Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

I'm not sure if this is the best forum on Webdiary to lodge a protest on behalf of James Bidgood, the hapless Labor MP who has been pilloried by his own Prime Minister for sending to the media pictures Bidgood took of a man threatening to set fire to himself outside Parliament House.

According to the Fairfax media, Bidgood was hauled in to the office of the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and, according to a source, "heavily counselled" for offering the photographs to News Ltd.

"The Prime Minister finds the member's actions deeply offensive and has demanded he apologise," a spokesman for Mr Rudd said.

Subsequently, Bidgood, under pressure from Rudd, told Parliament that his actions were "highly insensitive and inappropriate".

It should be pointed out that Bidgood's picture of the incident, and others like it taken by press photographers, circulated quite widely in the media.

Ironically, they have appeared now all the more because of his public humiliation by the Prime Minister.

There is no doubting that the man who set himself alight deserves our understanding and sympathy.

He is apparently the victim of bureaucratic delays and official insensitivity regarding an application to have his elderly Russian parents granted residency in Australia.

Our hearts go out to him, particularly in his present distress.

One may even express reservations about the good judgment of Mr Bidgood in giving his photographs to the media - or perhaps even the tact and compassion of the media in using the images.

But the fact is, the event was genuinely newsworthy, even startling and photographs like those taken by Mr Bidgood were deemed to have value as reportage by not just the News Ltd press, but by other media, too.

Nor are they unprecedented.

Indeed, if I am not mistaken, the image of a little girl burned by napalm was one of the most celebrated media images of the Vietnam War era, as were images from the same time of a Buddhist monk who had set himself alight.

In both those cases, the photographers profited personally from their images and they have been widely celebrated as documentary photojournalists.

So, what's the difference in principle between what they did and what James Bidgood has done?

It is particularly noteworth, too, that the Prime Minister of all people should lead the chorus of condemnation of James Bidgood's action.

That is the same Kevin Rudd after all who has reduced Parliamentary process into one big publicity stunt cum picture opportunity and who seems never to cease feeding the media tidbits for his personal political benefit.

James Bidgood should have told the pasty-faced control freak and publicity hound to mind his own business.

Ernest, perhaps instead of continuing to copy-and-paste all those 'lies' you could just point people to the ALP source material you mentioned earlier in the thread.

The brochure - part of the ALP's failed 2004 campaign - is available from OzPolitics here. 

Another thing Rudd is wrong about is China.

Do you remember me saying this about China:

I've always seen it as a ramshackle empire. That's why it's going to fall to pieces as its economy becomes more and more decentralised, more connected to international markets and planning becomes too complex for Beijing to manage centrally. All those massive state owned businesses are probably power centres in themselves and they'll be chomping at the bit before long. It'll make the break-up of the USSR look like the amicable rivalry of interschool ladies hockey by contrast.

- Eliot Ramsey on March 19, 2008 - 6:14pm.

On the same thread Michael de Angelos said this:

People often assume China is one giant homogeneous country that acts as one, rather than a series of provinces with powerful leaders without whose co-operation the central government would be mincemeat.

Well, now even the Chinese President seems to agree...

CHINA'S economic challenges are now so serious that they are a test of the Communist Party's ability to govern, says President Hu Jintao.

Mr Hu's warning to the Communist Party's Politburo over the weekend suggests leaders have been shaken by a wave of riots and protests that hit at least eight provinces in November.

It also confirms the economic data for November will be much worse than October and that the leadership expects conditions to deteriorate further.

Anecdotal reports suggest millions of workers have lost their jobs, especially in export manufacturing, construction and heavy industry, although China is yet to develop any reliable unemployment data.

Here's one we all predicted...

THE Rudd Government has reneged on a commitment to present its 2020 target to cut greenhouse gases to UN climate talks that start today. The back-pedalling comes amid wrangling in cabinet over how far to go with curbing emissions.

Except for the really, really gullible, that is.

