Alan Jones, Racist Fascist Hate-Monger

Further to my comments on blogs and talkback radio yesterday, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) today says Alan Jones incited last year's racist violence at Cronulla beach:

ACMA's report focused on Jones' broadcasting of correspondence from listeners about tensions at Cronulla in the days before the December 11 riot.

It said while the comments were "presented for a purpose in the public interest, being discussion of factors contributing to unrest in Cronulla ... ACMA was not persuaded that the relevant comments were presented reasonably and in good faith"...

On December 7, Jones read on air a comment from a listener who recommended that bikie gangs confront "Lebanese thugs" at Cronulla train station.

"It would be worth the price of admission to watch these cowards scurry back onto the train for the return trip to their lairs," Jones read on air.

"And wouldn't it be brilliant if the whole event was captured on TV cameras and featured on the evening news so that we, their parents, family and friends can see who these bastards are."

The ACMA is yet to determine a penalty for Jones and his employer, Macquarie Radio Network. Jones is still facing a year in jail for naming on air a child witness in a murder trial. And, of course, the self-described "Mohammed Ali of 2UE" is still broadcasting his hate-filled middle-of-the-road Fascism for the amusement and profit of the deadshits and dickheads in the corporate world who provide the cash for his comments.

I'm still waiting for the program where Jones tearfully accuses former Governor-General Dr Peter Hollingworth of being the first to dick him as a child in some dirty Toowoomba public toilet. What on earth do they do to kids in that neck of the woods?

But of course it's the hate-filled bloggers you've gotta watch out for, isn't it?

Weez at M.G.K. has more, including this quote from Jones:

“I’m the person that’s led this charge here. Nobody wanted to know about North Cronulla, now it’s gathered to this.”

Anone wanna bet on Howard ensuring that his toothless government media watchdogs give Jones and 2GB a massive ripping bite in the arse for this? Anyone?

UPDATE: OK, nobody took the bet (wise HO readers), and now, just a few hours later, it's already too late:

"I am not going to get involved in comments on individual decisions, but let me say this; I think Alan Jones is an outstanding broadcaster," Mr Howard said.

"I don't think he's a person who encourages prejudice in the Australian community, not for one moment, but he is a person who articulates what a lot of people think," he said.

"What a lot of people think" is that immigrants are dangerous, every wee snippet of foreign language is totally suss, and John W. Howard is our last bastion against he invading hordes. "What a lot of people think" is ill-informed nonsense. But people like Alan Jones and John Winston Howard are out there reinforcing such xenophobic hysteria every day.

Jones' defense is that nobody who actually listened to his program has ever complained about his comments, so therefore this is obviously a personalised, political (ABC-driven, of course) leftwing agenda.

But Alan, you darling, gentle man... Why would any intelligent person ever listen to your inane, racist, pro-Howard, money-fuelled nonsense program? And why does John Howard rush to defend you? Was he also a Hollingworth victim? He was an altar boy till the age of 21, so I hear...

Aussie Taxpayer's Fund Blood Money For Iraq

Tsk, tsk, just look what they are doing with my hard-earned cash:

DOZENS of Iraqi citizens have received secret compensation payments of up to $90,000 each from the Federal Government after claiming personal harm or hardship caused by Australian soldiers.

Australian taxpayers have funded at least 45 amounts - usually paid in wads of US dollars - out of respect for what the Defence Department describes as an "eye-for-an-eye culture".

In total, $266,681 of taxpayers' money has been paid out to Iraqi civilians in so-called act of grace payments since the Australian Defence Force began operations in Iraq.

The payments are huge sums for Iraqis, with the US Agency for International Development putting the present Iraq average annual income at $1830.

There were 37 individual payments for damage and injuries resulting from car accidents, ranging from $69 to $9390. Others included payments relating to crop damage and shootings.

While brief details are provided for some of the awards, the single biggest amount of $89,100 paid out last year has not been explained.

But it is thought the sum is most likely to have been paid to the family of the bodyguard of the Iraqi Trade Minister Abdul Falah al-Sudani.

Other payments of $33,900, $14,150 and $9280 may also be related to that incident.

In true Howard fashion, Australia has not admitted wrong-doing in "that incident" (our troops opened fire on the Iraqi Trade Minister's entourage) but we are paying out compensation anyway. Not that anyone should "link" the two things, of course!

NB: The blurb above comes from News Ltd, which I try to avoid, but I have not seen it reported anywhere else yet.

I Was Paid To Post Pro-Government Comments On Blogs!

Do I detect the beginnings of a concerted MSM effort to (further) discredit blogs? The New York Times promotes a call for blogger ethics on the front page. The editors at the SMH think this is important World News. Meanwhile, WaPo's Mistah Kurtz hosts a TV cat-fight on the subject.

What's going on? Is this just more orchestrated Rove-style "noise"? Or has the blogosphere reached some organic point of evolution where such discussion has suddenly and spontaneously become mega-urgent?

Here in OzBlogistan, there actually is some evidence of the latter. John Quiggin has decided to cut the crap, imposing registration requirements at one blog and a discussion policy at another:

I’m hoping this will help to kill off spam, and also help me in troll control...

One of the reasons I’ve taken a break from this blog is that I’ve found the effort of dealing with various kinds of disruptive commenters to be more than I can justify.

Bryan at OzPolitics has also implemented a Comments Policy:

If you don’t get it, I am sick of reading the mindless partisan bickering. The funny thing is that I suspect half of you are sitting in Parliament House or party Headquarters engaged in viral marketing techniques for the next election against the other half.

Heh! What? Professional political propagandists??!? Paid blogging commentary??!! Can it be true? I once had my comments at Road To Surfdom deleted for daring to suggest that such a thing could be happening. The ever-so-gentlemanly Tim Dunlop said this amounted to crazed ranting, even though the object of my comments was himself a crazed, ranting wingnut.

Hmmn... Could it be that the rude and crude incivility of the blogosphere is largely due to paid commentary from certain persons determined to muddy the waters, sow lies and disseminate their employers' daily talking points?

Let's look at the facts. The Pentagon, the US Military, and the US State Dept freely discuss using blogs as PsyOps, while influential "thinkers" like Paul Wolfowitz rave about them (only the blogs that are carefully tailored to their agendas, of course).

It would be surprising if Aussie politicians were not likewise taking an active interest in blogs, and trying to steer online discussions towards their own advantage. We all know that pollies are keen to throw money at anything new and promising in the propaganda-catapulting arena. And don’t forget that Arthur “Good News From Iraq” Chrenkoff was a paid employee of QLD Liberal Senator Brett Mason.

NB: Still waiting for someone to chase that story down! But not surprisingly, nobody in the "real" media seems to be interested.

