Saturday, February 11, 2006
There are a few subjects that are just GUARANTEED to divide a population.
At the forefront of that list is the abortion debate. This is one of those issues that just seems to pull the rhetoric out into the open in a big way.
Let's just clear something up, though. The current mess in the Federal Parliament has absolutely nothing to do with the pros and cons of abortion. Not a thing.
What this is all about is undoing a ridiculous law that was passed for no other reason but to appease a fundamentalist. No more, no less.
In 1996, Senator Brian Harradine, the Tasmanian Christian zealot, found himself in the priceless situation of having the balance of power in the Senate, along with the generously proportioned (and morally minimal) Mal Coulston. With the Howard government only needing these two independants to approve his agenda for it to pass, it became attractive to the Coalition to agree to some of the fringe issues raised by these two in order to implement their policies.
Coulston was pretty easy to keep on board. The government offered him a roll of cash (in the form of the plum job of Deputy Senate President), which kept the rotund one on side. Harradine, however, was a different kettle of fish.
One such instance was when Howard began his long term goal of privatising our national telco, Telstra. He needed Harradine's vote, and Harradine, being a pretty experienced campaigner, knew that he had the PM over a barrell. There wasn't much that Howard wouldn't agree to in order to fulfil his ambition.
As a Christian fundamentalist, abortion was at the top of HIS agenda. Being a state issue, Harradine couldn't ask Howard to stop abortion altogether. The next best thing, though, was to get the "morning after pill", or RU-486 blocked from sale in the country.
For every other medicine or medical device, the task of approving it is the domain of the Theraputic Goods Administration (TGA). The TGA, being an independant body comprised of medical experts, assesses any new product, and either approves it, or bans it. It is a system that works incredibly well.
Unfortunately for the likes of the Reverend Harradine, the TGA doesn't generally respond to emotional or religious argument, which meant that RU-486 would be a pretty good chance of being approved for use in Australia. The solution was to include a special provision for this drug, that gave final approval for the drug to the Health Minister. I daresay there was tacit agreement from the government that their Health ministers would do no such thing.
One way to make sure of that would be to make ANOTHER religious zealot, like one Tony Abbott, the health minister...
Tony Abbott is a committed, devout Catholic. Good for him- whatever helps you through the day is fine with me.
What ISN'T fine with me is when a Minister uses his power to ban an effective, safe drug DUE to his religion. By doing that, he is subjecting the country to his religious beliefs.
I LOVE the way that Abbott has come out this week and tried to turn this around, claiming that HE is being discriminated against, as he isn't being trusted due to his religious beliefs. He has gone out of his way to claim that he is VERY capable of making a decision based on the facts at hand, rather than just his personal beliefs.
Heh- yeah, right-o fuckwit.
Scientists could publish definitive studies claiming that RU-486 cures cancer, AIDS, herpes and impotence, and there would STILL be more chance of me scoring a double-century in an Ashes Test than there would be of Tony Abbott allowing an abortion drug into this country.
I also giggled my backside off listening to Abbott being interviewed by Howard Sattler on 6PR this week. By his standards, Sattler was pretty tame with him, basically following the line of questioning that exposed the difference between the rules behind every OTHER drug in the country and this one, and why everything isn't treated the same. By the end of the interview Abbott had completely cracked, and took to schoolyard tactics, childishly mocking Sattler for getting a "win" against him. For such a political stalwart, Abbott totally self-destructed.
The fact is, though, that this drug SHOULDN'T be treated any differently. The TGA exists to take care of these issues, and is well equipped to do so.
This nonsense about the TGA being unaccountable is bullshit. The TGA has to make decisions that are based in science, and if they don't then they face the same
Friday, January 27, 2006
I was listening to talkback radio this afternoon in the car (one day I'll explain why I love talkback radio so much- it really is a great invention) when the subject of the "Invasion Day" protest, that included the obligatory buring of an Australian flag, came to the fore.
Invasion Day, for those who are unaware, is the way in which some aboriginal groups mark Australia Day, that being the anniversary of the day that this country was "invaded" by the British.
The hosts of these shows really know their audiences, because as soon as the presenter raised the topic, I knew exactly what talkback responses were going to come up.
1) "My father/grandfather/uncle/brother fought under that flag. It is sacred and anyone buring it should be hanged from the nearest tree!"
2) "It's a shame me and my mates weren't there, or we would have sorted those so-and-so's out quick smart!"
3) "What would happen if me and my mates burned an aboriginal flag? I'm not racist, but you can see why good Aussies hate black people!"
Or words to that effect...
Sure enough, the calls came in thick and fast. The level of outrage must have had the talkback radio bosses licking their lips.
You know the BEST part of this whole thing?
The fact that John Howard's bread-and-butter supporters, the reactionary, psuedo-patriotic rabble, were actually baying for HIS blood, because his response to the mess was to say that he didn't think that burning the flag should be criminalised.
I totally agree with him, by the way.
Desecrating the flag is wildly offensive to me. I can admit that it makes my stomach turn to see it, and I immediately lose any sympathy for the cause that the protest is championing. Unfortunately, we live in a country that purports to be free. Part of being free is being able to disagree wholeheartedly with what is being said, and the manner in which it is said, and yet still accept that people have the right to say it in whatever manner they think appropriate.
When you boil it down, that is what flag-burning is. It is a political statement against the country being made in the strongest possible way. By burning the sybol of the country, they are saying that they feel egregiously wronged by the policies and actions of our government.
The usual argument made for criminalising the desecration of the flag is the old "our soldiers fought and died for that flag" chestnut. As stirring as it is, it is also complete bullshit.
