Category: Politics

According to Mat Price in this mornings Australian ABC bias did not rate with viewers. Well Haleleula- if they’re viewers, by definition they will not see bias. As Tim Blair said some time ago the proof that the ABC is biased is that you never hear the left say so. 32 column centimetres of confusing stats wasted on a ‘given’. I’ve generally given up watching the ABC as although they do have some quality shows, wherever they can they will present a political view and it is always left wing. Even when I do occassionally watch the SieveX reinactments and anti Bush/Howard/Iraq War/poor refugee shows I would never feel like making a pointless ‘doomed to failure’ complaint – I’ve already wasted too much time. There were 147 complaints of anti US bias and 144 claiming the ABC was favouring the US. As the statistical base is comprised of centrist to left wings of the Labour party or people who have no political thoughts at all then it has no meaning. Meaningless Matt! Like your comments on the Governor General.

In today’s Australian, Michael Costello, does his best to make the Governor-General look bad but only succeeds in bringing his own motives into question. The piece basically says General Jefferys is conservative and thus he must be taken to task. During his time as governor of Western Australia, as The Australian’s Matt Price pointed out, Jeffreys repeatedly voiced conservative views on single-parent families, the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras and de facto relationships. He also spoke of assimilation for Aborigines. Remarkably, he was often to the Right of the conservative Court government. Repeatedly…….remarkably…… like the majority of Australians. The case against General Jefferys so far is; He disagrees with left wing views. He regularly convened meetings of informal think-tanks, and after he left he became chairman of a think-tank called Future Directions International. As Governor-General-designate he felt no obligation to stay off the historically highly charged issue of the Vietnam War. When the chief of the Australian Defence Force, Peter Cosgrove, expressed the view that it would be better if Australia had not been involved, Jeffrey said: “I believe passionately that Vietnam was a just cause in the circumstances of the time.” For a start he is a decorated and respected Vietnam Veteran and is entitled to an opinion and to voice it. While General Jefferys has contributed to Australia in a meaningful way Costellos track record as the oft quoted ‘chief-of-staff to Beasley’ leaves him as a sideline commentator and a jaundiced one at that. The historically highly charged issue of Vietnam was so charged by the anti-west antics of left wing non-contributors and commentators. Sidelined opinions from sidelined people who never got beyond the Marx of their uni days. The case against General Jefreys is still; he disagrees with left wing views. Costello makes another obscure point. Here is one example. The executive council, chaired by the Governor-General, must approve all bills passed by the House of Representatives and Senate before they can become law. The ministers who make up a quorum on the council frequently know very little about the bills in question, which are there to be approved pro forma, not debated. This Governor-General, however, seeks briefing papers on bills beforehand, and initiates discussion on them in the executive council. From the Government web site The Federal Executive Council comprises all ministers, with the Governor-General presiding. Its principal functions are to receive ministerial advice and approve the signing of formal documents such proclamations, regulations, ordinances and statutory appointments. Costello says; The ministers who make up a quorum on the council frequently know very little about the bills in question….. That’s a big call but if Costello is right, if I were Governor-General, I would want the ministers to be briefed on exactly what they are about to pass into law and yet Costello paints this as meddling. The professional world would paint it as doing his job in a professional manner. I presume when Labour was in power the ministers knew everything there was to know about the bills in question. Perhaps the Governor-General, who while affable, is something of a stickler for protocol, could focus instead on a role that is quintessentially that of a governor-general as commander in chief. Now lets see, how can we make a man who has the unique ability to appeal to all and yet still maintain the protocol that is expected of the Governor-General sound bad…….Affable but a stickler for protocol fits the bill nicely. If we can just restrict him to the parade ground we won’t have to confront his conservatism. He then goes on to say (and here’s his chance to dump on Howard) that the Governor-General should welcome all the troops home, not Howard. He mentions that a citizen, Sebastion Clark, suggested this as if it had the same weight as a referendum. Hey, let the elected leader of Australia welcome them home if that’s what he wants. One moment we shouldn’t have regal appointees and the next moment elected leaders are castigated for leading. Prime Ministers have always welcomed troops home and Governor-Generals have always officiated at the more formal parades and award ceremonies. Costello’s article clarifies his lack of knowledge about matters of high office. I guess we can’t win. When that chap Deane went around the country dumping on the elected government woe betide any right wing commentator that pointed out that Deane may be forgetting the protocol of the office of Governor-General. Costello’s point is that General Jefferys is conservative and does his job professionally while abiding to the protocols of office. Sounds good to me.

