There’s an interesting coincidence in American and Australian politics – grubby right wing overreach. A bridge too far, one might even say. Here, we have the latest twists and turns of the Burke slur campaign undermining Howard’s new minister, and at the same time, turning an interesting spotlight on just why exactly business in WA was so very keen to keep shovelling large sums of money at Burke and Grill. Far be it for me to suggest that many of these execs must have known that Burke and Grill were engaged in potentially illegal and corrupt fixes, but it certainly does appear, from tonight’s seven thirty report, that biz types are lamenting the loss of these two lobbyists, apparently because short-circuiting normal governmental processes is a desirable end in itself. This actually, and ironically, says a lot about “values” in Howardian Australia…
Meanwhile, over in the States, Ann Coulter has gone a bridge too far, slurring John Edwards in a homophobic rant. Republican presidential candidates are tripping over themselves in the race to disown Coulter, formerly a valued ally in the mad screaming matches that constitute the culture wars on Fox tv. More, in his usual incisive style, from Glenn Greenwald at Salon. Coulter’s “defence”, aside from claiming victim status herself, is basically to assert that her insults and taunts are business as usual in politics. Much the same line has been run by the Dessicated Coconut and the Non-Iceberg. It’s pathetic, and we deserve better in public debate. If the spotlight is turned on the dodgy turn a buck at any cost mentality that goes along with this political bullying, whether it’s Coulter’s massive book sales, or mining corporations’ distaste for planning, native title and environmental controls, then something good will have come from this ranting and slurring. If not, it’s just a bloody disgrace.
<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/coulter.JPG"
Kim bleats:
I’m sorry. I was under the mistaken impression that the ALP was in charge of “normal governmental processes” in WA. Howard-haters apprehend the spectre of Howard over both state and federal levels. Border-line paranoia.
In any case, the cultural values question refers to the ideological debate within elites over the validity of majority versus minorities values esp family values. This does not have a whole lot to do with shady business practices.
Businessmen trying to make a fast buck. Im shocked, shocked. ‘Twas ever thus, before and after Howard.
But Howard-hating is more emotionally satisfying than concrete social analysis. And obviously a lot easier for those who make a crust from professing indignation.
“…that biz types are lamenting the loss of these two lobbyists, apparently because short-circuiting normal governmental processes is a desirable end in itself. This actually, and ironically, says a lot about â??valuesâ?? in Howardian Australiaâ?¦”
This has nothing to do with the Howard Govt but is really an indictment of the WA State Labor Govt and its obfuscation and red tape facing any development. Time is money and if dealing through Burke Inc, got quicker results we really should be asking how come?
Immoral and corrupt, I will accept, but illegal? Please explain.
I may be an atheist, but I really do admire Rudd’s Christian Socialist sense of morality and justice. When he sweeps into office this year (I’m pretty sure, as 57$ of us are at the moment), he will purge Australian government of its corrupt influences. I don’t know how long it will take – I can’t begin to estimate the entrenchment of Howard’s influence – but it will be a joy to witness the change in the culture.
silkworm on 6 March 2007 at 8:46 pm
Silkworm, the kind of person you are is born every minute.
I think that the polls will change after the NSW elections. When Mr Iemma gets reelected, people in NSW will begin to think twice about the concept of Labor in power at both state and federal levels.
Because of this, and despite Kevin seeming a reasonable chap, I think Howard will win.
Is that Ann Coulter in the photo?
Sweet!
Having Iemma in NSW will not save Howard at the federal election. Debnam’s coming loss may well be attributed to the growing stench of Howardism.
“Because of this, and despite Kevin seeming a reasonable chap, I think Howard will win.”
My God PeterTB tell me it aint so, another term of Howard? Not another increase in my Valium dose, sweet Jesus.
Right wing blowback
Published by Kim on 6 March 2007 at 7:56 pm in Politics, Howardia, USA.
Um if we’re talking about Coulter,shouldn’t that be Right Wing Blow Job?
I line up with Strocchi on this one.
WA’s trough is huge and governments of all hues have been playing favourites for decades over whose snouts go in.
Burke and Grills have a nice little earner squiring suits through a maze of regulations.
These regulations were ostensibly instituted with equity in mind, yet have morphed into an extortion racket that greases many palms. The whole shonky racket is a betrayal of the humanitarian impulses that used to guide the ALP.
Howard may be a symptom of sleaze, but in WA, at least, he didn’t cause it.
