|
Post by angra on Nov 20, 2012 14:39:38 GMT 10
Various commentators seem to be guilty of this. (X was a friend of Y, who was guilty of Z", therefore we should revile X). So if you like someone's works, say Mrs A, and they happen to be friends with someone of whom you disapprove, say Mr B, then you should condemn Mrs A. This seems to be a common argument amongst the logically challenged amongst us. I'll give a personal example. My Dad was homophobic, but he loved the music of Tchaikovsky. When he learned that Pyotr Ilyich may have been gay, he stopped listening to his music. Sad but true. I see the same thing happening with some of our "leading commentators". Tell 'em Michaelangelo was right gay, Caravaggio was a murderer, and Christopher Hitchens only 1/32 Jewish, and they run a mile. Bless em.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 20, 2012 16:31:10 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 20, 2012 16:39:08 GMT 10
Since I'm whining about cory ....
I actually agree about the salaries paid to the PS. The problem is, they HAVE to pay federal employees that much in order for them to be able to afford to live in the ACT.
This place is EXPENSIVE. We get screwed on property, screwed on rent, screwed on petrol, groceries, just about everything. I understand that the ACT is now more expensive to live in that the city of sydney. Want to buy a house? Forget about anything free standing for less than 400 thou. Want to rent it? Start at 450$ a week.
What to do about that, I'm not sure. I'm secretly in favor of decentralization - it would open up the guv to a much broader pool of possible employees who don't then have to move to the ACT (which, less face it, many people wouldn't do if you paid them to).
It would be tricky to manage, though - it would inevitably lead to silos like nothing else. It would also make job mobility within the public service a lot harder. It would lead to a lot more air-travel too - which I refuse to do, because I hate it.
Cory also needs to remember that the people who earn all that money tend to be people with advanced degrees - a bachelor's at minimum, usually an honours, a surprising number with masters' and PhDs. Those people would be making a pretty hefty contribution no matter where they were.
And I'm completely in favor of the next government slashing the PS workforce. Nothing would suit me personally better than that ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 21, 2012 8:25:49 GMT 10
NEWS' obsession with the first bloke is becoming bizarre. It all started with a puff piece, which was then (I believe) [url=http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/bath-blowdry-and-barracking-for-the-pm/story-fncvk70o-1226516979434 ]quoted in the tele[/url] That article's a bit of a laugh, and talks about the domesticity of being a first bloke. Sort of what you'd expect, but probably a bit more honest than it might usually be ... probably because it's busting so many stereotypes. But bolta's gone mental about it - actually writing this: The point missed: no wife of a Prime Minister would confess to doing so little work or being so subservient in their homely duties to their partner, and nor would critics of the Left forgive them if they did. Examples are given. I actually wonder, sometimes, how somebody who (apparently) fails to understand irony, context, humor, the messiness of modern relationships, has managed to earn a living as a commentator on human affairs. And that particular angle only works if you ignore half of the article anyway. That much of bolta's schtick we know well. It's actually fairly unlikely that tim's going to be able to go back to working in a salon (or wherever it was). The security would be a nightmare (something that nobody ever seems to understand), and no sensible business would want a bar of it. It's not going to happen, and it's probably a LOT cheaper for the tax payer for him to do what he's doing now. And what is he doing? Well ... if you follow bolta and the oz, you'd conclude that he's not doing anything at all. If you read that article in the terror (the one bolt actually linked to), you'd discover that: Mr Mathieson's father suffers from diabetes and he yesterday hosted a lunch for World Diabetes Day at The Lodge ...
Mr Mathieson is also an ambassador for Kidney Health Australia and a patron of the Australian Men's Sheds Association and says he enjoys the work he does promoting these causes.
He's spent the last year traveling to many of Australia's country towns to promote men's health and took part in the Kidney Health car rally.
"I'm really interested in the indigenous side of diabetes," he says.
He talks of trying to raise the profile of the issue with Pacific Island spouses at the Pacific Island Forum and the ASEAN conference next week ... So sure, he's not pouring concrete or building cars, but he's also not just slouching on the couch. He's sort of doing what one would hope a first-spouse WOULD do, and what I expect most of them have. As for the advisor - it's a part-time position, and probably just formalises what happens in practice anyway. First spouses are "minded" when overseas. What do people THINK happens - they just let them drive themselves around and go shopping? Mmm .... nope, forget that.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 21, 2012 19:57:47 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 24, 2012 9:51:27 GMT 10
Still waiting for Blewitt to bring down the government. Waiting ... waiting ... Bolt would do better to not mention this one, I think: I fear Faine has let his Leftism blind him
I suspect ABC host Jon Faine, on reflection, will agree his presentation of the AWU scandal has been grossly one-sided, often ill-informed and too apparently driven by a partisan desire to protect a Labor leader.
His sliming of Michael Smith was an uncharacteristically low act, and should be apologised for.