I have been in situations where I couldn’t convert people to my opinions but I only sulked for a bit and then went on with life. Poor old Phillip has had to endure a lifetime of few converts. You see, whats important to Phillip doesn’t rate with most of us. It’s this very lack of fire in our bellies about left wing causes that puts Australia ahead of the pack in todays world. Go and read his piece in todays Australian and feel chastened. The typical left wing insult – us voters are too stupid to see the real issues. Get over it Phillip

Bush on Howard I found that John Howard was a visionary person who can see beyond the noise inherant in a democracy. What the rabble don’t understand is that they are just that – a noise. The people at the football who boo’d Howard are just that, a noise, and their actions say more about them than it does about Howard. If Tasmanian anti-war MP Harry Quick stands up and puts his back to Bush then that reflects on Harry, not on Howard or Bush or, for that matter, Australia. I will be slightly embarrassed that Australia’s parliament has such an idiot in its ranks but I know the world will not think all of us are like that. Go for it, Harry you are nothing but the background noise of democracy. I surfed by The Age yesterday but couldn’t catch a wave – just ripples of malcontent. Of thirteen op-eds and features, thirteen are negative. A few examples – US heads fail to win Iraqi hearts, A bloody message for the US, For Americans, the mourning has just begun-Fears are growing that Iraq may turn into another Vietnam, Occupied Iraq will never know peace, Show us the documents, Mr Howard and A misuse of military might: Ho hum…just another credibility gap. Either The Age has a terribly small circulation or most people only buy it for the football results. A hundred percent anti-Howard/Bush/Iraq War does not reflect the opinions of the general public. 90% of their circulation must centre around Monash Uni or maybe Jim Cairns did a deal for his desk at the markets before he went off to have dinner with Stalin. More noise. Static in the background of the real world.

Michael Moore, the fat fool of the Oscars does Wesley Clark, a possible runner for next years presidential election, a huge disservice by saying he likes him. I think that would translate in Australia as Phillip Adams saying someone is a good bloke – 90% of Australians would switch off instantly. Like wise, I’m a bit worried about having the leader of the free world coming to the defence of the fat fool. Need to keep a watching brief on General Clark.

I’m a bit confused here and may need some help from others. This from the Australian.

Medicinal cannabis trial approved By Megan Saunders and Monica Videnieks May 21, 2003 THE nation’s first trial of cannabis for medical relief will begin in NSW by the end of the year, a move that Premier Bob Carr said yesterday would stop decent people feeling like criminals.

On News Years day this year and old friend phoned with a bombshell that started with “I have pancreatic cancer and the doctors have given me 8 months at best.” My friend and I go back forty years when we were young soldiers together and after his stint in the Army he settled in New South Wales and followed a career as a Systems Analyst. A couple of years ago his father died and subsequent to that his mother had a stroke. For the very best of reasons my friend, once married – now a bachelor, retired and moved to the North Coast to be near his mother. So he has left his social and professional infrastructure in NSW and now gets the death nod. For many reasons, one of which related to his being virtually alone, I decided to ensure he didn’t die that way. I cared for him, paid his bills, kept his house, swapped ‘old soldier’ stories with him during the day and asked the medical staff to help him sleep at nights. “No man should be allowed to ponder his demise for too long over endless dusk to dawn dog-watches” I said. “Could you knock him out at night?” They did and he died with dignity 90 days into the year. We discussed marijuana and its use. My friend had a bit of the hippy in him and was an occasional user and while I didn’t use it I had no strong opinions either way. As his time drew closer and pain and the indignity of a body that was failing, threatened to impact on everything, we spoke of using marijuana to camouflage the pain. My point is it was never necessary. Palliative Care nursing has made tremendous leaps over the years and my friend had no pain right to the end. His body was being infused with a cocktail of drugs that had been cleared for the purpose by government laboratories and they did the job. These drugs didn’t just control the pain, they also controlled the mind and bodily functions. The drugs kept him coherent and able to organize his final posting and to say goodbye to friends with his mental facilities intact. There was no pain and no long ‘dog-watches’. My confusion should now be clear. Why do we talk about using marijuana for palliative care when there are suitable drugs available. Why does Bob Carr, Premier of NSW, make an issue of allowing a trial of marijuana. The cynic in me makes me think he is ‘buying’ green votes or throwing some crumbs to his ‘left wing’ factions but then I’ve always though he was a reasonable chap – intelligent, well read and not normally involved with the more seedier side of politics. Could someone please explain?