PeterTB:
I heard when “she” gets nervous her adam’s apple twitches a bit. You might want to know that.
Katz, has Burke acted ‘illegally’?
Nonetheless, Jack, you’re right: Hating Howard is emotionally satisfying, isn’t it?
Like a nice jog, or a couple of mojitos.
Oh yes, Jack, Howard-hating is tremendously fulfilling and satisfying. You should give it a go sometime.
Just have a look at his dessicated coconut, dissembling, lying, prevaricating, grinning skull. Do you see what I see? I see a low-level carnival huckster. A snake oil salesman, a con artist, an immoral grub, whose day-to-day policy makes those emails offering investment schemes and penis enlargements seem rolled gold genuine, and Nigerian scam letters seem as if gthey’s come from the Bank of England by comparison.
Just don’t get me sarted.
I
glimpsed a snatchsnatched a glimpse of Coulter on Hannity and Colmes this afternoon. Coulter was backtracking over her ‘faggot’ remark, saying it was just a joke. She was not her usual attacking self. The fact that she would not retract the remark was offensive enough, but she appeared to be on the backfoot under verbal attack from Colmes. Hannity was more offensive, trying to defend Coulter. Hannity also went on to accuse Kerry of calling the troops stupid, while Colmes explained that Kerry was talking about Bush, but Hannity insisted. It soon descended into “did”, “didn’t”, “did”, didn’t”. I never thought I’d see such a stand-off between Hannity and Colmes. All through this Coulter was very restrained. Very strange.The Right in America is undergoing the same sort of meltdown as the Right in Australia. It’s like when America sneezes, Australia farts, or something like that.
I don’t think the influence is one way either. I remember after the 2004 election Bush made the remark that he had ‘political capital’ and he was going to spend it. Not long before Howard was in Washington. I got the impression that Bush got this turn of phrase from Howard, who had used it the previous year.
Follow the link for Coulter on Hannity and Colmes, silkworm, the one hyperlinked to “defence”.
Oh, I’m not minimising the culpability of the WA Labor Party, Katz, not for a moment. I thought that was clear from the post. But the exultation of TEH ECONOMY over all things is certainly a hallmark of Howardianism.
I think maybe Coulter should go on the road with Michael Richards as a two-hander act; maybe they can do a dinner-theatre version of that Love Letters show, with occasional Tourrette’s-like interpolations. Something to see. Maybe we could get Richard Foreman to direct.
btw, no matter how he tried to retrospin it, Kerry in fact _did_ insult his country’s troops in that ill-conceived remark of his. I don’t think it’s worth making equivalencies between that remark and this, but that’s the fact, jack.
And, for once, he was true to his word. If he’d gone on a weekend bender in Vegas he couldn’t have spent it faster.
I must say that reluctantly, I agree with PeteTB. The re-election of the breathtakingly lack-lustre Iemma government would be unambiguously bad news for federal Labor. It would be a testament to the extraordinary power of incumbency in the early 21C.
On second thought, perhaps “power” is the wrong word – there has always been a large quantity of inertia in the Australian political system. Even our worst governments tend to hang on for at least one term longer than they should.
Wpd,
The question of illegality in the case of Burke may be a complex one.
For example, I have no idea about the the laws surrounding lobbying in WA. Do you?
Moreover, there is no evidence that Burke and Grill have paid money or other favours to public officials in return for fast-tracking, or worse, for failing to perform statutory responsibilities, in other words, suborning a public official. But as they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Perhaps Grill’s and Burke’s influence over public officials isn’t anything more sinister than an excess of charm. However, even implied favours that may not be done until after the recipient leaves public life might still be counted as criminal.
So, the answer to you question is: So far, Burke and Grill have not been convicted of, nor have they been prosecuted for, any crime in relation to their lobbying activities.
Here’s a counter-question: are you aware of any police investigation of Burke’s and Grill’s lobbying activities that have concluded that Burke and Grill have no case to answer?
Potty-mouth Michelle Malkin can join the crew and make it a three-hander http://sadlyno.com/archives/5247.html
Even Malkin bags Coulter on this one:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/michele-makes-her-move-by-digby.html
Katz, thanks for your response.
“Here’s a counter-question: are you aware of any police investigation of Burke’s and Grill’s lobbying activities that have concluded that Burke and Grill have no case to answer?”
The simple answer is no. I have no idea what is legal or illegal in WA.
I was just interested in why so many assume Burke is such a ‘bad bastard’.
It seems to me that the whole debate about Burke is on shaky grounds.
