroshenko and Kiev junta. 53951.jpeg

Ukrainian army to rise against Poroshenko and Kiev junta

14.11.2014

 The current situation in Ukraine resembles the calm before the storm. The Kiev authorities may soon see the armed forces of Ukraine rising against Poroshenko,  Yatsenyuk and Kolomoysky, while Novorossiya will grow as new regions may decide to join the formation. These are the ideas expressed by the head of the state construction committee of Novorossiya, the leader of “Slavic Guard” movement, Vladimir Rogov”You worked with election observers in Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics. How did the elections go?”

“We were driving observers under the auspices of the Committee of State Construction of Novorossiya. The team of international observers included representatives of the European Union and North America. There were also representatives of Kharkov, Zaporozhye and other regions of Ukraine. That is, de jure, they were international observers, but de facto they were representatives of the Ukrainian junta that occupied the territories of New Russia (Novorossiya) that will be eventually liberated.

“International observers from abroad have the purpose to monitor the elections, understand the processes. We fully understand that this is the way the world works. International observers are required to legitimize elections, electoral processes in the world. Although, when OSCE observers tried to observe the elections in the US, it led to gunfire, and they were warned that they could be shot.”

“When was that?”

“It was a couple of years ago, when there were elections in the US. One can find it on the Internet.  The US said that it did not need international election observers, even though it was the Americans who imposed the rule worldwide. My deep belief is that elections should be considered valid or invalid based on the perception of the people who live in this or that area. It is people, who elect their leaders, members of parliament, so they know it better who they are comfortable with.

“It is even more ridiculous, when the United States or the European Union announce recognition or non-recognition of elections. Note that the so-called “elections” on the occupied part of the former Ukraine, which took place in late October, were immediately recognized by the West, regardless of the fact that, for example, the CEC was guarded by armed representatives of the “Right Sector.” It did not matter to the West that there was garbage lustration conducted at those elections, when people would be thrown out like garbage. It did not matter for the West that armed men were driving from one polling station to another, forcing employees to recount results several times.”

“Is there central power in Luhansk and Donetsk republics?”

“Yes, there is, and this is what the elections showed. An observer from Canada, who previously worked at the election of the mayor of Toronto, said that the organization of the election of the mayor of Toronto was poor when compared with the elections to the Supreme Council of the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.

“It was a celebration of triumph of democracy. I did not expect such a turnout, because people are tired of war, they are tired of the lawlessness of Ukrainian punitive troops. The turnout in the so-called elections in Ukraine was less than 50%. Foreign observers posted pictures of empty polling stations in Ukraine. In the Donbass republics, lines of people would be 1-2 kilometers long.

“Now we are building the power vertical. Clearly, there’s a lot of work to be done. But the elections were organized and conducted on a high level, all worked very well.

“The Ukrainian media did their best to intimidate us with reports of imminent terrorist acts, etc. Yet, the troops of Novorossiya were put on alert. If only they had tried to do something, they would have gotten the fill out of it.

“They continued shelling us after the elections. The tragedy with children from School No. 63 said it all. The children were playing football there, because there was a good football field. They were killed.

“The independent republics of Donetsk and Luhansk are becoming the pivot, around which the mass of New Russia is building up. This is happening from Kharkov to Odessa. I’m certain that soon we will see the vast majority of the Ukrainian Armed Forces taking the side of the people in the truest sense of the word. They will turn their bayonets at the Kiev government. When they unite with the Army of New Russia, it will be a tremendous force. If this happens, it will be possible to go to Live and Lviv without any military resistance, and each region will be invited to live in peace, conscience and truth.”

Pravda.R

Brisbane: Can we please concentrate on the issues?

Brisbane: Can we please concentrate on the issues?. 53953.jpeg

There are those who would like to use the G20 Summit in Brisbane, Australia, to perpetuate a hackneyed West versus East approach, at a time when the world needs to pull together. This begins with a responsible media and competent political leaders, focusing on the issues at hand instead of chasing ghosts and sowing the seeds of conflict.

Predictably, David Cameron has used Brisbane as a stage to launch a set of snide remarks about Russia, just as the host, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, did recently with puerile remarks about wishing to “shirtfront” Russian President Vladimir Putin over the MH17 air disaster over Ukraine. In fact the entire Western leadership has adopted a hypocritical, dishonest and groundless campaign against Russia, its partner in two world wars, over a question which was prepared, cooked and served in the west: Ukraine. Why doesn’t Abbott confront the Ukrainian President, Poroshenko? Why doesn’t he ask why the Ukrainians do not reveal the content of the ATC tapes seized by the authorities, why doesn’t he ask the Ukrainian President about the alleged sighting of fighter jets trailing flight MH 17?

They tried it before in 2008, in Georgia, when Georgian troops murdered South Ossetian citizens, massed their troops on the border with Abkhazia and then ran screaming along with their magnificent NATO advisors as Russia taught them a lesson or four in soldiery.

They tried again in 2014, in Ukraine, when an illegal Putsch was launched in Kiev to topple the democratically elected President, Yanukovich. The West, of course, applauded at this travesty of democracy and then had the audacity to claim the moral high ground and start blaming Russia, accusing Moscow of undemocratic behavior when President Putin has been elected multiple times with whacking majorities and approval ratings several times higher than those of Cameron, Obama and Abbott combined.

Nothing did they say about the shots fired from the sixth floor of Hotel Ukraine in Independence Square against the pro-rebellion demonstrators, to create a cause and blame Yanukovich. Nothing did they say about the Fascist massacres in which burning bodies of Russian-speaking Ukrainians were tossed out of windows by Fascists as the crowds below looked on, applauded and cheered, as was the case at Mariupol. And this is the side backed by Abbott, his master Cameron, and their master, Obama?

 

They are quick to blame Russia for the instability in Eastern Ukraine, and to point the finger without a shred of evidence that Russia is interfering. Google these days can practically pick up a matchbox. Where are the photographs of tanks rolling across the border? There aren’t any. Maybe the BBC would like to do a copy paste job again using pics from two decades earlier and another continent?

And now we are on to the blame game perhaps Mr. Cameron and Mr. Abbott would like to comment on their own countries’ recent history of war crimes in Iraq, the country which was invaded without any justified or justifiable casus belli, the sovereign nation which was totally destabilized, whose civilian infrastructures were strafed with military hardware, whose civilians were murdered. The entire Iraq campaign culminated in the most horrific war crimes – deploying cluster bombs in civilian areas, targeting civilian homes and leaving swathes of the country dangerous through the deployment of Depleted Uranium.

The direct result of the criminal interference of the United States of America, its chief poodle, the UK, in turn its ex-colony crawling around its legs, Australia and new willing bedboy, Poland, was thousands of cases of cancer and birth defects among Iraqi children in 300 known contamination sites. The USA, the UK, Australia and Poland, in participating in the illegal invasion of Iraq, have left a radioactive legacy for decades to come.

And here they are, the West, supporting terrorists in Syria against President Assad, interfering in Ukraine, overthrowing a democratically elected Government, then supporting the side that committed massacres.

So instead of using Brisbane to launch unfounded and insolent quips against Russia, suppose the West, for once, acted with responsibility in addressing the real issues facing humankind, and not perpetuating their lies to cover up their own criminal misconduct?

The issues at Brisbane’s G20 Summit on November 15-16 are the following:

Fostering the conditions to stimulate world trade, instead of stifling it through the illegal imposition of sanctions, job creation, stimulating the global economy by 2 per cent over five years and measures to combat tax evasion, now that climate change is not on the agenda. And who was responsible for keeping it off? Three guesses.

Let us hope Brisbane is about coming together, not driving a wedge between the G8 and its diminishing sphere of influence and the BRICS, the prototype of the new model which carries the hearts and minds of humankind.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Tony Abbott: The mad Englishman ruining Australia. No evidence to say he is not a dual citizen

Tony Abbott: The mad Englishman ruining Australia. 53793.jpeg

Section 44 of Australian constitution precludes members of parliament from being a dual national. MPs must sign declarations for the Australian Electoral Commission stating that they are eligible under our constitution to stand for election to parliament.  I last wrote as a response to being labelled a birther which was a bit of a laugh for me. When I played rugby union many centuries ago, I was nicknamed Big Bertha because of my short stature, my weight, 115kg of muscle, and hippy hair half way down my back. Playing as a prop didn’t help but encouraged those with wit to call me the Big Bertha.

Since last writing I have been chasing the fabled documents which prove Tony Abbott has or has not renounced his British citizenship. The latest fiasco was a public servant working in Mr Abbotts Parliament House office promising to email details to me by yesterday evening.  I had been talking to her about the information for the last ten days or so and she assured me approval would be granted and the information released to the world. Nothing.  Peta Credlin had stopped the media staffer talking to me.  At one stage during my talks with the PMs office my home and mobile phone numbers were automatically put on hold and the only way to get through to anyone was to use Skype and not give my name. Such is modern politics and the right of people to know.

The United Kingdom had quite a large shuffle of ministers recently, I don’t know if my complaint about Mr Hague, who was then in the Foreign Office, blocking my FOI request to the Home Office had anything to do with it, but a lot of seats have changed.  The new Attorney General in the UK is the Right Honourable Jeremy Wright MP.  I have written to him to examine the documents in the Home Office which indicate if and when Mr Abbott renounced his British citizenship. I asked him to release the documents because it would be a shame for the UK to be tied up in a scandal of cover up and possible fraud.  I mentioned the last illegal Commonwealth of Nations leader would have been Idi Amin, a few Pakistan generals and maybe the Fijian military leaders of recent times.   There doesn’t seem to be a precedent for someone not eligible for parliament being elected.  Even Mussolini and Hitler were elected legally in their respective countries

Mr Wright a lot of Australian wrongs are in your hands and I do apologise for such a terrible word play.

 

Others to have received details of the possible problems with Mr Abbotts election are the Governor General, the Attorney General, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Electoral Commission.   The only one to reply has been the AEC who have reiterated they can not ask people to prove their citizenship and must rely on the prospective MPs telling the truth when they sign the AEC declaration.  The AEC can not see beyond the citizenship question and notice that the prospective MP may have lied and signed a false declarations and thereby committed fraud.  The Hon Peter Heerey AM QC is the head of the actual Australian Electoral Commission and has been asked to ascertain if a fraud may have been committed.  As a QC it is his duty to follow up any allegations of fraud and ascertain if a crime has been committed. I believe staff at eh AEC have kept my communications from him, so I wrote directly to him and to his barrister chambers. Unfortunately he is on leave until the end of the month so any response form him will be a while coming.

I can only assume the Governor General is more intent on keeping his knighthood than he is on protecting the integrity of our constitution. No response from him or his office to any queries I have made.

The AFP. By far the cleverest political decision I have seen Tony Abbott make is to house himself in the AFP academy dormitory instead of any official residence. I was drinking mates for many years with a lot of AFP from and in that academy and I know they are at best reluctant in questioning anyone living there. If a murder has happened they will jump and police actively and normally but signing a false declaration would be the least of their considerations. Believe me every cop I have ever met is brilliant in their job, but sleep with them and things become a little blurred. Things do look blurred especially from the eyes of an outsider trying to question the activities of a person sleeping in the dormitory. My complaints to the AFP were lodged via their online complaints process for reporting possible Commonwealth crimes. Since there has been no response via that method  I have emailed the new Commissioner of the AFP Andrew Colvin, but again have not had a reply. I mentioned earlier my drinking mates, their email addresses are set out in a specific format, using that format to contact Commissioner Colvin was simplicity itself.

And now we come to the Attorney General, the Hon Senator George Brandis.  George Brandis was at Oxford with Tony Abbott and as some of the few Aussies there became very close friends. Being a part of the same political party and from the same rather extreme right wing of that party, means their friendship and political ties continue unfettered.  I contacted Senator Brandis in May, July and August before my email account was hacked and all emails removed and deleted and impossible to recover.  Thankfully the Parliament House computer system will have a copy of my emails to my Queensland senator and will also show no reply at all from him or anyone in his office.  I re-contacted the senator in September after he was on ABC television proclaiming he would uphold the integrity of law in this country.  I reminded him that the constitution was part of our law and there was a possibility of a member of parliament getting into parliament after fraudulently signing a statutory declaration for the AEC. Again no reply. Totally ignored.

I have lodged a complaint with the Queensland Legal Service Commission about the good senator possibly breaching the codes of conduct and moral requirements of a Queens Council in the state of Queensland.  That matter will be examined by the Law Services Commission and they will decide in due course.

There we have it. After 12 months of looking at the dual national born in the same year as I was and a few hundred kilometres south of where I was born, I am no closer to finding out the truth about the most important man in the country. The saddest thing may be that if he is in the job illegally the war with ISIS could be a case of treason. Anyone who causes a foreign state to wage war with the Commonwealth of Australia could be guilty of treason. Those poor service personnel sent into action may be fighting for all the wrong reasons.  Air Chief Marshal Binskin has been advised of the possible conflict and asked to do all he can to legally protect his troops.

Tony Magrathea

Winter Storm Update: Scores Of Cretins Found Comatose As Meth Supply Dwindles Across The Southeast

sleeping-chinese2_1012748c

PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA-Government officials are becoming alarmed by the increasing number of citizens found sound asleep in their cars, on their lawns, and in a variety of public places around Greater Cretonia. It seems that the region’s drug users and suppliers are not immune to the paralyzing effects of Winter Storm Leon.sleep

The Bay County Sheriff’s department has reported at least 249 instances of residents found asleep in odd places in the last 24 hours alone. Thousands more have been sighted in rural areas around the southeast.

Sheriff’s department spokesman Billy Bob Scrotum spoke with CNN early this morning: “It’s crazy as hell out there. We’ve found folks asleep behind the wheel of their pickups, ATV’s, aluminum bass boats, and even on old Schwinn sleep5bicycles. We’ve found comatose junkies halfway out of their trailers and in their yards. We even found one dude curled up next to the pink flamingo beside his work shed. The neighbors said he kept asking it for a syringe before passing out. One girl fell asleep halfway from her car to the door of the CVS down on the corner of Robert E. Lee Avenue and Jeff Davis Memorial Parkway. Frankly we are at a loss for what to do here. We simply do not have enough cells to house all these nuts.” Deputy Scrotum was then called away to the site of the 6th exploding trailer of the morning.sleep2

CNN also interviewed Billy Wayne “Shakes” Snodgrass, a highly respected “chef” and founder of the ‘Two Men and a Meth Lab’ franchise so popular in rural America. “I want all of my loyal customers out there to know that help is on the way. We have set our carefully planned and organized Meth Relief Plan in motion. I have mobilized all of our dealers who own horses and mules and we will be making deliveries as soon as possible. I know the weather has made it impossible for all you amateurs to get to the drug store for supplies, but always remember we are there for you. Try to stay awake until we arrive and have your cash or stolen electronics ready. A special note for our female customers, I’m sorry but we just won’t have time to tradesleep3 powder for sex until the authorities get off their asses and clear the roads.”

Temperatures across Cretonia are expected to rise in the next few days which should make supply runs possible for suffering addicts. The only problem will be waking them up from deep comas as many of them have gone for several years without sleep of any kind.

Ebola is a public health issue yes and needs to be addressed but it’s not the issue that Malaria or Dengue Fever are globally and now in Australia

Ivory Coast Defeats Sierra Leone 5-1 In African Cup Of Nations Qualifier

bubble-soccer

THE CABIN ANTHRAX, MURPHY, N.C. (CT&P) – Sierra Leone suffered an embarrassing thrashing today when it was defeated by Ivory Coast 5-1 in an African Cup of Nations qualifying match in front of a nearly empty Felix Houphouet Boigny Stadium. Those fans brave enough to attend the match were given respirators and rubber gloves before entering the stadium.

divingsuit

The game was tied 1-1 at halftime, but Ivory Coast came roaring to life in the second half as its players became accustomed to the giant protective bubble suits the Sierra Leone players were forced to wear by the FIFA officiating crew.

“They weaved and bobbed through our defense as if we were not even there,” said Coach John Sesay. “I think it’s highly irresponsible for the people in charge of this tourney to force our guys to wear these ridiculous suits. Not everyone in Sierra Leone has Ebola, you know.”

soccer3

The Sierra Leone players managed to hold off the unencumbered Ivory Coast players in the first half by forming a giant protective ring around their goal and knocking down opposing players with their huge inflated suits. However, at halftime Ivory Coast Coach Sabri Lamouchi devised a strategy that spelled doom for the potentially infected team from Sierra Leone.

“Coach told us to form a flying wedge and charge through their bubble-wrap defense, which allowed the player with the ball to dribble along behind it and kick the ball into the goal,” said Salomon Kalou, who scored two of Ivory Coast’s four second half goals. “The change in strategy worked wonders. We kicked their bloody, contaminated asses right off the field in the second period.”

Coach Sesay told reporters that he plans on filing an official complaint with FIFA and the governing board of the tournament as soon as he gets over a slight fever and stomach ailment that started plaguing him late last week.

Abbott ?????????????????? G20 ????????????????? Putin

dave dog

British bulldog Tony: Australia’s white supremacist Prime Minister

Australia’s possible dual British citizen PM Tony Abbott today described Australia as “nothing but bush” before the arrival of the First Fleet. First Nations’ representative Natalie Cromb responds.

Australia is a focus point in international politics this week as it plays host to the 2014 G20 summit in Brisbane. International diplomats, representatives, staff, security and media have descended amidst a climate of tension and drama pertaining to Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s threats to “shirt-front” Russian President Vladamir Putin.

In this context of heightened international interest, speaking at the International Infrastructure Business Breakfast in Sydney this morning, Prime Minister Tony Abbott, in front of British Prime Minister David Cameron, took the opportunity to perpetuate the lie of terra nullius by describing Australia prior to colonisation as [IA emphasis]:

“… nothing but bush … the Marines, and the convicts and the sailors … must have thought they’d come almost to the Moon…. Everything would have seemed so extraordinarily basic and raw…”

Granted, these comments come as little surprise to the Indigenous population of this nation given he has previously credited British people with the first

“… foreign investment … [in] the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land…

and stated that

“… the First Fleet was the defining moment in the history of this continent.”

While not surprised by his comments, I am outraged.

I am outraged that a man of this unashamed racial intolerance holds the leadership position of this nation.

I am outraged that he uses this platform to manifestly attempt to rewrite history and decimate any progress made historically towards closing the gap, self-determination and reconciliation.

I am outraged that his entire platform of economic policy was based on scaremongering without any substance.

I am outraged that he so grossly underestimates the intelligence of the Australian people and that such underestimation, for a large portion of people, is well founded. How else can the fact he was elected be otherwise explained?

I realise it is facetious of me to expect the self-proclaimed “Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs” to consider the gravity of his words as they may be received by his alleged constituents — after all, a man holding the highest position in this land cannot possibly be expected to speak in a measured an accurate manner. Can he?

Of course not! He has proven time and time again that he is a simple man ‒ albeit an avid liar ‒ who has absolutely no sense of social justice. He has used his platform of leadership to decimate Australia in every capacity — socially, culturally, educationally, economically and environmentally.

Let me be clear, I do not hold Tony Abbott in high regard intellectually. I am not outraged at the views of a simple bigot.

I am outraged that we live in a country that has such an affinity with his views that he was elected into power to perpetuate his racist ideals with real policies that we, as Australians, are required to live with. These policies have real consequences and will reverberate for many years to come.

Australia is a racist country (cue gasps of horror and indignation). Are all Australians racist? No.

Let me explain.

This nation is one built on the lie that is terra nullius and the fact that there has been no meaningful attempt at reparation for the theft of an entire continent from the original inhabitants (“owners” for those of you who require capitalist terminology) demonstrates that we remain a racist nation.

At times, covert — but still racist.

Not only was an entire race of people dispossessed from their land, but they were subject to brutal massacres, slavery, disease, political policies of genocidal proportions and to deny this history and continue to benefit from it is the crux of the issue.

There is a wilful ignorance of many non-Indigenous Australians to the perspective of Indigenous Australians when it comes to discussing this history. There is a glazed look when this topic of discussion gets raised because there is no means in to empathise and there is a common misconception that Indigenous people want them to give up their homes and make claims that would directly impact them. This is not the case.

All too often you will hear discussions of this very issue and there are always comments of varying degrees of the same message:

“It was in the past…. I didn’t personally do it, it was my ancestors …. get over it …. it’s not my problem …. I can’t be held responsible for events of the past …. haven’t we moved on?”

