With 10-year bond rates at an all-time low, the time is ripe to get some visionary projects off the drawing board.
Who’d say no to the deal of a lifetime? Tony Abbott would, and it’s our tragedy.
The 10-year bond rate is the rate at which the government can borrow for 10 years at a fixed rate of interest. Right now it’s just 2.55 per cent, an all-time low.
It’s rare to be offered money for nothing. All we would need is confidence in the worth of our ideas.
By way of comparison in the 1970s it exceeded 10 per cent, in the 1980s it passed 16 per cent, in the 1990s it passed 10 per cent, in the 2000s 5 per cent, and until now in this decade it has usually been above 3 per cent. It dived below 3 per cent at the end of last year and is now just 2.55 per cent, the lowest in living memory.
If Australia was to borrow, big time, for important projects that took the best part of a decade to complete, it would have no risk of ever having to fork out more than 2.55 per cent a year in interest. The record low rate would be locked in for 10 years.
Australia’s inflation rate is currently 2.3 per cent. Although it will almost certainly fall in the wake of the collapse in oil prices when it is updated next week, the Reserve Bank has a mandate to keep the rate centred at about 2.5 per cent. That means that right now our government is being offered billions for next to nothing, billions for scarcely more than the expected rate of inflation.
If Abbott was the chief executive of a company with good prospects he’d grab the money and borrow as many billions as he could without impairing his credit rating.
In Australia’s case that’s probably an extra $100 billion. That’s enough to build the long-awaited Brisbane to Sydney to Melbourne high-speed rail line, or to build Labor’s original national broadband network, or Sydney’s $11 billion WestConnex road project plus Melbourne’s $11 billion metro rail project plus Melbourne’s $16 billion East West Link plus something big in each of the other states.
And it would cost next to nothing. All each of these projects would need is a positive real rate of return (which several of those listed above lack) and we would get ahead.
All we would need is confidence in the worth of our ideas.
It’s rare to be offered money for nothing.
It’s happening because interest rates in the rest of the world have dropped to near zero. Japan’s 10-year bond rate is 0.24 per cent, Germany’s is 0.40 per cent, Britain’s 1.54 per cent. Even in the United States, where the economy is improving, the 10-year bond rate is just 1.81 per cent. Without the ability to earn decent returns in the nations to our north, investors are flocking here and buying our government bonds. In order to get them they are prepared to bid down the rates we have to pay them to all-time lows.
It mightn’t last. In October, Reserve Bank assistant governor Guy Debelle warned of a “relatively violent” correction in bond markets. He said as soon as it looks as if interest rates will climb, the purchasers of bonds will demand much higher rates in order to cover themselves for what’s likely over the next 10 years. The opportunity will vanish.
If we are prepared to grasp it, there’s no shortage of projects that would set us up for decades to come. In education, in health, in the delivery to railway lines into suburbs that are at present barely accessible – in all of these areas there are projects whose benefits would exceed their costs and exceed them by more than enough to pay the minimal rate of interest being demanded.
Some are visionary. Bank of America Merrill Lynch economist Saul Eslake says if Australia was to get serious about reducing its dependence on coal it would consider paying coal producers to close, and speeding up the commercialisation of battery technologies that would allow Australians with the next wave of solar panels to live off the grid.
The Grattan Institute’s John Daley suggests setting up an independent statutory authority along the lines of the Reserve Bank to vet proposals for spending big money. Its members would be appointed by the Governor-General for terms of five to seven years, it would report directly to parliament and would publish of all of its findings, complete with the assumptions behind them. He says even cheap money should be spent well.
Could the Coalition grab the opportunity before it vanishes? There are some good signs. With help from the Greens it axed Labor’s debt ceiling. Since taking office it has run up an extra $78 billion in debt. But it is unorganised, behind in the polls and a prisoner of some of the silly things it said about debt while in opposition.
We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It’ll slip through our fingers.
Recent discussions have caused me to think about what I consider to be the job of an elected Member of Parliament.
I should preface my remarks by saying I have never been a member of a political party. I was a union member when a government employee. Perhaps those things are relevant, perhaps not.
Wikipedia describes politics as the practice and theory of influencing other people, hierarchical control over a human community, the distribution of power and resources within a given community.
It goes on to describe the variety of methods employed in politics, which include promoting one’s own political views among people, negotiation with other political subjects, making laws, and exercising force, including warfare against adversaries.
Perhaps that is the real definition of politics – influence, control and power.
Googling “politician job description” led me to a job site which talked about why you might choose politics as a career.
Many high-ranking politicians also find lucrative consultancy roles once they’ve left the world of politics.
Plenty of perks in this job; good pay, varied days, plenty of career prospects and a long summer break.
Many politicians have been actively involved from a young age so it’s never too early to start.
Routes into politics include:
Working as a political researcher
Working as a politician’s assistant
Working as a trade union activist
Politicians are an eclectic bunch and this career attracts folk from every walk of life. However, to survive the choppy waters of politics you’ll need:
Bags of determination
Plenty of self-belief
A passion for current affairs (if you don’t watch the news this isn’t the career for you)
The ability to stay calm under pressure
Top-notch communication skills
and you’ll also need to be a confident public speaker so there’s no time to be a wallflower.
By this time I was getting a rather sour taste in my mouth for “politics” and decided to move on to Parliament.
I think that is important. Every person sitting in that chamber was elected by the people whose area they represent presumably because of the belief that they can best represent their interests. Whether they be local, national, or global interests, the majority of the electorate chose that person to represent their vote.
The House’s central function and the one which takes up most of its time is the consideration and passing of new laws and amendments or changes to existing laws. Any Member can introduce a proposed law (bill).
Any member, of either house, may introduce a bill. I know that to get anything passed it has to be passed by a majority in both houses but members are elected to represent their constituents, not their parties, and they should always vote in their electorate’s best interests. Sharman Stone’s vociferous support for SPC Ardmona was an admirable example of someone fighting for her constituents rather than parroting the party line. Every vote should be a conscience vote rather than a direction of how to vote from a factional leader.
Represents the people—Members may present petitions from citizens and raise citizens’ concerns and grievances in debate. Members also raise issues of concern with Ministers and government departments.
Watching Question Time gives a very poor representation of what Parliament is about but a very good one of what politics is all about. Sharman Stone dismissively described it on Q&A as “a stage for the men to perform their theatrics”. Committees are much more interesting and you even sometimes find things out there as opposed to someone trying to make the nightly news with a one-liner. Televising them rather than QT would be a much better way of informing the public of both sides of a debate.
My personal view is that every elected Member of Parliament should spend their term in office listening, learning, questioning, and then, on the basis of the expert advice available to them, proposing solutions to the problems facing our nation and voting to steer us in the right direction.
But unfortunately, our Members of Parliament see themselves as politicians rather than public servants and are more concerned with their career path than the path of our country. It’s all about the next election.
(ANTIMEDIA) A series of Fox News segments were recently deemed to be inaccurate, and they were widely mocked in French media for being far from the truth, and for inciting hatred towards Muslims.
The news segments suggested that there were parts of Paris and other cities in Europe where ‘Islamic law was practiced’ and police and non-Islamic citizens were ‘fearful’ to go into these areas. Surprising to no one who is aware, Fox News was torn apart for making false claims about these alleged dangerous Muslim neighborhoods.
In response to this genuinely dangerous propaganda, the Mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, seeks to sue Fox News.
According to CNN, a rival propaganda outlet, “One Fox show, for example, displayed an inaccurate map of the alleged “no-go zones” in and around Paris. On another show, a guest who was identified as a security expert claimed that Birmingham, England is a “totally Muslim city where non-Muslims don’t go in.”
This was such a blatant lie that British Prime Minister David Cameron had to admit it was false. He said “When I heard this, frankly, I choked on my porridge and I thought it must be April Fools Day.”
Here’s another example of “experts” on Fox News playing no objective role, but the role of an agitator. They have assumed the role of seeking to justify war, homophobia, and Islamophobia.
A generic response was given by Fox News, saying it’s unlikely they would face consequences for lying.
“We empathize with the citizens of France as they go through a healing process and return to everyday life,” said Fox executive vice president Michael Clemente. “However, we find the mayor’s comments regarding a lawsuit misplaced.”
Fox has since publicly apologized for this “mistake” on various shows including Justice with Judge Jeanine. The repulsive clip, for sake of reference, can be viewed here.
Please share this with as many people as possible, especially those remaining few who still believe what Fox News or any other corporate media outlet says.
Within a week of her article being published the links to the CSIRO website were taken down. These were the following links (that no longer work):
Australia’s premier scientific body, the CSIRO, has been quietly beavering away, using proven scientific methodologies to produce realistic models of what climate change may look like in our country.
Climate Change In Australia is an initiative of the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), in partnership with the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, through the Australian Climate Change Science Program.
The conspiracy theorist in me jumps on the idea that they may have been removed by the wishes of a government famous for its climate change denial. Perhaps the recent funding cuts to the CSIRO include cutting out information that provides evidence contrary to the government’s stance.
But I’m sure there is a simple explanation. I’ve asked for one:
Since the publication of that article a number of the links to the CSIRO’s data and models on the effects of climate change have been removed. I refer to the following:
“Australia’s premier scientific body, the CSIRO, has been quietly beavering away, using proven scientific methodologies to produce realistic models of what climate change may look like in our country.
Climate Change In Australia is an initiative of the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), in partnership with the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, through the Australian Climate Change Science Program”.
Clicking on those links will now give you the following announcement:
OOPS!!!
This site is currently unavailable
If you are the owner of this site, please contact us at 1-480-505-8855 at your earliest convenience.
As a citizen who is concerned about the effects of climate change in Australia and who relies on the excellent work done by the CSIRO in keeping concerned citizens informed, it was disappointing to find that this information has been removed. Was there a valid reason for this?
Yours sincerely,
Michael Taylor
One AIMN commenter noted that: “The people of Australia have an absolute right to the results of taxpayer-funded scientific research”. Let us see what they say (though I don’t expect a reply something along the lines of “The people of Australia do not have access to the results of taxpayer-funded scientific research because it interferes with the government’s political agenda”).
Despite the overwhelming evidence that the effects of climate change are having a devastating impact on present and future Australia, Kirsten Tona reports that the Abbott Government continues to ignore the evidence.
By 2070, Australia’s average temperature will rise by anything up to five degrees Celsius, our rainfall will be significantly lower and our sea levels higher. This data comes from the CSIRO, not from the-sky-is-falling conspiracy theorists, so …. why is the Australian Government not preparing?
It is a sometimes uncomfortable paradox of democracy that while governments—elected—come and go, much of the real work of the state is done behind the scenes by unelected bureaucrats and institutions.
But, there are times we have reason to be grateful for that.
While the current Prime Minister of Australia is on record as saying that the arguments behind climate change are “absolute crap”, Australia’s premier scientific body, the CSIRO, has been quietly beavering away, using proven scientific methodologies to produce realistic models of what climate change may look like in our country.
Global sea levels rose by about 17 cm during the 20th century, and are projected to keep rising, as are ocean acidity levels.
Air and ocean temperatures across Australia are now, on average, almost a degree Celsius warmer than they were in 1910, with most of the warming occurring since 1950. The Climate Change In Australia website use 24 of the world’s best models to predict what Australia might look like in 2030, 2050 and 2070.
The best projections have average temperatures rising by 1-2.5° within 50 years, if carbon emmissions are brought under control, soon. The worst projections say average temperatures in Australia will rise by 5° within 50 years.
Climate change is real, and here to stay.
Climate Change in Australia is an initiative of the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology in partnership with the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, through the Australian Climate Change Science Program.
Governments come and go, and party policy is based on a wide range of political factors, strong scientific research being merely one. Or, should we say, occasionally one.
But the CSIRO and the BOM have to deal with the evidence. And they have to try, current government & party policy notwithstanding, to educate the public about their findings.
To this end, they have produced an unfeted, but extremely useful, set of reports, analyses, even posters.
But…who has been educated? Have you seen these projections? Where are the news stories?
How much public money was spent on this very important set of projections, and why are the public not being given these posters, being referred to this website? If you are planning where you and/or your children/grandchildren are going to live in the future, wouldn’t you want to see this?
LIMA CONFERENCE
Meanwhile Foreign Minister Julie Bishop is in Lima trying to defend her party’s policies on climate change.
There is some controversy around her attendance at this, a precursor to a more important conference being held in Paris, at the end of 2015. Reports say that when Bishop first proposed attending the Lima talks, the “prime minister’s office” rejected her request. (“The prime minister’s office” is often, in journalist-speak, used as code for “Peta Credlin”).
It is said that Julie Bishop was furious about this, and took it to a full meeting of Cabinet, where her attendance was approved.
However, “the prime minister’s office” then insisted she only attend the talks under the tutelage of known climate skeptic, Trade Minister Andrew Robb.
SIAMESE FIGHTING FISH
Now it is being widely reported that Peta Credlin and Julie Bishop have had a massive falling-out. (Although, it must be noted, Bishop herself denies this).
But climate change, the melting of the icecaps, rising sea levels, reduced rainfall and global warming are surely too important to be left in the hands of those who would ignore the science in favour of political grandstanding.
Or in the hands of their advisors, who frequently concentrate on the sale of the message rather than the predicament of the people.
In 2003, George W. Bush, then President of the USA, was advised by notorious Newspeaker Frank Luntz to emphasise the notion that the science of climate change was unsettled, uncertain. Not because it really was uncertain, but because that was what the public already believed.
In a quite shockingly cynical memo, Luntz told Bush Snr: “The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science … Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community.
He wrote: “Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”
REALSPEAK
The CSIRO do not think there is no consensus on the science of climate change. The CSIRO think climate change is already happening. So do the Bureau of Meteorology, the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the Australian Climate Change Science Program.
So too, it seems, does Julie Bishop.
But Peta Credlin doesn’t. And if she doesn’t, Tony Abbott doesn’t. And so, our commitment to emission reduction and other important planks in the platform of preparing for continuing climate change, is left in the hands of people who are unelected, or who seem to care a lot more about being elected, than about actually governing.
Joe Hockey (Image by thenewdaily.com.au)Really! Treasurer Joe Hockey is becoming as adept as Tony Abbot at putting the proverbial foot in his mouth.That Joe should be looking so far ahead, and be concerned for someone in the year 2165, is touching. Perhaps he is thinking of his own grandchildren, not yet born, who will have to work until they are 120 to enjoy the luxury of retirement.
My advice would be to ensure you include that prediction in your memoirs to show that at least you were thinking of them. But I wouldn’t spend any more time on it than that. You may rest assured that life in 2165 will be vastly different from ours today and such trivial matters as retirement will not be getting too much attention. Feeding them, yes. Retiring them, no.
While speaking with Neil Mitchell on 3AW this morning Joe explained how his son had broken his leg over Christmas and after several consultations and X-rays, he only had to pay $40 for a waterproof cast. Wow, that much?
