I think I saw the delectable Alan Anderson this morning walking, no striding manfully, down Elizabeth Street.
Well I think it was him. He was hot with dark hair and a come-hither stare… very much like Alan.
Whoever it was, they’re lucky (or unlikely depending) I’m married otherwise much groping would have been an inevitability.
Mark Latham had his election launch in Brisbane on Tuesday in front of a veritable who’s who of former Labor PM’s and Labor leaders.
As we’ve come to expect there was more of “the Howard government has done this” and “the Howard government has done that”, while all the while proclaiming that Labor are the only ones who can save our soles.
Quite a scary prospect considering that the political pigmy Gough Whitlam was in the audience and Latham gave him a hug at the end of his oratory.
One of the big-ticket items to come out of the launch was Medicare Gold and Labor’s plan to offer free medical cover to over 75′s, and abolishing any and all waiting lists. Add to that they will “just fix” bulk billing and get it up to 80%.
I’ll be back in a sec; I’ve got to feed my pet Bunyip Sparky.
Shadow health minister [color=blue]Julia Gillard[/color] on Lateline Wednesday night claimed that it wasn’t an attempt to nationalise health care for the aged;
Gillard: What we’re doing is, we’re saying that a Mark Latham Labor government would pay for all of the hospital costs of people 75 and above.
And we’d pay for them in the public and the private sector. So, it’s a guarantee to people 75 and above that when they need a hospital bed they’ll get one in a public or a private hospital.
That’s called nationalisation Julia!
She claims that Labor will “find” a bed for over 75′s in either a public or private hospital no matter what, without any waiting and ALL costs covered.
Hang on Sparky I’m coming!
Labor also plans to use the private system to help achieve this. Latham claimed that he was going to put pressure on MediBank Private to reduce their health care fees and that would in turn force the others to follow suit.
Not likely I say. If you expect the private system to help fund public health costs and at the same time try to force them to reduce their fees it will lead to a massive loss in revenue for these institutions. Who’s going to take out private cover? The operational costs of Medicare will balloon and bulk-billing rates will slide even further. Shareholders will be livid and in turn will invest somewhere else for a better return. Then see what the net result will be on that $2.9 billion health budget!
Take notice of what is said here. Julia Gillard says that all hospital costs will be covered in both private and public hospitals. The fine print excludes ancillaries. So what happens then if all these people lob on the doorstep of the much fancier private hospital instead of the public hospitals for treatment, and this will invariably happen.
What happens if a younger person with top family private health cover wants a bed in a private hospital but has to go to a public hospital in a shared ward because non-paying patients are filling all the beds in the private hospital?
I’d imagine the specialists in the private hospitals will pack up and leave for India before being told by a government that they can only charge a set fee based on government rebates. Just like Medicare.
Did I mention the “fairies at the bottom of the garden” in a previous post?
Julia Gillard claimed that this policy wouldn’t become effective until 2006, but it was a policy for “lifetime”. Hang on Julia!!!
Enter Taliban Tony Jones smelling a problem with that idea.
TONY JONES: It sounds like you might be being a bit optimistic.
Do you have any idea, is there a guarantee you can give us tonight as to when those waiting lists will be over?
JULIA GILLARD: Well, I can’t give you a guarantee about exactly which date, but I can say this – with $2.9 billion of money in the health system we will be able to expand the capacity of the public and private hospitals to get through the waiting lists, to get through the backlog and to make good on the promise that in the future, and for all time, older Australians will not have to wait in hospital queues.
$2.9 billion will last forever will it? Of course not, but that’s also in the fine print. These costs have been projected over the forward estimates for four years because that’s all that’s required. Four years is a long way short of a lifetime Julia!
Latham and Gillard talk softly and smile to the impressionable when offering this largesse whilst silently looking for a lift in the polls. Forget this having anything to do with altruism, Gillard exposed why their plan would work. Read very carefully.
JULIA GILLARD: One of the key problems for our public hospital system now is on any given day 10 per cent of acute public hospital beds are filled by frail aged people who should be in a nursing home, would be better off in a nursing home – it would be cheaper for the system if they were in a nursing home – but that doesn’t happen because the Federal Government under funds aged care.
[color=red]“frail aged people who should be in a nursing home”[/color]
There it is folks. Labor’s plan to reduce the impost on the health budget by forcing the elderly out of hospital beds and into a nursing home or aged care facility. These facilities operate at a cost to the patient, or family of, thus increasing government revenue. This plan also removes “choice” for the long stay elderly in hospitals. Who’s surprised?
The Census projections for aged citizens over 75 are expected to double in the next 20 years to 2.23 million. Therefore the health budget will need to be increased by the same to match growth, $5.8 Billion. Of course that figure is likely to be much higher to keep inline with rising health costs.