…all decked out in her twin-set and pearls as she makes a play for the crown.
Ha yes! The payday millionaires.
It’s clear from evidence presented to the CCC that the breaching of cabinet confidentiality is a crime, and that Labor MPs may be charged. Whether or not Burke and Grill committed crimes by seeking to induce that, I don’t know. I’d be checking out the direction of evidence and counsel assisting’s submissions to the commission if I had the time to go into these matters. However, I don’t know that the legal question is the same as the ethical/political question – if companies hired Burke and Grill, knowing that the processes of government would be short-circuited, and as the chamber of commerce chap said on the telly tonight, that the outcome you wanted would be fixed rather than the merits being examined, then very clearly we have a deeply sick government. But I can’t at all see that business gets a clean bill of health ethically.
Look, I’m certainly no Howard-hugger, but:
- lining up lobbysists, “maaaaates”, or shysters to help do deals with government is hardly a new phenomenon; and
- TEH ECONOMY as the single guiding influence has been supreme at least since 1989 and possibly longer, depending on one’s definition of pivotal moments. I certainly had to wade through and, regrettably, produce enough of that sort of garbage between 1990 and 1996.
Hey, that CPAC looked like fun! We should have conventions like that. Now and then when your life gets complicated and the weasels start closing in…
phil, it’s a matter of degree, I’d argue. All the talk about aspirationals, resources booms, the virtues of enterprise, etc., which is a mark of the Howard era, the lack of any countervailing influence from unions and community groups (often censored via threats to grants and tax exempt status), I think accentuates a culture where making a buck is king. Yes, there have been spivs before. But eras of spivdom have their own cultural roots.
Wonder why the Yanks get shrieking Valkyries like Coulter and Malkin to spin their Neo-Con propaganda for them, when all we get to sing the praises of the Coconut and his lot are a bunch of ageing dessicated coconuts themselves.
Why do we have to get Bolt, Ackerman, Milne and so on, while they get Cat-Woman and some hysterical bloke who looks great in drag.
Now, I know Miranda is trying, but she’s really not in the same league as these two.
The right in this country really needs a serious make-over.
Before the “man in drag” line gets any more traction on this thread, I’d invite people to read tigtog’s recent reflections on such comments:
http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=320
And if you’re seriously interested in the gender politics of Coulter’s schtick, I’d invite you to read also another excellent post from Glenn Greenwald on the “right wing cult of contrived masculinity”:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/06/cult/index.html?source=rss
If Coulter gains her power from emasculating liberal men, then liberal men are entitled to regain their power by defeminizing Coulter.
Well, I disagree, for the reasons tigtog gave, silkworm. It doesn’t seem to me that an appropriate response is to give back in kind.
This gets to the heart of why we see a genderist backlash to Coulter from left-wing males very well. Our excuse is that you can’t fight her without getting into the gutter too.
Suffice it to say that you harm yourself if you get down into the gutter with your opponent. At least you get bruised.
Yes Kim and I don’t recommend it myself either.
Oh they’re pieces of work all right Evan. Much of it has to do with the total polarisation of US politics that culminated during the Clinton years, combined with the poisonous FAUX news network.
Still, when your product is yourself you have to get noticed.
Fair enough, wbb.
Yep.
I wonder what happened to the plans mooted for Fox style shows on nine when Fast Eddie sacked a heap of journos.
The polarisation of political debate in the states is just insane. I’m wondering if the mad Burke inquisition bandwagon isn’t a sign that the government in desparation are planning to import it full on style here.
Actually, his usual stye is to make sock-puppet comments praising himself.
As for Coulter, well what do you expect from an insult-comic? Next people will be complaining about the politics of Triumph’s routine – now I think of it – just like the losers in the Canadian parliament did. If she’s said “wimp” instead of “faggot” she would have been more accurate but less controversial. But what would Lenny Bruce think in Heaven if he saw you pulling your punches?
Probably not much – he’d be high.
Malkin is not in the same basket as Coulter, but she is a woman and a republican, so well spotted. I hear there are other female republicans too. Perhaps as many as a dozen.
I think they’re reading from a number of sources Kim. You might recall that they were having a fair stab at local adaptions from the ‘John Kerry Flip-Flopper Songbook’ a couple of weeks back.
So, basically, you agree entirely with Coulter’s own defence? That using the term “faggot” isn’t meant to refer to gay men? And that’s she’s just doing a hilarious stand up routine? And that anyone who complains is a humourless feminist/lefty blah blah…
True, true.