“That’s wrong,” Joe said. “The fact we are living longer is great news. It’s kind of remarkable that somewhere in the world today, it’s highly probable that a child is being born that is going to live to 150. That’s a long time.”Yes, it is, Joe. It’s certainly longer than you or I will live.
However, I hope you also took note of the quality of the service your son received at what I presume was a public hospital. If you felt that as a high income earner you were paying too little, then why don’t you abolish the private health insurance rebate, and raise the Medicare levy for high income earners so that the quality of service you received can be better funded?
“The question is how we live with dignity and ensure we have a good quality of life the whole way through. This is the conversation we are going to have with Australia over the next few months,” he added. Well, if you continue trying to cut Medicare funding, you should be more concerned about the good quality of life we have today instead of worrying about the state of things in 2165.
Trying to make us feel guilty about what we pay today compared with the state our hospitals in 150 years tells me that you are not living in today’s world, that you are not in touch with today’s people, except of course, the high income earners for whom $40 is not even a drop in the ocean.
You should not have paid anything for your son’s accident. Your Medicare levy should have covered it. If you think paying $40 was wrong, then perhaps you should increase the levy to 3% for high income earners. That way, you might share the burden more equitably with those on lower incomes who pay the same rate you do.
If you are, as you suggest, planning to have a conversation in a few months about the health prospects for the nation in 150 years’ time, I don’t like your chances of cutting through. Most of us are struggling enough just getting through today.
Actually, the title of this piece is unfair. The Liberals not only have a good story, they have oodles of them. And this is what’s making their narrative so confusing.
Back when Labor were in power, the narrative was easy. “We should be in power because we’re awesome, and what this country needs is strong leadership which Labor lacks (but don’t call us sexist because we didn’t say that they weren’t strong because they had a woman in charge – I mean, if Julia can’t stand the heat she should go back to the kitchen!)” But now that they’re in a position where, not only do they have to actually do something, they have to explain those decisions, it’s no longer quite as simple. And, while many of their decisions seem contrary to what they were saying in Opposition, it’s the explanations that are making these decisions look even more ridiculous.
Now I may not agree with a hard-hearted policy of let’s kick the poor, but at least if the narrative stays on the “it’s an emergency” and “we all need to make sacrifices” and “the poor are a mob of lazy leaners who need to get off their fat spotty backsides and inherit more”, then at least I can appreciate that, while the other person and I have a different value system, I can at least understand where they’re coming from. I can appreciate that they have a different moral code, where they support Ayn Rand, (who argued that it was the individual who was important and that all individuals were brilliant, unique people with a right to impose their ideas on society, so long as their ideas agreed with hers.) I, on the other hand, understand the role that luck plays in people’s lives and how I’d have my mortgage paid off were it not for the fact that Red Cadeux ran second in 2012.
While Joe’s comment about a child living till 150 has attracted plenty of ridicule, his basic point was right. If people are living longer, how do we ensure that they have an acceptable lifestyle? However, this now makes the decision to freeze the superannuation guarantee payments at 9..5%. Interestingly, Howard also froze the superannuation payments. (Are we seeing a pattern here?) We don’t want people dependent on the pension, but we also don’t want to do anything to help them be more financially secure.
However, It’s his son’s trip to the doctor that I find most problematic. He seemed to arguing that it was outrageous that he only had to pay $40. And it’s just wrong that someone like him should only have to pay that. So therefore, his logic seemed to run, with a few exceptions for the very poor, we should all have a “price signal” to stop us going to the doctors. Now let’s not bring up the fact that there’s a big difference between “someone like him” and even someone on a decent wage, let alone someone working part-time in a long paid job. The exemptions for the co-payments were pensioners, health care card recepients and children; it didn’t include “Howard’s battlers”. And it certainly didn’t include all those people who were “battling” on $150,000 when Labor wanted to means test the private health insurance rebate.
Now, I tend to think of the Medicare Levy as like insurance. Many of us won’t use up as much as we pay in any given year, but it’s nice to know that if you suddenly need a costly procedure that you don’t need to re-fincance your house, sell a kidney or run for office as a politician in NSW. Using Joe’s logic, and applying it to car insurance, it’s outrageous that someone driving an expensive Lexus should only have to pay the same excess as some driving something cheap like a Nissan, even though they’ve paid more in insurance.
And, of course, Mr Hockey tells us that high income workers work for the first six months to pay their taxes. Apart from the fact that this has been demonstrated as incorrect. (For a start, to be mildly pedantic people earn the first $18,000 tax free, so surely it’d be the last six months, rather than the first!)
So let’s get this straight. High income earners are hard done by because they pay so much tax, but they should then have to fork out more than $40 if their son breaks their arm because they can afford it. And we need to do this, along with such things as forcing our children to pay more for their university degrees, because some lucky bastard will live to be 150!
Like I said, the narrative doesn’t make sense. I’m not sure whether to feel sorry for those poor rich people paying so much tax, or be annoyed because somehow Joe Hockey managed to get by only paying $40 for his kid’s broken arm, when it cost me considerably more than that for a visit to my local doctor (when she doesn’t bulk bill me, because it’s a quick visit to renew my prescription and check my blood pressure – bloody six minute medicine.)
It’s like the way the Liberals argue for lower taxes because money’s better in people’s hands than the government’s, but when Labor gave the $900 stimulus in the middle of the GFC, we were told that this was a total waste of money because people would just waste it on pokies and alcohol. Which, strangely, was a good thing when Labor were proposing the limits on the poker machines. Then, a self-imposed limit was going to wreck the clubs, causing massive unemployment.
Labor’s narrative isn’t perfect either, of course. There are inconsistencies there too. But I’m yet to hear them argue two opposing narratives in the same week such as the rich pay too much in tax and don’t pay enough for government services. And certainly not by the same Treasurer.
Yep, one can certainly why Peta Credlin would want to have them all on such a tight rein. The real question is why she lets them out more than once a fortnight!
So much for that quintessential Australian phrase ‘a fair go for all’. It doesn’t exist in the minds of our policy makers, writes Jennifer Wilson.
In general, it’s always seemed to me that when governments or individuals take an increasingly hard, harsh and inhumane stand on an issue it’s a clear signal that they’ve actually lost the battle, and are on their way to losing the war.
In a political sense, I’m thinking of the current situation in detention facilities on Manus Island. New Immigration Minister Peter Dutton is promising to maintain Scott Morrison’s “hard-line” against asylum seekers who have resorted to self-harm and protest, methods which are, in reality, their only means of expression, as the Australian government has virtually denied them access to legal process and natural justice.
This hard-line against asylum seekers protesting their fate began in Woomera and Baxter detention centres in 1999, at the instigation of the Howard LNP government. It was maintained by the ALP governments led by Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. Sixteen years of both major parties taking a hard-line against waterborne asylum seekers has achieved absolutely nothing any of us can be proud of, and it won’t.
Similarly, the hard-line threatened by the Abbott government against the young unemployed that will see them starving and homeless as they are denied benefits for six months will achieve nothing any of us can be proud of, and will ruin lives for a very long time and likely permanently.
Taking a hard-line is very rarely necessary, and very rarely useful. A hard-line shouldn’t be the default position. Instead negotiation, mediation, conversation, and communication are civilised and humane methods of approaching difficulties. When all else fails, by all means try the hard-line, but to do this first is cruel and inhumane, and shows a lack of intelligence, imagination and skill.
Human beings have a tremendous capacity for good will and understanding. It’s a great shame our leaders don’t value this capacity, and instead believe our strength lies in brutality. It doesn’t. It never has and it never will. ‘All cruelty springs from weakness’, as the philosopher Seneca noted.
If governments and individuals are too weak and cowardly to sit across a table from other human beings in an effort to resolve difference and difficulty, they will inevitably resort to cruelty of one kind or another. Ignoring another human being in need is just as cruel as taking direct and punitive action against him or her. There are countless stories of asylum seekers achieving success and making considerable contributions to Australian society when they are given the opportunity. Instead we destroy them because our governments believe the destruction of human lives and human potential demonstrates political strength and determination.
Peter Dutton may well congratulate himself for emulating Scott Morrison’s abhorrent tactics against those legally seeking asylum in Australia. But emulating a bully is no great achievement. Australian governments have for sixteen years now proved themselves to be capable only of bullying behaviour towards human beings in the greatest distress and need, be they asylum seekers or their own citizens. Cruelty is not a strength. It is the most appalling, base and destructive weakness.
“The actual global checks and balances that might have once achieved the kind of reasonable equality that occurred after the Second World War have broken down; they’re not coping with the kind of way that business is down by the very fast moving global economy, by the sort of digital world that we live in one way or the other,” she said.
Oxfam said it would call for action to tackle rising inequality at the Davos meeting, which starts on Wednesday, including a crackdown on tax dodging by corporations and progress towards a global deal on climate change.
“The reason that this should be raised at a forum like Davos, is that inevitably with the concentration of wealth comes the concentration of power, and what we need are governments to be operating in the interests of the poorest as well as the richest,” Dr Szoke said.
“At the moment in our domestic context, and in many other contexts, [the burden of tax] falls on labour and consumption. We’re saying if you have this concentration of wealth, we really need to look at capital and wealth tax.
“So, stop the dodging, make sure that there are fair taxes that are paid by people, but then we also need to look actually look at how those taxes are used, and that really goes back to the issues of what are the social structures that are put in place that are the safety net
for people across the world, like a minimum income guarantee.
“Horrifyingly, we are a long way off that.”
Unemployment to rise by 11 million: UN
Meanwhile, the United Nations has warned that unemployment will rise by 11 million in the next five years due to slower growth and turbulence.
More than 212 million people will be jobless by 2019 against the current level of 201 million, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) said.
“The global economy is continuing to grow at tepid rates and that has clear consequences,” ILO head Guy Ryder said in Geneva.
“The global jobs gap due to the crisis stands at 61 million jobs worldwide,” he said, referring to the number of jobs lost since the start of the financial crisis in 2008.
The ILO World Employment and Social Outlook – Trends 2015 report said an extra 280 million jobs would have to be created by 2019 to close the gap created by the financial turmoil.
“This means the jobs crisis is far from over and there is no place for complacency,” Mr Ryder said.
The job scenario improved in the United States, Japan and Britain but remained worrisome in several developed economies of Europe, the report said.
“The austerity trajectory… in Europe in particular has contributed dramatically to increases in unemployment,” Mr Ryder said.
The report said eurozone powerhouse Germany could see unemployment rise to 5 per cent in 2017 against 4.7 per cent at present, while it was expected to fall just under the double-digit in number two eurozone economy France.
The worst-hit segment globally were those aged between 15 and 24, with the youth unemployment rate touching 13 per cent last year, almost three times the rate for adults.
The UN agency said the steep fall in oil and gas prices would hit the labour market hard in producing countries in Latin America, Africa and the Arab world.
But one of the rare bits of good news was that the middle class comprised more than 34 per cent of total employment in developing countries from 20 per cent in the 1990s, Mr Ryder said.
However, extreme poverty continues to affect one out of 10 workers globally who earn less than $1.50 a day, he added.
In opposition and in government, the Coalition has moaned with frenetic monotony that Medicare is unsustainable. The fact is, it isn’t. But while they can maintain the rage and attempt to convince everybody that the country can’t afford to keep it in its present form, they’ll find one way or another to use it as an economic scapegoat.The news that they had scrapped their planned cuts to the Medicare rebate was only a temporary reprieve as we’ve been warned that they are still committed to introducing price signals into the national icon. Why? This was summed up by Tony Abbott:
Mr Abbott has called on the opposition and the crossbenchers to come up with alternative savings measures to pay off the debt and deficit instead of obstructing the government’s attempts to repair the budget.
It’s the same-old same-old from Tony Abbott. Blame Labor, hit the poor. The budget must be in one hell of a mess if the country’s prosperity is at stake because of Medicare.
With the government’s back-down on the planned cuts to the rebate we can expect a ramp-up in their rhetoric. The attempts to convince us that Medicare is unsustainable will go into overdrive.
I agree with the government that the budget is in a shambles, but I disagree at where the fault lies. One good thing – for them – is that while they keep Medicare in the news the real culprits behind our budget woes remain out of sight. Or as Richard Denniss points out, the much talked about budget deficit gives the Treasurer the chance to keep his agenda in the public domain. Which is, of course, that the budget can’t be fixed because Medicare is the hole in the economic bucket.
With the help of the Murdoch media not only will the Medicare bashing be kept front and centre, but the ‘real’ culprits for the deficit will be kept hidden from public view. The average punter has been deluded into believing that Medicare is unsustainable and that the only way the budget can be fixed is if services to the less well-off (aka the ‘bludgers’) are trimmed. The government and the Murdoch media have managed to sustain both the delusions rather effectively.
I wonder if the mug punter is aware of how much the Abbott Government is actually helping the wealthy. At not only the poor’s expense, but at their’s too. The facts might shock them.
How can we accept that Medicare is the boil on the budget’s backside when being slipped into the hands of the wealthy is enough money that, if ceased, would go close to balancing social inequality? And the budget, of course.
Stop pandering to the wealthy, and Medicare becomes sustainable. It is the luxuries afforded to the well-off that are unsustainable. How much is it costing us? Too much. Here are some examples.
Former Liberal Party leader John Hewson last year called on the Abbott government to slash the superannuation tax concessions available to high-income earners.
One of the effects of the changes introduced by Peter Costello in 2006 is that most multi-millionaires can structure their assets so that they pay no tax in retirement even though they might be reaping more than $150,000 a year.
In an opinion column for the Australian Financial Review last April, Mr Hewson made three salient observations about the existing superannuation tax arrangements:
• The tax breaks on super are costing the government in foregone revenue about $45 billion a year and this is roughly the same amount that is spent each year on the age pension.
• The dollar value of the tax breaks is growing faster than expenditure on the aged pension, making concessions on super contributions a much bigger threat to balancing government finances in the near-term.
• The super tax concessions are skewed to high-income earners: the top 10 per cent of income earners reap more than 36 per cent of the tax concession dollars, while the bottom 10 per cent are actually penalised for making super contributions.
Did you read that? $45 billion a year just on superannuation tax breaks. And who gets the bulk of that? Yes, the wealthy. (And it certainly makes the $7.5 billion spent on Newstart look paltry in comparison).
This year Medicare will cost us $20 billion. I’m happy to contribute towards the cost, but I sure do hate losing out because of the $45 billion tax breaks (alone) to the country’s well-off.
But it’s only the start.
Of the $18 billion in lost revenue over the next four years from the abolition of the ‘mining tax’, $1.6 billion of that was “purely a gift from Mr Abbott to the miners”.
Scrapping the mining tax will cost us $5.3 billion and who gets that? It will go mainly to the biggest mining companies:
The mining industry is clearly at the top of the government’s priority list. They sit far above concerns about the cost of living for working families.
Then there’s the $2.4 billion a year the government gives back to property investors because of negative gearing. How many welfare recipients have investment properties? How many of the well-off do?
