Prediction - Nuclear Weapons in OZ (Followup)

Out of the blue, we're suddenly talking about Nuclear Power again in this country with this recent comment by Little Johnny. In it, Howard argues "I am of the view that we certainly should not turn our face against it as Mr Beazley has done. I can't understand why he did that".

Well sorry John, but we have a swaythe of free, non-polluting energy sources waiting/demanding to be tapped. Wind, Wave, Solar, Themal - you name it we got truckloads of it - but you just don't seem interested.

Why? Well, I still think it's because we're gunning to be a world player - Little Johnny (and the Liberals) want us hitting above our weight.

Of course, that can only take us in one direction - by becoming a Nuclear Power and if we have our own generating capacity, then we can enrich the output to make our own weapons.

Would you trust them to set up JUST a domestic power use nuclear facility? Not bloody likely mate...

Prediction - Nuclear Weapons in OZ (Followup)

Out of the blue, we're suddenly talking about Nuclear Power again in this country with this recent comment by Little Johnny. In it, Howard argues "I am of the view that we certainly should not turn our face against it as Mr Beazley has done. I can't understand why he did that".

Well sorry John, but we have a swaythe of free, non-polluting energy sources waiting/demanding to be tapped. Wind, Wave, Solar, Themal - you name it we got truckloads of it - but you just don't seem interested.

Why? Well, I still think it's because we're gunning to be a world player - Little Johnny (and the Liberals) want us hitting above our weight.

Of course, that can only take us in one direction - by becoming a Nuclear Power and if we have our own generating capacity, then we can enrich the output to make our own weapons.

Would you trust them to set up JUST a domestic power use nuclear facility? Not bloody likely mate...

Thoughts - The Most Powerful (and Dangerous) Union in OZ

...is clearly the AMA.

Just think what power this beast has:

1. Ability to limit supply of doctors to ensure the demand cycle is never met, thus ensuring spiralling health care costs.
2. Ability to dampen training doctor numbers for the same reason.
3. They battle ANY attempt to remove their power in making clinical decisions (that nurses make (usually better) every day).
4. They've actively pushed/encouraged the extension of the standard Medicine degree to become a pre-med + Medicine approach - thus increasing the time lag in producing doctors and then ensuring they want to be paid heaps to cover their HECS debt.
5. They lambasted the State Govt when it proposed a swag of bonded placed for Qld doctors - they'd have no debt but would be compelled to practice in Qld for 4 years. What a dreadful suggestion???
6. Happily turn a blind eye to the pharmaceutic company kick backs they receive DAILY.
   

This control over the supply of doctors has to end - so come on Johnny, lets see you union bust the worst union in the country - the AMA.

Thoughts - Why the Cruiseship Terminal IS Vapourware...

To me it's becoming clearer that this whole thing is a crock of shite. Why? Well, I think it comes down to some simple arguments:

1. Katrina

With 1200+ units/houses to be constructed, that's a damned lot of permanent residents to stick out in a disaster waiting to happen. Not that it will necessarily stop councils desire to make it happen, but the reality of Hurricane Katrina will surely put a bite in the tail for any poor sod who wants to take out insurance.


2. Infrastructure & Population

So, just imagine 1200+ cars and perhaps 2400+ residents all rushing down Sir Leslie Thiess Drive to go about their business. Then add to that a night at the Crocs. Sorry, but it ain't gonna happen! There just isn't a significant enough of a drain out of this area to warrant the population. I do, however, think it might be a way of pressuring higher governments to fund the Port Access Road, thus freeing up the existing rail corridor and a new bridge across Ross Creek (at the end of the Strand) - in 10-15 years time!!! None of this will happen overnite, and at the rate state and federal goverment fund anything in regional Australia, it will probaly take longer.

3. Security

Presumably we want to park American warships in the new berth. Two problems (as pointed out recently by a letter to the editor). Firstly, imagine the outcry from residents when they have to live up next to a (potentially as they never tell us) Nuclear Reactor? Secondly, can you imagine the security cordon placed around the Amercians in the current climate. Surely residents movement MUST be hampered with blockades, etc in place for the duration of the visit...???