Can’t Orstrayan right wingers come up with some original talking points for vicious personal attacks?
Heh. Maybe this is why the Coultergeist was less than her usual feisty self on Fox last night:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/06/ads-pulled-from-coulter-site/
Hmm, I just went round to her site, Christine (which is very slow to load at the mo) and the only ads there right now are “conservative book club” type stuff, and the ubiquitous University of Phoenix.
http://www.anncoulter.com/
I certainly didn’t say it was hilarious, just that it’s her shtick. You’d no more confuse Coulter with intelligent conservative commentary than you would Bill Maher with the liberal equivalent. They’re both professional loudmouths that feed off the attention from outrageous, and generally unfunny, statements.
By all means, complain away, but I can’t help but feel you’re playing into her hands if you do. Me, I’ll settle for a weary shrug and hope she’s not in the picture at future serious events (I suppose CPAC barely qualifies as serious). You can be sure that behind the scenes at CPAC, someone is getting slapped for not vetting her routine.
But you can buy three conservative books for just $1 each!
If you follow the link in the post, Craig, to read what Romney (allegedly a very serious candidate for prez) said about her at the very same event, and her subsequent near endorsement of him, he might have some explaining to do though too. But I’m inclined to agree with those commenters who see her as an integral part of the right wing noise machine, not some sort of fringe loonie.
And a degree from Phoenix U for $2?
And for just a few dollars more Ann will sign it for you.
And throw in a free membership for the Federalist Society?
Kimbo
It was a joke gone bad and she sort of apologized (see below). The original line went down like a lead balloon. But the sort of apology was hilarious.
This was supposed to be on the back of a very real event where a tele actor used the word faggot in a disparaging way, got publicly caught out and went into rehab…. Into rehab mind you, as a result!
According to WSJ
Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”
That is funny, even if one hates Coulter.
Further along the tasteless jokes routine Bill Marr was said he was upset the suicide bomber didn’t reach and kill Cheney.
Yes, America does have tasteless celebs.
Great joke. She’s defended herself by saying “By ‘faggot’ I really meant ‘wuss’”
As for the joke going down like a lead balloon, there was much cheering at the conference.
But there’s plenty of evidence that it was more than just a joke gone wrong, and she uses homophobia on a regular basis.
She’s previously challenged Hillary Clinton to “come out of the closet”, said Bill Clinton demonstrates “some degree of latent homosexuality”, and described Al Gore as a “total fag”.
So let’s just label her homophobia for what it is.
Christine
Edwards has a history of gay baiting. He brought up the fact that Cheney’s daughter was gay in the past prez elections. Why would that be in any way relevant to an election battle beats me.
Coulter says idiotic things, but the Edwards comment was nothing other than gay baiting for poltical purposes. It’s an extraordinary comment.
Using gays as a door stop seems a pretty bipartisan sport over there.
What Kim said at 11.39pm, and what tigtog said in the original article Kim links to.
Coulter has used homophobic and bigoted hate speech in public, for which she deserves to be roundly criticised.
Transphobic attacks on her, like Brendon’s, and silkworm’s attempt to justify them, help to maintain bigotry against transgendered people, many of whom are already very isolated and alone because people think it’s ok to speak of them as freaks.
These attacks also, as tigtog points out, help to keep going the sexist attitude that the opinions of public women should be judged by sexual attractiveness.
So just don’t do it. If you do do it, you are helping the bigots like Coulter.
I agree with Jack and others here that -
“apparently because short-circuiting normal governmental processes is a desirable end in itself.”
- has got little to with “Howardian values” and far more to do with the eternal dance of politicians of all stripes, lobbyists and business interests that has been going on pretty much everywhere for pretty much forever.
“That is funny, even if one hates Coulter.”
Not really. It’s pretty much a rote response to a misfiring gag (though as CK points out it went down a storm with her primary audience) -turning it inside out. Talk show hosts learn this kinda thing at their producer’s knee.
Although her response is admittedly far less puerile than your regular attempts at mopping up your own spilt spite, poor old joe, when it dawns on you yet again that the spit you spat in a spat just dribbled onto your shirtfront instead.
Frankly I think it’s a waste of time to mock or denigrate Coulter. Being herself, an aging one joke act who history will not treat kindly, is punishment enough for any preening attack moth drawn to the media limelight.
Not having previously heard of these two sheilas I don’t know much about them. (Ann Coulter & Michelle Malkin)
When I went to read their stuff, I got only as far as their respective photos.