Methinks the latest blogger ethics hysteria is a little odd. For example, Digby compares the MSM's attitude to blogging with their fawning devotion to talkback radio:

Whatever the reason, it's quite clear that mainstream media have either ignored, pandered to or actively embraced hate radio for almost two decades now. Nary a peep has been said about the relentless, daily drumbeat of demogoguery and loathing of their fellow citizens that these talk show hosts vomit onto the public airwaves for anyone with a radio to hear...

The discourse that everyone is so shocked to see is now uncivil and "nasty" was polluted decades ago by a bunch of rich, white businessmen who saw that they could make a very nice profit at exploiting the lizard brain of the American rightwing and help their political cause at the same time. The media thought it was all in good fun (and good for their bosses) just as they do today.

We bloggers didn't make this toxic, fetid environment, we just live in it. And toxic and fetid it is. At some point the prim and proper MSM are going to have to put down the smelling salts over the uncivil blogosphere and deal with the fact that the world they enabled with their convivial chuckling and snorting at Rush and Imus over the years has brought us to this place. The rest of us are little busy fighting off the neanderthal thugs they helped create.

Interestingly, Australian talkback radio jocks Alan Jones and John Laws have both been found guilty of running paid commentary (not that it seems to have damaged their careers much).

I think there is a big story here, which is sure to come out one day. Hopefully before the next election.

UPDATE: Ms Fits reveals that she got a call from a media voice asking her opinion on this subject. I'm wondering how many others were approached, and who succumbed to the lure of MSM fame? Rupert works in mysterious ways, y'know...

Politics, Oil Prices and Penitence

Well, here we go again, with petrol prices soaring on Easter's approach:

The president of the NRMA, Alan Evans, said people were baffled about why petrol prices rose before holidays, and could not understand why the Government did not do anything to stop it.

"It's always amazing how the price seems to increase prior to Easter and Christmas," Mr Evans said. "You can set your watches by it. I wouldn't be surprised if it creeps closer to $1.40 than $1.30."

Was it only yesterday that the Hon. Guardian Of The National Treasure Pedro Costello was issuing a stern warning to price-gouging petrol companies:

"I have asked them to continue to monitor sites and let me make it clear - if any service station proprietor wants to collude with anybody else, they're at risk of prosecution and conviction and heavy penalty."

Who is "them"? Them is the ACCC, which the Howard government long ago stripped of its independent powers to monitor petrol prices. Now they can only do so when the Hon. Guardian Of The National Treasure asks them to do so! For example, when we are six months out from an election.

Let's remember what Australian Prime Minister John Howard said on August 1st, 2006:

"I mean if anybody says there's some magical solution to the high price of petrol in Australia, will you please ring the Lodge and I'll spend an hour all-ears listening to them."

At the time, world oil prices were at all-time highs as the Bush-Cheney Oil Company Junta Inc (Int'l) guzzled down profits. Just three months later (on the exact date of the US mid-term elections, coincidentally), oil prices had falling a whopping twenty percent. If only John Howard had that kind of pulling power!!! [yes, I know all three of those URLs point to the same story: now go ahead and bloody read it!]

Cossie wasn't the only one getting quizzed about petrol prices this week. George W. Bush was also asked to explain the unusually high "gas" prices in the USA heading into Easter. And just to show you the kind of guy that I am, herewith follows a rather fullsome education for those who have no idea what the FCUK is going on in the world today. Read it, digest it if you can, and weep:

Q: Would the U.S. be willing to give up five Iranians held in Iraq if it would help persuade Iran to give up the 15 British sailors?

BUSH: I said the other day that, first of all, the seizure of the sailors is indefensible by the Iranians, and that I support the Blair government's attempts to solve this issue peacefully. So we're in close consultation with the British government.

I also strongly support the prime minister's declaration that there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages.

Q: Sir, your administration evaluated all 93 U.S. attorneys in part on the basis of loyalty; that was one of the criteria that was used.

What role should loyalty to you play in the evaluation of those charged with administering justice and enforcing the law?

BUSH: I - obviously when you name a U.S. attorney, you want somebody who can do the job. That's the most important criterion: somebody who's qualified, somebody who can get a job done.

The president names the U.S. attorneys, and the president has the right to remove U.S. attorneys.

And on this particular issue, the one you're referring to - I believe it's the current issue, of the U.S. - eight U.S. attorneys, they serve at my pleasure. They have served four-year terms. And we have every right to replace them.

(CROSSTALK)

BUSH: Let me finish, please.

I am genuinely concerned about their reputations now that this has become a Washington, D.C., focus. I'm sorry it's come to this.

On the other hand, there had been no credible evidence of any wrongdoing.

And that's what the American people have got to understand.

We had a right to remove them. We did remove them. And there have been - there will be more hearings to determine what I've just said: no credible evidence of wrongdoing.

Bill?

Q: Mr. President, a lot of the disagreement...

BUSH: Wrong Bill.

Q: Which one, him?

BUSH: No, you. The cute looking one.

Q: Thanks so much.

A lot of the disagreement, sir, over the way you're handling Iraq - disagreement from the public and Congress - stems from the belief that things are not working despite the surge. The Iraqis have met, if any, of the benchmarks that were laid down for them so far. Senator McCain walked in the Baghdad marketplace with air cover and a company of troops. But people don't believe that this can work, and they question the continued sacrifice of U.S. troops to help make it work.

BUSH: Yeah. Bill, I'm very aware that there are a group of people that don't think we should be there in the first place.

There are some who don't believe that this strategy will work.

I've listened carefully to their complaints. Obviously, I listened to these concerns prior to deciding to reinforce. This is precisely the debate we had inside the White House: Can we succeed?

I know there are some who have basically said it is impossible to succeed. I strongly disagree with those people. I believe, not only can we succeed; I know we must succeed.

And so I decided to - at the recommendation of military commanders, decided to send reinforcements.

As opposed to leaving Baghdad and watching the country go up in flames, I chose a different route, which is to send more troops into Baghdad.

And General Petraeus, who is a reasoned, sober man, says there is some progress being made. And he cites, you know, murders and, in other words, there's some calm coming to the capital.

But he also fully recognizes, as do I, it's still dangerous.

In other words, suiciders are willing to kill innocent life in order to send the projection that this is an impossible mission. The whole strategy is to give the Iraqi government time to reconcile, time to unify the country, time to respond to the demands of the 12 million people that voted.

You said the Iraqis haven't met any obligations. I would disagree with your characterization.

They have said that they will send Iraqi forces into Baghdad to take the lead, along with U.S. troops, to bring security to Baghdad. And they've done that.

They said they'd name a commander for Baghdad. They have done that.

