Australia's "Defence" Bill Has Doubled Under Howard

The Australian government is now spending $22 billion a year on what they call "defence". That is double the defence budget when Howard came to power in 1996.

Consider how that looks to our friends in Indonesia, or even across the Tasman. Then ask yourself if there is really a public mandate for this sort of profligacy.

The Strategic Policy Institute noted after the last Budget that, despite spending A$500 million to attract personnel over the preceding five years, numbers had in fact fallen.

The importance of reversing this trend - recognised in Costello's 12th Budget with a A$2.1 billion, 10-year recruitment drive - has been compounded by the Government's plan to meet the increased tempo of defence operations with more manpower.

This is in addition to an A$1 billion package announced by Prime Minister John Howard last December.

The Army has been promised two new battalions, increasing combat troops by a combined 2600 at a cost of more than A$10 billion over 10 years, to produce a land force of 30,000.

In all, the Government intends to increase the military's fulltime strength by 6000, to 57,000 by 2016.

"This is a challenging target, particularly given the current strength of the Australian economy," Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said.

Moves announced in the Budget to attract people to the military include more highly subsidised home loans, better pay and a marketing drive.

Why build a bigger military if you do not want to fight more wars? Howard's Australia is a slave to the US military and industrial corporations which need to ensure endless global turmoil to keep their profits churning. Australians don't want to join the military, we don't want our troops in Iraq, we don't know what they are doing in Afghanistan, and we certainly don't understand why they haven't done a much better job closer to home in places like East Timor.

When it comes to the budget, "Defence" is always the big white elephant in the middle of the lounge room. Nobody wants to be seen to be "soft" on Defence. Neither Liberal nor Labour wants to lose their fat friends in the "Defence" industries. And of course, everybody is lining up to loudly proclaim how much they "support our brave troops".

Here's what I just posted at TPM on that matter:

As a foreign (Australian) observer, I really do not understand all this Democrat hand-wringing about "supporting the troops". The troops simply should not be there! Those who are there should be refusing to fight, and those who are not there should be refusing to go. Follow the lead of Eric Watada, guys - this is an illegal, immoral war!

US troops are killing innocent people. They are murdering and maiming and decimating the future of Iraq! For what? Big Business!

Yes, yes, I know, I know... This "support the troops" nonsense is a critical political reality in the USA today. But why? Because 1970's hippies felt guilty about spitting on Vietnam vets? Or because the military-industrial complex has spent a fortune brainwashing one generation after another?

Arguably, the USA would never have left Vietnam if everybody back home had been worrying about "not supporting the troops" instead of just getting their asses out on the streets and shouting their protests long and hard. I don't see many people out on the streets today.

The world is watching, and this sort of vacillating, half-assed politicking makes no sense at all to us. Why doesn't Pelosi just declare the war illegal and demand that all US troops cease to cooperate with it? Eh?

That's actually a follow-up on another post of mine, at another TPM thread today:

While not wanting to take anything away from this excellent post, I feel obliged to remind readers that the problems the US troops face are really negligible in comparison to the daily horror and tragedy that millions of innocent Iraqi people face.

Compare the story of a US soldier feeling the burned skin slip from his buddy's arm, with the anguished screams of an Iraqi mother, kneeling in the rubble of her home, holding the blackened, smoking corpse of her baby in her arms. Which is worse? Which occurs more frequently?

You say this is first war in US history where troops cannot rotate away from the front to a place of rest. At least they have their swimming pools, canteens and bars in the Green Zone (even if the occasional mortar does lob over the wall). Iraqis live every moment of their lives out in "the Red Zone", afraid to go out on the streets, wondering when the next round of gunfire and explosions will come to their neighbourhood, or when US troops might come through their door in the middle of the night, or what future remains for them and their children. Millions have lost loved ones, homes, livelihoods. Millions have been forced to abandon every comfort and hope they ever knew for an uncertain future as a refugee.

Iraqis do not have psychologists waiting to deal with their PSTD issues. Their hospitals, if they can reach them, lack medecine, sanitation, electricity and trained medical staff. There are no helicopters waiting to airlift the bloodied bodies of their children from the battle zone to a fully-equipped surgery on USS Enterprise.

At least the US soldier can hope and dream that one day he will return home. Life goes on as normal in Bush's USA, where once, long ago, those same US soldiers chose to sign up voluntarily with the military. When they signed up, they agreed to kill on order, without question. That's the deal. That's what it always has been. And so the moment comes when you must seal that compact in blood: kill or be killed. But how did you get yourself into that horrific situation in the first place?

Iraqis did not sign up for this war. They do not have the option of going AWOL. What hopes and dreams can they cling to, as the bullets whiz past their windows?

I am not saying we should not have some compassion for traumatised US soldiers. But if our compassion is only for those we identity as "like us", then this war will never end, and more such wars will surely follow.

The US Military is now having a hard time recruiting new soldiers (the same is happening here in Australia, BTW). Good! One can only hope that this miserable, god-awful war will teach us all a lesson once and for all: war is wrong. Violence is wrong.

Love will win the day. Love is the only sure way to peace.

Yes, I know I am being verbose and probably vainglorious, reposting comments, etc. But this stuff pisses me off no end.

I will close with a bit of news just in:

A US marine who walked through two houses in Haditha, Iraqi minutes after other marines killed occupants with grenades and guns found two wounded children pretending to be dead next to a deceased woman.

"I saw one breathe. That's how I knew," First Lieutenant William Kallop testified at a military tribunal at Camp Pendleton, California.

"The little boy who breathed was about six or seven and when I touched him, the little girl jumped up. She was about 11."

The two injured children were the only survivors of a Marine Corps assault on two Iraqi homes near the site of a bomb attack on a convoy that left one marine dead and two injured. Prosecutors contend that the surviving marines swept through the town on a revenge spree, killing 24 civilians with grenades and guns...

A few months before the 2005 incident, Bush singled out Stone in a speech marking the 60th anniversary of VJ Day.

"He's guided by the same convictions (the World War IIgeneration) carried into battle. He shares the same willingness to serve a cause greater than himself," Mr Bush said of Stone.

Stone, 34, could face a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.

These are the troops we are supposed to support, right? Oh, no, this is just an isolated incident! Right. Sure. Whatever. Don't get me started...

Wedge Politics and the New Cold War

Two hundred years from now, will there be a global civil war raging across every continent between distinct social groups with names like the "Reds" and the "Blues"? If so, the last five years will certainly mark its inception.

I don't know if my US readers are familiar with the term, but here in Australia the concept of "wedge politics" is deeply entrenched in the national psyche. It's the reason why we have suffered a long, soul-destroying decade of Conservative rule.

PM John Howard is a master of "driving the wedge". Take an issue about which the public is passionate - immigration is a favourite - and then pick a spot somewhere along the fluid spectrum of public opinion. Where do you draw the line? M is OK, but N... well, that's just a little over the top! And P is clearly way too far!

Then you drive home the wedge with a passion! You mark a point on the spectrum and create an either/or dilemma for the public. Either you support me, or you support P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y and Z! Or, as Bush so elegantly put it, you are with us or you are against us. And this is who "us" is right here: there's the wedge.

Only a very cynical politician exploits the wedge tactic to the degree John Howard and Karl Rove have employed. It is, after all, divisive. And divisive politics have serious repercussions. Nasty ones. But that is not stopping rightwing politicians around the globe from exploiting the tactic to the max.

France today is the latest example. Newly elected President Sarkozy has divided the country into red and blue zones just as surely as Bush & Co. did in the USA. Now, while France burns, Sarkozy is calmly cruising the Mediterranean on a yacht. He has left it to the defeated Socialist Party chief, Francois Hollande, to appeal for calm. Some leader!

Meanwhile, in the housing estates and marginal suburbs, neighbour is turned against neighbour. Racist skinheads, elated by their side's victory, taunt the stuggling immigrant families across the street. One thing leads to another...

The old Cold War, which pitted left against right, is dead. And now...?

Long live the New Cold War!

The Old Cold War was mostly international in scope, but the New Cold War is being fought in every country, in every newsroom, on every corner. It pits ordinary working people against the might and power of the global elite: Big Money, Big Oil, Big Media and their government pawns.

On one side stand the billionaires and trillionaires, with their gated communities and their private jets, their thinktanks and their institutions, their manicured lawns and their investment funds. On the other side stand the impoverished masses of the Third World, with their lost dreams and their empty stomachs, their ancient visions and their simmering resentment. The future of the world is at stake.

Where do YOU stand? Where do YOU see the wedge?

Condi Rice: From Child Prodigy To Dumb Bitch

You can't make this shit up. The arrogant neocon fools who refused to sign up to the International Criminal Court now want... an international criminal court!

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Lebanon on Tuesday to support the establishment of an international criminal tribunal to try those suspected of killing former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

But wait, the story gets even better in paragraph two:

In the front-page editorial in the leading Arabic-language newspaper An-Nahar, Rice warned that the United Nations would act on its own if the Lebanese parliament failed to endorse setting up such a court.

Ooh, yes! The UN will act! The UN, who weapons inspectors the USA kicked out of Iraq with the imminent threat of falling bombs! The UN, whom the Bush regime has routinely criticized as hopelessly incompetent, corrupt, and effectually incompetent, will ACT! "On it's own", no less!

