An open thread where you can, at your weekend leisure, discuss whatever you like.
68 Responses to “Saturday Salon”
Leave a Reply
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
Interesting piece from the LRB on a new book on ethnic cleansing and democracy.
I heard Mann give a paper on that while it was a work in progress in 02. The book should be interesting - he writes well, and isn’t afraid to push insights where they will be uncomfortable for many entrenched views. Witness his interestingly Weberian take on the role of Christianity in the rise to dominance of Europe in earlier work.
My dears you will be delighted to hear that RH has been re-appointed your Chairman for a twenty-year term - or for the next twenty years, whichever you prefer. I prefer lying in bed all day.
You will also be pleased to hear that I managed to attain this honour without having to sling old moses another fiver. Well done RH! Yes. But mind you of course, money is nothing to me - providing it’s someone elses. Haw!Haw!Haw! Excuse Me!
Well sometimes I get a little bit merry, especially when I’ve been on the plonk all day. Lying in bed with a wine cask is my top recreation. My word yes. And no need for any damn glass either. Bugger all that! I just raise the cask, open my gob, and turn on the tap. Very elegant.
Now then, I wanted to tell you a bit about my Famous Fifteen Years on the Dole!
But golly, this is getting too long already, so I’d better not. Maybe later.
Thinking of you. Always.
Your Chairman.
Madonna’s currenlty on the telly as I write this comment.
She looks pretty good, but I suspect a bucket of botox and, egad, exercise is to blame.
Really catchy song. More importantly….nope, got nothing else to add.
Interested in the AWB inquiry? You can follow along at home. Exhibits, submissions and - funnest of all - daily transcripts.
Major Anya, are you suggesting that it’s not the Kabbalah water and the red string?
Thanks Bill, folowing the Cole inquiry with great interest. And as its disturbing trails of findings emerges. let us reflect on the pure, hypocritical cant of the Howard governemnt - naturally, its old news that the WMD line was bollocks. Of course, some of us realised at the time (having actually listened to the weapons inspectors, rather than demagogues with ulterior motives). But there a section of mugs in this coutnry who’ll buy any crap, as long as its retailed through the monopoly provider.
But now its even choicer: it now appears that Australia, through its wheat board, was THE key supporter of Saddam’s regime - donating far more in bribes than any other dodgy contractor.
And did our government know, as it spun its dodgy line from WMDs to “democracy”, as the weapons ruse bit the dust?
Yes, they did. Its becoming quite clear that the highest levels were well aware. US senators know it, COle knows it, Saddam knows it etc.
At the time, of course, the right spent a lot of energy shifting course, with talk - wairt for it - of a new “moral” politics. BAHAHAHAH!
Just a bunch of dodgy crooks, propping up the Saddamite regime for overe-protected Oz farmers.
Eat your contradictions, Howardites.
I’m no big fan of Kevin Rudd (That hair! That naked glistening ego! That voice!) but he did make an interesting point on the 7.30 Report the other night.
“Well, at an absolute minimum, Kerry, this Government is guilty of culpable negligence. Remember this - why does all this regime under the Oil-For-Food Program exist? Because we had a UN Security Council resolution 661 right back to 1991 which required national governments, and therefore the Australian Government, to ensure that none of its corporations were breaching the sanctions regime against Iraq. That’s the formal international legal responsibility of the Howard Government. And if you’re a government come the late ’90s and the early 2000s starting to think about going to war with Iraq you’d think you’d have in place proper processes and procedures and personnel to scrutinise what your corporations were up to, particularly the largest user of the Oil-for-Food Program in the world, namely the AWB. They’ve failed to discharge that responsibility. Australia’s national security interests have suffered as a result and our foreign policy reputation has now become that of a sanctions-busting country. “
“A sanction-busting country” Nabs? I was led to believe our international rep had never been better. Maybe Howard secrely felt Saddam’s reegime had been misrepesented? Not so bad after all? Prop ‘em up a bit, win-win?
I particularly like the bit where our Ambassador succesfully urges US Senators not to investigate the AWB in the weeks leading up to the last Federal election.