4. Pollution

Dust has again come under fire from the Port - yet we want to build a massive housing development within the main airflow corridor? Are we mad? Then there's the noise and light pollution that will spill onto the new neighbours.

Sorry folks - but this is a pipe dream. Question is, if this is the distraction, what's the main fare?

Prediction: The Demise of The Nationals

You've got to hand it to Little Johnny Howard. One of his lasting effigies must surely be forever moving Australian politics into the (strictly) 2 party system. Under his tenure, he has surely seen off the likes of:

• The Democrats (thanks to the GST debacle)
• One Nation (by stealing their policies)
• Family First (thanks to VSU & anti-abortion support)

And now, of course, we have his latest victim - The Nationals.

Despite the Nationals facing a perfect opportunity to shore up support in the Bush, they are quickly imploding on themselves as they battle to split the party into two. There's the "wish we were more like the Liberals" Nationals and the "wish we were more like Barnaby" Nationals. It's almost very similar to what happened to the Democrats with a few nutters thinking that they could actually do more than hold the balance of power (I've always thought that Meg et al had been brainwashed by Liberal hacks telling them - come into the mainstream and make a real difference!!!).

Sorry folks, the minute you jumped into bed with the Coalition and backed the GST - this after it was not raised in the general election and had previously been ruled out by Howard ("we will never introduce a GST"). What happened to "keeping the bastards honest"? What, by letting pull the biggest rug over our eyes in history?

And now we're seeing the same with the Nats - Barnaby is trying to maintain the Nationals Agrarian Socialist policies going (AWB single desk, Bush Infrastructure, etc) while the other half is rushing to sign up with the Liberals. Personally I like the notion of an Agraian Socialist policy - I think it's been an important part of our egalatarianism in that no matter where you lived in the country, you could access core essential services - and at the same price as folks in the city. Yet the Libs (and Labour for that matter) have been pulling that notion to pieces to the point where soon, living in rural and regional Australia will be prohibitively expensive (perhaps another prediction for another time).

So good luck to the Nationals as they try to stem the demise of smaller parties in Australia. Their demise will be our loss and it will further entrench the two party system in the country and thus further focus power within the hands of the minority - and as we all now know - you've got a grease a palm to succeed in business and, thanks to Johnny, there'll be fewer palms to grease...

Thoughts - Time for IT Workers to Revolt?

For long as I can recall, folks working in IT have been pressed, cajoled, forced even into dumbing down their science for the poor plebs around us. And for much of this time, I've actively pushed back against the luddites (including those within) who insist we speak in dulcit tones so as to appease the poor gentle working minds of those to whom we work.

Bollocks I say!!!

How many Electricians or Builders "dumb down" their explainations of what needs to be done in their fields? How many anacronisms do accountants, electrical engineers or even teachers use EVERY day without question. But when someone in the IT industry says "you're going to need an 80Gb HDD to do the job" - eyes glaze over and people start with whine about nutty IT people.

I could understand 20 years ago when everything was new - but unless you've been living in a cave since 1980, every day of your live is surrounded by IT - so there is simply no excuse.

So people, lets stop living in the dark ages - either embrace technology (and live with the terminology) or shut the f... up and lets us get on and do our jobs...

Thoughts - Legislating from the Pulpit

It has been interesting watching the recent debate over RU486 and how it highlights how the merger of religion into politics is a bad move.

It also showed an interesting "contradiction" of sorts. For many years, the right has complained of Judges "legislating from the bench" yet in the current Abortion debate, we're seeing "Legislating from the Pulpit" as Tony Abbott used his position as Minister for Health to effectively put a new ban on abortion by blocking access to RU486 (and thus the subsequent uproar and vote overturning his decision in BOTH houses of parliament).

Problem is, Tony's implied rewriting of the laws around Abortion are much more insidious. You see, here we have an individual, backed by right wing evangelicals, making implicit rulings on what we, as individuals can or can't do. There's no legal basis for it (as a judge would do by interpreting the law), Tony just says "nah, I'm sticking to my belief and that means no RU486".