They said they'd send up - you know, they'd send troop out into the neighborhoods to clear and hold and then build. They're doing that.

They said they would send a budget up that would spend a considerable amount of their money on reconstruction. They have done that.

They're working on an oil law that is in progress. As a matter of fact, I spoke to the prime minister yesterday about progress on the oil law.

He reminded me that sometimes the legislature doesn't do what the executive branch wants them to do. I reminded him I understand what he's talking about.

But nevertheless, I strongly agree that we've got to continue to make it clear to the Iraqi government that this is - the solution to Iraq, an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, is more than a military mission.

It's precisely the reason why I sent more troops into Baghdad: to be able to provide some breathing space for this democratically elected government to succeed. And it's hard work, and I understand it's hard work.

Secondly, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, there's only 40 percent of our troops that are there on the ground.

That's why I find it somewhat astounding that people in Congress would start calling for withdrawal even before all the troops have made it to Baghdad.

Q: Matthew Dowd, your chief campaign strategist in 2004, kind of issued a strong critique of you and your administration this weekend.

I'm wondering if you were personally stunned, and if you worry about losing support of people - of him and people like him.

BUSH: First of all, I respect Matthew. I've known him for awhile. And as you mentioned, he was an integral part of my 2004 campaign.

I have not talked to Matthew about his concerns. Nevertheless, I understand his anguish over war, understand that this is an emotional issue for Matthew as it is a lot of other people in our country.

Matthew's case, as I understand it, is obviously intensified because his son is deployable. In other words, he's got a son in the U.S. armed forces and - I mean, I can understand Matthew's concerns.

I would hope that people who share Matthew's point of view would understand my concern about what failure would mean to the security of the United States.

What I'm worried about is that we leave before the mission is done - and that is a country that is able to govern, sustain and defend itself - and that Iraq becomes a cauldron of chaos, which will embolden extremists, whether they be Shia or Sunni extremists, which would enable extremists to have safe haven from which to plot attacks on America, which could provide new resources for an enemy that wants to harm us.

And so, on the one hand, I do fully understand the anguish people go through about this war.

And it's not just Matthew. There's a lot of our citizens who are concerned about this war.

But I also hope that people will take a sober look at the consequences of failure in Iraq.

My main job is to protect the people. And I firmly believe that if we were to leave before the job is done the enemy would follow us here.

And what makes Iraq different from previous struggles is that September the 11th showed that chaos in another part of the world and/or safe haven for killers, for radicals, affects the security of the United States.

Q: Back to Iran, sir, ABC has been reporting that Iran will be capable of building a nuclear bomb within two years. Have you seen evidence that Iran is accelerating its nuclear program?

BUSH: I haven't seen the report that you just referred to.

I do share concerns about Iranian intention to have a nuclear weapon. I firmly believe that if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon, it would be a seriously destabilizing influence in the Middle East.

And therefore we have worked to build an international coalition to try to convince the Iranians to give up their weapon; to make it clear that they have choices to make, whether the choice be isolation or missed opportunity to grow their economies.

And so we take your - we take the - we take seriously the attempts of the Iranians to gain a nuclear weapon.

Q: Have you seen evidence of acceleration, though?

BUSH: You know, I'm not going to talk about any intelligence that I've seen, one way or the other.

But I do want you to know how seriously we take the Iranian nuclear issue. As a matter of fact, it is the cornerstone of our Iranian policy. It is in this - why we spend a lot of time in working with friends, allies, concerned people to rally international support, to make it clear to the Iranian people that there is a better option for them.

Now, we have no problem, no beef with the Iranian people. We value their history. We value their traditions. But their government is making some choices that will continue to isolate them and deprive them of a better economic future. So we take the issue very seriously.

Q: Mr. President, are you aware of the current price of a gallon of gas?

Can you explain why it's gone up so sharply in recent weeks?

And is there anything in the near future indicating the prices might start coming down again before the heavy summer driving season?

BUSH: About $2.60-plus.

Q: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: Yes...

Nationwide average. The price of gasoline obviously varies from region to region, for a variety of reasons. Some has to do with the amount of taxation at the pump. Some of it has to do with the boutique fuels that have been mandated on a state-by-state basis.

But a lot of the price of gasoline depends on the price of crude oil. And the price of crude oil is on the rise. And the price of crude oil is on the rise because people get spooked, for example, when it comes - when it looks like there may be a crisis with a crude-oil- producing nation, like Iran.

But the whole point about rising crude oil prices and rising gasoline prices is that this country ought to work hard to get off our addiction to oil.

All the more reason why Congress ought to pass the mandatory fuel standards that I set forth, which will reduce our use of gasoline by 20 percent over the next 10 years.

There's two reasons why: one is for national security concerns, and two is for environmental concerns. And I hope that we can get this done with the Congress, get it out of the Congress to my desk as quickly as possible.

Dancer. Dancing man.

That would be David Gregory. For those of you not aware, Gregory put on a show the other...

Q: Everybody's aware, Mr. President. Thank you.

BUSH: Well, maybe the listeners aren't.

Q: Yes, that's all right.

BUSH: That was a beautiful performance, seriously.

Q: Thank you. Thank you very much.

(CROSSTALK)

Q: Mr. President, you say the Democrats are undercutting troops the way they have voted. They're obviously trying to assert more concern over foreign policy.

Isn't that what the voters elected them to do in November?

BUSH: I think the voters in America want Congress to support our troops in harm - who are in harm's way. They want money to the troops.

And they don't want politicians in Washington telling our generals how to fight a war.

It's one thing to object to the policy but it's another thing, when you have troops in harm's way, not to give them the funds they need.

And no question, there's been a political dance going on here in Washington. You follow this closely; you know what I'm talking about.

Not only was there a political dance going on - in other words, people trying to appeal to one side of their party or another. But they then had to bring out new funding streams in order to attract votes to an emergency war supplemental.

And my concern is several.

One, Congress shouldn't tell generals how to run the war, Congress should not shortchange our military, Congress should not use an emergency war spending measure as a vehicle to put pet spending projects on that have nothing to do with the war.

Secondly, as I mentioned in these remarks, delays beyond mid- April and then into May will affect the readiness of the U.S. military.

So my attitude is, enough politics. They need to come back, pass a bill - if they want to play politics, fine, they continue to do that, I will veto it. But they ought to do it quickly. They ought to get to the bill to my desk as quickly as possible, and I'll veto it. And then we can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without withdrawal dates.

It is amazing to me that, one, the United States Senate passed a - confirmed General Petraeus overwhelmingly after he testified as to what he thinks is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and then won't fund him.