Listen to Faine’s hectoring of Smith and senior Age reporter Mark Baker here. Audio hereHave a listen. Faine is, indeed, a hectoring pain in the neck (I'm not a fan). But it's more remarkable that two journalists were, when it comes down to it, unable to just tell us what their point is. Neither of them dared to go with "gillard participate in ... X", they just trotted out lots of little bits of "well, what about THIS?!?!" evidence. These are two guys who shouldn't have been that easily bullied. When faine pointed out (correctly or incorrectly, I have no idea) that law firms get thousands of form letters from banks of the sort styant-browne presented, mark baker practically went to water. I'm sure I can hear a distinct change in tone - he gets a bit wobbly, and starts pointing out that he's not "leading the charge", he's just "reporting the story". I just wish faine would have asked him "do you actually BELIEVE the story?" at that point. I think the answer would have been gold. It's worth a listen. Two people who're trying to sell the story couldn't stand up to a spirited cross-examination on it.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 24, 2012 9:57:16 GMT 10
Last night I eagerly awaited bolta's response to the PM's comments about applying a bit of common sense to the commbank letter. Nothing. Today he's going with: She may not remember specific documents with her name all over them, but could she really fail to remember the key point - whether her boyfriend and client had a mortgage from her law firm on the house she’d helped him buy? A classic "yeah, but nah, but still ..." response. I don't think we'll be hearing much more about that letter. Even bolta appears to have all but dropped it. I personally wouldn't run with that "helped him buy" angle. More weasel needed on that, I think.
|
|
|
Post by jack on Nov 24, 2012 10:23:12 GMT 10
And on and on... Swan also attacked former Slater & Gordon partner Nick Styant-Browne’s credibility, saying he just had a grudge and an axe to grind. Just what that grudge was, Swan failed to say.
I’d say slanging off at Styant-Browne may not be wise. Styant-Browne still has plenty of evidence yet to be released which he may well use if called upon to match his credibility against Gillard’s.
blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/awu_strange_company_and_swans_strange_defence/ Just what the evidence is of, Andy fails to say. Nor does he offer an opinion about NS-B's effectively witholding putative "evidence" in a matter of (he's convinced) acute public interest, only to be held in reserve against Andy's political bêtes noires. Poor Andy. As Latham remarked recently, this is what the 'conservative' punditry have reduced themselves to...
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 24, 2012 10:53:28 GMT 10
"Just what the evidence is of, Andy fails to say."
We probably will never know. What we DO know is that, after months of reading that the slam-dunk is just around the corner, all we're actually getting is faxes from banks offering insurance.
This is the worst conspiracy movie ever. It's like "all the president's men" rewritten by whoever did the "jericho" TV series.
Based on what we know (well, what we've read) about previous releases and the politics within the company between the partners about the direction the company should take, I suspect that, if the guy who supplied that letter was in possession of the crucial evidence, we'd probably know about it by know. Just a hunch.
I also suspect that if blewitt had blown anything wide open this week, we'd also know about that. I'm inclined to think that his revelations are not going to be setting the anti-gillard crowd on fire.
|
|
|
Post by jack on Nov 24, 2012 14:38:32 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 24, 2012 16:10:53 GMT 10
Let PVO start calling him "andrew blot" and see how long it takes bolta to blow a gasket.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 25, 2012 17:00:42 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by jack on Nov 25, 2012 20:14:46 GMT 10
zOMG, looks like Roxon has some questions to answer now. You've got to admire Hedley Thomas's incisive... er... reporting: However, while Ms Roxon criticised reporting of the Prime Minister's conduct on Tuesday, and claimed that there were Liberal Party connections behind the reports, she failed to reveal her own work on AWU matters. Wouldn't want readers thinking independently about all this.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 26, 2012 8:01:07 GMT 10
"she failed to reveal her own work on AWU matters"
It should be pointed out that the australian has ALSO failed to reveal that work - they've just found an email (or something) with roxon's name on it and something to do with an AWU investigation.
This new bombshell is supposed to indicate some sort of "conflict of interest". But I think being a member of the same political party already constituted a much more immediate conflict of interest. We might say "well, she would say that" ... but we could have said that anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jack on Nov 26, 2012 15:07:45 GMT 10
Concluding his LOL critique of Gillard's press conference today, Andy notes that the PM did not give... A criticism of the companies which donated to Wilson’s slush fund, and did not complain to police when the fund was exposed as a rort.
blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/awu_scandal_gillard_tries_again_to_answer_the_charges/ Well, of course! Gillard should have named and shamed them, even if it's not the same people running them as two decades ago. And to further prove her innocence in that-which-must-be-questioned, she would have not only criticised the companies who didn't complain, but would have lauded those companies that did. And their suppliers and customers. Gillard's failure to do that-which-Andy-expects is another sure indication of her guilt of that-which-can't-be-named, which commonsense will tell you is umpteen-gazillion times more egregious than someone forestalling asbestos victims' access to compensation before they expire.
|
|