Am a bit glassy eyed after that. They both score in excess of 10.
Any male who (even in a jocular manner) suggests that those two chicks are anything but 100% female either (urgently) needs to consult an optician, or is a faggot – though I have always thought this word meant a bundle of firewood.
Footnote: Michelle Malkin scores MUCH higher than Ann Coulter.
Katz,
I’m not sure you can get away with that. The accusation has been made that Burke and Grill have acted illegally. Unless this is backed up by evidence, presumption is innocence. The fact that Burke has a interesting history and has been convicted of fraud is all well known.
I’m interested to see ALP supporters using a former ALP premier and the murky history of the ALP’s relationship with industry as ammunition against Howard. I’m completely against rent seeking, but it seems that current ALP politicians and former ALP premiers in WA have no problem with using the mechanics of government to weasel a nice little earner.
Howard hasn’t been the great reformer he could have been either, he has increased welfare spending, failed to reform the grossly unfair tax system that sees massive effective marginal tax rates for unemployed entering the workforce and taxes Australia’s middleclass at a marginal rate of almost half their easrnings, while punishing them for relying on the medicare system (that they pay for) by increasing the levy for people on higher incomes. There are lot’s of things wrong with Australian government, but barracking for “your team” over the “other team” without achieving real results is not the way to go. I’m sick and tired of party politics, both major parties in Australia seem to seek power for power’s sake.
What we should all be interested in is limiting politicians power to grant favours to business and force business to compete on a level playing field. Until government regulation is reduced, business will always have a motivation to grease the wheels of state bureaucracy. More government regulation will only provide greater temptation for scum bags like Burke to use his connections to make a buck, whether that behaviour is illegal or not.
But Brendan, I didn’t make any such accusation.
G and B are under no obligation to prove their innocence.
I merely asked the question as a matter of historical record.
“Not long before Howard was in Washington. I got the impression that Bush got this turn of phrase from Howard, who had used it the previous year.”
Actually, Silky, that one probably came from Bush’s mentor Karl Rove. It was a favourite expression of his in the earlier days. In Oz, Kennett probably provided a variation of it by getting all the nasty things done first while you were still popular and the other side were still dead ducks.
Howard, however, is very good at selective language. Note how the Cole Enquiry, which was expressly kept out of enquiry into ministerial activities (or inactivites) over AWB, has now become a “Royal Commission” which “completely exonerated the ministers from any blame”. Also, regarding Burke, the Lib new minister was described as having some associations with the “…former Premier of WA…” while Rudd was described as having had dealings with a “…convicted felon…”.
This is the second time you’ve brought up ancient blogwars (July 2006) elsewhere in response to Greenwald’s name.
One accusation of some alleged sockpuppet comments over a week or so, an accusation made by some people who either didn’t understand how LANs, routers and dynamic IPs work, or who judged that their readers wouldn’t understand it. One accusation against a solid record of sockpuppet-free blogging.
Get over it. Greenwald’s partner or a friend posted the remarks on the same network in an attempt to be supportive. Big deal. Do you know every detail of everything sent netwards on your domestic computer network? Only, I suggest, if you exert a pathological level of surveillance and control over your cohabitants. And what about any remarks sent netwards on the computer that will be assigned the same dynamic IP number by your ISP next week?
For anyone else who hasn’t had their fill of current tedious flamewars and wants to visit an outdated one, here’s Greenwald’s relevant post addressing the issue. Patterico was his major accuser. Tim Lambert of Deltoid addressed the technical issues of relying on identical IP numbers here.
The motivations behind the hysterical hate speech of the right-wing shockjocks and commentators in the United States were well summed up by the Glenn Greenwald piece posted by Kim above.
The bile and venom they deploy is really a form of self-therapy to suppress their nagging doubts about their black-and-white view of the world. And this automatic recourse to invective works so long as people are prepared to listen to their frothing-at-the-mouth ravings.
But when the shock value fades and the civilised majority switches off, their nasty rhetoric loses its power. And the deluded people who once religiously tuned in to these fear-driven banshees for some kind of desparate self-validation find it doesn’t work for them anymore.
The upshot is that I think we are now entering a saner and more reflective phase in US and Australian politics. The rational, centrist and moderate majority has decided that name-calling schoolyard politics has had its day. We now see it for what it is – an incoherent expression of fear and ignorance.
Good riddance.
