Reuters Poll Trend is back in business, presumably resuming its old methods of providing a weighted aggregate of results from Newspoll, Morgan and ACNielsen. As such it tells us nothing we didn’t already know, but its trend line is a handy thing to have. The current finding combines three weeks of results and has Labor’s two-party lead at 56.6-43.4, down from 57.3-42.7 previously.
Couple of legal matters to attend to:
• A legal challenge is proceeding against Labor’s 74-vote win in the seat of Chatsworth at the March 21 Queensland election. The LNP cites incidents of double voting and a strong overall result for Labor on absent votes as evidence of fraud. I’ve got a hat waiting to be eaten if the challenge is upheld.
• Gary Clark, husband of the former Lindsay MP Jackie Kelly, has been given the maximum fine of $1100 and ordered to pay more than $2000 in costs for his role in the distribution of fake pamphlets purporting to be from the “Islamic Australia Federation” in the week before the federal election. The ABC reports Magistrate Geoff Bradd aptly observing it was “difficult to think of a worst case of breaching the electoral act”, for which the penalties would seem to need strengthening.
• Note posts below on the latest state Newspoll results for Western Australia and South Australia.
423 Comments
ltep
Please tell me you are not seriously suggesting that it is not in my interest for my wife to earn $35,000.
Psephos
If that is the case, why has Rudd banned his Minister’s from employing family members. And taxpayers aren’t paying staffers “to do whatever the MP wants”. They are not his/her personal slaves, although it seems that is how they are treated.
SNIP: See article 2 of comment moderation guidelines – The Management.
The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) guidelines on Conflict of Interest state clearly ‘there is nothing unusual or necessarily wrong in having a conflict of interest. How it is dealt with is the important thing’.
I think I heard Bob Brown saying that the Green Senators electorate allowances were paid into a “party fund”?
Is this a better way? Fund the party not the individual member?
An MP is given an allocation of public money to employ electorate staff. Their duties are not defined – what they do is entirely at the discretion of the MP. In fact, an MP’s job is not defined either, apart from attending parliament. If an MP chooses to spend his time in the south of France, and directs his staff to spend their time organising his stamp collection, that is entirely his business. Only the voters can judge whether that was appropriate conduct for their MP. In practice, most MPs spend most of their time working to get themselves and their party elected or re-elected, and themselves promoted, and their staff spend most of their time doing whatever will further that objective. I do not see what “conflict” is involved if the people he employs to do that are his relatives, his friends, his factional allies or people he picks at random off the street.
To get the press off his back.
It makes no difference to the issue under discussion. It’s just spending public money for party purposes as a group rather than individually.
J-D
Yes, if you can keep it quiet about your spouse’s 35 grand you got her from the public trough, then no problem.
That’s right though – there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with a conflict of interest, and there are ways of dealing with many of them. The age-old local councillors’ trick of absenting oneself from a meeting during a vote on your development application is one example – although as shown recently in Wollongong, this doesn’t always remove all conflicts of interest!
And employing your spouse from the public purse isn’t one of those conflicts that can be simply ‘dealt with’.
I reckon the Member for Robertson would be a bit more choosy in the staff she employs.
Psephos
Or is it because it prevents the sort of unethical behaviour that may well suffer the consequence you mention:
Crikey, it’s no wonder we need corruption bodies when the level of ethical awarenes among political types is apparently so appalling.
If you object to this arrangement, the correct course is to argue for the abolition of paid electorate staff, not try to regulate who those staff are. That would be a logically consistent position. Arguing that it is immoral to employ your wife with public money to put party flyers in envelopes but OK to employ random person X to do so is ridiculous.
lol indeed ruawake – very good! Now don’t get me started on BN. You know I live in the electorate.
Absolutely Fabulous!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1184803/Joanna-Lumley-poised-victory-Gurkhas-win-battle-live-UK.html
It was shameful and purely racist act by the previous British Govts. A Gurkha corporal died last week in Afghanistan.
What sort of unethical behaviour does it prevent?
Again we come back to whether you are happy with nepotism using public funds. I disagree with nepotism. Many politicians from both sides are happy with it, as are many bludgers.
I’m not talking about corruption, I’m talking about how an MP chooses to spend their time, and their staff’s time. That’s entirely a matter between the MP and the voters.
Employing one’s relatives is only bad if it is done to the exclusion of better qualified people. What constitutes “qualifications” for the job of working for an MP is entirely a matter for the MP’s discretion, since the job has no formal definition. If loyalty and discretion are the primary criteria, as they frequently are, one’s relatives may well be the best qualified people.
The Reuters Poll Trend shows that Brendan was doing a better job than Malcolm.
Agreed. No wonder MPs have blurred vision when it comes to public funds and personal funds.
OK I’m off, so further discussion on this fascinating subject will have to wait until tomorrow.
No it won’t wait for your return. We can carry on perfectly well without your presence.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/20/dems-hire-speed-reader-for-climate-change-bill/
Lots of individuals and organisations are given public funds to get a job done
and it is mostly left up to them to decide who to employ to do it. Eg, a doctor may get medicare funds to look after the sick in a country town. Do we care if she employs her husband as the receptionist? Eg, a small business gets a grant to allow marketing of its products in Japan. Do we care if the business owner employs his wife to go on a trade mission with the funds? Eg, the education dept employs a consultant to write a report on how to get more students doing maths. Do we care if she uses some of her money to get her kids to compile lists of school addresses?
These are all organisations using public funds to employ relatives. An electoral office is just the same.
From Crikey:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/21/beermat-mum-follows-media-script-to-perfection/
From an unmentionable place called Phuket, where locals got a better name for it. Because that what the tourists, especially Aussie tourists, do, all night long.
Amen.
Can anyone decipher Bob Brown on AM this morning?
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2576726.htm
+1.
I’m a bit horrified myself. I was expecting the “Yes it’s a bit dodgy but humble MPs are poorly paid and need a few perks.” Instead we got the “Nepotism is good. Nepotism works” argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7upG01-XWbY
Yes, we should care, as would the ICAC in NSW – that, I’m afraid, is corrupt.
It’s this sort of self-righteousness that is really annoying. Some people just don’t agree with you. It doesn’t make you morally superior.
Ruawake
Reads fine for me. Which bit confused you?
I read that he wants a set of regulations put in place that dictate what sort of things the allowance is for, so the MP can assess if they are spending the money appropriately.
And he wants MPs to have to say where they spent it and have an auditor look at it.
Diogenes – Do you think in these straightened financial times, now the markets are wrecked, that the Gordon Gecko mantra “Greed is Good!” has been replaced with “Nepotism Is Good!” because the public purse is the only place left from which to extract money?
Thanks JV 27
I realised that my use of the word employ was ambiguous there. I do not mean that the consultant is an employee of the education department. I mean that she offers and advertises education consultancy services and is given public money in exchange for producing a report under a contract. I do not believe it is corrupt for her to run her own consultancy business as she sees fit and uses the funds in the most efficient way possible which may involve getting some paid help from relatives for some simple drudge work.
JV,
As always, so much written, so little said.
Itep
Being right is different to being self-righteous. On this issue Dio is the former, but not the latter.
It was this bit that confused me.
An electorate allowance, surely, is totally about servicing the electorate? Bob admits that he does not spend all of his allowance on the electorate.
Dr Good
Fair enough – I presume that’s your draft submission to the Commission? Good luck.
Diog, you better warn Mrs. D. they are heading your way and looking for you.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25516758-5001021,00.html
I think this idea of having politicians have to account in detail for these electorate office allowances is madness. It will be an administrative nightmare with all sorts of opportunities for witch hunts, small tawdry scandals, arguments over the exact meanings of guidelines and employment for lawyers.
Instead, just pay the allowances as extra salary, get them to pay tax and they can spend it on whatever (legal) things they want.
Ruawake
Well… Not really… Remember they’re all Senators so they don’t have an electorate like a lower-house MP.
He is also pointing out the thing that you are complaining about – that there is no regulation over what the money is for nor where is should be spent. He makes the point that without these guidelines there’s no way of knowing what is the ‘correct’ way to spend it. Remember in the current system it’s apparently ok for the MP to just keep the cash.
Dr Good.
Agreed 100%
Dr Good
Nice false analogy.
Once the Medicare funds are paid to the doctor, they are his/her personal income from personal exertion. He can spend them how he wishes. That is completely different to an MP being given $35,000 of public money to employ staff.
ltep
Most people who have things pointed out to them that they disagree with find it uncomfortable and annoying. Especially if they are defending something like nepotism. Your level of discomfort is irrelevant to the merits of the argument.
Dio and co are right. It’s undesirable for MPs to be able to use public money to employ their immediate family. I’m not sure that it’s a conflict of interest but it’s certainly a rort.
If an MP wants to use his/her own money to pay Mum to look after things, fine, go ahead. If a Party is prepared to pay for this so that one of its number feels suitably cared for, so be it. But the taxpayer shouldn’t have to fork out for this.
Senators have electorates – they are called States.
If the MP was given extra taxpayer funds to employ someone else to do the work because the family member sat around bludging, then that would be wrong, unethical and corrupt.If the MP is happy with the work of the family member and is being paid no more than the taxpayer funds, then that is OK.
Dr Good
I think a set of guidelines would be nice though. Maybe a list of things not to do with it… Like keep it. Perhaps left over money should go to charity?
Ruawake
Yes… I am sure Bob Brown and the Senators spend all that money in the States and Territories they don’t represent!
Perhaps they have given it all to communities in the Northern Territory?
In this case the MP is not creating an extra position, the position already exists, the employment of a family member is just that, an employee in a position that exists.
Except that this has been going on for decades, in good times and in bad.
IF the MP judges that his/her spouse/daughter/son is the best person for the job – and honestly, if your spouse/daughter/son can’t earn $35 000 doing something else, ‘best’ is possibly not a good description – then that’s up to them. It’s then up to them to justify it to their electorate.
If their electorate thinks its OK, that’s their decision.