Any soldier who either risked or gave his life for a piece of cloth is an idiot. Soldiers don't fight for a flag, they fight for the country that is represented by the symbol of the flag. They choose (well, in MOST cases they choose, occasionally the are forced to fight) to give their lives in the defence of the values, ideals and people that are represented by the flag.
By the same token, the protesters are doing the exact opposite. They are destroying a symbol of the values, ideals, and people of the country. More specifically, they are denouncing a certain policy of the representative body of the people. And that, I'm afraid is the right of any citizen of this country, as much as it may turn your, and my, stomach.
The news this week regardling the defection of National Party Senator Julian McGauran certainly caught some people by suprise- me included.
To be honest, the current circumstances would have to rank right up there as among the LEAST likely environments for a defection, particularly one that involves switching from one coalition partner to the other.
There is no real apparent motive for McGauran's change of heart. Unless there has been a deal made for him by the Liberals (more on that in a minute) there is no chance that it will give him a greater shot of a ministerial or Parliamentary Secretary spot, and it will actually cost the guy some money, as he will lose his committee jobs and his position as government whip.
Playing devils advocate for a second, what if he DID make a deal?
There is absolutely nothing that he could offer John Howard that would make Howard facilitate his defection. Howard ALREADY has McGauran's vote in the Senate, and Howard is a smart enough politician to know that the defection may very well make implementing his agenda MORE difficult, as we have seen from the wailing coming from the Queensland Nationals. So, I think we can safely absolve Howard from any role in this.
That doesn't mean that no deal was done, though...
There is one person who stands to gain from this.
Think about this: Peter Costello has been the second banana for a long time now, and has seen more than one "promised" succession date come and go, without getting to sit in the big chair. In the past year, Costello has seen is support base within the party drop dramatically, as even some of his hard-core supporters have seen the way the wind is blowing, and have thrown their support behind John Howard.
The danger for Costello is that he has gone from being the appointed heir-apparent just one year ago, to one of a few candidates for the job, should Howard retire. To be honest, I wouldn't even think Costello would be the favourite in this hypothetical race.
Abbott would definitely consider running, wild horses couldn't stop Nelson from challenging for the job, Andrews looks like he has sights on the top job, and Downer is definitely delirious enough to think he could run the country. In that pack, there wouldn't need to be too many deals made for Costello to be done and dusted.
Of course, I'm only spit-balling here, but it WOULD be an astute move for Costello to try and recruit in support from outside of a hostile party room. If McGauran's application is accepted by the Liberal Party, he would automatically get a vote in any Liberal leadership challenge. Add in the fact that Costello and McGauran have been friends for a while, and the plot certainly thickens.
Julian McGauran's brother is ALSO a Nationals Senator. I bet he's getting more than a few phone calls right about now.
Costello has denied any involvement, though, and I suppose we have to take him at his word. It is something worth keeping an eye on, though.
What is ALSO worth keeping an eye on is how the Nationals are going to respond. Don't get me wrong- Mark Vaile, while I'm sure he is seething at the development, is NOT going to do anything stupid like threaten to dissolve the coalition or anything.
I mean, as part of the governing coalition, Vaile gets to be the Deputy Prime Minister. If he wasn't part of the coalition, he would be sitting on the back benches twiddling his thumbs. There isn't a chance in hell that he'll risk THAT.
It is the Nats backbench that is going to be the problem. You already have a proven nutcase there in the form of Barnaby French, and he has only been MORE vocal since the defection. There are another two or three Queensland Nats that have spoken out about this, and should they decide to disregard party line and vote as a block, they could quite easily be the most influential politicians in the country.
(And don't think THAT thought hasn't crossed their minds already. Don't think that for a SECOND.)
Thinking about it, that could be a second very good reason for Costello to engineer this. Part of the reason why Howard's support has solidified so quickly is the way that he has managed to implement his agenda so efficiently over the past six months. Causing a little dissention in the coalition ranks and breaking up the automatic majority that Howard has been using to his full advantage could also have the effect of slightly destabilising his internal support.
I certainly get the feeling that this story hasn't finished unfolding.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
This is an experience that I wasn't planning on...
I had actively avoided joining the ranks of the world's bloggers for quite a while. Nothing against the medium or those that partake, but I decided a while ago that blogging just wasn't for me.
I DO like writing, though. I write about politics, current events, and anything else that takes my interest through the week. I like being able to inject a little humour into subjects that, while ostensibly dry and serious, are actually crying out for a little light-heartedness.
So, a while ago I got a gig writing for a pretty big pop-culture site, that had a just-starting-up Politics section. It was (and is) a lot of fun, but I came across one significant problem.
I'm Australian, and the site isn't.
The site, while having contributors from across the English-speaking world, has a primarily American audience. That isn't so much of an issue if you are writing about music, movies or the like, but trying to relate Australian political issues to an audience that has generally never heard of the main players gets very frustrating, very quickly.
I thought that this problem might have been solved, though, when I heard about a website starting up in my very own city, that stated a goal of being somewhere for local people to talk about local issues. I got in touch with the site's owner, and offered my services. They didn't seem too keen on the idea- at least not at first.
The site started up as a forum-only site (and remains that way as I write this, save for some flash games and some news headlines from external sites), so I thought I'd join up and raise a few eyebrows- after all, what good is an opinionist if he can't get a reaction?
There was one small problem- I hate posting on political forums. You always seem to end up going around in circles with second-hand soundbites and talking points, and genuine understanding of the issues and facts to support an argument, are (with some exceptions) foreign concepts.