A large part of the destruction of Indigenous culture did occur in the past, however, the destruction continues today. The current generation Australians benefit from the actions of previous generations of Australians (and British) and continued denial of this fact perpetuates the myth that the damage was done and remains in the past.

This denial of history and the effects rippling through modern Australia is the accepted perspective of a large portion of the Australian community. A portion of the community that elected a leader so blatantly racist that he uses his leadership platform to dispense with covert methods and go straight to telling anyone who will listen about British superiority and our obligation to give thanks for “creating” Australia — all the while denying the truth of the Indigenous history of this nation.

I am aware that being so blunt as to label Australia as a racist country is tantamount to setting the cat amongst the pigeons, but spare me the outrage; having lived and experienced this racism first hand, this is just plain honesty.

So while Adam Goodes (who happens to be Australian of the Year) gets lambasted for speaking the truth in relation to Australia’s sordid history, I will undoubtedly get my share of  vitriol, Tony Abbott is free to send a clear message to the world that Australia is, was and always has been a British colony (truth is irrelevant).

You can follow Natalie on Twitter @NatalieCromb.

needs an education, for starters ‘The Biggest Estate on Earth How Aboroigines

Iraqi PM removes dozens of commanders – Middle East – Al Jazeera English

Iraqi PM removes dozens of commanders – Middle East – Al Jazeera English.

The top eschelons of the Iraqi army removed. Why would that be to make way for Abbot’s advisers? For security reasons? Nobody can really be sure. Abbott hasn’t a clue. How safe is this deployment that has been accused of having been overpaid?

How we appear to others

Print Email Facebook Twitter More Prime Minister Tony Abbott describes Sydney as ‘nothing but bush’ before First Fleet arrived in 1788

Tony Abbott addresses the Sydney Institute

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has been accused of effectively declaring Australia “terra nullius” before British settlement, after remarking that Sydney was “nothing but bush” prior to the arrival of the First Fleet.

During a breakfast for British prime minister David Cameron in Sydney this morning, Mr Abbott made a speech about infrastructure and noted the “extraordinary partnership” between the two countries since the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788.

“As we look around this glorious city, as we see the extraordinary development, it’s hard to think that back in 1788 it was nothing but bush,” Mr Abbott said.

“The marines and the convicts and the sailors that straggled off those 12 ships, just a few hundred yards from where we are now, must have thought they had come almost to the moon.

“Everything would have been so strange. Everything would have seemed so extraordinarily basic and raw, and now a city which is one of the most spectacular cities on our globe.”

Kirstie Parker from the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples said the comments do tremendous damage to the relationship between the Prime Minister and Aboriginal people.

“I’d say they were a blunder except this is becoming a habit for the Prime Minister,” she said.

“On several occasions just in the last couple of months, he has made comments that have erased Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from the landscape.”

Ms Parker said it was not a case of reading too much into the remarks, or taking them out of context.

“For the Prime Minister to say there was nothing here but bush is incorrect; there were people here with sophisticated systems and societies and rules,” she said.

“We were here.”

Labor’s Indigenous affairs spokesman Shayne Neumann said Aboriginal people have a right to feel that the Prime Minister “owes them an apology and he should express regret at the form of words he used today when he was honouring his own heritage but denying theirs”.

“It’s a denial of their culture, their language, their heritage and their custom and basically it shows the Prime Minister has a sort of terra nullius type approach to the continent,” he said.

“Language counts. Words have meaning, words can be like bullets, words are symbolic.

“They drive people’s thoughts and can influence people.”

Greens Indigenous affairs spokeswoman Rachel Siewert said Mr Abbott’s comments were “another example of the Prime Minister ignoring the reality of colonisation and the peoples, flourishing culture and languages that were here at the time of European settlement”.

Mr Abbott made a point of acknowledging Indigenous history in his speech to the Parliament today as he welcomed Mr Cameron to Canberra.

“Modern Australia has an Aboriginal heritage, a British foundation and a multicultural character,” he said.

Mr Abbott also attracted criticism in August when he described the arrival of the First Fleet as the “defining moment” in Australian history.

Subsequently Mr Abbott conducted an interview with British newspaper The Telegraph during his trip to a remote Aboriginal community in Arnhem Land.

According to the report he said the arrival of British settlers on the First Fleet proved devastating for Aboriginal people.

“Initially the impact [of British settlement] was all bad, disease, dispossession, discrimination, at times wanton murder,” he said.

Another fine mess Australia’s media has gotten us into. “If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” Malcolm X

If Australia’s mainstream journalists had been financial advisors giving their clients the same standard of advice before the last election, they’d be in gaol, writes Tom Orren.

ANYONE OLD ENOUGH to remember Laurel and Hardy on Saturday afternoon TV (and no, I’m not old enough to have seen them at a Saturday Matinee) will remember a rather rotund Oliver Hardy delivering that catch-phrase after Stan Laurel had led him into some dire, but hilarious, situation:

“Well, here’s another fine mess you’ve gotten me into.”

They’ll also remember that Ollie was always a willing participant if ever there was something in it for him.

Now, you might ask:

“What’s a catch-phrase doing in a piece about politics?”

(Apart from the obvious answer.)

To which I’d respond:

“Well, I’ll tell you then…”

(You have to imagine me fiddling with the end of my tie as I say that.)

It’s because, every time I see or hear Tony Abbott, or one of his Liberal cronies on TV or radio, my skin crawls as I think back to the absolutely pathetic job done by our political media in scrutinising his policies ‒ no, his catch-phrases ‒ in the lead up to the 2013 election.

Actually, absolutely pathetic might not be anywhere near strong enough, culpable negligence may be more apt … present company excluded, of course.

The Media and the 2013 Campaign

From 2010 to 2013, almost the entire focus of the media was on Kevin Rudd stirring up trouble in order to resurrect his Prime Ministership and the rest was taken up belittling anything that the Gillard government tried to do, or giving oxygen to the catch-phrases dreamt up by ATPC (Australian Tea Party Central) for Abbott to use.

The end result was that, all the public ever saw were bad-news stories about the ALP — criticisms, questions, suggestions, allegations, stories about infighting … and catch-phrases, of course. Anything that was in the least bit negative got a run, to the almost total exclusion of any of the good it had done.

Et tu, ABC?

You’d be excused for thinking that my wrath is directed entirely at the Murdoch media ‒ Foxtel, The Daily Telegraph, The Herald Sun, The Courier Mail, The Australian, The Advertiser, the NT News, The Mercury and so on ‒ but you’d be wrong.

It’s also directed at some of our more credible networks and journalists, including; the Fairfax media, various independents and even the likes of Fran Kelly, Leigh Sales and good old Barrie Cassidy at the ABC.

The nadir of this was when the normally reputable Four Corners did a piece entitled The Comeback Kid, by Andrew (What-a-way-to-end-your-career) Fowler. This was long before a Rudd comeback looked even remotely possible. In fact, it may have even kick-started it…

I could have added former 7.30 host (as well as one-time ACT candidate for the wacky “pro-life” Osborn Independent Group) Chris Uhlmann to the above list, but he has been so vitriolic towards the ALP for so long that he doesn’t deserve a mention in the same sentence.

As for Michelle Grattan, who appears daily on Kelly’s breakfast program, I just don’t know what to think. She’s supposed to be the doyen of Australian journalism, but I don’t think I ever heard her utter a kind word about Julia Gillard throughout that entire campaign. In fact, she even flat out told her to resign at one point.

At same time, Grattan spent countless hours of airtime and rolls of newsprint time extolling the virtues of Tony Abbott’s political ability.

Negative Comment

During the 2013 election campaign, I was an avid listener to Radio National, in particular to Fran Kelly’s influential RN Breakfast program.

Over the course of about three weeks, I kept note of the negative mentions made of the ALP, the LNP and the Greens and the approximate ratio was around 150:30:2. That means Fran Kelly spent about five times longer bagging the ALP government than she did bagging the policies of the LNP (and almost none criticising the Greens), which had a predictable and inevitable effect.

But Fran Kelly wasn’t the only one. In fact, she was among the more balanced of them, because nearly every other news program in the country at the time, was getting its leads from the same place as Fran — the morning print media, which was (and still is) overwhelmingly dominated by the Murdoch Press.

Who got us into this mess?

So, was it News Corp that led our media astray and got us into our current ‘fine mess’?

It’s not enough to say that our media was tricked or led, because it should have known better. It should have set its own agenda and gone through the LNP’s policies with a fine-toothed comb.

But it didn’t.

It should have picked up the flaws in their arguments and their figures, and questioned many of their claims.

But it didn’t.

It should have driven semi-trailers through the web of fallacies that the LNP was spinning, but it didn’t do that either. And it should have done its due diligence.

But it didn’t.

In other words, if the country’s journalists had been financial advisors who gave such bad advice to their clients, they’d be in gaol.

While we (the voters) might try to blame the media by saying:

“Well, here’s another fine mess you’ve gotten us into!”

… like Ollie, we’re also partly to blame.

Because, like him, as voters, far too many of us thought that there would be something in it for us.

It’s not just Australia…

But it’s not just Australia that’s in a ‘fine mess’.

About half way through Thomas Picketty’s excellent (but excruciatingly long) book, Capital in the 21st Century, he makes the point that, for some unknown reason, income inequality is far greater in the English-speaking world (USA, UK and Australia/NZ) than anywhere else. He then leaves it for others to decide why.

Well, I think I can make an educated guess about why — the Murdoch media.

If you need any proof of that just think back to how quickly news of the immense bonuses paid to financial sector executives (using government bail-out funds) at the height of the GFC faded into insignificance so quickly, to be replaced by a crusade against Obama’s health care plan.

And then ask yourself:

“Which story was most deserving of a good old-fashioned media crusade?”

You might also reflect on how the recent U.S. Congressional elections went so badly for the Democrats and how most of the anti-Obama commentary during that campaign stemmed from the Murdoch media. This negative coverage has been so successful that even respected Australian commentators have begun labelling him a lame duck.

The media in the USA and the UK are no different to ours – literally – because they are largely run by the same man and they too have led their countries from one fine mess to another — from Iraq to ISIL, from lower taxes for the rich to greater financial system deregulation, and from small-government to anti-gun control.

In every case, the ring-leader appears to be one and the same.

Professor of political science at Sydney University in the 1970s, Henry Mayer, used to say,

“Whoever controls the media, controls what people think and therefore, who they vote for.”

That is a hell of a lot of power for any one person to wield.

Let’s face it, anyone who can get the country’s media to follow them around like an obedient dog is capable of anything, so only when that media frees itself of such control will we have any hope of getting out of the fine mess they have gotten us into.

Why are Jerusalem’s 300,000 Arabs rising up again?

By Rashid I. Khalidi

November 13, 2014

Once again, widespread popular unrest has broken out in Jerusalem. Since July, there have been clashes between young Arabs and Israeli security forces using tear gas, rubber bullets, live ammunition and truncheons.

Why are the Arab residents of Jerusalem taking to the streets?

Many feel provoked by increasing attempts by Jewish religious zealots to take over the third holiest site in Islam, the Haram al-Sharif, known to Jews as the Temple Mount.

Religious activists represented by umbrella groups like Temple Mount Organizations have openly stated that they intend to establish Jewish worship on this Muslim holy site, and to destroy its magnificent 7th century structures — the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock –and replace them with a new Jewish Temple.

Israel’s chief rabbi has lashed out at Jews attempting to pray at the site, suggesting that doing so should be “punishable by death,” as it could desecrate the ‘holy of holies’ — the place where Jews believe the arc of the covenant was once kept. Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon has also said that trips to the site by Israeli ministers and lawmakers were “provocative,” and could have a “destabilizing effect.”

Still, extremist religious Zionist parties like Habayit Hayehudi who support Jewish worship at the site are not outliers in Israeli society — they have ample representation in the Israeli government, parliament, security services and army.

Many Arabs also point to an ominous precedent. Since the 1967 war, Israel has controlled the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, which houses the Tombs of Patriarchs, a revered Jewish site. It has been a mosque continuously for nearly 14 centuries, barring an interruption during the Crusades, but Muslim worship there has been gradually restricted and parts of the mosque have been seized for exclusive Jewish worship. This step-by-step takeover only accelerated after the massacre of dozens of Muslim worshippers inside the mosque by an Israeli-American settler during Ramadan in 1994.

To understand the recent wave of violence, one has to look beyond just Haram al-Sharif, however.

Attempts to change the status quo of this unique religious site come after decades of Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem, which began in 1967. As non-Jews, Arab residents of Jerusalem are subject to overtly discriminatory laws, rules, regulations, and municipal and national spending patterns as regards building permits, education, public parks, garbage collection and every other urban amenity.

This is part of a consistent Israel policy to restrict the growth of the city’s Arab population, and to privilege and expand its Jewish component.

Jerusalem’s indigenous Arab residents have for over four and a half decades been subject to an inexorable barrage of attempts to segregate them in tightly restricted areas of the city, some of them walled and fenced off. Meanwhile, the expansion of the Jewish population into settlements all over occupied Arab East Jerusalem — which are a violation of international law — have been lavishly subsidized and supported by the Israeli state, backed by its oppressive security services.

Palestinians in Jerusalem consider themselves to be living under occupation, as does the United Nations. Even the United States voted for the 1969 UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s actions there.

The occupation is evidenced by the ubiquitous presence of heavily armed paramilitary border guards in Arab neighborhoods, the selective demolition of Arab-owned structures accused of violating building codes, the use of politically-motivated archaeological digs to take over strategic sites, and myriad other daily harassments and inconveniences.

The Palestinians of Jerusalem, who constitute 38 percent of the city’s total population, believe that Jerusalem is not governed for them or by them. They consider that it is run by the Israeli state for the exclusive benefit of its Jewish population, and with the aim of establishing complete Jewish hegemony in the city.

Before 1967, Jerusalem was divided between the Israeli-controlled West and the Jordanian controlled East. After the 1967 war, Israel annexed the entire city and remained an occupying force in East Jerusalem. Ever since then, these discriminatory Israeli policies have systematically aimed to carve the geographic and spiritual heart of Arab Palestine.

These provocations have created the conditions for a major eruption of unrest in Jerusalem, and perhaps beyond: in the rest of occupied Palestine and in the larger Arab and Islamic worlds.

The governments of the United States and European countries bear a major responsibility for leaving Jerusalemites to their fate at the hands of extremists inside and outside the Israeli government— vast sums of tax-deductible charitable donations from the United States support the settlements in East Jerusalem.

The nationalist-religious extremists at the highest levels of the Israeli government like Minister of the Economy Naftali Bennet, head of the Habayit Hayehudi Party, and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beiteinu Party, have gone out of their way to evince hostility toward Palestinians, whether citizens of Israel or residents of Jerusalem.

Bennet went on record saying that there should be “zero tolerance” for non-Jewish national identity and that Israel should prevent Jerusalem from ever becoming the capital of a future Palestinian state.

For all of these reasons, the ominous developments in and around the Haram al-Sharif are seen by Palestinians and many the world over as yet another attempt by religious zealots to rid this ancient city of its rich Arab and Muslim cultural history — which is also part of world heritage. If no one steps in to intervene, then the protesters in East Jerusalem will have no alternative to defending their dignity, and their holy places, by themselves.

Analysis: The transfer of Israeli Arabs Once again Palestinian citizens of Israel exposed the country’s lack of a meaningful democracy.

Nazareth – The killing of a 22-year-old Arab youth by Israeli police on November 7, has highlighted tensions that have been building rapidly between the Israeli authorities and the country’s 1.5 million-strong Palestinian minority.

Kheir al-Dein Hamdan’s shooting in the Galilee town of Kafr Kana, near Nazareth, sparked protests in most Palestinian communities inside Israel, in some incidents turning into violent clashes with the police.

A general strike was widely observed on November 8 and simmering anger is still bringing the youth out onto the streets at night in Kafr Kana and elsewhere.

Hamdan is one of scores of Palestinian citizens of Israel who were killed by police in unexplained circumstances over the past 14 years. His death, however, has magnified a mood of intense anger and frustration among the Palestinian minority, which comprises a fifth of Israel’s population.

The atmosphere was set earlier this year with a wave of violent attacks carried out by Jewish settlers targeting Palestinians in Israel, rather than Palestinians in the occupied territories, burning mosques, defacing churches and vandalising cars. Police have mostly failed to identify the culprits.

A series of events then followed, including the gruesome killing of 16-year-old Mohammed Abu Khdeir in Jerusalem at the hands of Jewish extremists in early July. Israel’s war on Gaza, which left more than 2,100 Palestinians dead, most of them civilians, also incensed the Palestinian minority.

The widespread protests over the summer were marked by frequent clashes with the police reaching a level not seen since the start of the second Intifada in 2000.

Police responded with hundreds of arrests, including of many children, often in heavy-handed, night-time raids on homes that have become a familiar sight in the occupied territories. Leading human rights lawyers in Israel have described Hamdan’s death as a police “execution”.

The intensifying efforts over the past few weeks by government officials and Jewish extremists, backed by the Israeli police, to assert greater control over the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in occupied East Jerusalem has added another layer of distress.

Many Palestinians accuse the police of enforcing racist policies that dehumanise all Palestinians, ignore their rights and concerns, and brook no dissent, whether peaceful or violent.


RELATED: ‘We will not be silent’


For the minority, this incident was yet another graphic and shocking illustration that they are seen not as citizens but as the enemy.

Over a decade ago, that was precisely the conclusion of a state commission of inquiry into the police’s killing of 13 Palestinian citizens in towns across the Galilee in October 2000, at the start of the second Intifada.

During demonstrations against the Israeli army’s assault on Palestinians in the occupied territories, the police fired live ammunition and rubber bullets on unarmed protesters and deployed, for the first time, an anti-terror sniper unit.

The head of the commission, Justice Theodor Or, found that the police viewed Palestinian citizens in similar terms to the army’s conception of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza: As an enemy to be crushed with brute force.

Justice Or also identified systematic and institutionalised discrimination against the Palestinian minority over many decades as a major contributing factor in their protests.

Their towns and villages were heavily overcrowded, and homes often declared illegal because of meagre land allocations and oppressive planning restrictions. Their communities were deprived of industrial zones and overlooked in the state budget, leaving their local municipalities penniless. Their schools were massively underfunded, and universities placed obstacles in their way to higher education.

But what Justice Or failed to understand, or perhaps admit, was that the attitudes of the police, government and the Israeli public were shaped – and still are – by a more general political atmosphere that derives from Israel’s founding ideology, Zionism.

Israel’s Palestinian minority is viewed as the state’s Achilles’ heel; an opening for Palestinians in the occupied territories to undermine the state’s Jewishness.

The threat is seen as two-fold.

Demographically, Palestinian citizens can erode the Jewish majority by reversing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian population in 1948 through, for example, winning citizenship for spouses from the occupied territories. Israel closed that door in 2003 with legislation effectively barring such marriages.

And ideologically, Palestinian citizens have risked exposing Israel’s lack of meaningful democracy by proving, through their own treatment, that a Jewish state cannot be fair to them.

That the prime minister [Netanyahu] tells Arab citizens who protest that they should leave for the West Bank sends a message that getting rid of us is a legitimate political option. Transfer has entered the mainstream, and with it the right to use state violence to solve political problems.

– Mohammed Zeidan, director of Human Rights Association

A political campaign by the minority for equality – urging Israel’s reform from a Jewish state to a “state for all its citizens” – is officially classified as “subversion”.

Israeli Politicians – from the right and the left –  share a common view, often expressed or implied, that Palestinian citizens can never truly belong to a Jewish state. Instead, they are described variously as a “fifth column”, “Trojan horse” and “demographic time bomb”.

Revealingly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exploited Hamdan’s death to issue a series of further warnings that the Palestinian minority was unwanted.

At a cabinet meeting on Sunday, Netanyahu told his interior minister to examine ways to strip of citizenship anyone who “acted against the state” or attacked the police.

The next day, Netanyahu told demonstrators to leave Israel and “move to the Palestinian Authority or Gaza”.

His comments have consciously blurred the distinction between the legitimate anger unleashed by Hamdan’s killing and the spate of recent attacks by Palestinians from the occupied territories on Israelis in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Tel Aviv. Dangerously, Netanyahu has implied that they are all part of the same “terrorism”.