Does this mean the new UN Secretary General has already sold out to Washington? Or is John Bolton arming himself to the teeth, writing a letter to his family, posting a youtube video to CNN, and preparing a single-handed Rambo-style takeover of UN HQ?

Stay tooned...!

Budget Bliss! Core Promises Galore!

Boy, was I ever wrong about those Howard Liberals! Just imagine, a $5 billion fund for universities! Sure, the universities will still be full of foreign students, and ordinary Aussie kids will still work at McDonalds because they can't afford the fees. But at least those delicately chiselled stucco sandstone facades won't be crumbling!

Plus there's another $3.5 billion to build even more flagpoles and ministerial plaques in primary schools, and teach secondary school kids what a great man John Howard was! Private schools will still get more than public schools, of course, but that's fair enough coz private school people are just so much nicer. Bon chic, buena gente, as the Swiss always say (it sounds better with a mouthful of chocolate).

And hey, kids, don't forget about how Big John (he was twelve feet tall, so I'm told) saved our great white nation from the terrrrsts! Single-handed! It's true! Say it, or I'll break your arm. Tell you teachers to say it, too, or Costello will cut off their funding. Look, it's written in this Dept Education approved history book, published by the Murdoch Press. OK?

But we must all remain vigilant, of course, so we need to throw another $6 billion plus at the Department of Defence, to help them smash even more expensive toys and pay even more people to either kill or be killed in the far side of the planet. Yes, of course that's $1 billion more that Cossie is giving to the unis, but everyone knows Defence always gets a big bite of the budget cake, so that's not news. No wonder they bury it at the bottom of the page. Yawn! Nothing to see here, folks...

So yes, I am mightily impressed with the budget. Still, I can't help wondering where Mr Costello got that cash surplus of $10.6 billion... Was it stashed under his bed? Has he been saving his five cent pieces? Or maybe he has been getting his sums wrong for the last decade (accidentally, of course) and systematically over-taxing working people like me? And if he is now promising $31.5 billion in tax cuts over four years, well... how much will be left under his bed in 2011?

The Farce Of "Sovereign" Government In Iraq: Endgame Looms

From CNN:

Iraq's top Sunni official has set a deadline of next week for pulling his entire bloc out of the government -- a potentially devastating blow to reconciliation efforts within Iraq. He also said he turned down an offer by President Bush to visit Washington until he can count more fully on U.S. help.

Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi made his comments in an interview with CNN. He said if key amendments to the Iraq Constitution are not made by May 15, he will step down and pull his 44 Sunni politicians out of the 275-member Iraqi parliament.

"If the constitution is not subject to major changes, definitely, I will tell my constituency frankly that I have made the mistake of my life when I put my endorsement to that national accord," he said.

How much are you gonna put in his bank account, George?

And in an interesting counterpoint, it seems the USA is letting the Shiite Mahdi Army help maintain security in Baghdad. Really. The US military say they are using al Sadr's militia to protect a holy shrine against Al Quaeda. Moqtada would no doubt say his forces are protecting it from US-backed sabotage. Which do YOU think is closer to the truth?

During a recent intelligence briefing at a U.S. outpost in Kazimiyah, an Iraqi colonel shouted his objections to a U.S. report that Iraqi soldiers were helping Shiites move into Sunni homes in one neighborhood.

Even so, Miska said, "right now we just don't have a better alternative."

Hey, here's an alternative: PISS OFF HOME!

Australia Has Become A De Facto US Territory

A famous Czech writer once suggested that there are two kinds of people in this life: those with the soul of a collaborator, and those who are comfortable with the idea of resisting authority. Australia's participation in the Iraq War debacle has cruelly exposed this previously meaningless division within our own society. Those who support the war also tend to favour increased military, economic and political integration with the USA, whereas those of us who oppose the war are increasingly outraged by the Howard government's fawning obsequiousness to the Bush White House.

You might think that public outrage over the David Hicks case would have at least slowed the pace of this Oz-US integration. But no. A couple of other recent legal cases have highlighted the extent to which our country has already been sold out to Washington.

The first case involves Cairns taxidriver Bryan Law, who was arrested in 2003 for a pacifist protest in which he and others deliberated set foot on the grounds of the ultra-secret US spy base at Pine Gap. No big surprises there: Pine Gap has always been the subject of much controversy, and it's legal status has always been a question of debate. But that always seemd a rather one-off problem. Till now.

The second case is far more serious. An Australian citizen, Hew Griffiths, who was arrested in 2004 for breaching Australian copyright laws has now been extradited to the USA to face prison for breaching their copyright laws! Liberal Justice Minister Chris Ellison signed the extradition papers, which were deemed to be "at the minister's discretion". As Mr Lefty said:

How can an Australian, acting entirely within Australia, be liable under US law? Why not extradite democracy activists to China? Or homosexuals to Saudi Arabia? Or Jews to Iran?

And what law is he alleged to have broken? The famously corrupt and flawed US copyright laws? You have got to be kidding.

Sadly, this is not a joke. It is part of a repeated pattern and it is becoming more frequent, despite the fact that there has been no real public debate in Australia about whether or not we should hand over control of our country to Washington.

The Constitution of the United States states:

"the congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be construed, so as to preclude the claims of the United States or of any state." - Article IV

Wikipedia defines existing United States territories as:

* American Samoa
* Baker Island
* Howland Island
* Jarvis Island
* Johnston Atoll
* Kingman Reef (mostly maritime territory)
* Guam
* Midway Islands
* Navassa Island
* Northern Mariana Islands
* Palmayra Atoll
* Puerto Rico
* U.S. Virgin Islands
* Wake Island

No mention of Australia there. Yet.

Lest you think I am being needlessly alarmist, this little stub from the history of American Samoa provides an instructive example of how the process of becoming a territory can rather subtly occur over a period of time:

In March of 1889, a German naval force shelled a village in Samoa, and by doing so destroyed some American property. Three American warships then entered the Samoan harbor and were prepared to fire on the three German warships found there. Before guns were fired, a typhoon sank both the American and German ships. A compulsory armistice was called because of the lack of warships.

International rivalries in the latter half of the nineteenth century were settled by an 1899 Treaty of Berlin in which Germany and the U.S. divided the Samoan archipelago. The U.S. formally occupied its portion — a smaller group of eastern islands with the noted harbor of Pago Pago — the following year. The western islands are now the independent state of Samoa.

After the U.S. took possession of American Samoa, the U.S. Navy built a coaling station on Pago Pago Bay for its Pacific Squadron and appointed a local Secretary. The navy secured a Deed of Cession of Tutuila in 1900 and a Deed of Cession of Manuʻa in 1904. The last sovereign of Manuʻa, the Tui Manuʻa Elisala, was forced to sign a Deed of Cession of Manuʻa following a series of US Naval trials, known as the "Trial of the Ipu", in Pago Pago, Taʻu, and aboard a Pacific Squadron gunboat.

It's interesting how often such signing ceremonies are performed on board US naval vessels. I wonder if there was a "Mission Accomplished" flag draped in the background? I wonder if the Tui Manuʻa Elisala had a gun to his head while he signed? I am sure John Howard would not need such coercion, just the promise of a Photo Op.

By the way, the background to the takeover of American Samoa involved the monopolization of the copra industry. And the American Samoa Naval Secretary who got the deed signed was later convicted by the US Navy of stealing the profits involved. No honour among theives, is there?

The history of Hawaii, now a fully integrated US State, is also instructive:

In 1893, Queen Liliuokalani threatened to abrogate the "Bayonet Constitution" and draft a new constitution that would restore power to the monarchy. Supporters of the Reform Party (primarily of American and European ancestry, but including some native Hawaiians) organized in response to this and took over the government of the Kingdom of Hawaii. American troops aboard the USS Boston were landed in Honolulu under strict orders of neutrality, to protect the "lives and property of American citizens, and to assist in preserving public order",[4] while a 13 member council of businessmen, attorneys and politicians organized the Honolulu Rifles to depose Queen Liliuokalani.

Notice how that word "property" keeps popping up? US capitalists spread their "property" around the globe and then, whenever anyone threatens it, they use it as an excuse for a takeover. As the bishop said to the nun: "This won't hurt a bit. I'll just insert my property a little way, and I'll pull it out any time you like." Next thing you know, you are f&*#ed!

The Hawaiian takeover even had the pretext of some rather conveniently placed WMDs (or the nineteenth century version thereof)!

The monarchy ended in January 1893, and there was much controversy in the following years as the queen tried to regain her throne. After an unsuccessful attempt at armed rebellion in 1895, a weapons cache was found on the palace grounds and Queen Liliuokalani was placed under arrest, tried by a military tribunal of the Republic of Hawaii, convicted of misprision of treason and then imprisoned in her own home. The Queen officially abdicated in 1896.

Australia under Howard has rendered innocent Aussies to the US military system, and now we are rendering ordinary citizens to the US justice(TM) system. And even Howard cannot explain what our soliders are doing in Iraq, other than "safeguarding" our relationship with the USA and saving George W. Bush from "embarrassment".