It's akin to Pharmacists denying women access to the pill or contraceptives because it goes against their faith. Look I have no problem with your faith, just stop imposing your beliefs on me.

Thoughts - Religion & Politics

I was rather annoyed this morning to hear Gerard Henderson (from the Sydney Institute) on Radion National's AM program arguing that it was shameful how the RU486 debate had become sectarian - mainly anti-catholic and that, because Abbot was exposuing a religious view he shouldn't be villified.

Well, I'm sorry, but if you're going to bring your religious moral values into a political debate - which is what many were doing by making it a debate about Abortion - then you have to expect to be dealt with in the rumble and tumble of politics.

How you can expect to make personal religious claims on an issue and then expect to be somehow treated with kit gloves because you're expressing a religious view is staggering.

No, if you don't want to wear criticism then don't bring your views into the political arena...

Thoughts - Ethics and Ideology...

It has been stunning to watch the crass double standards our conservative pollies have been expousing in recent weeks. In light of the scandalous AWB payments to Saddam, we've had a barrage of business leaders and conservative politician's arguing that the trade is more important than the ethics of all this. Basically, it's the done thing in the middle-east, so why the bigr hallaballoo?

Well HELLO!!! Didn't we go to war over this? Not just because of Saddam and Iraq (and his devious WMD), but because he wasn't toeing the UN line. And why wasn't he? Because he was all cashed up because we'd been paying him kick backs (so why would he toe the line).

If the business sector had shown any sceric of ethical behaviour and the government backed its rhetoric with enforcement - perhaps the UN would have been more effective and Saddam could've been swept from power without ANY need for substantial violence and death (certainly not 2 years of the stuff).

How can these people not see that they are completely two faced about this is incredulous to me...

Suggestion - Relocate Our Capital Cities

The headline in todays Courier Mail reported something along the line of "20 years of water problems". Why? Well, most would argue it was a lack of planning. I would agree - but not for more dams in the South East - no the REAL problem is overpopulation in the South East and a lack of planning to force/redirect/encourage the mexicans into other parts of the state.

But frankly, this is NEVER going to happen because whilst the capital remains in Brisbane, the vast majority of people will want to move there. So why does the Capital have to be Brisbane? Perhaps the solution is to move it elsewhere in the state.

As much as we harp on about it, North Queensland statehood just isn't going to happen (a) because the majority in Queensland (those in the SE) know it would kill their futures and b) the remaining states don't want to unsettle the balance of power in the Federal Parliament (where NSW and VIC have the seat of power by the balls). So, if that's not possible, why not move the capital?

My suggestion - put it on a 25/50 year rotation. Why? Well, moving the capital will come with some costs and time to plan things - so if it's on a fixed arrangement, then planning becomes simpler. It also means that Brisbane wouldn't loose it forever - you'd get it back eventually. But by that time, it will have had the necessary affect - namely to encourage development and population growth away from the South East.

So, what things do we need to do to plan for moving the capital? How would we plan to "upgrade a city" to accommodate future growth - sustainably? I think it's an excellent challenge.

And my preference for the new State Capital? Charters Towers!!! Why? Well, if we leave it coastal we'd never get anyone to agree (e.g. the usual Townsville vs Cairns rivalary). Charters Towers has historical importance (it was "The World" in a previous life). It has ample room for growth - has plentiful water (Burdekin River) and yet is still close enough to the coast to be accessible.

So what do we need?

• Improved Airport (perhaps even an International Airport one day)
• Improved Rail Services (high speed links to surrounds)
• New Road Networks
• New Subdivisions
• New High Rise Development
• What Else?
  

Just imagine - Macrossan could become the "upmarket" riverside suburb of the new Capital?

