An open thread, where at your weekend leisure, you can discuss anything you like.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
» SUBSCRIBE to LP updates.
I can has frist!
Hi ALL. No time to post, but first day out of the way. Didn’t finish the last climb on the day (after 230 km of riding and a couple of wrong turns).
Did the hors categorie climb up Andorra Arcalis today (the “rest” day). Frankly, it’s considerably easier than Donna Buang, it’s only a HC because of its position on the stage.
Just for clarification, the Andorra Arcalis climb is the one I didn’t finish yesterday.
Legs are sore, bum is sore, but looking forward to ride tomorrow.
Well done, M’sieur Robert!
Well, the Obama administration has finally revealed its true colours and totally thrown LGBT equality under the bus: a DOJ memo not only declaring that the administration won’t join in a suit challenging DOMA but comparing same-sex marriage equality to incest.
I knew the man was never going to be as truly progressive as I would prefer, but I never thought he’d actually stab his supporters in the back like this by approving an official document containing such blatantly biased fundie talking points.
Allez, Robert!
LGHBT? DOJ? DOMA?
WTF?
Ok so DOMA is an acronym for Defence of Marriage Act, but the others?
I haven’t managed to keep abreast of many of the latest acronyms. But I would be interested to know what Obama’s ‘true colour’ actually is.
Twas telegraphic. FYI…
LGBT – Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender
DOJ – Department of Justice
The equal rights issue is a case of a poorly framed argument. By attempting to legitimise same gender marriage as a base for achieving equal rights status for companion couples the movement has pilliaried itself on the contentious issue of sexual behaviour. An American President declared that he had no place in the bedrooms of the nation, and despite the fact that the public then went out of their way to see into his, the sentiment was correct.
By restating the issue in the more global framework of human companionship (it is medically accepted that humans need companionship to thrive) the messy (though juicey) aspect of who does what to who and how is avoided altogether. This then allows the full spectrum of legislation to be homogenised around the notion that it is desireable and natural for humans to co-habit in pairs upon becoming full adults. This then allows all forms of (registered) pairings to have the same benefits under the law for taxation and property sharing purposes.
Caroline, what are you saying with the last sentence? Tigtog has made it clear that she is referring to the Obama administration, not Obama himself, and uses the phrase “true colours”, of which the meaning is quite clear, and which originated from the pre modern idea of “colours” as in flags, banners and other identifying marks of an army in wartime.
Caroline,
The Department of Justice has filed a brief in a California case against the DOMA. The brief invokes incest and marrying children, quite homophobic, and something that could reasonably be passed as having been written by the former administration.
Obama campaigned on a platform of civil rights for LGBT people, even though he stopped short of enabling marriage equality. That community is understandably disillusioned with this DoJ brief. More here:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html
Where’s Kim these days? Have I missed something?
“Tigtog has made it clear that she is referring to the Obama administration, not Obama himself”
Tigtog actually observes: “I knew the man was never going to be as truly progressive as I would prefer, but I never thought he’d actually stab his supporters in the back like this by approving an official document containing such blatantly biased fundie talking points.”
I think the DOJ Brief is depressing too – particularly in respect of the arguments it advances in support of DOMA. I mean, “incest?” But a bit of research (and I strongly recommend it ) reveals that there may be another couple of dimensions to the debate
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/dissent-of-the-day-4.html
Helen I was feeling fractious. All those acronyms detract from what could otherwise have been a more coherent comment. The true colour (singular) jibe, was aimed simply to provoke further . . . fractiousness.
It was snarky and small-minded of me. My apologies to tigtog.
Thankyou Dr S.
Tks Caroline.
Yes Geoff, but the “true colours” comment was in relation to the Obama Administration. Read the sentence.
I’d just like to say that temporarily at least the world is a better place now that Faith No More have got back together. Since they broke up 11 years ago they played their second show back co-headlining the Download festival in England earlier today which was streamed live on the net. Here’s Ashes To Ashes from the show:
In declaring that ‘It is easier to start wars than to end them.’ it seems to me that the smooth Lawyer from Chicago is following GWB’s policy of ending the war for Greater Israel and making this defeat formal and final.
‘So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.’
‘…the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them and all of us to live up to our responsibilities.’
Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
Finally, the Arab states must recognise that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems.
Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognise Israel’s legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognise that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognise the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.’
So ask yourself how goes the war for greater Israel?
There’s still an addition to the legal aspect raised in geoff @13′s link: Who has jurisdiction? That should always be the initial question in critiquing any USA debate on legal issues; and just what areas are covered by Federal, or state, or county law differs greatly – even over voting during a presidential election (as we saw last year!) Since Australia’s states lost income taxing rights & became dependent on Fed handouts (worse since the GST), we Aussies have become used to our Federal government’s walking over the states, especially using the ‘external treaties’ excuse. This is not so in the USA where states rights is a far more important issue.
I injured my neck at work three years ago, and I’m still wading waist-deep in the foetid medico-legal swamps of the WA Workers Compensation system, thick with many species of parasite. While I have suffered the disability, pain, poverty and depression caused by the injury, many leeches have been profiting from my case. Doctors by the handful, psychologists for both sides, a psychiatrist from the insurance company who charged $1 300 for a one-hour interview and a two-page report, a pair of “occupational Physicians”, a private investigator, a bunch of bureaucrats from my employer, more bureaucrats from WorkCover, more still from Centrelink and the Disability Employment Network. And then there are the lawyers… but I won’t get started on them, except to say that my own legal representation is pro bono.
Many people are making a living from my circumstances, so they have a vested interest in its being an arduous, tortuous, torturous process. And the longer it is drawn out, the less my eventual payout will be, whittled away by medical expenses and Centrelink repayments. There is an urgent need to reform the Workers Compensation system, and to restore some sense of justice to injured workers.
Jacques @ 17 – thank you. That’s wonderful.
It seems like the last Moran – Tuppence Moran – has been murdered. But I feel like I’ve seen it all on tv already.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudd-ozcar-fallout-deepens-20090619-cno9.html
Anyone care to explain what this Qld care dealer biz is about?
The mechanics of the allegations seem straightforward and the counteraccusations about Turnbull are pretty flimsy but seem to be a standard response . Does this story have much substance? Do voters care much?
Murph
It does look pretty sus….Grant is a friend and constituent of Rudd….the PMO has contacted the Treasury official responsible for the Ozcar scheme to look into whether Grant’s car dealership would qualify for any funding….emails have obviously been leaked to Farr…the opposition has asked whether the PM, PMO, or Treasurer had intervened on Grant’s behalf….they all said no….that clearly wasn’t the case…it is the lie that is more of an issue than the actual intervention I think (nobody from the PMO asked Treasury to approve any financing)…Rudd will be able to deny he knew about it but only if someone in his office comes out and says that they acted independently…..perhaps Charlton will be the fall guy as it looks like he made the inititial contact with Treasury…would be a shame though as he is very good young economist…
So someone takes a fall and is reborn after 5 years as an ALP candidate somewhere? NSW MLA or it’s equivalent perhaps?
Less than 5 years I imagine!!!
Aside from the obvious comment/gag about the chances of someone doing anything in this government without Kevin Rudd personally authorising it, it would be a bit disappointing if Kevin was left with the ‘in my department but i had no knowledge’ line. Granted it’s not $300 million going to a dictator who we are/will be at war with but at LO has said, the crime is misleading parliament not the size of the assistance.
Just head Turnbull on radio ‘If he has deliberately mislead parliament’ (my emphasis.) Not sure how much one word would affect things. One way or another we have ourselves a ball game.
First story on the national news – gruesome really.
Where do the factions stand on this ? If people go who will be inserted into the PM’s office ?
Can Mr Rudd decide his successor?
Surely it can’t get as far as Rudd resigning? And if it did get that far, Rudd wouldn’t have the authority to decide his successor….Besides, I couldn’t imagine that anyone besides Julia would be in a position to take over. I doubt anyone would even stand against her.
It just seems like a pretty dumb thing to lie about when there is a paper trail. The next interesting question will be who instructured Charlton to intervene on Grant’s behalf. My guess is Jordan, KR’s chief of staff – knowing the way KR’s office works…
The news mentioned a statement from the Pm in the House at 7.15 – anyone have any news ?
Unfortunately no – but it would be great if someone could post a link when something becomes publicly available…
Looks like Rudd is still denying he or his office had anything to do with it, but has asked for the AG to investigate.