Its going to be rather hard to pretend Howard and Downer didnt know the whole story, given this.
So - RWDBs…. who believes Howard and Downer’s denials? I want you on the record here so I can reference your ongoing credulity in future. Consider this a CL- type “demand”!
Stay tuned! best show in town…
Interestingly, the commission might look back as far as 1995-96, which would take in the dying days of the Keating regime. Perhaps JH could blame it all on PK?
It sure is a fascinating story. The smart money seems to be on the positive discovery of public servants knowing about the kickbacks, but there being no paper trail to a minister’s office (or, if there is, there being no positive proof that a minister read the said paper!!).
This of course would be the usual Howardian duck and dive at the expense of the Westminster system of democratic accountability we are now so used to (brief outline here).
Such are the dimensions of this scandal, however, that I suspect that, if (when?) the officials are discovered to be culpable, there is some remote chance of the principle holding in this case and a minister walking the plank … or Westminster will completely be gone, dead and buried in Australia for all time.
Yes, obviously Gareth Evans will have to get the sack retrospectively.
Once, just once, I’d like to see a public servant who’s stuffed up either be publicly named and/or sacked. Who for example were the ps’s who stuffed up in the recent Immigration Department bungles. The problem with the so-called Westminster system of ministerial responsibility is that Ministers have virtually no power to discipline public servants below Head of Department status, but are expected to take responsibility for the actions of these parasites.
Don’t be ridiculous. Ministers have heaps of powers, and especially sufficient power to insist on rigorous systems of departmental accountabilities. This is one of the main reasons why they are held to parliamentary account in the first place; i.e. to ensure that they do exercise their responsibility to install a system of accountabilities. Nothing like a senior minister having to walk the plank for failing in this duty, to encourage the cabinet to discover how much departmental power it has, quick smart.
While the West talks about human rights and exporting “democracy”, it seems the rules are a little elastic (especially when Israel is concerned):
http://antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com/2006/02/we-are-no-better.html
Back in reality (as opposed the three monkeys fantasy peddled by Howard ministers for years now) - no sane senior public servant makes a major, controversial decision without informing their Minister.
The exception here is when they’ve been told / encouraged not to do so.
Indulge me this.
Andrew Bolt and his recent Iraq trip. Questions abound. So does the abuse:
http://antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com/2006/02/bolt-from-blue.html
Interesting observation in the Fin by Laura Tingle yesterday. Just after the Howardians were elected, senior Treasury people were surprised to have sent back to them a brief on possible budget cuts because it identified areas that would be politically controversial. The point was that Ministers should be able to deny having seen such suggestions if questioned in Parliament.
I worked as a public servant (NSW) for a couple of years in the early nineties. It was impossible to fire a non-performing public servant. The concept of managerial authority corresponding with managerial responsibility was non-existent.
That may be so, but I can’t imagine from what I know of the public service that stuffing up and landing the Minister in hot water does wonders for a career.
In terms of careers, usually the ones who ought to be sacked aren’t all that ambitious or have well and truly already reached their “Peter’s Principle” level.
Yes, but I think there are two different issues, whyitso. First, public service personnel practice. Second, accountability for political stuffups. I’m not sure you’re making the distinction.
I also dispute the notion that public servants adopt their modus operandi from some notion that the Minister would like them to behave that way, communicated downwards to them by some process of non-spoken osmosis. The people in Immigration who stuffed up more remind me of the archetypical public servant who has a little power and get his kicks at exercising it in a perverse way. For example just contrast the difference in attitude between counter staff at Medicare with the far more civil and courteous staff at your private health fund (unless that’s Medibank Private). Or even the difference in attitude between bus drivers employed by private operators and those employed by the State Government. Our local private bus operation recently handed in its licence for financial reasons and the route is now operated by the SRA. Totally gone are the little courtesies one used to encountered daily.
Get real. It is simply incomprehensible that a senior public servant would be complicit in thieving money from the united nations to bribe sadam, and not either formally advise his superiors to cover himself, or be given at least tacit assurance that a hands-off was was consistent with government policy. If the public service defense was to hold, you would need positive evidence of a deliberate cover-up.Let’s be grown-ups here, if possible.