Justin Obodie: "In a sense middle class welfare is nothing more than the manipulation of the taxation system to the benefit of those who will most likely reward (vote for) the government of the day (or their alternative) for doing so. But then that pretty well sums up what a democratic government is all about - bribery."

No doubt a whole subject of its own.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if we eliminated (or significantly reduced) income tax including middle class welfare and reduced company tax a notch or two as well. I suppose we would have to have a more brutal consumption tax to compensate, but it may work.

Taxes on only consumption without taxes on production would result in a self correcting system. You'll never see it though - even though most people (those with knowledge of the subject at least0 would secretly admit this is the best way. Governments are built purely on the myth of doing something. This involves attempting to pick winners - it of course is rarely if ever successful.

A person that believes in spending within means (personal, company and government), can ask for no better taxation system.

Deficits are not all bad, the same way borrowing is not all bad. It depends on what the funds are used for. It's blatantly obvious the Australian Government is a poor borrower. The funds are being wasted. Wasted on a myth that consumption can drive growth. It can't, it never has, and it never will. I cannot point this fact out enough.

Growth is the driver of consumption!

The most successful company in my lifetime would probably be Microsoft. Following the consumption driving growth line, Microsoft would have come about because of the booming personal typewriter industry! Of course it didn't. Microsoft in fact was a large driver of the booming PC industry. Do you understand what I'm driving at here?

Alan Greenspan believed that intervention could drive growth (exactly the same thing now happening in Australia). How did it all end up? The same way it always ends of course.

PS two sectors in the last thirty years have constantly outpaced inflation: health and education. This won't change any time soon. Both are supply and demand industries. There's much demand and limited supply (quality). This will always be the case, everywhere in the world. That means competition. People neither care about civics or anything else when their health is at stake or their childrens future is at stake.

The reason a person (with means, which means middle class) wouldn't look to personally provide extra in both areas is something I fail to understand. The old adage of you get what you pay for rings very true in both instances. And it's not about to change.

Mark Sergeant: "If, as you no doubt claim, you think that Rudd is responsible for the economic downturn, can you explain how it inspired sub-prime, Lehman Brothers and global economic meltdown?"

Lehman Brothers isn't responsible for the Australian budget, the Australian Government is.

The budget can be in surplus, all that's needed is government spending reductions. That Australia is moving toward deficit should tell you how well that program is going.

I don't speak from personal experience, but my observation is that pregnancy is very definitely a temporary condition.

Mr Rudd will not record a surplus during his government's term.

Politically taking things from people is suicidal. Australia is a middle class welfare state - possibly the worst in the world. The percentage of net takers now outweighs that of net gainers - and is set to get much worse. The current path isn't one that is sustainable, and somebody will eventually pay, somebody (loads of people actually) always eventually pays.

Mr Rudd should've pushed for major tax reductions, alongside major middle class welfare crackdowns. This would've been the best possible remedy for both growth and the budget. Eventually this will happen at any rate - best to get in early and a lot less painfully.

If this course of action could'nt be achieved in the first year, it's highly unlikely it'll be achieved in an election year. Which means? you guessed it, large budget deficits. It's not rocket science.

The biggest economic fallacy is that consumption drives growth. It doesn't. It never has, and it never will. The present government has only ensured Australia will go through a deeper than necessary recession, and all without getting the spending programs so desperately needed - that money has long since (or soon to be) gone (Merry Christmas).

Free shit is good for politics (most people aren't ideological), they'll always vote for the guy that promises them the easiest "free money". When the free shit ends, so does their faith, and their vote goes with it.

My opinion is that Mr Rudd has well and truly placed a few monkey's on his back.

While the ABC tries to convince us that the "testimony" of Howard's personal "New Order" is a true and accurate portrayal of the "Howard Years" you only have to consider the current behaviour of these people on which that premise relies.

I refer also to the Turnbull refusal on the National Press Club to answer any question as to what alternative plan that his party has to the Rudd/Swan efforts to support Australia from the effects of the US extreme capitalist system. (That's the one that they supported in Hansard without quibbling.)