Secondly, I - we have put 40 percent of the reinforcements in place. And yet people already want to start withdrawing before the mission has had a chance to succeed.

And they need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk. And if it's got strings and mandates and withdrawals and pork, I'll veto it and then we can get down to business of getting this thing done.

And we can do it quickly. It doesn't have to take a lot of time. And we get the bill, get the troops funded and we go about our business of winning this war.

Q: On climate change and the decision that was issued yesterday by the U.S. Supreme Court, what's your reaction to that decision?

And don't you think that this makes some kind of broad caps on greenhouse gas emissions more or less inevitable?

BUSH: I - first of all, the decision the Supreme Court is - we take very seriously. It's the new law of the land.

And secondly, we're taking some time to fully understand the details of the decision.

As you know, this decision was focused on emissions that come from automobiles. My attitude is that we have laid out a plan that will affect greenhouse gases that come from automobiles by having a mandatory fuel standard that insists on 35 - using 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2017, which will reduce our gasoline uses by 20 percent and halt the growth in greenhouse gases that emanate from automobiles.

In other words, there is a remedy available for Congress. And I strongly hope that they pass this remedy quickly.

In terms of the broader issue, I - first of all, I've taken this issue very seriously. You know, I have said that it is a serious problem. I recognize that man is contributing greenhouse gases, that - but here are the principles by which I think we can get a good deal.

One, anything that happens cannot hurt economic growth. It's - and I say that because, one, I care about the working people of the country, but also because in order to solve greenhouse gas - the greenhouse gas issue over a longer period of time, it's going to require new technologies, which tend to be expensive. And it's easier to afford expensive technologies if you're prosperous.

BUSH: Secondly, whatever we do, must be in concert what happens - with what happens internationally. Because we can pass any number of measures that are now being discussed in the Congress, but unless there is an accord with China, China will produce greenhouse gases that will offset anything we do in a brief period of time.

And so those are the principles that will guide our decision-making: How do you encourage new technology? How do you grow the economy? And how do you make sure that China is - and India - are a part of a - you know, a rational solution?

Q: Since General Pace made his comments - they got a lot of attention - about homosexuality, we haven't heard from you on that issue.

Do you, sir, believe that homosexuality is immoral?

BUSH: I - I - I will not be rendering judgment about individual orientation.

I do believe the don't ask/don't tell policy is good policy.

Sammon, yes.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President.

BUSH: You're standing out there. I can see you.

Q: When Congress has linked war funding with a timetable, you have argued micromanagement. When they've linked it to unrelated spending, you've argued pork barrel.

But now there's talk from Harry Reid and others that if you veto this bill, they might come back and just simply cut off funding.

Wouldn't that be a legitimate exercise of a congressional authority, which is the power of the purse?

BUSH: The - the Congress is exercising its legitimate authority as it sees fit right now. I just disagree with their decisions. I think setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal is a significant mistake. It is - it sends mixed signals and bad signals to the region and to the Iraqi citizens.

Listen, the Iraqis are wondering whether or not we're going to stay to help. People in America wonder whether or not they've got the political will to do the hard work. That's what Plante was asking about. In my conversations with President Maliki, he seems dedicated to doing that.

And we will continue to work with him to achieve those objectives.

But they're wondering whether or not, you know, America is going to keep commitments. So when they hear withdrawal and timetables and, you know, it, rightly so, sends different kinds of signals.

The - it's interesting that Harry Reid - Leader Reid spoke out with a different option.

Whatever option they choose, I would hope they'd get home, get a bill and get it to my desk. And if it has artificial timetables of withdrawal or if it cuts off funding for troops or if it tells our generals how to run a war, I'll veto it.

And then we can get about the business of giving our troops what they need, what the - what our generals want them to have, and give our generals the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives that we set out by reinforcing troops in Iraq.

You know, what's interesting is, you don't hear a lot of debate about Washington as to what will happen if there is failure. Again, Plante mentioned that people don't think we can succeed. You know, in other words, there's no chance of succeeding. That's a part of the debate.

But what people also have got to understand is what will happen if we fail. And the way you fail is to leave before the job is done; in other words, just abandon this young democracy, say we're tired, that we'll withdraw from Baghdad and hope there's not chaos.

I believe that if this capital city were to fall into chaos - which is where it was headed prior to reinforcing - that there'd be no chance for this young democracy to survive. That's why I made the decision I made.

And the reason why I believe it's important to help this young democracy survive is so that the country has a chance to become a stabilizing influence in a dangerous part of the world.

I also understand that if the country - if the experience were to fail, radicals would be emboldened, people that had been - that can't stand America would find, you know, new ways to recruit, there would be, potentially, additional resources for them to use at their disposal.

The failure in Iraq would endanger American security.

I have told the American people often, it is best to defeat them there so we don't have to face them here, fully recognizing that what happens over there can affect the security here. And that's one of the major lessons of September the 11th.

In that case, there was safe haven found in a failed state, where killers plotted and planted - planned and trained, and came and killed 3,000 of our citizens. And I vowed we weren't going to let that happen again.

Secondly, the way to defeat the ideology that these people believe is through a competing ideology, one based upon liberty and human rights and human dignity.

And there are some who, I guess, say that's impossible to happen in the Middle East.

I strongly disagree.

I know it is hard work. I believe it is necessary work to secure this country in the long run.

Q: The conservative newspaper columnist Robert Novak recently wrote that, in 50 years of covering Washington, he's never seen a president more isolated than you are right now.

What do you say to critics like Novak who say that you are more isolated now than Richard Nixon was during Watergate?

BUSH: How did he define isolated ?

Q: He said you were isolated, primarily, from your own party; that Republican leaders on the Hill were privately telling him that on the Gonzales matter in particular you're very isolated.

BUSH: I think you're going to find that the White House and the Hill are going to work in close collaboration, starting with this supplemental.

When I announced that I will veto a bill with - that withdrew our troops, that set artificial timetables for withdrawal or micromanaged the war, the Republicans strongly supported that message.

I think you'll find us working together on energy. They know what I know: that dependence on oil will affect the long-term national security of the country.

We'll work together on No Child Left Behind.

We'll work together on immigration reform.

We will work together, most importantly, on budget to make sure this budget gets balanced without raising taxes.

The other day the Democrats submitted budgets that raise taxes on the working people in order to increase the amount of money they have available for spending. That is a place where the Republicans and this president are going to work very closely together. I adamantly oppose tax increases, and so do the majority of members in the United States Congress.

Q: Mr. President, good morning. You've talked about...

BUSH: Good morning. Good morning. That's a good way to start.

Q: You've talked about the consequences of failure in Iraq. And you've said that the enemies would follow us home.

I wonder, given that it seems like that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of people who are charged with the responsibility of keeping America safe, so...