Prediction - End of Medicare

As mentioned in a previous post, we're seeing the gradual dismantling of the medicare safety net but the government - yet another case of boiling the frog. If they came out and said "that's it, we're killing off medicare", it wouldn't happen because they'd be toss out quick smart - so they're taking it apart a piece at a time. How's that possible? Well:

1. 80% Coverage Clause

This change that provides 80% coverage (regardless of the scheduled fee) means that, before long, we will have $200 consults. How's that possible? Well, people are "comfortable" paying $40 per consult now. So, if the government will stump up with 80% ($160), then all the poor punter has to cough up is $40. Now, is the government is going to bankroll $160 consults??? Not bloody likely mate. No, well before that happens (lets say $80), the government will say "this is too expensive" and start to roll it all back (and put the cost back onto punters).

2. 30% Private Insurance Rebate

As per the above, this is gouging the health budget because, year after year, the punters are slogged with > than inflation increases (7-8% each year for 3-4 years!).

All of these moves are against the original tenets of medicare - namely to contain cost increases of these essential services. By imposing a scheduled fee, doctors are effectively forced into being competative or else pass on the costs to the punter - which would be political suicide.

So, now they simply bankrupt the system and wait for it to collapse.

How long have we got???

Prediction - FTA - Backdoor Abolition of PBS

In a New Years heart warmer, Mark Vaile has mooted that the government is considering dropping Labor's anti-evergreening clause, which was aimed at protecting access to cheaper generic drugs.

In an astonishing load of BS, the drug companies have argued that removing the cause would not result in increased prices.

I'm sorry, if removing the clause will NOT result in increased prices then surely leaving it in will have no impact either - so please, humour us on this one.

But no, I suspect this is the start of the gradual undermining of the PBS (as predicted by many) - expect it to be "no more" within 5-10 years!!! We're already seeing an undermining of Medicare (thanks to recent Private Medical Insurance rises that will mean our 30% contribution increases) as well as the government's 80% coverage shite (which means doctors will just start charging to the $40 per person limit (+80% paid for by us). Within 2-3 years it will be unsustainable...

Prediction - The Demise of Family First...

Like Meg Lees and The Democrats before them, Johnny has pulled the rug out from under Mr Fielding and Family First - and the poor fool doesn't even know it. Whilst his actions (which is most likely in support of the Government to pull the rug on RU486) might get backing from the Religous Right, his "Family Impact" strategy will now be bunkem as a weapon against the government as Universities start to slash on-campus facilities in reaction to the new Bill.

Surely we had to see it coming? So well laid up by the government. Putting RU486 up on a media platform - scaring the begeesus out of the anti-abortionist in his party, probably working them into a fever pitch (look at the US problems with this - forget about killing thousands in the Iraqi War (including your own people) - as long as Mr Bush says he'll fight Roe, then we'll back him).

So what a great three card trick? Use RU486 as a rouse to stir up his support base, then land the VSU stuff on his lap - it's either VSU or the unborn kids - take your choice.

So, those "family" folk who originally supported them on their "non-religous footing", Howard has simply outed them on their position on Abortion (thus turning them into a future political basket case), he gets to water down RU486 for a few more years (and don't be mistaken, it'll become legal at some stage - but it'll get Abbott & Costello happy for a bit) and tops it all off with the VSU legislation.

So in just 6 months, Howard has effectively managed to wipe Unions from the Australian political landscape...

Oh, are we in deep poo in this country or what ... ???

PS - Await the announcement over Xmas for Johnnie to retire - he must be like a pig in mud right now.

Reap What You Sow - Racial Violence in Sydney

Following the riots in Sydney this weekend, even Mr Howard is concerned.

Sorry Johnny, but you reap what you sow...

Years of expousing hate and fear by our national leadship and their rampant hype of nationalism has surely had some effect. It all started with Hansonite politics when Howard first came into office - his failure to neuter Hanson opened the door on intolerence in this country and Howard has been cajolling it ever since for his own end (Tampa, Iraq, Terror Laws, etc).

Problem is, where will it all end? Must be a sure bet that the communities targetted by the mob on Sunday will likely react...??? The genie is out of the bottle and it will take something special (like real leadership) to put it back in.

Update 16/12/2005: Even Laurie Oakes is coming around that we've all been duped...