When a country's government repeatedly surrenders its democratic authority to another nation, that country has ceased to be a democracy. It has become a de facto territory, subject to the whims of that other nation's rulers.

The USA neoconservatives who prematurely declared this "The American Century" are now preparing a big push for further power in the Pacific, having hit some rather severe obstacles elsewhere in the world. 2007 has just been declared "The Year Of The Pacific". Condi Rice today announced a number of initiatives including "new democracy grants focused on democracy, civil rights and the rule of law". Who wants a piece of that?

What's really happening here is that the process of corporate globalisation has led to corrupt governments around the globe who are all too happy to sell out their citizens to US-based Big Money. And inter-governmental cooperation on such matters is gathering pace.

UPDATE: From iTWire:

The UK government refused to allow the nine UK inmates in Guantanamo to be tried by the US military tribunals, yet Australia happily left Hicks to rot. UK-based members of Drink or Die were tried in UK, yet Australia happily handed over Griffiths to rot in a US jail cell. The US and UK governments don't stand for such treatment of their citizens, yet Australia happily sells out people like Hicks and Griffiths to appease its US masters.

The treatment of Hicks and now Griffiths is a disgrace - Australians can no longer trust their own government to protect them from the interests of foreign powers. Why do we even pretend Australia is a sovereign nation anymore when it's clear the US calls the shots and Australia follows blindly?

If a person betrays their country it's considered treason - a crime often punishable by death. What's the penalty when a country betrays its people?

My, What Big Cheques You Have, Mr Murdoch!

“All newspapers are run to make profits. Full stop. I don’t run anything for respectability. The moment I do, I hope someone will come and fire me and get me out of the place — because that’s not what newspapers are meant to be about.”
- Rupert Murdoch.

Great analysis from David Carr at the New York Times:

* First, the deal will be made at some point, regardless of what the Bancroft family said last week. Brute-force capital, like flood waters, always finds a way to break through.

* Despite his allaying words to the contrary, Mr. Murdoch would operate The Journal, including its editorial operations, as he sees fit. As Mr. Murdoch himself has said throughout his relentlessly acquisitive career, he buys things to run things.

* There is business synergy in the deal — between the News Corporation’s proposed Fox Business cable TV channel and The Journal, for example. But far more important is Mr. Murdoch’s own version of synergy, which puts business, media and government all in a single vertical. Owning The Journal would give him a powerful leverage in all three.

* The price that Mr. Murdoch is offering — $60 a share — is a multiple of ego, not earnings. He may have some other super-secret plan to squeeze more value out of the company, but the deal would give him something that, for all of his stellar business achievements, he’s never achieved in this country: a seat at the gentlemen’s table.

Carr also provides a few case studies to ponder:

In 1969, he showed up as a white knight when the Carr family (not my people, by the way) were struggling to maintain control of News of the World in London. He assured them that a family member would remain chair and that he would acquire no more than 40 percent of the stock. Not.

In 1976, Dorothy Schiff, owner of The New York Post, found a sympathetic ear and a promise of editorial continuity for her paper, but a cadre of British and Australian journalists began remaking the paper and staff as soon as Mr. Murdoch gained control. As owner of the Post, he took the lead with the newspaper unions on behalf of all the New York newspapers during the 1978 strike and then cut a side deal.

In 1981, he romanced both Harry Evans and his then fiancée Tina Brown for The Sunday Times and The Times of London, but that, too, came to tears. In the mid-1980s, Mr. Murdoch engaged in a dialogue with British newspaper unions even as he built a new printing facility (gilded with razor wire no less) that would render them beside the point...

“When I used to work with Katharine Graham, she used to say his name and then almost spit on the ground,” said Mark M. Edmiston, managing director of AdMedia Partners, an investment bank. “But capitalism is built on the highest and best use of capital and he understands that. Money has no conscience.”

Neither, many would argue, does Mr. Murdoch.

Neither, of course, do the Bancroft family. I won't be shedding a tear for them when (not if) Murdoch gets their paper. What concerns me is what Rupert Murdoch might do with not just a media empire, but also a virtual stranglehold on global financial data. Many powerful business people read the Wall Street Journal, and not just for the pro-Bush editorials.

UPDATE: Murdoch has just sold his 7.5% stake in Fairfax. It's called "cashing up" for the big deal.

Beyond Ecomics: The Pornography of Hardcore Power

Warren Buffet says Rupert Murdoch's WSJ bid is "beyond economics". He got that right.

Howard Congratulates A Fellow Traveller As Riots Break Out

For those of us who think John Howard cannot win the next election, France's dramatic shift to the right is food for thought.

The two pillars of Sarky's victory - a popular appeal to racist xenophobia amplified by media mogul support - were already evident in the first round:

As Interior Minister, Sarkozy has talked tough against those of North African origin - i.e. Muslims. He sought to garner votes from extreme right National Front candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen. Just before the first round, Sarko promised white French colonists who fled Algeria, most of whom are Le Pen fans, never to sink into the demagogy of apologising for colonialism. Sarko's gamble paid off: nearly seven points of his vote - more than his margin over Royal - came directly from Le Pen, who got 16.95 per cent in 2002, against 10.44 per cent in 2007. Le Pen voters recognised similar ideas about that kind of people, as John Howard would put it...

The essayist Diana Johnstone calls him "Sarko the American" and says his "Three Rs" are Racaille (scum, i.e. Muslims), Religion and Repression. In much of the mass media, however, he benefits from his notorious vindictiveness: he has got many media magnates to punish editors and reporters who crossed him.

I've already discussed how Big Media helped Sarky get elected.

My latest thoughts on Sarky's victory are here: Global Corporate Control Just Took Another Big Step Forward.

Where Is Wendi Deng Murdoch's Wolf?

Somebody at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory wants to know more about Rupert Murdoch's wife, Wendi Deng, and her old affair with a guy named David Wolf.

A man by that name is listed as a former lover in Wendi Deng's wikipedia entry:

Within months of this marriage, Jake kicked Deng out after finding out she had been seeing a man in his 20's, David Wolf (who later went on to become a PR executive at Burston-Marsteller).

Wolf is now President and CEO of Wolf Group Asia, Ltd. He even has his own blog! It's called Silicon Hutong. Here's a taste:

China Can Live Without Hollywood...

First of all, as Mr. Glickman himself noted, any sort of organized, multilateral action on the part of the major studios would likely be viewed by U.S. regulators as a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. So coordinated unified action is out.

And any non-coordinated unity of action is highly unlikely. Apart from the fact that Iger, Parsons, Stringer, Redstone, Murdoch, and Zucker don't like each other any more than Disney, Warner, Zukor, Mayer, Cohn, Fox, and Laemmle did at the height of the studio system, each company knows that the departure of one would be to the advantage of another. If there are only so many slots each year, one guy walking away means more slots for someone else.

How could Wendi ever have walked away from hot talk like that??? Heh.

Here's David Wolf's corporate profile:

David Wolf is President and Chief Executive Officer of Wolf Group Asia (WGA), a Beijing-based corporate advisory firm. David has a broad range of government relations, strategic counsel, and market-entry management experience throughout Greater China and Asia, in both advisory and enterprise management capacities. His advisory work has focused on government relations, market entry, issues management, scenario planning, market assessment, and strategic advice on business in China at the CEO and Regional MD level. In addition, David is regularly called upon by regional and global media as a commentator on the technology industry and on business in China, and he serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of China Economic Quarterly, and the advisory board of mobile media company 21Communications of Shanghai.

David's clients reflect WGA's systemic approach to the technology, media and telecommunications industries, one which sees the continuity of interests among firms engaged in technology development, equipment manufacturing, content, software, and services. David serves as an advisor to Motorola, Hewlett-Packard, Young & Rubicam Brands, and Foxconn, among others.

Before starting WGA in 2005, David led Burson-Marsteller's Asia-Pacific Technology Practice, B-M's largest practice area in the region and leading a team of nearly 50 professionals in offices in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo, Singapore, and Sydney. David took the Asia-Pacific post after having founded B-M's Technology Practice in China in 2000, growing it into China's largest technology, media, and telecommunications public relations organization and winning a dozen major industry awards for client work.

Prior to joining Burson-Marsteller, David was Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer of Claydon Gescher Associates (CGA), a boutique strategy and public affairs consultancy based in Beijing with a focus on media, entertainment, and telecommunications. He was responsible for daily operations and long-term growth planning. Clients served include Intel, HBO Asia, Reuters, DeBeers/Stockdale, PanAmSat, Turner International, and Irdeto Access.

David's position prior to CGA was Managing Director in China for TV Shopping Network Ltd. of Australia. Originally hired as a consultant to design a market entry strategy and operations plan, the company appointed David soon after to undertake the effort. Within 90 days of plan approval David had launched the 24-hour satellite service in China, with cable-TV affiliates, a telephone center, and the necessary payment and delivery infrastructure to deliver orders within 72 hours to any major city in China. By the time of his departure from TVSN, David had arranged distribution to 11 million cable TV homes in 12 provinces, built a state-of-the-art fulfillment facility in Guangdong with a call center, warehouse, and 60 full-time staff processing thousands of orders each week.