And while the price of fuel costs you a couple of dollars extra week due to Hockey’s new surcharge you might like to know that:
A new report finds exploration by coal and energy companies is subsidised by Australian taxpayers by as much as $US3.5 billion ($4 billion) every year in the form of direct spending and tax breaks.
Heard enough? There’s no doubt more, but this small handful of examples alone should be enough for the average person to realise how much the Abbott Government is helping the wealthy.
Medicare – I repeat – isn’t the problem. The government is. They’re giving too much money to the rich.
Whenever an act of horrific terror enrages the West, a predictable second act ensues. Furious commentators and activists on the right erupt with blanket denunciations of Islam, Muslims and their supposed plots to enslave us all under Shariah, urging that we ban the religion, stigmatize its faithful and restore the Judeo-Christian exclusivity of America. Sometimes a few even seek retribution in attacks on mosques, individual Muslims and anyone unfortunate enough to “look Muslim.”
Violent or merely loud, these are the useful idiots whose divisive blundering underscores the propaganda of al-Qaida, the Islamic State group and imitators around the world. They represent precisely the opposite of what we must do and say if we are to defeat Islamist extremism in all its manifestations.
Look behind the delusional murderers who actually carry out such crimes as the massacres at Charlie Hebdo and the Paris kosher market. What is their strategic objective? Not a military victory over the French army or even an atmosphere of fear in Paris. They seek to provoke a harsh crackdown on innocent Muslims, especially the young and unemployed, along with expressions of bigotry and discrimination—to highlight the simmering communal conflicts they hope to inflame into a “war of civilizations.”
So the extremists can only be grateful when anti-Muslim propaganda, repeated constantly in right-wing publications and broadcasts, casts them as the defenders of Islam rather than its defilers. Every time Islam is publicly defined as a religion of violence, the jihadis gain prestige. Their appeals become more persuasive to oppressed young Muslims—especially if no alternative is apparent.
Yet the narrative of endless conflict and implacable distrust is not only untrue—as we saw last week when Parisians of all faiths rallied together—but deeply destructive to traditional democratic values and strategically stupid.
Yes, we must protect the right to speak freely, including when the speech is offensive to religions and even to ethnic groups, without fear of violent responses. We must also protect the rights of religious and ethnic minorities—including the right to protest peacefully against offensive speech. That requires swift action against those who will conspire to maim, murder and terrorize—and the capacity, whenever possible, to neutralize those criminals before they act.
But Americans will need to do much more than surround ourselves with police, armies and intelligence services if we ever hope to overcome our extremist enemies. Effective counterterrorism demands a contrasting narrative of coexistence, respect, fairness and opportunity.
The elements of that political arsenal exist already—in the stories of Ahmed Merabet, the Muslim policeman who died heroically in Paris, and Lassana Bathily, the young Muslim employee who led Jews in the kosher market to safety; in the undeniable fact that the extremists murder hundreds of innocent civilians, overwhelmingly Muslim, every week; and in the secure, prosperous existence that millions of ordinary Muslim families have enjoyed in this country for decades, despite outbursts of prejudice and harassment.
We ought to note with pride that Muslims serve in the U.S. military and every branch of government, including two members of Congress, because the Constitution specifically bans any religious test for public office. (Certain figures on the religious right may need to be reminded, too.) Muslims should know that their holy days are routinely celebrated in the White House by presidents of both parties—even as all religions are subject to disbelief, criticism and even jeering satire in a free society.
The consensus among ordinary Muslims is well-known to pollsters of public opinion: By large majorities, here and abroad, they fear and disdain the violent extremists who have defamed their religion. Let’s at least stop trying to change their minds.
The massacre at Charlie Hebdo, and the subsequent killing of a policewoman and mass murder at the Hyper Cachet kosher market, shocked the world. Young fanatics with automatic weapons unleashed a torrent of violence and death, fueled by zealous intolerance. At the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, the satiric newsmagazine, 12 were murdered and 11 wounded. The victims were guilty of nothing more than expressing ideas. Certainly, true to the point of satire, many of the ideas were very offensive to many people—in this case, caricatures of the prophet Muhammad.
In the wake of the violence, people from around the world expressed solidarity with the victims, and with the people of France. Among the world leaders who flocked to Paris to condemn the attacks were some of the worst perpetrators of repression of journalists, all too often Arab and Muslim journalists.
Reporters Without Borders, also known as Reporters Sans Frontieres, or RSF, is based in Paris, not far from the offices of Charlie Hebdo. Word of the attack quickly made it to the staff there. Lucie Morillon, RSF program director, was one of the first people on the scene after the massacre at Charlie Hebdo. I spoke to her in New York City, just a day after she attended last Sunday’s solidarity march in Paris, which drew more than 1 million people. She recounted the events of Wednesday, Jan. 7:
“We were having a meeting … a colleague came in, he said: ‘There’s something huge. It looks like there had been shots fired at Charlie Hebdo, and there might be people dead.’ It was just complete shock, completely surreal.”
They raced to the scene of the massacre. Morillon went on: “There were still bullets on the ground. It was just very chaotic. We were just wondering who’s dead, what happened. And a man left the office, and he just went into President [Francois] Hollande’s arms. He burst into tears, ‘Charb est mort,’ ‘Charb is dead.’” He was speaking of Stephane Charbonnier, Charlie Hebdo’s edit
On Sunday, the day of marches across France, which drew close to 4 million people, the group stated in a press release, “Reporters Without Borders welcomes the participation of many foreign leaders in today’s march in Paris in homage to the victims of last week’s terror attacks and in defence of the French republic’s values, but is outraged by the presence of officials from countries that restrict freedom of information.” The group stated it was “appalled by the presence of leaders from countries where journalists and bloggers are systematically persecuted such as Egypt, Russia, Turkey and United Arab Emirates.”
Photos and video of the world leaders standing, locked arm in arm, leading the massive march, raced around the planet. Much ado was made in the United States of the absence of any high-level Obama administration official. Even though Attorney General Eric Holder was in Paris that day, inexplicably, he didn’t show up for the march. Egypt’s Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry was there, whose government has imprisoned many journalists, most notably three from Al-Jazeera who have been held for more than a year now: Peter Greste, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed.
The Saudi Arabian ambassador to France also showed up at the march. Two days earlier, his government flogged the blogger Raif Badawi. He was sentenced to 1,000 lashes, but the Saudi monarchy is administering 50 lashes per week. Delphine Hagland, the U.S. director of Reporters Without Borders, explained, “They decided to divide the 1,000 lashes in different sessions because they were afraid that he would be killed.”
It has now been reported that the world leaders, locked arm in arm, were not in the march at all, but were gathered for a photo opportunity on a closed street, away from the protest, under guard. Quite simply, it was the people who led that day, not the leaders. “Je Suis Charlie,” or “I am Charlie,” was the battle cry of many. Others tweeted or held signs that read, “I am not Charlie,” condemning the violence without endorsing Charlie Hebdo’s caricatures. A Muslim woman held a sign, “Je Suis Juif,” “I am Jewish,” in solidarity with the Jewish victims. Others held signs that read “Je Suis Ahmed” for Ahmed Merabet, the French Muslim police officer who was killed outside the magazine offices.
Close to 4 million people took to the streets of France last Sunday, demanding a more peaceful society, one in which press freedom and religious tolerance overwhelm violence and hatred.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
I have written about free speech, hate, racial discrimination and the state of our democracy on many occasions and this question will not leave me:
Why is it, in ‘the name of free speech’, that we need to enshrine, the right to abuse each other, in law?
You would think that an enlightened progressive free thinking society would want to eliminate it not legislate it.
It is not a question that requires great philosophical, ideological or even theological debate. It is a black and white question.
Supposedly we live in an age of enlightenment, a period where the world has made enormous technological advances, but at the same time our intellects have not advanced with the capacity to understand simple tolerance.
Indeed, if we were truly enlightened we would treat our fellow human beings, with respect love and faithfulness. We would do unto them as we would expect them to do unto us and we would strive to do no harm. We would love life and live it with a sense of joy and wonderment.
We would form our own independent opinions on the basis of our own reason and experience; and not allow ourselves to be led blindly by others. And we would Test all things; always checking our ideas against our facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it did not conform to them. We would readily admit it when we are wrong in the knowledge that humility is the basis of intellectual advancement and that it is truth that enables human progress.
And of course we would enjoy our own sex life (so long as it damages nobody) and leaves others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none or your business.
We would uphold the principle that no one individual or group has an ownership of righteousness. We would seek not to judge but to understand. We would seek dialogue ahead of confrontation.
We would place internationalism before nationalism acknowledging that the planet earth does not have infinite resources and needs care and attention if we are to survive on it. In doing so we would value the future on a timescale longer than our own.
We would recognise that the individual has rights but no man is an island and can only exist, and have his rights fulfilled, only by the determination of a collective.
We would insist on equality of opportunity in education acknowledging that it is knowledge that gives an understanding. We would seek not to indoctrinate our children in any way but instead teach them how to think for themselves, evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with us. We would, in our schools open their minds to an understanding of ethics instead of proselytizing religion.
We would never seek to cut ourselves off from dissent, and always respect the right of others to disagree with us.
Importantly we not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
Lastly we would question everything. What we see, what we feel, what we hear, what we read and what we are told until we understand the truth of it because thoughtlessness is the residue of things not understood and can never be a replacement for fact.
If these things truly are the embodiment of enlightenment. How do we stack up? It is fair to say that some societies and individuals could lay claim to attaining a measure of it. For example in some countries gender equality is more readily accepted and there has been advances in education. Overall though I think the reader would conclude that in most instances our enlightenment has not progressed much.
This is no more empathised than in our understanding of what free speech is. Are we honestly enlightened if we think we need to enshrine in legislation a right to express hatred? There is something fundamentally and humanely wrong with the proposition.
There is an intolerable indecency that suggests that we have made no advancement in our discernment of free speech. If free speeches only purpose is to denigrate, insult and humiliate then we need to rethink its purpose. There are those who say it identifies those perpetrating wrong doing but if it creates more evil than good it’s a strange freedom for a so-called enlightened society to bequeath its citizens.
To quote Jonathan Holmes:
Let’s be clear: Charlie Hebdo set out, every week, with the greatest deliberation, to offend and insult all kinds of people, and especially in recent years the followers of Islam, whether fundamentalist or not.
Look at some of the magazine’s recent covers: An Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood protester in a hail of gunfire crying “The Koran is shit – it doesn’t stop bullets”; a full-on homosexual kiss between a Charlie cartoonist and a Muslim sheik with the ironic headline “Love is stronger than hate”; a naked woman with a niqab thrust up her backside.
The Charlie Hebdo massacre as vile and as unjust as it was gave no excuse for repressive world leaders to lecture anyone on freedom of expression. The sheer hypocrisy of it was breathtaking. Some of the world leaders locked arm in arm in the Paris March were from countries with the world’s worst suppression of press freedom. To see the Foreign Minister of Egypt marching arm in arm with world leaders was two faced-ness in the extreme given that Peter Creste has now been in jail for more than a year.
It’s all in the name of satirical free speech but it’s not funny if has no insightful truth.
Is this really what an enlightened society means by free speech? Does it demonstrate our cognitive advancement? Is this what well-educated men and women want as free speech or should we see free speech as being nothing more or nothing less than the right to tell the truth in whatever medium we so choose.
One has to wonder why the so-called defenders of free speech feel they are inhibited by what they have now. I don’t. I have never felt constrained in my thoughts or my ability to express them. I’m doing it now. But then I don’t feel a need to go beyond my own moral values of what is decent to illuminate my thoughts.
Why is it then that the likes of Abbott, Bolt, Jones, Brandis, Bernardi and others need to go beyond common decency, and defend others who cannot express themselves without degenerating into hate speech? The answer has nothing to do with an honourably noble sort of democratic free speech.
Why does this demand for open slather free speech always come from the right of politics and society? They seem to have an insensitivity to common decency that goes beyond any thoughtful examination.
They simply want the right to inflict hate, defame with impunity, insult, and promote bigotry if it suits their purpose. And behind that purpose can be found two words. Power and control.
The way we presently view free speech simply perpetuates the right to express all those things that make us lessor than what we should be.
Debate, in whatever form, should not include the right to vilify. It is not of necessity about winning or taking down ones opponent. It is about an exchange of facts ideas and principles. Or in its purest form it is simply about the art of persuasion”
The argument that bigots are entitled to be bigots or that unencumbered free speech exposes people for what they are, doesn’t wear with me. It simply says that society has not advanced. That our cultural ethical intellect has not progressed at the same rate as our technological understanding.
The fact that so many people agree with the free speech argument highlights the tolerance we have for the unacceptable right to hate each other, which to me is the sauce of everything that is wrong with human behavior.
And we want to make it acceptable by legislating to condone it.
Are we really saying that in a supposed enlightened society that should value, love, decorum, moderation, truth, fact, balance, reason, tolerance, civility and respect for the others point of view that we need to enshrine in law a person’s right to be the opposite of all these things.
If that is the case then we are not educating. We are not creating a better social order and we are not enlightened at all.
The fact is that free speech in any democratic system should be so valued, so profoundly salient, that any decent enlightened government should legislate to see that it is not abused. That it carries with it sacrosanct principles of decency that are beyond law and ingrained in the conscious of a collective common good.
After all the dignity of the individual (or individuals) within the collective is more important than some fools right to use freedom of speech to vilify another.
It says something about the moral sickness in our society when the right to abuse each other, in the name of free speech, needs to be enshrined in law.
THE CABIN ANTHRAX, MURPHY, N.C. (CT&P) – Republican presidential candidate and well-known kook Dr. Ben Carson was declared legally insane this morning by a judge in Michigan, Carson’s home state. The judge relied on evidence given by physicians from Johns Hopkins Hospital and testimony from individuals close to the Carson campaign.
Carson’s speech to the RNC’s winter meeting outside San Diego last Thursday seems to have been the tipping point that forced aides, Republican operatives, and loved ones to take action.
In the speech, Carson compared ISIS militants to American patriots who took up arms against the British during the Revolutionary War.
“A bunch of rag-tag militiamen defeated the most powerful and professional military force on the planet,” said the unhinged neurosurgeon. “Why? Because they believed in what they were doing. They were willing to die for what they believed in. Fast forward to today. What do we have? You’ve got ISIS. They’ve got the wrong philosophy, but they’re willing to die for it while we are busily giving away every belief and every value for the sake of political correctness. We have to change that.”
Later in the speech, Carson compared Nazi SS troops to the Salvation Army and the Shining Path guerrillas to civil rights protestors in the 1960’s. Carson went on to compare Adolph Hitler to Abraham Lincoln and Pol Pot to John F. Kennedy. “You really have to admire these people for their willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve the objective,” said a sweating, trembling Dr. Carson.