I had just three goals on that forum: Firstly, to demonstrate my ability to generate discussion, secondly, to introduce myself to the members so that I had a readership base if I started writing for the site proper, and lastly, to provide a cogent, opposing agrument to the vocal few.
Check, check, and check. Needless to say, after a month or so, I was writing a column on the site's mainpage.
Alas, the best laid plans and all of that. The site owner and I had a difference of opinion, and my run there lasted all of three weeks. 'Tis a shame, too- I was starting to enjoy myself.
The thing is, I have no idea how well my writing is going to translate into a blog- but I fear that it won't work all that well. Until something else local opens up, though (and there IS something on the horizon, but not for at least a few months), I thought I'd give this a shot.
Anyway, I have reposted my last couple of columns below, and I'll get more stuff up as the mood takes me.
I guess that's the silver lining, eh? Blogs don't have deadlines...
Perth City Chronicles- 02/01/06: Bushisms, Your Life on a Card, Kerry craps out, and New Year’s Resolutions.
Regarding last week’s column…
I feel Bob Brown deserves an A+ for having the guts to speak out for
-Sally
Bracken, don't miss out St Bob Brown
-
I got a few more emails asking about Bob Brown, and why I didn’t include a grade for the Greens’ leader.
Well, that is basically the answer. He is the leader of the Greens, and is pretty much irrelevant these days.
See, when one party controls both houses in parliament, the influence shifts around a bit. Whereas before Labor was the opposition, and the minor parties and independents were the “fly in the ointment” that can use their influence to impart some of their fringe agenda, now, it is a little different.
Now, the Nationals are the de facto opposition that the government has to placate, Labor is in the position that the minor parties and independents were in previously, and since they’ve all rolled over, the minors have fallen out of the bed.
And no, I don’t count Family First in that analogy. Family First was set up for the sole reason of trying to do for the Liberals what the Greens have done for Labor- that is, provide a second place for disgruntled supporters to go, without losing their preferences. I’ll go into the Family First issue at a later date- it was a particularly interesting move by Howard.
Where was I? Oh- the minor parties…
The real problem facing the Greens (as well as the Democrats, for that matter) is that in the next election, you are going to see a dramatic shift AWAY from the minor parties.
This term of government is going to be the most divisive in a couple of decades. The campaign WILL be fought almost entirely on Industrial Relations, and, as I’m sure you’re aware, there are pretty much only two schools of thought on the issue.
People are either completely against it (“They want us to have no rights at work”) or completely FOR it (“The unions have to be stopped and the bosses should be able to run their businesses how they see fit”). There is practically no middle ground.
Due to the polarization of the public, voters won’t want to risk NOT getting their party into power. If you want the laws repealed, you will vote Labor. If you want them to stay, you’ll vote Liberal. There won’t be the huge “well, they’re both just as bad as each other” protest vote next time. There are clear battle lines this time.
The minor parties are going to be pretty irrelevant for the next five years or so. That is why I didn’t bother grading Bob Brown.
But, I write this as a service to you, my loyal readers. So, what did I think of Bob Brown?
Well, I DEFINITELY wouldn’t give him an A+, that’s for sure.
Bob Brown is an extremist. He may have the facade of a noble agenda, but he is just like any OTHER type of extremist- yeah, even THAT guy.
Take a look at the Greens Party platform. They may ostensibly be the environmental warrior party, but they are also a far-left, radical socialist organization. If they ever got into power (which, I realize, is not going to happen any time soon), they would CRIPPLE this country.
The problem with extremists (and the reason why I detest ALL extremes, regardless of their political orientation) is that they are ALWAYS so far removed from reality. You can’t impart anything resembling positive change if you have no real concept of the problems at hand. For all of the good that they COULD achieve, they fall down for just this reason.
Think about it. Name ONE change that Bob Brown has caused. Put aside his constant bleating and chest-beating, and think of what he’s actually ACHIEVED.
If you can think of one, you are better than I. For that reason, he gets no more than a C for effort.
Onto another topic from last week:
What a load of bollocks. Wednesday night still sux.
But yep yep I agree with you 100% on the rest.
P.S. I LOVE Hugh Laurie, just not a fan of ‘THAT’ show…
-MsGazzy
How DARE you! You take that back.
Let me say this now and end all debate on the subject: House rules.
The casting (and I mean ALL the characters, not just Laurie) is as close to perfection as you could hope for, it is witty, fast-paced, interesting and brings a whole new style to the overdone “Medical Drama” genre.
Laurie plays the role so well that he is both eminently sympathetic and completely unsympathetic at the same time, and his comic timing does wonders for a pretty good script.
Oh well. I suppose it takes all types. I’ll let you pass this time, MsGazzy (if that IS your real name…).
You know what puzzles me, though? This was about as negative as my feedback got this week. I mean, I know that I am usually right on the mark, but normally it takes a lot more than a week for everyone to realize it.
Don’t be afraid to disagree, folks. I won’t bite.
Well, not unless you REALLY deserve it. Heh.
Howdy folks. This is the Perth City Chronicles (and those of you that bet on me lasting a week can pay up NOW) and I’m Bracken. We’ve got a bit to get to, so let’s not waste any time.
Oh- before I forget. Keep in mind that I am writing this on New Year’s Day, and as you would imagine, I’m not my normal perky self. Regardless, Bracken keeps his promises, so I get to work while you all enjoy the day off.
Anyway, let’s get this show on the road.
All the World’s a Nightclub
I know we are used to being carded trying to get into a club, but how do you feel about being asked for ID for just walking down the street?