David has lived in China since 1995 and currently resides in Beijing with his family. David holds a Masters degree in International Management from Thunderbird, the Garvin School of International Management, and a Bachelor's degree in International Relations from the University of California, Davis. In addition to English, he is fluent in Mandarin and Spanish. David is a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (Computer Society, Standards Association, and Professional Communications Society), and is a PADI-certified Rescue Scuba Diver. He maintains a weblog at www.siliconhutong.com.

Sounds like the sort of person an up-and-coming Chinese media magnate might want to spend some time with, doesn't he?

Interestingly, given my opening para, the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab is operated by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy. Deng originally came from China to the U.S.A. with the aid of a California couple, Jake and Joyce Cherry. In fact, she broke up their marriage, and then married Mr Cherry in 1990. I wonder where Mr Cherry is working now?

Here's some other less cutting-edge stuff, for anyone interested in this story. First, a photo of Wendi with George W. Bush and the rest of the gang, from a White House dinner for Australian PM John Howard (May 16, 2006).


Notice how Bush is leaning away from Howard and close to Wendi? What's THAT all about???

And here's a reprint of an old UK Telegraph story, which in turn is reporting on an old Wendi Deng story from - can you believe it? - the Wall Street Journal (see below) which Murdoch just happens to be trying to buy now! So much for good friends in the media industry! This story provides more background on what I have already said above, plus more:

How Murdoch's wife won her ticket to America

By Tom Leonard
Last Updated: 2:11pm BST 19/06/2001

THE media tycoon Rupert Murdoch got a taste of his newspapers' own medicine yesterday when the Wall Street Journal published an investigation into the tangled romantic history of his wife, Wendi Deng.

The world's driest and least sensational newspaper published what appeared to be an expose of the private history of Miss Deng, 31, who married Mr Murdoch last year. It was the work of a team of its reporters working in Los Angeles, Beijing and Singapore, and was worthy of the News of the World.

The newspaper, which tracked down former boyfriends and a jilted wife in the course of its inquiries, said she "has come a long way since leaving China a dozen years ago". An authoritative spokesman for News Corp told The Telegraph last night that the Journal's story was "malicious nonsense".

The newspaper claimed that she had rewarded an American woman who helped her to get out of China by running off with her 53-year-old husband. Miss Deng, then 21, subsequently married the man but four months later he allegedly told her to leave on the grounds that she was seeing another man less than half his age.

Although the marriage officially lasted more than two years - long enough, the newspaper said, for Miss Deng to get a "green card" allowing her to stay permanently in America - her former husband claimed that they only lived together for four or five months.

Miss Deng began appearing at Mr Murdoch's side two years ago, having earned an MBA from Yale and joined the Murdoch-owned Star TV as an intern in 1996. She has never spoken in the press about her background.

The newspaper reported that she was born Deng Wen Di in the eastern Chinese city of Xuzhou, the daughter of the director of a machinery factory. She was a "good student" and "champion volley ball player" who enrolled at Guangzhou medical college at the age of 16.

In 1987 she gained her "ticket out of China" when she met an American couple from Los Angeles, Jake and Joyce Cherry. Mrs Cherry, whose husband was building a factory in China, agreed to teach Miss Deng English. When Mrs Cherry went back to the United States her husband stayed in China and soon after, he told her that Miss Deng wanted to go to America to study there.

The couple sponsored her application for a student visa and agreed to put her up until she had established herself. Miss Deng, then 19, went to live at the Cherry's home in 1988 and shared a bunk bed with their five-year-old daughter.

Mrs Cherry grew increasingly suspicious about her husband's relationship with Miss Deng. The report added: "Mrs Cherry recalls discovering a cache of photographs her husband had taken of Miss Deng in coquettish poses in his hotel room in Guanzhou."

Mr Cherry admitted that he had become infatuated with her and that once they were in Los Angeles, Miss Deng started "making recommendations" about his diet and wardrobe. When her husband and Miss Deng did not come home some evenings, Mrs Cherry concluded that they were having an affair, said the newspaper.

She told Miss Deng to leave and her husband left soon afterwards, moving into a nearby apartment with Miss Deng, who was by then a student at California State University. The Cherrys divorced and Mr Cherry married Miss Deng in 1990.

However, the romance came to an abrupt end after Mr Cherry discovered that Miss Deng "had started spending time" with a man named David Wolf. Mr Cherry said: "She told me I was a father concept to her but it would never be anything else. I loved that girl."

Mr Wolf, who now works in public relations in Beijing - and whose mother was a guest at the Murdoch-Deng wedding, according to the Wall Street Journal - refused to talk to its journalists.

That Telegraph article is actually a rip off a Wall Street Journal article, which is reprinted below. What I find strange is how few and far between such articles are, given Wendi Deng's apparent prominence in the business world (not to mention News Ltd's high profile in politics, and succession issues related to Rupert's age). Doesn't the public have a right to know more about this woman?

Rupert Murdoch was a 19-year-old trainee reporter at the long-gone Sydney Daily Mirror in 1965, when I was born. That's where and when he met his first wife, Anna. They were married from 1967 till 1999. Somehow I don't think it's HER fault that the marriage didn't work.

Now here's a link an an excerpt from that 2001 Wall Street Journal story:

She may have "no official role," says Star TV's president, Bruce Churchill, but Ms. Deng "is married to the chairman and chief executive of the company, so it seems natural that she has some voice in the business."

Ms. Deng declined repeatedly through a representative to be interviewed or to answer most of a list of written questions. Mr. Murdoch also declined repeated interview requests.

A spokesman for News Corp., Gary Ginsberg, says, "As the wife of the chairman and a private citizen, Wendi is entitled to her privacy." Ms. Deng's role at the company, the spokesman adds, is "minimal and confined to facilitating a few meetings in China and interpreting nuances of the Chinese market, which she is uniquely qualified to do." (News Corp. officially refers to the chairman's wife as "Mrs. Murdoch," but in media and Internet business circles, most people still call her Wendi Deng.)

Mr. Murdoch has long been fascinated by the potential of the China market and his Fox studio was a pioneer in doing business in the country. But at times, he has seemed to lack the feel for subtleties his wife is said to have.

Hmmn, sounds like maybe Rupert married Wendi because she could get him access to the big, lucrative Chinese market. So who is marrying whom for money, eh?

Hey, Rupert, wanna pay me to shut up now??? Every man has his price, you know!

No? OK, here's more:

Mr. Murdoch gradually repaired relations with the Chinese. He pulled the British Broadcasting Corp. from Star TV, making the channel more palatable to the Beijing government. He sold the South China Morning Post newspaper to a pro-Beijing businessman. And at his behest, News Corp.'s HarperCollins publishing unit killed a book contract with the last governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, an antagonist of the communist regime.

Seems Wendi has paved the path to Murdoch's business success in Asia, something arrogant Western billionaires do tend to struggle with. And Murdoch now gives her considerable latitude in the business real. 'Twas not always thus, however:

Shortly after they were married in June 1999, Mr. Murdoch told Vanity Fair magazine that his relationship with his new wife precluded her from working for News Corp. Instead, Mr. Murdoch said, Ms. Deng was "busy working on decorating the new apartment" in Manhattan. He said his bride, a graduate of the Yale School of Management, was "a bit frustrated" by the narrow scope of her activities, adding, "we'll just have to resolve that somehow."

Tsk, tsk, Rupert! Glad to hear you have moved on to health shakes and 6 am workouts! Wendi has obviously moved on too:

Ms. Deng has become deeply involved in the company's analysis and negotiation of business transactions in China, according to people who have dealt extensively with News Corp. Entrepreneurs trying to interest the company in their ideas often go first to Ms. Deng, according to a person close to News Corp. She has told this person that she sometimes receives more than 100 e-mails a day from Chinese with business proposals. She sometimes meets entrepreneurs at News Corp.'s offices in Beijing or at one of the city's well-known business-gathering spots, such as the tony St. Regis bar.

Hmmnn... Maybe I should be talking directly to Wendi?

Mr. Cherry says that about four months after the wedding, he told Ms. Deng to leave because she had started spending time with a man named David Wolf. Mr. Cherry was 53 at the time. Mr. Wolf was in his mid-20s, only a few years older than Ms. Deng.

Mr. Wolf, who declined repeated interview requests, worked in the early 1990s for an import-export company. He spoke some Chinese and was interested in a career in China, according to a person who knew him at the time.

Mr. Cherry says he and Ms. Deng briefly reconciled at one point, but they split for good when it became clear she was continuing to see Mr. Wolf. "She told me I was a father concept to her, but it would never be anything else," Mr. Cherry recalls. "I loved that girl."

Divorce records filed with the Los Angeles County Superior Court show that the Cherry-Deng marriage lasted two years and seven months. That was seven months longer than what was required for Ms. Deng to obtain a "green card," allowing her permanently to live and work in the U.S. as a resident alien. Mr. Cherry says he and Ms. Deng actually lived together for "four to five months, at the most." They haven't spoken since 1996, he adds.