BUSH: What was that again?

Q: Well, you say that the enemies would follow us home. If...

BUSH: I will. That's what they did. Just like September the 11th. They plotted, planned and attacked.

Q: But I wonder in your own mind, how does that vision play out? How do they follow us home? Because we've spent so much money and put so much resource into making this country safe.

BUSH: They - I'm not going to predict to you the methodology they'll use. Just you need to know they want to hit us again.

And we - we do everything we can here at the homeland to protect us.

That's why I've got a Homeland Security Department. That's why we are, you know, inconveniencing air traffickers, to make sure nobody is carrying weapons on airplanes.

That's why we need border enforcement, with a comprehensive immigration bill, by the way, to make sure it's easier to enforce the border.

I mean, we're doing a lot. That's why we need to make sure our intelligence services coordinate information together better.

So we spend a lot of time trying to protect this country. But if they were ever to have safe haven, it would make the efforts much harder. That's my point.

We cannot let them have safe haven again. The lesson of September 11th is, if these killers are able to find safe haven from which to plot, plan and attack, they will do so.

So I don't know what methodology they'll use. We're - we're - we're planning for the worst. We cover all fronts. And it's hard to protect a big country like this.

And I applaud those who are - who have done a fantastic job of protecting us since September the 11th.

But make no mistake about it: There's still an enemy that would like to do us harm. And I believe, whether it be in Afghanistan or in Iraq or anywhere else, if these enemies are able to find safe haven, it will endanger the lives of our fellow citizens.

I also understand that - that the best way to defeat them in the long run is to show people in the Middle East, for example, that there is a better alternative to tyrannical societies, to societies that don't meet the hopes and aspirations of the average people. And that is through a society that is based upon the universal concept of liberty.

Iraq is a very important part of securing the homeland. And it's a very important part of helping change the Middle East into a part of the world that will not serve as a threat to the civilized world, to people like - or to the developed world, to people like in the United States.

So thank you all very much for your interest. I hope you have a nice holiday. Appreciate it.

Howard's Grey Army Is Wilting Away

The word cohort derives from the Latin word for one of the ten divisions in an ancient Roman legion. Apparently that is how John Winston Howard (PM) sees his elderly supporters, and they are clearly NOT doing enough for the cause right about now. In fact, they seem to be wandering off the reservation:

"If everybody worked at least until they were in their middle to late 60s, that would make an enormous difference," Mr Howard, who turns 68 this year, told ABC radio.

"The big problem Australia's had is far too many people retire at 55.

"Until quite recently, that cohort of 55-64 in Australia was less in work ... than comparable cohorts in other relevant countries."

Some of these old bludgers are not just quitting the workforce, but also experiencing life-changing "sea changes" in their attitudes. Some of them are just walking away from their generation's WWII Menzies mindset, which has served us all so well for the past decade.

And can it be that the PM himself is starting to see a light at the end of the tunnel? Whispers of mortality? Hints of other-wordly visions? No! Never!

"There are many, many people I know who have retired after a very, very busy life and suddenly they're doing nothing, and they go to pieces," he said.

"They are used to being relevant and useful and then all of a sudden they find they're not.

"People ought to stay in the workforce longer, perhaps work part-time."

Hey, great idea! Let's have a part-time PM! This one has been far, far too full-time! Just look at all those nightly TV "running commentaries" on everything from Ian Thorpe's drug habit to Dawn Fraser's undergarments. We've all had a gutful of it!

Asked about his own plans for retirement, Mr Howard was unusually coy:

"I'm sure I'll have plenty of other things to do (in retirement)," Mr Howard said.

"I don't have a boat but I'm quite sure that there'll be things I can find to do.

Oh, yeah. I'm sure Rupert and the boys at the Carlyle Club will be able to think of something. In fact, I'll wager Howard knows exactly what he wants to do, including some exhaustive (four volumes? five?) semi-autobiographical works, a right-wing think-tank named in his honour, statues on Parliament Hill and in Martin Place, and a new prime-ministerial library on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin.

And, of course, lots and lots and lots of military parades! Hurrah!

Perhaps Mr Howard might soon have more time to ponder the words of his favourite singer (I kid you not):

Gonna sleep down in the parlour
And re-live my dreams
I close my eyes and I wonder
If everything is as hollow as it seems

Oz Politics Blog

Is moving to Wordpress and temporarily relocated here. Bryan says his next project will be a 2007 elections guide.

I thought he had shut the whole site down after being miffed by my criticism last week! Heh.

UPDATE: Bryan has added Howard Out to his list of blogs - thanks!

Hicks Will Go Free... But Not Now

Well, that sure explains what Cheney and Howard were talking about over their weekend BBQ in February. WaPo reveals that the deal was hammered out between Major Mori and Susan J. Crawford, the Defence Department's top military commission official, who just happens to have been Dick Cheney's inspector general from 1989 to 1991, when Cheney was defense secretary.

What more can you say about this utterly disgraceful farce? Robert Richter, QC, one of Australia's most experienced criminal lawyers, says the trial was a sham that had wholly discredited the Pentagon's war-crimes process:

"The charade that took place at Guantanamo Bay would have done Stalin's show trials proud. First there was indefinite detention without charge. Then there was the torture, however the Bush lawyers, including his attorney-general, might choose to describe it. Then there was the extorted confession of guilt."

Even US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates (Rummy v2.0) says the verdict will lack credibility because of the reputation of Guantanamo around the world.

Elsewhere, Aussie Bob has a good post with an interesting query about what happens when and if Hicks repudiates his guilty plea.

Here's another thought: what happens when (inevitably) one of the Gitmo detainees challenges the legality of these v2.0 military tibunals and sends the whole process back to the US Supreme Court, who previously ruled v1.0 illegal?

It is 99% certain that the Supremes will reassert their verdict (little has changed since v1.0), in which case Hicks' entire plea bargain deal will be rendered legally obsolete and any prisoner exchange deal with the US government will fall apart, given that said prisoner cannot legally be detained any longer under US law.

What will the Australian government do then? Re-arrest Hicks and send him back to Gitmo?

Who cares, right? As long as it doesn't happen till after the next election!

Might be interesting to watch Four Corners tonight: David Hicks: The Untried Case.

UPDATE: Malcolm "Me Next" Turnbull dives head-first into the trough:

"Whether he was a foot soldier or more important than that, none the less he was definitely working with the terrorists who were seeking to destroy our civilisation," he said.

"Given those circumstances I've always wondered [about] his failure to get a deal done, and the apparent lack of interest on his lawyers' part to get a deal done.

"I've often wondered what their motivations were there."