His two most senior coalition partners have echoed him.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman praised the officers for acting “resolutely and effectively”. Naftali Bennett, the economy minister, called Hamdan “a crazed Arab terrorist” and described the police response – killing him when he posed no threat – as “what is expected of our security forces”.

Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein has ordered the justice ministry’s police investigations unit, Mahash, to investigate Hamdan’s killing. But the unit is already deeply distrusted by the Palestinian minority.

A recent report by Adalah, a legal centre for the Arab minority, found that Mahash closed 93 percent of the complaints against the police between 2011 and 2013. More disturbing, Adalah found cases were closed even when there was strong evidence of police use of excessive force.

That reflected similar failings by Mahash to properly investigate the police officers responsible for the 13 deaths in October 2000. None were ever indicted, Adalah noted.

The current police chief, Yohanan Danino, pre-empted the current investigation by saying the officers involved not only had his “full backing” but that criticism of them was “unfounded” and “irresponsible”.


RELATED: Arabs in Israel decry racial discrimination 


However, suggestions that Hamdan’s killing will ignite a new Intifada, this time in Israel, may prove premature.

Much as in the West Bank and Jerusalem, a sense of hopelessness in the face of Israel’s entrenched racism and refusal to make political concessions has built to the point where it has found an outlet in spontaneous protests and outbursts of violence.

But Palestinians are more divided territorially, and their leaders ideologically, than they were at the start of the second Intifada.

Israel is offering no solutions, which is stoking the anger, but the Palestinian leaderships appear to have no credible answers or plans for how to challenge Israel. That lack of direction is stifling the organised resistance necessary for an Intifada.

Nonetheless, Hamdan’s killing and the protests of the past few days mark another milestone in the steadily deteriorating relations between a self-declared Jewish state and its Palestinian citizens.

Inside Story – The Negev: Development or discrimination?

According to Mohammed Zeidan, director of the Human Rights Association in Nazareth, the emphasis on protecting Israel’s Jewishness at all cost is pushing both sides towards ever-greater confrontation.

“That the prime minister [Netanyahu] tells Arab citizens who protest that they should leave for the West Bank sends a message that getting rid of us is a legitimate political option,” Zeidan told Al Jazeera.

“Transfer has entered the mainstream, and with it the right to use state violence to solve political problems.”

That message has been on prominent display recently in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, where efforts have intensified to eradicate the minority’s political parties and representatives.

Earlier this year, the Knesset raised the electoral threshold sufficiently high that none of the Palestinian parties is likely to reach it.

A leading legislator, Haneen Zoabi, has been suspended from the Knesset, for a record six months, for expressing her opinions and is in danger of being put on trial. And Netanyahu has again compared the main Islamic Movement in Israel to ISIL and vowed to outlaw it.

It is clear to Palestinian citizens, both from incidents like Hamdan’s killing and from the contempt for their representatives, that their future in a self-declared Jewish state is growing more tenuous by the day.

For that reason, if no other, the fires burning in Kafr Kana, and other Palestinian communities in Israel, are not likely to die down any time soon.

Is the US-China Climate Pact as Big a Deal as It Seems?

Wednesday’s news doesn’t mean that global climate negotiations will succeed. But it means they’re no longer guaranteed to fail.

This story originally appeared in The Atlantic and is republished here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

I’ve been offline for many hours and am just now seeing the announcements from Beijing. The United States and China have apparently agreed to do what anyone who has thought seriously about climate has been hoping for, for years. As the No. 1 (now China) and No. 2 carbon emitters in the world, and as the No. 1 (still the US) and No. 2 economies, they’ve agreed to new carbon-reduction targets that are more ambitious than most people would have expected.

More coverage of the historic US-China climate deal.

We’ll wait to see the details—including how an American president can make good on commitments for 2025, when that is two and possibly three presidencies into the future, and when in the here-and-now he faces congressional majorities that seem dead-set against recognizing this issue. It’s quaint to think back on an America that could set ambitious long-term goals—creating Land-Grant universities, developing the Interstate Highway System, going to the moon—even though the president who proposed them realized that they could not be completed on his watch. But let’s not waste time on nostalgia.

Before we have all the details, here is the simple guide to why this could be very important.

1) To have spent any time in China is to recognize that environmental damage of all kinds is the greatest threat to its sustainability—even more than the political corruption and repression to which its pollution problems are related. (I’ll say more about the link some other time, but you could think of last week’s reports that visiting groups of senior Chinese officials have bought so much illegal ivory in Tanzania that they’ve driven the black market price to new highs.)

Unless China and the US cooperate, there is no hope for anyone else.

You can go on for quite a while with a political system like China’s, as it keeps demonstrating now in its 65th year. But when children are developing lung cancer, when people in the capital city are on average dying five years too early because of air pollution, when water and agricultural soil and food supplies are increasingly poisoned, a system just won’t last. The Chinese Communist Party itself has recognized this, in shifting in the past three years from pollution denialism to a “we’re on your side to clean things up!” official stance.

Analytically these pollution emergencies are distinct from carbon-emission issues. But in practical terms pro-environmental steps by China are likely to help with both.

2) To have looked at either the numbers or the politics of global climate issues is to recognize that unless China and the US cooperate, there is no hope for anyone else. Numbers: These are far and away the two biggest sources of carbon emissions, and China is the fastest-growing. As John Kerry points out in an op-ed in tomorrow’s NYT, reductions either of them made on its own could just be wiped out unless the other cooperates. Politics: As the collapse of the Copenhagen climate talks five years ago showed, the rest of the world is likely to say, “To hell with it” if the two countries at the heart of this problem can’t be bothered to do anything.

We see our own domestic version of this response when people say, “Why go through the hassle of a carbon tax, when the Chinese are just going to smoke us to death anyway?” This new agreement does not mean that next year’s global climate negotiations in Paris will succeed. But it means they are no longer guaranteed to fail.

3) China is a big, diverse, churning, and contradictory place, as anyone who’s been there can detail for hours. But for the past year-plus, the news out of China has been consistent, and bad.

Many people thought, hoped, or dreamt that Xi Jinping would be some kind of reformer. Two years into his watch, his has been a time of cracking down rather than loosening up. Political enemies and advocates of civil society are in jail or in trouble. Reporters from the rest of the world have problems even getting into China, and reporters from China itself face even worse repression than before. The gratuitous recent showdown with Hong Kong exemplifies the new “No More Mr. Nice Guy” approach.

A nationalistic, spoiling-for-a-fight tone has spilled over into China’s “diplomatic” dealings too. So to have this leader of China making an important deal with an American president at this stage of his political fortune is the first news that even seems positive in a long while.

We’ll wait to see the details. But at face value, this is better news—about China, about China and America, and about the globe—than we’ve gotten for a while.

Abbott way to growth is slash an burn, slash and burn. Swan’s invest, invest your way to the future. Check out Iceland

This man is our Minister for the Indigenous people of Australia. He hasn’t learnt a thing.

Mr Abbott this moon your talking about  was a home to the First People. It wasn’t a barren waste land to them ever. It was their land filled with their history their stories their culture. It merely was a wasteland in your racist mind’s eye. Stop making the First People of this country irrelevant.

DISGUSTING, DISRESPECTFUL, HAVE YOU RENOUNCED YOUR BRITISH CITIZENSHIP?

US military considers sending combat troops to battle Isis forces in Iraq

Hagel and Dempsey on Isis

The top-ranking officer in the American military said on Thursday that the US is actively considering the direct use of troops in the toughest upcoming fights against the Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq, less than a week after Barack Obama doubled troop levels there.

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, indicated to the House of Representatives armed services committee that the strength of Isis relative to the Iraqi army may be such that he would recommend abandoning Obama’s oft-repeated pledge against returning US ground troops to combat in Iraq.

Retaking the critical city of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest, and re-establishing the border between Iraq and Syria that Isis has erased “will be fairly complex terrain” for the Iraqi security forces that the US is once again supporting, Dempsey acknowledged.

“I’m not predicting at this point that I would recommend that those forces in Mosul and along the border would need to be accompanied by US forces, but we’re certainly considering it,” he said.

As Dempsey and the US defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, testified, Isis released a new audio message purported to be from its self-proclaimed leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, an apparent refutation of suspicions that Baghdadi was killed or critically injured in air strikes over the weekend.

With last week’s ordered US troop increases, designed to aid Iraqi campaign planning against Isis and to prop up 12 Iraqi and Kurdish brigades, US troop levels in Iraq will soon stand at 3,000.

Even with potential US involvement in ground combat looming, Dempsey and Hagel said further troop increases would be “modest” and not on the order of the 150,000 US troops occupying Iraq at the height of the 2003-2011 war.

“I just don’t foresee a circumstance when it would be in our interest to take this fight on ourselves with a large military contingent,” Dempsey said.

But should the Iraqi military prove unwilling to take back “al-Anbar province and Ninewa province” – the majority of territory in Iraq seized by Isis – or should the new Iraqi prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, exclude Sunnis from power, “I will have to adjust my recommendations,” Dempsey said.

Dempsey has previously described Mosul as potentially the “decisive” battle of the war against Isis, an assessment backed by General Lloyd Austin, the US Central Command chief who is running the war. Austin signaled last month that an Iraqi-led campaign was months away, owing to insufficient combat prowess on the Iraqis’ part.

Representative Buck McKeon, the retiring California Republican who chairs the panel, said that he would not support a congressional authorization for the war against Isis that ruled out direct US ground combat.

“I will not support sending our military into harm’s way with their arms tied behind their backs,” McKeon said, predicting that an authorization explicitly preventing ground combat would be “DOA in Congress”.

Hagel said that he did not “know specifically what they will propose” in terms of language for the authorization, which Obama said he would seek after last week’s midterm elections drubbing which has handed the Republicans control of Congress.

Dempsey and Hagel were more definitive about a looming expansion of the US air war, which has delivered approximately 800 air strikes since August. Hagel told the panel that “the tempo and intensity of our coalition’s air campaign will accelerate” as the Iraqi forces “build strength” under renewed US mentorship.

Over the past week, US officials have indicated openness to adjusting or revising a strategy against Isis in Iraq and Syria that has come under increasing domestic criticism and battlefield pressures. Syrian rebels whom the US hopes to transform into an anti-Isis proxy force have been recently routed, and have expressed frustration with what they consider insufficient US interest in helping them combat their primary adversary, the dictator Bashar al-Assad.

On Wednesday, US Central Command began a 10-day summit with delegates from over 30 partner nations to “further develop and refine military campaign plans”, it said.

Hagel has reportedly expressed concern to the White House that its perceived lack of clarity about Assad’s future was becoming an obstacle to its planned Syrian recruitment, which has yet to proceed in earnest. While Hagel did not on Thursday advocate expanding war goals to include toppling Assad, he conceded that without a rival government to back or an existing ground force to work with, “our military aims in Syria are limited to isolating and destroying [Isis’s] safe havens”.

Representative Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican who opposes a new congressional war authorization, said Hagel’s rhetoric about Isis was reminiscent of 2002 arguments for invading Iraq.

“It looks like we’re going down the same road that Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told us that we had to do,” Jones said.

In a 17-minute audio recording released online on Thursday, which could not be independently verified, Isis leader Baghdadi cited Obama’s deployment orders for an additional 1,500 troops in Iraq last week as evidence that the US campaign was failing.

Baghdadi announced the “expansion of the Islamic State” to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Algeria, claiming that Isis has accepted the pledges of allegiance from various groups within those countries. His proclamation came after Egypt’s most active jihadi group, Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, pledged allegiance to Isis on Monday, becoming one of the largest militant groups to affirm its loyalty to Isis outside of Baghdadi’s strongholds in Syria and Iraq. This could be an indication that the recording was made as recently as this week.

Before Congress, Dempsey pleaded for “strategic patience” with a US war strategy expected to last for years.

“Progress purchases patience,” Dempsey said

The forgotten poor – until we need a few bucks.

Poverty-History1

Tony Abbott has vowed to lift the poor of India and China from their poverty by selling them coal.  But what about poor people in Australia?

Various ministers tell us that education, health and welfare are no longer affordable.  Others tell us that we have been too greedy and that the “wage explosion” and “toxic taxes” are the root of our problems.  Joe Hockey assures that “a rising tide will lift all boats” while the girlinator tells us we must “live within our means” to fix “Laboor’s debt and deficit disaster”.

All of this is crap of course as can easily be shown by reference to the facts.

As a percentage of GDP, Australian government spending on health is the tenth lowest of the 33 countries in the OECD database and the lowest among wealthy countries.

The 8.3% of GDP spent by the US government, for instance, is higher than the 6.4% spent by the Commonwealth and state governments in Australia.

Nor is it true that total health expenditure – government plus private spending – are unsustainable. Australia spends about 9.5% of GDP on health services; the United States spends 17.7%.

As discussed on The Conversation, the real reason for co-payments appears to be ideological – a dislike of communal sharing even when it is to alleviate the financial burden of those already disadvantaged by illness.

Australia spends 19.5% of our GDP on social welfare, whereas some European countries like France and Belgium spend upwards of 30% of their GDP on the welfare system.

Australia ranks 25th of 30 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with data available in terms of expenditure for unemployment.

The largest slice of our welfare payments goes towards the age pension. According to OECD Pensions at a Glance 2013, Australia’s public spending on the age pension is much lower than pension spending in Europe.

Australia spends 3.5% of GDP on the age pension, while Italy spends 15%, France spends 14% and the United Kingdom spends 6%.

A recent OECD report stated that Australia spends slightly less on education as a percentage of GDP (5.8 per cent) than the OECD average of 6.1 per cent. Although it also found that Australia’s total spend has increased relative to GDP over recent years, up from 5.2 per cent in 2000.

And as for a wage explosion, official figures show wage growth remaining at a historic low in the September quarter.  The Bureau of Statistics data shows the annual pace of wage growth remained at 2.6 per cent for the second straight quarter, as expected.

The index peaked over 4 per cent shortly before the financial crisis and has been on a downhill trajectory ever since, now running at its lowest level since the records started in 1997.

Abbott and Hockey also emphasise the need to increase productivity.  What they fail to mention is that, between 2003-04 and 2012-13, capital productivity shrank 23 per cent while labour productivity increased 14 per cent.  It would appear that the workers are doing the lifting while the owners of capital are very much leaning on them.

Meanwhile, the Australian Council of Social Service released a new report revealing that poverty is growing in Australia with an estimated 2.5 million people or 13.9% of all people living below the internationally accepted poverty line with 603,000 or 17.7% of all children living in poverty in Australia.  Over a third (36.8%) of children in sole parent families are living in poverty.

“Most of the poverty we found is concentrated among the groups of people facing the most disadvantage and barriers to fully participating in our community. Those most likely to be in poverty are people who are unemployed (61.2%) and those in a household that relies on social security as its main source of income (40.1%), particularly on the Newstart Allowance (55.1%) or Youth Allowance (50.6%).

This finding brings into focus the sheer inadequacy of these allowance payments which fall well below the poverty line. The poverty line for a single adult is $400 per week yet the maximum rate of payment for a single person on Newstart – when Rent Assistance and other supplementary payments is added – is only $303 per week. This is $97 per week below the 50% of median income poverty line.”

Since 1996, payments for the single unemployed have fallen from 23.5% of the average wage for males to 19.5%. Furthermore, the level of Newstart for a single person has fallen from around 54% to 45% of the after-tax minimum wage. Newstart has fallen from 46% of median family income in 1996 to 36% in 2009-10 – or, from a little way below a standard relative income poverty line, to a long way below.

Before the last election, the Greens had the Parliamentary Budget Office cost an increase of $50 a week to the Newstart payment.  It would cost about $1.8 billion a year.  Not only would this help lift about 1 million people from poverty, it would provide stimulus to the economy as every cent would be recycled, spent on survival.  It would lead to better health and education outcomes and facilitate more people finding employment.  It’s much easier to look for a job if you have an address and enough to eat and a little left over to buy an outfit and get public transport there should you get an interview.

Give low income earners more money, demand increases, creating more jobs and more profit – an upward spiral instead of the depths to which Hockey would like to send us (aside from a few polaris missiles like Gina and Twiggy).

$1.8 billion is how much we gave up by repealing the changes to the FBT requiring people to justify the business usage of their cars by keeping a logbook for three months once every five years.  Abbott and Hockey would much rather protect tax avoiders than help the poor.  Instead, they want the poor to carry the burden of finding the money to pay for their war games whilst delivering a surplus.

Let’s not forget, in April Tony Abbott decided to spend $12.4 billion ordering 58 more Joint Strike Fighters in addition to the 14 already on order.  The first Joint Strike Fighters will arrive in Australia in 2018 and enter service in 2020.

As part of the announcement, more than $1.6 billion will be spent on new facilities at air bases in Williamtown in New South Wales and Tindal in the Northern Territory.

But a specialist in US defence strategy has questioned whether Australia’s purchase is good value for money.

If Australia wants to be able to have aircraft that can go up against what China might deploy – in way of not only its own fighters but advanced air defences in years and decades [to come] – then I think you want something… like the F-35.

[But] if you think more about your military needs being the Afghanistan-style operations, the troubled waters of the South China Sea, counter-piracy, peace operations, keeping some degree of regional calm with some turbulence in the ASEAN region but not necessarily China, then frankly it’s a debatable proposition whether the F-35 is the best bang for your buck.

“If you think that that kind of high-end threat is not realistically where you’re headed with your military requirements, then it’s more of a debatable proposition.

In August, defence minister David Johnstone announced

HUNDREDS of millions of dollars will be spent bolstering the RAAF’s fleet — and the prime minister is in line for a new long-range jet, promising uninterrupted global travel.

The government plan — scheduled to be delivered as part of next year’s Defence White Paper — includes the purchase of up to four new aircraft: an additional two Airbus tanker-transport planes and one or two Boeing C-17 heavy lift aircraft.

One of the Airbus KC-30A multi-role tanker transports would be converted to a VIP configuration and would service the prime minister’s international travel needs.

It would carry the PM’s entourage and the travelling media pack, who are currently forced on to commercial planes as the government’s existing Boeing 737 BBJs are too small.

Since handing down its budget in May, the Government has given national security agencies an extra $630 million over four years.

The Government has also estimated that the military deployment to the Middle East will cost about $500 million per year.

Then we have submarines and unmanned drones and patrol boats and more – a seemingly endless display of military hardware – but we ask our defence personnel to take a pay cut.

I await Joe Hockey’s MYEFO with a sense of anticipation and trepidation.  Will the poor be asked to shoulder more of the burden or will Joe admit where the big bucks are to be found and have the guts to go after them?

Rupert Murdoch’s Australian dream. A Media Fiefdom

Does Australia really need a national newspaper? Or is its existence just about one man’s pride? The man who helped established The Australian with Rupert Murdoch, Rodney E. Lever, comments.

IN 1911, THE LABOR GOVERNMENT under Andrew Fisher consolidated existing local and State banks into one Commonwealth-owned bank to secure and support the wealth pouring from the gold miners, as well as sheep, cattle and general agriculural farming led by the squattocracy.

In the British mind, Australia was still a colony and the mother country was entitled to a share of Australia’s wealth. When Victoria suffered a major financial crash after feverish home and roads building for a growing population between 1890 to 1901, the British banks felt no obligation.

Ben Chifley became prime minister of Australia at the end of World War II and went to an Imperial postwar conference in London with his Director-General of the Department for Postwar Reconstruction, H. C. (“Nugget”) Coombs, where together they ensured that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia would be able to meet the needs of their own country without future reliance from the exhausted British Empire.

During the period of the Victorian crash, a bankruptcy lawyer named Theodore Fink made a personal fortune from the crash. He found an obscure legal avenue in British law that had been copied word for word into Australian Law and remained there even after Federation. That discovery saved many businessman and some newspaper owners from debtor’s prison. In lieu of payment, Fink took property and land, as well as taking possession of a number of early Victorian newspapers.

In 1900, Fink amalgamated the newspapers and registered a company as the Herald and Weekly Times and subsequently employed Keith Murdoch as editor of The Herald.

Keith Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch’s father, rose through the company to become a director and, when Fink died in 1942, became chairman.

After his father’s death, Rupert genuinely expected that he would replace Keith as the head of the company, or at least obtain a senior role. He told me about it himself.  He said he had been robbed of his inheritance.

He was refused a place on the board. He would have to earn that position first and he was not popular in the company’s executive management. His mother, against Rupert’s wishes, was persuaded to sell Keith’s own Herald and Courier-Mail shares back to the company.