Bulk billing is currently at 71% nationally. Mark Latham say’s he will get bulk billing back up to 80%. Impossible! Many GP’s expect it to fall in the future regardless of who wins.
He plans on achieving the 80% mark by doctors increasing their patient rate of 4 per hour to a minimum of 8 per hour. The AMA and independent doctors all believe that bulk billing will never reach 80% nationally as it is too costly for the GP’s, so how does Latham expect to achieve this? He’s lying!
These Ship of fools have no idea!
One of our regular readers and commenters Ginger has asked me to post the following letter, which she had published in the Weekly Times and possibly the Tasmanian Mercury. She wanted to issue a special thank you to this site and Scott in particular for the information that formed the basis of the letter.
If you are thinking of voting for The Greens and Bob Brown please read the report on the Canberra bushfires first and then make an informed decision. I believe that Bob Brown, leader of the Greens said that he influenced Labor Party policy. The following is an extract that may be of interest to readers.
A report issued by the IPA, Institute of Public Affairs, into the Canberra bushfires last year found the fire was a result of poor fire management. It laid the blame for that on the policies of the Greens as they prevented controlled burns to take place to alleviate the huge build up of ground fuel.
The report was quite emphatic about the above! Will your State be their next victim?
More than 3 million hectares of land was torched as a result, more than 530 homes destroyed, 4 deaths and many people burnt. Not to mention the numerous vehicles destroyed and massive loss of animal life. To put that into perspective for a man who claims to be caring for the environment, it would take landholders 150 years at the current rate of land clearing to equal that amount of devastation to the environment.
With the Likes of Dr Ivan Malloy’s wife wading into the debate on the war in Iraq, Mark Latham using it as a political crutch and Greens Senator Bob Brown swinging in the political breeze over the whole sordid affair, I thought it prudent to enlighten the readers of what current detractors of the war had previously said.
Pay close attention to the names and one name in particular bears closer scrutiny than the others. It’s John Kerry.
[color=blue]“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
(Notice he said “..deny Iraq the capacity to develop……” The mere capacity is a threat, never mind whether he has them NOW or not)[/color]
[color=blue]“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.[/color]
[color=blue]“Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.[/color]
[color=blue]“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb,18,1998.[/color]
[color=blue]“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D – MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998.[/color]
[color=blue]“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.[/color]
[color=blue]“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.[/color]
[color=blue]“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue at a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec . 5, 2001.[/color]
[color=blue]“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.[/color]
[color=blue]“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.[/color]
[color=blue]“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.[/color]
[color=blue]“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27,2002.[/color]
[color=blue]“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.[/color]
[color=blue]“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.[/color]
[color=blue]“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.[/color]
[color=blue]“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.[/color]
[color=blue]“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10,2002.[/color]
[color=blue]“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Bob Graham (D,FL), Dec. 8, 2002.[/color]
[color=blue]“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.[/color]
These same people now claim that George Bush lied and that no weapons exist. Easy to make that claim when you hold someone else accountable isn’t it.
Recently I have to listen to people screaming Bush’s fault about everything imaginable and how everything was so peachy keen under Clinton. One of the things Bush is being blamed for recently is Case IH closing down in East Moline, Illinois. And nobody wants to know the truth because is blows their delusions. Plus it gives them no reason to keep up the “I HATE BUSH, I HATE BUSH” bullshit we have had to endure.
My brother seems to be one of those who have lost their job due to the closing. Which is his own fault that he is out of a job since the closing of the East Moline plant has been known since July of 2000. And the closing was hinted at in 1999. Which I might add is very much pre-Bush in fact that was the Clinton years!
Big companies have websites and a company’s website is full of news that effects their shareholders and employees. CNH which owns Case IH is no exception. In fact it didn’t take me long at all to know that if I worked at the East Moline plant that it is time to find another great paying job before it is too late. And you would think that in 5 years a person would be able to find another job. But most people seem to prefer working out the remainder years for a company that no longer wants to employ them. Then they want to sit at home collecting unemployment until that runs out. Then they will think about getting a job. And in the meantime they can blame the president for all their troubles. But you’ll never hear one of them say, “well we did know it was coming” although they did know it was coming. And they knew when it was coming.
In 1999 when New Holland and Case were merging they expected to have a “potential for $ 400-500 million in annual cost savings within 3 to 4 years”. We all know when they talk cost savings it means somebody is losing their job. Why would people believe that it would be a loss for Case jobs and not New Holland is simple. The answer is because in the same company news article it states specifically that New Holland was holding the majority (71%) interest after this merger. But if you really didn’t figure you would lose your job at that point you didn’t have to wait all that long before it was spelled out for you “CNH’s consolidation plans also call for the closure of the company’s combine plant in East Moline, Illinois, and tractor production facility in Racine, Wisconsin, which are scheduled for no later than 2004″. By July 18th 2000 (which is pre-Bush) the East Moline, Illinois plant was schedule to close!! Period… end of discussion… no Bush bullshit!