Most councils I know spend lots on council jaunts. Ours didn’t. When a new councillor started doing so, the other councillors wanted to intervene. I pointed out that he wasn’t responsible to us, he was responsible to the ratepayers. The most we could do was inform them about it, and if they didn’t like it, they wouldn’t re elect them.
He justified the jaunts on the grounds of networking and skill development.
He may have been right, and the rest of us wrong.
I try not to rush to judgement on things, especially in areas where I have little or no expertise.
I have been an electorate officer. You’d only do it for love.
Astrobleme, sometimes I think you have difficulties with comprehension.
Bob Brown and Christine Milne’s constituents are the voters of Tasmania. Therefore, in theory, their electoral allowances should be spent servicing the voters of Tasmania.
Whereas I’m sure what happens is that part of those allowances do go to funding party activities in other states, where they don’t have senate representation.
I’m not necessarily criticising them for that, although it is surely unethical to spend money intended to service a state which you do represent on one you don’t.
But, as previously established, I don’t know anything about ethics.
Dio 40
You’re wrong about GPs. The costs of running a practice are taken out of medicare (and other) earnings as tax deductions with the GP only having to pay tax on what is left afterwards. So the practice employees are effectively being paid directly with public money. I also know it is surprisingly common practice for GP’s relatives to be receptionists or practice managers.
Zoomster
Did you read what Ruawake was writing? If so you would have seen I was being sarcastic. I was pointing out that it was extremely unlikely that the greens didn’t spend the money in the states they don’t represent. There are Greens from other states than Tasmania too.
Also note that it is Bob Brown who wants to have guidelines and accountability here – he is asking for guidance. He wants there to be accountability.
Oops edit that post above to read:
“I was pointing out that it was extremely unlikely that the greens didn’t spend the money in the states they represent.”
#49, the doktors (GPs, Specialists etc) are the biggest rip-off merchants of the public money.
Astrobleme 45
I disagree. If we do change it so it is their salary then why do we need guidelines on how it is spent?
Of course, there may be cases of soon-to-be-retiring MPs who close down their electorate offices and buy a holiday home in NZ with all their (larger) salary. So, to answer my own question and agree with you to some extent, their should be some required minimum service levels imposed on MP’s electorate offices.
OK, but how is it ethical to spend money intended for you to use servicing the State you represent on political activities in other States?
Surely Bob Brown doesn’t need parliament to advise him as to whether that’s ethical or not?
BTW, on prior discussion: yes, nepotism happens in electorate offices, but I do know it’s not seen as the ‘done thing’. I was asked to report how often the MP’s daughter worked there to party officers, because they were worried about the ethics of it. However, I did have to have and keep the absolute trust of my MP so couldn’t do that.
Dr Good
Why would it be their salary? I was suggesting making the allowance only usable for the electorate or else for charity. It would then never be salary.
Astrobleme, you’ve gone from a triple negative to a double negative and I’m still not sure I understand you.
Dr Good
No. The doctor gets paid by Medicare, the private health funds, gaps from his patients and bribes from the drug companies (just added that last one for fun). That’s his income.
The doctor pays his staff and insurance etc. That’s his expenses.
His staff aren’t paid “directly” by public funds. They are paid by the doctor.
The Media is preying for a UK style scandal – Bob Brown could not help himself. He waffled on AM, the only reason they interviewed him and the only reason he put out his stooopid press release was to try to invent a polly scandal.
Astrobleme
an MP has a huge workload facing them. They can:
- use their allowance to employ somebody short term to do this work:
or
- do it themselves, staying up late etc, and keep the allowance saved.
Can’t see that, if they choose to do the latter, that’s unethical in any way.
It’s not like they get overtime.
So Dio, who pays the electorate office staff? Is it the MP from electoral office allowances or is it directly by public funds?
Zoomster
You are either deliberately confusing my words or you are unable to comprehend the previous discussion.
And of course you need to document what is and isn’t ethical.
Dio, I can back up what Dr. Good is saying about GPs employing family members as receptionists, more often, as practice managers. I can think of about 10 or so, straight off, without even trying, in our catchment area of about 400,000 people.
I have a lot of experience in the practical application of ethical principles, and rathe rthan a ‘rush to judgment’ what I am doing is examining the issue in terms of the ethical question: “What ought to be done?”
I’m sorry but the ethical standard won’t stretch to accommodate the misuse of public funds just because electorate offices are familiar territory, and otherwise somehow inoffensive.
The ministerial guidelines are good public policy reflecting ethical principles. They were adopted by the government. I would have thought labor people would accept their leader’s approach on it.
someone suggested the government thinks they are worthless and only had them written as a sop to interfering journalists and, I presume, community do-gooders. If that’s the case then there are some other more hair-raising ethical questions.
If the ethical rules are correct – and they reflect general ethical standards of today – then they ethical part applies to all members, even if the ‘rule’ part only applies to ministers. Therefore, logic dictates the conclusion that it is unethical for members to use public funds to employ family members.
Zoomster
I know you don’t understand me, but that’s not really important.
Finns
Fortunately, that is not the argument we are having. You no doubt saw that Mrs D agreed with you on that.
I saw that the eye specialists had the Medicare rebate for a cataract operation reduced from $800 to $400 and they are really sooky about it. They do 15 cataracts on a list often. They’re not getting a lot of sympathy from their colleagues. The sad thing is they will just pass the $400 they lose per operation to the patients as a gap.
And logic dictates that it is unethical to use funds intended to service your electorate to service other electorates, but apparently it’s cool when the Greens do it.
Zoomster
I am not arguing from an ethical viewpoint. That’s Diogenes.
I am arguing for a set of guidelines about what is and isn’t ok to spend the money on, and for it to be documented. It’s not that hard to understand.
Zoomster
“And logic dictates that it is unethical to use funds intended to service your electorate to service other electorates, but apparently it’s cool when the Greens do it.”
You’re some kind of spambot or something? You are arguing something that I didn’t say.
You just invent things and argue them with me, don’t you?
Astrobleme – can I point out that you made a post that didn’t make sense, containing a triple negative.
By the time I responded to it, you had posted again, rewording it so that it’s now a double negative.
I’m not blaming you – or me – but sometimes by the time a post appears, half a dozen other posts have come online, and it looks like you’re responding to something you haven’t actually read. (That’s complicated, I hope you follow it …that is, I’m responding to post 86, but by the time I post, my post is post 98 and there are posts in between from the person I responded to at 86. It then looks like I’m responding to a latter post).
It’s the double negative one I’m referring to, could you make it clearer please?
HSO
That is true and you’ll notice I didn’t say I agreed with it. I frankly thing it’s a rort too, although it’s their own money. It can be used as a tax dodge as well, eg pay your wife $30,000 which counts as a tax deduction at the high rate the doctor would pay, and the wife only pays it at a low rate.
Our practice has a “no partners” policy, which is actually our only business rule. It’s mainly due to having partners around stuffing things up, fighting with staff etc. It’s bad business practice.
Zoomster
This is pretty clear:
“I was pointing out that it was extremely unlikely that the greens didn’t spend the money in the states they represent.”
Or, it is extremely likely the Greens spend the money in the States they represent.
Dr Good
The public money is given to the MP for the express purpose of a salary for a staffer.
68
Astrobleme, please don’t get insulting.
We’re victims of cross posting, that’s all.
I responded to what I thought you’d said, not having any way of knowing that meantime you’d retracted it.
I have asked you to clarify what you mean by the retracted post, so that I DON”T mis understand you.
Play nicely, please.
I realise it’s an honest mistake, but really I think you should be apologising.
My GP employs his wife, or maybe she employs him. They are both GPs working in the same practice. (Love that term
)
But the pharmacy next door pays their rent and maintains their patient records – there is a sliding door from the “medical centre” into the pharmacy. So Diog your phama joke may apply.
70
Diog, I don’t agree with it either, and have pointed out that (internally) neither does the party.
However, given the low salary, the need to trust staff absolutely and the difficulty getting staff in the first place, I think that in some cases it’s almost unavoidable.
So not ideal, not recommended, but sometimes there aren’t many options.
Diogenes, I can see good reasons, mainly from the point of view, of how things going horribly wrong from family conflict or business conflict or both, to not employ family in an electorate office, or anywhere.
Sits patiently while incredibly erudite post is held in moderation.
Zoomster
Very sorry, didn’t mean to cause you any grief.
So you think it’s extremely likely that every cent of Bob Brown’s senate allowance, in the days when he was the only Green senator in existence, went to running his electorate office in Tasmania?
Dio, I maintain that it is the same for medicare funds given to a GP. As you agree that is not all salary. Some of it is direct untaxed funds that will be used for the employment of practice managers etc. And it is common for relatives to be employed with it.
My other examples of companies and consultants using public funds to employ relatives are also very common (despite JV’s outrage).
So it would open a huge can of worms if we really had to have general guidelines about the spending of public funds, by subcontractors like MPs, GPs, consultants and any company on relatives.
78
Thanks, Astro.
Still suffering from sore throat and incredibly grumpy.
Hey, Diog, you owe me big time – any advice??
Zoomster
Yes.
You may not be aware but the Greens were quite fractured in the olden days. In fact the WA Greens only recently joined the Australian Greens. I am not sure of the fine details though.
Aarrghhh, Astro, I thought you said you’d read all my posts earlier…when I said this in earlier thread I was howled down!
The origins of the term ‘nepotism’ are interesting. It came from the Latin for’ nephew’ – the popes in the Middle Ages started bestowing succession on their nephews, having no children of their own -being themselves chaste.
But
So nepotism has been wrong in principle in the eyes of the establishment since 1692, but STILL party people here want to defend it.
Instead of nepotism, these days members of the Catholic Church conduct ‘anatomy lessons’:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25517914-29277,00.html
Does employing a relative automatically count as nepotism? What if they are, in fact, ably suited for the job? Noting that a political staffer requires certain unique attributes such as loyalty and close knowledge of a party’s policies and principles.
jv, not only party people but most businesses I know of.