I have perceived that Kerry O'Brien is as even-handed as one could expect.  He makes it tough for any politician who appears on his 7.30 Report.  He is a true and artful interrogator.

I have the same opinion of Tony Jones and I'm a little concerned that he may be on the verge of being replaced.

While Leigh Sales may try to unsettle Lindsay Tanner in a manner far more  aggressive than when she allowed Liberal Senator Brandis to take over her interview with him, I find an enormous difference on Lateline with Tony Jones' talk with the shadow finance minister Joe Hockey yesterday.

My frustration with him also refusing to directly answer any question put to him during that session was palpable.

The full transcript can be found on www.abc.net.au/lateline

So I will just write the questions asked by Tony Jones and let the readers, if there are any, consider the answers they would expect and those from the Turnbull finance minister.

TONY JONES: Now, can you name one country in the G20 that's not in deficit or preparing to go into deficit to fund an economic stimulus package?

(Factor in the answer, it annoys me to read it let alone write it)

TONY JONES: So, let me interrupt you there. So you're essentially saying the Government should direct the Reserve Bank to lower interest rates further, because I thought the Reserve Bank was independent?

TONY JONES: So, let me interrupt you there. So you're essentially saying the Government should direct the Reserve Bank to lower interest rates further, because I thought the Reserve Bank was independent?

TONY JONES: So, let me interrupt you there. So you're essentially saying the Government should direct the Reserve Bank to lower interest rates further, because I thought the Reserve Bank was independent?

TONY JONES: OK. Well, let's name some of these countries, shall we? The World Bank says China will be in a fiscal deficit this year, and a widening fiscal deficit next year. South Korea is preparing for a temporary budget deficit to stimulate its economy. Japan, which does consistently run budget deficits is about to borrow more to try and pull its country out of recession. India's going further into deficit. And Canada's Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, an old fan of John Howard's, as you'll recall, is also preparing for a temporary budget deficit to stimulate Canada's economy.
Now, do you really believe that Australia alone is immune to the pressures that all of these countries face when they realise in the middle of a global economic crisis they need to stimulate their economies with packages and to go into deficit?

TONY JONES: No, I'm not actually - I'm not comparing Australia with India, I'm talking about the global response of virtually every country in the G20. We can go on: the US has a massive deficit, more than a trillion dollars, it's about to go higher. Britain is more than doubling its deficit to fund its stimulus package and the EU today announced a giant deficit funded stimulus package and all of its biggest economies are in deficit: that's Germany, France, Italy and of course the UK, as I've just said. Do you think that Australia is immune to the same pressures all these countries face?

TONY JONES: You're holding the Government to what was said in the mid-year forecasts, and the Treasurer is tonight saying all of that has changed, even in the past three weeks. The global situation has worsened dramatically, that large numbers of other countries have now slipped into recession, including Japan, including the whole of the EU, virtually. So, don't you accept his argument that things have changed since MYEFO?

TONY JONES: OK. If you're actually arguing that they must refuse to do a stimulus package in this country that might put the economy into deficit, what's your alternative? What plan do you put forward?

TONY JONES: Are you not prepared to wait for the answers to those questions, because economic stimulus packages will have to be set out? We're not in deficit in Australia at this point. So presumably, there will have to be a plan put on the table that you can analyse. But you're, in advance of that, saying they don't have a plan.

TONY JONES: That's your words, isn't it? He's asking permission. I mean, he doesn't have to ask permission. Is he not actually preparing the Australian voter and Australian workers for what's happening in the rest of the world and putting us in line with what all of those other countries that I just talked about earlier are preparing to do, including, for example, a very similar economy to ours in Canada, run by a conservative government.

TONY JONES: OK. Are there any circumstances at all, and I'm talking about any global circumstance, in which it would be reasonable for this Government to go into deficit to fund a stimulus package to save jobs and save the Australian economy?

TONY JONES: You can't argue the Australian economy is immune to what's happening in the rest of the world, that's my point.

TONY JONES: So, let me ask you this: are there any circumstances at all that you can envisage where going into deficit to fund a stimulus package would be a reasonable thing to do?