This wasn’t any last minute secret undertaking by CNH because they spelled out the whole plan in black and white for all to know right from the beginning. Bush wouldn’t even be elected to office for another 4 months and wouldn’t become President for another 6 months so he can’t be blamed in any way by anybody.
The whole thing comes down to CNH’s plan to save money and increase profits after the merger of New Holland and Case. But if you really, really, really want to blame a President then I guess it would be Clinton who has to catch the blame for this one!
You can read all about it here at CNH!
Wow, the Greens are really going for the throat of the Family First Party. First serial dickhead Bob Brown called the FFP the “extreme right”, now the greens are complaining about Family First’s television advertisements. Now I haven’t seen the ad’s mind you, but the complaint leveled at Family First by the Greens seems pretty lame to me.
The complaint seems to stem from the Family First party advertising the Greens drug policy on TV. The advertisement states
Ok, we all know that’s the Greens policy, but I bet what you didn’t know is that the Greens prefer to use the word “decriminalization” not “legalize”. The use of the word “legalize” by the Family First party has the Greens all a flutter.
I looked the two words up in my concise oxford dictionary and surprisingly, “decriminalization” was not in it. So I went to the online dictionary which did list the word, and its meaning thus
You see, the two words mean totally different things!
The Greens are a pathetic bunch of whining pansies. There is apparently a clause in the Electoral Act which states “that a person shall not during an election print, publish or distribute anything that is likely to mislead or deceive an elector”. (That should shut Mark Latham up completely). The cry baby Greens are trying to imply that the huge difference between the two words, is grounds for the removal of the ad’s from circulation.
Oh they don’t put it quite as simplistically as I just did, but that’s what they are attempting. They are also pissy about the use of the word “kids” in the ad. Apparently the Greens have not specified that their drug policy is aimed at “kids”. I guess it must be aimed at the elderly then huh?
What are the bets that Emma Tom has been attending the Margo Kingston School of Journalism (yeah the irony of the latter part of that sentence makes me laugh too).
Today’s incoherent rambling about the legendary Russ Meyer is as confusing as it is stupid.
If you’re like me, you will take Tom’s sole viable piece of advice and firmly turn the page.
The Liberal party has just released its 29 page dossier on Mark Latham’s mismanagement of the Liverpool council, (pdf document). It paints Latham as a serial liar, what a surprise.
An extract.
In response to growing scrutiny about his time as Mayor, Mr Latham has seriously misled the Australian people, and demonstrated an unwillingness to take responsibility and learn from his mistakes. Below are some examples of how Mr Latham’s spin fails to stack up against the facts.
LIVERPOOL’S LIQUIDITY POSITION
1 On 1 June 2004 Mr Latham claimed in Parliament that “between 1991 and 1994 the council’s working funds balance increased from $770,000 to $1.1 million — that is, its liquidity increased by 50 per cent”.
2 In fact, this $1.1 million figure was not based on any audited figures, but appears to be merely the budgeted figure, as outlined in a Council Financial Management report on 29 November 1993 “fully seven months before the June 1994 results would come in.
3 Furthermore, the “working funds balance” measure to which Mr Latham referred in
Parliament did not appear on any audited financial accounts after 1993, due to a change in accounting practices because of a new NSW Local Government Act.
4 That is to say, Mr Latham defended his record by quoting a figure that was no longer operative in June 1994.The REAL liquidity position for 1993/94 as reported by the Daily Telegraph
5 and confirmed by the current Manager of Financial Services for the Council, was a working capital DEFICIT of $2.730 million.6 Mr Latham cannot claim to have delivered a 50% increase in liquidity by citing forecasts, rather than actual results.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR CAPITAL WORKS
In his speech to Parliament, Mr Latham lists a number of capital works projects he claims were not planned in 1994 (his final year) but on which money was spent in 1995 and 1996 by subsequent Councils, and claims this amounted to “abandoning” his strategy. This is untrue.
Take the most expensive of these projects for example the Liverpool Library. While a
$5,047,812 construction contract for extensions to the Library was not awarded until April 1995 — after Mr Latham’s departure7 — it is absurd for him to argue that the extension to increase the size of the Library five-fold wasn’t planned on his watch, or to argue that it represented an “abandonment” of his strategy.
On 3 November 1993 (eight months before Mr Latham’s departure), the Liverpool Leader contained a headline “Big Plan for Library” and detailed plans for a $12.2 million expansion,
2 House of Representatives Hansard, 1/6/04
3 Liverpool City Council, Financial Management Report, Special Meeting 29 November 1993
4 Confirmed in an e-mail from current Manager of Financial Services from the Council
5 Daily Telegraph, 22/6/04
6 Confirmed in an e-mail from current Manager of Financial Services from the Council
7 Liverpool City Council Annual Report, 1994/95
Mr Latham, if you can’t run a Council, how can you run our $800 billion economy?