It’s actually an interesting argument:
A plumber and his wife are equal partners in their business, and – though he does over 80% of the work – all profits from the business are split between them 50/50.
This lessens their tax liability considerably, compared either to the plumber declaring 100% of the profit or 80% as income.
Technically, then, this nepotistic arrangement is funded (at least in part) by the taxpayer, as tax foregone makes up part of the monies received by the plumber and his wife.
Surely the plumber is using nepotism as a way of lining his pocket? Where’s the public outrage? yet this situation occurs in almost every business I can think of locally.
…and I’d be willing to be that my hypothetical plumber, reading in the daily paper about MPs employing spouses, is shaking his head and wondering why politicians are allowed to get away with it….
(Well, I know he is, because I made him up, but you get what I mean…)
British cabinet is considering a wide range of constitutional reforms in the wake of the MP’s expenses scandal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/20/gordon-brown-parliament-constitutional-reform
I was thinking about this the other day, actually, and I was wondering how different the British (and even European) social and political landscape would have been in the 30’s and 40’s had they had preferential voting as opposed to FPP. Mainly because of the various left-wing parties that splintered the vote. However, I haven’t really looked at results from that period enough to suggest things would be radically different.
Yes, ShowsOn, charming aren’t they – but at least they’re chaste.
That’s a different category of rort I reckon – still a rort though. But it doesn’t really have the characteristics of classic nepotism. Of course, both are unethical, even if the tax minimisation rort is allowed by law.
Yes very chaste.
In Ireland they had a nine year investigation, here we got a nine second mea culpa, but think of all the good they have done.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/21/2577458.htm?section=justin
Wonder if the earth moved for those poor kiddies.
Could a pollie employee their partner and other family members and pay them more than their electoral allowance and claim the difference as a tax deduction. Effectively income splitting?, which normal taxpayers cannot do.
I wonder what Baldwin does with his electoral allowance because a lot of the glossy stuff he sends to us is paid for and authorised by Bill Heffernan.
Heffernan lives the other side of the GDV to this electorate. Do other Senators do the same.
Correct me if I am wrong – the base electorate allowance is $32,000 or about $615 a week.
Surely Bob has better things to worry about?
94 – sorry meant GDR – Great Dividing Range
Ra – I heard BB say on a-pac that he has often used his electoral allowance to give handouts to some person in trouble with paying a bill. He puts it in a separate account he said.
zoomster
Yesterday astro perfectly summarised several hours of argument. Today you have.
For the throat, I’d try gargling aspirin 900mg dissolved in a half glass of water then swallowed.
Although I’m a Dawkinsian atheist, I feel obliged to point out that paedophilia is LESS common amongst Catholic priests than it is in the general population. There’s a selection bias, in that when a priest gets caught it’s big news and everyone remembers the occupation but when a plumber (for eg) does, it doesn’t get reported and if it was the occupation is never remembered.
When priests offend, they tend to have more victims than average though.
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/labels.htm
For the throat, if it persists, seek medical advice from your preferred primary care doc.
Sorry Diog – I realise you are trying to help.
I run a site where people die because they ignore or hope things will go away, I also realise that my site deals with people who have very compromised immune systems.
But if you are sick – get professional help.
Diog, i realise you are not arguing about that. But it does not alter the fact that your fellow doktors are the biggest rif-off merchants of public money.
The politicians are amateurs compared with your fellow doktors. so stop picking on them.
Back after hackist dinner…
Most of what priests get caught for is not paedophilia anyway, it is having sex with teenagers. Paedophilia, properly defined, is a sexual attraction to pre-pubertal children, and is quite rare. Sexual attraction to teenagers, however, is very common, and is mostly what gets people like teachers and priests into trouble.
Hmm
seems the wheels are slowly turning here as well
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/21/2577458.htm?section=justin
British Labour, presumably seeking a diversion, is talking about sweeping electoral reform.
Profile of courage.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/SE%2BAsia/Story/STIStory_379789.html
Ms. Suu Kyi was still looking good and dignify, even after 13 years of detention. She puts most of the politicians into shame. She could do with a little bit more nepotism by having her family with her.
Agree Finns – has anyone said definitely who the bloke was who swam to her house. Last I heard he was a mentally ill Vietnam vet or was that just paper talk.
Psephos
That NYT article makes exactly that point. The terminology is interesting. It seems that ‘paedophilia’ is the term for the rare predatory sicko who abuses prepubertal children. The term “pederast” is used for the attraction to post-pubertal children but is now only used in a homosexual context. The best term for attraction to adolescent but underage children is “ephebophilia”.
Another interesting point in that argument is that a higher than normal number of Catholic priests are homosexual which is a bit of a silent issue. I suspect it’s like the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the US Army.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/21/2577472.htm?section=justin
Hypocrisy thy name is Liberal
Finns,
A great woman of our time.
Also, given your previous posts about democracy in Asia, elsewhere, here’s an intersting post form LP re a new book about the topic.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/05/21/power-poverty-and-democracy/#more-8376
BH – FYI
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KE16Ae02.html
Anyone else noticed that the ‘nodding goon behind the ministerial talking head syndrome’ in TV interviews has re-appeared? Nicola Roxon had some poor sap stationed behind her last night obviously standing on a gaffer-tape cross on the floor looking ludicrously intent and interested. He was like one of those nodding dogs on the back shelf of a car.
I suppose this is some media consultant’s magic formula to ‘reinforce the message’, but how long can they keep it up before people throw a shoe through the screen? In my case it won’t be much longer. It wouldn’t be so bad if the ministers were saying something worth reinforcing. .. Yes it would.
Well Gus – Ifeel a bit sick reading that comment. I watched Insight last Tues pm re refugees. Absolutely heartrending and made all the more miserable by the woeful Kevin Andrews and Sharmian Stone.
So I can’t bring myself to open that link because I might put my computer at risk.
GG, yes, there is a very very fine line between “democracy” and “democrazy”. there is only one letter in it.
Anything to avoid a sweeping electoral defeat I guess.
I dont think that is possible now Grog.
David Cameron will be the PM of Britain next year, id almost put it in the id eat my hat category.
Also brighter news for Conservatives is that Angela Merkel is a monty to win another term this September.
240,000 megalitres of water have flowed into SE Qld dams in the past 3 days. Look out NSW its heading your way.
Fair enough, but on the other hand, people like priests, teachers, police officers or government representatives have greater authority, because they are in positions of power and thus have a higher duty of care. So it is entirely appropriate that the media holds people in such positions of power to extremely high standards.
Sure, but the story I referred to was about a priest who abused an 11 year old boy, then said it court that it was an “anatomy lesson”. I don’t understand why when they are caught they don’t just be honest and plead guilty.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25517914-29277,00.html
Great footage of Malcolm Turnbull on ABC News being told to leave a shopping centre because he didn’t have approval to go schmoozing.
Bea tme to it ShowsOn.
Here’s the story from PerthNow:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,27574,25517175-2761,00.html
Shows On,
Turnbull apparently wanted to ask them how confident they were about spending money in this economic climate.
Certainly it is a diversion, but if this rorting results in the U.K. finally having an elected upper house, then all that stolen taxes would’ve served a useful public service.
You’re right there Glen. Is should have said Anything to try to avoid a sweeping electoral defeat. Or at least looking like you’re trying to avoid a sweeping electroal defeat. Because of course there would be those in the party who don’t think Brown is even looking like he’s trying to look like he is trying to try and avoid sweeping electroal defeat.
Yeah, he was there to remind them that we are in a recession, so they should have no need to be in a shopping centre.
Alan Kohler had some interesting graphs showing that the Chinese have completely cut steel production, but their iron ore exports are sky rocketing.
Reform the lower house hey? They should bring in preferential voting so all those Lib Dem votes aren’t wasted in seats they don’t win. That’ll take a few seats away from the conservatives!
SO
I agree that teachers, doctors, priests, cops etc should be held to a higher standard of conduct because of the abuse of trust issues. It’s important that this behaviour is highlighted by the media when one of those does it. I just didn’t want everyone to think the Church is full of paedophiles.
ruawake
One thing that was stressed to us when we became doctors was that a really good way to become popular was to send home a haematology patient with a sore throat without calling their consultant. You would get to meet the coroner, the head of the hospital, your medical defense lawyer, the Medical Board and the haematologist you didn’t call, who would be the scariest of the lot.
Showy,
Confucius said: “Buy when it’s cheap and stock-up”
Which is part of the reason supporters argue that the clergy loving kiddies is in the same proportion as the general population.
Many do not admit, are not caught, or the kiddies are paid off with a keep quite clause in the settlement.
Go onto some of the sites relating to the clergy in the USA and the figures are around 10%, which is way higher than the general population.
One would hope, given the findings in other countries that we would do more than brush it aside here.
But I don’t think the gutless one is up to it.
But aren’t most iron ore contracts still at the old high prices? Have the Chinese put in a last round of orders at the high prices to buy some good will to make the new prices even lower?
The Australia reported today that the new contracts will be about 45% lower than those from last year.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25517820-643,00.html
Showson – did you mean iron ore imports are exploding – does that mean they are getting it from us.
Just watched Clarke & Dawe on 7.30 Report – hilarious takeoff on Hockey doing his “I sincerely and honestly hope they are right but ……” it was classic buffoonery.
castle,
All rigidly controlled polls with proper sampling methodology?
Making wild unsubstantiated allegations here are we?
Anything new to add to the discussion or just a rehash of your personal prejudices?
Not just any old shopping centre – the Karrinyup Shopping Centre, where I spent my youth as a mall rat (as they say in the States).
Wow, has this site gone feral, or what! As someone who rarely posts, I am not as emotionally invested as some here appear to be. What’s happened to tolerance and respect for one another’s views. Sure, disagree by all means but it seems to me that the personal attacks have increased in ferocity and that reasoned debate and logic has diminished a tad.
I realised that when I entered the murky world of a political blog (much like politics in the real world) there would be a bit of argy bargy but please could it be reined in a bit. I want to be informed about the political issues facing this country and the world. I wanted a blog which represented diverse views and allowed such diverse views to be expressed and debated in a civil manner. Being passionate about defending one’s position in a discussion is completely understandable, being disrespectful towards each other’s views is not.