This will be interesting because the Treasury official said there was an email, but that he no longer has it.
However, even if he deleted the email it should be very easy to find it….
LOL – Turnbull’s carrying on like Ministers still resign post the Howard era.
Live in the now! You guys killed that idea stone dead.
You can make up any crap these days eg:
-the department never told me.
-We’ve checked and can confirm there’s no evidence the PM was told.
-thats not what I said, I said weasel, weasel, not weasal, weasel, weasel.
- i was misinformed by a staffer, who has been ‘counselled’.
- we had no idea we were channelling funds to a enemy dictator we were then at war with. Despite being told. demonstrably. 100s of times.
You see yer problem Talcum? Grant didnt even get any funds. Not like, say, Saddam Hussein did from the Howard government’s AWB mates.
Dont get me wrong, I think its a travesty your side of politics killed ministerial responsibility dead as a dodo.
But there’s no one to blame but yourselves. LOL.
Who are you directing that at Lefty? The Liberal party? Personally, I’m a member of the ALP, so my side of politics is Kevin’s side. However, Howard’s abuse of power in no way justifies Kevin and Wayne doing the same. Also, remember Ros Kelly and her whiteboard? Keating defended her for some time before finally accepting that she had to go. No side has been immune from unaccountability over the years. If they ever find that email, the staffer will have to go, and quite possibly the person that instructed him to contact Treasury. That will not be the PM.
The more interesting question is whether it takes any of KR’s sheen off in the first place….
As I asked in the first post I sent what do readers think about this issue?
Does it matter to many people?
Maybe not for all the reasons Lefty E details but I generally think this type of action( putting in a word for someone in your electorate ) isn’t even a big moral problem. The fibbing about it (if that reflects the true course as things developed )just seems like a hasty response which was wrong but not corrected or reviewed before release? Really , it’s a trivial issue but poorly dealt with.
“You see yer problem Talcum? Grant didnt even get any funds. Not like, say, Saddam Hussein did from the Howard government’s AWB mates.”
And it’s not like the help National Textiles received to pay off workers entitlements so there would be no investigation into its management team that just happened to include Stan Howard.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s98866.htm
in a brief ABC-TV cross to a KR press conference at 7.58pm, KR claimed his office IT persons couldn’t even find a DELETED email from Feb 09. But I thought Mr Grech referred to phone calls.
“KR claimed his office IT persons couldn’t even find a DELETED email from Feb 09″
Astonishing… Did they look behind the bookcase?
Oh god, this thingy is worse than I thought…
“Peter van Onselen,a renowned political author from Edith Cowan University, told news.com.au that the public have forgiven Mr Rudd for his relationship with disgraced former premier Brian Burke, but this could end differently.
“I think this may well be the incident that ends Kevin Rudd’s honeymoon,” he said.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25661901-26103,00.html
Do you see that?… the honeymoon maybe over.
joe2, I think van Onselen is a wannabe-and-probably-never-will-be commentator. Maybe when he grows up.
Ambi @ 36, I listened hard and didn’t hear exactly how the poor Mr Grech was contacted by the PMs department. Somebody undoubtedly emailed the PM’s Dept and someone there flicked it on, as you do, and deleted it because it was not worth the cyberspace. Ditto at Grech’s end. Most journalist never have to organise anything more complicated than a booze-up in a brewery and just don’t appreciate how the world works.
You’d never convict on the evidence so far, so it effectively didn’t happen. Unless, as Turnbull says, you are guilty if you can’t prove you are innocent.
Our Man in Cyprus must be rubbing his hands with glee.
It would have to be Gillard and Tanner if there’s a different sort of double dissolution wouldn’t it? That sounds pretty good to me.
I was thinking that myself, danny. For Turnbull it could be case of be careful what you wish for!
Lest we forget, fake correspondence has been used to great effect in Australian politics before:
Joe2, never let Van Onselen influence your view on anything. He has no special insight into anything aside from John Howard backside.
This “Grant doesnt get a red cent, despite alleged email, seen by no-one, except some socially challenged Howard-appointed oddball” story is going nowhere faster than than my drunken trajectory to yon bedstead.
LeftyE and Brian I can assure you that I wasn’t really influenced by Pete Van.
I just could not believe he was allowed to drag out the tired old “honeymoon is over” routine, even if it was Friday karaoke night.