During the period in the early 1990s when she was married to Mr. Cherry, and for a time after that, Ms. Deng at least on some occasions introduced the tall, well-dressed Mr. Wolf as her husband, according to people who knew Ms. Deng. Ken Chapman, a California State economics professor, recalls that the last time he saw his former student, in 1995, she handed him Mr. Wolf's business card and said she could be reached through her "husband."

At 5'10" herself, Ms. Deng and Mr. Wolf made a striking couple, according to people who knew them. They shared several addresses during the 1990s and told friends they had met in China, when Mr. Wolf had been there on business. For a time in the early 1990s, the couple worked at a suburban Los Angeles gymnastics academy operated by Li Ning, a three-time Chinese Olympics gold medallist. Ms. Deng served as a liaison between the gym's Chinese coaching staff and parents of the school-age clientele; Mr. Wolf, as the gym's general manager. Today, Mr. Wolf works as a director in the Beijing office of Burson-Marsteller, a large public-relations firm.

Well, it is late here in Australia, so I'll just re-post the rest of the old WSJ piece without further comment. I might come back to this post tomorrow... or the next day...

While a student at California State in the early 1990s, Ms. Deng and three other undergraduates formed a quartet that is recalled on the Northridge campus as the most talented group ever to pass through the school's economics department, according to Prof. Daniel Blake. The four students, who often ate and studied together, collaborated on a major written project analyzing the effect of fiscal policy on the U.S. economy.

Mr. Blake recalls that in a recommendation he wrote for Ms. Deng's application to Yale's business school, he called her a "super student, very focused on her studies." He predicted that Ms. Deng "would play a role in the opening up of China" to Western businesses.

During her four years at California State, her friends and professors say, Ms. Deng's command of spoken English improved dramatically. She chose to go to business school at Yale, says Mr. Blake, because of the international emphasis of its M.B.A. program.

In 1996, Ms. Deng graduated from Yale and began looking for a job. Through a mutual friend, she met Bruce Churchill, who then oversaw finance and corporate development at News Corp.'s Fox TV unit in Los Angeles. She lacked experience in the entertainment industry, but her credentials otherwise were impressive. She had an Ivy League business degree and was fluent in English and Mandarin, attributes of particular value to an outfit like News Corp.'s struggling Asian satellite service, Star TV. Mr. Churchill, who was on his way to Star TV as deputy chief executive, offered Ms. Deng an internship in Hong Kong. That grew into a full-time job.

Even though Ms. Deng was a relatively junior employee, she took an active role in planning Star TV's activities in Hong Kong and China, according to former News Corp. colleagues. She helped build distribution in China for Star's Channel V music channel, for example, and explored interactive TV opportunities for the company's News Digital Systems unit.

Former colleagues describe Ms. Deng as having been adept at juggling the interests of News Corp.'s various units, which like to operate independently. She is depicted as having been well prepared for meetings and anything but shy. She is said to have shown no hesitation about walking unannounced into a senior executive's office to discuss the latest Chinese entrepreneur she had met or government official she had contacted.

Rupert Murdoch frequently talks with News Corp.'s business-development executives around the globe, so it isn't surprising that one day he would cross paths with Ms. Deng. In early 1998, she first appeared at his side, acting as his interpreter when he traveled to Shanghai and Beijing.

By the summer of 1998, the Star TV staff was buzzing about romance between the pair. After dinner meetings in Hong Kong, they were observed holding hands. In May, Mr. Murdoch had separated from his wife of 31 years, Anna. The split surprised even his closest aides, who say they hadn't seen any sign of a rupture.

Mr. Murdoch told senior Star TV executives in the fall of 1998 that his relationship with Ms. Deng was "serious." Star TV's then-chairman, Gareth Chang, told Mr. Murdoch at the time that it was a bad idea for Ms. Deng to remain on staff, given her personal relationship with the parent company's chairman. That wouldn't be a problem, Mr. Murdoch replied, because Ms. Deng would be resigning and moving with him to New York.

Today, Rupert and Wendi Murdoch spend time not only in SoHo, but also at their home in Bel Air and a ranch near Carmel, Calif. Mr. Murdoch controls about 30% of News Corp., a stake worth roughly $8.7 billion. He has said the stock is owned by trusts that name his three children as beneficiaries.

Rupert and Anna Murdoch's divorce became final in June 1999, about a year after their official separation date. Negotiations over a divorce settlement dragged on for nearly 12 months, as Anna Murdoch's lawyers tried to determine the extent of News Corp.'s global assets. Financial terms of the settlement weren't made public, but the Murdochs have said they were in agreement on one crucial point: that their children eventually would gain control of the company. Anna Murdoch five months later married widower William Mann, chairman of Henry Mann Securities Corp. in New York.

Rupert Murdoch and Wendi Deng were married on June 25, 1999, 17 days after his divorce became final. The twilight ceremony took place on Mr. Murdoch's garland-bedecked yacht, the Morning Glory, in New York Harbor. Welsh singing star Charlotte Church serenaded the couple with a trio of ballads. Among the 82 guests were Mr. Murdoch's three children and friends such as financier Michael Milken and Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky. Also on board was Valeria Wolf, the mother of David Wolf. News Corp. later posted a photograph of the newlyweds on the company Web site.

The writers of this old WSJ piece were John Lippman at john.lippman@wsj.com , Leslie Chang at leslie.chang@wsj.com and Robert Frank at robert.frank@wsj.com. I wonder if any of them still work at WSJ?

UPDATE: Much, much more at my new blog, THE WENDI DENG WATCHERS CLUB!

US Troops Have Captured Bin Laden!

1:00 am, Baghdad time: Reuters reports Bin Laden captured in a remote Iraqi village. Cites anonymous US military source.

1:01 am: Wingnut blogs go ballistic with joy.

1:03 am: Story running on all international newswires. FOX, CNN and other TV stations issue Newsflash bulletins.

1:05 am: President Bush holds imprompt press conference. Says that the news, if true, will be a great boost for freedom and democracy.

1:10 am: US spokesperson in Baghdad confirms the capture. Says Bin Laden is now being help by Iraqi troops in a secure location. Will be airlifted by helicopter to an undisclosed location for interrogation ASAP.

1:13 am: Still waiting for confirmation from Iraqi government.

1:15 am: Bush issues statement live on national TV. "Mission accomplished!" he beams. High fives all round on the White House lawn.

1:20 am: Foreign leaders respond to the news with congratulatory telegrams. A sombre John Howard reminds Australians that "the long war" against violent extremism is not over.

1:26 am: News Ltd staff around the globe publish boastful editorials saying this confirms everything they have ever said about anything, ever. So there.

1:27 am: Wingnut blog link to News Ltd stories, saying this confirms everything they have ever said about anything, ever. So there.

11:10 pm: Iraqi government suggests detainee may not actually be Bin Laden, but a tall man with a beard and a similar-sounding name.

Two days later: Local police at remote village in Iraq admit detainee is actually a crippled old beggar named Osama Olda Game. Suggest he may still be useful for interrogation purposes.

Two and a half days later: Wingnut blogs excitedly talking about baseball, golf, and American Idol.

Three days later: VP Dick Cheney contacts local police at remote village in Iraq, asking if Osama Olda Game has information on Iranian nuclear program.

Seriously, folks, What a crock of sh*t. I am tired of all this nonsense.

UPDATE: Here's what we are up against. As an experiment, I posted links to this thread at Eschaton and Iraq The Model. Predictably, lots of hits ensued. But whereas the Atrios folks quickly discerned it as a satirical hoax, and moved on with other matters, the ITM folks got a different version of reality. I used the name "nemo" to avoid my lifetime ban at ITM...

WOW! US troops have just captured Bin Laden - an in Iraq too!!!
nemo | Homepage | 05.03.07 - 9:32 pm | #

_______________________

nemo is spam.
schneezecake | 05.03.07 - 10:27 pm | #

_______________________


nemo | Homepage | 05.03.07 - 9:32 pm |

What a crock of sh*t

Timeline: Al-Qaeda

==
bg | 05.03.07 - 10:33 pm | #

_______________________


nemo | Homepage | 05.03.07 - 9:32 pm |

Al Qaeda's New Front (main page)

Al Qaeda's New Front (video)

==
bg | 05.03.07 - 10:36 pm | #

_______________________


NEMO is GHANDI!!

ROFLMAO, what a stoooooopid liar!

It likely got off while writing his pathetic thoughts on his blog.
Anonymous | 05.03.07 - 10:43 pm | #

_______________________


OT.. transcript, video, audio..

President Bush Addresses CENTCOM
Coalition Conference (May 1, 2007)

==
bg | 05.03.07 - 10:58 pm | #

_______________________



what Saddam et al wrought, what AQ et al
destroyed, what Iraqi & COTW will restore!!

==
bg | 05.03.07 - 11:51 pm | #

_______________________


B.H. | 05.03.07 - 10:58 pm |

so sick of the endless "stuck at square one"
WMD BS the MSM & BDS sufferer's created..

REASONS for going to war with Saddam's Iraq

excerpt:

[If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy
all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and
all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans,
and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all
illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.]

20/20 hindsight does not negate the fact that the REASONS
(+ 18 UN res) were valid at the time, so get over it already..

==
bg | 05.04.07 - 12:08 am | #

Now, let's all take a good look at what just happened there at ITM.