Rupert chose to use what was left of the family’s assets after death duties to establish himself in the publishing business.

One of the Murdoch family assets was the magazine publisher, Southdown Press, in Melbourne, as well as the Adelaide afternoon paper, The News. He continued to use the National Bank to finance his future acquisitions. The chairman of the National Bank, John Getty, had replaced Keith Murdoch as chairman of the Herald and Weekly Times.

Ron Corbett was in charge of the finance at Southdown Press. We often played weekend golf with two senior executives of the CBA and discussed switching our accounts from the National Bank.

The Fairfax family then purchased the Norton papers, including the afternoon Daily Mirror and the three editions of the weekly Truth in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne, before virtually handing them over to Rupert so that he would then be satisfied.

When Rupert completed his purchase of the Truth group, he made me the manager for the incipient, yet still unnamed, national newspaper.

The first serious plans for the new national paper began in Melbourne, in a rented building conveniently across the road from Truth. There was no lift. Visitors had to climb a staircase up three levels to the very top offices occupied by a small staff of salesmen, hoping to raise support by securing early advertising contracts.

Keith Barrow, the Adelaide News’ advertising manager, had a heart problem and died tragically soon after coming to Melbourne. Rupert was bounding up those stairs one day and saw Keith struggling.

Rupert told Keith’s deputy:

“Keith’s too fucking old. Tell him to go home.”

Keith came to see me and cried. I gave him a cup of tea and my best advice.

His deputy came to me also in tears, asking:

“What should I do?”

Keith died one week later.

He had worked for The News all his life.

I was required to fly to Canberra every Monday morning for what was loosely described as a “conference”. More accurately it was a “free for all.” The growing number of would-be journalists and executives were all pushing their own often impractical ideas.

Rupert asked me what “column rules” were. Someone had urged column rules and someone else was demanding no column rules. It was that silly!

I wrote an article for Crikey some years ago describing how journalists and would-be editors had flocked to Rupert’s door wanting to be part Australia’s new national newspaper.

Some practical issues bothered me. Not least of them was how papers printed in Canberra could be distributed all over Australia seven days a week. The more I thought about it, the more impossible it seemed.

Anybody who has lived in Canberra for some time would know of its notorious and unpredictable winter weather. Interstate and international planes were often locked in by heavy cloud, particularly early in the day.

Rupert said he would use private charter planes. But charter planes and passenger planes were frequently locked on the ground sometimes until lunchtime. Canberra’s winter weather is notorious for heavy fogs that last for hours. Private charter planes faced the same control tower restrictions as commercial passenger planes.

Thousands of freshly printed copies of the new paper sat nearly all day until it was too late to send them. They went to the tip instead. Reliability and regularity are essential for regular newspaper readers.

When I was a night-shift copy boy at the Daily Telegraph, earning twenty five shillings a week, I would nearly always be too late to catch the Manly ferry home.

Sometimes I slept on a couch in the Women’s Weekly offices on the top floor. Other times, I would hitch a ride on one of the trucks that delivered the papers to newsagents on the beaches from Manly to Palm Beach.

I made friends with the Manly driver and we had a deal that I could ride on the back of his truck and throw off the marked bundles at each of the newsagents. It saved the Manly driver time and got me home before dawn.

I would jump off at the Corso and he would go further north. I had a one-and-a half-mile walk up a steep hill to reach Bower Street.

I told Rupert that he had serious problems getting The Australian distributed if they arrived late. The agents already did two runs for home deliveries every day. They’d never do a third run.

“Crap.” he said. “They’ll have to do another.”

There was nothing in the agent’s contract that required three daily deliveries.

Agents have rights, too. They would deliver The Australian with the afternoon paper, effectively a day late with the yesterday’s news. Customers were soon cancelling The Australian in droves, refusing to pay the agents.

Rodney E. Lever generously gifted Independent Australia with the first (incredibly rare) dummy edition and number one edition (above) newpaper pulled off their respective print runs.

After a dummy edition was produced on July 14, 1964, the first public edition of The Australian paper was distributed the next day.

“A clean and handsome thing,” wrote Keith Inglis in Nation magazine after, 1964. It was the only really good thing one could find to say about a paper that led its front page with an hysterical beatup threatening the collapse of the Federal coalition. It didn’t happen then and it hasn’t happened since.

In Canberra, I met Solly Chandler, who had retired from Fleet Street after a long stint as deputy to the legendary Arthur Christiansen, editor of Max Aitken’s Daily Express for 24 years, and the man who revolutionised newspaper layout and set new standards that the rest of Fleet Street eagerly copied.

Hank Bateson of the Sydney Mirror was The Australian‘s editorial manager in 1964. A level-headed veteran of the Norton group, Hank was enthusiastic for Solly to be editor. Others argued that the editor of the new national daily had to be someone born in Australia.

In the end, Rupert chose an economics graduate with disputed journalistic abilities. It was the first and worst mistake he made, the forerunner of many more. None of Rupert’s papers have had so much pressure put on the staff than The Australian. The level of internal disputation, the on-the-spot sacking of a range of great editors and journalists were all signs it would never last.

It beggars the use of the word “if.”

In the aftermath, just about everybody wished for Solly Chandler, an all-round newspaperman; an editor and writer as well as a creative technician. He had a puckish sense of humour and a gift for attracting bucket-loads of readership, whether he was running a racy tabloid or a sober politicised broadsheet.

Rupert had hired Solly to be the editor of The Australian. On one of my early visits to Canberra, he told me the sad story of how the whole concept had turned into disarray and calamity. In the frenzy of personal ambition that surrounded Rupert at that time, he was run over by the pack.

Solly was a quiet, modest man of few words, but a mercilessly ruthless editor ‒ he never sacked people, he “strangled” them ‒ and he demanded the best.

When Solly came to Melbourne to edit Truth, he and I became close friends, attending race meetings,  dog tracks and hobnobbing with some of the more powerful personalities and politicians. He had a way of making friends and influencing people, and picking up odd conversations that he turned into a story.

He would hang out with state premiers, federal politicians, senior public servants and some of Victoria’s worst criminals. At first, he was working close to 24 hours a day, sleeping in the office, and writing most of the paper himself, leaving only the racing editor, Ron Taylor and Molly O’Connell — Truth‘s jealous guardian of the paper’s archives and an incredible source of information.

Everybody else, he strangled.

Truth began to attract a team of brilliant young journalists, most of who are still alive and working elsewhere.  At the end of his first year, Solly had doubled the circulation, then trebled it.

Solly’s wife Wynn was a joyful personality. When my wife, Pam, gave birth to a daughter, Wynn came to our house and stayed for several weeks. She looked after all our young children, bathing them, putting them to bed, reading them stories, giving Pam the break she badly needed, since I had long hours at work.

Solly Chandler (right) and Hank Bateson looking at a page one proof with Murdoch on 15 July 1964. (Image via Inside Story)

I wrote a story myself for Truth and it splashed the front page. The Hollywood movie star Judy Garland came to sing to a huge Melbourne audience in the old John Wren wrestling stadium, as did other stars from time to time, including Frank Sinatra and Bob Hope.

Judy Garland was an hour and a half late that night and so inebriated when she finally arrived that she could barely squark the words of her traditional musical triumphs. It was a Thursday night and a tragic experience that brought tears to the eyes of the thousand or so people who had waited for her. I was sorry for her but I had to go back to the Truth office and write a story, without being too cruel.

In Truth, Solly had captured the spirit of John Norton. It was too much for Dame Elisabeth Murdoch. When Rupert closed Melbourne Truth, it was because his mother was embarrassed. Unwittingly, Solly had stepped into an area that shook the good and not-so-good citizens of Toorak, her friends and her charity contributors. It was as simple as that. Ultimately, Rupert closed Truth in Sydney and Brisbane. The era of the wild men was over.

Solly went to Sydney seeking another job. I was in Darwin then. He wrote me a long private and personal letter. I didn’t even have time to reply. Solly died just a day or two later while among friends at the Hotel Australia. He suddenly collapsed on the floor and was dead. He loved to sip a good brandy, but I never ever saw him drunk. It was too late for me to write back.

Solly had attributes that could have made The Australian a great newspaper. He was not just a tabloid man, or a Truth man. He was a newspaper giant who understood that elegant design, good concise writing, a sense of humour and intelligent and substantial content all need to work together to make a newspaper successful.

The Australian today shows no sign of ever being able to reach a peak of excellence comparable with Brian Penton’s wartime Telegraph or The Age in E G Perkins’ short seven years as editor or Ted Bray’s Courier-Mail.

It falls well short of Melbourne’s Herald and The Sun in the days when Rupert’s father worked for Theodor Fink (the true founder of the Herald and Weekly Times and its chairman for 40 years, but now the invisible man in the company history).

Keith Murdoch learned his craft as a reporter in the streets and suburbs of Melbourne, not at Oxford University where Rupert learned nothing. He has been criticised for his leanings in politics, but Keith is still a significant memory, as well as having formed the crucial partnership between the famous Reuters news service and AAP, he was a genuine, if often controversial, newspaperman.

His personal papers in the archives of the National Gallery in Canberra have revealed more of his character than any of the books he inspired. Childhood speech difficulties made it easier for him to write than talk. Many of the notes he wrote to members of his staff exist in his personal papers.

To his editorial staff:

‘No cheap or sloppy thought should find expression in our papers. We should always leave the reader feeling he has been reading a wholesome, fragrant newspaper, fearless in tone but appreciative of all that is good.’

To a reporter:

‘The general public is censorious, suspicious, and self-opinionated. We should always remember this. The reader does not always believe everything we say.’

To one editor:

‘Flaring headlines over flimsy matter simply nauseates readers.’

How true. How true indeed.

Tony Abbott and the Age of Stupid.

View image on Twitter

The death of Gough Whitlam reminds us that the great man was everything our new prime minister is not, writes Lyn Bender.

A GIANT EXITS AND A PYGMY ENTERS. Let the booing go on.

The results are in. Tony Abbott is a colossal non-hero and Gough Whitlam’s evil twin.

He is a master promoter of folly and disaster. Now languishing on the sidelines, as China and the United States do a deal on big emissions cuts, he is left with only his feeble impotent direct action as his climate plan.

Meanwhile, the Russians are ship-fronting Australia as he postures ineffectually on the bridge. Abbott is exposed as the inept captain of a floundering vessel.

Tony Abbott is our modern Les Patterson abroad; he is as excruciating as any Barry Humphries caricature. Abbott is our own you bet, Putin defying shirt fronting, suppository of wisdom. He is very good at being deeply and undisguisedly bad.

He is our salutary lesson; he shows us where we must not go.

Abbott attacks science, supports the rich elites, and increases the hardships of the young, elderly, and the most vulnerable. He is as vividly explicit as the portrait of Dorian Gray in the attic, except his gruesome moral failings are on display for all to see.

In just a little over a year in power, Tony Abbott has

  • turned a blind eye to human rights abuses, in Sri Lanka;
  • returned refugees to potential danger in defiance of the Refugees Convention;
  • repealed the price on carbon, and other effective measures, when other nations like China and the US, are ramping up climate action;
  • put in place a worse than useless climate program called ‘Direct Action’, that pays polluters ‒ with taxpayer’s money ‒ to please pollute less, but only if they feel like it;
  • doubled the deficit;
  • increased Australia’s terror threat, arguably, by hastily ‒ without parliamentary debate ‒ sending Australian forces to another war in the Middle East;
  • made cuts to the CSIRO and science funding, including crucial climate science.
  • All this is terrible for Australians and the planet, but at least it is unequivocal.

    Abbott tells us many lies, but it is his superficial selfies that truly demonstrate his narcissism.

    Here is a sample:

    • Lifesaving Tony in red speedos — showing us he is physically fit to rule.
    • Lycra Tony on his bike —don’t look at my policies, look at my pins!
    • G.I. Tony, working out with the troops — but don’t expect good pay and benefits, veterans!
    • Fireman Tony, doing his bit to help fight fires — but not to fight climate change and reduce their risk.
    • Fighter Pilot Tony in a Striker Jet cockpit — can’t wait to use those on a “humanitarian” bombing mission.
    • Coal miner Tony, opening a “good for humanity” coal mine while stifling renewables — no worries, Gina!

    When it comes to talk about increased fire prevalence and intensity being induced by climate change, Tony will have none of it.  UN Climate negotiator Christiana Figueres, was ‘talking through her hat’, he declared.

  • Abbott has almost entirely dismantled or reduced investment confidence in climate change action and renewables. This is a disaster but he has never pretended to care about climate change. His position has wafted from pronouncing it to be ‘crap,’ to a grudging acknowledgement of climate change being ‘real’. But Tony has stuck by his position of supporting fossil fuels, recently declaring that coal is good for humanity.

    With Tony Abbott we should no longer be under any illusion. He is in the pocket of his fossil fuel backers and has no interest in the well being of Australians or future generations. In psychiatric terms, his actions would be analysed as psychopathic.

    Writes clinical psychologist Lisa Johnson:

    ‘If the Abbott government was an individual, he would be a psychopath.’

    In the opinion of this psychologist, if the Abbott government were your boyfriend it would be time to dump him and take out an apprehended violence order.

  • The Institute of Public Affairs ‒ IPA‒ has even anointed Tony Abbott to be Gough Whitlam’s [evil twin] successor, instructing Tony Abbott to emulate Whitlam’s transformation of Australia; but in the opposite direction. It delineates Whitlam’s ‘most left wing’ reforms in education, health, social justice, welfare, women’s and indigenous rights, proposing that Tony reverse them — and fast. It lists 75 radical ideas to transform Australia — Tony has already embarked upon these.

    Bob Ellis writes of Gough’s memorial

    Farewell to a giant’.

    But we could add:

    Moral pygmy enters stage right.

    Or even:

    As the pygmy arrived, the crowd booed.

    Paul Keating has said, Whitlam changed the country’s idea of itself and changed its destiny.

    Now Abbott wants to create an Australia with a new mean spirited self-destructive idea of itself and a new and terrible destiny — its own extinction.

    His goal is to transform Australia into a country that is mean, inequitable, and an irresponsible global citizen.

    None of us can claim that we don’t know. Unlike the German citizens in denial, who were marched past the corpses in the concentration camps by the conquering allies — we know.

    Tony Abbott is destroying our children’s inheritance.

    David Suzuki regards climate change denial as extremely dangerous. He has accused Abbott of willful blindness and criminal negligence.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oC5BZ7zlfkA
  • Coal is not the future. Coal is not ‘good for humanity’. Coal is not ‘the foundation of prosperity for the foreseeable future’

    Abbott is brutally and methodically dismantling much that has made this nation progress towards equity prosperity and fairness.

    When he said that he is a PM of no surprises, he was declaring his gotcha moment. He will consistently lie and cheat, whenever it suits him. He will implement the agenda of big coal. He will keep his promises to his backers and friends – including Gina Rinehart and Rupert Murdoch – and the right wing think tank – The Institute of Public Affairs.

    That is why Abbott was heartily and deservedly booed at the Gough Whitlam Memorial service. We all know what Tony Abbott is on about, now.

    He is no role model for the future. He is no hero. He is part of what has been dubbed The age of stupid’ — the age that jeopardizes its own survival. In this paradoxical way Tony Abbott reminds us to:

    Remember Gough. Maintain the protest. Maintain the scorn. Maintain the rage.

    Maintain the booing!

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6nmSHQknks8
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uCKKYcHIcJI

Abbott’s Consistency in The Coalition of Contradiction

Image by noplaceforsheep.com

Let’s start with Andrew Bolt:

More booing from the mob as Abbott leaves. There is a tendency among all collectives to not be satisfied with love. They also need to hate. Thus do trash boo at funerals.

Disgraceful

I suppose the fact that he decided to attack Whitlam within minutes of his passing was nothing like booing – it was his way of his showing love. You see, Bolt loves the current government because you only have to put two of their statements together and you get some wonderful contradictions.

For starters, let’s look at their attitude to red tape slowing things down and place that against the “rushed” insulation scheme which led to the death of workers. There should have been more oversight, which is, in some way that I don’t understand, different from red tape.

And the Medicare Co-payment, which is going to a medical research fund. Somewhere. The details are probably commercial in confidence. BUT WE NEED THIS CO-PAYMENT TO MAKE MEDICARE AFFORDABLE. Even though it’s not supposed to discourage people from going to the doctor. Neither is it going into general revenue. But we need it because of Labor’s mismanagement of the economy, even though it has nothing to do with the past but is – supposedly – about the future.

I could talk about their change in attitudes from Opposition to Government with such things as the unemployed, the car industry, SPC or even Government Debt. $283 billion in debt is a disaster, but let’s not mention what the debt level is expected to reach in the next few weeks…

Then, of course, the Carbon Tax was a GREAT BIG TAX ON EVERYTHING. Even though it was only the biggest companies that were paying it. “But they’ll pass it on, you idiot”. The Paid Parental Leave Scheme (remember that) won’t cost us a cent because it’ll be paid for by a levy on Big Business. And it won’t cost them anything because – in spite of the Budget Emergency – we’re giving companies a tax break of 1.5% which is the same as the levy.

But I guess the greatest contradiction of them all is their Direct Action Policy because it’s a subsidy and they don’t believe in subsidies. Oh, unless it’s to things like coal. But wind, well, what if the wind isn’t blowing and one day, we’ll run out of sunshine because the Labor Party used too much of it when they were in government and we’re determined to ration the sunshine to the people who really deserve it. And, if those companies who take the money don’t meet their target, well, we don’t punish people for making mistakes. Or promising to do things which they don’t. Unless they’re Labor politicians.

Of course, I could point out to Andrew Bolt that it was a memorial service, not a funeral. Alternatively, I could promise him that I certainly wouldn’t be booing at his or Abbott’s funeral. But that would be tacky.

Instead, I’ll merely quote from the Bolt man himself:

Pearson then speaks in the biblical tones and cadences he’s now adopted for his oratory.

He savages Joh Bjelke-Peterson, and waves aside Whitlam’s chaotic mismanagement as simply the price to pay for inspiring reform. The crowd loves that.

He then says Whitlam had “not a bone of ethnic or gender prejudice in his body” and Pearson can “scarely point” to any leader since of whom that could be said. In front of him sit Bob Hawke, Malcolm Fraser, Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, who are all entitled to feel grossly insulted. Indeed, Abbott may well feel betrayed, having devoted so much time to working with and for Pearson and his Cape York initiative, and having adopted Aboriginal advancement as his most passionate social cause.

I guess booing can take many forms. There are plenty of other subtle attacks in Bolt’s little article.

Still, as everybody knows, bolts are worthless without nuts to support them.

P.S. While on the subject, whatever happened to Christopher Pyne?

Secrecy protected at the top. Want to break a lease get Abbott and security it’s a snap of a finger.

Privacy is a privilege belonging only to the powerful. As the protections around most of us are torn down by unrelenting legislative encroachment, two recent court cases highlight that those in power still expect to operate behind a wall of secrecy.

On 23 October at Sydney’s busiest court, the Downing Centre, Freya Newman made her second appearance before a magistrate for the crime of “accessing restricted data”. Newman is a whistleblower. She used her part time job at the Whitehouse Institute to reveal details of a shady scholarship awarded to the prime minister’s daughter, Frances Abbott. Abbott was the first, and last, student awarded the Institute’s previously unknown (although no doubt merit-based) Scholarship for the Daughter of the Liberal leader, worth approximately $60,000.

In a courtroom packed with supporters, Newman’s lawyer explained that his client had been “motivated by a sense of justice”. Such actions, like those of so many others like her, nevertheless put Newman on the wrong side of the criminal law. She will be sentenced in November.

Down the road, at the Federal Court, independent media outlet New Matilda was defending itself from the lawyers of disgraced Sydney University poetry professor Barry Spurr. Spurr, an appointee to Tony Abbott’s school curriculum review, is suing New Matilda for publishing emails containing a series of his racist tirades and sexist slurs. Spurr says that New Matilda has “trashed” his rights as a “private citizen”.

Spurr’s hypocrisy knows no limits. His lawyer even suggested that he was worried that his now public emails contained “sensitive” information about his students and other staff. This is a creative defence from a man who thinks that 95 percent of his students have no right to be at university and sometimes gets a laugh from forwarding emails with identifying student details to friends of his.