Obama protects the US from home-grown terrorists.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/new-york-city-temple-bomb_n_206140.html
Yeah, Kohler put up this chart:
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/6583/irony.jpg
It is very strange, they are buying all this iron ore that they currently aren’t converting to steel!
My understanding was that the new contracts don’t start until July, so that means they are buying iron ore at the last year price, when if they waited a few months they could get it for nearly half price.
Maybe they are pretending that they have bought a whole heap to keep the mining companies excited about how big their next lot of orders will be, sot hey won’t be so sad that the price has nearly halved?
Pegasus
well said!
great gravatar BTW
Pegasus
We’re just in training for the real Showdown when Hillary becomes the first SOS to run against the sitting President for Democrat preselection. That’s when it’ll get interesting.
If you could survive the US elections here, you could survive anything. Sadly, we lost quite a few good men and women in that campaign.
Sometimes the best political commentary is on the sports pages.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25513970-5001030,00.html
Thanks Showson – perhaps it’s to help sway Swannie’s decision re Chinalco but I have my fingers crossed that they intend to start ramping up the production line.
Fancy William being a mall rat – wonder what his Mum said altho she doesn’t seem to have anything to complain about now. My kids hated it when I caught them at the mall – what an embarrassment.
Diog, dont rejoice too soon. Obama Admin ( and Hillary, shame on her) is up to no good. It’s the Great Satan up to its old trick again.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KE21Df04.html
William as a young ‘un
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eVo7aBze1w&feature=related
Grog 122
Sir Humpy Appleby would be proud of that post
Dio i hate to think of the candidate the Republicans nominate for 2012.
I wont support them unless they pick Pawlenty the rest are no hopers and bible bashers.
Glen, you should know by now that this isn’t a forum to discuss your porn collection.
Miss the war do we Field Marshall Diogenes ??
Only 3.5 years and we can start it again Gus – hope Juliem will still have her contacts in the US then. It made for interesting stuff.
“It was the best of times and the worst of times”
I reckon Condi will throw her hat in, doubt they will go for a Palin type
Whether hilary would want to go around is a nother matter altogether
Wasn’t there a splinter site at some stage? Does it still exist?
Glen
Weaver agrees with you (and so do I). Huntsman looked like a good bet. Whether it was Obama or Hillary who chose him, they’ve really hurt the Repugs. Cheney seems to have taken over from Limbaugh and Joe the Plumber as the Leader of the Republican Party.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/18/john-weaver-gop-headed-fo_n_204695.html
Diogenes
Don’t mention the war – my twitch is coming back:
Major: Bunch of Krauts, that’s what they are, all of ‘em. Bad eggs!
Basil: Yes well, forgive and forget, Major… God knows how, the bastards!
Daily Alpha Fandango Search Engine Report:
Query: Nepotism
So they have been arguing about it for 347 years.
Fox News promoting book being written by Sarah Palin ready for release before next race starts. They say she will be a big contender – Greta whatsername is pushing it.
Fun ahead.
Did it just for you Glen
(though I think it was actually Sir Arnold GCMG who said the line)
Apparently Joe the Plumber has quit the Republican party. That says it all really, the Republican party isn’t good enough for HIM!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/07/joe-the-plumber-quitting_n_198920.html
Obama v Palin would be a landslide to the Democrats. Something like Reagan achieved in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984
Yes, Joe was concerned with the GOP supporting all those Stimpacs. The fact that about 2 voted for them and more than a hundred voted against them sort of eluded him. I’m sure the GOP is glad to see the end of him.
Palin is the one to watch, along with Romney. Here are the odds;
Mitt Romney +400
Sarah Palin +400
Bobby Jindal +700
Mike Huckabee +700
Tim Pawlenty +700
Mark Sanford +1400
Charlie Crist +1400
Newt Gingrich +1600
David Petraeus +4000
Jeb Bush +5000
John McCain +5000
Kay Bailey Hutchison +5000
Ron Paul +5000
I’d take Crist and then Pawlenty out of those.
Good post from Bernard Keane on Rudd’s media performance of late:
Seriously guys, don’t be ashamed of the debt – embrace it! Convince us that we need it (because we sure as heck do). Take the public with you. Sigh.
But then I know bugger all about media spin etc. Through out 2007 I wanted Rudd to fire up and go Howard and Costello, and yet he just kept right on refusing to bite.
Smarter than me I guess.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/21/pms-media-deceptions-treat-voters-like-children/
Obviously Fox are secretely in cahoots with Obama.
Diog
Have you got a source for the statistic you gave for the amount of sexual predation amongst the RC religious?
The rest of you can start to read the detail here http://www.independent.ie/national-news/state-of-shame-1746476.html
The sooner Australian governments stop subsidising these animals (RC and others) in their so called educational institutions, hospitals, employment services we will all be better off.
“Girls were routinely sexually abused, often by more than one person at a time, the report said, in “dormitories, schools, motor vehicles, bathrooms, staff bedrooms, churches, sacristies, fields, parlors, the residences of clergy, holiday locations and while with godparents and employers.”
Ryan Report:
30 page executive summary at http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/2009/CICA-ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Full report: http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/
BH @ 150
I suspect that the “Greta” you mentioned from Fox is Greta Van Susteren, whose father Urban van Susteren was a great friend and supporter of Senator Joe McCarthy. I suppose children can’t be held to blame for their parents, but it’s funny how the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree, a bit like Eric and Great Uncle Otto.
I really don’t think the abused really care that much when it comes to fine language points. Perhaps the grand old church can get a few re-branding hints from the grand old party.
Q&A starts now for those in the eastern states.
That’s your second tasteless comment in as many days.
There are some leering loons in the Q & A audience tonight.
Penny Wong interesting on the care with which pollies approach media for fear of making a mistake. You can take it as gospel from her, she’s the number one exponent in interviews of ignoring the question and repeating the set lines over and over.
OMG. The Monk’s holier than thou attitude is sickening
Albert Ross
Philip Jenkins, a professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University and the author of “Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis” (Oxford University Press, 1996)
If you closed every institution that had 2% paedophiles, there would be none left.
Diog
Jenkins is a notorious apologist for religious predators.
Evening All,
I’m back …..
Edward, where have you been old son?
Diog, your propensity to defend the indefensible is really amazing. How was your childhood?
Edward!
Spooky.
Have you been lurking for a long time and only just realised people missed you, or were you let out once this site outed that you were missing?
Who opened the crypt?
ESJ
What a coincidence. I was talking about you earlier today. I thought when Studs Terkel passed that we might be getting a visit. How did the re-education go?
Finns
I’m not even offering an opinion. I’m just stating facts and drawing logical conclusions.
Yes I’ve come back Christian Socialist.
Diog, This is not an opinion?
As William Bowe says I am a seasonal malady.
But where is GP tonight? Is he in the audience?
And ‘minister for not yet”. How was that for a good line! But she handled it well.
No. That is a statement of fact given that 2% of the population are paedophiles.
Albert
It wasn’t his study that came up with the figures. He was quoting them. I’ll try to find the original article.
You have been lurking.
Diog, how did 2% of clergy morph into 2% of the population. You are a gymnast as well, amazing.
Bob Ellis was the star on Q & A tonight – he effortlessly and mercilessly ridiculed the governments’ position on the emissions scheme to the point even Mr Abbott swas sympathetic of Ms Wong.
cf the Beer Mat Mum, a minor etymological point.
‘Smoel’ means ‘face’. But I have only heard in the context of ‘Shut your face.’
Good
Then you will play nice
Which western democratic leader’s wife recently left him, complaining that he frequented minors?
(Hint: his popularity rating is, I believe, still higher than that of Rudd).
Q&A was interesting. Noted that Tony Abbot wasn’t willing to use religion as his moral foundation, probable not a good night for it.
Just loved Bod Ellis. Grumpy old man with a sense of humor.
“Penny Wong Minster for not yet”, I bet it sticks.
Boerwar, that’s too easy.
Aww shucks William 181 did you miss me? – does that mean I get a pass when one of the urchins comes crying to momma over a smackdown?
Is that afrikaans, and does it precede kaffir or some other derogatory term??
Gus, ‘Smoel’ – Smiggle, my previous?
And so it should.
Penny was unconsciously quoting John Clarke and Bryan Dawe’s piece last week for a while there.
Boer War,
Mel Gibson
my previous? = my precious
Diogenese
I am with you on nepotism and public funding.
Tax funds should go with specifications that they be spent efficiently and effectively, and should meet certain standards of transparency and equity.
If people can’t be bothered being accountable for these sort of standards they should just knock the money back.
I would extend the principle to publicly listed companies in the private sector where nepotism using shareholder’s funding has cost shareholder’s in some companies hundreds of millions of dollars as it turned out that the kiddies did not have the same business nous as their daddies and mummies.
The Finnigans
I don’t feel that way about my own previous.
GG
LOL. Not even warm.
Gusface
Perhaps.
Except for his silly comment regarding the sex in rugby incident.
ESJ
The very one and the same? Glen and GP have tried but lack a certain je ne sais quoi in the downputtery line. Welcome back.
JV, do tell.
Bob1234
I missed that – as soon as the M Johns question was asked I took a comfort break.
“Hou je smoel” is Dutch not Afrikaans
Cries to momma will be evaluated on the basis of their objective merits.
arent they, like, related ??
Finns
The rate of abused children is hard to be exact about but most estimates are about 20% of girls were abused and about 5% of boys were.
Gus, yup. The Boers were originally Dutch colonists
Oh come now Diogenes, child abuse its so passe as a topic.
What I really want to know is are you having a good recession?
Ellis to Wong:
Diog, thanks for that. Now i know 2% is not = 20% is not = 5%.
I clearly recall you said we would be recessing by last December.
You were wrong by 6 months!
Too much Biltong
Finns
it dont matter to Dio, after all its only numbers….