Since the
What it would mean is that you would be responsible for carrying around your ID card EVERYWHERE you went, and could be asked to produce it at any time. If you don’t have it, I’m sure you will be liable for a fine, or worse.
It isn’t the first time we have been smacked with this concept. Labor tried to introduce it in the 1980s, and we politely told them to f—k off in a referendum on the issue.
The thing is, there is even MORE reason to be worried about the idea THIS time. In the 1980s, we hadn’t even heard about things like “Smart Cards”, “DNA” and the like. With a simple, SIM Card type deal, you could have every detail of your life, from your criminal record to your credit history to the amount of times you have contracted syphilis available for every government department to sift through. The government could (and make no mistake about it, after the card is introduced, this WILL be the next step) have your DNA profile stored on the card, as well as on a national register, so basically every movement you make will be recorded and retained.
Doesn’t this sound very Orwellian to you?
When a government wants to have access to such a VAST amount of information about our lives, I get very suspicious, and so should YOU. The government is the servant to the people, not the other way around.
There is no real reason to have this sort of regime. It is a basic human right for citizens to live their lives free of undue interference and surveillance from ANYONE, including their government. It will achieve little or nothing in preventing terrorism.
Tell me this: Knowing that the
It wouldn’t. The best it would have done is made identifying the culprits AFTER the fact a tad easier.
Oh- I can see the responses now. “I don’t care about the ID card- I have nothing to hide.”
You SHOULD care about it, just as you should care about the protection of every OTHER freedom that you enjoy. As I said last week- politicians are NOT some exalted species. They are people, with the same failings and temptations that you all possess. If you give them the power bypass your privacy, they will never give that power back, and they WILL use it for their own ends. It is inevitable- human nature is a constant.
Strategically, the government is playing their hand well. They are just sewing the seeds in the minds of the public, by drip feeding the idea over the course of months.
They have been completely non-committal about the idea. Their plan is to be a small target- if they don’t openly advocate the idea, they can’t be attacked by those who would fight against it, like the civil libertarian lobby.
Make no mistake, though- this will be one of the first priorities for the Liberals next year. It will get through, and before the year is out, we will all have a shiny card in our wallets. Labor, knowing how important their National Security credibility is to their next election campaign, will quietly support the bill. This isn’t a fight that Labor will want to be involved in.
Where does that leave us?
It will be another example of the real enemy being from within. The War on Terror™ was supposed to be about protecting our way of life. The terrorists haven’t landed a single shot on our soil, but our way of life and level of freedom has decreased dramatically, and will only get worse.
You tell me- where is it going to end?
Presenting… YOUR Leader of the Free World
I stole this from News.com.au, but I thought they were too funny to leave out.
These are some of George Dubbya Bush’s best quotes of the year:
1) "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda," -Propaganda? At least he’s honest…
2) "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job" - Singing the praises of his longtime buddy, and FEMA (Emergency Services) Director Michael Brown, JUST before Brown resigned and the agency was completely disgraced.
3) "I think I may need a bathroom break. Is this possible?" - Bush, in a note to his Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. Even the most powerful man in the western world has to mind his manners.
4)"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law" - Who says Bush doesn’t know what all of the big words mean?
Just so you are all aware, this segment has had NO news value at all. It doesn’t all have to be heavy stuff.
The King is Dead, Long Live the King
Unless you have been living under a rock for the past week, you will be aware of the passing this week of media mogul, gambler extraordinaire and the only man that can call John Howard his bitch who ISN’T named Bush, Kerry Packer.
Now, the death of the Big Guy wasn’t completely unexpected, but anytime there is such an influential passing of the torch there it always piques my interest.
First of all, I was REALLY curious to see how James was going to publicly react. After getting raked over the coals over the One.Tel debacle, you just KNOW that Kerry was pissed with him. Guys like Kerry Packer don’t like being stitched up to the tune of a few hundred million clams. Not so much for the money, mind you- more because of the embarrassment. He carried himself very well, though- actually, I have been very impressed with the dignity shown by the grieving Packers.
Also, I think the next few months are going to be great viewing. Even though James has been the top dog at PBL for a while now (on paper, Kerry was his 2IC), even James has admitted that he was only the boss “unless Kerry wanted to be the boss”. All of the management structure has been handpicked by Kerry, and the place has been run in Kerry’s image.
That will all change. Whenever there is a succession like this, there is almost invariably a huge upper-management clean-out, as the new king replaces his predecessor’s vision with his own. That will mean that a lot of the influential players in the Australian media will be quietly retiring, and a lot of NEW guys will be filling those voids. How is this going to change the landscape?
Most of all, though, I just wanted to see how far the media blow-job would go. As soon as Sky News first put the story up, I was waiting for the Channel Nine
The reason being, I wanted to see how far the news directors would go to gain favour with the bosses. I wasn’t disappointed.
I could have understood spending ten minutes or so on the story- maybe do a straight news piece, a “this is your life” type piece, and a piece on James’ impending succession. That would have been appropriate for a guy who was as successful and influential as Packer.
What did we get? Well, the news was extended to a full hour, and about the first forty minutes or so was spent telling the world how wonderful Kerry was, and how he, not Mary McKillop, should be our first saint.
Jesus- I was half expecting Dixie Marshall to ask us all to join her bow to the altar of Lord Kerry, with a minutes silence live on air and bugles and all the trimmings.
Make no mistake; I think Kerry Packer was a great man. He was, apparently, very philanthropic (the best kind of philanthropist, too- he didn’t want anyone to know how much he gave), he was wildly successful, and he was well known as a guy that was very nice if you deserved it, but gave you a kick in the backside if you needed it. If everyone was like that, this world would be a better place.