What a wanker! The implication is clear. Turnbull is actually suggesting that Mori and other Hicks lawyers were working with the terrorists to "destroy our civilisation"!

Plea Bargain: Terry Hicks Explains

SMH:

"He knows that, in particular, the way the courts system worked against him and against his lawyers that he's not going to be found not guilty, they are going to nail him to the wall," Mr Hicks told reporters at Adelaide airport.

"So what David has done, in his best interests ... is to plead guilty.

"After the conversations we had with David you could see all he wants to do is get home.

"If any of you put yourself in David's situation ... most of you would be pleading guilty to something just to get out of the place.

"You would not want to stay in that place any longer than David has, otherwise you will never ever get out." ...

Compared with Guantanamo, "Yatala will be a five star hotel", Mr Hicks said.

Still, it's annoying how all the media talk excitedly about Hicks coming "home". I doubt he would really want to call call Yatala Prison home.

Aussies, This Is Your Life

SMH has details of a new report:

A fat, satisfied workaholic who enjoys spending and technology, and who wouldn't trust oil companies as far as they could throw 'em. That's the latest snapshot of the average Australian...

According to the Eye on Australia report, married people are more satisfied with their lives than single people, while the pre-baby boomers (those aged over 62) are the happiest age bracket.

But four out of five Australians say life is getting more stressful, with worries about increasing debt, saving money for the future, environmental problems and racism...

Eighty-four per cent think the gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider, possibly explaining why federal politicians are placed third-last in a list of trustworthy groups.

Petrol and oil companies are considered the least trustworthy group, followed closely by telemarketers, state pollies, and real estate agents, while major charities have been named the country's most reliable.

I wonder who decided to put the questions about oil companies in the survey, and why.

UPDATE: This post has been linked at Club Troppo, so just to show the kinda guy I am, I have tracked down the report, which is from Sweeney Research and Grey Worldwide:

Over the past 13 years, Sweeney Research has conducted an annual study with Grey Worldwide that has seen us speak with more than 7000 Australians about advertising, shopping, finances, time, relationships, technology and many, many other things.

The insights and observations that emerge each year are invariably enthusiastically embraced by corporate Australia and major public sector organisations.

Sweeney Research was established in Melbourne in 1972 by Brian Sweeney (per BRW magazine, "Australia's Best Market Researcher"). Grey Worldwide's big honcho is Paul Gardner, "who has climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro". But such market research is generally funded by others, isn't it?

Wanker Of The Day

Miranda Devine.

Cold Comfort For Change

I was right again:

DAVID HICKS will be behind bars in Australia until after this year's election, but his stint in an Adelaide prison will be relatively short, under a plea bargain being hammered out between prosecutors and his defence counsel.

Government sources confirmed yesterday that Hicks's prospective sentence would take into account his five years and two months in Guantanamo Bay but would also include a short period to be served in Australia. That period is "not close" to the five years being mooted in some reports, one government official said. The Herald understands that additional time to be served in Australia is about a year.

The outcome, still to be approved by a panel of US military commission officials and its Convening Authority, is a bonus for the Federal Government, as Hicks will be unable to conduct potentially embarrassing interviews before this year's election.

Bastards.

Downer Pisses Himself

Alexander Downer is soiling himself with delight at Hick's sad predicament:

"He's guilty - he said he's guilty.

"Of course, if he said he was guilty and he wasn't guilty, he would be perjuring himself...

"You'll see over the next few days, Hicks will sign up a full admission of what he did.

"It's not just a question of a guilty plea but in the military commission process, the judge will go through allegation by allegation in relation to the facts of what he was doing and that will be made public."

Ruddock is not far behind, rejecting suggestions the plea was made under duress.

"I don't know what the duress is," he said.

Santoro Signs Off

Disgraced Liberal MP Santo Santoro's final speech to Parliament:

"Integrity never goes out of style."

Gambling On Our Futures

This is how stupid I am.

I have been blogging for four years now, and yet I still did not really appreciate the fact that it is possible to bet on the next US Presidential Election.

Democrats 1.80
Republicans 1.90

You can even bet on the next Democrat candidate (GOP alternatives not yet available, for obvious reasons):

Hillary Clinton 2.10
Barack Obama 4.20
Any Other Candidate 5.00
John Edwards 6.50
John Kerry 11.00

How obscene is that? I admit, I knew such betting existed, but the fact is that it has only just now "hit" me. THIS IS WRONG! Why don't the bloggers cover this? Are they all busy placing their own bets?

Here's the latest betting on the Australian Federal election due later this year:

Labor 1.80
Liberal / National Coalition 1.95

And here is specific betting on the Australian Prime Minister's seat, which has been discussed by Crikey this week:

Australian Labor Party 3.50
Liberal Party of Australia 1.35
Any other Political Party/Independant Candidate 26.00

26 to 1? At those odds, I am tempted to put the house on my own Independent bid for Bennelong! Hey, I used to live there once myself!

But seriously, this is a very wrong and dangerous thing. It should not legally be possible to gamble on elections. It's just fundamentally wrong. We have enough corruption in politics already. Let's stop this now.

Howard to become a grandfather

Howard's ultimate baby photo moment looms just before the election:

The prime minister's only daughter married Rowan McDonald in 2003. Both work as lawyers.

Poor kid. Mum and Dad both lawyers, and grandpa's an asshole.

Whose Fault Is Hicks's Plight?

NB: The following post is assembled from comments I posted earlier at Oz Politics Blog.

Even antiwar websites have been reporting David Hicks's plea bargain using terms like “the Australian Taleban”. Howardistas in the media like Gerard Hendersen have successfully defined not just attitudes to Hicks, but also much of the language in this debate. Cliched tags like “Muslim convert” and “Al Quaeda sympathiser” leap out from all directions and are rarely subject to scrutiny.

We hear that Hicks is looking chubby, has dark circles under his eyes, cried when he met his father, was sodomized by US guards, has to grow his hair long to block out the lights which are rarely or never switched off. Are these things important? Sure, but the real issue is that an Australian citizen has been not only abandoned but actively vilified by his government, setting an extraordinary dangerous precedent which undermines the very fabric of our society.

We have become accustomed to such outrageously cynical abuses of power by the Howard government. We feel a certain familiar sense of numbness as we struggle to verbalise our outrage.

But I fear that the Australian public - who have repeatedly voted for a War Criminal - will soon be all to happy to forget about David Hicks.

The Hicks case covers the US and Australian governments in ignomy, but the Australian public must also bear it’s share of the burden of guilt. We abandoned Hicks. We let him rot. Even those of us who actively campaigned on his behalf for many years did not do enough. I know about the Amnesty campaign, GetUp campaign, etc. And sure, they all helped put pressure on Howard, and maybe without them Hicks would be in Gitmo another ten years. But this sure doesn’t feel like any kind of “victory”, does it?