ESJ
I didn’t bring it up!! And what kills me is that I am one of the most rabidly anti-religion person on the blog and I’m bloody well sticking up for the priests. All the religious bloggers here who bucket me when I make a Dawkinsian comment have deserted me.
I haven’t noticed the GFC except my interest rates are less and I’ve had to buy all these books on economics. (I bought Krugman’s book on depression economics today.)
Albert
I’m getting a bit suspicious of the guy who quoted that study. The only references to it on the internet are from him.
I don’t know, it happened 5 years ago, the New Zealand police did
pursue it, I assume for good reason yet the man that has been tried and convicted by the media. A five year old mess has now dragged in the mans family. I think Tony Abbot was right, do unto others as you would have done unto you. I bet Tony Jones would not like what was done by 4 corners done unto him.
This is too much. I am going to bed.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/priest-says-molestation-was-anatomy-lesson-20090521-bgz1.html
It was me who dun it yr honour. But I was never asserting that ALL priests are paedophiles, that would be stoopid.
fredn,
It’s actually 7 years old.
The real reason wind farms are eeviiil
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/21/2577660.htm?section=justin
It was 7 years ago, and her work mates said she had bragged about being involved in such incidents before with footballers, and showed no signs of ‘trauma’ the day after this one. In fact she was bragging about it this one too. Simply put, she has very little credibility, and yet the ABC in their rush to try and defend 4 Corners pathetic excuse for journalism are still pushing it with a non-consentual slant. It’s sickening.
SNIP: Not off to a good start, ESJ – The Management.
These assertions have been refuted by a 4 Corners press release:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2575275.htm
Figures?
Penny Wong was as dismal as usual on QANDA tonight. Bob Ellis slaughtered her. He managed to get in every major criticism of her in about five cutting quips. And she’s getting slaughtered on the lack of vision meme.
South Korea spent 80% of its stimulus package on the environment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/21/south-korea-enviroment-carbon-emissions
That doesn’t refute what I asserted at all
Cmon WB, it took him all of 58 minutes to contain his vitriolic spiteful post
Sorry William I meant to include “ex” before “Labor” in the unmentionable.
Priests of course remain fair game.
What vitriol? What spite? I love you as a fellow personhood Gusface.
They don’t, actually – I just don’t see anyone treating them as such. Maybe I’ve missed something.
Well sorry, but I think this:
Refutes part of your claim. Moreover, on Media Watch this week, the victim was quoted as saying that she has never even MET some of the people who have accused her of boasting, let alone worked with them!
Ellis came across as a drunk and a bore – someone who pays no respect to the basic ‘rules’ of civilised discussion.
Why not? Why should they be immune from criticism?
The bitter greenies may dislike Wong but more people dislike Bob Ellis.
I’m sure she was quoted saying many things. I’ll take the word of someone willing to have their face on camera over someone who doesn’t.
What rules? Whenever I hear undefined rules, I think of censorship.
ESJ,
You’ll be pleased to know that the hypocrisy and sanctimony have not abated during your absence. We’ve got a particularly large crop of Green hubris this year.
Plenty of easy pickings for a charmer like yourself.
Cheers
Steve K
Absolutely true. But he still slaughtered her. I wasn’t scoring based on the niceties of debate. Even Tony Abbott was wincing.
ESJ
You haven’t told us how you celebrated Obama’s inauguration yet.
Rule number 1. One person speaking at a time. Nothing at all to do with censorship.
Oh yeah give me some of that old time political correctness GG!
Shows ON – should ex Labor MP’s?
William I feel you hold me to a higher standard – maybe you should create an elite division here in your little money making venture?
I like the fact that Q and A raises passions
I was impressed with wongs delivery and serenity ,she copped it on the cheek and but still kept smiling
ellis is a stirrer.
I dislike Abbot but he was quite reasonable tonight (compared to his previous Q&A efforts) and I think his wincing was due to the question in his mind “How much has Ellis had to drink?”
I don’t think the girls who accused her of boasting appeared on camera, why do you believe them?
They did
Diogenes a sad day 20 January, a truly great man John Sidney McCain III wrongly denied the presidency.
Be immune from criticism? No. But you asserted something without providing any data to backup your assertion, which made it just a smear.
ESJ is reflecting on the chair!
Abbott interjecting a few times when Ellis was speaking.
ellis is a stirrer.
Ellis is a farting falstaff of a drunk. Labor’s equivalent of John Elliott but without the charm and sparkling wit.
Umm
lets see who i believe
Gallop,gyngell didnt actually support johns m is my understanding
ESJ
What about the state of your beloved Liberal Party? Do you want Turnbull to lead you to the 2010 electoral defeat or someone else? What’s your succession plan?
I’m gagged ShowsOn what can I do?
Every time I feel like deviating from the one true path an electric impulse shoots through my electronic collar and my behaviour self-corrects.
Its great to be living in Labor nirvana here in Sydney.
No Partiinost on my part Diogenes. I am independent like the Marlboro Man.
Ellis’ books on politics are hilarious, a friend has the one that was pulped because it supposedly defamed Abbott & Costello.
There was a hilarious piece in one featuring Tony Abbott as John Howard’s Jeeves. There was even a plot in one where he poisons Howard’s tea.
Avoid smearing people, or entire groups of people, without providing any evidence?
Given that he did cheat on his wife, I’m not sure how they could publicly ’support’ him without looking like imbeciles
mea culpa in advance if someone else has posted this. I’ve been off the computer all day and there are way too many blog posts to go back and check if this was already put up …..
Gotta love it
Yes ShowsOn your quite right please punish me now!
ESJ
You do know that three Marlboro Men died from smoking their own product….
Shows On,
No supposedly about it, Abbott, Costello and Tanya Costello received a defamation payout.
why havent they mounted the arguments you are mounting?
Because they are subject to the ‘moral media’, and I am not
I thought it was from ciggies
Gus,
I think this whole thing started with inappropriate mounting.
Really Diogenes? 3 US Presidents died from being President too!
The whole point is to get you to regulate your behaviour on your own, hence the expensive electric shock collar.
I don’t care what the court ruled, our defamation laws are a joke if those idiots can claim defamation from a book that shifts constantly between political critique, and political satire.
Very droll Gusface
The Marlboro Man was a campaign to make men start using filtered cigarettes which were considered a bit feminine. It obviously worked. I don’t know if they even sell unfiltered ciggies still.
Poor ShowsOn you probably dont even see the irony in your 265.
Why was it considered important to make mean smoke filtered cigarettes?
Was it simply because they kill people slower, and / or make people less sick, so they will have the chance to buy and smoke more?
If men wanted to smoke non-filtered cigarettes, why didn’t Marlboro just concentrate on selling them?
Hmmm. No wonder you didn’t follow the US election. Eight POTUS’ have died in office. You could get away with the 4 of natural causes as being unrelated to being POTUS but you’ll have a lot of trouble explaining the four who were assassinated.
GG, what happened to Ronnie in my absence? Has he been outplaced?
You probably don’t even see the irony intended in my 265.
We assumed he was working as your secretary.
Who did I forget Diogenes? McKinley, Lincoln, Kennedy? Otherwise the point is still correct.
Any man can die at any time including a US president but only a president gets assassinated for being president.
272 that’s actually funny ShowsON.
The first malboro ad I saw was at a drive-in way way back
The tag was “come to malboro country” with appropriate mood music (bit like the old VB ad music).
I unfortunatley remember most of the other brands tags as well
;(
I agree, she did a terrific, job.
Umm, GG is a little sensitive, what didn’t you like, “Minister of not now”. The point that if the press was little bit more honest about war then perhaps there would be less of a tendency to support it. Or perhaps that using carbon to create an environment to increase plant growth is more likely to succeed than fanciful ideas of pumping it underground. His distaste for trial by media. What exactly didn’t you like.
ESJ,
As you may recall, ron had a fairly idiosyncratic writing style. Following a concerted effort by a few of the house bullies to run him off the reservation, ron withdrew a few months ago.
Sadly missed by this amigo.
Elmer Bernstein’s score for The Magnificent Seven?
Gone but not forgotten GG.
ESJ
James Garfield.
SO
They marketed filtered cigs as the healthier option when people started to point out that a lot of their customers were dying.
Advertising – It Works!
Well, sometimes…
That’s really hilarious, did people honestly believe that a filter that still lets MOST of the smoke through would save them!?
Are people THAT stupid?
My vague recollection is that the companies said the filter caught the “tar”, were people dumb enough to think that that alone would save them?
Don’t answer that question…
fredn,
If you like his humour, then own it. Your perogative.
I only hope Wendy Machin had her handbag closed to protect against an incoming techniclour yawn.
I think thats it, tho i read somewhere that it was slighly higher tempo for different ads/countries
I liked the catchiness of the catch- phrases
Catching up after being offline due to a power failure from 12.30pm til 9.20pm (Damn Storm.
I’ve got got quite a few of those old Malborough RAdio Ads on CD, along with a lot of other bits of Perth Radio history from a well known weekend 6PR Presenter who William may be aware of due to his work as a Music Jornalist and I’ve got to say the audio imagry is quite spectacular.
And for a video memory featuring a couple of Beatles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRnC6rz7Z0c
ShowsOn,
One of my colleagues this week has gone on a “my bodies a temple” purge.
No drugs, alchohol or fast food. The concession to smoking was to buy a bag of “roll yer owns” because this would slow down his intake.
Cigarette addiction is the most pernicious one of the lot.
The other US President assassinated was Garfield in 1881.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Garfield
I see ESJ has made the move to Crikey. Welcome back. I presume the Senator has kept you busy.
285, power was off in Ellenbrook too but I don’t know for how long. We had just entered the Morley Centro shopping centre when the first wave hit. Made the mad dash through the car park as fast as we could on foot to avoid getting wet. While still drizzling when we got home, the power was back on. Clearly had been out though as clocks needed to be reset.
Diogs
)for the general thrust of their green new deal, minor problems aside.