Besides- he was one of two or three gamblers in the world that casinos were legitimately scared of. That HAS to count for something.
I don’t care if the guy was the f-ing messiah himself- having a NEWS program verbally fellate him for three quarters of an hour was overkill.
Put it into perspective- they spent about forty minutes on deifying Kerry, and about FIVE minutes of the rest of the news of the world. Chew on THAT a while…
Anyway, the guy is now worm food, and every sniveling little news director in the nine network is patting himself on the back for an arse well kissed- or job well done, if you prefer.
Wouldn’t it be a hoot if James came out next week and said, “I hated the old bastard- now, whoever was responsible for airing that crap will be fired.” Heh.
I think the best tribute to the man is a simple quote:
“Kerry Francis Bullmore Packer. Reluctantly.”
-Kerry, when asked by a government inquiry to state his full name and in what capacity he was appearing. The man considered himself the top dog in ANY room. I like that.
Rest in Peace.
New Year’s Resolutions
Well, it’s that time of the year again- when everyone makes promises that they will faithfully keep (well, at least for a week or two).
So, how about I ring in the new year with some of the resolutions made behind closed doors…
John Howard: To realize his life’s ambition, and urinate on the door handles of the ACTU offices while giggling uncontrollably.
Peter Costello: To pray every night for the Prime Minister’s plane to crash into a mountain.
Kim Beazley: To pray every night for Peter Costello to have his prayers answered.
Geoff Gallop: To finally achieve his goal of being able to be Premier of Western Australia while spending twelve months of the year sipping Margaritas on the beach in Barbados.
James Packer: To collect the $20 that Lachlan Murdoch owes him after winning the “who’s Daddy will croak first” dead pool.
Osama Bin Laden: To release his debut album, featuring a cover of John Lennon’s classic, Imagine.
Russell Crowe: To remember that if he needs to belt some prick, to do it OUT of the range of security cameras. Also, to buy a f-ing mobile phone, thus ending his reliance on sub-standard hotel phone systems.
The Logan Twins: To be able to continue to demonstrate that twins can be born without a complete brain between them.
Jessica Simpson: To follow her enthralling performance in The Dukes of Hazzard with another role that shows her desire to become a serious actress. Also, she would like to be able to spell the phrase, “serious actress”.
Nick Lachey: To figure out what manner of greatness he performed in a previous life that got him rich, famous and divorced from Jessica Simpson, even without having anything resembling talent, intelligence or ability.
Jelena Dokic: To FINALLY be able to answer the question, “What country are you from”, without needing to check her passport first.
Ray Martin: To be once again considered Australia’s premier journalist, after years of presenting ridiculous A Current Affair stories with a silly hairpiece.
Rupert Murdoch: To be able to call his Foxnews network “the best, most accurate, fair and balanced news network in the world” AND keep a straight face. More realistically, he also resolved to walk across the
Stuart MacGill: To introduce Shane Warne’s knees to the business end of a Gray Nicholls for being born at the EXACT right time to f—k up a great career.
Barnaby Joyce: To continue to be the only remaining force for truth, justice and democracy. Also, he’d like to get a nice red cape, and a leotard that has a big “S” on the front. He also resolves to start taking the little blue pills that the doctors said he should.
Damir Dokic: To nominate himself for the “Father of the Year” award, and then claim that the contest was rigged when he loses.
Britney Spears: To realize that after having a child, a bra is her FRIEND.
Kevin Federline: To get his album released, and then ditch the saggy wife and disappear BACK into obscurity.
Shane Warne: To buy Stuart MacGill a Ferrari, a house, or whatever else it takes for him to stop looking longingly at his knees whenever he has a cricket bat in his hand.
Perth Talk Honcho, Ray: To work out why the f—k he agreed to let “that Bracken clown” write for his site.
Madonna: To finally find out why everyone seems to talk about mutton and lamb when she walks into a room. Are they hungry or something?
Michael Jackson: To convince everyone that he’s just a normal red-blooded guy like the rest of us. In other words, the same impossible resolution he has made every year since he was 15.
Guy Sebastien: To travel the country reminding everyone that HE won the f-ing contest, not that Noll yokel.
Casey Donovan: To travel the country reminding everyone that SHE won the f-ing contest, not that Callea midget.
Katie Holmes: To find a way of reconciling her soon-to-be hubby’s recent behaviour and prove to the world that he isn’t REALLY a raving nutjob.
Tom Cruise: To convert Oprah, and therefore the entire American people, to Scientology, even though the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, is quoted as saying “if you want to get rich, start a religion.” (Actually, this ISN’T one that I made up- it has been reported that there is a huge battle between Scientology and Kabbalah for Oprah’s allegiance. Sigh.)
And finally,
Andy Bracken: Simple- to be happy. I’ve got a big year ahead of me, what with this new venture, and my impending wedding and a few other pursuits. Also, this is the year that I am going to start making some serious poker money. My goal is to be a major tournament winner by the end of 2009, so I have some real work to do.
Also, I’d like to be able to remember to write “2006” in the date column before about March. That one always gets me.
But, above all else, I just want to have another happy year. Last year was pretty good to me (after a f-ing awful 2004), and if I can improve at all on that I will be perfectly satisfied. That’s the best thing that I’ve learned- if you keep your wishes simple, you’ll rarely be disappointed.
And with that, I’m done. I hope you had a great New Year’s celebration, and I hope that each of you have a happy and prosperous 2006.