“This is just one in a long series of weird, disjointed ideas emerging from Dr. Carson’s damaged brain,” said Dr. Frank Black of the Banzai Institute in Holland Township, New Jersey. “We’re really not sure if his mental condition is due to environmental pollutants or a series of mild strokes. We think that the damage has been done over the last decade or so, because it would be almost impossible for someone this wacked-out to make it through medical school.”
Dr. Carson continues to insist ad nauseam that he is “completely rational and perfectly sane.” He has appeared to protest his abuse by the “liberal media” on several Fox News programs such as the O’Reilly Factor, a right-wing apologist show that is a favorite in whites-only nursing homes across the United States.
“Well of course the dude is going claim he’s sane and everything is a liberal conspiracy,” said Dr. Black. “When was the last time you heard a psychopath tell you he was nuts and danger to society? I mean, this guy thinks the earth is 6000 years old, Noah put dinosaurs on the Ark, and America is the modern incarnation of Nazi Germany. He’s a fucking freak!”
Dr. Carson will be placed in McClean Mental Hospital in Boston for a minimum of one month while he undergoes further testing and observation. The staff there has already arranged for a series of town hall-style debates between him and Secretary of State John Kerry, who was admitted only last week. The debates will no doubt be wildly entertaining, considering the fact that one guy is a goofball and the other a raving lunatic. The debates will be moderated by Vice President Joe Biden, who is the only person on the planet fully qualified to understand the two men.
An aide to Dr. Carson told the Washington Post that the decision to place the Tea Party favorite in a mental hospital would in no way affect his candidacy for the presidency. “Since when has being legally insane been a problem for GOP candidates? We have just as good a chance at the nomination as any of those other wing nuts.”
Earlier this month, the Pew Research Center released a study that found that most wealthy Americans believed “poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return.”
This is an infuriatingly obtuse view of what it means to be poor in this country — the soul-rending omnipresence of worry and fear, of weariness and fatigue. This can be the view only of those who have not known — or have long forgotten — what poverty truly means.
“Easy” is a word not easily spoken among the poor. Things are hard — the times are hard, the work is hard, the way is hard. “Easy” is for uninformed explanations issued by the willfully callous and the haughtily blind.
Allow me to explain, as James Baldwin put it, a few illustrations of “how extremely expensive it is to be poor.”
First, many poor people work, but they just don’t make enough to move out of poverty — an estimated 11 million Americans fall into this category.
So, as the Pew report pointed out, “more than half of the least secure group reports receiving at least one type of means-tested government benefit.”
Photo
And yet, whatever the poor earn is likely to be more heavily taxed than the earnings of wealthier citizens, according to a new analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. As The New York Times put it last week:
“According to the study, in 2015 the poorest fifth of Americans will pay on average 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes, the middle fifth will pay 9.4 percent and the top 1 percent will average 5.4 percent.”
In addition, many low-income people are “unbanked” (not served by a financial institution), and thus nearly eaten alive by exorbitant fees. As the St. Louis Federal Reserve pointed out in 2010:
“Unbanked consumers spend approximately 2.5 to 3 percent of a government benefits check and between 4 percent and 5 percent of payroll check just to cash them. Additional dollars are spent to purchase money orders to pay routine monthly expenses. When you consider the cost for cashing a bi-weekly payroll check and buying about six money orders each month, a household with a net income of $20,000 may pay as much as $1,200 annually for alternative service fees — substantially more than the expense of a monthly checking account.”
Even when low-income people can become affiliated with a bank, those banks are increasingly making them pay “steep rates for loans and high fees on basic checking accounts,” as The Times’s DealBook blog put it last year.
And poor people can have a hard time getting credit. As The Washington Post put it, the excesses of the subprime boom have led conventional banks to stay away from the riskiest borrowers, leaving them “all but cut off from access to big loans, like mortgages.”
One way to move up the ladder and out of poverty is through higher education, but even that is not without disproportionate costs. As the Institute for College Access and Success noted in March:
“Graduates who received Pell Grants, most of whom had family incomes under $40,000, were much more likely to borrow and to borrow more. Among graduating seniors who ever received a Pell Grant, 88 percent had student loans in 2012, with an average of $31,200 per borrower. In contrast, 53 percent of those who never received a Pell Grant had debt, with an average of $26,450 per borrower.”
And often, work or school requires transportation, which can be another outrageous expense. According to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights:
“Low- and moderate-income households spend 42 percent of their total annual income on transportation, including those who live in rural areas, as compared to middle-income households, who spend less than 22 percent of their annual income on transportation.”
And besides, having a car can make prime targets of the poor. One pernicious practice that the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. — and the protests that followed — resurfaced was the degree to which some local municipalities profit from police departments targeting poor communities, with a raft of stops, fines, summonses and arrests supported by police actions and complicit courts.
“In 2013, the municipal court in Ferguson — a city of 21,135 people — issued 32,975 arrest warrants for nonviolent offenses, mostly driving violations.”
The story continued:
“ArchCity Defenders, a St. Louis-area public defender group, says in its report that more than half the courts in St. Louis County engage in the ‘illegal and harmful practices’ of charging high court fines and fees on nonviolent offenses like traffic violations — and then arresting people when they don’t pay.”
The list of hardships could go on for several more columns, but you get the point: Being poor is anything but easy.
He stated that “Atmospheric temperatures have remained flat for at least 15 years.”
The following graph shows the tricks used by deniers like Bolt who pick their data to suit their argument.
Aside from the usual tactics of choosing a very hot year as your starting point, and using a short time period rather than observing long term trends, a report from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirmed that 2014 was the hottest year ever since reliable records started being kept in 1880—and the results weren’t even close.
Average global surface temperature worldwide was 14.58º C—surpassing previous records set in 2005 and 2007—and making 2014 1.1º C hotter than the average for the entire 20th century. And before you say 1.1º C doesn’t seem like much, think about whether you’d prefer to run a fever of 38º or 40º. The planet is every bit as sensitive to small variations as you are.
Bolt also says “there has been an unexpected pause in warming of the atmosphere, with the IPCC blaming the deep ocean for hiding the missing heat where it can’t easily be found. We’ve seen about 0.85 degrees of warming over the past 130 years (which hasn’t seemed to hurt, I think). That warming slowed dramatically over the past 15 years – to just 0.05 a decade, or virtually zero.”
According to the journal Science, marine life forms are growing sicker, with a “major extinction event” a very real possibility. All through the oceans, the signs of ecosystem breakdown are evident: the death of coral reefs, the collapse of fish stocks, the migration of species from waters that have grown too warm for them to the patches that remain cool enough.
On sea level rises, Bolt says “so far we’ve probably had just 19cms in 110 years. Turns out the median sea level rises tipped under the four IPCC scenarios for 2100 are between just 26cms and 30cms, with a very upper limit of 82cms under the most alarming scenario.”
A study in Nature looked at sea level rise in both the periods from 1901 to 1990 and from 1993 to 2010. It found that sea levels had risen more slowly than believed in the 90 years that followed 1900, and much faster in the 17 years from 1993 to 2010—close to three times as fast per year from 1.2 (+/- 0.2) mm/year to 3.0 (+/-0.7) mm/year.
Whilst this may not seem like a lot, a single centimetre of water globally is a lot of water. (in non-metric terms a single inch of water spread around all of the planet’s oceans and seas represents two quadrillion gallons of water.) The recent faster rate of rising may also affect predictions for the future.
Bolt also disputes the warning that a rapidly warming climate could affect the quality and quantity of available food.
“Sheer alarmism. Fact is that extra carbon dioxide means more plant food, and moderate warming means more rain overall. That, plus advances in gene technology and agricultural practices, have lead to record global harvests of food crops.”
That’s the trouble when you get your scientific information from the Heartland Institute’s favourite ex-TV weatherman, Andrew Watts. Deniers spend a lot of money to cherrypick data, quote it out of context, and produce misleading graphics. Whilst production might be higher in gross tonnage, he ignores demand and yield.
The IPCC report published last year said that the rate of increase in crop yields is slowing – especially in wheat – raising doubts as to whether food production will keep up with the demand of a growing population.
Wheat is the first big staple crop to be affected by climate change, because it is sensitive to heat and is grown around the world, from Pakistan to Russia to Canada. Projections suggest that wheat yields could drop 2% a decade.
The report explored a range of scenarios involving a temperature rise of two degrees or more that saw dramatic declines in production in the coming decades. Declines in crop yields will register first in drier and warmer parts of the world but as temperatures rise two, three or four degrees, they will affect everyone.
In the more extreme scenarios, heat and water stress could reduce yields by 25% between 2030 and 2049.
The report acknowledged that there were a few isolated areas where a longer growing season had been good for farming. But it played down the idea that there may be advantages to climate change as far as food production is concerned.
Overall, the report said, “Negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts.” Scientists and campaigners pointed to the finding as a defining feature of the report.
Other food sources are also under threat. Fish catches in some areas of the tropics are projected to fall by between 40% and 60%, according to the report.
The report also connected climate change to rising food prices and political instability, for instance the riots in Asia and Africa after food price shocks in 2008.
Bolt’s articles should come with a disclaimer: “Any resemblance to responsible factual reporting is purely coincidental.”
UPDATE (1/17/15): Cop Claims 95-yr-old man was a “threat”
John Wrana was a brave man. He actually fought in one of the bloodiest wars America has seen, only to come back and be murdered by a coward (pictured above in the pink tie).
Unsurprisingly, Officer Taylor has relied on the defense that he “feared for his life” as a justification to pump five rounds into a feeble old man, according to the latest reports.
The Officer claimed that John Wrana was a “threat.”
“John Wrana was absolutely not an imminent threat, but a confused old man,” the prosecution argued in response.
The cops who use this slogan “I feared for my life” are common cowards and liars — they are the absolute lowest and most dishonorable members of society.
UPDATE: (1/13/15): Trial Begins for Cop Who Shot WW2 Veteran to Death.
Officer Taylor is being charged with reckless conduct, and has replied that he was “just doing his job.”
John Wrana fought for these cops to enjoy freedom, only to be shot by them at 95-yrs-old.
They then handcuffed him and snapped pictures of his body as he laid on the ground bleeding to death.
The trial began Tuesday, January 13th and the defense claims that John Wrana was threatening officers with a “deadly weapon.”
The cops claim that John had a knife, but John’s family said he had a cane, which he only needed to stand and support himself.
It is difficult to see how multiple cops with body armor and riot shields were threatened by this tiny old man to the point of having to shoot him to death.
One of the rounds from the shotgun blew the skin off John’s body, according to the prosecution. The 12 gauge shotgun was equipped with blunt force projectiles known as “bean bag rounds” which travel at 190 mph, and it was used to shoot John from less than eight feet away over and over again, causing his death. The full details and video continue below:
CHICAGO — A 95-yr-old WWII veteran has been shot to death after refusing to provide a urine sample to staff at the hospital where he was staying.
The refusal eventually led staff to call the police and report him for being “combative.”
John Wrana, Jr., was just days away from celebrating his 96th birthday as one of the oldest living World War 2 veterans.
He was staying at the Park Forest Assisted Living Center in Park Forest, Illinois.
He was alone in his hospital room when the staff believed he was suffering from a urinary tract infection.
(ANTIMEDIA) ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA-Following uproarious police brutality protests in Berkeley and the San Francisco Bay Area last month, local cops are moving to employ drones in their police work.
Bloomberg reports that Berkeley and Oakland, both part of Alameda County, are seeking to use unmanned aerial vehicles. The city of San Jose is also eager to do the same.
The departments say they will be used for hostage situations, active shooters, search and rescue operations, and disaster response. Captain Tom Madigan, a captain at the Alameda County Sheriff’s office, claimed
“Through our research we learned that a small, unmanned aircraft can support first responders in situations which would benefit from having an aerial perspective, and that by having that it could expose dangers that could otherwise not be seen.”
It is unclear what specific emergency situations Madigan is referring to, but instances of police abuse and misconduct are overwhelmingly common. For example, last month there were multiple cases of aggressive police overreach during police brutality protests. In a protest that marched from Berkeley to Oakland, two undercover California Highway Patrol officers were revealed by protesters and one drew a gun on the crowd. Oakland also has a history of police abuse.
In San Jose, there are similar long-standing injustices. In 1999, at least 100 complaints were filed with the NAACP against excessive brutality and racism by the police in one month. In 2014, the problem of harassment continued. One San Jose officer was recently cleared of any wrongdoing after he tweeted to protesters:
“Threaten me or my family and I will use my God given and law appointed right and duty to kill you. #CopsLivesMatter… By the way if anyone feels they can’t breathe or their lives matter I’ll be at the movies tonight, off duty, carrying my gun.”
//
Instances like these make it difficult to trust police departments with unmanned drones, especially after California Governor Jerry Brown’s veto of a bill that would have required law enforcement to obtain warrants before spying.
“’Trust us’ isn’t going to work…For any agency or department of the government at any level to simply say ’trust us, we can be counted on not to abuse the technology’ – that’s just not going to fly.”
Nevertheless, drones in Alameda and Santa Clara were purchased last year. In the face of opposition, Alameda County spent $97,000 on two in December. The news broke just days before the Berkeley protests were heating up, and Sheriff Greg Ahern drew sharp criticisms of secrecy and privacy violations. He denied the validity of such concerns. San Jose spent $7,000 on one drone in January 2014. All three were bought without input from the communities using funds from Homeland Security.
In San Jose, city council approval is required before police can move forward. Several meetings on the topics have already been held and all three cities will need FAA approval before flying drones (San Jose police challenged this last year). All three are steadfast in their desire to incorporate their use.
In spite of the appearance of authorities attaining consent, however, many are hesitant to accept police drones. Policy Director of Technology and Civil Liberties at the ACLU Northern California, Nicole Ozer, said
“Drones are very small and they’re very invasive. They could be monitoring, recording and retaining vast amounts of information on innocent activities.”
While police can say the drones will not be misused, the government’s track record is not to be trusted. The Patriot Act was supposed to keep people safe from terrorism, but it is now public knowledge that it is used far more commonly for drug arrests. NSA surveillance is also supposed to keep people safe, but the agency passes information on to the IRS, DEA, and local police to spy on Americans for non-terrorism “offenses.”
It is “coincidental” that police are moving to use drones as dissent against law enforcement grows nationally as well as in the Bay Area. Jesse Arreguin, a Berkeley city council member who represents the area where UC Berkeley is located, said
“Berkeley and the Bay Area have a long history of political discussion, protests and debate, and there’s
a real concern around the use of these drones under those circumstances, and the broader privacy issues.”
Given the public outcry, there is at least some hope the drone programs will be deterred.
“Today’s ABS Labour Force release is further evidence that the jobs market strengthened towards the end of 2014.
The Coalition Government is delivering our Economic Action Strategy to generate jobs and grow a more prosperous economy.
Today’s release shows that employment is growing, unemployment is coming down and more people are actively looking for work.
37,400 new jobs were created in the month of December, building on the 45,000 new jobs created in November and the unemployment rate fell to 6.1 per cent.