For starters, my comment was awaiting moderation for an hour. Once it was accepted (and I'm surprised they even published it) it was hammered with ridicule and counter-spinning links for two hours, almost entirely by an anoymous commenter known only as "bg" [stupid me: I should never have published the comment in the middle of the night, US time, when all ITM's readers are asleep].

And BG is sowing the seeds on the Repug ground for a time when - inevitably - US troops will have to be withdrawn from Iraq. And BG is ensuring that the hardocre wingnuts who frequent ITM - like GWB - will blame the Iraqi people for their humiliation.

Personally, I suspect the Fadhil boys cleared my comment with US PsyOps, who asigned an agent [bg] to it.

But that's just me.

And of course I cannot prove it.

Unless someone steps forward with evidence.

UPDATE 2: Unbelievable. The Fadhil brothers respond with yet another amazingly coincidental post (even before my original comment was posted to their blog, which shows how spohisticated the operation is: newbies will head to the latest post, whereas only the true blievers will bother following up the archives):

Uncertainty about the identity of the killed senior terrorist was soon in place, while the Iraqi interior ministry insists it was al-Baghdadi, US officials think otherwise, they confirmed that a senior al-Qaeda operative name Muharib Abdul Latif al-Jubouri was killed though.

Of course they are not responding to my inncuous little comment. Oh, nooooo-o-o-o....

What you need to understand, dear reader, is that while such transparent b*llsh*t might be obvious to you and me, Bush's hardcore 30% are reading the state-sponsored PsyOps at ITM, not the reality at Gandhi's blog. Click here if you don't know what I'm talking about. This is a battle we need to win.

We Can Be Heroes: Rise Up to End War

"Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number -
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many - they are few."
- Perce Blyth Shelley

Ladies and gentlemen, a round of applause for our guest today, Bryan Law, author of Rise Up to End War:

My name is Bryan Law, I'm 53 years old. I'm a husband, a father, and a nonviolent social justice activist. I drive a taxi in Cairns for money.

Bryan was arrested in December 2005, at a peaceful protest in which he and others deliberately tresspassed on the USA's secretive spy base in Australia, Pine Gap. He is now seeking support for the legal action he faces.

Here's an excerpt from his Opening Address to the Jury:

I was compelled to take some action out of necessity to avoid or ameliorate the imminant dire consequences (loss of life/others and property) arising out of the extraordinary emergency created by Australian participation in the war in Iraq. Under all the circumstances, the best action I could organise to take was the Citizen's inspection of Pine Gap on 9 December 2005. I say that it's a rational and reasonable way to achieve withdrawal and disarmament - as part of a coherent and effective peace movement which is hard at work all around the world right now.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury - this is your chance to think deeply and speak clearly. If you agree that the atrocities that were committed and are still being committed in Iraq represent the kind of heinous and demonic war crimes that I see them as, and that under those circumstances our response to it is a reasonable and proportionate response calculated to end the emergency, you must vote Not Guilty. You'll not only acquit us from serious criminal charges, but you'll send a message around the world about what's right and just in the year of Our Lord 2007.

It's right and just that citizens of good conscience take whatever action is available to them to bring this stupid, bloody and criminal war to a speedy end.

Perhaps unwisely, Bryan decided to publicise his case at Tim Blair's blog. Predictably, Blair ridiculed his pacifism, and Bryan's blog was soon swamped with the usual hyena pack of wingnut accolytes. Among those piling on for the sheer male-bonding "fun" of it was fellow cabbie Adrian Whatsisface, who doesn't seem to understand the difference between non-violent tresspassing and violent protest.

I urge all readers to go visit Bryan and offer him some words of support, if not some good legal advice.

By way of legal precedent, there was a recent UK court case involving two heroic grandmothers who trespassed on a US spy base facility. The judge in the case is now demanding that the UK and US governments reveal operational details of the US spy base, which is on British soil. It could set a very significant precedent for US bases around the globe. Go visit www.grandmothersforpeace.org for more. But please go say hello to Bryan first.

Hi, My Name Is John, And I Will Do Anything To Get Re-elected

The story came through on the SMH's AP newswire at 2:14 am: Howard backs down on Work Choices:

There is an uneasiness in the community that it might become the norm for people to lose their penalty rates for nothing in return and we want to stop that," he said.

Howard is not concerned with the fairness or otherwise of the system, he is concerned with the "unease" generated by the system.

"This puts us in the middle ground of the industrial relations debate."

Mr Howard has stopped short of actually reviving the mandated "no-disadvantage test" as advocated by Labor but recognised that people were losing conditions.

So moving one inch away for Fascism is now "the middle ground"? Shows how far we have come under Howard, doesn't it?

In more Orwellian polical shuffling, the Office of Workplace Services will be renamed the Workplace Ombudsman. BTW every time they do these re-branding it's a packet of taxpayer money being used for new letterheads, website upgrades, etc. And another few thousand manhours of departmental time wasted.

Here's another story that only hit the AP wires just after the nightly TV news shows had finished yesterday: Govt to overhaul school flagpole program:

Under the scheme, schools that install an Australian flag and pole on their grounds are entitled to a government rebate of up to $1,500.

But strict conditions were attached, including that a coalition MP be invited to a flag-unveiling ceremony, that a picture of the MP be published in the school newsletter, and that a plaque be erected noting the government's contribution.

How Fascist is that??? Public schools desperate for cash can suck Coalition butt or get f***ed. Of course, it's a story which could cause nasty pre-election headines, so Education Minister Julie Bishop is "changing the guidelines" ... at least until after the next election.

These sort of stories just highlight the fact that we need government ministers in Canberra with some real, genuine, proven ethical standards, not just people who will blow in the wind whichever way the polls blow, or whichever way their party leaders tell them to.

Karl Rove Comes To Canberra

I've been thinking about these Bill "The Barren" Heffernan comments all day. Segments of the media are saying this is terrible news for the Liberals, couldn't have come at a worse time, Howard is really angry, etc, etc. That's a load of crap.

Heffernan's comments were actually carefully timed to take the latest polls and the WorkChoices debate off the front pages, and cleverly crafted to resonate with voters who know how to nod when they hear Biblical code-words like "barren woman".

Crikey! concurs:

The Prime Minister has proven himself to be a master of dog-whistle politics --campaigning using coded language that only resonates with some voters, playing on prejudice without using overtly prejudicial language himself.

You have to be listening on the right frequencies to hear a dog whistle, and the Prime Minister was letting it sound loudly at lunchtime yesterday...

Bill Heffernan has been allowed to remind voters -- once again -- that the deputy Labor leader is an unmarried fortysomething who doesn’t have any kids.

And we all know all about them, don’t we?

This is actually a classic Karl Rove play: you send out your Swift Boat goons to launch a deplorable attack, hit your opposition with a low blow, then pull back to base, shaking your head and muttering about what an embarrassment it's been.

But the damage has been done. The mud sticks. And you know that damned well.

SOMEBODY Has Already Made $4.6 million off Murdoch's WSJ Bid

Shock! Horror! Insider trading is suspected:

On April 25, less than a week before the $60-a-share offer was publicly disclosed, an investor bought an option to buy 280,000 shares of Dow Jones for $40 each in September.

The investment was extraordinary for several reasons. Shares of Dow Jones were trading at about $36 at the time and had not crossed $40 in a year. The future for newspaper companies, meanwhile, was widely considered to be grim. As a result, the options cost the investor a mere 85 cents a share on the American Stock Exchange.

After Murdoch's offer was announced Tuesday, however, shares of Dow Jones shot up to $56 and the value of the options jumped to $17.20. The buyer of the options had a profit, on paper, of $4.6 million as of Wednesday afternoon...

The chances of this being just shrewd timing are zero," said Jon Najarian, a founder of OptionMonster.com, a site that studies unusual trading patterns.

Gosh, I wonder who it could be...? The initial bid proposal was formally made in a letter Murdoch sent two weeks ago. And the Bancrofts are a big family. So there are plenty of suspects for the police to round up, right? Yeah, right, now pull the other one!

Even with the more blatantly skewed options trades, though, investigators could have a hard time proving insider trading.

Officials would have to trace the flow of insider information to the investors who benefited from the options trade through someone familiar with News Corp.'s overture to the Dow Jones board and the Bancroft family, which has a controlling voting interest in the company. Officials would also have to prove that the person making the trade did not have another legitimate reason to buy the options.

Great work if you can get it, eh? What a massive bloody scam. No wonder these a**holes think ordinary citizens like me and you are just dumb fools, and they can invade countries for oil anytime they like.

What must life be like, up there in the clouds?

In a related story, here's a funny little response to Murdoch's bid from the pages of the WSJ itself:

Some owners of newspapers seldom, if ever, speak to their editors. Rupert Murdoch is not one of them....

Mr. Murdoch's hands-on style differs markedly from the traditions of the publisher he now wants to buy. The Bancroft family, the controlling shareholder of Wall Street Journal parent Dow Jones & Co., has long maintained a distance from the company's operations. The family, which owns 24.7% of the equity but through supervoting stock has voting control, has board representation but no involvement with direct management of the paper. While the editorial page has a conservative political viewpoint, a strict separation is enforced between the editorial page and the newsroom, designed to ensure opinion and news coverage don't mix.