When his Dad told Hicks about all the public pressure on the Howard government over his case, Hicks replied: “So why am I still here?” Hicks ultimately went for a plea deal not only because he had been abandoned by his government, but also because he was abandoned by the Australian people.

This is what we have become. John Howard is a reflection of US.

The New "New Matilda"

New Matilda has a new owner. Might be worth keeping an eye on.

Wanker Of The Day

Tony Abbott.

Hicks Does A Deal

What an unforgiveable tragedy.

The looming Howard governement defeat at the polls will be without precedent in the history of Australia. These fuckwipes have nothing left.

Nothing.

My incandescent rage is beyond words.

Hicks declines to enter plea.

He also made a smart comment about speaking Australian, so it looks like there is still some fight in him.

Meanwhile, more utter, utter crap from Downer:

"Different courts and different jurisdictions have different practices and when you go overseas and you get seized overseas and taken before a court, you have to live within the jurisdiction within which you've found yourself," he said.

Tell that to those 15 British soldiers captured by the Iranians, Alex.

I am now planning to kidnap Alexander Downer and take him offshore in an old fishing trawler. Once we get into international waters, I will start poking him with kebab skewers and saying "Ni, ni, ni!" until he screams in agony. Who's with me?

Post Election Spin

Gerard Henderson purports to analyse post-election spin in NSW but actually ends up doing a heck of a lot of post-election (and even pre-election) spin of his own.

Virtually channeling Howard, he dismisses the WorkChoices issue and tries to frame the federal election in McCarthyist terms:

Unions would survive a federal Coalition victory in late 2007. However, their influence would be substantially - perhaps even permanently - diminished. In other words, many union officials regard 2007 as their last stand.

Oh, really? And then what? Is a 2008 Coalition government going to ban unions forever?

Henderson says the criticism of WorkChoices is a campaign "run by the ACTU with the support of Labor" which "enjoys the support of many journalists and academics who cover industrial relations". Goodness, me! Six months out from an election and already blaming the media?

If Howard and his media shrills want to keep ignoring reality, that's their funeral.

They think they can run this spin for another six months and drag voters across to their viewpoint. They will spend millions of taxpayer dollars in slick advertising campaigns to promote WorkChoices and other unpopular government policies. They sold us the GST, they sold us the Iraq War, who is to say they cannot sell us more nicely-wrapped bullshit?

How stupid are we?

UPDATE: Selling the union monster freak show is going to be a bit harder given that Rudd is now risking a showdown with his new economic policies:

The Labor leader's proposals, outlined in a draft policy blueprint, denounce passive welfare, embrace the casualisation of the workforce, boost business grants and formally bury Mark Latham's disastrous Tasmanian forests policy with support for logging.

That's from a draft policy document previewed in The Murdochian.

Battle Lines Drawn

What is obvious depends on where one stands. To a person standing on top of a hill, the cliff below seems obvious. To a person slowly labouring up the other side of the hill, the precipice is completely obscured.

Today Crikey points out the seemingly obvious fact that Howard's WorkChoices policies are now "political poison". It details the conclusions of a report by Professor David Peetz of Griffith University:

The report emphasises that Australia currently has both low unemployment and many labour market shortages. Nevertheless, the wages share of GDP is "at a nearly 35 year low"...

No doubt Peetz’s study will be met with the same ad hominem attacks previously dished out with reference to his research from Costello and Hockey. But polling during the NSW election found that 30% of respondents knew someone personally whose conditions and/or wages had suffered through WorkChoices.

If the Federal Government is inclined to dismiss the importance of industrial relations on the NSW election, they’re free to do so, but there’s no doubt that they will be held to account one way or another in the federal election.

The warning is most certainly going to be ignored, unless Howard is dumped as leader.

The economy is really the only "trump card" Howard has left to play, and yet the ipact of his disgraceful WorkChoices policy totally repudiates whatever other economic successes he might point to. This sort of policy is driving Australia towards a divided, class-ridden society.

Do we want to live in a country where Sydney's mega-rich cruise down New South Head Road to their Vaucluse mansions, past homeless people living in cardboard boxes? Is that where we want to go? I think not. But that is where Howard's increasingly elitist society is headed.

Howard cannot back down on this cornerstone legislation without destroying his whole "man of steel" facade. So it looks like the outlines of the federal election later this year have now been clearly defined:

Mr Howard has told Sky News he expects the fight over IR to be tough, but says rolling back the changes is not an option.

"It will send a signal to the world that we are tired of economic reform," he said.

Mr Howard says Labor's campaign is about the unions wanting more control of the workplace.

Oh dear. Is that really the best he can do? How much of my hard-earned taxpayer money is he prepared to throw at convincing people of such nonsense? How much will his Liberal Party colleagues put up with?

A lot, it seems. Here's Howard Government frontbencher Andrew Robb:

"We've got the lowest level of industrial dispute in history."

Well, duh.

Personally, I took a former employer to court four or five years ago and won an unfair dismissal claim. It was unpleasant and financially not worth the effort, but I won, and I thought that was important. Today I would not bother: the laws are stacked against you.

Where are your children and your grandchildren going to stand on all this?

Taking A Break From Blogging

I am going to be taking a break from blogging while I wait on a couple of interesting job prospects which could affect my ability to post.

On the one hand I am applying for a job as a writer at ASIO. I saw the following advert (yep, it's real) in Saturday's SMH and I was totally convinced that destiny was calling:

I WAS A WRITER UNTIL I WROTE THIS

While writing this recruitment ad for ASIO Intelligence Officers, I had an out-of-job experience. I could see my job compared to that of an ASIO Intelligence Officer and it make me think. On the one hand there's Intelligence Officers protecting our way of life. On the other, there's me protecting my way of life. Seems a bit small in comparison. So I've made a big decision. I'm going to apply. I realise that the people skills and critical thinking I use every day would be put to better use at ASIO. So the next thing I will write is my application.

Do something better with your brain.
Apply at www.asio.gov.au

I was planning to submit my application first thing Monday morning. But then the NSW election results came through. It was a crushing 21st consecutive election defeat for John Howard's Liberals.

The little man himself was insisting (yet again) that the loss was a result of state issues, which is kind of wierd considering all the state issues seemed to be negatives for the Iemma government. Howard advised the NSW Liberals to do a better job of presenting their policies, which is kind of wierd because it was a voter backlash against his own Industrial Relations policies which dominated the post-election analysis. Little wonder there were calls for Howard's resignation the next day.

So I was just working through my ASIO application...