You know what they say, folks- a change is as good as a holiday…
Howard has had a really strange year. He started the year with a newly won majority in the Senate, and we were all waiting to see just how he would use it.
I said at the start of the year that the Senate majority would be the undoing of the Howard government. Throughout history, governments that have been entrusted with this kind of absolute power have almost always used it to shoot themselves in the foot, by governing based on their ideology, rather than the wishes of the electorate.
Australians, especially, have a funny knack of chopping down people that get too big for their boots.
Howard didn’t disappoint. Come July 1, when the new parliament sat for the first time, the government really put the foot down. They got the Telstra sale through, with the help of Back Room Barnaby Joyce, and then proceeded to ram through their IR bill (with the help of an obscene $40 million propaganda- sorry, ADVERTISING- campaign, pass the anit-terror bill, and abolish compulsory student unionism.
With the exception of the anti-terror bill, none of the major reforms had widespread community support (and the anti-terror bill SHOULDN’T have community support, but thanks to a population that fears more than it thinks, it does). They were all rammed through parliament using the “guillotine”, and were all restricted to little or no investigation or debate.
From a personal standpoint, Howard has had a great year. He had a realistic leadership contender in Peter Costello, and it seemed likely that Howard was going to be faced with the choice of either stepping aside for his younger foe, or facing a challenge for the party leadership.
Costello found himself completely marginalized towards the end of the year. He was raked over the coals for putting Robert Gerrard on the Reserve Bank Board while he was being investigated for tax evasion (great call!), and then faced even more grilling in parliament over some advice given by treasury regarding the IR bill, which he had previously denied in parliament.
Basically, Costello went from being a real threat, to an absolute non-entity. Howard now has the capital he needs to rule for as long as he wants to, and Costello is no longer a certainty to take over from Howard when he DOES step down.
So, how would I rate the year for Howard? Well, he achieved some of his career-long ideological goals (those being selling off national assets and killing off the union movement), but, in the process, has set the seeds for his party’s defeat in two years time. Set that against the backdrop of now being the undisputed captain of a possibly sinking ship, and the relative success of the year is somewhat clouded.
All in all, though, I certainly think he will look back at 2005 with a smile on his face, and for that reason I begrudgingly give him a B+.
Peter Costello
The certainly mean something to our dear Costello, I can assure you.
The year started SO well for him. He was the Deputy Leader of a party that was about to have full control of both houses, he had a clear shot at the leadership…
Then everything turned south- QUICKLY.
It is no secret, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer aren’t the best buddies that they like to portray. Costello wants to sit in the BIG chair, and, but for Howard reneging on a deal, he would be warming that seat right now. His consolation has always been that he was the designated next in line.
That is no longer the case. After the Gerrard affair (which Howard wasted NO time in pinning completely on Costello), and the shambles regarding the Treasury IR advice (what, you mean that it will have a NEGATIVE effect?), Costello has gone from being in a position to challenge Howard, to having his nose well and truly smacked, and fighting it out with the rest of the second tier of the Liberals.
Make no mistake about it- Costello is no longer the automatic choice to take over when Howard finally goes. Tony Abbot wants the job (ostensibly to be able to impart his puritanical morals on the country), Brendan Nelson would slap his own mother to get ahead, and Alexander Downer, while hilariously out of his depth even as a minister, would LOVE to have another shot at the leadership, but only if Mumsy said it was OK. All of them have made up ground on Costello, and any one of them has a real shot of succeeding Howard.
The party seems to be realizing that Costello is completely unelectable. He has the arrogance of Keating, but without the wit and intellect, and there is very little that he can sell to the public as reasons to keep him in power. Jesus- he doesn’t even have the national security cred that the PM does.
In short, 2005 has been the year that has ripped the Treasurer’s career to pieces. I certainly don’t see him getting the leadership, and if he does, he’ll never win an election as Prime Minister.
You were almost there, Petey- better luck next lifetime. D
Kim Beazley
I have always thought that Beazley would make a great Prime Minister. The problem is, I have ALSO always thought that he made a truly crap Opposition Leader.
The problem Kim has had is that he has always been the intellectual in the debates, presenting great counter arguments without REALLY getting down in the dirt and mixing it up with the government. That is all well and good when you have someone capable in your front bench that will do the dirty work for you (as McGinty does for Gallop, for example), but when you are blessed with a shadow cabinet filled with ho-hum mediocrity, there are no two ways about it, you have to roll your sleeves up.
After the Latham meltdown at the start of the year, Beazley again offered to take the reigns, but reportedly he would only do so if he was guaranteed support from the party. There could be no infighting, and Beazley had to be given carte-blanche to do things his way.
He seems to have come into his own as the leader of an opposition of a government with full control. He knows he doesn’t have to worry about appeasing minor parties, and he has come out swinging at every opportunity.
More importantly, he has picked his fights well. He saw that there was no point in fighting against the anti-terror bill, and has seen his “Coast Guard” policy become a real hot button, with the Indonesian fisherman issue. He completely lined up the government over IR, and, smartly, he has vowed to roll it all back if he is elected.
Funnily enough, his greatest advantage came from someone who tried to do the greatest damage. When Mark Latham put out his comedic smear book, he did the opposite of what he intended- instead of destroying Beazley, he succeeded in galvanizing the Labor party behind him. For the first time in a LONG time, the Labor party is more united than the Liberals. Now THAT is an achievement.
Beazley has come into his own this year. For the first time since the
Mark Latham
Many of you may have forgotten, at the start of the year, Mark Latham was STILL the Federal Opposition Leader.