TONY JONES: You don't have to be Nostradamus, you just have to look at what's happening in the rest of the world.

And so it ends.  I know the answers that I would have given but then, the questions would not have been necessary.

Let's pull together to get over this financial conflict and have faith in our government that we will survive, even without the windfalls which blessed the Howard regime.

NE OUBLIE. 

EDUCATION

John Howard Lie #4.

"I can guarantee we're not going to have $100,000 university degree courses". John Howard, interview with Neil Mitchell on Radio 3AW, 15 October 1999.

The Truth.

16 different degrees now cost at least $100,000.

John Howard Lie #5.

"We have no intention of introducing a loans scheme with a real or indeed any other rate of interest." John Howard, in Parliament, 18 October 1999.

The Truth:

"Debts accrued under FEE-HELP will be indexed to the consumer price index...A loan fee of 20 per cent will apply to FEE-HELP loans for undergraduate courses of study only." Higher Education Loan Programme, Department of Education, Science and Training Update, March 2004.

John Howard Lie #6.

"Well, it means that we'll not have deregulated fees, In other words, the Government will always maintain a control over what the level of the fee is." John Howard, interview on Radio 3AW. 15 October 1999.

The Truth: "We do need more money in our universities...and some of it should come outside the budget through a managed and sensible deregulation of the system." John Howard in Parliament, 16 September 2003.

More to come.

There is no truth, just the powers that be.

NE OUBLIE.

Not to mention the Cornelia Rau incident.

What kind of a country would detain a poor individual like that in close confinement.

CORNELIA RAU, the psychiatric patient whose wrongful detention by the Immigration Department stirred a national outcry, has been held in a Hamburg hospital for almost two months after she came to the notice of German police.

Ms Rau is understood to have spent the maximum seven weeks in a closed ward in the hospital until late last month, a source has told the Herald. She left Australia in May, two months after the Federal Government agreed to pay her $2.6 million in compensation for the 10 months she was wrongfully detained by immigration authorities in 2004-05.

Her travel abroad and the subsequent circumstances of her detention without outdoors access is understood to have angered her family, who are also believed to be questioning authorities about the management of her case by guardianship officials in Sydney and Adelaide...

HEALTH.

John Howard lie #1,

"It is our policy, without qualification, to retain Medicare...Not only does Medicare stay but so does bulk billing...They are the fundamentals, the underpinnings of the policy."  John Howard, Health Policy launch of "A Healthy Future", 12 February 1996.

The Truth:

"No-one can guarantee bulk billing.  No-one can guarantee bulk billing without conscripting the medical profession.  Medicare has never been universal bulk billing- never..."  Tony Abbott, Minister for Health and Ageing, Meet the Press, 23 November 2003.

John Howard lie #2.

Medicare will be retained its entirety."  John Howard, February 1996.

The Truth:

The Howard Government abolished the dental plan and bulk billing rates have declined by more than 12 percentage points since the Coalition took office in 1996.

John Howard lie #3.

During the 2001 Federal election campaign John Howard promised that his Government's policies would "lead to reduced premiums"  for health insurance.  "Heading in the Right Direction", p151.

The Truth:

Since the election in 2001, the Government has approved increases in premiums totalling 21 per cent.

More to come.

NE OUBLIE.

The second installment of The Howard Years on ABC 1 was still a clear excuse for many of the lies and broken promises of the early Howard era.

When you consider that justice demands that people should not be allowed judge themselves, then the fact that all of the "testimony" on this "show" has so far been made by the "New Order" themselves and would at least make their attitudes suspect.

Especially Howard vigorously trying not to look sideways when talking (lying?) and that person Peter Reith, previously accepted for what he was, now laughing while he ridicules his behaviour on many occasions. Now a laughing matter?

In truth, the Liberals/Nationals were so dominated by Howard that they were not really capable of making any decisions themselves. With the powers that be behind him, Howard indeed had dictatorial control.

It was patently obvious that he in 1998, like Bush in 2000, should not have won the election. Labor, even as the Democrats did in 2000, had the majority of the popular votes. Such is the system.