The opportunities we offer: ASIO is undergoing a period of unprecedented growth, both in numbers and in the development of advanced technical capabilities.

Heh. Yeah, I bet.

Technical Analyst
As a member of the Computer Exploitation Investigations team you will have an interest in emerging technologies and Internet trends. You will utilise your well developed analytical skills to evaluate a range of electronic information and focus ongoing technical collection efforts. In this role you will work on major ASIO investigations, providing technical expertise to help ‘join the dots’.

That's me right there, I thought. Gandhi the trendy Net dot joiner.

But then suddenly, a little chat message from someone called rupe666@newsltd.com.au pops up on my screen:

Looking for new talent with antiwar cred. $$$ awaits. Salary pkg incl. travel, accomodation, pension plan w/ Carlyle Group. Come to the dark side.

Well, why not? I thought.

I mean, if I don't take the job, Big Rupert will just give it to someone else, right? At least if I'm working inside the tent I might be able to have some influence on decision-making. You can't fight this stuff: it's bigger than one man. Maybe I should just put myself and my family's financial security ahead of other priorities for a while? Who could blame me?

So now, I dunno. It's a toss up. I've decided to apply for both jobs and just see how things go. Ideally, I would like to be able to write my own war propaganda and then sling it personally from the Murdoch media catapult. That would be just perfect.

UPDATE: The ASIO application is already looking wobbly. For one thing:

ALL APPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT WITH ASIO ARE HANDLED IN THE STRICTEST CONFIDENCE. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT YOU MAINTAIN A SIMILAR LEVEL OF CONFIDENTIALITY, AND THAT YOU NOT DISCUSS YOUR APPLICATION WITH OTHERS.

D'oh!

Then there's this bit:

How to apply: Applicants should e-mail ITspecialists@tmpworldwide.com.au for further details on the selection criteria and how to apply.

...

Applicants should note that only those selected for interview will be contacted further.

Eh? So you apply by just asking how to apply, then sit back and wait while they run checks on you? That's enough to make me feel a bit nervous, given my close links to the famous Incident On South Dowling Street back in the 80's.

This is even scarier:

Preferred applicants will be required to undergo psychological assessment and intrusive security and personal checking.

Intrusive personal checking??! Ouch! There's no cameras up there, man, I swear!!!

Does USA Want Hicks?

Surprised that these comments by Tony Snow did not get more attention:

Q Why is it that the President's stated desire to close Guantanamo Bay cannot be turned into some kind of plan of action?

MR. SNOW: Because there are legal constraints, and those are the things that the Attorney General had made clear in terms of the inadvisability of putting Guantanamo detainees on continental U.S. soil. We have tried as best we can to move those who are in Guantanamo either to their home nations, or nations where they are wanted for other trial or justice dispensation. But we also have laid down the benchmark that you also have to be able to assure that they're going to be treated humanely. Very few countries want these people back, and, therefore, what you have to do is to work through a procedure where you do, in fact, bring them to justice. But the President made clear back in September that he would love to be able to shut it down, but unfortunately the circumstances do not presently permit. April.

Q So, realistically, are you saying that Guantanamo Bay will not be shut down before the end of his presidency?

MR. SNOW: I doubt it, no. I don't think it will.

Rudd Embraces Uranium

What a stupid thing to do. Even Peter Beattie is on board. I think Rudd is about to get a lesson in the pitfalls of arrogance. Pretty ironic given the latest polls.

At this stage I will definitely be voting for the Greens again. When is Peter Garrett going to jump ship to the Greens - before or after he wins a seat?

Libs Prepare To Unseat Howard

You know things are bad when your colleagues are forced to express confidence in their leader. Today Tony Abbott expresses carefully muted support:

"The PM has been saying for months this is a two-horse race," Mr Abbott told the Nine Network.

"Obviously, one horse, or jockey perhaps, is well in front at the moment.

"(But) we made the judgment back in the middle of last year that John Howard was by far the best politician to lead the country.

"I still think that's the case and I think that's the view of the party room."

So Abbott is blaming Howard's skill as a jockey rather than the Liberal Party horse. And he implies that it has been a long time since they last considered who should be in the saddle. Interesting.

Watch for the Howard smackdown and the forced clarifications. But the cat is out of the bag at last.

UPDATE: I am now taking bets on who will be the next Liberal leader, and what date the changeover will come. My bet: Turnbull on Jun 24th.

How Long Before Santoro Kills Himself?

We have now had both Alex "Screw Hicks" Downer and Tony "Head-kicker" Abbott suggesting that Santo Santoro might kill himself at any moment if the ALP does not back off.

I am taking bets on how long it will before Santo Santoro does himself in. Extra points for anyone who can nominate the method of self-annihilation.

My guess: a week before the next election, by rope.

Santoro deserves support, sympathy: Abbott. 22/03/2007. ABC News Online

Tony Abbott says Santoro deserves support and sympathy:

Mr Abbott made the comments after addressing a conference on suicide prevention.

Message to voters: criticize Liberals and we will kill ourselves.

Our Shrinking Leaders

This description of Bush (from Tbogg via Eschaton) could very easily be applied to our dominutive PM, or even Tony Blair for that matter:

One thing that is fascinating about George Bush is how little he has grown in office. No, that's not right. It's not that he hasn't grown, he has gotten smaller; less Presidential, more sad little man watching his paper boat circle the drain. After six years of playing The Decider he should at least have a thin candy shell of gravitas as opposed to coming across like one of those guys on Peoples Court who not only has an unshakable belief that people won't see through his bullshit, but that no one will notice his artful comb-over either.

War Pimp Aznar Puts Out For Rupert

Via Antony Loewenstein, a sad look at Spain's former PM going through the scare-mongering motions on a wingnut paid-commentary global tour:

"I think the West is going through a serious crisis; an existential one, possibly. Our society is morally confused, strategically divided and politically weakened."

Well he got that bit right, however unintentionally. Notice how Aznar takes up a position on News Ltd's board, then makes speeches to rightwaing thinktanks which are then reported in Murdoch organs? Incestuous, innit? But actual "news"? I think not.

AL also links to this very interesting Reuters story:

The judge who tried to jail Chile's former dictator Augusto Pinochet said on Tuesday it was time to hold U.S. President George W. Bush and his allies to account for waging war in Iraq.

In an opinion piece in newspaper El Pais, published on the fourth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion, Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon said the war was "one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history".

"We should look more deeply into the possible criminal responsibility of the people who are, or were, responsible for this war and see whether there is sufficient evidence to make them answer for it," Garzon wrote.

"There is enough of an argument in 650,000 deaths for this investigation and inquiry to start without more delay," he said.

Did you hear that thudding sound? That was John Howard fainting.