After losing the election last year, Latham pretty much had a good, old-fashioned, sulk. He went home and cried into his
Well, everyone except HIMSELF…
Two issues cost Labor seats in the last election. The main one was the fact that they didn’t counter the inane, RETARDED suggestion that Howard and Costello mean lower interest rates, and the second was a “try to please everybody, but succeed in alienating EVERYBODY” Tasmanian forestry policy.
The forestry debacle was Latham’s own doing, and he could have done better with the interest rates scare. HE lost the election.
Then, after he quit the leadership and decided to be a house-husband (albeit one on a pension of $80,000 per year), he decided to line up everyone that had ever helped him.
He took a shot at his ex-wife, claiming that they broke up because she was a closet bisexual. His mentor, and the person who stood in for Latham’s deceased father at his wedding, Gough Whitlam, was called “disloyal” and frozen out because he dared suggest that politics was affecting Latham’s health to the point where he should maybe step aside.
The Labor party, that funded Latham’s university education, and used factional shenanigans to ensure his preselection, was called “unsaveable” and worse. He really singled out Beazley, calling him disgusting and ruthless.
This was really funny- Beazley’s greatest failing as a politician is that is ISN’T ruthless enough. If he was more of a bastard, he would be the PM right now- make no mistake about it.
Anyway, Latham went from being the Leader of the Opposition to being a national joke in 2005, which in itself is grounds for his grade- F.
Geoff Gallop
He has risen to the top of his party WITHOUT being factionally aligned, and has pretty much cemented his place there for as long as he wants, even though he shows about as much support for his team as your average Dockers fan (ie: happy when the team is winning, but bays for their blood when they aren’t).
He has completely earned his “Good News Geoff” nom de guerre, for always being front and centre when there is something good to announce, and being harder to find than an employed Kiwi when something bad has to be revealed. He shows absolutely ZERO understanding of issues that face the plebs, and seems proud of his lack of accountability.
Even so, he STILL has the political luxury of not having to watch his back. There is no one in his own party that will challenge him, and there is no one in the opposition benches that has shown themselves able to get any mud to stick to him.
Thinking back, I can’t think of a single thing of note that Gallop has done this year. There was the Kucera shares scandal, which died in the arse as soon as Kucera resigned, and even when it seemed like it was going to have some legs when the opposition went after Allanah McTiernan, Gallop just sicked his number one attack dog, Jim McGinty, onto the Opposition, and amazingly ended up turning Matt Birney into the bad guy.
The guy is clearly made of Teflon. He has done practically nothing of note, and yet is in just as strong a position as he was at the start of the year. For that alone, he gets his grade. C+.
Matt Birney
Such a BIG f—k up.
Rule number one of politics: when you have some gold-plated ammo on your opponents, make sure your own house is in order BEFORE going public with it. Seems like our young Birney never took this class.
The real shame is that Birney’s indiscretion wasn’t even CLOSE to being as bad as those of McTiernan and Kucera. He managed to nail “Honest” Bob, and had McTiernan dead in his sights. Too bad he got completely outclassed.
This is what a
Politics is about being able to beat your opposition, plain and simple. Birney had a golden opportunity to inflict some REAL damage on a government that is just CRYING out for a scandal or two, but because he lacked the experience to make it count, McGinty was able to turn it around, to the point where Labor’s misdeeds were forgotten, an Birney’s apology became front page news.
Birney getting smacked around a little wasn’t even the most telling part of this furore. The REAL clue to this comes from the way Labor actually found out about Birney’s little sleight-of-hand.
Wanna take a punt as to where they got their information?
You guessed it- from Birney’s own colleagues- from within the Liberal party benches.
I hate to say it, but the writing is on the wall for Matt. If he is being white-anted by his party THIS early, he is not going to last. If his own party is willing to give away the first parliamentary advantage that they have enjoyed for years just to chop their own leader down, then he hasn’t a hope.
I don’t think he’ll be overthrown straight away- the backroom machine-men of the state Liberal Party know that the next election is unwinable, so they will be quite happy for Birney to have the loss on HIS resume. Birney will be a backbencher soon afterwards, though. Either Colin Barnett will come back, or Paul Omodei will take over, or (and this is the least likely of the three) Troy Buswell will be given a chance to run the party.
Regardless, Birney is at the start of his downward spiral. He gets some redeeming marks for being somewhat of a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stagnant State Parliament, but he’s lucky to get his C-
Barnaby Joyce
The problem is, he HAS been front and centre in the news for most of the year. Too bad that it has almost always been nothing more than self-promotion, rather than for anything of substance.
Senator Joyce seems to have an inflated opinion of himself. Since assuming office, he has postulated and pontificated over every move than the government has made, insisting that he’s willing to cross the floor to support his beliefs, even at the expense of the party line.
Unfortunately, it has all counted for pretty much nothing. You see, as much as our dear Barnaby views himself as the last great bastion of democracy, he is all talk, and very little action.
Let’s just look at some of the “concessions” he has achieved.
Firstly, there was the Telstra sell-off. Now, if Barnaby WAS true to his electorate, he would have rejected the sale outright- as he repeatedly promised to do in during the election campaign. An OVERWHELMING number of Australians were dead against selling off the rest of Telstra, and nowhere was this more true than in his core electorate- rural
Oh- Joyce will claim that he extracted promises from the government, with “future funds” and service guarantees. Anyone what to have a punt as to how long these will last?
Anyone?
As much as he patted himself on the back over this, the truth is that he was simply out muscled. The Prime Minister set his premier attack dog, Bill Heffernan, onto him, and Barnaby folded like a WA Salvage tresle-table.