It’s obviously partly in the mind of the beholder, whyisitso. The Brisbane bus service is operated by the City Council and I’ve found some drivers very polite and others downright rude. I don’t have a car, so I always catch public transport, and my experience in other places suggests that you can’t generalise so easily.
It may be that the culture of the SRA is fucked, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that privately run operations are always more consumer friendly. Think a lot of large corporations (banks, telcos) that we all have unsatisfactory interactions with on a regular basis.
But there’s a big difference between bus drivers and PS officers working on politically sensitive things. FWIW - my experience of a month I spent working on a consultancy for the state DIR out of their office suggests that the officers there were very aware of political controversies and what the Minister wanted - reading Hansard regularly for instance! Of course it’s a small policy oriented department.
But experience in the corporate world suggests that the tone is often set from the top. Suncorp, for instance, has very very good customer service compared to many other banks, but they’ve made it a top priority and have a number of policies and incentives in place to ensure that the corporate strategy percolates downwards.
As to DIMIA, stuff ups and scandals happen so often that it can’t just be individual incompetence (though that certainly can’t be excluded).
“you would need positive evidence of a deliberate cover-up”.
But no such requirement for accusations against Ministers, apparently, according to that little piece of brown faecal matter who’s masquerading as the shadow foreign minister.
“As to DIMIA, stuff ups and scandals happen so often that it can’t just be individual incompetence.”
Bullshit. It happens all the time in the NSW DOCS, despite the desperate efforts of the government to fix it.
Well in both cases then you should conclude there’s a structural problem. The difference may be that there’s evidence that the culture of DIMIA changed with Ruddock, and that he in fact pushed the change whereas it’s not in the NSW government’s interest to have DOCS a political disaster, but their Ministers are less cluey/competent than Ruddock. I disagree with Ruddock on most everything, but let’s admit it - he deserves some respect for being good at what he does.
The thing with these debates is that you’re positioning yourself such that your only two options are to argue that Ministers have nothing to do with anything, or if they do, then they’re fools. Ruddock patently isn’t a fool, and there’s heaps on record to show he tried to shift DIMIA towards a much more punitive approach.
But no such requirement for accusations against Ministers
Obviously not, since the practice was illegal. All that has to be proved re a minister is that he knew of the illegality and failed to act, although arguably under the Westminster system the minister is also culpable if officials knew of it and failed to advise the minister.
Covering oneself up the line in a case of a major possible illegality is such a standard bureaucratic practice, it is inconceivable that a senior Australian public servant would not do so; and if in fact the public service didn’t so advise, that in itself would be testimony to ministerial incompetence (unless, as I said, a positive departmental cover-up can be found to have occurred).
Docs is an entirely different kettle of fish, where stuff-ups happen not in relation to the cabinet and policy as in this case, but in relation to clients (in a very difficult area).
Ministers are (in some cases) largely powerless to materially impact departmental culture. As Hugh White said at the time of Senator Hill’s retirement, various Ministers have tried to reform the notoriously inefficient Defence Department and have signally failed. The bigger the department, the bigger the problem.
Maybe so, Rob, but let’s beware of generalisation as always. Defence seems to have a monolithic culture which is targetted against political tinkering, probably for understandable historical reasons. I’m not sure DIMIA is the same - it seems to have been a mix of huminitarian oriented sections and punitive ones. Perhaps there’s more room for ministerial control where things are more confused/fluid.
In any case, Ministers are, or ought to be, still responsible for maladministration.
And maybe not. Foreign Affairs recruits the best and the brightest, and this is a straightforward case of illegality in relation to a body that we are a member of (not to mention treachery etc with regard to a body we went to war with) and policy advice re a major Australian corporation. If we have major dysfunctional incompetence in that place due to departmental culture, than I don’t know why we’ve been to any war, let alone signed trade deals and whatever … and in any event, such a shocking state of affairs in a department of such importance and good record would surely condemn the minister and/or the government
I don’t rule out the possibility that the department was not really informed (it appears borderline at the mo, as far as I’ve been able to tell), but if it was, the proper (self-protecting) action is so straightforward to a senior public servant that, as I’ve said, I suspect only a positive finding of a departmental cover-up/corruption would let the minister off the theoretical westminster hook.