In 2014, 213,900 new jobs were created and jobs growth averaged around 17,800 per month; more than triple the average monthly jobs growth in 2013 of around 5,000 a month…
“We have delivered on our commitments to get rid of the job destroying carbon and mining taxes, we are assisting small businesses to grow by removing red and green tape, and we are getting major projects underway with environmental approvals worth one trillion dollars; projects that will provide tens of thousands of jobs far into the future…
“2015 is the year of jobs and families – the Government will continue to focus on job creation because it’s good for individuals, it’s good for families and it’s good for the economy”
Eric Abetz
Yep, you’ve got to hand it to those Liberals. A year of “jobs and families”. That explains why the 2014 Budget was so unfamily friendly. It just wasn’t the year for them, but thankfully 2015 is their year.
Of course, they’ve already got off to a flyer on the jobs front: Unemployment is coming down. It’s 6.1%! We haven’t seen a figure like that since… Well, August, 2014. If it continues to fall at this rate, it’ll be back to those pre-Budget days when it was 5.8% by… Let’s see, if we assume that the rate of the fall from November to December is a trend and we extrapolute into 2015, then, why, we’re back to 5.8% by January. And we’ll be back to what it was under Labor before the Ides of March. Excellent!
Now, don’t go listening to the doomsayers that tell you taking the figures from November all the way through to December isn’t a trend. They clearly don’t understand that the figures are from the start of November all the way through to the end of December. A whole sixty one days! That’s more than most of the Liberals’ policies have lasted.
Speaking of policies, much has been made of the effect of dropping the carbon tax, but, as you’ve probably noticed 2015 hasn’t been as hot as 2014. While I don’t wish to get into a debate on climate change using facts and figures, or indeed any data that doesn’t suit my argument, I would just like to point out that the “warmists” have no way of explaining this pause in global warming.
And, what’s more, it occured after the removal of the carbon tax. – a tax which sent lamb roasts soaring to $100 and wiped Whyalla off the map. So those people who made exaggerated claims about what removing it would do, should now apologise for their alarmist nonsense! It just shows how effective their direct action policy is!
Yep, Australia is again open for business. The only slight dampener is that the renovations to The Lodge are taking so long.
“Some $3.19 million worth of work on the 88-year-old, 800sqm, 40-room Georgian-style home began in September 2013 and was due to be completed by mid 2014. It was commissioned by the former ALP government, but on December 12, the Abbott government signed off on changes to the contract, adding another 12 months to the completion date and upping the price tag to $6.38 million.”
I guess this is another example of Labor not meeting a deadline and going over budget! Thank goodness the Liberals are in power so they can double the budget and increase the deadline to a more realistic two years for a renovation project. (If you bet anyone before the election that Tony Abbott would never make it into The Lodge, I hope you haven’t paid out.)
Still perhaps this one of the major projects providing thousands of jobs that Abetz was talking about.
Yes, I’m looking forward to the “job and families” 2015 when unemployment dips to under 6%.
And, of course, if it doesn’t, that’ll just be because we’ve encouraged all those bludgers to start looking for a job, so naturally the participation rate will rise, which could lead to the unemployment rate rising. But that’ll just be a technical rise. We know that more people are working than ever, even if some them are on 457 visas, or Chinese nationals working under our new free trade agreement.
The main thing is that Australia is open for business!
This morning I started looking for a quote from Tony Abbott for this piece. Surprisingly, I came across many, many statements from him with which I wholeheartedly agree.For example, “The great thing about the Coalition is you know exactly what you will get from the Coalition.”
Yep, he was pretty right on that one. I pretty much did know exactly what we’d get from the Coaltion…
And then I read the following:
“Let me just say of this government that it’s broken promises; that’s bad.”
“It’s the government that is faking things, fudging things and ultimately trying to deceive people.
“It’s my job between now and polling day to remind the Australian people just what a hopeless, unreliable, untrustworthy, dishonest, deceptive Government this has been. It just doesn’t get democracy.”
“A fake. An absolute fake, from start to finish.”
Unfortunately when I checked the dates, they were all made before the election and I realised that he wasn’t talking about his own government.
But I did find one interesting one made after the election.
TONY ABBOTT: “I think Christopher said ‘schools’ – plural – will get the same amount of money. The quantum will be the same.”
ANDREW BOLT: “I hear that. ‘Schools’, plural. People just saw the grab. They heard ‘school’, your ‘school’, singular, and I don’t understand why that promise was made. I would go a billion dollars into debt just to keep your promise. I don’t know why you don’t commit to it.”
TONY ABBOTT: “But Andrew, we are going to keep our promise. We are going to keep the promise that we actually made, not the promise that some people thought that we made or the promise that some people might have liked us to make. We’re going to keep the promise that we actually made.”
Which sounds fine, excerpt the promise to which he was referring was this:
Christopher Pyne: “You can vote Liberal or Labor and you will get exactly the same amount of funding for your school.”2 August 2013
So that infamous “We are going to keep the promise that we actually made, not the promise that some people thought that we made or the promise that some people might have liked us to make,” should have actually read, “We’re keeping the promise I thought we made not the one we actually made.”
Which some pedantic people are sure to argue is the same thing as not keeping a promise at all, but, as Abe Lincoln said, you can’t please all of the people all of the time… Or was that “fool”?
Whatever, after Labor’s “back-flip” on the $20 Medicare cut, Mr Abbott cut short his holiday to do an interview. (By the way, Labor has apparently changed its mind because Shorten said that he’d “consider” the change… I can see how this can be considered a back-flip by the Liberals because when they say they’ll consider something – or pay one of their mates to hold an inquiry into the best course of action – they’ve already made up their mind!) And what started my search was this little snippet from Mr Abbott:
He called on his critics to provide their own budget savings if they continued to reject the government’s attempts to restore the budget to surplus and pay down the debt.
“We are serious about economic reform, we are serious about budget responsibility – is the Senate? That is the question; are they serious about economic reform and budget responsibility and if they don’t like what this governments doing tell us what their alternative is,” he said.
Now, I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that when he was Leader of the Opposition that he said something about Oppositions:
Oppositions are not there to get legislation through. Oppositions are there to hold the government to account. And unless we are confident that a piece of legislation is beyond reasonable doubt in the national interest, it is our duty as the Opposition to vote it down.
I also seem to remember that he said that it wasn’t his job as Opposition Leader to come up with ideas for the Government, but I can’t find any actual quote. As soon as you put in anything for a Google search for an Abbott quote, all you get is stuff about climate change being crap, or a paid parental leave scheme being introduced over his dead body, or a bad boss being like a bad father, or virginity, or “the phrase WorkChoices being dead and buried”, so it’s been a long, depressing search.
Although I did find quite a few about not being afraid of a Double Dissolution, and, if the Senate held up necessary legislation, then they’d go to the people straight away. But maybe that was another one where we only thought we heard something, when what he really said was: “I’m going to cling onto being Prime Minister as long as I can because there’s no way that I’d survive an election campaign as Leader”
We’ve known for some time that the Good Ship Abbott was in trouble, and with MPs now seemingly jostling for position could it be a case of man overboard? Paula Matthewson writes.
That sound you hear is the whisper of Liberal Party MPs carefully shuffling around a Prime Minister who’s taken on water and is listing dangerously.
They’re hoping to avoid being dragged down with him into the dark waters of electoral opprobrium and are eyeing those who hope to replace the PM as potential lifeboats.
We’ve known for some time that the Good Ship Abbott was in trouble, partly because it was constructed using shonky policies and shattered expectations, but also because it was steered with the reckless abandon that comes from political hubris mixed with a misguided sense of entitlement.
Ministers are already jostling to be in the new leadership line-up, and the weekend’s leak flags that Joe Hockey, the one-time heir-apparent but now only the beleaguered Treasurer, wants to be back in contention. It would also appear Hockey is unafraid to tarnish the PM’s reputation while seeking to rehabilitate his own.
According to a newspaper report of the leak, Hockey and then health minister Peter Dutton “opposed the move during a ‘heated’ exchange with the Prime Minister” but the PM insisted on the $20 cut the Medicare rebate for short GP consults, which apparently were “developed by the Prime Minister’s Office and then costed by the Department of Finance and Health”.
This isn’t the first time efforts have been made to shift responsibility for the budget from Hockey to Abbott, particularly by drawing attention to the PM’s insistence on chairing every meeting of the Expenditure Review Committee as it put the budget together.
The core problem with the budget is the design, and responsibility for design faults ultimately lands at the feet of the Prime Minister … Abbott used his authority to take charge of the Government’s first budget, yet he seems to be using his political skills to sidestep responsibility, leaving ownership of the document with Hockey.
Since then, the Abbott Government has begun to leak like a scuttled dinghy. Political observers have been treated to a flotilla of leaks to the media, seemingly to position ministers impatient for promotion in the best possible light, or put the case for one ambitious backbencher over another.
Another recent leak, aimed at the Treasurer and suspected to also have come from the Prime Minister’s Office, was described by one press gallery stalwart as exposing the disunity, paranoia and distrust that currently exists at the highest levels of the Government.
This latest leak in Hockey’s favour won’t change the perception of omnishambles, nor will it dissuade voters from booting out the Abbott Government as swiftly as the Rudd-Gillard one if the rot is not soon arrested.
This certainty is what occupies the minds of the shuffling MPs.
The only factor that remains in Abbott’s favour is that there’s no clear front-runner to replace him. Traditionally the leadership team is agreed mostly between NSW and Victorian MPs because combined they have the most votes in the party room. Hockey re-entering the field complicates matters, but at least gives NSW MPs another option other than the invidious choice between the left’s darling, Malcolm Turnbull, and the hard-right’s poster boy, Scott Morrison. Victoria doesn’t have a leadership contender but could supply an able deputy.
And at this point it’s anyone’s guess what deals the Western Australians might do with NSW or Victorian MPs to put Bishop into the top job.
What is clear is that now Abbott has apparently single-handedly botched the “reset”, he’ll likely be deemed unseaworthy and slated for a visit to the ships’ graveyard, perhaps by mid-year.
Meantime we can expect to see a veritable ocean of leaks to the media and other forms of self-promotion as the contenders set their spyglasses on the leadership and set sail for what is guaranteed to be a deceptively perilous journey.
One of the lawyers involved in the Bali Nine drug case says Australian police should never have cooperated with Indonesia given the likelihood of death sentences being imposed.
Brisbane lawyer Robert Myers said the Abbott Government should cite the role played by Australian Federal Police (AFP) in providing intelligence on the trafficking conspiracy when it makes a bid to save the lives of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.
Mr Myers became involved in the case after receiving a phone call from his friend Lee Rush, the father of now convicted drug trafficker Scott Rush who is serving a life sentence, before his son left Australia.
“He called me one evening before the boys, well, particularly before Scott left Australia, with a concern that he had received a call to say Scott had an overseas ticket, he had a passport,” Mr Myers said.
“And so I said, ‘Well look, if you’ve got a concern, I’ll call a friend of mine in the Federal Police’. I knew a police officer who was on secondment and that really started the entire thing.”
The AFP’s liaison officer in Bali, Paul Hunniford, then wrote a three-page letter to the Indonesian police.
“It really said words to the effect of whatever action you see fit to take is quite alright with us, and it seemed to be an open-ended invitation to the Indonesian authorities,” Mr Myers said.
“If they wanted to take it beyond surveillance, if they wanted to arrest these people, even wanted to charge them, even wanted to subject them to Indonesian law, that the Australians weren’t going to have any problems with that.”
Australia in a ‘terribly embarrassing situation’
Mr Myers said the AFP’s involvement could help assist in saving the lives of Chan and Sukumaran.
“I suspect it may be their only hope now because, as I understand it, the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister have appealed to Indonesia; it sounds as if the appeals have fallen on deaf ears,” he said.
There was no doubt that by allowing the Indonesians to really have cart blanche in relation to the Bali Nine, that all of the Bali Nine were being exposed to the death penalty.
Robert Myers, lawyer
“It just struck me as though if the Government, if the Prime Minister could say on behalf of the Australian Government, [that] we find ourselves in a terribly embarrassing situation because this should never have happened in the first place.”
He said had the AFP asked for cooperation from the Indonesian authorities about the groups’ movements and when they were returning to Australia, the matter could have been dealt with on home soil.
“And if there’s an appeal made on a personal basis you’d hope that the president of Indonesia might say, ‘Look, I can see you’re in an embarrassing situation where our countries are allies… we’d hate to see the Australian Government terribly embarrassed by really a very bad error, a gross error on behalf of the AFP’, which was completely contrary to its own restrictions and guidelines.
“There is no doubt that the Attorney-General would have to personally approve the cooperation between foreign entities that could result in the death of Australian citizens, and there was no doubt that by allowing the Indonesians to really have cart blanche in relation to the Bali Nine, that all of the Bali Nine were being exposed to the death penalty.”
Mr Myers said he did not know at what level the AFP’s decision was made.
“[Mick] Keelty was obviously the officer in charge of the entire show at the time.
“I don’t even know if this decision was made by Keelty but one would have thought the buck would have stopped with … well, the buck stops with the Attorney-General and my understanding is the Attorney-General knew nothing about it.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. (CT&P) – At a press conference early this morning White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest announced that John Kerry will be taking time off his duties as secretary of state so that he can be given a thorough psychological examination at McClean Hospital in Boston. After the examination Mr. Kerry will be closely observed by a team of mental health professionals for an undetermined period in order to ascertain just how unhinged the former senator from Massachusetts has become.
The action by the White House comes on the heels of Mr. Kerry’s visit to Paris where he attempted to make up for the lack of representation from the United States at the “free speech solidarity march” attended by millions in the streets of Paris last Sunday. Mr. Kerry was accompanied by singer/songwriter James Taylor, who sang “You’ve Got a Friend” to puzzled and confused French government officials and prominent citizens.
In a muddled and seemingly unending statement made before the trip, Mr. Kerry had told reporters in the United States that he wanted to give the French people a “big hug.”
The trip and mini-concert by Taylor has been criticized and mocked by almost every media outlet in the free world, and has given new fodder for the right-wing and the kooks over at Fox News to use against President Obama in their ongoing campaign to turn him into some sort of Antichrist.
“The President would just like to make it clear that this whole James Taylor thing was Secretary Kerry’s doing,” said Earnest. “We had nothing to do with it. We have no clue what, if anything, was going on inside Mr. Kerry’s small mind when he decided to drag that dude out of whatever basement he was mouldering in. I never thought the guy was that good when he was in his prime, much less now.”
“As soon as Mr. Kerry is deemed to longer be a threat to himself or those around him he will be allowed to return to his duties,” continued Earnest. “We don’t want to have to go through the process of selecting a new secretary of state this late in the term. The folks over at McClean will give him top notch care and as many meds as he needs. Besides, no one is going to miss him for a few weeks anyway.”