In other words, the WSJ's genuine news content provides a platform for the Bancrofts to spout ultra-conservative, half-witted nonsense in the paper's editorial, and to publish opinion pieces from propaganda-catapulting charlatans like Arthur Chrenkoff and the Fadhil brothers. Hardly a good position from which to criticize the ethics of Big Rupe.

John Pilger's New Movie: "The War on Democracy"

'The War on Democracy' will be released in UK cinemas on Friday 15th June, after a special preview in London on Friday 11th May. The film will be released in Australia in September 2007 (just in time for the election, I would think).

For more info visit: www.johnpilger.com or www.warondemocracy.net

ICH has an interesting interview with Pilger, whose once-ostracised views on war and government lies certainly seem more popularly accepted these days:

I happened to watch George Bush’s second inauguration address in which he pledged to “bring democracy to the world.” He mentioned the words “democracy” and “liberty” twenty one times. It was a very important speech because, unlike the purple prose of previous presidents (Ronald Reagan excluded), he left no doubt that he was stripping noble concepts like “democracy” and “liberty” of their true meaning – government, for, by and of the people.

I wanted to make a film that illuminated this disguised truth -- that the United States has long waged a war on democracy behind a facade of propaganda designed to contort the intellect and morality of Americans and the rest of us. For many of your readers, this is known. However, for others in the West, the propaganda that has masked Washington’s ambitions has been entrenched, with its roots in the incessant celebration of World War Two, the “good war”, then “victory” in the cold war. For these people, the “goodness” of US power represents “us”. Thanks to Bush and his cabal, and to Blair, the scales have fallen from millions of eyes. I would like “The War on Democracy” to contribute something to this awakening.

Don't Call Me, John...

The government's long-promised Do Not Call Register is finally up and running.

Even if you do not register your number, new election-conscious laws mean that those annoying telemarketers cannot call you outside a 9am - 8pm window on weekdays, or 9am - 5pm on Saturdays.

Unfortunately, however, there are still some unscrupulous vermin who will be able to bother you with unsolicited calls:

The Do Not Call Register will make it illegal for telemarketers to call numbers listed on the register without consent, but certain organisations are exempt.

They include government bodies, educational or religious organisations, charities and registered political parties, although Senator Coonan said politicians would not be able to call if they were soliciting money.

Well, given that the Howard government is about to spend millions of my own hard-earned taxpayer dollars in a desperate (and doomed) effort to buy my vote, it's not like they would have much luck asking me for even more cash, is it?

But why are political parties exempted from this law? In the USA, where voting is not compulsory, political parties and pressure groups spend millions of dollars placing countless cold calls in an effort to "get out the vote". These are computer-generated calls that use recorded messages. They are often deliberately misleading and even sometimes insinuate false allegations against opposition candidates. The number of calls placed in the final 48 hours of a big US campaign is quite staggering.

Given the Howard government's desperate polling position, plus their tendency to copy anything Uncle Sam does (and remembering that Howard's own son has been working on US political campaigns), you have to wonder if they are preparing a similar phone blitz later this year.

Don't call me, John, and I won't call you.

M'kay?

UPDATE: Wow. When I posted my thoughts on this, I didn't expect them to be reflected in the top story at ABC News just a few hours later.

Communications Minister Helen Coonan is defending the Government's decision to allow politicians and pollsters to ring people who enroll on a new register designed to stop unwanted phone calls.

Qui custodiat custos?

Sex, Media and Wendi "Mrs Murdoch" Deng

Update: More biographical detail on Wendi Deng here, including an old WSJ article.

What is it with powerful men and their womenfolk? Laura Bush, Cherie Blair and Janet Howard combined have all the sex appeal of a moth-balled cardigan in summer - is that a coincidence? Are we, the morally outraged citizens of the Western world, actually paying the cost for our leaders' sexual frustration?

T'was not always thus, of course. Indeed, there are many powerful individuals who still enjoy both the trappings of power and the tender caress of a loving, if not always loyal, hand... But they don't much like to talk about it.

As France goes to the second round of presidential elections, the country's leading candidate is keeping stories about his wife off-limits to the public:

Mrs Sarkozy, 49, is believed to have spent part of the past few weeks in Florida.

This has been widely reported in the foreign press and on the internet, but has barely been mentioned in the French mainstream press, and not at all on television. The only reference on radio has been in the daily foreign press review on France Inter - the French equivalent of Radio 4 - which last Wednesday gave listeners translated extracts from an article on the Sarkozy marriage published that day in The Independent. The article asked why there had been an official news "blackout" on Cécilia Sarkozy's virtual disappearance: France Inter made no further comment...

Sources in Mr Sarkozy's party, the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP), say that there has indeed been another serious rift in his marriage: after brief appearances last Sunday at a polling station and at UMP headquarters, Cécilia has disappeared from view once again.


French websites are full of lurid speculation about the causes of the latest Nicolas-Cécilia bust-up, the third in two years. The Paris political-media village is talking of little else, and some are asking whether the rest of the public - especially the provincial public - does not have a right to know as well.

By contrast, the unconventional private life of the other remaining presidential candidate, Ségolène Royal, is well known to all...

So how is it that Sarkozy keeps his wife's name out of the papers, while Royal's life has been so exposed to media scrutiny that her partner was overheard hissing that his life had become "a living nightmare"?

One reason might be that Mr Sarkozy has many connections in the French media industry. The last editor of Paris-Match was fired for running a picture spread showing Cécilia with the man with whom she fled to the US in 2005. The magazine happens to be run by a group owned by a close friend of Mr Sarkozy.

When she left her husband in 2005, Cécilia Sarkozy gave a series of interviews to a journalist, Valérie Domain, who wrote a book giving the reasons for her flight. Mr Sarkozy intervened to have the book pulped.

Ms Domain changed the names and turned her book into a novel, Entre le Coeur et la Raison ("Between Heart and Reason"). The Cécilia Sarkozy character - "Célia" - is presented as an impulsive romantic who cannot stand living with a man who ignores her. At one point she says: "I have the impression that you have become like all of these other politicians, cold and distant, even with your wife. You are a fake, and I can stand it no longer."

Ahh, mon cherie....! What was it Albert Camus said?

"For anyone who is alone, without God and without a master, the weight of days is dreadful."

Coincidentally, Rupert Murdoch's young wife Wendi Deng is also being kept out of the news. As Crikey! reported over a week ago, Fairfax commissioned a major profile but then spiked the story at the last minute:

Here’s one crackerjack cover story you won’t be reading in Good Weekend magazine any time soon – the revealing inside story of the life and times of Wendi Deng. That’s because the story – a 10,000 word profile that took its writer two months of research across the world – was killed by the editor (or someone above her) two days ago.

Crikey! released more "tidbits" from the spiked story today. How long before this data infiltrates the mainstream media? Well, that all depends who dares to publish it, of course. And based on current form, that means ... well, nothing. (NOTE TO READERS: personally I would be happy to publish it if my free Crikey membership were still running, or let me know if you have links).



Now, just because Wendi married a wrinkly, smelly, flaccid old billionaire exactly twice her age (i.e. 38 years older than her) doesn't mean she is some kind of money-grabbing Anna Nicole Smith hoe, of course. Perish the thought! In fact, she is right up there in the Big Media groove:

"Between him and Wendi they are putting a lot of work into China and it is perhaps the last great frontier. China offers News Corp. the possibility of being bigger than Europe and the U.S," Cox said.

Yes, folks, Wendi is working those new business frontiers hard. In fact, with young Lachlan Murdoch reportedly enjoying the Bronte beach lifestyle, there is speculation that she could could even end up controlling the News Ltd empire!

So what do we know about Wendi Deng? Not much. This is from her Wikipedia entry:

Wendi moved to America in 1988 under the sponsorship of Joyce Cherry of California, who taught Deng English when she was in China with her husband, Jake Cherry. When Deng arrived in California, she moved into the home of Joyce and Jake Cherry. Within a year after Deng's arrival, Joyce found compromising photos of Deng in a hotel room in Jake's possession. Joyce kicked out both Deng and Jake, both of whom moved in together and eventually married. Within months of this marriage, Jake kicked Deng out after finding out she had been seeing a man in his 20's, David Wolf (who later went on to become a PR executive at Burston-Marsteller). According to Joyce: "[Deng] disappeared when he couldn’t provide her graduate school." ...

According to media sources run by Rupert Murdoch, Deng met Murdoch in 1999, the CEO of Star TV's parent company News Corporation. Murdoch divorced his wife of 31 years, Anna Torv, and married Deng within weeks afterwards. Shortly before their marriage was the marriage of Murdoch's oldest son, Lachlan, to model Sara O'Hare in Australia. Torv famously told the media that she asked Rupert to not bring Deng to this wedding, a request which Rupert complied with.

Deng and Rupert Murdoch have since had 2 daughters. Since their births, Deng has aggressively been strategizing (through Rupert) to give her children voting rights in a trust which has an interest in News Corp. that alone is valued at USD$6.1 billion. Until Deng's 2 daughters reach the age of 30, Deng would exercise those rights, which would give her 30% control over the trust...