Still, I’m with the smart money, and predict at this stage that proof of ministerial knowledge will die at department head or ministerial advisor level, and Jack will tough it out. Interesting to watch.
“Ministers are (in some cases) largely powerless to materially impact departmental culture”
Totally agree, Rob. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the case of the ABC where the Minister has virtually no power to influence its culture and direction, despite loading the Board up with directors sympathetic to it (the government), and in one spectacularly unsuccessful case installing a culture-changing CEO. Departments apparently are self-protecting of their internal cultures to an almost total degree. This is the main reason why ministers have surrounded themselves with their own personal staff and advisors in the last thirty years. They simply cannot (with good reason) trust their departments. They can and do remove department heads, but even these executives appear to have very little clout within the hinterland of their departments.
Totally wrong whysitso. The ABC is an independent corporation, where government interference is (or should be) strictly limited. It is not a department, where the opposite applies.
I’m trying to figure out your point, whyisitso. Are you saying that it is hard to be an effective Minister, therefore they shouldn’t be held to account under the Westminster system?
Interesting case, DFAT. It appears to me that very many at senior levels are spectacularly opposed to the present government’s policies, judging by the public pronouncements of officers shortly after retirement, as exemplified by Woolcott and Costello, as well as the daiquiri sippers. Admittedly many of these had their careers mainly in the Hawke-Keating years, but it would appear they just reflect the culture of the place. I personally know a couple of former ambassadors, and more left-wing people it would be hard to imagine.
Pretty weird point again whysitso. Are you saying DFAT public servants would act illegally/corruptly to the benefit of a corporation and against the interests of the country, the government and the UN to favour saddam, because some of its staff were public servants under a Labor government? Make sure you check under your bed tonight. You never know what might be hiding there.
“The ABC is an independent corporation, where government interference is (or should be) strictly limited”
It’s owned and funded by the elected government, and ought to be accountable to it. It is not an independent corporation with its own shareholders. To call any government involvement in such a body “interference” is totally undemocratic. The judiciary has independence from the government and so it should have. All other so-called independent government institutions are “independent” only while the elected government allows them to be. The ABC exists only while the government allows it. It could (and should) be abolished tomorrow. Of course there’d be a political outcry mainly from the chattering classes, but one day a courageous government will realize it’s an anachronism in the 21st century and save the best part of a billion dollars of our money each year.
I suggest you study the ABC’s legislation and charter whysitso. It helps discussion if you have some idea of what you’re talking about.
Greetings minority shareholders. Yes, you know it’s me. Well guess what, I’m off on a date this evening. That’s right. And I’m awful keen to impress her too, but haven’t told her I’m your Chairman, just in case she thinks I’m a bit nuts. Well unfortunately the women I take out are very low types. I can’t take them anywhere classy because they chew gum all the time. And make one hell of a racket doing it. They are also very forthright, if I told her I’m your Chairman I know what she’d say. “What? Chairman? You? How could a bum like you be Chairman of anything?” That’s what she’d say, and loudly too. Then everyone at Porchettas would stare at me, and I’d have to laugh, so that they could laugh as well. But really darlings, I’d be frightfully embarrassed.
What I’d really like to do is meet a better type of woman. One who doesn’t tip her soup in your lap if you say the wrong thing. That’s what happened to me last week at All You Can Eat For Ten Dollars. I’d hardly had five bucks worth when we had to leave the joint. Fancy getting booted out of a pigpen like that!
But oh golly, romance is a funny thing. Dining out, that’s all it is. Stuffing food in your gob and trying to talk through it. Ha! What a laugh! Bloody ridiculous.