Spurr’s lawyer also argued that Spurr was an innocent – “collateral damage” – caught in the middle of a political attack on the federal government. Spurr is as guilty as sin. In reviewing the national English curriculum he railed against its lack of focus on “Western civilisation” and our “Judaeo-Christian heritage”. Spurr’s work backed up the Liberal Party’s conservative agenda to “simplify” the curriculum by wiping references to Aboriginal culture.

An important element of New Matilda’s defence to Spurr’s case are the exemptions in the privacy laws that allow the media to publish private material if it’s in the “public interest”. But the rights of the media to publish leaked information are diminishing.

Tony Abbott’s new anti-terror laws criminalise the disclosure of certain operations carried out by security agencies and the federal police. There are no exemptions for the media. Breaching the laws can mean up to 10 years’ jail for journalists and whistleblowers.

Already whistleblowers like Newman find few protections in law. The federal police are currently investigating 10 aid workers who spoke out about the treatment of refugees locked up in offshore detention centres. The Save Our Children workers are accused of “misuse of official information”.

Everywhere, it is our right to know that is being “trashed”, not the rights of the elite. “Governments and people in power have had a long history of suppression. It’s not new, but I think it is getting worse”, said Chris Graham, editor of New Matilda. “It’s fundamentally about them protecting their own interests, and their own privilege, at society’s expense”, he told Red Flag.

But there are always those who speak out. “Independent media is the future of real journalism, and I think that’s why you see magazines like New Matilda under attack”, says Graham. “We’re not part of the club, and we never will be.”

Tony Abbott discusses MH17 with Vladimir Putin at APEC; Kremlin says Russian president was not ‘shirtfronted’

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-11/abbott-and-putin-meet-to-discuss-mh17-at-apec-summit/5883592?WT.mc_id=Corp_News-Nov2014|News-Nov2014_FBP|abcnews

Climate change deal: US-China agreement embarrasses Abbott Government, climate policy analyst says

Barack Obama and Xi Jinping

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-13/china-us-deal-embarrasses-abbott-government-analyst/5889190?WT.mc_id=Corp_News-Nov2014|News-Nov2014_FBP|abcnews

Abbott, Media, Kathy Jackson and the Assination of Craig. An Australian Shakesperian Story that beats Macbeth

Back to the future? Red scare alarmism shakes the Murdoch empire over G20 shirtfront

The ABC spent 40 years broadcasting in the Red Dot region of Covoy Russia. News Corp and the coalition promoted ABC budget cuts and we closed down our exclusive sphere of influence. The Chinese have signed broadcast contracts for the region. Maybe the Russians are there to offer media contracts as well. Pravda English is looking to expand. Abbott me thinks cheered on by Murdoch has left us shirtless

Ethical Martini's avatarEthical Martini

What a strange bunch of headlines today on Murdoch’s Australian tabloid newspapers.

It’s almost as if the last 25 years never happened. In the week that the world is celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall — the most potent symbol of the end of the Cold War — Murdoch’s crazy liquid modern tabloid editors have raised the spectre of a ‘Red Scare’.

You couldn’t make this stuff up, but Murdoch’s minions apparently can and will.

The Russian boats are not even close to Australia’s territorial waters (see below), but the editors — juiced up on Rupert’s kool-aid — cannot resist a good old RED SCARE front page.

Without a moment’s hesitation the claxon sounds and it’s all hands on deck as the plucky crew of HMAS NutsandBolts rally ’round the flag to repel all boarders and STOP THE BOATS.

Yes, even that classic, elastic, all-purpose, sea-going three-word slogan gets…

View original post 885 more words

A Very Merry News Corp welcome to Australia from our Team.

View image on Twitter

With Rupert’s rabid tabloids in full McCarthy mode today, it’s almost like the Berlin Wall didn’t come down 25 years ago this week, writes Dr Martin Hirst.

WHAT A STRANGE BUNCH OF HEADLINES today in Rupert Murdoch’s Australian tabloid newspapers.

It’s almost as if the last 25 years never happened. In the week that the world is celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall ‒ the most potent symbol of the end of the Cold War ‒ Murdoch’s crazy liquid modern tabloid editors have raised spectre of

THE REDS ARE COMING

You couldn’t make this stuff up, but Murdoch’s minions apparently can and will.

The Russian boats are not even close to Australia’s territorial waters (see below), but the editors ‒ juiced up on Rupert’s kool-aid ‒ cannot resist a good old-fashioned front page

RED FLAG

Without a moment’s hesitation the claxon sounds and it’s all hands on deck as the plucky crew of HMAS NutsandBolts rallies ’round the flag to repel all boarders and

STOP THE BOATS

Yes, even that classic, elastic, all-purpose, sea-going three-word slogan gets another run and is put to a good secondary dog-whistle use.

Who said Mr Abbott wasn’t into recycling?

As if thing aren’t already bad enough in the #CityofFear as it locks down in anticipation of the visigoth horde of visiting G20 dignitaries, the good burghers of Brisbane will have to contend to most of the city’s CBD being closed to ordinary folk, lest they wander into the view of the snout-in-trough great and good.

And, Brisbane’s CuriouS Mell has been reminding THE ENTIRE NATION for months, marauding anarchists are also sneaking into the country to wreak havoc on unsuspecting civilians and to wage jihad on 20,000 heavily armed police mobilised to instil the RULE OF LAW into anyone stupid enough to think about protesting injustice, criminal tax fraud, the fleecing of the world’s poor to fund extravagant global orgies of greed (like the G20) or demanding serious action on climate change, not the weak DIRECT ACTION proposed by TWO PUNCH TONY.

For months, the CuriouS Mell has been warning of anarcho-terror threats to the #CityofFear

Today the CuriouS Mell has been reinforced by the other titles in Murdoch’s stable – THE HUN, THE AGONIZERand THE DAILY TERROR– to remind us JUST HOW VULNERABLE Australia is to maritime attack by a ‘fleet’ of Russian naval vessels which are somewhere well away from us, but possibly heading into international waters ‘somewhere off Queensland’ by

RASH PUTIN

Even the NORMALLY RELIABLE AUSTRALIAN got in on the act. With a news story, an opinion piece by Abbott’s court jester Greg Sheridan and an editorial.

Talk about

OPERATION OVERKILL!

If that doesn’t have the Russian admirals quaking into their seaboots, nothing will.

OPERATION OVERKILL: meaningless graphics, Greg Sheridan and a tub-thumping editorial

So is there a ‘sovereignty’ issue here?

Well the Russian ships are still over 200 nautical miles outside Australia’s extensive Exclusive Economic Zone — so at least 400 nautical miles away. It’s unlikely they’ll come much closer.

If you were Bougainville, you might have reason to worry, but not us.

CALM DOWN! The fleet is not even close.

Territorial Seas

Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,[1] is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below. Adjustment of these boundaries is called, in international law, maritime delimitation.

The term “territorial waters” is also sometimes used informally to describe any area of water over which a state has jurisdiction, including internal waters, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and potentially the continental shelf.

(Yes, this is from Wikipedia.)

So really, what’s the problem?

Well, if Russia wants to sail its ships into our region it is free to do so. It has full rights in all international waters and also the right of  ‘innocent passage’ all the way into Australia’s territorial seas. This means they can come within 12 nautical miles of the mean low water mark.

That’s pretty close! But it is unlikely that the Russians will want to do that.

However, it would be very funny if they did. The Murdoch papers would go apeshit and they’d probably want to mount a Dunkirk style flotilla. Maybe Rupert could lead them out one of his superyachts. He could ram the Russian flagship and go down all guns blazing.

No doubt, Abbott would give him a state funeral and he might even get that knighthood that’s eluded him for sixty years.

Shirtfront! This is a shirtfront!

When our Prime Minister threatens to “shirtfront” the leader of another nation it should not be a surprise when that nation then decides to use its far superior naval power to return the gesture.

The alarmist headlines and Cold War rhetoric of the Murdoch papers is just stupid under the circumstances.

It is propaganda aimed at the readers of the Terrorgraph, the Hun, the CuriouS Mell and the Agonizer to keep them worried and alarmed.

It is the generation of what philosopher Zygmunt Bauman calls ‘liquid fear’. The generation of irrational scare tactics in order to hide the true purpose — social and political control of the population.

Given the Murdoch empire’s great love of our own dear leader, it is natural that they would generate a moral panic involving imaginary SOVIET MILITARY HARDWARE and that they would use a ‘hammer and sickle’ motif to illustrate their RED SCARE stories, even though the old Soviet regime has been dead and buried for more than a quarter of a century.

The RED FLAG is way more frightening than the RED, WHITE & BLUE of the Russian Federation and it has the added advantage of associating the approaching Russian fleet with communism and THE LEFT, which is, as we know so well, the real enemy of the News Corpse mercenaries.

http://ethicalmartini.wordpress.com/2014/11/13/back-to-the-future-red-scare-alarmism-shakes-the-murdoch-empire-over-g20-shirtfront/

This is far far more dangerous than a few misguided and radicalized youth. $650 million wasn’t provided to fight this.

The methamphetamine known as ice

Ice drug epidemic giving regional NSW towns an unwanted reputation

Like many other parts of Australia, regional towns in New South Wales are in the grip of an ice epidemic.

In the town of Wellington, in the state’s central west, the problem is so bad the place has been dubbed “Little Antarctica”.

It is because there is so much ice – or methamphetamine – available, 29-year-old former addict Joshua Toomey explained.

“Don’t kid yourself that it’s not there. It’s there and it’s knocking people around,” he said.

“People who use [ice] for six years, it’s like they’ve been using [the drug] for 20.

“It’s heartbreaking. I go home and I see strong women and strong men who’ve been robbed of life, who’ve been robbed of potentially living a healthy life because of this dirty drug ice.

“You’d be surprised how easy it is to get, there could be four or five dealers who live five to 10 minutes apart from each other.”

It is a story Norm Anderson knows all about. Mr Anderson runs the Orana Haven Drug and Alcohol Rehab unit, about 40 kilometres south of Brewarrina.

He has clients from Wilcannia, Broken Hill, Bourke, Brewarrina, Walgett, Coonamble, Moree and Wellington.

In the last 12 months, we’ve noticed for the first time amphetamines is catching alcohol as the primary drug of choice

Joe Coyte, CEO of The Glen Drug and Alcohol Centre

“The residents coming in here all the time refer to it as ‘Little Antarctica’ because of the ice problem there,” he said.

“The anecdotal evidence that they’re telling us is that every third house is nearly a dealer’s house there.

He said ice was having a devastating impact.

“It’s not only a problem for the actual person using it, it’s the whole family and the community problem,” Mr Anderson said.

“We have small communities up here … families go and do their shopping and they have to leave a couple of people home in the house otherwise the house will get broken into and their groceries will get taken.”

Ice taking over alcohol as drug of choice

The CEO of The Glen Drug and Alcohol Centre, Joe Coyte, said ice was overtaking alcohol as the biggest problem for his clients, who come from all over the state.

“In the last 12 months, we’ve noticed for the first time amphetamines is catching alcohol as the primary drug of choice,” he said.

The treatment program runs 12 weeks and includes group counselling and lots of activities. But the service is worried about its future.

Funding cuts forced the closure of its 30-bed facility in the Hunter Valley and now they are struggling to keep up with demand.

It gets between 10 and 15 requests a week, but only one or two will be accepted.

“That means a lot of people are putting their hand up for help for their addictions and if you can’t get them in now, they might not be there next week,” Mr Coyte said.

“They might not be willing to take that step, so for me that’s a really sad thing.”

Sean Gordon is the CEO of the Darkinjung Aboriginal Land Council on the Central Coast, but his hometown of Brewarinna is nearly 800 kilometres away.

“Ice is in Brewarrina, in Bourke, Walgett [and] Godooga unfortunately. I’ve just recently come back from out there, the way it is affecting my people and my family out there is just unbelievable,” he said.

Mr Gordon said prevention programs and treatment centres like The Glen need more support.

“Social return on investment – in regards to The Glen – would be getting $1 in comparison to say a Wellington jail, where the State Government are funding potentially $10,” he said.

“The sad reality is that a lot of these guys coming through The Glen are actually coming out of jails; and they’re coming to The Glen to be rehabilitated after spending time in jail.

“They’re getting access to the drugs in prisons right now. The sad reality is to go from a prison then to a drug and alcohol rehab place, tells me that the current system is wrong.”

Beating ice and the road to recovery

Ed Daley from Wellington is five weeks into his rehab program at The Glen, and said ice was easy to get back home.

“It’s just rife, it’s everywhere. On the street I lived there were sometimes half a dozen dealers. I didn’t even have to turn a corner,” he said.

He said his ice use had caused him all sorts of trouble.

“I’ve been in scuffles with four people at a time, where I’ve been hit with machetes, and kinged (king hit) from the side,” he said.

“[I] fought seven [people] at a time, where I’ve been hit with something hanging off a chain that nearly knocked my eye out.”

Mr Daley and his partner have just had their second baby, a little boy, and he said he did not want to go back to Wellington. He wants to start fresh somewhere else.

“The percentages will tell me I’m going to stuff up again if I go back there, I’d rather be a big chance of not doing in, than doing it,” he said.

He hopes to achieve the same success as his cousin Joshua Toomey, who has beaten ice and has gone on to become chairman of the Darkinjung Aboriginal Land Council on the Central Coast.

Mr Toomey said it was a hard road but The Glen treatment centre saved his life.

“I have a great history with The Glen, The Glen is a special place for me,” he said.

“It’s where I was reborn, It’s where I was given a second, I wouldn’t say a second chance, I’d say a brand new life.”

Filed under:

Andrew Bolt’s campaigning is working. These aren’t Team Australia companies. So much for export.

Pauls Iced Coffee

Iced coffee maker targeted by anti-halal social media campaign

A Northern Territory Muslim leader has defended the use of halal-certified food amid a social media campaign against the maker of a popular iced coffee.

The often hot conditions in the NT mean iced coffee is a popular beverage among people who live in the jurisdiction.

But a campaign mainly on Facebook has begun urging people to stop drinking Paul’s Iced Coffee because it is certified as halal, meaning it is able to be consumed by Muslims.

The campaign often implies that payments made to businesses that conduct halal certification end up supporting Muslim terrorists or involves cruelty against animals.

Vice-chairman of the Islamic Council of the Northern Territory Sadaruddin Chowdhury said the campaign was misguided.

Mr Sadrudin said halal certification was undertaken by private companies, and allowed companies to sell food into Muslim countries such as Indonesia or Saudi Arabia that do not allow non-halal food into their country.

If that is a hidden agenda probably they are probably succeeding in that, making Muslims’ lives in Australia a little bit more difficult

Sadaruddin Chowdhury, Islamic Council of the Northern Territory

Funds from the sale of halal-certified products were no more likely to be used for terrorism than money made by any other business, he told ABC Darwin 105.7.

“Any money can end up with ISIS (Islamic State) if that intention is there by that particular person,” Mr Chowdhury said.

“For that reason law enforcements authorities are who are looking after these things.

“It is not as though it is easy to send this money to somebody without the scrutiny of the law enforcement authorities.”

One of the requirements of halal food is that the animal must be killed in a humane manner and not for pleasure, Mr Chowdhury said.

He said that while removing the certification would be unlikely to harm the companies, it would make life difficult for Muslims in Australia, who would not know which goods adhered to their religious beliefs.

“If that is a hidden agenda probably they are probably succeeding in that, making Muslims’ lives in Australia a little bit more difficult,” Mr Chowdhury said.

Recently, South Australian company Fleurieu Milk and Yoghurt dropped a deal with Emirates Airlines because of a social media backlash.

“The publicity we were getting was quite negative and something we probably didn’t need and we decided we would pull the pin and stop supplying Emirates Airlines,” said Fleurieu’s sales manager Nick Hutchinson.

“Ninety per cent of it has been social media, but I have received calls from people that are quite unhappy, I guess, about our decisions and so forth, and [we have also received] a lot of emails.”

Other products targeted by one group included some varieties of peanut butter, chewing gum, chocolate bars and meat pies.

Parent company of Paul’s – Parmalat – was contacted several times to comment on the situation but did not return calls or an email.

Parmalat’s Australian website says gelatin used in all Paul’s produce is derived from beef hide and is halal approved.

CLIMATE CHANGED:::: Coal down down prices are down!!

Responsible between them for 42 per cent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, the United States and China on Tuesday announced a major deal, which John Quiggin calls the century’s most significant: the US will double the rate at which it reduces emissions (so that its overall emissions will be at least 26 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020), and China will stop its own emissions growth by 2030 and increase the non-fossil fuel share of its energy mix to 20 per cent.

Until now, the Abbott government has used what it claims has been the inaction by the world’s major polluters to justify its own unwillingness to commit to more than a 5 per cent reduction (on 2000 levels) by 2020. The US-China agreement represents what should be a game-changer for Australian policy. Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the government will take the agreement into account in considering higher targets. But its so-called Direct Action scheme – even if it works – doesn’t lend itself to higher targets: more ambitious targets require greater investment, but the Emissions Reduction Fund draws from the budget to pay polluters (unlike the previous carbon price, which provided market-based incentives for companies to undertake their own reduction projects).

The deal threatens to make Australia, with its “nonsense” Direct Action policy (Paul Keating’s word) look decidedly silly at this weekend’s G20 leaders’ meeting, where despite its best efforts to keep climate change off the agenda it may now be front and centre – or a very large elephant in the room. The Abbott government remains steadfastly committed to coal and gas despite the conclusion of the fifth IPCC report – and now there are real risks that China will stop importing Australia’s coal in the foreseeable future. And its stubborn commitment to slashing the Renewable Energy Target risks a real freeze in investment in renewable technologies and, ironically, higher power bills.

Russell Marks

The forbidding new test for prospective refugees By Michael Bradley : Immigration’s constant act of blocking asylum was never it’s charter.

SZSCA learned in late 2011 that the Taliban had identified him.

In 2012, an Afghan truckie facing a Taliban death threat was told he didn’t need a protection visa. The High Court yesterday said the decision was made in error, but with new laws on the way, that’s irrelevant, writes Michael Bradley.

The High Court yesterday dealt Scott Morrison yet another defeat in the ongoing battle over the rights of people seeking refugee status in Australia. But, again, the Minister for Immigration will lose neither sleep nor momentum as a result.

The drastic changes to our migration laws currently before Parliament will render the decision meaningless.

The unfortunate person in question, designated SZSCA, is an Afghan Hazara who had lived in Kabul. In 2011, he was employed as a truck driver on a route between Kabul and Jaghori. Mostly he transported construction materials. The Taliban targets this kind of cargo, because of its apparent connection to the Afghan government or foreign organisations.

SZSCA learned in late 2011 that the Taliban had identified him and was circulating a letter calling for him to be executed. He, understandably, fled the country. He arrived in Australia by boat in February 2012 and sought a protection visa. A delegate of then Labor minister Chris Bowen rejected his application, and this was upheld by the Refugee Review Tribunal. Following judgments in SZSCA’s favour in the Federal Circuit Court and Federal Court, the High Court found that the Tribunal’s decision was in error as it had failed to take into account the relevant considerations in determining whether SZSCA was entitled to protection under the Refugee Convention as enshrined in Australia’s Migration Act.

The Tribunal had accepted that SZSCA was justified in fearing that he’d be killed if he returned to driving a truck on his old route. However, it had concluded that he’d be safe if he stayed in Kabul and found employment there instead. Therefore, he was not at risk of persecution if he returned to Afghanistan and, consequently, he was not a refugee.

The globally adopted Convention definition of a “refugee” is that they are a person who, “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country”.

The key element is the “well-founded fear” of persecution. Where that fear relates to one part of the person’s home country, but not all of it, then a test of reasonableness comes into play. It may be that a person doesn’t meet the definition of refugee because they could relocate within their country to avoid the problem, but the High Court confirmed that this is only the case where it is reasonable to expect them to do so. In SZSCA’s case, the minister and the Tribunal hadn’t considered this at all. What they’d decided was that it was practically possible for SZSCA to stay in Kabul and be safe, and that was enough. The High Court said they needed to consider all the circumstances and make a positive finding that it was reasonable to expect SZSCA to live in Kabul and not be a truckie anymore.

In a 2003 case, the High Court similarly found that the Tribunal was wrong to send a group of gay men back to Bangladesh on the basis that they wouldn’t be persecuted if they lived discreetly. The proper question was whether their fear of persecution was well-founded, not how they might avoid it.