ClimateDepot.com founder Marc Morano has been called “the Matt Drudge of climate denial,” the “king of the skeptics,” and “a central cell of the climate-denial machine,” and he revels in these descriptions. Although he has no scientific expertise, he is adamant that manmade global warming is a “con job” based on “subprime science.” Morano gained prominence working for two of the most vocal climate deniers in the U.S.: Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who notoriously called climate change “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” and Rush Limbaugh, who we named Climate Change Misinformer of the Year in 2011 for his steadfast denial of climate science and wild conspiracy theories about the climate change “hoax.”
These days Morano is paid by an industry-funded group to run the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com. At Climate Depot, Morano serves as the de facto research department for the right-wing media’s attacks on climate science, and mobilizes his readers to target individual scientists and reporters for telling the public about climate change threats. The site was instrumental in manufacturing the 2009 “Climategate” controversy, which Morano incorrectly claimed exposed “deliberate manipulation of facts and data” by climate scientists. Morano is a darling of the organization most committed to climate denial, the Heartland Institute. He regularly speaks at their conferences and defended their controversial billboard comparing those who accept climate science to “murderers, tyrants, and madmen” including the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.
Due to his history of smears and lies, Morano’s media influence is usually confined to Rush Limbaugh, FoxNews, and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. But in December, CNN invited him to “debate” Bill Nye on climate science, and in doing so elevated his marginal views to the mainstream press for the first time all year. For all this, Marc Morano has earned the distinction of 2012 Climate Change Misinformer of the Year.
Morano: A Professional Climate Denier
Morano Worked In Communications For Climate Deniers Rush Limbaugh And Sen. James Inhofe. Marc Morano is not a scientist and has no scientific background. Prior to starting Climate Depot, he worked as a producer for Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s where he was known as Limbaugh’s “Man in Washington.” Limbaugh continues to use Morano’s material on his radio show to misinform his millions of listeners.
Morano went on to work for Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who has called climate change the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” As Inhofe’s communication director, Morano fed misleading talking points on global warming to climate contrarians, conservative bloggers, and right-wing think tanks like the Heartland Institute. [Esquire, 3/20/10] [Climate Depot, 9/18/11] [Media Matters, 12/19/11] [Think Progress, 2/17/09]
Morano Said Climate Scientists “Deserve To Be Publicly Flogged.” Morano seized on the 2009 “Climategate” controversy to call climate change a “con job” and accuse scientists of “ginning up a crisis.” He told The Daily Climate that he saw the controversy as an opportunity to sow doubt about climate science, saying: “I seriously believe we should kick them while they’re down. They deserve to be publicly flogged.” [Scientific American, 3/1/10]
Morano Defended Billboard Comparing Those Who Accept Climate Science To The Unabomber. Morano has close ties to the Heartland Institute, an industry-funded organization that hosts regular conferences and dispatches “experts” to deny that manmade global warming is a serious problem. To promote a recent conference, Heartland sponsored a billboard that associated acceptance of climate science with Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. When Heartland faced backlash from corporate donors and even some of its own staff, Morano defended the billboard, calling it “edgy”:
This is so silly. Every day now, skeptics are compared to Holocaust deniers and the media yawns. But Heartland does an edgy billboard accurately reflecting the views of those featured in it and the media acts as though they are offended?
Heartland has received funding from the Charles Koch Foundation, ExxonMobil and other corporations with a financial interest in confusing the public on climate science. Morano has spoken at five Heartland Institute conferences, and is featured on Heartland’s list of global warming “experts.” He received an award from Heartland in 2011. [Media Matters, 11/28/12] [Heartland Institute, accessed12/12/12] [Heartland Institute, 5/15/12] [Heartland Institute, 6/30/11]
Morano Gloated That More Americans Believed In Haunted Houses Than Global Warming, Saying “Science Wins.” In 2010, Morano received an award from Accuracy in Media, a group that has defended legislation in Uganda that threatened the death penalty for the “offense of homosexuality” and promoted conspiracy theories including that President Obama was not born in the U.S. In his acceptance speech, Morano touted that in “the fall of 2009, more Americans believed in haunted houses than manmade global warming, and I’m not making that up. Science wins in the end.” Morano also said that he didn’t “understand” why Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, is “taken seriously.” [YouTube video uploaded by Accuracy in Media, 2/18/10] [Media Matters, 2/7/12] [Accuracy in Media, 2/16/10]
Morano Uses Any Media Platform He Is Given To Distort Climate Science
Fox News Hosted Morano To Discuss Climate Change At Least 5 Times In 2012. A search of Nexis and Media Matters‘ internal TV archive reveals that Morano appeared on Fox News’ Your World With Neil Cavuto at least five times in 2012 to spew misinformation on climate change. Here are a few highlights:
Climate Change Is A “Primitive Form Of Science.” In November, Morano dismissed the link between climate change and extreme weather, saying “every time there’s a bad weather event the global warming activists think we need more taxes and regulations to somehow stop bad weather. This is a primitive form of science.” He went on to compare climate models to doomsday predictions, saying: “This has now reached the level of the Mayan calendar and Nostradamus when it comes to science.” [Fox News, Your World With Neil Cavuto, 11/26/12, via Nexis]
Global Warming Predictions Are “Akin To Medieval Witchcraft.” In August, Morano claimed climate change predictions are “failing” and compared them to “medieval witchcraft, where we used to blame witches for controlling the weather.” [Fox News, Your World With Neil Cavuto, 8/2/12, via Nexis]
The Public Increasingly Doesn’t Believe In Climate Change “As The Science Crumbles.” In August, Morano declared that climate change has proven to be based on “subprime science,” and that the “whole movement has collapsed.” He added that “the public continues to believe less and less, as they should, as the science crumbles.” [Fox News, Your World With Neil Cavuto, 8/2/12, via Nexis]
UN Climate Treaties Are “Very Orwellian.” Morano claimed in July that the goal of UN climate negotiations is “global governance” and wealth redistribution, adding: “It`s very Orwellian… This is stuff Orwell couldn`t conceive of, your home energy use, your travel, your train travel, airline travel all monitored by international agencies. It`s not the stuff of science fiction.” [Fox News, Your World With Neil Cavuto, 7/6/12, via Nexis]
The “Global Warming Apocalypse… Isn’t Happening.” In April, Morano claimed that renewable energy is unnecessary because the “global warming apocalypse… isn’t happening.” He added that “even the big green gurus are reconsidering … the reason we have the wind mandates which is fear of manmade global warming.” [Fox News, Your World With Neil Cavuto, 4/30/12]
Morano Often Appears On Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones’ Show. Alex Jones is a radio host who thinks that a “New World Order” of secretive elites is trying to take over the world, impose an authoritarian government and “exterminate 80% of the world’s population.” Jones, who was one of the most prominent 9/11 truthers, has made outlandish claims, including that the government is trying to “encourage homosexuality with chemicals” in items like juiceboxes, and that Bill Gates is promoting vaccines because he is a eugenicist trying to sterilize people. Morano often appears on Jones’ show to promote conspiracy theories of his own:
Morano Agreed Obama “Might Start A War” To Win Re-Election. After Morano predicted that Romney would win the election, Jones said that Obama might “start a war” to win re-election. Morano responded, “they could try to do that, yes, that’s always possible.” [YouTube video posted by TheAlexJonesChannel, 9/1/12]
Morano Fearmongered About UN Establishing A “Global EPA.” Morano claimed that the UN climate summit in Rio was pushing a “global EPA” that is “going to be able to police the world.” He added, “Think of our own EPA that speaks French. If that doesn’t send chills up your spine, I don’t know what will.” Morano’s fearmongering played into Jones’ New World Order conspiracy theory. [YouTube video posted by TheAlexJonesChannel, 2/7/12]
Morano Denied That July Was The Hottest Month On Record. Morano claimed scientists used “data that had been monkeyed around with” to state that July 2012 was the hottest month on record in the continental U.S. [YouTube video posted by TheAlexJonesChannel, 9/1/12]
Morano Accused Scientists Of “Cover[ing] Up” “Dropping” Sea Levels. Morano claimed that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a leading body of thousands of scientists assessing climate change, is a “small group of scientists” that was “blocking studies that disagreed, blocking data that disagreed, and then essentially, sometimes, generating studies that did.” He later added that scientists are trying to “cover up the fact that sea level not only isn’t accelerating, it’s dropping.” In fact, sea levels have been rising for decades and have studies indicate this rise is accelerating. [YouTube video posted by TheAlexJonesChannel, 2/8/12] [Columbia University, accessed 12/17/12]
Morano: UN Climate Panel Trying To “Contro[l] The World.” Morano said that those concerned about global warming are attempting to exert “a level of control that George Orwell didn’t contemplate,” adding: “He who controls carbon, and controls land use policy, and even the oceans, controls the world. And that’s what they’re going for. And this isn’t conspiracy talk, this is in their documents.” [YouTube video posted by TheAlexJonesChannel, 12/10/11]
CNN Hosted Morano To “Debate” Bill Nye On Climate Science. In December CNN’s Piers Morgan hosted a “debate” on climate change between Marc Morano and Bill Nye “The Science Guy” without disclosing that Morano has no scientific background and is paid by an industry-funded organization. During the segment, Morano misleadingly claimed that “we’ve gone 16 years without global warming according to UN data,” adding:
MORANO: On my Web site there’s literally — it demolishes the idea of a hockey stick, new peer-reviewed study, so the idea that Bill Nye is just going around saying CO2 is up, therefore global warming is dangerous, we should be concerned, it’s not. It’s not dangerous.
In a blog highlighting the segment, CNN identified Morano as an “expert” on the issue and said he “presented an alternate theory regarding the impact, and concern, associated with carbon dioxide.” The blog did not clarify that the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is a problem and is driven by human activity. [Media Matters, 12/5/12]
Morano Helped Enforce Climate Denial Litmus Test For 2012 Election
Morano’s Advice To GOP Candidates Who Accept Climate Science: “Keep Your Mouth Shut.” During the Republican primary season, Morano told E&E News: “You can believe in the science of global warming if you’re a GOP presidential contender if you keep your mouth shut about it and you advocate no quote-unquote solution to the problem.” [E&E News, 5/23/11]
Morano Blasted Gingrich For “Accepting The Science.” Morano has repeatedly criticized Newt Gingrich for appearing in a 2008 Alliance for Climate Protection ad with Rep. Nancy Pelosi in which he said “our country must take action to address climate change.” Morano called the ad “toxic” to Gingrich’s presidential campaign, and complained that Gingrich was “accepting the science”:
He’s acknowledging the problem. He’s accepting the science. He hasn’t backed away from endorsing Al Gore’s approach to man-made global warming. That’s why he’s going to have a problem. Newt Gingrich was not just giving aid and comfort to the opposition. He was the opposition to the global warming skeptics. [E&E News, 5/23/11]
Morano Pressured Gingrich To Cut Climate Chapter From His Book. When atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe was identified as a contributor to Newt Gingrich’s book of environmental essays, for which she was asked to write an introductory chapter on climate change, Morano went on the attack. He dismissed her work as “trash science” and encouraged readers to contact her directly by repeatedly posting her email address on his blog. Morano also blasted Gingrich as a “long-time warmist” who shows “no signs of recanting,” adding: “This is how Newt uses his intelligence?” Ranting on ClimateDepot.com, Morano wrote:
Gingrich has revealed beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is, & always has been – -a committed believer in man-made climate fears! The fact that Hayhoe was chosen to write a chapter in his new book is all we need to know. Will Hayhoe be his potential pick for climate advisor?! Gingrich has never left Pelosi’s couch! If the GOP can only come up with Newt or Mitt — is an Obama 2nd term all that scary when it comes to climate? Just asking…
Gingrich later scrapped Hayhoe’s chapter after Rush Limbaugh — Morano’s former boss — highlighted the story on his radio show. Morano celebrated the news with the following headline:
Morano Raised “Concerns” About Romney’s Stance On Climate Change. At the Heartland Institute’s 7th climate change conference, Morano raised “concerns” that some of Mitt Romney’s advisors accept the science of climate change, saying “it’s a little bit scary who he’s surrounding himself with.” He added, “It’s very frustrating for global warming skeptics when you realize who is the Republican standard bearer right now and how far we’ve come… We need a president who actually can stand up to this whole global warming brigade.” [ClimateCrocks.com, 5/30/12]
Morano Falsely Suggested That Former Romney Global Warming Advisor Favored Forced Sterilization. Last year on Alex Jones’ show, Morano expressed concern that Romney would accept manmade global warming if he were elected President, noting that he was advised by John Holdren — now President Obama’s senior science advisor — while he was governor of Massachusetts. Morano went on to suggest that Holdren supported forced sterilization, when in fact he had merely co-authored a book 32 years prior that catalogued such methods among many others but did not endorse them. From The Alex Jones Show:
MORANO: [Romney] had John Holdren as one of his advisors in Massachusetts when Romney was on his global warming kick.
[…]
AARON DYKES, ALEX JONES GUEST HOST: So just for the viewers who may not be following the name game here. You’re talking about John P. Holdren, Obama’s global warming and white house czar, who calls for a $4 billion 4 billion person genocide over overpopulation and is experimenting with this geoengineering in the atmosphere –
MORANO: Yes.
DYKES: –over global warming.