Meanwhile I’ve been getting a barrage of emails demanding to know about my Famous Fifteen Years on the Dole. Yes, and what an achievement it was! A family record - just pipping my old man by four months. And golly, was he dirty on that!
But darlings, I’m afraid it will have to wait. Yes, well I’m sorry, but romance comes first. It always has, everywhere and at every time. It is a common language, around the world. A nudge and a wink, the old in-and-out!
Your Chairman.
(Enough said)
“Are you saying DFAT public servants would act illegally/corruptly to the benefit of a corporation and against the interests of the country.”
What I’m saying is that if these really really professional officers had been aware of any of the improprietaries as are now being revealed at the inquiry they would have left a lot of smoking guns pointing straight at Downer. They may still have, of course, but if so such evidence is taking a remarkably long time to come to light, despite the hysteria of the little ruddy turd, big fatty prolix and “The Australian” in the last week. And if there are a lot of smoking guns about I can’t believe Downer is just putting on a brave face that he would know is about to be blown apart when DFAT officers give evidence. I don’t think he’s as stupid as you would like him to be revealed as.
And of course being really really professional, the ability of the AWB to pull the wool over the eyes of DFAT officers exhibits a lot of skill on the former’s part.
Abolish the ABC?
Are you cracked?
Do you want Harvey Norman on every bloody station!
Good on ya chairman.
Whysitso, Rudd, Beazley and the press are merely doing their jobs, which is to hold the government to account on what could prove to be one of the major scandals in Australian history, and your crude denigrations do your case no more favours than your unfounded and, I suggest, somewhat crazy political conspiracy theories.
OK, I’m off. Good blogging on a drizzly Sydney Saturday. Now, a somewhat more interesting Saturday night beckons.
The ABC’s charter and legislation are not embedded in the constitution and can be changed by Parliament. Politically it’s pretty unlikely, which is a great pity. Independent it may be from government but that independence has been hijacked by its staff and the political class they represent. They throw a few bickies at the rural sector to keep the Nationals on side. They’re not too silly.
“Do you want Harvey Norman on every bloody station!”
Yes yes yes!!! Much better than the endless ABC self-promos for ten minutes before every program.
Yes, well I’m off too (see above). Sorry it’s rainy up there, good weather here. Maybe we’ll go on a double date sometime CS. I’ll arrange it. And don’t worry, they might be rough, but they’re cheap to take out.
Robert.
Chris S:
“Foreign Affairs recruits the best and the brightest”
Tony Kevin? Alison Broinowski?
Get real.
whyisitso (I too miss Julius Sumner Miller, BTW) - you seem to be very well informed about whats on the ABC, (although your stated duration of their self promotion is a wild exageration, but not on the commercial channels).
Looks to me like you’ve been watching it - whatever will you do if you get your wish and its abolished?
Someone’s got to monitor what the Left is doing, Pre-dawn Leftist. Why do you think I visit LP? Not to enjoy myself I can assure you. If the ABC closed down, I’d use the time to listen/watch other lefty outlets. I might even listen to Mike Carlton. Er, no there must be less masochistic things to do!
Whyisitso, can you tell us why it is so that you do not condemn the AWB, DFAT or the relevant Ministers for their blatant enriching of Saddam, Uday and Qusay’s coffers? Why does the right wing so love these despotic pigs? Why do they support the invasion of their countries and overthrow of their regimes all the secretly funnelling millions of dollars to prop them up? All you’ve the whole thread is avoid the question. Why do you think that Mike Carlton is the enemy of democracy and Saddam its best friend? Don’t you ever lie awake at night thinking of the Kurdish children he slaughtered - using your money? Why does the Right wallow in the shit of bribery, corruption and filthy despotic murderers?
Well said Tyro - Ive been asking the same since yesterday morning.
And again, I ask: Which of you RWDBs believes Howard and Downer’s denials?
And: is it ok to prop up such a regime, if it benefits OZ farmers? Im interested in your views.