So, good news for SZSCA, although practically it means he’s back before the Tribunal and it might well still decide that living in Kabul is good enough. More significantly, if the Migration Act is amended as the Government has proposed, then anyone in SZSCA’s position in the future will have no hope of success.

The Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 makes many fundamental changes to our immigration laws. One of them goes directly to the question of who is a “refugee”.

The Bill will remove most references to the Refugee Convention from the Migration Act. It will replace the Convention definition of a “refugee” with a uniquely Australian definition.

Most relevantly, a person in SZSCA’s situation is currently a refugee entitled to protection if their well-founded fear of persecution is localised to a particular part of their country and it would be unreasonable to expect them to relocate to another part of the country where they do not have a real chance of persecution. The Bill replaces this test with a new one: if it is found that the person can safely and legally access the alternative “safe” area, then they are not a refugee. No question of reasonableness arises.

This is extremely bad news for prospective refugees, because there isn’t likely to be a country on Earth which doesn’t contain at least one small area where it’s safe and legal to be. That might be a desert, a mountain top or a Westfield shopping centre, but as long as you’re not likely to be persecuted there then you won’t be getting a protection visa in Australia.

This is an absolute abrogation of Australia’s international human rights obligations and takes us a lot further down the road towards the status of an impenetrable xenophobic fortress. Which is precisely the Government’s intent.

Homophobe Bryan Fischer To Be Fitted With Experimental New Muzzle. Can we get one for Bolt or don’t they come in his size? Both these guys are in fact part of the ISIL recruitment brigade true believers. recruitment

Bryan-Fischer-via-screencap-615x345

THE CABIN ANTHRAX, MURPHY, N.C. (CT&P) – Right-wing radio host and American Family Association Spokesman Bryan Fischer will be fitted with an experimental new muzzle that will deliver an electric shock to the unhinged pundit whenever he says something incredibly stupid or hateful, according to AFA President Tim Wildmon.

“We have tolerated this idiot long enough,” said Wildmon, during an interview with Jesus Daily, a national tabloid devoted to all things Jesus. “He’s running off donors right and left with this obsession he has with homosexuals. He can’t even complete a sentence on the air without talking about gay marriage, sodomites, or homosexual behavior. I’m starting to think that the old geezer needs psychiatric treatment.”

Hannibal_2

The tipping point for Wildmon’s decision to use the device, which has only been used before to train political execution dogs in North Korea, was apparently Fischer’s wild rant on his radio show over the weekend.

During a half-crazed 15 minute diatribe about God and gays, Fischer, like so many other evangelicals, pretended to know the mind of God and insisted that the omniscient and all-powerful deity was just as infatuated with homosexuality as he is.

During the borderline psychotic episode Fischer defended his Neolithic opposition to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, arguing that anti-LGBT sentiment was a “natural revulsion.”

Fischer told his “Focal Point” listeners that the term “sodomy” has become culturally obsolete since “it’s an ugly word, because it refers to an ugly practice.”

“It’s not the word, it’s what it describes, it’s what it refers to,” he said. “We have a natural revulsion to that kind of behavior just as God does. We got that from God. God reacts the same way to homosexual behavior, to sodomy, as we do.”

One caller objected to Fischer’s observations, pointing out that the same God that created straights undoubtedly created gays as well, and besides, watching Bryan Fischer have heterosexual sex would be far more revolting than sodomy could ever be.

Apparently Tim Wildmon agreed with the caller because immediate action is being taken to bring the unhinged and sexually insecure Fischer to heel.

Wildmon told reporters that it would probably take few days to get the voltages and fit just right on the new muzzle, but we should expect to hear a much more reasonable Bryan Fischer over the airwaves sometime late next week.

A gem or a dual? Tony Abbott’s Lying-ingate. Isn’t there a legal requirement of truth here?

View image on Twitter

As Tony Abbott’s wimps out on his threat to shirtfront Vladamir Putin, more evidence emerges to suggest he has never renounced his British citizenship. Sydney bureau chief Ross Jones reports.

ON 28 OCTOBER 2014, a woman stood in the public gallery of Parliament House and shouted something at Tony Abbott that saw her summarily ejected by security.

It is still unclear what actually happened.

The only report of the event was made by AAP and the only outing that report received was in a couple of News Ltd websites.

AAP have the woman shouting at Abbott:

“… and we’re coming after you!”

That’s not much to shout before security gets you.

If it was indeed all she shouted, she must have been standing directly next to a security guard who managed to muzzle her outburst while dragging her from the gallery. While there is heightened security in Parliament House since the Coalition gained control and started poking ISIS and the former Soviets with pointy sticks, a response time like that would still be greased lightning.

So, the woman probably had time to mention some other stuff as well — stuff not mentioned by AAP, possibly continuing to shout even as her heels dragged across the floor towards the exit. I’m pretty sure it would be against OH&S for an un-gloved meaty security paw to be placed over an uncovered shouting mouth.

If a person goes to the public gallery with the intention of screaming at Tony Abbott they don’t give up that easily. She probably screamed the scandal that, for fear of ridicule, dare not speak its name.

AAP reported:

She told AAP her threat was centred on Tony Abbott and related to documents she was denied under Freedom of Information about his birth certificate and legitimacy as prime minister.

AAP has misreported the birth certificate detail. IA has received information from Jan Olson and none of it related to Abbott’s birth certificate — for the simple reason that there is no controversy about that at all. Tony Abbott’s circumstance and place of birth ‒ London ‒ is a matter of public record and not contested by anyone, as far as we are aware.

You can see the full birth certificate application below:

The event that precipitated Jan Olson’s outburst was, in fact, receiving a letter a few weeks earlier (dated 8 October 2014) from Robert McMahon, Assistant Secretary, Parliamentary and Government Branch of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

In it, McMahon confirmed the subject of his letter was a response to an application by Ms Olson under the FOI Act for an official copy of the Official confirmation of Abbott’s renunciation of British citizenship.

So, nothing to do with a birth certificate, but rather a request to see evidence Abbott had given up his British citizenship — something required by the Australian Constitution because the founding fathers did not want representatives with loyalties to foreign powers. The 1999 High Court decision in Sue vs Hill confirms dual UK / Australian citizens are ineligible to sit in Federal Parliament.

Ironically, Abbott, only became an Australian citizen in his 20s so he could accept a Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford University, back in England.

Back to the FOI request response to Jan Olson’s request for evidence of Tony Abbott’s renunciation of British citizenship:

Robert McMahon confirmed he was an ‘authorised decision-maker’ under the FOI Act.

He then went on to say the Department had searched its file management system, its current and former ministerial correspondence database, the computer drives of its relevant departments and the email accounts of current officers in relevant branches and [IA emphasis]:

‘As a result of these searches, no relevant documents were found in the Department.’

It was the fact the Department had confirmed that Abbott had never provided proof of his renunciation (the Form RN for British citizens, not a birth certificate) that had so angered Jan and convinced her of Abbott’s likely deception.

If Abbott had, in fact, renounced his citizenship — surely this documentation would have been provided to Abbott’s own Department?

And Jan is not alone. Now Putin is getting in on the act as well.

The frostbite between Vlad the shirt-fronted and Our Tony at APEC is palpable. They won’t look at each other. They won’t even shake hands for the camera.

But he’s cunning bastard, Putin. Not for nothing did he run the KGB.

He is also, from the old days, quite good friends with the chaps at Pravda. Which is probably why Pravda is going to run a little piece on Tony’s credentials in its English website; a sort of follow-up to the popular one it did in October after Abbott’s infamous shirtfronting statement.

It will be running it at 22.42 Moscow time on 14 November 2014. That is, 5.42am Brisbane time, on 15 November 2014 — or in other words, Day 1 of the G20.

Russia no longer has the KGB — now it has the SVR (in English, the Foreign Intelligence Service), who are also quite good at finding stuff out. The Pravda article might just be boring stuff and not tell us anything new, but then again, you never know.

Postscript

While remaining steadfastly light on detail, the AAP/News Limited story managed to get in the following sly dig:

US president Barack Obama faced the same birth conspiracies with rumours circulating during his presidency campaign that he was not a US citizen.

Theories allege that Obama’s published birth certificate is a forgery and that his actual birthplace is not Hawaii but Kenya according to Wikipedia. Other theories allege that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia in childhood, thereby losing his US citizenship. Others allege that Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen because he was born a dual citizen (British and American).

However many have called these theories racist and Obama has never succumbed to pressure to show his birth certificate.

This is obfuscation writ large and has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. It’s the equivalent of rounding out a story on Peta Credlin with a reference to Margaret Aitken’s kindergarten years (Mrs Abbott to you).

The Australian media are, for some reason, desperate to protect Australia’s split loyalty PM — even to the extent of conflating completely unrelated issues and bizarrely introducing the topic of “racism”.

Clearly, the issue needs a new gate.

As Anthony John Abbott was born in 1957 at the ‘Lying-In’ hospice in Lambeth, Lying-Ingate has a certain ring to it.

If he wants kill this issue, all he needs to do is prove he has renounced his British citizenship. Or maybe big bad Vlad will come up with the proof ‒ one way or the other ‒ in Pravda on Friday.

Nyet nyet, y’all.

The conservative crusade against the ABC by Abbott & News Corp Why wont Abbott go on Q & A

Andrew Bolt and Tony Abbott. © Jason Edwards / Newspix

Bolt’s favorite picture when he believed Abbott was on his side alone.

Why do Andrew Bolt and company love to hate the national broadcaster?
By Don Watson
M
Topics
ABC; Andrew Bolt; Tony Abbott; Conservatives

For millions of Australians, the ABC is all at once a homely source of intellectual and spiritual nourishment, a reliable source of news and information, and an ungainly emblem of the country’s character. In some measure, it satisfies both their national pride and what remains of their Anglophilia. For millions more, insofar as they are conscious of its existence, the public broadcaster is an irrelevant item of megafauna. On these broad lines the country divides: what is a sort of indispensable national house cow for one large portion of the population, another portion of comparable size scarcely knows and doesn’t give two hoots for. Like the two ventricles of the heart, they pump away in peaceful co-existence.

Then there is a third cohort, possibly numbering in the thousands, who believe the ABC is run by “Leftists” and crusades on “Leftist” causes such as “boat people, same-sex marriage and global warming”. One of the chief spokesmen for this extra ventricle, Andrew Bolt, recently asked readers of his blog to “imagine if every single one of the main ABC current affairs shows” were hosted not by the “Leftists” who presently host them but by him and “fellow conservatives Janet Albrechtsen, Gerard Henderson, Tim Blair, Miranda Devine, Piers Akerman, Tom Switzer and Rowan Dean”.

So close your eyes and imagine ABC current affairs programs, including Radio National’s venerable Science Show (Robyn Williams is numbered among the bad), being hosted not by the present “caste” of competent broadcasters but by these “conservatives”. What do you see? Fox News? What are they saying? Anything? If in this imaginary world no one at the ABC “crusaded on boat people, same-sex marriage and global warming”, as our outraged correspondent insists the present lot do, it seems possible that their replacements might have nothing left to talk about.

They would crusade on “free speech, climate scepticism and free markets”, he says. How strange, then, that they have crusaded against the ABC for letting the public know what Australian governments were up to with our neighbours, and for presenting information on boat arrivals that the government has been denying us. If free speech is their thing, how come they are for Scott Morrison and against Edward Snowden?

Oh, where are the conservatives of yesteryear, with Orwell and Oakeshott at their side, and the “open society” forever their objective? Now, it is a commonplace that open societies depend upon the individual’s right to scrutinise government policy. Why, then, are these self-styled conservatives so down on the free flow of information and so happy to defend government secrecy? Tell us again how the ABC is less than patriotic for reporting the stories of refugees in the face of the Navy’s determination to say nothing at all about what they have chosen to call, with Orwellian panache, “on water” matters. In the interests of free speech, will we swear to take the military at its word and question the patriotism of any civilian – or public broadcaster – who dares to quote a different view? Especially civilians who are “not even Australian”, as the minister for defence so sagely put it.

Yet I doubt that even disgruntled ABC viewers and listeners would charge the ABC with insufficient dedication to free expression. Or free markets. I don’t recall any of the named hosts – even the one who once worked for that stalwart of the socialisation objective, RJL Hawke – doing much crusading against free markets. Nor do I remember their extensive advocacy for same-sex marriage, but how refreshing to imagine an ABC crusading against it. As refreshing as imagining a show about science being hosted by an anti–climate science crusader.

You have to feel for the government in this. Much as they might wish to imitate their friends and supporters in what they like to call the “free” – as opposed to “government-owned” or “taxpayer-funded” – media, they can’t paint the government broadcaster as a chilling Orwellian nightmare without seeming to betray a liking for the genre. Pity, that: it would make a good speech. Like the one James Murdoch made in Edinburgh in 2009. He described the BBC in just those terms, and who cared if Orwell was spinning in his socialist grave at the gall of it? That’s the thing about the “free” press: “their money; their free speech”, as our blogger says. Free, that is, to traduce the living and the dead, posture madly, peddle influence, be parasites, ignoramuses and (vide Murdoch and son) epic hypocrites. There is no dog to bark at them – well, a couple of very small and all but toothless mutts, perhaps.

And there’s the rub. Most of those millions who value the ABC might in other circumstances be satisfied with the children’s shows, sport, music, arts, religion, farming, nature, nurture, history, philosophy, language, science, sociology, drama, emergency services and Stephen Fry. They might make do with an evening news service, if they thought they could trust commercial media for the rest of their current affairs. But they don’t trust them. It’s possible they find the very thought demeaning. They don’t like their news and opinion mixed in with advertising and coloured by the need to chase revenue through unrelenting noise and vehemence. They don’t like the tone of commercial media. It’s a matter of taste – or snobbery, if you prefer.

For the same reason, a lot of viewers and listeners would not complain if the public broadcaster stepped back from the popular melee. Some no doubt perceive bias or a lack of balance, but very likely just as many are peeved because they think it ill becomes their ABC to imitate the public riot. And this might be why the likes of such a right-wing caste are not likely to ever take over the organisation. A true conservative “eyes the situation in terms of its propensity to disrupt the familiarity of the features of [their] world”. By this definition (Michael Oakeshott’s), the ABC is in essence a conservative institution: old, familiar, pervasive and habit-forming, bearing the nation’s heritage and beliefs, speaking for the pluralist complexity of the country. It does none of this perfectly, but it is pretty well alone in doing it at all. By the same definition, the so-called “conservatives” who berate the ABC are not conservatives but heretics, radicals and vulgarians, and no amount of Dvořák – or Lou Reed – will cure them.

What is curious is where the obsession stems from. Even if the “massive power” alleged of the public broadcaster were real, it is hard to think of an election result that the ABC decided, or of political leaders cosying up to the ABC in the way they perennially do to Rupert Murdoch and used to do to Kerry Packer. Who does the British prime minister, David Cameron, most want to be his friend? Rupert Murdoch or Chris Patten, the former Conservative Party chairman and the present chief of what the Murdochs reckon is a rampant and menacingly “authoritarian” BBC? Who does Tony Abbott think more important? Murdoch or Mark Scott, a former adviser to a Liberal government and the present managing director of the equally menacing ABC? Is it that these national broadcasters have no power worth pursuing, or that in the main they use it responsibly and cannot be bought? Or that they are institutions woven so thoroughly into the fabric of national life that no amount of normal political harassment and interference can much change them? Whatever the case, true conservatives must at least half-heartedly rejoice.

Not these anti-“Leftists”, however. No doubt, as James Murdoch made clear, the “free” media resents any inroads public broadcasters are making on their commercial territory, but that’s at best a partial explanation for the journalistic Tea Partying. More likely it’s some species of projection. Never has the ideological difference between the major parties been narrower. So general is the liberal-pluralist consensus, the parties must search for something to believe in. Increasingly they find it in the dark corners of talkback radio (or the lighter ones of Q&A): not in reality, but in beat-ups and the excrescences of populism. There is a little bit of Putin in all sorts of politicians now.

Conservatives have their open society. They have a market economy, freedom of speech and pervasive liberal values. For some, so many victories were bound to prove unbearable, the more so, perhaps, because a lot of them occurred without their participation. They have inherited the spoils but, with one or two exceptions, have no claim on either the struggle or the moral and intellectual tradition. For all the unlikely power granted them by modern media, it is their fate to feel marginalised, denied, unfulfilled: when all’s said and done, like fringe-dwellers excluded from something essential at the centre of Australian life – namely, as the blogger reveals, the ABC.

Take the world’s hardest G20 quiz How well do you know Australia’s place in the world? Take our quiz to see if you can spot how Australia compares to G20 countries.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-13/g20-quiz-brisbane-australia/5854436?WT.mc_id=Corp_News-Nov2014|News-Nov2014_FBP|abcnews

Filed under:

G20 Brisbane: Five corporate tax havens around the world and how the summit can crack down on them By Paul Donoughue, staff. By scacking 4700 experts in this area from the ATO

Bermuda beach

G20 Brisbane: Five corporate tax havens around the world and how the summit can crack down on them By Paul Donoughue, staff

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has nominated global tax avoidance as one of the key issues on the agenda for this weekend’s G20 summit in Brisbane.

Major companies including Google and Apple have faced strong criticism over their efforts to lower their tax bills by shifting profits to jurisdictions with low or non-existent corporate tax rates.

Mr Abbott told the World Economic Forum earlier this year taxes needed to be fair “in order to preserve the legitimacy of free markets”.

“For the leaders of the countries generating 85 per cent of the world’s GDP merely to agree on the principles needed for taxation to be fair in a globalised economy would be a big step forward.”

The Lowy Institute’s Mike Callaghan said the issue was a complex one that will not be resolved in a single leaders’ summit.

“But what you need to see in Brisbane is what I call a down payment – something that you can point to to say, ‘this is a demonstration that G20 is trying to respond to the way global companies operate’,” he told ABC News Online.

“And what they could agree to in Brisbane is this sharing of what’s called country-by-country reporting.”

Currently, the Australian Tax Office can only see the local tax bill of a multi-national company, he said. But G20 leaders will likely formalise an OECD plan for countries to share information on what companies are doing internationally in regards to their taxes.

“The ATO could have more information [if] this multinational doesn’t seem to make much profit in Australia but has very large payments to subsidiaries in low-tax jurisdictions [and] doesn’t seem to have any workers employed there or any investment there but has huge profit centres.”

In light of this, we take a look at some of the world’s tax havens and which companies are taking advantage of them.

United States

One of the worst-offending countries when it comes to facilitating tax avoidance is – surprisingly – the US, said University of Sydney senior lecturer in business Dr Antony Ting.

“The research shows the US government has been knowingly helping these multi-nationals to avoid foreign tax,” Dr Ting told ABC News Online.

“The government’s justification is ‘I want to help my companies be more competitive in the world’.”

In an attempt to draw corporations away from the major hubs of New York and New Jersey, the US state of Delaware has made it quick and easy to register a corporation.

A New York Times investigation in 2012 found more than 200,000 businesses – including major US tech companies – were registered at a single address.

However, the site was little more than a forwarding address for each firm. The idea, critics said, was to take advantage of the state’s low corporate tax rate.

Ireland

“The tax rule in Ireland is a perfect accompaniment to the US tax laws,” Dr Ting said.

Last year, Apple faced criticism after paying $193 million in tax on $26 billion in profits in Australia thanks to its creative accounting practices.

CEO Tim Cook was forced to face Congress and deny Apple was unfairly avoiding tax by using a method known as the “double Irish”.

It involves a company based in the US or elsewhere setting up an Irish subsidiary, which usually only exists on paper.

That subsidiary, however, while registered in Ireland, is allowed under locals laws to be taxed in another jurisdiction.

In many cases, that is somewhere like the Cayman Islands or Bahamas, which have corporate tax rates of 0 per cent.

“You can set up a company that will not be taxed anywhere in the world,” Dr Ting said.

“Most of the profits Apple generates in Australia [are] never taxed anywhere in the world.”

Forbes has rated Ireland as one of the top 10 tax havens of the world, though the country is seeking to close these kinds of loopholes.

Bermuda

Bermuda, a British dependency, is one of several small jurisdictions – many of them islands – that does not have a corporate tax rate.

Along with the Cayman Islands and the Isle of Man, it has become an attractive destination for off-shore banking and financial services firms.

However, Bermuda denies it is a tax haven. Writing in The Guardian, MP Walton Brown said instead of collecting tax from companies, Bermuda charges customs duties.