There is reported to be tension between Murdoch and the children of his marriages to Anna over the terms of a trust holding the family's 28.5 percent stake in News Corporation, estimated in 2005 to be worth about $6.1 billion. Under the trust his children by Wendi share in the proceeds of the stock but have no voting privileges or control of the stock. Voting rights in the stock are divided 50/50 between Murdoch on the one side and his children by two prior marriages.

It is Murdoch's stated desire to have his children by Wendi given a measure of control over the stock proportional to their financial interest in it.

So. Obviously, nothing to see here folks! No argument for public interest. No need for further pubic - sorry, I mean public - scrotomy - sorry, I mean scrutiny.

Seriously, folks, if I had any dirt to dish on Wendi Deng I would happily dish it out. But in this case the real dirt is that THERE IS NO DIRT. There's no nothing.

Despite the fact that Deng is purportedly a top executive at a global news organisation (albeit of questionable repute), nobody is even allowed to TALK about her, let alone do interviews etc. Why not?

So in the meantime, and until more info becomes publicly available, please just be aware that the photo below is most definitely NOT Ms. Deng.

M'kay?

UPDATE: The Asia Sentinel asks if it is "hazardous to upset Rupert down in Oz". They point out that Deng's original Chinese name, Deng Wenge, means "cultural revolution". Hmmn, that sounds like a catchy phrase. Maybe FOX News should dump the old "fair and balanced" meme for something a bit bolder?

Hello and welcome back to the FOX News cultural revolution!

Seems to work, doesn't it?

Also, a few good thoughts via WP's blog. Why is it that young, sexy women never marry men who are double their age but POOR? Is it true that men only go to war (and build business empires) to impress their women? Could it be that the political struggle for a better world is inextricably linked to our own specie's daily stuggle to overcome the worst parts of our base human nature? Hmmmn...?

Restoring the Political Independence of the ABC

Via Machine Gun Keyboard, here's Kevin Rudd talking to Kerry on The 7.30 Report:

When it comes to the future composition of the board of the ABC, I'll be instituting a parallel process so we don't allow the politicisation of the board of the ABC. I'm passionate about the integrity of public institutions. Public institutions have been prostituted by this Government so much over the last decade that we've actually got to draw a line. We need to restore the integrity of institutions so that they are put beyond the reach of partisan politics.

Here's another guarantee for you. I will not make an appointment of any former politician or political staffer to any position on the board of the ABC. We've got to restore the integrity of institutions like the ABC fully.

Amen. Bravo. Fantastic. Hope that one is a "core" pledge, Kev.

An independent ABC is critical to balance the growing menace of the Murdoch Media:

Dow Jones & Co. shareholders say Rupert Murdoch's $5 billion takeover bid will spark an auction of the 125-year-old newspaper publisher.

``We're in the first inning,'' said Lawrence J. Haverty Jr., associate portfolio manager at Gamco Investors Inc. in Rye, New York. Gamco had 825,000 Dow Jones shares as of December. ``Dow Jones is a fish in the pond, and there are sharks swimming around.''

So how do YOU feel about Rupert Murdoch controlling the supply of realtime information from the world's financial markets, Tim Dunlop?

Mind you, I can't help wondering if Kerry O'Brien might not lose his job under an independent ABC board, though. When was the last time the little red dwarf really put some pressure on Howard? O'brien-Howard interviews nowadays have all the excitement and spontaneity of Pauline Hanson's ballroom dancing performances.

Anyway, three cheers for weez:

I want my ABC back. If Labor is elected, that might just happen.

Could Rudd be persuaded to get the damn ads off of SBS, too?

And get Stan Grant out of the studio too. I think he's another ASIO plant.

Heh.

How Will History Remember John Howard?

New UK polls suggest that after ten years in power, Tony Blair will be remembered for the Iraq War debacle, his fawning relationship with George W. Bush, and not much else. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell called the Iraq war "the most damaging foreign policy decision since Suez in 1956":

"Just as Suez followed Anthony Eden into retirement, so Iraq will follow Tony Blair".

Hard to argue with that. I was living in London when Blair came to power. I remember the excitement attached to his New Labour agenda after years of stifling Conservative rule. Blair inherited a delicately-poised Northern Ireland peace process which now appears to have delivered lasting peace. His efforts to reform the House Of Lords and other anachronistic relics of Empire, while not going as far as some might have wished, have certainly exceeded what most would have thought possible twenty years ago. But all that matters for nothing against the hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq, the resultant growth of militant Islam, the loss of British money and prestige, and the further destabilising of the Middle East.

Singer Bryan Ferry was recently forced to apologize after praising the quality of Nazi iconography:

"The way that the Nazis staged themselves and presented themselves, my Lord! I'm talking about the films of Leni Riefenstahl and the buildings of Albert Speer and the mass marches and the flags - just fantastic. Really beautiful."

Who cares, right? Any such achievements pale into nothing when stacked up against the horrors of the Holocaust and the battlefields of WWII. In fact, it's impossible to derive any lasting pleasure from watching old Nazi parades and rallies, because it's impossible to separate such events from the horrors to which they led.

I think Howard's legacy will depend very much on where Australia goes from here.

If, fifty years from now, we Australians find ourselves living in a militant Fascist state, then I suppose John Winston Howard will be remembered as a hero who resurrected our glorious war machine from the dusty debris of the Menzies era. If rampant corporate globalization leads us to a future where affluent Western societies like Australia have successfully locked developing countries into industrial and agricultural servitude, then I suppose Howard's economic policies will hailed as visionary. If we find ourselves in a Police State where citizens of an entrenched underclass end up doing forced labour in penal colonies, then I suppose Howard's industrial reforms will be remembered as well-intentioned but a bit too soft.

If, on the other hand, we can take our country back and resurrect the real meaning of old Australian values like mateship, tolerance, equality, and a fair go for all, then maybe history will judge Howard more harshly. If we can reclaim our place as a responsible global citizen, take the lead on global warming initiatives, help restore the tarnished image of International Law, and serve as a beacon of hope and decency for less fortunate citizens of the globe, then perhaps Howard will be remembered for what he truly is: a pustulent symptom of our society's enduring class and privilege divisions, a willing accomplice in the corporate rape of our global resources, an immoral, power-obsessed worm of a man, and a War Criminal.

Mind you, mothers are still buying Michael Jackson CD's for their kids, so who knows? It's a mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up world, and maybe the moral values that once existed no longer apply.

What Happens To Howard If Bush Gets Impeached?

Grassroots Democrats in the USA are still pushing for impeachment, even if Pelosi & Co insist it remains "off the table":

The resolution refers to Bush and Cheney having acted in a manner “subversive of the Constitution” by. . .

1) using false information to justify the invasion of Iraq
2) authorizing “the torture of prisoners of war”
3) “authorizing wiretaps on U.S. citizens without obtaining a warrant”
4) “disclosing the name of an undercover CIA operative”
5) suspending “the historic Writ of Habeas Corpus by ordering the indefinite detention of so-called enemy combatants”
6) “signing statements used to ignore or circumvent portions of over 750 Congressional statutes”

The resolution ends by calling for “vigorous investigation” and “appropriate remedies and punishment, including impeachment.”

This is just one of many citizen-led impeachment initiatives in the USA. No single one is making a big media splash just now, but they are spreading like a virus and any one could very easily become a big story overnight, given the right political winds (and Bush is certainly helping to fan the flames).

But what would happen to our own PM if Bush were impeached, either before or after the next Aussie election? Australian politicians have certainly been complicit in more than one of the above accusations: we surely knew at least something about the WMD fabrication (and if not, we should have); our officers were in rooms at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo when prisoners were being tortured; our SAS troops were rumoured to be first on the ground in Iraq, before war had even been declared; our Defence Ministers have certainly told deliberate lies, as has the PM, regarding the war; our own laws have been thrown out the window to accomodate the US persecution of David Hicks and others.

Legal voices in Australia have already come together to denounce Howard's warmongering and lies, but their efforts so far have gained little traction in the media. Impeachment of Bush (coupled with likely criminal investigations into Tony Blair's government) would change that dynamic completely.

If Bush and Blair were both held to the flames, it would be very hard for Howard to avoid the heat as well. Facts would be revealed. People would talk. Documents would come to light. And the public would soon be demanding to know the full story.

Indeed, I cannot help wondering if many sections of the Australian public might not be very happy to transfer their own subdued feelings of guilt onto the PM...

"What? He lied us into war? He made a deal with Bush? Well, I never! I voted for the little bugger, sincerely believing what he told me [yeah right] but this changes everything, I tell you!"

Know what I mean?

If this were to happen BEFORE the next election, it would be curtains for Howard, obviously. But imagine (if you will, and if you can) that Howard somehow wins the next election, and THEN Bush gets impeached. Where does that leave Australia? A dysfunctional government, clinging to power, crippled by ongoing investigations at home and abroad, struggling through one vote of no confidence after another?

We would all look pretty bloody stupid, wouldn't we?

Our troops on the ground in Iraq would be wondering whether to keep shooting the Iraqis, or shoot their leaders, or just shoot themselves in the foot and go home.