Orwellian Speak - "Outrageous/Outlandish Claims"

In recent months I've notice ruling governments the world over lambasting a rash of "outrageous/outlandish" claims against them (for example):

• Downer refuting allegations of DFAT's involvement in the AWB scandal in Iraqi Wheatgate - "Wheat kickback claims outrageous: Downer"
• Rumsfeld's reaction to claims Bush wanted to dump on Al-Jazeera - "We are not going to dignify something so outlandish with a response," a White House official told CNN.

So, is this a new double-speak? It sounds like a denial yet it completely lacks one! So, it's a great way of defusing an issue by appearing to refute the claim yet does nothing of the sort. Anyone can claim something is outrageous or outlandish, but that doesn't mean it's not true. The language we should be looking for is "we completely refute this claim" or "this claim is not true".

So, all Joe Public hears is the "outrageous/outlandish claim" and a few more soundbites thus crushing any chance for the truth to be told.

Prediction - Howard's About to Resign...

Three reasons why I think we're about to see a leadership transition in the Libs:

1. The huge rush on to push through a raft of legislative changes before Xmas. Why? Because Johnny wants to wear the mantle on these for prosperity (oh, and it also lets Costello/Turnbull argue that they didn't guarantee that "no one would be worse off").
2. Recent turmoil with Costello being sent to the cleaners on the appointment of Robert Gerard to the Reserve Bank highlights leadership tensions within the Libs. This surely was an internal knife in the back - Labor completely missed it for 3 years and it wasn't till the Fin Review published the story that it all come to light. No, my bet is it was either Malcolm Turnbull's supporters or someone else jockeying into position - with the expectation that Howard was about to "walk the plank" so they're getting in early to undermine Costello's chances.
   
3. Yesterday's announcement by Costello that he was going to be working on the Budget and that he would deliver the budget next year (i.e. won't be leader) is such a classic political move I'm amazed that everyone's taken it hook, line and sinker. Ever since it's been an issue, Costello has always been obscure with remarks about the future - now suddenly it's definately not on - yeah, right!!!

No, clearly Howard's clearing the way for Costello (after many years promising it too him, he has to deliver) so I suspect all of this is simply to take the press hounds off Howard so he can make the announcement at his choosing.

Thoughts - Outsourcing Justice (or just Execution's)

The recent controversy surrounding the hanging of Van Nguyen by Singapore has (yet again) exposed the crass underbelly of the Australian psyche and the Howard government is using it to great effect.

A number of things have me worried about the direction (and again, failure in leadership) we, as a nation, are headed and it has me asking the question - "has the Howard Government decided to outsource our Justice (well, execution's at least)?"

Despite a long history of the Liberals voicing their opposition to Capital Punishment, we have seen an almost deliberate watering down of that long held position in recent months. Like "Tampa" before it, they aren't coming straight out and saying they support it, but the comments they are using are enough to tag at the heartstrings of the Hansonite's in our midst, further entrenching the government in the community. It's politics at it's lowest and dangerous to boot as the Libs go about selling out on what they stand for to secure their political future - and that can only lead us into worrying territory.

So, I'm starting to wonder, how can the government back capital punishment (and thus reengage with the Hansonite sympathisers) without appearing to change a long held Liberal policy? Well, I suspect they've taken a leaf out of Bush's policy of outsourcing torture to Eastern Europe which allows the Bush presidency to claim they do not support turture in America.

Similarly, we are seeing the Howard government outsource punishment for drug crimes to our Asian neighbours, without so much as a whimper of complaint. Proof of this?

• Despite Van Ngyen being sentenced in 2002, it has only been in recent months that anyone in government appears to have made any attempt to challenge this. Why weren't attempts made immediately for his transfer to Australia to answer charges here?
• Why dob the Bali 9 into the Indonesian's? If the AFP knew of their movements (and if I recall, even their flights back into OZ), why not simply pick them up off the plane back in OZ? Surely the deliberate act of informing the Indonesian's about their plans was tand amount to signing their death warrants.