“Over the last 15 years, when the OECD and the Financial Action Task Force began its continuing commentary on ‘harmful tax regimes’, Bermuda signed 42 tax information exchange agreements with countries seeking information about their citizens and companies,” he said.

“We signed the first tax agreement with our largest trading partner, the United States, in 1988. All a signatory country has to do is submit the tax request and Bermuda responds.”

Luxembourg

Luxembourg is a landlocked country in western Europe with a population of about 500,000. It is one of the smallest sovereign nations in Europe, and has one of the highest GDPs per capita in the world.

Major international firms, including Pepsi, IKEA and FedEx, have sought deals with Luxembourg to lower their tax bill, according to emails obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

In light of those revelations, there have been calls this week for Jean-Claude Juncker, head of the European Commission, to step down, given he was the leader of Luxembourg when the deals were allegedly reached.

Mr Juncker is attending the G20 summit this week.

Members of the European parliament have meanwhile called for a probe into tax avoidance in the EU and the laws that facilitate it.

A 2011 report found Luxembourg was the easiest country in the EU in which to pay your company taxes: it takes just 59 hours, or a little over one full-time employee’s working week, compared to 616 in Bulgaria.

Cayman Islands

The Cayman Islands, a British Overseas Territory in the Caribbean Sea near Cuba and Jamaica, collects no corporate tax.

The island, with a population of just over 50,000 and a GDP per capita of about $50,000, is considered a global hub for off-shore banking.

Hundreds of international banks have branches there and the banking sector is one of the largest in the world.

This development brought the scrutiny of the OECD, and in 2009 US president Barack Obama singled the Cayman Islands out as a significant tax shelter.

In 2011, advocacy group the Tax Justice Network labelled the state the fourth safest tax haven in the world.

Filed under:

China and US agree on ambitious greenhouse gas emissions targets

China US Emissions Agreement.jpg

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-12/we-need-to-be-in-step-with-china-and-us-reduction/5886998

China and the United States have agreed on a set of ambitious greenhouse gas emission targets, with Beijing setting a goal for its emissions to peak “around 2030”.

It is the first time China, the world’s biggest polluter, has set a date for its emissions to stop increasing, and the White House said China would “try to peak early”.

At the same time the US set a goal to cut its own emissions of the gases blamed for climate change by 26-28 per cent from 2005 levels by 2025.

The declaration came as president Barack Obama met his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping for talks in Beijing.

China will look to “increase the non-fossil fuel share of all energy to around 20 per cent by 2030”, the White House said.

Scientists argue that drastic measures must be taken if the world is to limit global warming to the UN’s target of two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels, and failing to do so could have disastrous results.

China and the US, which together produce around 45 per cent of the world’s carbon dioxide, will be key to ensuring that a global deal on reducing emissions after 2020 is reached in Paris next year.

Mr Obama said the deal showed that when China and the US worked together, it was good for the world.

“I believe that president Xi and I have a common understanding about how the relationship between our nations can move forward,” he said.

“We agree that we can expand our cooperation where interests overlap or align.

“When we have disagreements we will be candid about our intentions and we will work to narrow those difference where possible.”

Latest agreement fraught with challenges

China and the US have long been at loggerheads over global targets, with each saying the other should bear more responsibility for cutting emissions of gases blamed for heating up the atmosphere.

While the US, which never ratified the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, pledged to cut emissions in the past, goals have shifted or been missed altogether.

Announcement a nudge to Australia

By ABC environment online editor Sara Phillips

China and the USA’s combined climate announcement has been met with a chorus of approval from around the world.

The two largest greenhouse gas emitters have finally agreed to clean up their energy sources and make a symbolic joint announcement, which is just the tonic the stalled international negotiations on climate change need.

For so long, it has been easy for the US and China to duck action on climate, arguing that the other must surely go first.

Australia has joined in this game of ‘apres vous’, often using the excuse that without those heavyweights any climate action is meaningless.

The joint US-China announcement today puts paid to those excuses, nudging Australia towards adopting a stronger emissions reduction target.

Australia’s climate target is officially listed as a 5 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2020 (compared to 1990 levels), or up to 25 per cent by 2020 if other legally binding cuts are agreed.

Direct Action is the current policy designed to meet these commitments.

As yet, questions have gone unanswered as to whether Direct Action will be an effective strategy to meet the 5 per cent target.

With firmer international commitments now looking more likely by the end of the 2015 UN climate meeting, it is doubtful whether Direct Action will have the ability to meet an expanded target.

Australia’s already tarnished reputation on climate action may only deteriorate further.

Its greenhouse gas emissions increased last year, despite Washington setting emissions reduction goals during a climate summit in 2009.

The deadline for Mr Obama’s new pledge is in more than a decade’s time, but he only has two years left in his presidency and faces a Congress controlled by Republicans in both houses, which will make passing crucial environmental legislation more difficult.

Much of his action on climate change so far has been done with executive orders rather than cooperation from an often confrontational legislature.

While it was the first time China agreed to a target date for emissions to peak, the commitment was qualified, leaving considerable room for manoeuvre.

China has trumpeted its efforts to reduce dependence on coal and oil in the past, and is the world’s largest hydropower producer, with a growing nuclear sector.

But economic growth remains a vitally important priority and has seen demand for energy soar.

The European Union pledged last month to reduce emissions by at least 40 per cent by 2030 compared with 1990 levels.

But efforts to make meaningful progress on climate change will by stymied unless the US sets “a concrete and ambitious” goal to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, Connie Hedegaard, the EU climate commissioner, said in October.

The EU accounts for 11 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, compared to 16 per cent for the United States and 29 per cent for China.

US Republican leader criticises ‘unrealistic plan’

The US Senate’s Republican leader slammed Mr Obama’s proposed greenhouse gas reductions as an “unrealistic plan”.

“This unrealistic plan, that the president would dump on his successor, would ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs,” Mitch McConnell said of Mr Obama’s proposal.

Mr McConnell, who is set to lead a Senate which Obama’s Democrats lost control of in mid-term elections, said the country had had enough of Mr Obama’s strategies.

“Our economy can’t take the president’s ideological war on coal that will increase the squeeze on middle-class families and struggling miners,” Mr McConnell said.

“The president said his policies were on the ballot, and the American people spoke up against them.

“It’s time for more listening, and less job-destroying red tape.

“Easing the burden already created by EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] regulations will continue to be a priority for me in the new Congress.”

Calls strengthen for Australia to act

Environment Minister Greg Hunt welcomed the deal between the US and China, but Labor warned Australia was at risk of international embarrassment.

Mr Hunt said Australia was already delivering on its own commitment to reduce emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and will take into account actions by other major nations when setting future targets.

But Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said the Abbott Government’s views were out of step with world leaders.

“We are now irrelevant to the great economic debates of our age,” he said in a statement.

“While the United States and China show global leadership, Tony Abbott is sticking his head in the sand.

“At the G20 this week, Australia will hold the embarrassing title of being the only nation going backwards on climate change.

“Any argument for inaction, because the rest of the world isn’t acting, is clearly false.”

Greens leader Christine Milne welcomed the US-China agreement and urged Mr Abbott to tackle climate change.

“This should be a massive wake-up call to Tony Abbott. His continued climate denial and his destruction of the environment is reckless,” she said.

“Tony Abbott is so busy unwinding Australia’s climate policies that he failed to notice the global economy is changing around him.”

Mining boss lauds US-China climate deal

Rio Tinto chief executive Sam Walsh said the agreement was “exciting” and Australia needed to keep in step with what was going on elsewhere in the world.

 Video: Rio Tinto CEO Sam Walsh speaks to 7.30 about the ambitious US-China targets (7.30)

Mr Walsh is currently in Brisbane for a meeting of top business leaders, the B20, ahead of the G20 leaders’ summit later this week.

The mining boss said China and the US were setting the pace in terms of technology development around carbon emission reduction.

“Obviously, they have a vision of what they can achieve over the next 10 years and it’s important that Australia play its part in this,” he told the ABC’s 7.30 program.

Mr Walsh pointed to the CSIRO’s work on carbon reduction as an important Australian initiative.

Asked about recent comments by Mr Abbott that coal was “good for humanity”, Mr Walsh agreed that coal would continue to be important but said that Australia also needed to focus on other renewable avenues, such as wind and solar.

If this was the case you just know the monk is not listening but thinking about his next rehearsed slogan

Victorian Liberal campaigner resigns from party after allegations of involvement with neo-Nazi group. There’s more than one isn’t there Andrew Bolt

scott with napthine.jpg

A Victorian Liberal Party campaigner who has worked in Geelong has resigned from the party amid allegations he was involved in the neo-Nazi movement.

Scott Harrison has been seen in photographs campaigning with the Liberal candidate for Lara, near Geelong, Tony McManus, and the Liberal candidate for Bellarine, Ron Nelson.

Fairfax Media has reported that Mr Harrison was a former prominent member of the white supremacist group Church of Creativity.

In a statement, Liberal state director Damien Mantach said the party was not aware of Mr Harrison’s previous connections.

“His comments are unacceptable and do not reflect the views of the Liberal Party,” he said.

“He has now resigned from the party, effective immediately.”

Victorian Premier Denis Napthine said he welcomed news that Mr Harrison had resigned.

“He has never been a part of my team and has never worked for the Coalition Government,” he said in a statement.

“There is absolutely no place in society for these type of comments.”

The ABC has attempted to contact Mr Harrison.

A spokesman for the Liberal MP for Corangamite, Sarah Henderson, would not confirm what role Mr Harrison played in her 2013 federal election campaign.

Mr Nelson and Mr McManus have not return calls from the ABC.

The Richest 0.1 Percent Is About to Control More Wealth Than the Bottom 90 Percent

While a complex web of factors have contributed to the rise in income inequality in America, a new research paper says most of the blame can be largely placed in the immense growth experienced by the top tenth of the richest 1 percent of Americans in recent years. From the report:

The rise of wealth inequality is almost entirely due to the rise of the top 0.1% wealth share, from 7% in 1979 to 22% in 2012, a level almost as high as in 1929. The bottom 90% wealth share first increased up to the mid-1980s and then steadily declined. The increase in wealth concentration is due to the surge of top incomes combined with an increase in saving rate inequality.

So, who are the 0.1 percent among us? According to Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, the paper’s researchers, the elite group is a small one, roughly composed of 160,000 families with assets exceeding $20 million, but their grip on America’s wealth distribution is about to surpass the bottom 90 percent for the first time in more than half a century.  Today’s 0.1 percent also tend to be younger than the top incomers of the 1960’s, despite the fact the country as a whole has been living longer—proving once again, that there has truly never been a more opportune time to be rich in America:

rise of the megarich

Pictorial images tells a story of different realities of democracy

Wobbling on Climate Change

GREENBELT, Md. — I’M a climate scientist and a former astronaut. Not surprisingly, I have a deep respect for well-tested theories and facts. In the climate debate, these things have a way of getting blurred in political discussions.

In September, John P. Holdren, the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, was testifying to a Congressional committee about climate change. Representative Steve Stockman, a Republican from Texas, recounted a visit he had made to NASA, where he asked what had ended the ice age:

“And the lead scientist at NASA said this — he said that what ended the ice age was global wobbling. That’s what I was told. This is a lead scientist down in Maryland; you’re welcome to go down there and ask him the same thing.

“So, and my second question, which I thought it was an intuitive question that should be followed up — is the wobbling of the earth included in any of your modelings? And the answer was no…

“How can you take an element which you give the credit for the collapse of global freezing and into global warming but leave it out of your models?”

That “lead scientist at NASA” was me. In July, Mr. Stockman spent a couple of hours at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center listening to presentations about earth science and climate change. The subject of ice ages came up. Mr. Stockman asked, “How can your models predict the climate when no one can tell me what causes the ice ages?”

I responded that, actually, the science community understood very well what takes the earth into and out of ice ages. A Serbian mathematician, Milutin Milankovitch, worked out the theory during the early years of the 20th century. He calculated by hand that variations in the earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit around the sun start and end ice ages. I said that you could think of ice ages as resulting from wobbles in the earth’s tilt and orbit.

The time scales involved are on the order of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. I explained that this science has been well tested against the fossil record and is broadly accepted. I added that we don’t normally include these factors in 100-year climate projections because the effects are too tiny to be important on such a short time-scale.

And that, I thought, was that.

So I was bit surprised to read the exchange between Dr. Holdren and Representative Stockman, which suggested that at best we couldn’t explain the science and at worst we scientists are clueless about ice ages.

We aren’t. Nor are we clueless about what is happening to the climate, thanks in part to a small fleet of satellites that fly above our heads, measuring the pulse of the earth. Without them we would have no useful weather forecasts beyond a couple of days.

These satellite data are fed into computer models that use the laws of motion — Sir Isaac Newton’s theories — to figure out where the world’s air currents will flow, where clouds will form and rain will fall. And — voilà — you can plan your weekend, an airline can plan a flight and a city can prepare for a hurricane.

Satellites also keep track of other important variables: polar ice, sea level rise, changes in vegetation, ocean currents, sea surface temperature and ocean salinity (that’s right — you can accurately measure salinity from space), cloudiness and so on.

These data are crucial for assessing and understanding changes in the earth system and determining whether they are natural or connected to human activities. They are also used to challenge and correct climate models, which are mostly based on the same theories used in weather forecast models.

This whole system of observation, theory and prediction is tested daily in forecast models and almost continuously in climate models. So, if you have no faith in the predictive capability of climate models, you should also discard your faith in weather forecasts and any other predictions based on Newtonian mechanics.

The earth has warmed nearly 0.8 degrees Celsius over the last century and we are confident that the biggest factor in this increase is the release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning. It is almost certain that we will see a rise of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) before 2100, and a three-degree rise (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) or higher is a possibility. The impacts over such a short period would be huge. The longer we put off corrective action, the more disruptive the outcome is likely to be.

It is my pleasure and duty as a scientist and civil servant to discuss the challenge of climate change with elected officials. My colleagues and I do our best to transmit what we know and what we think is likely to happen.

The facts and accepted theories are fundamental to understanding climate change, and they are too important to get wrong or trivialize. Some difficult decisions lie ahead for us humans. We should debate our options armed with the best information and ideas that science can provide.

ISIL IS TERROR NOT ISLAM

Empire

War on Terror, War on Muslims?

Empire asks if the global fight against terrorism is eroding the democratic principles it set out to defend.

US President Barack Obama is vowing to “degrade, and ultimately destroy” a terrorist group destabilising the Middle East he says could threaten Americans at home.

Sound familiar? George W Bush made a similar vow, yet more than a decade after launching the so-called War on Terror, both the war and the terror are still raging.

Obama says the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) will be different than the two wars started by Bush. But Muslims looked at with suspicion around the world are wondering, how different will their treatment be?

What is the impact of increasing surveillance of Muslim communities, banning Islamic dress and equating a religion with a threat? Do the counter-terror measures adopted by the US, Britain and France erode the very democratic principles considered the pillars of a “free” society?

Marwan Bishara asks what happens when the War on Terror turns inward, and prolonged military action abroad turns into a culture of fear at home.

The blood antiquities funding ISIL The sale of illegal antiquities is now estimated to be ISIL’s second-largest revenue stream after oil. However the fundamental question who buys them remains unanswered.

Recently, in an exclusive event at New York’s Metropolitan Museum, Secretary of State John Kerry stood – with perhaps unintended irony – before the facade of the ancient Egyptian Temple of Dendur to back an initiative to track losses of Syrian and Iraqi antiquities, including the destruction of monuments and looting of precious objects from archaeological sites.

Kerry blamed “barbaric” practices of groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), who profit by sponsoring highly organised groups of looters who sell the objects, fresh from the ground, to middlemen.

But one might ask: Who buys them?

It’s politically advantageous to blame ISIL. But it is another barbarism, one that unfolds in the hushed and elegant showrooms of antiquities merchants and auction houses in the Middle East, Europe and the United States, that is the true engine of this commerce.

Antiquities trafficking is a booming business in Syria and Iraq, and not only ISIL is to blame. Syrian government forces have been filmed piling delicately carved funerary statues from Roman-era Palmyra into the back of a pick-up truck, and at the ancient site of Apamea, a capital of the successors to Alexander the Great, the sudden appearance of a vast, lunar landscape of over 4,000 illegal excavation holes indicate it was also looted while under the army’s control.

Raising money

Groups affiliated with the Free Syrian Army have also admitted to looting sites to raise money for weapons. It is now clear from satellite imagery and reports from Syria’s “Monuments Men” – a courageous network of informants risking their lives to report losses – hundreds of monuments and archaeological sites have been damaged, destroyed or dug up, in some cases using heavy machinery.

In Iraq, which has experienced a continuous loss of antiquities since the 2003 US-led invasion, nearly 4,500 archaeological sites are now under ISIL control. Looting of its archaeological riches is likely under way. The satellite study shows Syria’s heritage – which represents over 5,000 years of humankind’s foundational achievements in the cradle of civilisation – is literally being ground into dust.

Calling groups like ISIL “barbarians” makes for a fine sense of wartime superiority, but asking who they’re selling to is less pleasant. For many hand-wringing officials, that market is flourishing uncomfortably close to home. Germany has become the “El Dorado of the illegal cultural artifacts trade“, with Munich serving as Europe’s transit hub. Meanwhile, US imports of Syrian antiquities have risen by 133 percent. Objects labelled “handicrafts” have been brought through customs with little scrutiny.

The sale of illegal antiquities is now estimated to be ISIL’s second-largest revenue stream after oil. The recent naming of these looted goods “blood antiquities” or “conflict antiquities” and the adoption of the term “cultural cleansing” accurately reflect the bloody profit to be made. What, then, shall we call the sellers and collectors?

Call them what they are: war profiteers.

If the term seems too strong, consider an 11th century wooden synagogue panel, inscribed in Hebrew, attributed to Damascus by a paper label on the back. In 2011, its value was estimated at $5,000, with questions as to its date and little information about its provenance.

Two short years later, following the well-publicised, near-destruction of the synagogue of Jobar in Damascus in 2013, the piece was put up for auction at Sotheby’s, and had now acquired a lengthy exegetical commentary: “Once the most important Jewish pilgrimage site in Syria”, reads the catalogue’s explanatory text, “the synagogue has since been totally destroyed. This rare surviving artifact of the Jewish community at Jobar may be all that remains of this ancient and venerable community”.

The piece sold for $50,000.

Sales encourage looting

We should condemn auction houses’ practice of playing up the connection of objects to lost or endangered monuments to boost sales. Even if legally acquired, such sales only serve to encourage looting and drive prices higher on the illicit market.

Collectors who imagine they are saving the artifacts from a worse fate delude themselves: Objects summarily ripped from the ground disappear into private collections and lose their ability to speak as material voices of history, robbed of the context that careful excavation by archaeologists and curation by museums can provide. The collecting pays for the looting. And in this case, it also pays for the killing. Until they can be excavated properly, the safest place for these objects is in the ground.

UN ban on the sale of antiquities will no doubt raise awareness. But the real solution lies in an honest assessment of the true driver of the international antiquities trade: collectors and auction houses, facilitated by lax regulations. In some countries, a simple egg is better regulated.

Recent German legislation places the onus on dealers to demonstrate goods are legally attained by demanding an official export license from the country of origin. We should also create an international database for monitoring and tracking. US officials are paying attention.

With aggressive policing, such legislation could stem the tide of these “blood antiquities” at its source: not in the deserts of Syria and Iraq, but in the richly appointed homes of collectors and refined halls of auction houses in Europe, the Middle East and the United States.

Stephennie Mulder is a Public Voices Fellow and an assistant professor of Islamic Art and Architecture at the University of Texas at Austin. She’s also an archaeologist who worked over a decade in Syria.

Media at war, death by our side. Do we play by the Geneva convention? Iraq doing it for themselves.

http://aje.me/1uL1dg4

ISIL can be defeated

ISIL is not ISLAM

ISIL will be punished

ISIL is not the only group using the media as a weapon of war, with one anti-ISIL TV station also gaining ground in Iraq.

Al Jazeera’s Charles Stratford reports from northern Iraq.

The Shirtfront Chronicles Bob Ellis 12 November 2014, 10:00am 6

It is worth noting how big a fool Abbott has made of himself with his ‘shirtfront’ threats and the harm he has done to his country.

He has accused a world leader of complicity in a mass murder and asked him for money in recompense for it. Though it is unlikely Putin knew of the incident before it happened, he has asked him to take responsibility for it, and, in effect, pay a fine – if he is a good fellow – though he has not spoken of any consequences if he does not.