I must admit, Im now confused by John Howard’s position on Iraq. It seems Australia was one of Saddam’s biggest financial backers during the sanction regime. We were the biggest sanction busters by a country mile. We sought to scotch US inquiries into our actions. Ambassadors were involved.
and finally, should those who saw Howard’s hypocritical cant about Saddam as a Neo-Con “moral agenda” be considered complete bloody mugs at this point?
Tyro..”can you tell us why it is so that you do not condemn the AWB, DFAT or the relevant Ministers for their blatant enriching of Saddam, Uday and Qusay’s coffers? Why does the right wing so love these despotic pigs?”
So we take it you are a supporter of the war in Iraq..
Russ, the question isn’t whether or not I support the war, but the question is why you (and by ‘you’ I mean the entire right wing) support Saddam Hussein’s legal defence fund. And his torture of the Kurds. And the Sh’ia. Why won’t you condemn the Wheat Board or the Government? It just goes to show that Government corruption, lying in office, misleading the Parliament, are all OK by the Right. Why? Can’t you answer - or don’t you want to? For now I guess we’ll just have to assume that the Right Wing of Australian politics are all Saddam-lovers.
The Traitorous Right funnels dirty cash to Saddam, yet again!
Um, that comment there by “nobody”, can someone who follows sport tell me if it actually relates to anything that’s currently going on? The same comment was posted to about twelve quite irrelevant threads (I have removed all the others) which made me think it might be spam. But it’s mighty peculiar spam??
It is about a real topic but since s/he is posting it over and over under different names , spam it becomes in my definition.
The comment has been posted at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbfivelive/F2148568
A grassroots campaign has been launched to raise awareness of the new concept. Essentially the orders are to blog it at all Australian and English blogs.
Get people reading it and pushing for it.
It was created in response to the Rugby League World Club Challenge which Wests Tigers lost to Bradford Bulls 10-30
Saw you took it down. Well you can read the comment at
After watching in horror the travesty that is the current format of the World Club Challenge, I was inspired to think of a better format.
Firstly, we turn it into a League Championship which takes place in two week intervals throughout the season.
Secondly we invite:
3 clubs from Australia (top 3 in league)
2 clubs from England (top 2 League finishers)
1 club from New Zealand (Warriors)
1 club from France (Catalans or decided by FRL)
1 club from a developing nations playoff
It should try not to resemble a super league vs NRL playoff tag crap and try to resemble a world league.
Okay, the neccessity of 1 club from France is that it would raise the profile of the game in France when the Australian clubs visit.
In New Zealand, it would give the Warriors an edge over the super 14 franchises (It cannot happen in Union as Super 14 teams would smash their Northern Hemisphere equivalents because they are far stronger) and it would also raise the profile.
In Australia it would help radiotherapise the cancerous growth of AFL and hopefully over time create the same type of atmosphere as international Union creates.
For England it would re-invigorate the international consciousness of Rugby League as opposed to Rugby Union. It would help the exposure and growth of the Super League similiar to what the Heiniken Cup did for club Union.
In developing nations(though they into the forseeable future would not stand a chance and get ritually smashed) it would create publicity and interest in the sport(only look at the attention ManU got when they came to Sydney) just by the presence of the clubs in some half-baked 3rd world country. It would also give the Leagues of developing nations an achievable target and an avenue to grow.
So what? what? I do not know what you are talking about. Huh how not? hmm.. few screws loose….
The format could be as I said earlier, two week hiatus’s in the competitions, at which point the two teams compete in a format similiar to the champion’s league. Home and away- total aggregate of point’s winner plays on.
Aus 1 vs dn
winners play
Eng 2 vs NZ
Finals
Eng 1 vs Aus 3
winners play
Aus 2 vs Fr
The Finals should be played at pre-nominated venues determined before the competition starts by the national leagues so RL fans can already have the tickets snapped up.
GET RID OF THE FIREWORKS GARBAGE. WHAT THE HELL IS THAT CRAP?
LET THE COMPETITION EVOLVE, DO NOT BE DISMAYED IF THE AUSSIE CLUBS DOMINATE INITIALLY.