“Professedly pro-feminist men shouldn’t wonder that feminists might be suspicious of their commitment to anti-sexist ideals when they can still make jokes about drag-queens if the odious opponent is tall and muscular like Coulter…”
Good point, and drag queens should also be offended.
Coulter’s ugly, weird, nasty, a creep, an ideologue, a nut, a loop and, well, a complete and utter c**t or is that a complete dick? A response that supports equality would say she’s both.
Hey! I’m the victim here!
A nice wrap on the Coultergeist from Rachel Maddow here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/14982/2/Countdown-Maddow-Coulter.mov
Despite the protestations of leading Republicans, they knew exactly what they were getting when they invited her to speak
Kim on 6 March 2007 at 9:53 pm
Clear, only if one ignored the conclusion.
Kim says:
Not neccessarily. Howard has on occasion expressed skepticism about US style free wheeling corporate governance. He has also re-embraced the traditional Menzies political economy of centralised liberal nationalism, not exactly free-marketeering.
In any case, Economic Rationalism as theorised by free-market economists, and Howard on a good-hair day, is almost the antithesis of Economic Cronyism as practised by Burke Inc. ER depends on competition, transparency and capitalist provision to work as advertised. EC is based on dispensing privileged govt contracts to political mates behind closed dorrs.
And Howard has, of course, placed national security and cultural identity issues ahead of economic prosperity at key moments.
The Howard that exists in the minds of TEH LEFT is wildly at variance with the Howard observed by the man in the street or the one that is measured by quantitative statistics. Leftists need to get out of their ivory towers and into the “Kim and Kath” land of shopping malls, office water-coolers and mortgage belts if they want to know the secret of his success.
Kim says:
Coulter is not in the debating game. She is in the bating game. The former is about transmitting information, the latter is about insinuating defamation. We know which one sells.
Her act combines incendiary vilification, catchy phrase-making and long-legged bimbodom. This is a perfect recipe for a right-wing media slut.
She occasionally comes out with a perceptive comment that hits the mark where it hurts. But only in the same way that stopped clocks are exactly right twice a day.
The success of Coulter’s act depends on her getting exactly the kind of indignant attention lavished on her by permanently outraged Leftists of the Kim-kind. This is the oxygen that fuels her blazing contempt. A general ignorance of her antics is indicated.
Nabakov on 7 March 2007 at 1:32 am
I agree with Nabakov, more or less.
“Leftists need to get out of their ivory towers and into the â??Kim and Kathâ?? land of shopping malls, office water-coolers and mortgage belts if they want to know the secret of his success.”
Yea, Jack it’s called a bias media.It is you who has never got out and about, your long winded know nothing diatribe is confusing to the more intelligent people on this blog, let alone some granny with her pearl necklace and blue rinse hair set, that would vote conservative no matter the circumstance.
Hey Jack why dont you just admit it,you try and hide your rabid right wing thoughts behind a curtain of obfuscation and acres of bullshit.Now it looks as though the Howard dynasty is over,you are worse than ever.
Jack Strocchi,
Oh please! Howard is as guilty of crony capitalsm as any tinpot state premier. He believes in the “market” only so long as it applies to the great unwashed. But when it impinges on his corporate mates, he is only too happy to cushion their fat arses.
Witness the FIRB approval of the Qantas takeover. This is being hailed by some in the media as a victory for market forces. But this debt-binged exercise makes money for the bidders only if Canberra continues to keep out international competition (at the expense of consumers).
What about the media ownership “reforms”? These ostensibly were about freeing up the media industry to market forces. In reality, they have given the existing proprietors (particularly Packer and Stokes) an excuse to leverage up their existing businesses and write themselves cheques for billions of dollars to vaccuum up smaller players.
This is not an argument from ‘The Left’ (a meaningless term). This is an argument for good, transparent governance. If we are going to have free markets, make them truly free and put the well being of the majority of consumers/citizens at the centre of any policy decisions. Citizens have choices. THAT is the first rule of political economy.
The problem many of us in the centre have with Howard on economic policy is that his desparate desire to cling onto power is peverting policy processes past the point of no return. Short-term expediency is everything.
As for your mythical Kath and Kims, they are keeping Howard there, not because of anything he has done, but because they wrongly attribute to him the benefits of a benign China-driven global economic environment that has keep inflation and interest rates historically low.
These economic arguments for getting rid of him are totally separate to his wizened, hateful and reactionary social policies, which anyone with any claim to being civilised finds reprehensible.
What Mr Denmore said.