I commend the actions of the running-dog puppets of the US imperialist regime (
GLEN
I suspect you may be right about the upcoming German election. Nevertheless I still hold out hope for um, well, a repeat of last time I guess. The SPD-Greens couldn’t possibly get a majority but I think its still posible for the CDU/CSU-FDP to fall short of a majority. An SPD-Green-Left coalition is probably off the cards and I don’t think either the Greens or Left will go with the CDU. So the only plausible options are CDU/CSU-FDP or SPD-Greens-FDP or CDU-SPD but I think the first is far and away the most likely.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,601451,00.html
Click on the graph. You can moniter polling by different agencies, or averaged out or use the nifty ‘coalition calculator’.
Adam, are you around? You know about German stuff. What’s your prediction for the German federal election, indirect presidential election, German section of the EU elections and for the EU elections in general?
Frank,
Bloody Greens!
Didn’t take them long to you back to the dark ages, did it?
GG
I’ve met plenty of addicts to just about everything who say exactly that.
ShowsOn
I’ll list some of the ad campaign slogans the tobacco companies used in 1955 to get people to use filtered cigarettes.
“just what the doctor ordered”
“Double-Barreled Health Protection”
and my favourite “your voice of wisdom says SMOKE KENT”, which was used for a filter which contained asbestos.
aka the Micronite filter
Speaking of Kent Cigarettes, this is how they used the cast of the Dick Van Dyke show to promte their prodduct as Christmas gifts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSpNViOJpL8
Unbelievable! Does anyone know when cigarette advertising was banned on Australian TV? I mean actual adverts, I know the ban on sports sponsorship took much longer (early 1990s?)
It was Septemember 1976
http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publications/fact-sheets/fs252.aspx
Thanks Frank! Interesting to see the Fraser government adopted one of Whitlam’s ’socialist’ policies. I was always lead to believe life was insufferable under that ‘regime’?
But note that the suppoert wasn’t widespread in Cabinet.
ESJ, welcome back.
No 297
Banning cigarette advertising is commonsense if the nation is picking up the tab for healthcare.
The Gurkhas will always be more happy under the Baroness Lumley of AbFab.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6337535.ece
Gordon Brown is a fool, kick him out. I dont care what the Poms replace him with. The Liberals will suffer the fate if they put Cossie in as their leader.
will suffer the fate = will suffer the same fate
Hi Dio
That 2% figure you mentioned for kiddie lovers for the general population should be around 0.02%. The 10% I mentioned for the clergy comes from inquiries in the USA and Canada, in Ireland it is most likely higher as one thier own states.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/fury-as-catholic-abusers-escape-prosecution-20090521-bh82.html?page=-1
80% broken celibacy vows, less 10% loving women, less 40% gay equals 30% loving kiddies.
Wonky maths I know, but the inquiries in USA, Canada and Ireland all show endemic abuse, not the sort committed by 0.02% or even 2%.
The issue isn’t the level it is that we don’t know as we do not want to know, without an inquiry we will end up with a situation like Windshuttle and the aborigines where people will deny the scale of an event simply because there are no extensive records of such events.
As young Maria would say: “you’ve all done very well”. There’s still hope yet for you bludgers
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25520881-12377,00.html
The problem isn’t priests themselves, it’s the unnatural circumstances they’re expected to live under.
We know that homosexuality is rife in prisons amongst otherwise heterosexual men.
Take a normal man, deny him sex, and he’ll become perverted, one way or another.
It’s not a coincidence that it’s the Catholic church that has these problems (other churches do, due to the ‘give people power over others and they’ll exploit it’ effect, but nowhere to the same extent).
If priests were allowed to marry – which St Paul recognised as a better option than burning in hell – very little of this abuse would occur.
Have you noticed how quiet it gets on this blog when I’m not abusing Greens??
(BTW that makes me sound like a spinach defiler…)
Zoomster
I thought you are actually quite nice to the greens, just pointing out some of their contradictions and spaciness is not abuse.
i agre with what you said about the unnatural circumstances and priests, Islam and Judism do not appear to have the same problems, yet there are instances with Buddists priests similar to the catholic priests.
Finns
Good to see with the Gurkhas, thought I saw some stories on the Fuzzy Wuzzy angels asking for some type of recognition?
Now that is funny, especially in the context of the previous post.
Tom
Perth is finally getting rain this week – Wednesday, Thursday and today. Rain has been so infrequent here that the younger of the two family dogs who has just turned two is scared of the rain when he sees it
castle
Your figure of 0.2% of the population might be true of the “serial killer” type of paedophile who is predatory and abuses large numbers of children. But don’t forget that the vast majority of abused children are abused by their parents/step-parents/uncles etc. That’s where those huge numbers of 20% girls and 5% boys being abused comes from. I suspect a lot of those were “ephebophilia” which was the post-pubescent abuse.
It’s a different type of abuse with a different type of psychopathology but it’s just as damaging being abused by your step-father as by your priest.
zoonster,
Have you noticed how articulate, helpful, and polite most of the Green supporters are here?
I suspect that’s why The Greens goes from strength to strength.
As opposed to rabid serial, anti-Green abusers here that perpetuate the image of bullies and crybabies and do there party a grave disservice.
The internet really is fantastic! I just found this recent article in full for free “Prevalence and Incidence of Roman Catholic Clerical Sex Offenders” in a scientific journal which will tell us what the real story is. I haven’t read it yet (it’s 10 pages long) and I’ve got to go to work but I will later today.
http://psychology.sju.edu/downloads/mcglone1.pdf
marg
Apart from Oz, who fits that description, I think that generalisation leaves a lot to be desired.
marg,
“Have you noticed how articulate, helpful, and polite most of the Green supporters are here?”
Self flattery is the food for fools.
This probably could’ve been worded in a slightly more sensitive way. Unless you are intending to imply homosexual men are abnormal and perverted.
GG
I’d describe you as “articulate, helpful, and polite”. Perhaps you are a closet Green. Sadly, I can’t think of a fruit or vegetable that is pink on the outside and green on the inside as this comment would have been a lot better then.
SNIP: Offensive comment deleted, commenter banned – The Management.
Diogs,
You’re firing with a spring in your pen today.
Obviously, my helpful assistance for Mrs D has had the desired effect.
centaur,
That’s one small blog for man:
One giant leap of bigotry for you.
Getting back to an issue from the other day, the OO’s front page Qld poll slump using the WTPW polling, did anyone post over there to express our disgust??? I’m hoping for another defensive editorial!!
SNIP: Stupid comment by stupid commenter deleted – The Management.
This to me seems extraordinary. How exactly could this work? Wouldn’t it potentially force even more people out of private health insurance?
GG, agree about Ron. I miss him.
If reported correctly, yes it would. Private patients cherry pick between public and private hospitals all the time.
Also, if such an idea was introduced, if you had major chest pain and wanted to be admitted urgently to a major teaching hospital (ie public), you would just deny that you had private insurance. What’s the triage sister going to do, run a search on all 45 health funds’ membership databases?
It’s also illegal. You can’t discriminate based on private health status in a public hospital. All patients with private health insurance can elect to be admitted as public patients.
GG
Your advice helped but the biggest help has been that Mrs D and zoomster have been in deep conversation about water policy which has reflected well on Diogenes and made her a lot more tolerant of my blogging.
If it’s illegal why would they bother suggesting it as policy? I don’t get it. Surely their hatred of the public health system couldn’t lead them to put out such a ridiculous proposal.
NewsRadio played an interview with Harry Evans, the Clerk of the Senate. He is retiring in December, his job will be advertised this weekend for anyone with a very thorough understanding of the Senate standing orders.
ltep
I suppose they could change the Health Act. They’re missing the point though. Lots of people with private health insurance elect to be admitted as public patients as they think they will save money. If they were guaranteed not to be out of pocket and so chose to be admitted as private, all these public hospitals would get paid by the health funds. About 5% of patients in a public hospital have private health insurance but aren’t using it. It might not sound like much but an extra 5% funding to public hospitals would make a lot of difference.
post scripts to the MT public relations mess yesterday at Karrinyup Shopping Centre here in Perth (from The West todays edition p.2)
1. They describe him as “future former Opposition Leader”
2. Colin Barnett was supposed to be walking the shopping Centre with him BUT was stuck in Geraldton because of the massive storms yesterday and stuck there with none other than Kevin Rudd (at the same activity).
Massive PR disaster all the way around for Turnbull yesterday
Why can’t this simply be explained to the patents when they are admitted? I guess in the long run, if they stay as a private patient, this will push up premiums, because it means the private health insurance company and industry more broadly will be making more pay outs.
If it works out cheaper, the government should pay the patient’s gap if that is what it takes to convince them to stay as a private patient.
Tipping:
JG one out for the Bulldogs against Geelong
JG one out for Fremantle against North
KR one out for Adelaide
Labor both for Collingwood, Liberal both for West Coast
JG one out for Richmond
All in for Sydney
Labor both for Brisbane, Liberal both for St. Kilda
All in for Hawthorn
Yeah, did you luck how he tried to blame it on the people from the media filming him?
Of course he didn’t reveal that it was te job of his staff to get permissions for the media contingent so they could film before hand.
Why send it to Joe Hockey and not Malcolm Turnbull?
I imagine the Shadow Cabinet pays as much attention to Tuckey as the rest of us pay to him.
I am impressed that Tuckey uses email. Wasn’t it Heifernan that bragged about being computer illiterate?
Mr Tuckey vented his feelings in an ‘entrail’ sent yesterday to the shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey.
Wouldn’t put it past Tuckey to go that far.
At least Kev likes girls…..
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25521279-601,00.html
For all interested parties:
Marketing and politics from The University of The Three Stooges.
http://www.ozforums.com.au/viewtopic.php?id=5590
The problem with private health insurance is that it is a completely dud product. The worst of all insurance products.
The former government should never have promised billions is subsidies without getting them to improve the product.
It doesnt cover you for private outpatient appointments, and you always have to pay extra fees for private inpatient stays, including tests, specialists, gap payments etc. The system needs review.