7
reporting that the “Liverpool Council gave the green light for the project last week”
8. On 11 January 1994, Mr Latham replied to a letter from a Lurnea resident inquiring as to why the library is not mentioned in the 1994 rates notice to residents, by saying “as these details have not been finalised it would not be proper to include them in the 1994 rates information as a project absolutely certain to proceed. This is the only reason it was not mentioned”. However he makes it clear that “current indicators show that the project is feasible despite the large amount of finance involved.”
9
On 15 June 1994 (two months before Mr Latham’s departure), Mr Latham “hit back” at
Councillor Don Syme for opposing the Council’s $8 million extension to Liverpool Library, saying it was reprehensible for Mr Syme to condemn Liverpool to a substandard library.
10
Far from representing an abandonment of his strategy, the massive extension to the library was the continuation of a project championed by Mr Latham. It was well and truly down the pipeline before Mr Latham left office. It is worth noting the East Ward Progress Association believed the project had “not been subject to rigorous analysis” and questioned whether the “spatial grandness of the proposed library would be suited to the information age”. Specifically, they predicted many of the functions catered for by the library would “soon be available via computers in homes, schools and neighbourhood centres”.
11
MR LATHAM’S “DEBT SERVICE RATIO” DEFENCE
Mr Latham’s main response to the evidence of his mismanagement at the Council is to claim the Council’s debt service ratio fell and that this shows he was a good economic manager. It shows no such thing.
A debt service ratio indicates the percentage of a Council’s revenue needed to service the
Council’s debts. It can fall for any of three reasons:
a. The Council’s total revenue increases;
b. The interest rate applying to the Council’s debt falls; or
c. The total amount of debt is reduced.
What happened in Mr Latham’s case?
1. Council revenue increased
From 1991 to 1993, the Council’s own Annual Reports show that revenue from rates and charges went up from $21,983,51512 to $26,323,00013 – a 19.7% increase in two years.
In his final year, Mr Latham increased 106 fees and charges by more than 10%.14
8 Liverpool Leader 3/11/93
9 Letter is contained in the publicly available “Library” clippings file in the Liverpool Public Library
10 Liverpool Leader, 15/6/94
11 Liverpool Leader, 22/2/95
12 1992 Brief Liverpool City Council Report Mailed to Residents
13 1993 Liverpool City Council Annual Report
14 Liverpool City Council, Fees and Charges Report 29/11/93, plus Minutes ( “motion carried”) of Liverpool City
Council 29/11/93, 13/12/93 (child care fees), 14/1/94 (sporting field hire).
Mr Latham, if you can’t run a Council, how can you run our $800 billion economy?
8
Revenue increases of this magnitude do not necessarily amount to good economic management.
2. Interest rates fell
The Council appears to have been the beneficiary of a fall in interest rates nationally at the end of the 1991 recession. Mortgage rates fell from 13.0% in September 1991 to 8.75% in August
199415.
3. Debt was NOT reduced!
If Mr Latham had reduced the debt service ratio through repaying debt, that would demonstrate good economic management. But he did not. From 1993 to mid-1994, the amount of liabilities for “creditors” increased 51% — from $5,976,000 to $9,077,000 — while borrowings had increased by 45% — from $15,128,000 to $22,036,000.16
The Council appears to have only avoided having to borrow even more by running down its financial reserves. A Financial Management Report to Council dated 29 November 1993 show reserves falling from $12.2 million at the end of 1992, to a budgeted figure of $1.8 million by the middle of 1994.17
Good economic management means making tough decisions to keep the economy strong. Mr Latham did not make any hard decisions to reduce the Council’s debt service ratio “he just collected more in rates, fees and charges, increased borrowing, appears to have drained the Councils” reserves and benefited from the national fall in interest rates.
Finally, the Council accounting standards changed during Mr Latham’s time as Mayor. Mr Latham knows that it is highly dubious to compare year-to-year debt service ratio numbers that were derived using different accounting standards.
Any fall in the debt service ratio doesn’t demonstrate a good legacy, but simply masks a bad one.
MR LATHAM’S “LAST MINUTE FIX” DEFENCE
Perhaps the most illogical and concerning claim made by Mr Latham in defence of his record to the Federal Parliament, was that you can’t blame him for the perilous state of the finances shortly after his departure, because “at my last council meeting, in mid-1994, the council adopted a debt retirement strategy that, if followed, would have made it debt-free in 2005.”
18
Surely, this statement is analogous to claiming you’re not responsible for the mess after running amok at a party at someone else’s house, because you left cleaning instructions before departing.