I had hoped that Fran Kelly would at least try to avoid the orchestrated appearances of Howard and his "New Order" gang.

I can only imagine the reasons for this calculated effort to make the Howard years more acceptable to working families than they really were.

Howard learned when he was at school that the best way to have influence is to cuddle up to the bullies. And he did that all his political life.

The US and Australian media elected him in 1998 and onwards due to his policies of favouring the corporations and the wealthy. That's where the money is and that's where his power was.

I am disappointed that the ABC has crafted a politically biased four part series about a capitalist Australian Prime Minister.

Especially when the Australian government and the Australian people are under intense pressure due to the careless, cavalier way that the Wall Street capitalists have been allowed to carry on with a debt laden false economy for so many years.

Certainly the behaviour of the Turnbull/Bishop group, together with the remnants of the infamous "New Order", is intended to make this situation worse by full-scale scaremongering - so, could it be that the powers that be want to create a diversion to hide their contemptuous posturing?

Perhaps the new, new order are afraid that the people will remember the real performance of Howard - just as the media's hatred of Mark Latham continued to hurt the Labor Party long after he was gone.

It is certainly an attempt to rewrite the history of the Howard years in a manner which would make the little monster and his robots look almost human. Absolutely an American puppet group since 2000 - well might he sing "God bless America" when Australia sacked him.

So let's have a fair dinkum look at Howard's lies as recorded by the Australian Labor Party.

"Truth is absolute, truth is supreme, truth is never disposable in national political life." - John Howard ABC Radio AM, 25 August 1995.

(Personally, I don't remember that one, but some diarists might.)

I have another reported 34 to go in another post.

Because of the website from which these quotes are taken, some will ignore them but they can't remove them from our minds.

NE OUBLIE.

Ernest William: "I respond to situations on the basis of what I have been advised (by the media) but filtered by whatever natural ability I have of logic and reasoning."

I think you respond in the manner you believe wins.

It's interesting you know.  I've handfuls of Obama supporters telling me about "belief". Strange, isn't?

For eight years these people have told "ME",  how bad things were. Apparently I couldn't trust the military (involved with 9/11), couldn't trust the Court (stealing for Bush), couldn't trust a God damn person in the world! Last few weeks, after eight years, and its all changed. We're all at war together! Trying to get more money of all things!

It's all like turning on a tap. Destroy it one day, and build it back the next.

It doesn't work like that my friend.

Faith is the hardest thing to gain, and the easiest thing to destroy -  you never regain it.

Before you burn down the town, best make sure you wish it burnt down!

People involved with politics never, ever, ever, think that deep.

Ernest William: "Why then, if the same system continues now, is it suddenly obnoxious?"

You were the person questioning the system twelve months ago. I fail to remember anybody else. Then or now.

Aboriginal children in NSW are being removed from their homes in greater numbers than during the Stolen Generations, figures from the NSW Department of Community Services (DoCS) show.

According to statistics obtained from DoCS, 12,000 children are in state care, and 4,000 of those are indigenous, News Ltd says.

The number is up 37 per cent on last year, and 65 per cent higher than five years ago.

It is also four times the number recorded to be in foster homes, institutions and missions in 1969.

The number of Aboriginal children taken into state care in Queensland during the last financial year now exceeds the average for the 1920s.

Happy anniversary, Kevin.

Oh, wait. He's in Peru....

Ernest William: "As an example, for a long time in this forum I complained about the doctored figures of unemployment by ignoring underemployment, and using the booming activities of Western Australia and Queensland to mitigate the higher rates in states not blessed with a commodity boom".

I remember you calling the figures a fiction or some such. I think you had unemployment around 15%. Very near a depression at any rate. You surely opened my eyes.

The thing I can't get over is how good those unemployment figures guys have got. And in only twelve months. Not to mention the number of jobs obviously having been created. Astounding. Australia's unemployment now runs about 5%. Astounding. Truly astounding.

Scott: Just one hour's work a week classifies as employment Paul.