[…]
MORANO: Romney is getting a free ride in these [Republican primary] debates. John Holdren was partnered up with Paul Ehrlich. Paul Ehrlich proposed forced sterilization agents in our drinking water in the 1960’s and 70’s. [YouTube video uploaded be TheAlexJonesChannel, 10/24/11] [Media Matters, 9/17/09]
Morano Urged Romney To Pick VP Who Denied Climate Science. Responding to rumors that Mitt Romney was considering Condoleezza Rice as his running mate in 2012, Morano told Politico:
Why, oh why would Romney choose a V.P. who is smitten with the U.N. climate process[?] The stench of the carcass of the U.N. global climate treaty process is overwhelming, and despite this, Rice in 2011 regretted that Pres. Bush rejected it. Romney could do so much better than to pick Sec. Rice. [Politico, 7/13/12]
He later cheered Romney’s selection of Rep. Paul Ryan, saying, “It will be so refreshing to have a VP candidate who actually understands how warmists… have perverted science and turned it into pure politics.” [ClimateDepot.com, 8/11/12]
Morano Has A Sordid History Of Spreading Smears
At CNS News, Morano Uncritically Broke “Swift Boat” Story Smearing Sen. John Kerry. Before working for Sen. Inhofe, Morano worked as a reporter for Cybercast News Service (CNS), which is owned by the right-wing Media Research Center. In 2004, Morano broke the story about the attacks coming from the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, uncritically repeating unfounded accusations that Sen. John Kerry did not deserve the Purple Heart award he earned in Vietnam. But FactCheck.org noted that “the veterans who accuse Kerry [of lying to receive his war medals] are contradicted by Kerry’s former crewmen, and by Navy records.” Morano also repeated claims that Kerry accused soldiers of war crimes “knowing that was a lie.” But Kerry simply relayed the stories of other Vietnam veterans, and he intended them as an indictment of military leadership rather than a condemnation of soldiers. [CNSNews.com, 5/3/04, via Newsmax] [FactCheck.org, 8/6/04] [Media Matters, 8/23/04] [CNSNews.com, uploaded 7/7/08] [CNSNews.com, uploaded 7/7/08]
Morano Led “Swift Boat” Effort On Vietnam Veteran Murtha. In early 2006, Morano co-authored a story for CNS accusing Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), a critic of the war in Iraq, of exaggerating injuries suffered in Vietnam and lobbying for undeserved service awards. The article was seen by many as an ad hominem political attack meant to obscure legitimate policy discussion. Morano’s story was also criticized for relying on convoluted sources, many of them potentially tinged by political bias, and recycling years-old uncorroborated charges. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), former Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, pointed out that Murtha’s service awards had actually been subject to extensive and well-documented Marine Corps approval decades earlier, and blasted “extremist Republican operatives” and others for “denigrating the service of those with whom they disagree.” [CNS News, 1/13/2006] [Washington Post, 1/17/2006, via Nexis] [Media Matters, 1/17/2006] [Huffington Post, 1/15/2006] [ConWebWatch, 1/18/2006] [New York Times, 1/18/2006] [Boston Globe, 8/5/2006]
Morano Used “Climategate” To “Swift Boat” Climate Scientists. Morano played a key role in fueling the “Climategate” controversy, seizing on hacked emails to accuse scientists of “corruption” and “fraud” and to declare that global warming is nothing more than a “con job.” Even after multiple investigations cleared scientists of these charges, Morano continues to claim that Climategate exposed “collusion” and “deliberate manipulation of facts and data” by UN scientists. Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, who has been relentlessly attacked by Climate Depot, recently said that Morano is paid by “vested interests to ‘swiftboat’ climate scientists, to try to distort our work, to try to undermine the public’s credibility in the science.” [ClimateDepot.com, 11/20/09] [ClimateDepot.com, 2/17/12] [Scientific American, 3/1/10] [Conservative Roundtable, 5/7/10] [ClimateDepot.com, 11/23/11] [ClimateDepot.com, 12/3/12]
Morano Smeared Gay Attendees Of AIDS Fundraiser. In 1996, Morano attended a fundraiser for AIDS victims on behalf of the Family Research Council, an organization that has been labeled a “hate group” for its factually-challenged attacks on LGBT people. In a column for Human Events, Morano claimed that during the dance party there was “evidence of illegal drugs” because “Snorting could be heard” through the bathroom stalls. But then-Rep. Steve Gunderson (R-WI), who sponsored but did not attend the event, testified that no complaints were lodged with security. Morano also claimed to have witnessed “illegal sexual activity” in the main auditorium, which was used by conservative columnist Armstrong Williams to say that the event was an “orgy” and a “homosexual free-for-all.” But as Rep. Gunderson stated, “Absolutely no one but Mr. Morano claims to have seen this incident. But one must wonder why he did not film it. One must wonder why he did not report it to security.” Morano later claimed that he tried to capture it on camera but was unsuccessful. The Washington Times reported that “no participant contacted by The Washington Times confirmed” Morano’s claim that he “saw men engaged in sexual relations.” Morano’s column, which was identified as an example of “the journalism of bigotry and prejudice” by Rep. Gunderson, further promoted stereotypes about gay people:
The image of young active health conscious men, drinking bottled water and consuming fruit [at the fundraiser] is a study in contrast. The reckless lifestyle inherent in the gay experience results in a notably reduced life span. The life expectancy of a homosexual male is estimated to be no more than about 41 years old, regardless of AIDS. The homosexual community’s credo seems to be “Die young and leave a pretty corpse.” [Congressional Testimony, 5/14/96] [Congressional Record, 5/15/1996] [Southern Poverty Law Center, accessed 12/12/12] [Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 5/2/96, via Nexis] [The Washington Times, 5/5/96, via Nexis] [The Advocate, 6/25/96]
Morano Is Paid By An Industry-Funded Advocacy Group
Morano Is Paid Over $150,000 A Year By An Oil-Funded Organization. Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a conservative policy and lobbying organization that has received funding from ExxonMobil and Chevron. CFACT also received over $300,000 in 2011 from Donors Trust, an anonymously funded group that PBS called the “number one supporter of the groups” that deny climate change. CFACT’s 2011 financial disclosure form lists Morano as its highest paid employee at over $150,000 a year. [Media Matters, 11/28/12]
CFACT Claims “Global Warming Claims Are Failing.” CFACT denies that there is a scientific consensus on manmade climate change and claims that “real world evidence” shows that “global warming claims are failing.” [CFACT.org, accessed 12/11/12]
We’ve changed our commenting system to Disqus.
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.
Our research section features in-depth media analysis, original reports illustrating skewed or inadequate coverage of important issues, thorough debunking of conservative falsehoods that find their way into coverage and other special projects from Media Matters’ research department.
The Washington Post‘s Fact Checker debunked the claim that net neutrality protections could cost American consumers $15 billion in additional taxes and fees — a favorite conservative argument against net neutrality and one parroted by multiple media outlets — concluding the estimate contains “significant factual error[s] and/or obvious contradictions.”
Fox News has repeatedly pushed the debunked myth that 30 percent of released Guantanamo Bay detainees return to terror. In reality, the estimated number is around 7 percent, and has declined during Obama’s time in office.
Many news outlets are uncritically touting the State Department’s conclusion that building the Keystone XL pipeline would not significantly worsen climate change without noting that this determination was based on an expectation of high oil prices. Some media outlets, however, have reported the significance of the recent plunge in oil prices, such as the Associated Press, which noted that “[l]ow oil prices could make the pipeline more important to the development of new oil sands projects in Canada than anticipated by the State Department … and therefore is more likely to increase emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming.”
However the Prime Minister instead insisted on changes including the $20 cut the Medicare rebate for short GP consults. These changes were developed by the Prime Minister’s Office and then costed by the Department of Finance and Health.
Senior ministers including Mr Hockey and Mr Dutton, who are political allies, did not support the measures concerned they would than confuse voters and anger GPs with a new policy to cut rebates to doctors. Doctors immediately warned the changes would be passed on to patients, raising fears of even higher charges than the original co-payment.
As the backbench continues to question the Prime Minister’s political judgment and the “command and control’’ approach of his office, MPs insist that the original advice of the Treasurer and the Health Minister was overruled.
However, stung by a grassroots backlash to the policy by his own Liberal MPs, a campaign by GPs and the prospect that the measure was doomed in the Senate, Mr Abbott formed the view that it must be dumped while “taking soundings’’ as he drank beers at the cricket on Thursday.
Tony Abbott defied Joe Hockey and Peter Dutton to impose “crazy” GP fee.
These “soundings’’ included a threat by senior MPs that they would go public in their opposition to the $20 rebate cut. Mr Abbott then discussed the problem with the new Health Minister Sussan Ley who was forced to disembark from a cruise ship to announce the changes after they were rubber stamped by the leadership group on Thursday morning.
The Abbott Government announced a $20 cut to the Medicare rebate paid to doctors for consultations of less than ten minutes late last year. It was argued that the change would address “six minute medicine’’ and encourage GPs to spend more time with their patients.
The rise of “six minute medicine’’ and bulk billing clinics that churn patients through and cost the taxpayer more was one of the original arguments for imposing a $7 co-payment for previously bulk billed visits in the first place.
Within hours of new Health Minister Sussan Ley announcing the $20 rebate cut for short consultations would be dumped on Thursday, several Queensland MPs released statements praising the decision to dump the Prime Ministers policy. Liberal MPs Warren Entsch, who launched a blistering attack on the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Peta Credlin late last year praised the decision.
Treasurer Joe Hockey was unimpressed with the PM’s decision to increase the GP fee.
“I congratulate the minister for having the courage to stand up against something that wasn’t going to work,” Mr Entsch said.
“I acknowledge that something needs to be done as Medicare in its current form is not sustainable, but there are other ways.
Former Howard Government minister Mal Brough, who had threatens to go public with his own opposition also welcomed the backflip.
“I would personally like to thank the doctors I consulted with over the past week for their valuable input,’’ he said.
The Abbott Government remains committed to introducing a co-payment for previously bulk billed GP visits. However, protections would be offered to low income Australians.
The Prime Minister continues to privately insist to colleagues that the GP co-payment is still on track to pass the Senate early this year, but has not suggested a deal is in place with Clive Palmer. As a result, MPs remain in the dark about how he hopes to acheive this.
Paraphrased fro an article by Robert Reich as the Australian experience parallels the American
1.The link between falling unemployment and rising wages has been severed.
2. It’s easier than ever for American employers to get the workers they need at low cost by outsourcing Outsourcing can now be done at the click of a computer keyboard..
3.Developing nations now have access to both the education and the advanced technologies to be as productive as American workers. So CEOs ask, why pay more?
4. Rather than pay higher wages, it’s cheaper for employers to install more robots.
5. Casualisation has created “reserve army” of the hidden unemployed – again, without raising wages. Insecure workers don’t demand higher wages when unemployment drops. They’re grateful simply to have a job.
6.Workers are living paycheck to paycheck. They won’t risk losing a job by asking for higher pay.
7. Fewer workers of private-sector workers are unionized.
None of these changes has been accidental. The growing use of outsourcing abroad and of labor-replacing technologies, the large reserve of hidden unemployed, the mounting economic insecurities, and the demise of labor unions have been actively pursued by corporations and encouraged by Abbott. Payrolls are the single biggest cost of business. Lower payrolls mean higher profits.
The human costs of this “efficiency” have been substantial. Ordinary workers have lost jobs and wages, and many communities have been abandoned.
The goal of Corporations is to steadily weaken their workers’ bargaining power and the link between productivity and workers’ income. If severed labour costs can be kept low and profits high.
This is not a winning corporate strategy over the long term because higher returns ultimately depend on more sales, which requires a large and growing middle class with enough purchasing power to buy what can be produced.
But from the limited viewpoint of the CEO of a single large firm, or of an investment banker or fund manager it’s works out just fine with a government like Abbott’s on side The key strategy of the nation’s large corporations and financial sector has been to prevent wages from rising.
And, if you hadn’t noticed, the big corporations are calling the shots. They say jump and Abbott says how high.
Would you be like to live in a police state where untrammelled greed has knowingly destroyed its environment for the benefit of the elite, asks Sydney bureau chief Ross Jones.
Ladies and Gentlemen, if I may, I would ask you one question:
Would you like to live in China, a police state whose untrammelled greed has knowingly destroyed its environment for the benefit of the elite?
No?
The arable area of Australia is roughly the size of Vietnam. That’s if we cut down every tree. This sliver of life is all that stands between us and shitdom, a la Easter Island on ice.
But frack it, right?
Somewhere, in a boardroom far, far away, a man with receding hair and a striped shirt asks two crucial questions:
What is this Artesian Basin? And is it money?
He is obliged to maximise returns to stakeholders — known in some circles as “sausageholders”. And the sausage is pointed directly at our heads. The trickle-down effect.
Worse, he has friends. Lots of them.
Somewhere, much closer to home, in a café on Martin Place, a moron made tragic fools of the cream of Australia’s intelligence services, not to mention the bunyips of Macquarie Street.
And didn’t our prime minister do well? Certainly well enough to enthuse the crowd at the recent World Cup opener against our former Gulf War allies, Kuwait.
Make no mistake, ASIO reports to Parliament. Or, in 2015, Peta Credlin, who for the time-being is the Australian lower house.
Accordingly, the men and women ASIO find themselves beholden to a bunch of Fruit Loops with a wildly erratic security/publicity agenda. Add to their complications the silent-movie AFP and kill-happy local police and you can start to have some sympathy for them.
There is another pressure, too — money. The guys in the striped shirts. The guys who are pointing their sausages at you. ASIO has a very ordinary track-record in resisting instructions to focus on commercial targets.
So, we find ourselves at the mercy of striped-shirts and an avariciously-instructed domestic security body.
If this goes on, environmental degradation and police state will follow as night does day. You might not notice the creep for 10-15 years or so, but you will.
As they say, the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago.
Frequent presidential candidate and all-around rich guy Mitt Romney, who once referred to the poorest 47 percent of Americans as “takers.” Maria Dryfhout / Shutterstock.com
This won’t come as a total shock, but there’s some new hard data to back up what we already suspect anecdotally: Our democracy is really an oligarchy.
Looking at actual policy and polling, researchers at Princeton concluded that the wealthiest Americans tend to get what they want, or at least they did between 1981 and 2002 (the time frame on which the study focuses).
“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy,” write Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, “while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”
Another quote from the peer-reviewed study: “When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.”
Further reading (and depression) can be found at TPM and the Telegraph.
For the record, the technical definition of an oligarchy is a country or institution controlled by a small group of people.
The theory of “biased pluralism” that the Princeton and Northwestern researchers believe the US system fits holds that policy outcomes “tend to tilt towards the wishes of corporations and business and professional associations.” Over the past few decades America’s political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.
Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy
AFTER a week of sitting in his Nissan spying around-the-clock on a house across the road in Tehran’s north, not for the first time Sassan Khalebani pondered how his life had come to this.
First there were the strange visits, then the abusive abrupt telephone calls. The previous week members of several local families began trying to smash the windows and glass tabletops of his small but busy travel agency in central Tehran in a rowdy melee that was threatening to turn more violent.
He knew of course how it all began — Man Haron Monis, formerly known as Mohammad-Hassan Manteghi, whose house in Sa’adat Abad in north Tehran he was now sitting outside, in the hope of finding him and getting some answers. He never would.
Monis’ arrival at the Rahelenoor Tour and Travel Agency had been as sudden as his disappearance with the lifesavings of dozens of clients, which set in train a new life that would end half a world away in the Lindt Café in Martin Place in central Sydney.
As a young man … Man Haron Monis who was born Mohammad-Hassan Manteghi Borujerdi. Picture: SuppliedSource: Supplied
A News Corp Australia investigation into Monis’ life in Iran reveals new details that suggest there may have been more to Monis beyond crazed idealist.
At the time he “disappeared”, he was managing director of the travel agency and a businessman with both high-level political and religious contacts. A father of two girls, he was also suspected of being an Iranian intelligence officer tasked with bringing disgrace and financial ruin to political opponents. He also stole far more money than has previously been reported.
MAN MONIS, A SHADY TRAVEL AGENT
Monis came to Rahelenoor travel agency as managing director in 1996. Nobody was really sure where he came from but staff were told he was now the new boss. At that time there were about a hundred such agencies operating in Tehran and it was a busy hub, offering not just flights but visas for those wanting to leave the republic to start a new life. Monis was at the time said to be a religious figure, having performed various studies, and was also married to Zahra Mobasheri, a university professor who tied the knot with him when she was still a teen in 1983. Mobasheri’s father Habibolah was deputy head of the prestigious Imam Sadiq University, a pivotal institution for the Iranian regime’s top cadre and officials from the State’s intelligence agency. Habibolah was known to be influential in the Iranian government.