DUBIOUS CLAIMS ABOUT STAFF NUMBERS
In his speech to Parliament, Mr Latham pointed to the “fact” that between 1991 and 1994 council staff numbers fell from 500 to less than 400 as a sign of the financial disciplines that were
15 Reserve Bank of Australia
16 Liverpool City Council, Statement of Financial Position, 30 June 1994 (current + non-current borrowings)
17 Financial Management Report to a Special meeting of Council, 29 November 1993
18 House of Representatives Hansard, 1/6/04
Mr Latham, if you can’t run a Council, how can you run our $800 billion economy?
9
applied.
19 This claim does not appear to stack up against publicly available payroll records that
show the total number of staff as at 30 June 1994 total exactly 500.20
Mr Latham has never produced any figures to back up his claim. However, on Lateline he
maintained it was taken from an “independent report about the council”
21. There is one
“independent” report about Liverpool Council, contained in a 1994 issue of the IPA Review22.
This quotes the number of staff in Liverpool City Works (not exactly the same thing as the Council) falling “by 20 to 30 per cent”. At the end of this article however, the author specifically thanks “Mark Latham MP” for his assistance in researching the article.
If this is the article to which Mr Latham refers, it would appear that the source of figures for this report could have been himself. If this is not the report, then Mr Latham needs to provide evidence to back up his claim to Parliament, which is contradicted by the official LiverpoolCouncil payroll records.
19 House of Representatives Hansard, 1/6/04
20 Publicly available staff numbers table, provided by the present Liverpool City Council payroll officer
21 Lateline interview with Tony Jones, 19/7/04
22 IPA Review, v.47(2), 1994
The ever fantastic Dennis Prager, nails the differences between “right” thinking mentality and “left”.
The left thinks legally, the right thinks morally
Dennis Prager (archive)
September 21, 2004 | Print | Send
To understand the worldwide ideological battle — especially the one between America and Western Europe and within America itself — one must understand the vast differences between leftist and rightist worldviews and between secular and religious (specifically Judeo-Christian) values.
One of the most important of these differences is their attitudes toward law. Generally speaking, the Left and the secularists venerate, if not worship, law. They put their faith in law — both national and international. Law is the supreme good. For most on the Left, “Is it legal?” is usually the question that determines whether an action is right or wrong.
Take the war in Iraq. The chief leftist argument against the war — before it began, not later when no weapons of mass destruction were found — was that without U.N. sanction, attacking Iraq violated international law.
Whatever their feelings about George W. Bush or about attacking Iraq, for most of those on the Left, the rightness or wrongness of toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime was determined by its legality (i.e., whether it was authorized by the U.N. Security Council). On the other hand, for those who supported attacking Iraq, whether the war was deemed legal played no role in their assessment of its rightness or wrongness.
To those who supported removing Saddam Hussein by force, if the United Nations did not authorize it, it was a reflection on the morality of the United Nations, not the morality of the war.
International law thus provides a clear example of the Left-Right divide. To the Left, an international action is right if nations such as China, Russia, France and Syria vote for it, and wrong if they vote against it. To the Right and to the religious, an action is good (or bad) irrespective of the votes of the world’s nations. They judge it by a code of morality higher than international law.
To cite one other contemporary example, the Left throughout the world opposed Israel’s 1981 air strike razing Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor, thereby destroying his ability to manufacture nuclear weapons.
Among major American newspapers, only the conservative Wall Street Journal supported the strike along with various religious Jewish and Christian groups. From The New York Times to Le Monde to your local university, there was outrage that Israel had acted against international law. It meant nothing to their judgment of Israel’s action that the leading mass murderer of the time had his nuclear weapons facility destroyed with the loss of but one life. All that mattered was that it was illegal.
To the Left, legality matters most, while to the Right, legality matters far less than morality. To the Right and to the religious, the law, when it is doing its job, is only a vehicle to morality, never a moral end in itself. Even the Left has to acknowledge this. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Ala., bus in 1955, she violated the law. Therefore, anyone who thinks she did the right thing is acknowledging that law must be subservient to morality. Why, then, must the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein be subject to international law as determined by Communist China, neo-KGB Russia, amoral France and the thugs who rule Syria?
The answer is to be found in the Left’s substitution of legal for moral.
And why is the Left so enamored of law?
First, the Left, which is largely secular, regards morality not as absolute, but as relative. This inevitably leads to moral confusion, and no one likes to be morally confused. So instead of moral absolutes, the Left holds legal absolutes. “Legal” for the Left is what “moral” is for the Right. The religious have a belief in God-based moral law, and the Left believes in man-made law as the moral law.
Second, whereas they cannot change God’s laws, those on the Left can and do make many of society’s laws.
In fact, the Left is intoxicated with law-making. It gives them the power to mold society just as Judeo-Christian values did in the past. Unless one understands that leftist ideals function as a religion, one cannot understand the Left.