Both appear to be deliberate acts to ensure these individuals are sent to their deaths. Now, I don't particularly have a problem with another country enforcing its laws as it sees fit. And we all know you'd be stupid to even consider touching drugs in any Asian country for fear of capital punishment - yet it still happens (so not much of a deterant).

My concern is that, in both of these cases, the most harm was not going to occur to the local population - no, instead these "mules" were returning the drugs to Australia for our population to suffer the consequences. So, why are we not insisting on setting the punishment? Why aren't we dragging them back to OZ to face our justice system? Why? Because many of us (and the this is the bit the government are sucking up to) clearly think this is a suitable punishment so Howard is playing the Hansonite card yet again to sure up his support base.

Other things that concern me about this include:

• The use of language - it's been very Orwellian again - remanicant of Tampa - not admitting they support Capital Punishment but doing everything in their efforts to suggest they actually do,
• The clear lack of leadership (by both sides of politics) to support our long held position against capital punishment. Again, this is reminicent of Hansonite politics - how Howard allowed Hanson to express her view unchallenged in the parliament.
• The move by the Lib/Nats in Queensland to boycott the minute silence as a protest. Again, it sets a tone in the community and offers tacit support to that ugly underbelly.

So where too now? I suspect/worry we're on a slippery slope. The actions we're seeing appears to highlight peoples desire for revenge over than justice. How anyone could believe that death was a suitable punishment for simply carrying the drugs is beyond me. We don't see the masses demanding the gallows for tobacco exec's? Yet their "legal drugs" kill many more Australian's every year (as the argument goes that the drugs they are carrying will kills Australian's after all).

So, given the recent turmoil surrounding Howard's devisive policies (IR, terror, welfare to work, etc) which will clearly work against the government, are we seeing a return to wedge politics to divert attention away from their current failures?

My concern with this is that we're playing with fire. Once we start to encourage the ugly side of the Australian Psyche out into the open, it will be a difficult to put it back into the box - and that scares me no end.

Prediction - Telstra Loss of Core Business

Telstra seems to be doing it's darnest to scare away customers with its outrageous pricing plans for land line rentals. What I can't work out if this is deliberate or accidental - but I'm starting to think it's deliberate.

We've seen recent reports of people dropping Land Lines in favour of Cheap Mobiles and of VoIP using Broadband over Powerlines in TAS - all of which will eat into Telstra's bottom line. Why? Because if people choose Mobile over Land Lines, consumers go from a monopoly market to a very competative market - so many will NOT choose Telstra.

So what's the deal? Perhaps Telstra is trying to buy out of the Land Line market completely? Or at least put so much commercial pressure on it's existance that it forces the governments hand. Either way, I suspect more is at play than lousy business decisions.

Proven - Telstra's Plans...

Unremarkably, Sol Trujillo today announced plans to Axe 12,000 Jobs - well, we said 14,000 and no-one believed us...

Worse is that Barnaby Joyce was shocked by the announcement. Sorry Barnaby - you surely can't be that stupid can you and not know that this would happen? It's going to be a private company you goose - what did you think would happen - they would expand?

So, what does that mean? Well, I'd say Countrywide is pretty well gone. In fact, I was talking to an ex-Telstra employee recently and they seemed to be saying as much. I just hope Barnaby isn't so surprised when it happens - make's him look pretty foolish.

Supporting Commentary - Living Beyond Our Means...

On the Sunday program yesterday, we had the proverial "sky is falling" story, Safe As Houses, about the housing bubble about to burst (with some encouragement from Aussie John Symonds).

It was interesting to hear many of the comment (some from reputable people) that seemed to coincide with the concepts of Affluenza and/or Living Beyond our Means.

But isn't this the global panacea for growth? Complete unfetted, unabashed consumption and debt growth. I'm really keen to see the Right Wing hawks decend upon the show to pull it to pieces (I'm sure it'll be labelled as a left wing rag before too long) as the implied sentiment was that some form of regulation and control is needed.

Pity it'll never happen - so when it bursts, we'll just sti by and say "I told you so"...