A change of managing director was not seen as unusual and staff were told their new boss was a well connected 32-year-old father of two girls aged 7 and 8 years.
Double life … Man Haron Monis was born Mohammad-Hassan Manteghi Borujerdi. This was the photo that was hanging on the wall of his office at the travel agency in Tehran where he was managing director. Picture: SuppliedSource: Supplied
He occupied the top floor of the Shariati Street agency and had little to do with staff at the counters downstairs but worked 8am to 5pm, Saturday through to Thursday.
“He was very normal, smiley, would come in and say good morning to everyone and ‘where is my tea, someone bring me my tea’, normal things like this,” Khalebani recalled.
“He just went upstairs, oversaw business. The owner of the business knew of him from another religious connection and was told he would make a good managing director for the company. You could not imagine what he was really doing and was about to escape, nobody could believe he was going to escape.”
Calculated man … Man Haron Monis had plans years ago. Here, police are depicted at the scene of the siege in Martin Place. Picture: Toby ZernaSource: News Corp Australia
Monis was planning his exit from almost the moment he took over the business. At the same time he was putting up a framed photograph of himself on the wall announcing his arrival, he was already looking to a rival travel agency to book him passage to Australia.
For the seven months he worked at the agency he made numerous appointments with families wishing to migrate to other countries, mostly Europe and also possibly Australia. Khalebani said Monis was dealing with 14 families, a total of 40 family members, who were selling off their assets for a new life abroad and that he had taken from them 750 million Iranian rials, the equivalent of about AUD$550,000 on rates of the day. This figure is considerably higher than the US$200,000 previously reported theft of life savings in exchange for visas, fees and start up costs overseas.
Shedding more light … Sassan Khalebani worked with Man Haron Monis in the Tehran travel agency where he stole a fortune to start his new life in Australia. Picture: Ella PellegriniSource: Supplied
“He just talked, ‘OK if you want to go to Australia I can do it’, ‘you want Europe I can do it’, it was like this for six or seven months,” recalled one customer. Monis also explained that the owner of the agency, well known political figure Rasoul Montajebnia, had personal relationships with several ambassadors and consulates.
But Monis made no attempt to apply for any visas, according to official Iranian immigration papers, which show in July 1996 he had applied for himself through another travel agency, Vala Tours, for a working visa to Australia with a 4.2 rial (AUD$3000) return ticket issued two months later on September 9. He flew out on Iranian Airlines flight 840 on October 26 from Tehran to Kuala Lumpur then onto Sydney on Malaysian Airlines MH123. As a condition of the visa, he had booked a return ticket from Sydney departing on November 26, a section he was never going to take. He told those at that agency he would be back after he concluded some business deals and investment talks.
Deceptive and evil … Sheikh Man Haron Monis used others to achieve his personal goals. Picture: AAPSource: AAP
Three weeks after Monis was due to return, customers arrived at the agency seeking their visas.
“They sold everything they had, house, furniture everything to give money to this man to start a life somewhere in another country and be a resident there. Most of them were heading to Europe,” Khalebani recalled.
“We didn’t know he was going out of the country. One week, two week, one month waiting for this man but he didn’t show up himself and we see that everybody come asking ‘what happened to our visa?”
Monis used the name of respected agency boss Montajebnia and his stamped signature on all the documents, thereby directly linking him to all transactions. When he could not be found, it was Montajebnia who was then liable for their losses and the target of the customer’s anger.
MONIS ‘BEHIND POLITICAL CONSPIRACY’
Montajebnia had been a relatively outspoken vice president of the reformist opposition Etemad Melli political party in Iran. Two colleagues, including the party president Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi, were candidates against the ruling president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the 2009 election but were beaten in the first round of voting which gave Ahmadinejad a second term. The pair protested and claimed the results were rigged. They were promptly arrested and have been under house arrest ever since, including time in jail cells and being held in a ‘safe house’ belonging to the intelligence services with limited access to friends and family, telephones and TV. Their wives, also active vocal party members, were also placed under house arrest. Earlier this month Iranian Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Sadeq Amoli Larijanoi said a decision would now be made to prosecute them in court. The death penalty for acting contrary to national security has been suggested.
Chilling CCTV footage …. shows Monis during the terrifying Martin Place siege Picture: SuppliedSource: Supplied
Karroubi and Montajebnia were great friends and very close when they were both the equivalent of MPs. Karroubi particularly was seen as an influential figure in Iran, having twice been the chairman of the parliament in the early 1990s and again from 2000 to 2004.
At the time Monis came to work at Montajebnia’s travel and migration agency, it was a major source of revenue for the party with funds raised going towards the election prospects of Etemad Melli’s senior figures, including Montajebnia, Karroubi and Mousavi.
This is where a suspected conspiracy exists among Etemad Melli supporters, who believe Monis was a plant in the business to bring it to ruin and thereby so too a financial stream for the political reformist group.
“He was sent to attack the agency so they (candidates) would not go up, rise in popularity,” said one who asked not to be named.
“Someone wanted to make problem for this society (political party) and this man make the problem. They wanted to be the top, go to the top of government because they are against the government for some political issues but Manteghi (Monis) came inside and made problem for this group.”
Horrific ordeal … a moment captured on film from the Martin Place siege. Picture: Channel 7Source: Channel 7
It was widely known that Monis had studied at Sadiq University, the main training ground for Iran’s intelligence service. Some believed he was from the Right of politics and a supporter of the government so thought it strange he would be employed by the Left reformist party and even to have attended Karroubi rallies.
Khalebani, 42, said he was not sure whether Monis was a plant but said he certainly made trouble for his employers, not just in stealing the money but also by dobbing in Montajebnia’s son to the authorities for trying to skip his national military service. The tactic was to remove the son who was to see the day-to-day runnings of the operation and report to his father. The son was caught by military authorities and was not in the business for the months Monis carried out the theft.
MONIS ‘LIED’ ABOUT RELIGION
Monis had performed religious studies but those spoken to by News Corp Australia scoffed at suggestions he was any sort of leading cleric. Simply completing such studies affords some status but not to lead others.
Still no-one could believe he could have fled the country the way he did.
Police were called and by January 1996 had barred him from leaving the country — even though he had already fled. Members of the 12 defrauded families trashed the travel agency and fought employees. Montajebnia’s business collapsed and he had to sell many assets, as well as lose his position as head of the local mosque. Still politically active, he now teaches at a local university.
The Montajebnia family declined to comment but confirmed it had struggled to pay back debts incurred by “the thief”, even in instalments to some of the victims. Montajebnia’s family had taken on the debt, primarily his son, and through a bank loan to pay back the 14 families was still in debt to the bank.
Self-styled … Man Monis chained to a railing and waving Australian flags and holding self made signs. Picture: Cameron RichardsonSource: News Corp Australia
Monis’ wife Mobasheri said his acts had brought shame to the family through his deception and he was a traitor to both his family and country. She said he was cruel, unhinged and a wife beater who terrorised their children, and she wanted to divorce him many times.
Despite being abandoned it would be five years before she formally divorced him even though she could have made the application after six months of his absence.
Professor Mohsen Alviri, an associate from Monis’ university days and now Professor in Tehran’s, Bagher Al-Oloom University, said Monis marriage was welcomed by her father who was impressed by the intelligent and religious man. But he, Alviri, later saw how Monis was prone to huge mood swings and could be friendly one minute and weird, angry and dismissive the next. He surmised that he simply had an ugly side which eventually went all bad.
On bail … Amirah Droudis was charged with the murder of Monis’ ex-wife. Picture Cameron RichardsonSource: News Corp Australia
Up close … Amirah Droudis, Man Haron Monis’ current wife who is still alive. Picture: SuppliedSource: Supplied
Such was the dysfunctional marriage, there was an intervention and direct counselling by the influential Mahdavi Kani, former Iranian prime minister and interior minister and a founder in the Establishment during the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini.
It was another impressive connection, which appears to contradict the Iranian Government’s explanation that Monis was not connected to anyone of authority and was just a deranged fraudster, as the apparatus claimed in a public statement earlier this month.
HOW IRAN DISCOVERED WHERE MONIS FLED
Four years after the theft, in December 2000, a small news item with a photo on the front page of the UK-based Persian newspaper Kayhan London depicted Monis chaining himself to the gates of the NSW State Parliament in a protest. For many back in Iran it was the first sighting or knowledge of him since he disappeared.
Revelation … Monis’ former colleagues and victims learned he had fled to Sydney through this Persian newspaper, Kayhan London. Picture: SuppliedSource: Supplied
His name was different but he was widely recognised by his local community.His former work colleagues still talk about the day they found out he was in Australia, both from the shock of finding him but also because of his crazy protest act. It was not normal, he was not like that when he worked with them.
“None of us could believe it was him,” Khalebani said. “Now people say he was crazy but he wasn’t when he worked with us. Australia did wrong here.
“If they had sent him back to Iran when the authorities, police, Interpol, had asked for him, it was better, but they didn’t do it and they said he had residence in Australia and they couldn’t give him back … and closed the file. And then Sydney happened.”
Unforgettable images … a hostage runs from the Lindt Chocolate cafe in Martin Place, Sydney. Picture: AAPSource: AAP
Who are the so-called terrorism experts? In the wake of the Paris attacks, the corporate media has once again flooded its news programs with pundits claiming authority on terrorism, foreign policy and world events. We discuss the growing and questionable field of “terrorism experts” with three guests: Glenn Greenwald, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and co-founder of The Intercept; Lisa Stampnitzky, social studies lecturer at Harvard University and author of “Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented ‘Terrorism'”; and Luc Mathieu, foreign affairs reporter for the French newspaper Libération.
A detainee on Manus Island is shown being loaded into the back of a vehicle after falling ill in this picture supplied to Guardian Australia. Photograph: Supplied
More than 100 asylum seekers are being treated for dehydration in makeshift medical centre, but minister for immigration says ‘they will never be settled in Australia’ despite protests
Ben Doherty and Helen Davidson
Protests continue on Manus Island, with detainees vowing not to give up their protest, and the government equally unbowed they must be resettled in PNG.
Some men in the detention centre have been refusing food and water since Tuesday and are dangerously unwell.
International Health and Medical Services (IHMS) staff on the island have converted the staff mess hall into an overflow emergency medical centre.
More than 100 men from Mike compound, where the hunger strike started on Tuesday, are now under medical care, most from severe dehydration.
Two men who swallowed razor blades, and four who drank detergent, are also in medical care.
In the Delta and Oscar compounds, where the protests have spread and the tension has been greatest, men not on hunger strike spent the night clapping and cheering and shouting “What do we want? Freedom?”.
Some men have spent 18 months in detention on Manus and have asked to be handed over to the care of the United Nations. Others still want to be moved to Australia, where their families live.
Video seen by Guardian Australian shows PNG riot police walking between the Delta and Oscar compounds.
Reports that riot police entered Delta and clashed with detainees in an effort to force them back into their rooms, remain unconfirmed.
Guardian Australia has obtained video footage that shows boisterous, but peaceful protests in the camp.
Detainees say they will not yield.
Manus Island unrest
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
PNG security forces enter Delta block on Friday where there were unconfirmed reports of fighting. Photograph: Supplied
They are protesting against the length of their detention, the conditions under which they are being held, and against the threat of being forcibly sent to live in the PNG community, where they fear they will be attacked.
Advertisement
Less than a year ago, Iranian asylum seeker Reza Barati was murdered during riots in the centre, allegedly by PNG nationals who invaded the centre and attacked detainees.
The detainees wrote in a letter to the Australian government on Friday: “some of us are about to die, but will still continue our way [protest] and we will never change our decision”.
“Dear Mr Minister, PNG is not safe place for us and if we are supposed to die there, we will die here in the centre. Our message today is very clear to the immigration of Australia, our decision will never change. Hand us over to the UN.”
But immigration minister Peter Dutton said the government will not change its policy.
“Whilst there has been a change of minister, the absolute resolve of me as the new minister and of the government is to make sure that for those transferees, they will never arrive in Australia. They will never be settled in Australia.”
A PNG government spokesman told Guardian Australia no police had entered the detention centre but that amid the heightened tensions “security had gone in with workers”.
He had not seen the images from Manus Island, but said a senior person from there had conveyed the information.
“It wasn’t extraordinary but of course with the tension there as we know, I think it was just extra precautions.”
He said he had seen reports of locals going in with police “but it was nothing like that”.
Netanyahu said Israel is defending itself against what he called Palestinian terrorists
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has slammed the decision by the International Criminal Court to launch a preliminary investigation into possible war crimes in the Palestinian territories, saying it is “absurd”.
Speaking in West Jerusalem on Saturday a day after the decision was made, Netanyahu said: “It’s absurd of the ICC to ignore international law and agreements under which the Palestinians don’t have a state and can only get one through direct negotiations with Israel. The rules of the ICC are clear: No state, no standing, no case.”
The preliminary probe does not mean war crimes were committed but will seek to determine whether preliminary findings merit a full investigation into alleged atrocities, which could result in charges being brought against individuals in either Israeli or Palestinian territories.
Palestine applied to join the ICC in December and has since signed the Rome treaty, the charter that led to the formation of the ICC in 2002. It is due to join the court in April but its membership will be backdated to June 2014, meaning that the court will have jurisdiction to look into last summer’s offensive between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas.
The conflict, which left the Gaza Strip run by Hamas devastated, killed more than 2,100 Palestinians, mostly women and children. Israel says it lost 73 people, most of them soldiers.
Netanyahu said Israel upholds “high standards of international law” and that the country’s “actions are subjected to careful and constant review of … world-renowned and utterly independent legal system”.
“But this decision is even more preposterous given that Israel is legitimately defending itself against Palestinian terrorists who routinely commit multiple war crimes,” said Netanyahu.
“They deliberately fire thousands of rockets at our civilians while hiding behind Palestinian civilians whom they as human shields.”
Hamas hails decision
The comments were a veiled reference to Hamas, which said on Saturday it welcomed the ICC’s decision.
Fawzi Barhoum, a spokesman for Hamas, said the group would provide the ICC with “thousands of reports” suggesting “horrible crimes” were committed.
“What is needed now is to quickly take practical steps in this direction and we are ready to provide [the court] with thousands of reports and documents that confirm the Zionist enemy has committed horrible crimes against Gaza and against our people.”
Israel rejected the court’s Friday decision as hypocrisy and the US State Department said it was “a tragic irony that Israel, which has withstood thousands of terrorist rockets fired at its civilians and its neighborhoods, is now being scrutinized by the ICC”.
Israel in 2005 pulled its settlers and troops out of Gaza, which remains under an Israeli and Egyptian blockade.
Palestinians seek statehood in Gaza and the West Bank.
Palestinian foreign minstry officials said on Friday that “everything is going according to plan” and that “no state and nobody can now stop this action we requested”.
[via 
olddogthoughts 
You must be logged in to post a comment.