Then there was the IR bill. I think the funniest line of the year was Barnaby claiming to have “saved Christmas” for the people of
He did nothing of the sort. The beauty of the new IR bill is that all of the peripheries are meaningless. Everything that claims to “protect” rights of employees is absolutely meaningless.
You know why? No unfair dismissal.
Tell me- if you are asked to work on Christmas Day (or any other day, for that matter), and you refuse (which, supposedly, is your right) how long do you think it will be before you are told that you are being replaced “because you aren’t fitting in with the team”, or some other nonsensical reason?
You will have to do as you are told, when you are told to do so. That is the major thrust of these laws. Everything else is just smoke-filled, wine bar crap.
“Barnaby Claus” folded again. He made sure that he could save face, but he is like a papier-mâché flak-jacket- looks good, but there is nothing of substance to speak of.
That said, you have to give the retard his due. For a first-term Senator, he has had his name in the news far more than anyone else, and in politics, that is half the battle. For that, and that alone, he gets a C.
Australians in
Newsflash, people:
They have 230 million feebs all crammed into a shitload of barely inhabitable islands, while they look across the pond and see 20 million of us in this big, beautiful country.
If you remember nothing else, remember this: If they get the chance, they will screw you to the wall. If you have to go there, leave the gear at home, eh?
One question- why the f—k do you all seem so keen to go there ANYWAY? The people are annoying, the food sucks, you get hepatitis from the tattoos, and the water is dirty. Just what is the great f-ing attraction?
Jesus- go to
Van Nguyen
Shane Warne
Had the best year of his career on the field, and managed to get rid of the missus off the field. He now has all the time in the world to chase chicks, and no one to get pissy at him when his SMS beeper goes off. I see no downside. A.
Wednesday Nights
The People of
At the start of the year, we were faced with the knowledge that a single political party (one that got just 2% more of the primary vote than their opposition) was to have control of both houses of parliament, with the dictatorial powers that come with it. That wasn’t good.
Then, that same government fleeced us out of one BILLION dollars, that was supposed to be for Tsunami relief and reconstruction, but, with the full knowledge and consent of our government, went straight into the pockets of the Indonesian government. (Oh, you didn’t know? Paul Murray wrote a great article on it a few weeks ago- if you need the details, just email me and I’ll talk about it next time…)
We were then robbed of another few billion by the recent “revaluation” of the soon-to-be-sold half of Telstra. Expect the final sale price to be even lower STILL.
We were hit by a wave of ideology, from Voluntary Student Unionism to an IR bill that WILL lead to a good many of you being MUCH worse off.
The best of all, though was the “anti-terror” bill.
(And yes, I know full well that the majority of you LIKE the new laws. More fool you.)
These laws mark the beginning of the end of the true Australian “way of life”. No longer are we the country that people around the world envy, for our easy going, laid back nature. No longer are we able to set ourselves above countries that are restrictive and regressive.
Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those that trade freedom for temporary security deserve neither, and will lose both”. This is the path that we are heading down.
I mean, just look at the forums of this very site. You will see the masses talk about how “if you oppose the new terror laws, you must be a terrorist”.
It is our DUTY as citizens to question our government. Dissent is not a bad thing- quite the opposite. We have to remember that we are led (on BOTH sides of parliament) by people that are more concerned with making sure that they retain their job at the next election than making sure that they actually DO their job right now.
Politicians aren’t some noble species. They are, ALMOST without exception, people who couldn’t function without the political power and influence they wield. They wouldn’t make it in the real world. Hell, they don’t even comprehend the concept of “the real world”.
They continue to support their families by playing the game- not by doing the right thing.
Tell me- knowing all this, why the hell would you expect me to blindly follow these people, based on nothing but a “trust us”?
These laws are BAD. They are totally unnecessary, and they restrict our freedoms and rights, and piss all over the notion of the presumption of innocence- which is a basic need of a democracy.
Do you want to know WHY you like these laws?
Easy- FEAR.
You are scared of these shadowy “terrorists” that want to destroy our way of life. You are scared of the fact that there is a bewilderingly minute chance that you, or your family, will be blown up by some madman with a death wish.
The government (and you’re not alone- governments everywhere are taking advantage in the same way) knows this, and they know that the best way to increase their power is to exploit this fear.
It isn’t new- hell, we went through forty years of being afraid of the communists. Remember how we had to be on our toes, lest we allow some dastardly Ruskie to destroy our founding principles? Tell me- how many of you were killed by the “Red Terror”?
Governments, particularly arch-conservative ones, NEED to have an enemy. They need to be able to show that they, and they ALONE, will protect us from the bad people. This is how they govern.
The truth is this: Yes, if you are decidedly unlucky, you MAY be blown to bits by an Islamic terrorist. You MAY have friends or family that suffer that fate. The chances are infinitely small, but it just MIGHT happen.
And yes, we DO need our Federal and State Police out there, looking for the small things, and trying to stop these people. They have done this for years, and there is no reason that they are suddenly unable to do it without destroying our freedoms.
What you all need to realise is that there isn’t a law in the world that can extinguish this possibility. If a whacko wants to put some C4 in his backpack and blow up a train, the only thing that will stop him is luck.
Yep. That’s right. LUCK. If the police get lucky, they’ll stop him. If they don’t, well, they won’t, and people will die- maybe even you.
What’s the point of all of this? Well, the point is that if spend your life worrying about all the microscopic chances that you might die, you may as well have not lived. Live your life. Don’t be scared of the shadows. Don’t fear the unknown.