DO NOT OVERTALK IT UP AND HAVE REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF THE COMPETITION. (The press loves to try and destroy Rugby League so mum and modesty is the word from the beginning. They would love to tear up such a competition as a failure, so start out with low expectations and let the tradition build.)
What does everybody think? How could you improve it? Would love to hear ideas.
Tyro,
“Traitorous right funnels dirty cash to Sadam…” I love it!
I love the tag “Traitorous Right” very much - after all they are betraying so much, including honesty in government, civil society, national pride, human rights, the planet, you name it, they’re out to wreck it, it seems. I think the tag will stick.
Makes me glad I’m a “latte-sipping-lefty-elitist”
I’d rather be a “lefty elitist” than a traitor any day…
I am not spamming, I’ve posted it but once and it relevant to the thread which was “post what you want.
How dare you say it was the same IP, impossible, I have only posted it once.
Pre-dawn leftist: Yeah, not only are the right wingers who fail to denounce teh AWB, DFAT and the Government, undeniably traitors, they are also materially aiding and abetting the enemy and probably ought to be investigated under the laws against that sort of thing.
All such right wingers should personally explain their undenied policy of “dirty cash for despots” to the families of the dead and maimed US Marines and army soldiers who that dirty cash helps kill in Iraq. They are traitors - and anti-American to boot! Oh the humanity.
RE: rugby league: I’m a big (tragic) league fan … but really … world club challenge; who cares? And my team was the last Aussie side to win the blasted thing so Patrick go and visit the leagues club (I’ll leave you to figure out which one) and see a “World Champions” trophy for yourself.
‘I’d rather be a “lefty elitistâ€? than a traitor any day…’
I couldnt agree more, Pre-Dawn Leftist!
It does raise disturbing questions. How many COW soldiers have been attacked with munitions bought by OZ taxpayers? Did AWB keep the Saddamite security system well stocked in torture appliances through hard times?
Should they be charged with aiding and abetting the enemy? Crimes against humanity? Sedition / treason? Why Is our government so utterly corrupt?
The ones I feel for are our poor benighted Righty mates who naively believed that we really did oppose Saddam’s regime, and were ushering forth a new era of ‘moral politics’. Sorry RWDBs - turns out we were THE big dollar backers of old Saddam and his henchmen.
The poor buggers. Just graft, lies and sanction busting. Thats all they got for their naive faith in the OZ govt.
Tyro
I believe that such a competition would allow the code to grow through extensive media coverage etc.
I agree with you about the present challenge which is a bad joke.
Who cares> did you read it?
I thought they were very good ideas for starting a Rugby League Champion’s League which over time would allow the code to grow exponentially.
Only look what the Heiniken cup did for Rugby Union clubs in England.
Hi… just wanted to draw people’s attention to another Debnam nugget. My flatmate said he was on JJJ yesterday talking about how he wanted to allow sniffer dogs to enter high schools. When someone pointed out to him that school principals could get judicial assent to such a thing under existing law… he said something about “cutting red tape”……. since when did judicial oversight become “red tape”?? This is disgusting. Perhaps we should fuse police and judicial powers so the cops can convict perps on the spot? Would cut a lot of “red tape”, wouldn’t it?
Tim Dunlop has posted what he refers to as “disturbing images” on his blog.
Don’t go there if you’re easily shocked. By images of prominent right wingers drinking Chardonnay!
Mark, what happened to the Pope under the beret?
I decided to be less ecclesiastical and more statesmanlike. I’m FDR now.
It’s a fickle beast, that gravatar.com I seem to have reverted to being the Pope without doing anything!
More Just James goodness!
http://www.james.observationdeck.org/?p=84
…morality costs little. Rather than requiring sandstone buildings, marble staircases and fat salaries which is the foundation for a system of regulation by formal laws, with morality we can simply sit little Mary on our lap and explain to her what is right and wrong …
Once educating individuals about moral issues and the basic principles of morality, as a society we should let go and whatever happens, happens. Regulation comes from the education, not from the legislation …
People need to lie in the bed they have made for themselves, rather than have the community fork out to fluff their pillows, warm their blankets, and have milk and cookies placed on the bedside table.