Laws are the Left’s vehicles to earthly salvation. Virtually all human problems have a legal solution.
Some men harass women? Pass laws banning virtually every flirtatious action a man might engage in vis a vis a woman. Flood legislatures with laws preventing the creation of a “hostile work environment.” Whereas the religious world has always worked to teach men how to act toward women, the secular world, lacking these religious values, passes laws to control men.
In fact, since it lacks the self-control apparatus that is a major part of religion, the Left passes more and more laws to control people. That is why there is a direct link between the decline in Judeo-Christian religion and the increase in governmental laws controlling human behavior.
Of course, the more laws that are passed, the less liberty society enjoys. But to the Left, which elevates any number of values above liberty — e.g., compassion, equality, fairness — this presents little problem.
All this helps to explain the Left’s preoccupation with controlling courts; passing laws; producing, enriching and empowering lawyers; filing lawsuits; and naming judges. Laws and the makers of laws will produce heaven on earth.
And that’s one reason the Left hates the America represented by George W. Bush. This country under this president says morality is higher than man-made law. To the Left, that, not Saddam Hussein’s torture and rape rooms, must be fought.
I just wanted to re iterate what Scott wrote about in the post below this one. So many people claiming the Government has little or no control over interest rate fluctuations. This may well be so, but only a fool could believe that the economic policies set in place by the government of the day, have no bearing on the interest rates. So it is that I went off in search of the history of interest rates in Australia. I found just such a document at the Reserve Bank of Australia site. (Microsoft excel viewer needed to view the spreadsheet). It shows that from 1968 to 1971 under the Liberal Prime Ministers Gorton followed by McMahon, interest rates rose from 5.75% in 1968 to 8.25% in 1971 and fell slightly to 7.75 in 1972. An increase of 2% in 3 years.
After the election of the Whitlam Labor government in 1972, interest rates rose from the 7.75% left by McMahon, to 11.50 by the end of Whitlam’s reign in 1975. A rise of 3 and ¾ % in 3 years.
Malcolm Fraser’s Liberal’s managed to hold the rates relatively steady, from the 11.50 he inherited in 1975 to 12.50 when he was kicked out in 1983. A rise of a whole 1% in 8 years.
Bob Hawke and Paul Keating’s Labor took interest rates from their inherited 12.50 in 1983 to a record 17% in 1989. A rise of 4 1/2% in 6 years. By the time Paul Keating was voted out of office, the interest rates were falling. They were just under 10% when John Howard took over in 1996.
From 1996 to the present day, the rates have continued to fall under John Howard to the 5.25% they are today.
So what does all that tell economic non guru Paddy? Well it tells me that the rising interest rate boogieman had better not be the only weapon in the Howard armoury, and it also tells me that people who say that governments have no control over interest rates are ignoring the entire history of the last 30 odd years. As history shows, rates under Labor governments can best be described as “volatile” and rates under Liberal are best characterised as “stable”.
For my money, I think the whole “rates will rise under labor” scare is being a bit over played, on the evidence of the history. However having said that, I do think its fair to also say that the rates will become more susceptible to rises under Labor.
On the evidence available, a vote for Labor is a very risky proposition as far as interest rates are concerned.
October 9 is just around the corner and both leaders are hedging their political bets. Latham and the Greens, Howard and Family First. Both parties accusing each other of budgetary inaccuracies and counter claim after counter claim on interest rates.
To add to that mix, 14 “independent” market economists from a Reuters survey have accused the Howard government of falsely claiming that the Labor party would mean an increase in interest rates.
A veritable who’s who of “leading economists” claim that now that interest rates are controlled by the Reserve Bank that it would make little difference to interest rates if Labor were to win. This “Ship of Fools” has been echoing this same crapola for years about the Howard government and has always been wrong. The “view” of these economists drew a swift response from Terry McCrann [color=blue]here[/color] and [color=blue]here[/color]. These same economists and some political correspondents, claim that John Howard is just lucky he has such a good economic climate to govern under. Yes, that’s exactly what they are saying.
Of course I must have been in a coma for the last eight and a half years or dreaming of another time. A time where the Asian economy collapsed and the US economy went into recession, the European Union having it’s cat fights and then we had the terrorists attacks on the US and Bali that threatened industry and tourism, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Australia’s worst drought in more than 100 years, SARS, bird flu’s that annihilated poultry farmers here and abroad and on it goes. Yes, John Howard is damn lucky!!!