This was after he threatened to ‘shirtfront him’; then, backing off a bit, ‘have a robust conversation with him’, and then sat beside him for an hour avoiding his eyes and not saying a word to him, showing palpable fear of one who is, after all, the most powerful man in the world.

If the ‘compensation’ he has asked for each dead Australian, or Australian resident, was, say, $450,000 the money that Putin would be then said to owe the 298 victims’ families is $134,100,000. This is greatly in excess of the $800 Australia pays for a wrongly killed child in Afghanistan, but let us imagine this is the total owed.

But is it Putin that owes it?

He supplied weapons to an insurgent force, as America did to the Contras in Nicaragua, who killed, inadvertently, some innocent people in the path of their advance, just as they supplied weapons to the secret force that killed Che Guevara, but they have not yet paid a fine for this wrongdoing to anybody

And Abbott wants not only money but an apology.

He asks no apology from the Malaysian airline official, and the EU official, who guided the plane into a war zone, but he wants an apology from Putin, who had nothing to do with the accident that followed.

And if he doesn’t get the apology, he will do … nothing.

‘Laughing stock’ does not come near the way he is thought of by the wide, wide world this morning. He has accused a powerful man of being an accomplice in mass murder and asked $17,100,000 for it, and an apology, and threatened him, if he does not comply, with … nothing.

This, after showing palpable cowardice in his presence.

It is likely, though not certain, that Putin will have a press conference, or issue a statement. He will say he has evidence the Ukrainians did it. He may cut off trade with Australia. He may forbid Qantas to fly over Russia. He may ask Abbott to apologise for so accusing him. It certain he will not ask him to pay a fine.

How serious a blunder is this?

Well, it has shown that, after the acclaimed majestic tact of Bob Carr, our foreign policy has been executed by boofheads. Bishop railed, on camera, at the Chinese. Morrison dumped refugees on Indonesia, invading their territory. Abbott said the Scots were unworthy of the freedom Australians have. Dutton refused qualified doctors, who wanted to go there, to the Ebola stricken countries of Africa.

And now this. It gets worse, of course.

Putin, next week, will be in Brisbane, imperfectly protected and journalists will come after him. And he will, at some point, say something. He will accuse Abbott, humorously perhaps, of being ‘not the full quid’.

And the wide, wide world will agree.

And so it will go.

View image on Twitter

The West laughs at Putin for Politics. The West laughs at Abbott for Idolatry-of-Self Idolatry-of-Self by Kaye Lee

abbott pride

You don’t have to be a religious person to find the study of religious texts thought-provoking. I have had many a philosophical debate about, for example, why women can’t be priests or the reason for the immaculate conception story.

They also help formulate a moral and ethical code for living in an ever-more crowded society. Considering when they were written, they do a pretty good job of this if you ignore the smiting bits.

Considering the preponderance of God-fearing Christians in our current Parliament, I thought it might be timely to remind them of some fundamental tenets of their faith.

In the Book of Proverbs 6:16-19, among the verses traditionally associated with King Solomon, it states that the Lord specifically regards “six things the Lord hateth, and seven that are an abomination unto Him”, namely:

  1. A proud look
  2. A lying tongue
  3. Hands that shed innocent blood
  4. A heart that devises wicked plots
  5. Feet that are swift to run into mischief
  6. A deceitful witness that uttereth lies
  7. Him that soweth discord among brethren

That struck me forcibly as it seems a fairly accurate description of Tony Abbott and some of his colleagues. Reading further only made the comparison more apt.

The seven deadly sins have been used since early Christian times to educate and instruct Christians concerning fallen humanity’s tendency to sin. The sins are usually given as wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. Each is a form of Idolatry-of-Self wherein the subjective reigns over the objective.

Lust is an intense desire. Lust could be exemplified by the intense desire for money, food, fame, power, or sex.

Gluttony is the over-indulgence and over-consumption of anything to the point of waste. Gluttony can be interpreted as selfishness; essentially placing concern with one’s own interests above the well-being or interests of others.

Greed is, like lust and gluttony, a sin of excess. Greed is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs, especially with respect to material wealth.

Like greed and lust, Envy is characterized by an insatiable desire. Envy is similar to jealousy in that they both feel discontent towards someone’s traits, status, abilities, or rewards. The difference is the envious also desire the entity and covet it.

Sloth can entail different vices. While sloth is sometimes defined as physical laziness, spiritual laziness is emphasized. Sloth has also been defined as a failure to do things that one should do. By this definition, evil exists when good men fail to act.

Wrath may be described as inordinate and uncontrolled feelings of hatred and anger. Wrath, in its purest form, presents with self-destructiveness, violence, and hate that may provoke feuds that can go on for centuries. Dante described vengeance as “love of justice perverted to revenge and spite”.

Pride is considered the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins, and the source of the others. It is identified as believing that one is essentially better than others, failing to acknowledge the accomplishments of others, and excessive admiration of the personal self.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a mortal or deadly sin is believed to destroy the life of grace and charity within a person and thus creates the threat of eternal damnation, so at this stage I was getting quite worried for Tony Abbott who is so obviously doomed. But fear not.

Luckily, through the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation (commonly called Confession, Reconciliation or Penance), the faithful obtain divine mercy for the sins committed against God and neighbour and are reconciled with the community of the Church.   By this sacrament Christians are freed from sins committed after Baptism. The sacrament of penance is considered the normal way to be absolved from mortal sins which, it is believed, would otherwise condemn a person to Hell.

Sometimes it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission,” – Tony Abbott

Perhaps so Tony but remember…..

“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” – Proverbs 16:18

Edmund Burke wrote “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”

Time for the Australian Association to rally and take on Team Abbott.

A Negative Fool Named Abbott

Negativity 2

We have overcome our isolation but we are still caught in two worlds, Europe and Asia. Events have transpired that have fed into changes that create their own momentum. Technology have brought us closer to the rest of the world and there is nothing any amount of conservative opposition can do to stop it. The tyranny of distance has been resolved.

When one looks back on these post war years there is much to like. Australians by nature are optimistic and forward-looking. It has been that optimism that has propelled us forward. Our immigration programme was hugely successful. ‘’She’ll be right’’ became the catchcry of the Snowy Mountain Scheme’’ meaning we could overcome any adversity. It was a Labor idea carried out by Menzies but either way it commenced our expansion as a nation.

We are now the world’s 12th largest economy with a GDP larger than Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Spain, and Indonesia. In the 2008 GFC we were the only western nation to avoid a recession. We have experienced 23 years of economic growth. The only country to do so and people under the age of 30 have never experienced a recession.

So why the political negativity?

Our cities continually win ‘’The Best Place to Live’’ awards and the OEDCs better life index of national happiness. We are top of the world’s tourist destinations edging out the Maldives, Hawaii and France. Our science restaurants, design, creativity and our business acumen enjoy a world reputation.

We have a multi-cultural population of 22.5 million of which one million are at any given time traveling the world. Our education system has produced international managers of McDonalds, Ford, Pizza Hut, British Airways and the World Bank. The Times of London even urged our ex pats not to return home because they were considered so valuable to the English economy.

So why the political negativity?

Despite a downturn in prices we still have the world’s largest supply of minerals and next year we may well become the world’s largest exporter of natural gas. We are still huge exporters of wheat and agricultural products. In fact the overall opportunities for export growth are enormous.
Westfield is the biggest shopping mall owner in the world.

Our international and diplomatic reputation has never been higher. We are privy to the ear of any nation. We have, for many years enjoyed a succession of foreign ministers, on both sides of politics who have served us well.

The Prime Minister of the day walks easily at the side of Presidents. Such is our world standing. Bob Hawke was instrumental in the formation of APEC, while Paul Keating elevated it into a leader’s forum. Peter Costello was the chief architect of the G20. We are now one of only ten non- permanent members of the UN Security Council.

So why the negativity?

In the arts we have overcome our cultural cringe. Hollywood is alive with Australian actors. Our authors are amongst the worlds most popular. Our popular music is constantly in demand. The Australian ballet tours continuously. Aboriginal art, dance and culture is recognised. Consider the success of Tropfest which from humble beginnings has become the world’s biggest short film festival. Our culture is now exported and in demand without the need for validation. People like Clive James, Robert Hughes and Germaine Greer who had to leave the country to find recognition were trail blazers. Nowadays they can live anywhere and retain our public esteem. Our intellectuals are no longer ostracised or shunned. Our prosperity, our achievements and future possibilities are reported in the world’s great publications. In short we are better known internationally now, than we have ever been.

Lastly, in sport our reputation, despite a 10th in the London Olympics remains untarnished. Whatever the sport you will more than likely find an Australian on the leader board.

So why the political negativity?

Other than becoming a republic Australia in my lifetime has come of age. There are many factors outside of politics that have contributed to a bigger and better Australia. We have never had it better.

Prior to Whitlam we were an international backwater. His optimism opened our eyes to a brave new world full of opportunity. There was simply a before Whitlam and an after Whitlam. No amount of conservative negativity about his legacy will change that fact. Hawke, Keating, Gillard and Rudd sought to enhance his legacy and for a time positivity trumped all. Fraser and Howard despite their longevity of office achieved little in lasting major reforms except for Howards GST. If you count that as a positive.

Then came along the greatest relentlessly negative conservative spoiler, with a sad history of combative political behavior this country has ever seen. A man who walks and talks negativity. I suspect a man negative by nature all his life who came to power with it, only to find that leadership requires a degree of charisma and substance?

At a time when our nation needed a leader of foresight, of the Whitlam ilk, we elected a dud. When we needed a leader of character, with the moral fibre to face the growing threat of climate change, inequality in wealth and equality of opportunity in education we choose the most negative lying politician we have ever had. A Prime Minister whose words and actions bring into question the very essence of the word truth. Or he has at least devalued it to the point of obsolescence.

Remarkably, even after the unfair 2014 budget, and a litany of broken promises he has maintained with shameless effrontery that keeping promises is a priority for his government. It’s intriguing that he would be so cavalier with his credibility.

He is man who has spread negativity like rust through the community not only as Opposition Leader, but by habit as Prime Minister.
A man devoid of ideas with a dour cabinet depressingly in sync. A man with a past so incredibly negative that he now finds it impossible to be positive about anything. And it rubs off onto those around him.

The attempt at transforming Abbott from ultra-negative Opposition Leader to positive Prime Minister has been an unmitigated disaster. He is out of touch with today’s young who have adapted to technological change and the benefits it brings. Women in general see him as a palpably grubby individual not to be trusted. A man of the past who lacks any passion for fairness and the underprivileged.

We need a leader who can take on the gauntlet of Whitlam’s legacy and build on it with fresh ideas. One who has the sagacity to see the advantages of a new economy built around renewable energy. Someone who can put aside the politic and dare to dream of a future with policies conceived for the common good. Creative policies augmented with sound economic rational. In short a man with a vision for our future and a narrative to explain it.

One who can put our democracy back in order where debate is not of necessity about winning or taking down ones opponent. But rather an exchange of facts ideas and principles. Or in its purest form simply the art of persuasion.

A true democracy where the voice of the individual can still be heard over the political chatter. A democracy where policies need not of necessity be measured against our GDP but also how they enhance the welfare of the people. About how we react to each other in our social equity, our work, our play, our art, our poetry and wellbeing.

We will of course, because of our individual and collective confidence, continue to grow. Our natural optimism will create new ideas and change will make us richer. The opportunities are only narrowed by conservative negativity. However, wouldn’t it be nice if we had a government who shared our gregariously positive outlook instead of this pessimistic lot of political fools.

Whitlam as a leader was creative and positive, whereas Abbott is Captain Negative. Whitlam was the most constructive opposition leader Australia has known; Abbott the least constructive.

What might Bill Shorten turn out to be?

‘’If you think positively that’s what you will become and the same applies to negativity. As we think so we become”

I have just read the prologue of the book by Nick Bryant ‘’The Rise and Fall of Australia’’ – How a Great Nation Lost its Way. It is exquisitely written, summarising post war Australia, its growth its prosperity, its sport, its culture, its ingrained positivity and its politics.

Having been born in 1941 it is a period in time that I easily identify with. A time when as a boy poverty was a word experienced, if not understood. Where the loss of ration coupons on the way to the dairy invited a belting and living four to a room with a single gas burner was commonplace.

My political philosophy was born of Irish stubbiness on my mother’s side. Of unashamed idealism concerned about equality and the common good, with a strong sense of social justice, the value of things, and an appreciation of what a true democracy should be.

As a youth my home, Australia, was indeed ‘’a land downunder’’ Of little importance to the rest of the world. But along the way, almost in spite of ourselves, we have grown up, well almost. Certainly in spite of leaders like arch conservatives Menzies. Howard and now Abbott.

The three have one thing in common. They all embraced the American century but at the same time each had an instinctive yearning to re attach the umbilical cord with mother England.

As Bryant puts it ‘’in the national conversation, the idea of proximity had not yet dislodged the longstanding sense of isolation’’

John Lord

Negativity

Putin’s gallant gesture to leader’s wife censored by Chinese

Vladimir Putin, Peng Liyuan

It was a warm gesture on a chilly night when Vladimir Putin wrapped a shawl around the wife of Xi Jinping while the Chinese president chatted with Barack Obama. The only problem: Putin came off looking gallant, the Chinese summit host gauche and inattentive.

Worse still were off-colour jokes that began to circulate about the real intentions of the divorced Russian president – a heart-throb among many Chinese women for his macho, man-of-action image.

That was too much for the Chinese authorities.

The incident, at a performance linked to this week’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit, was originally shown on state TV and spread online as a forwarded video. But it was soon scrubbed clean from the internet in China, reflecting the intense control authorities exert over any material about the country’s leaders while also pointing to cultural differences over what is considered acceptable behaviour in public.

“China is traditionally conservative on public interaction between unrelated men and women, and the public show of consideration by Putin may provide fodder for jokes, which the big boss probably does not like,” said the Beijing-based historian and independent commentator Zhang Lifan.

Xi’s wife, Peng Liyuan, was once a popular folk singer more famous than her husband, and in contrast to her predecessors she has taken on a much more public role, prominently joining her husband on trips abroad as part of China’s soft power push to seek a global status commensurate with its economic might.

Propaganda officials have built the image of Xi and his wife as a loving couple. Photos of Xi shielding his wife from rain on a state visit, picking flowers for her, or simply holding her hand have been circulated widely on China’s social media.

“When the president personally held up the umbrella for the madam, it complies with the international norm of respecting women,” blogger Luo Qingxue wrote on the news site for the party-run newspaper People’s Daily last year after the couple were pictured on a state visit to Trinidad and Tobago.

But Putin’s intervention messed up the script on Monday night while Xi chatted with the American president.

In the video, Peng stood up, politely accepted the grey shawl offered by Putin, and thanked him with a slight bow. But she soon slipped it off and put on a black coat offered by her own attendant.

It spawned a flurry of comments on China’s social media before censors began removing any mention of the incident.

Li Xin, director of Russian and central Asian studies at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, said Putin was just being a proper Russian and did nothing out-of-line diplomatically.

“It’s a tradition in Russia for a man of dignity to respect ladies on public occasions, and in a cold country like Russia, it is very normal that a gentleman should help ladies take on and off their coats,” Li said. “But the Chinese may not be accustomed to that.”

How a Libyan city joined the Islamic State

The city of Darna, Libya has opted to join IS despite being 1600 kilometres from their cl

ON A chilly night, bearded militants gathered at a stage strung with colourful lights in Darna, a Mediterranean coastal city long notorious as Libya’s centre for jihadi radicals. With a roaring chant, they pledged their allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State group.

With that meeting 10 days ago, the militants dragged Darna into becoming the first city outside of Iraq and Syria to join the “caliphate” announced by the extremist group.

Already, the city has seen religious courts ordering killings in public, floggings of residents accused of violating Shariah law, as well as enforced segregation of male and female students. Opponents of the militants have gone into hiding or fled, terrorised by a string of slayings aimed at silencing them.

The takeover of the city, some 1,600 kilometres from the nearest territory controlled by the Islamic State group, offers a revealing look into how the radical group is able to exploit local conditions.

A new Islamic State “emir” now leads the city, identified as Mohammed Abdullah, a little-known Yemeni militant sent from Syria known by his nom de guerre Abu al-Baraa el-Azdi, according to several local activists and a former militant from Darna.

A number of leading Islamic State militants came to the city from Iraq and Syria earlier this year and over a few months united the most of Darna’s multiple but long-divided extremist factions behind them.

They paved the way by killing any rivals, including militants, according to local activists, former city council members and a former militant interviewed by The Associated Press. They all spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear for their lives.

Darna could be a model for the group to try to expand elsewhere. Notably, in Lebanon, army troops recently captured a number of militants believed to be planning to seize several villages in the north and proclaim them part of the “caliphate.” Around the region, a few militant groups have pledged allegiance to its leader, Iraqi militant Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. But none hold cohesive territory like those in Darna do.

The vow of allegiance in Darna gives the Islamic State group a foothold in Libya, an oil-rich North African nation whose central government control has collapsed in the chaos since the 2011 death of longtime dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi.

Extremists made Darna their stronghold in the 1980s and 1990s during an insurgency against Gadhafi, the city protected by the rugged terrain of the surrounding Green Mountain range in eastern Libya. Darna was the main source of Libyan jihadis and suicide bombers for the insurgency in Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion. Entire brigades of Darna natives fight in Syria’s civil war.

This spring, a number of Libyan jihadis with the Islamic State group returned home to Darna. The returnees, known as the Battar Group, formed a new faction called the Shura Council for the Youth of Islam, which began rallying other local militants behind joining the Islamic State group. In September, al-Azdi arrived.

Many of Darna’s militants joined, though some didn’t. Part of Ansar al-Shariah, one of the country’s most powerful Islamic factions, joined while another part rejected it.

The main militant group that refused was the Martyrs of Abu Salem Brigade, once the strongest force in Darna. The fundamentalist group sees itself as a nationalist Libyan force and calls for a democratically formed government, albeit one that must enforce stricter Shariah law.

For the past months, it has battled the al-Battar fighters and the Shura Council. Al-Battar accused the Abu Salem militia of killing one of its top commanders in June and threatened in a statement to “fill the land with (their) graves.”

Meanwhile, a militant campaign of killings in Darna targeted the liberal activists who once led sit-ins against them, as well as lawyers and judges. Militants also stormed polling stations, stopping voting in Darna during nationwide elections in March and June.

In July, a former liberal lawmaker in Darna, Farieha el-Berkawi, was gunned down in broad daylight. Her killing in particular chilled the anti-militant movement, said a close friend of el-Berkawi. “People had done their best (to force out militants) and got nothing but more bloodshed,” she told the AP.

Those who stayed tried to coexist. Some submitted letters of “repentance” to the Islamic militias, denouncing their past work in the government. Militant group Facebook pages are dotted with letters of repentance submitted by a traffic police officer, a former militiaman and a former colonel in Gadhafi’s security apparatuses.

With opposition silenced, militant factions first came together on October 5 and decided to pledge allegiance to al-Baghdadi and form the Islamic State group’s “Barqa province,” using a traditional name for eastern Libya. After the gathering, more than 60 pick-up trucks filled with fighters cruised through the city in a victory parade.

Last week, a second gathering in front of a Darna social club saw a larger array of factions make a more formal pledge of allegiance. Al-Azdi attended the event, according to the former militant. The militant himself did not attend but several of his close relatives who belong to Ansar al-Shariah did.

Now, government buildings in Darna are “Islamic State” offices, according to the activists. Cars carrying the logo of the “Islamic police” roam the city.

Women increasingly wear ultraconservative face veils. Masked men have flogged young men caught drinking alcohol, a former city council member told the AP.

Militants have ordered that male and female students must be segregated at school, and history and geography were removed from the curriculum, according to two activists in the city. New “Islamic police” flyers order clothing stores to cover their mannequins and not display “scandalous women’s clothes that cause sedition.”

Opposition to the militants, already scattered, is under threat. During the extremists’ first meeting, a colleague recounted how Osama al-Mansouri, a lecturer at Darna’s Fine Arts college, stood up and asked the bearded men: “What do you want? What are you after?”

Two days later, gunmen shot al-Mansouri dead in his car.

Real Media, Alt News, Politics, Critical Thought, War, Global events, Australia, Headlines,