I’ve often argued that Howard’s practice is about as far from neoliberalism as you can get, while still paying “the market” lip service. Crony capitalism is right – this government specialises in deals for mates and the big end of town, and throwing hundreds of million at rural industries under the spurious guise of restructuring.
I think there is some merit in the point made in the post. An ethical climate where Howard can damn Rudd for meeting with Burke but simultaneously say “oh, no, it’s fine for corporates to hire a grubby fixer” is indicative. And while there may be some legitimacy to arguments about over-regulation, it’s important as well to examine exactly what types of regulation corporates are trying to evade.
Of course, the ALP state governments are up to their neck in what is almost akin to state based mercantilism too. Rudd could make a genuinely innovative contribution by putting this stuff, and corporate ethics, on the political agenda.
I notice that Senator Lightfoot is the latest Lib to be stuck to the propiety Tar-Baby.
According to an AAP report in today’s SMH, he used Parliamentary privilege to slag-off at a foreign company that was involved in a dispute with Precious Metals Australia, an outfit in which he owned a sizeable number of share-options at the time.
The Burke connection is that he and Grill were lobbyists for PMA and involved in some sort of skull-duggery to “fix” a State parliamentary report relating to the company.
Lightfoot is reported to have bought options “within days” of Arfur and Terry doctoring the report and to have sold them only after PMA reach a settlement with the foreign company, well after his Parliamantary attack.
I dunno about you, but this stinks.
Here’s a bloke who holds shares in a company and uses Parliamentary Privilege to target one of its competitors, accusing it of “commercial banditry”, presumably in some sort of attempt to monster-it into doing something. Could that something possibly be reaching an appropriate settlement with the company in which he holds a million share-options?
Needless to say, those options give him a direct financial interest in any such settlement.
And Rudd is said to be compromised by merely going to a dinner attended by Burke.
Right-wing Blow-back indeed.
When Janet Albrechtsen grows up, she wants to be Ann Coulter.
With the WA Libs being Grilled about Burke, and the Qld Libs printing scandal, you don’t have to look overseas to see blowback happening – but if you must, see Cheney’s DVT and of course (snigger!) Scooter.
Barbara Amiel, the hornbag with a nice line in lunar right invective. Could we at least give credit to the creator of the genre?
steve at the pub
Won’t comment on Malkin. But Coulter sure looks like a small skinny guy in a dress to me. She looks like a cross-dressing faggot. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-coulteradamsapple.htm
A handsome woman, to be sure.
For the record the CCC has concluded public hearings but to my knowledge has not finalised nor published any findings.
My understanding, that I haven’t bothered checking against the enabling legislation is that the CCC is empowered to make findings and confer charges (I’m not sure if it is an indictment or not) the trial of which would revert to the DPP and normal prosecution (albeit with charges in existence).
As for the claim that the planning processes are all red tape, who would have thought business would have objected to regulation and planning. Reminds me of the former leader of the opposition in WA who in almost the same breath promised to abolish all red tape and have better planned, greener, healthier suburbs. I think a little investigation and lateral thinking will demonstrate that planning processes are supposed to delay business and ensure the public gets what it wants and needs.
Coulter’s a wingnut who entertains ‘the base’, what concerns me is that ‘the right’ seem to be inching towards accepting Guilani who would be tough to beat.
“Am a bit glassy eyed after that. They both score in excess of 10.”
SATP,you must be joking? Ann Coulter is as ugly as a hat full of arse holes,Coulter would have to pay me to have sex with her.I can only conclude you aint no oil painting your good self,but after all you are a country boy and has to get what you can.
But I gotta be honest Steve, looking at Coulter I would choose a nice woolly sheep to sleep with.Of course sleeping with a sheep I would be less inclined to be charged with bestiality,and I would be able, without to much embarrassment, take the sheep home to meet my old mum.If I fronted up with Coulter she would give me a hiding.
How smart is the latest Liberal announcement on the eve of International Women’s Day, Joe Hockey decides to knock back Maternity leave – and they wonder why they are behind in the polls and going backwards fast.
i wasted an hour on youtube trying to get a clear shot of her hands – but she does a v. good job of hiding them (folds the fingers over) or waves them around fast, and has very long nails …..
the reason being, that hands are a big give away in the “she was a he thang”….as people born “male” have longer ring fingers, and females longer index fingers…..
i actually couldnt give a stuff (as kim & tigtog haved posted) about anyone’s sexuality/attractiveness/gender in relation to their political views – but i really can’t believe it’s taken so long for the bleeding obvious “but she’s a big trannie” thang to take off, stateside.
boy, are americans straight!!
or she’s a child who was re-assigned as a baby…. in the 60′s – this was more often to female
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_assignment
it’s so easy to get sucked into being pruient and pervy isnt it? but i think you’re right kim, i’m already bored!
so what does michelle malkin look like?