Am I being presumptuous in saying that sound economic management could have a f*cking large bearing on how our interest rates have remained low??? But it is getting even more sublime from a media perspective. They are also claiming that the economic bounty that the Howard government has administered isn’t the Howard governments doing. They say that we have been in a fourteen and a half year economic growth spurt thanks to the Labor party reforms put in place by Keating and Hawke. Don’t faint people, they are saying that. Despite the fact that, under Keating, our economy was twice downgraded on foreign currency borrowings, putting upward pressure on interest rates. It has been twice upgraded since 1996 under Howard and Costello to a “Triple A” credit rating on foreign currency borrowings, thus easing pressure on interest rates. Not to mention that under Labor’s last stint at the helm they topped 17.5% and averaged 12.75% on interest rates as opposed to the coalitions average of 7.15% interest rates. Obviously facts mean little to the minions of the left movement!
Now, a sullen and hollow looking Latham is accusing the Howard government of going on a spending spree and putting pressure on interest rates, even though he cited the fact that it was the Reserve Bank that controlled interest rates to fend off claims that his policies would be inflationary. Make up your mind Mark.
He said that “the Howard government are just throwing money into the air to see who can catch it” claiming that they were having “The mother of all clearance sales”. Is that like the Whitlam Centre?
Some claim, considering that at no point in 13 years of Labor did they ever have a surplus budget. Labor claimed their last budget was in surplus by around $1.7 Billion when in fact it was in deficit by more than $10 billion. Latham made similar claims at the Liverpool council only to find that is was in deficit by over $2.5 million.
Yep, it’s all a fluke, Howard had nothing to do with it, keeping an economy running well is child’s play and bla bla bla!
You have to give it to Labor for effort. They have tried everything, every dirty trick going, hurled mud constantly, made up fanciful allegations of lies and deceit, of misleading and lack of accountability but nothing worked. Now they are desperate and are trying to claim that Howard and Costello’s fiscal brilliance is a fluke or due to Labor’s hard work. Latham and Labor have run out of straws to clutch and it’s starting to look embarrassing.
Two to go and Latham is spent.
Grubby Garrett
Anger has welled from some corners in recent days over grubby tactics from Peter Garrett’s old coven of ghouls, the ACF, regarding the deceased estate of Margaret Anderson. Herald Sun
The estate is said to value $3.3 million, of which Mrs. Anderson is said to have excluded the ACF from five days prior to her death. Mrs. Anderson was to leave $1.2 million of her estate to be shared by the ACF and the Wilderness Society but changed her mind just days before she died. The altered will itself was signed the day prior to her passing.
The ACF lodged legal action for their “slice”of the will claiming that Mrs. Anderson wasn’t competent when she made the amendments. This prompted the ACF to challenge her will in an attempt to have last minute changes over-ruled.
Relatives of the late Mrs. Anderson are appalled by the hubris and callous actions of the ACF:
“It’s disgraceful that they have done this,” one relative said. “It was her dying wish. Who are they to say it should not be carried out?”
Peter Garrett, the now member for Kingsford Smith, was at the time president of the ACF, however the solicitor for the ACF Caryn van Proctor said“Mr. Garrett was not involved”. She may be right, but he undoubtedly knew of the litigation by the ACF, which was based on claims by Arnold Bloch Leibler, lawyers of the ACF, that “Mrs. Anderson lacked the testamentary capacity to change her will and that she did not know or approve the changes”.
Affidavits from Mrs. Anderson’s doctors reject this allegation and state the “Mrs. Anderson was of sound mind and capable of understanding the nature of the changes”.
This reprehensible action by the ACF has ended in mediation whereby the ACF were able to procure money from the will to the tune of $240,000. The remaining beneficiaries are still waiting to receive their inheritance as a result of the ACF’s grave robbing actions.
All this from an organization that, at the time, was headed by a man who campaigned against social injustice.
He’ll fit in well with the Labor party.
On tonight’s 60 Minutes, Richard Carlton opines the state of Africa.
Noble sentiment although Richo just can’t pass up the chance to have a slug at the Iraqi war…
While billions of dollars have been spent fighting that war in Iraq, the world has all but ignored a catastrophe still unfolding in Africa right this very minute.
Last year, Australia gave approximately $61m to Africa alone. This does not include $62.3m in humanitarian aid (to be distributed to those most in need), and $90.6m to the UN to help facilitate aid programs.
Ignored a catastrophe? Hardly. Never mind. Lefties don’t usually care for facts.
On a lighter note, Richard also apparently cries for the children. Rumour has it that he also cries when the wine runs out so I am unsure if him crying reflects true emotion or an absence of alcohol.
US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld — one of the war’s architects — told Congress this week US forces could quit Iraq even if the war was ongoing.
“Any implication that that place has to be peaceful and perfect before we can reduce Coalition and US forces would obviously be unwise because it has never been peaceful and perfect, and it isn’t likely to be,” Mr Rumsfeld said.
Political observers in Canberra said Mr Rumsfeld’s comments were likely to have a direct bearing on federal election campaigning.
Prime Minister John Howard — who has accused Opposition Leader Mark Latham of wanting to “cut and run” from Iraq — refused to comment yesterday.