I don’t know if it has already been mentioned, but Tony Abbott maintained his 100% success rate last night in never winning a debate against a female. They were talking about spin, and Penny Wong goes, you cut peoples salaries and conditions and you call it workchoices. Poor Tony, he had to take the 10 count.
My old bloke has had a great run with public hospitals – absolutely nothing wrong until cancer got him in his 60s.
A friend and I raced him to Emergency one day and she said told us not to tell them we had private health insurance, but when the Hosp. asked me I couldn’t do it.
Our local private hospital leaves a lot to be desired so we choose for him to go the public hospital as a private patient if they have a bed available.
We can’t fault the mob there – they are fantastic. Haven’t had to pay much extra.
I hate all the extras our health fund provides tho – gyms, etc. I’d rather lower premiums.
Juliem – your mob had better win this week cos I’m the only one in our family tipping thingo who has picked them. Go the Roos.
Speaking of priests, of course they should be allowed to get married. Last week I backed the Dragons against the Bulldogs. The Bulldogs scored right on fulltime so they went to the video referree.
I thought I was gone. As I have never had any luck with conventional prayer, I decided to say a Mary Magdelan instead. When you get to Holy Mary, mother of god, you replace it with Holy Mary, wife of Jesus. It worked like a beauty
The mineral council says the Govt’s ETS will cost 23.000 jobs accross the mining mining sector by 2010.
How can this be so? If it ever gets through the Senate it isn’t due to start until 2011 is it?
So that’s what I have to do when the Swannies are losing, Centre. Does it work if you’re not a Catholic.
Have always thought Priests should be allowed to marry. If not they should be allowed to have gay relationships within or out of the priesthood. It doesn’t seem right to be barred from either sexual preference unless you are by, an act of birth, asexual.
Typical Mitch whateverisnameis – the man looks decidely evil to me. Reminds me of Lurch.
I thought that Garnaut had researched the loss of jobs in mining thoroughly . Wouldn’t the renewable/alternative energy jobs pick up a lot of that flack. They would certainly be cleaner than the coal industry.
BH when the Swannies are playing I say a prayer that BBB Hall wont give away too many free kicks
Vera – do you know Centre’s prayers. We may need them this week against Port.
I want a prayer that free kicks will go to Barry for a change.
Joe Hockey’s assumptions deconstructed:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/05/21/2577628.htm
BH, I don’t pray. But I thought I’d try it for a joke. The try looked good to me so I was pretty surprised when it wasn’t given. If it worked for a naughty catholic, I suppose it could work for anybody.
BH – we’ll have to try Centre’s prayer.
But I’d be on my knees the whole game while watching the Bunnies
from Red Wombat’s post
Another Big Swinging Dicks club I presume?
vera your bunnies don’t need a prayer, they need a full blown miracle
That’s very good, but not as good as last night’s episode of Catalyst, that featured Maryanne Demasi RUNNING!
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2577263.htm
Wow, the Liberals are obviously extremely financially desperate. The Austrlaian article mentions this:
I hope they do enact such laws, and they should force religions organisations to end their discrimination against women.
Dear Pollbludgers,
I’d be interested in people’s thoughts on the question of why you don’t vote for the Greens – especially if you’re a swing voter, or not rusted on to major party.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/05/22/why-dont-you-vote-green/
It’s not meant to be an exercise in spleen venting, but an honest question looking for honest answers.
Lots of old fossils in Chesterfields using ear trumpets listening to their new Saviour Malcolm by the sound of that gathering.
While Malcolm’s trying to woo Melbourne poor old Petey is in Sydney trying to woo the Gordon Gheckos.
And Clarke & Dawe parody Joe perfectly.
Meanwhile the MSM is hung up on Kev not saying $300b every time he opens his mouth.
We live in interesting times.
Ohh! Centre, be nice! The Bunnies will flog the Eels tonight (she says with fingers crossed tightly behind her back
)
On a different topic, it seems like the Govt will overhaul the NT Intervention soon.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25520169-601,00.html
Changes to the NT intervention will never pass the Senate. Possible DD trigger there.
I see no-one has read that article I found so, at great expense to the management, I’ve slogged through it. I’ll stop if everyone is sick of it or it’s just too revolting (my stomach is a bit queasy reading it)
We have to get our definitions right first.
1. Paedophilia is “attracted to prepubescents (<13), and there are two types
(i) Non-exclusive (90%)-familial abuse, low numbers victims per offender
(ii) Exclusive (10%)- fixated on a type and age of child, large numbers of victims per offender
2. Ephebophilia is “attracted to post-pubertal, ie 14+”
The 5 studies on Catholic Clergy give the following rates
Pedophilia-2.7%, 0.3%, 2%, 0.3%, 1.2%
Ephebophilia- 8.4%, 6%, 4%, 3%, 1.5%
I cannot find, for the life of me, a single reference to the prevalence of paedophiles and ephebophiles in the general population. There are lots of estimates of the rate of victims (about 20% girls and 5% boys).
I will include an article I saw from the Catholic Church which addressed a lot of the points raised so far. I am IN NO WAY endorsing their position. I’m just linking it for your edification.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html
Centaur009 has been banned due to accumulated acts of stupidity.
I realise that this isn’t the topic, but did everyone else know that Andrew Wilkie is running as an independent for state Denison. Not sure how I missed that one for two months.
That’s entirely on topic, Phil. I didn’t know that either, and I’m glad I do now.
Diog, I do WORRY about you.
“Centaur009 has been banned due to accumulated acts of stupidity.”
Naughty boy.
Dio – I worked in a law firm handling a lot of child sexual abuse, etc. It is extremely disturbing and caused many sleepless nights.
It’s a tragedy for all involved and altho I had no time for the perpetrators we found that most of them had been abused as children so it helped to understand them a little.
It was the people in positions of trust who upset me more – the teachers, clergymen (yep, not only Catholics) and the so-called upright citizens who were protected. The latter were often allowed entry to the Courtroom via the back door and I wanted to shout about it in the streets. I still find it difficult to look at them whenever I’m at the same function.
It’s a difficult area to work in and I have enormous admiration for those who cope with it all daily.
It’s great that it is all out in the open now and perhaps the authorities will no longer allow it to be swept under the carpet.
Hopefully you can wade through the rest of the article and let us know – I wouldn’t be able to read it myself.
Vera – leave my Eels alone please. They are having a bad enough time without the bunnies getting their teeth stuck into them.
Are we still on anughty priests are we? That’s where I left you all at about 7 last night.
The Catholic Church is not full of paedophiles. What it’s full of is unhappy celibates. Life-long celibacy is an unnatural condition for human males, and leads to all kinds of psychological disorders. Sexuality is the most powerful human drive and if repressed will always find an outlet somewhere. It can express itself as fanatical dogmatism, hysterical Mariolatry, sadism (see any Christian Brothers school), paedophilia, ephebophilia and mental illness. After Vatican 2 there was a huge exodus of younger, relatively sexually healthy priests, most of whom who left to get married. What’s left is a residuum of elderly, unhappy, frustrated, repressed men, a high proportion of whom are either practising or non-practising homosexuals, filled with self-loathing and undirected anger. The Catholic Church is a deeply sick organisation and why anyone entrusts the education of their children to it is beyond me.
Exactly, Adam. But how much longer before they make some changes – perhaps they need a younger Head of the Church.
Sorry – Psephos.
Psephos,
Hospitals, Aged Care Facilities, St Vinnies, Schools and Universities and other welfare services?
The Catholic Church is not perfect and many here and elsewhere seem to rejoice of its failings, but it is not “a deeply sick organisation”.
We can’t wait for them to make changes, the Australian government should pass a law that makes it an offence for any organisation to discriminate against a person based on their marital status.
The catholic church’s insistences that priests can’t marry should be considered a breach of Australian law, and basic human rights. Consenting adults should be allowed to marry whoever they want whenever they want. Priests shouldn’t be forced to give up that human right just because they want to be a member of a private organisation. That’s a form of discrimination, that causes people great sickness and hardship, and arguably puts at risk the well-being of others.
It’s like any cult, some people are in it because they truly believe in its goodness, while others are in it because they like exploiting and controlling the goodwill of others for their own gratification.
Most forms of group think can be broken down into those two motivating factors.
There is no positive moral action that can be made for religions reasons that couldn’t also be made for non-religious reasons. Religion doesn’t have a mortgage on human compassion.
Most hospitals, age care facilities, charities, schools and universities are NOT religious organisations. Nor should they be, because the ways some of those organisations should be run completely contradicts central aspects of religious teaching.
ShowsOn,
You have a very narrow understanding of peoples’ motivations and it shows.
There is also a conflicting right to religious expression. And when you become a Catholic priest, you are fully aware that they don’t let you get married.
I can’t believe I’m here batting for the Catholics side.
ShowsOn,
Social Welfare in Australia would collapse without the volunteerism and passion of the Churches and their various Misnistries.
How much authority does Opus Dei have on the church in Australia. It’s a shame that if all the good works can be undone in the eyes of some by the bad.
The priest in Brissie proved that its people will enjoy their religion when changes are made. Why do some think that religion has to wallow in dark ages rituals – it can only be a reluctance to give up power.
We all have a right to our own belief, Dio – Catholic, or not, so I join you in sticking up for them.
The Catholics do not keep their followers from the rest of the Community as in Exclusive Brethren.
Psephos is right tho – there are many, many unhappy blokes within the Church. They need to cater for that if the priesthood is to survive.
Explain to me other motivations?
I guess I did miss one out. There are some people who THINK they are helping people, but they are actually harming them.
Religious expression isn’t an excuse for infringing other rights. The right to freely associate in a religion is important, but it isn’t a veto card that over-rides other obligations.
If a person argued in court “I murdered that person because my religion’s rules told me I had to”, that wouldn’t be considered a very persuasive argument.
I am proposing that modern liberal democratic states should intervene more in private organisations when those organisations breech fundamental principles that underpin liberty and democracy, discriminating based on marital status, or on gender is not something we accept in the work place, it shouldn’t be tolerated in private organisations either.