You forgot to say “Good DAY, sir!”
But Brendan, I didn’t make any such accusation.
G and B are under no obligation to prove their innocence.
I merely asked the question as a matter of historical record.
Katz,
Fair enough, but I don’t think the author of the original post has done enough to back up her allegation of wrong doing by Burke & Grill, or acknowledged that she cannot back it up and retracted it.
I’ve amended the post to read “potentially illegal”. Are you arguing their behaviour is not unethical and corrupt on the face of it?
Mark on 7 March 2007 at 11:04 am
Since I went out of my way to stress that Howard’s policies had reverted to classic Coalition “centralised liberal nationalism” I am entitled to politely suggest that you tell me something I don’t know. YOu are more than three years behind me on the political learning curve, too.
You also need to bring yourself up to speed with Howard’s ideological revisionism. Things have moved on since your hairer undergraduate days when Howard-style Razor-gangs loomed large.
Nowadays Howard does not “pay” that much “lipservice” to the free-market ideals of his wacky middleage anymore. Pr Q quotes from a landmark concession to social statism by Howard:
Howard’s biggest micro-economic reform has been a tax: the GST. Most of this is going to fund the state community services and infrastructure that he quoted above. When not being spent on a bit of routine pork-barrelling and paying off the debt
mark says:
Sure Howard has gone in for a bit of crony capitalism. But that is no crime. No one has been charged or even seriously investigated for criminal dealings over cosy ethanol deals or media baron-friendly laws.
Every government rewards its friends and punishes its enemies. Its called politics. Left wing govts go one step futher and get into crony socialism, witness the bloated union, “community” and welfare bureaucracies sticking their snouts into the public trough.
Whingeing about Howard’s pork-barrelling is rich coming from a self-confessed multiculturalist, the system designed for succouring ethnic lobbies.
mark says:
An “ethical climate” where even a self-annointed Mr Clean is wallowing in the muck is indicative of the old saw “they are all in on it together”. So why be a partisan apologist for Rudd?
Truth is the democratic political system is dyfunctional because political elites are in cahoots with financial and cultural elites to do the populus over in favour of minority class and clan interests. Some old-fashioned, but well-informed, populism is indicated.
Are you arguing their behaviour is not unethical and corrupt on the face of it?
I state catergorically that I am against any form of rent seeking, and Burke and Grill seem to be great facilitators of such behaviour. Rather than worry about whether individuals are trying to take advantage of government regulation for commercial gain, I’m concerned about limiting the impact of government on commercial activities such that rent seeking becomes less of a problem. Such activity increases transaction costs and lowers economic efficiency, making us all worse off.
You may stamp out Burke’s influence in the halls of WA state and local government, but so long as there are regulations and bureaucracy to overcome or exploit, there will always be willing participants. Sure such behaviour may be considered immoral and unethical, but unless the system changes, it will continue, because human nature sure as hell isn’t going to change any time soon.
As every cent of the GST goes to the states to spend as they wish, it wouldn’t be paying for Howard’s pork-barrelling nor paying off the debt. Not that the states aren’t beyond looking after their cronies – witness the S11 protester payouts this week.
Ya smooth-talking honey-dripper, I’ll pay that.
steve at the pub
They’re both certainly glossily groomed and telegenic.
But would they be considered meaningful pundits by the conservatives in the US if they weren’t? If they were saying exactly the same things but carrying a smidge of avoirdupois or not wearing professional makeup? Is there a single Right-Wing woman with a public platform who is not a high-maintenance ultra-fem?
The only way the Right considers them acceptable as public intellectuals is because they both fully play up to the eye-candy role. Who is it again that thinks what they say is more important than how they look?
That’s totally sexist shit.
And some of the people frothing at the mouth with their tranny “jokes” don’t appear to have the slightest clue that what Coulter was being (rightly) criticised for is making a “faggot joke”. Where’s the difference, dudes? It shows a shitload of disrespect to transgender people and not much respect for me as the author of the post – when I specifically asked people to think twice. How anyone who could carry on in this offensive fashion could think of themselves as “left wing” is totally beyond me. I’m not prepared to countenance it here. And it’s got about zero humour value as well.