Mr Latham said Mr Rumsfeld’s comments echoed Labor’s stance on the war — withdraw Australian troops and join the UN in reconstruction.
“That just exposes the contradiction of what the Howard Government got us into,” he said.
“Labor opposed the war in the first place and our strategy for the future now is very clear.”
Mr Latham said Australia’s permanent interests in the war on terror lay in Asia, not the Middle East.
“We have to secure our nation on the home front and in South-East Asia,” he said.
Mr Rumsfeld also conceded that elections in Iraq, planned for January, would be only partial.
He said important parts of the country were out of the control of the interim Government.
“Let’s say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country,” Mr Rumsfeld said.
“But in some places you couldn’t because the violence was too great.
“Well, so be it. Nothing’s perfect in life — so you have an election that’s not quite perfect.
“Is it better than not having an election? You bet.”
Fairly damming stuff right? Old Donald waffling about Iraq not needing to be 100% at peace before the American troops pull out. That idea makes John Howard look bad, because Mark Latham wants to pull the troops out by Christmas, now he is suggesting that he is right in this plan, because Donald Rumsfeld backs him up. Well, that’s how it would look if that’s all you read.
According to this report from Reuters Rumsfeld gave no timetable for any possible drawdown of U.S. troops. In fact he said, “It’s not my decision – it’s the president’s and the Iraqi governments.” The article also goes on to say, “Private military analysts and experts have suggested that large numbers of U.S. troops could remain in Iraq for up to five years or more as that country moves toward democracy.”
Now where does that real story leave Mark Latham? Another Latham lie. God this man has big balls to constantly accuse Howard of being dishonest. Latham is perhaps the biggest bullshit artist we have ever had in Australian politics.
Almost but not quite as important a question is where does the true story leave the very deceptive attempt at spin doctoring by LINCOLN WRIGHT? Floating in the same sewer as Latham I suspect.
We get all kinds of junk email here. For some reason, even though the pk_webdesign email on the front page is an image not an email link, we still get copious amounts of crap email. Naturally there are the “make her scream with pleasure” types and the “gimmie your bank account number and I will transfer ten trillion dollars into your account” types, but more recently we have been receiving some extremely disturbing emails.
This one we considered disturbing enough to pass on to the relevant authorities.
Please use http://63.240.81.5 in case of our domain outage.
You’re invited to shop for large selection of bombs and different
kinds of rockets such as surface-to-air,
surface-to-surface and weaponry available at reduced price. With the
following types of rockets you will be
able to commit terrorist attacks, destroy buildings, electric power
stations, bridges, factories and anything
else that comes your mind. Most items are in stock and available for
next day freight delivery in the USA.
Worldwide delivery is available at additional cost. Prices are
negotiable.
Please feel free to inquire by ICQ # 176928755 or contacting us
directly:
+1-305-592-2222
+1-919-319-8249
+1-314-770-3395
Today special:
******* AIR BOMBS *******
OFAB-500U HE fragmentation air bomb
Fuel-air explosive air bombs -Not in stock
BETAB-500U concrete-piercing air bomb
ZB-500RT incendiary tank
500-KG SIZE RBK-500U unified cluster bomb
RBK-500U OAB-2.5PT loaded with fragmentation submunitions
RBK-500U BETAB-M loaded with concrete-piercing submunitions-Not in
stock
RBK-500U OFAB-50UD loaded with HE fragmentation submunitions
******* UNGUIDED AIRCRAFT ROCKETS *******
Main-purpose unguided aircraft rockets
S-8 unguided aircraft rockets
S-8KOM
S-8BM-Not in stock
S-13 unguided aircraft rockets
S-13, S-13T, S-13-OF, S-13D, S-13DF
S-25-0
S-25-OFM
S-24B -Not in stock
RS-82
RS-132-Not in stock
******* ROCKET PODS *******
B-8M pod for S-8 rockets
B-8V20-A pod for S-8 rockets
B-13L pod for S-13 rockets
Recently received *NEW*
Hydra 70 2.75 inch Rockets
Air-Launched 2.75-Inch Rockets
FIM-92A Stinger Weapons System
Stinger 101: Anti-Air
Our clients are well known Al-Qaida, Hizballah, Al-Jihad, HAMAS, Abu
Sayyaf Group and many other terrorist groups. We are well known
supplier in the market and looking forward to expand our clientage
with assistance of Internet.
Do not hesitate to contact us via ICQ # 176928755
Impatiently awaiting for your orders,
ShadowCrew
As you can see its scary stuff. It may be a joke, although when visiting the site mentioned, there was nothing to suggest it was so. If it was a joke, what kind of person would laugh? Moreover what kind of person thinks such a thing is funny?
We live in a sick twisted perverse world, sometimes I just want to get off.
You are currently browsing the It's A Matter Of Opinion blog archives for September, 2004.