Volunteerism and compassion aren’t religious values, they are HUMAN values that all people are capable of expressing irrespective of their religious affiliation. Being able to empathise and sympathise are traits humans acquired via evolutionary pressures that help us survive, they are not caused or created by religious affiliation or belief.
Of course, a small group of people having power over a larger group of people seems to be one of the motivating factors of religious organisations.
The church that was shut down in Brisbane is a perfect example of how intolerant the Catholic Church is. They shut that guy’s church down, yet pay the rent for convicted paedophiles. They have no perspective on how the real world actually works.
Sure we all have a right to believe whatever we want, but we don’t necessarily have a right to act on those beliefs.
For example, there are probably some extremist Islamic scholars in Australia who ideally think everyone in Australia should be converted to Islam. Does that mean the government should allow the church to forcibly convert everyone to Islam?
The freedom of a person to adhere to a religion isn’t an absolute right, they also have other obligations to the state that when push comes to shove, over-ride their religious affiliation. They have to abide by Australian laws, that may contradict their religious teaching, but ultimately, those laws are the law of the land, not their religious beliefs.
I am proposing that liberal democratic countries should move a bit further into enforcing certain laws on religious organisations that are accepted outside of those organisations. Stopping religious organisations from discriminating based on gender, sexuality, and marital status would be a good place to start.
Showson,
You really are in rant mode today. You seem especially enamoured with legislating moral behaviour and lecturing others about their alleged shortcomings. No doubt you would have done very well if born to the Taliban regime.
The Catholic Church is a private organisation and it can’t be told by the state how to run its internal affairs. If the Church (or any other private organisation) wants to exclude homosexuals, women, etc, that is their right – but they shouldn’t get any state funding. My personal view is that the Catholic Church ought not to be allowed to run anything that gives it custody of minors, not just because of the risk of sexual abuse but because its whole internal culture is deeply unhealthy and not conducive to the development of children or adolescents. If a secular welfare agency had the kind of record of abuse that the Catholic Church has, it wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near children. Of course that’s not going to happen, so the best we can do is insist that state funding carries with it very close state scrutiny.
Many a young but poor Indian men are joining the Catholic Priesthood at the moment. They join not because of the Catholic and its teaching.
They join because the priesthood gives them a good and secure job, “respected” and certain authority over the villagers. Apparently, they dont pay very much attention to the vow of celibacy. Rather sad, but it’s true.
Psephos, as far as I’m aware many private organisations are subject to equal opportunity employment provisions in legislation.
psephos,
I think you may have “jumped the shark”.
Been out to any Catholic Schools lately. Most of them have desks, computers, books and children. Many of the children have been able to escape this terrible institutionalisation to become notable citizens in life.
Many of them remain Catholics as the circle of life turns again.
WOW! Reductio ad Talibanerum! I guess you had to work out a way to avoid that reductio ad Hitlerum.
I note you were unable to respond to my actual argument.
Why not? I am not being facetious. What is the grounds that SOME aspects of religious organisations can’t be modified or regulated?
It seems to me it is based on a belief that “religious belief” is a complete veto against any interference by the state. But to me this is absurd, if an anti-abortion campaigner kills an abortionist, and says “well it is my religious belief that motivated me to kill him”, a court won’t say “well that’s fine then! Why didn’t you say so earlier!”
Remember, the Victorian Attorney General is considering amending Victorian laws to force private clubs to accept women:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/houserules/index.php/theaustralian/comments/turnbull_in_men_only_club_fundraiser/
If those private clubs can have their actions / beliefs / rules / doctrines regulated, why not religions?
I am NOT saying there should be an act of parliament calling Catholic or Islamic doctrine WRONG. Rather, like so many other things governments do, they should regulate SOME of the ways the organisations operate, specifically those aspects that contradict our discrimination laws.
Can someone educate me on the purpose of the being celibate? And not in the Hitchensesque patronising ‘aren’t i smarter than anyone that believes in god’ way.
The priesthood is not a form of employment, it’s a religious vocation. To require a religious organisation to violate its beliefs in the performance of its purely religious functions, to conform with the secular state’s beliefs, is not acceptable in a democracy, and I say that as a fairly militant atheist. (I’m not talking about Catholic schools or hospitals here, only the Church’s sacerdotal functions.)
GG, spare me the sarcasm, you know what I’m talking about.
Diog,
You’ll be pleased to know that Penny Wong is now being lauded as the Minister of Cool. Special feature in the Oz. Must be on the rise! Australia can only benefit, don’t you agree?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25521615-5012694,00.html
Well I agree with this at least. In any event I can’t imagine any Government would seriously consider attempting to intervene in religious organisations too much. And certainly not ‘mainstream’ religions.
His point was that there should be no arbitrary division of having “catholic children” (of course that term is oxymoronic, no child is born believing religion) separated from Islamic, Atheist, Protestant, Flatearthers.
Australia is a liberal democratic secular society, people are more tolerant and accepting when they grow up around people from all sorts of races, religions, cultural and socio economic backgrounds. Interacting with people differing from oneself inherently creates tolerance and understanding that division can’t achieve.
If you want proof, have a look at Ireland that took years to develop peaceful coexistence, which could’ve been achieved much faster if it promoted INTEGRATION, instead of arbitrary labelling.
Psephos,
Your rhetoric is overblown cant because it does not tally with the reality of what is actually happening.
Who do you want me to believe? You, or my own eyes?
GG, as i alluded previously, She’s a Hakka Chinese woman. they are the toughest and smile a lot.
ShowsOn, that’s all perfectly true, but no democracy is going to prevent parents educating their children in conformity with their own beliefs. Your argument if followed through would lead to a ban on all private education, and that is not going to happen.
Finns,
Does that make her an honorary or full blown hack?
Is that anything like a Hakka burning love?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZpl9kRBzKQ
She’s lived in Australia since she was eight. This sort of commentary is both racist and patronising.
Well we can revoke that technicality with a piece of legislation.
But we do it every day! If some wacko Islamic ’scholar’ stands up and says Australians should be converted to Islam, we consider this unacceptable. If some Muslims in Melbourne devise a plan to bomb the MCG to punish Australian ‘kafirs’, we arrest them and charge them for being suspected terrorists. If parents in a religious organisation stop their child from receiving medical treatment, and the child dies, the parents can be charged with ill-treatment of that child.
Religious laws and secular laws often come in conflict, and the secular laws always trump the secular laws.
Why should laws concerning discrimination based on gender, age, sexuality, or martial status be any different?
Why wait for children to die, or terrorist planes to be hatched BEFORE the state intervenes to place certain limited standards on the way religions run?
Herr Doktor, you aint got a clue. Go back to your hole in Canberra.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2009/4379/
Also phone Poll 55/454
Just because it isn’t going to happen doesn’t make it a bad argument / idea!
Isn’t this the point where Glen comes in to tell us this 5.5% should be added to the Coalition vote?
The interesting number is a 3.5(!) per cent rise in the LNP primary support.
Agree. It would be electoral suicide. And Rudd’s quite religious so it just won’t happen. Gillard might well be an atheist so when she’s PM, the odds would slightly go up. We wouldn’t even be having this conversation in the US because of their constitution. Does ours enshrine freedom of religion?
That’s freedom of religion and also freedom FROM religion if one so choose.
It also implies that Australia itself can never be a religious state.
So Morgan has taken 2 polls at the same time by 2 different methods and got 2 different results. What does this tell us?
Sex discrimination by religious organisations does not conflict with our current anti-discrimination laws, because those laws have specific exemptions for religious purposes.
As Psephos recognises, there is no serious political prospect of changing this aspect of those laws.
We can dream, though. I like the comical aspect of the hypothetical application to Tibetan Buddhism–women must be given an equal right to be born as reincarnations of Living Buddhas!
From Penny Wong’s maiden speech in the Senate. Please note, second paragraph.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/homepages/first_speech/sfs-00AOU.htm
Yes, she was being both racist and patronising to her own grandmother.
Herr Doktor, like i said, you aint got a clue.
According to Wiki…
It fits with Possum’s Pollytrack analysis that phone polls are a few points lower for Labor than all the polls:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2008/11/pollavssmallm19.png
I’d imagine they couldn’t ban religions either.
Far enough, I accept it isn’t politically feasible (but I hope it is in 10 or 20 years) but again, would it be fair, reasonable, rational, and / or in the public good to do it?
As a piece of political philosophy, is it justifiable? Or is “the free exercise of any religion” a complete veto against ANY regulation of religion whatsoever both in legal and moral terms?
I honestly don’t think SOME regulating of religion is a threat to democracy, especially considering that SOME religious organisations like some extremist versions of Christianity, Islam, and Scientology (for the sake of argument) propose completely over turning our democracy, and creating a totalitarian religious state. (Hence Scientology is extremely harshly regulated in Germany, because they consider it a threat to their constitution!).
Victoria banned Scientology for a decade or so.
In South Australia the Scientology e-meter device was banned for a time because Scientology promoted it as a medical device.
Aspects of religions are regulated, it would be nothing new to take a few more steps.
Finns, you really are a total (SNIP for language) sometimes. To attribute someone’s personal characteristics to their racial origins is by definition racist – what else does the word mean? Try the sentence “Dick Pratt was a Polish Jew – they’re the most dishonest and cheat people a lot”, and see how far you get. It’s at exactly the same level of idiocy.
The only poll to have Labor well down and the Libs well up of Nielsen. What does that tell us?
I was referring to the Federal Parliament. As religion isn’t a head of power given to the Commonwealth the states can essentially legislate in any way they like in relation to religion that doesn’t violate their own Constitutions.
“of” – should be “is”
Gary,
The Nielsen was within MOE with the other polls. So, although it looks out, it’s more a polloptical illusion.
Morgan’s face-to-face had the Libs primary up 3.5 this week.
I can tell you what all of the recognised polls tell us now, Labor would still win easily. A point overlooked by the MSM.
So? To what?
New thread