Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditPresident Bush recently traveled to Australia to thank conservative Prime Minister John Howard for making that country a member of the "coalition of the willing" U.S. allies in the occupation of Iraq.
Bush's trip was supposed to shore Howard up as national elections approached. Instead, the president planted what turned out to be a political kiss of death on his most willing accomplice.
When the votes from Down Under were counted Saturday, it was instantly clear that the vast majority of Australians are no longer willing to participate in the American president's misadventure in the Middle East.
Bush's "Australian poodle" is no longer in charge.
In fact, Howard has been so thoroughly rejected that he's likely to be out of Australian politics altogether.
After a landslide shift to the left by the Australian electorate, Howard -- who was every bit as nasty and gaffe-prone as his pal Dick Cheney -- will be replaced by a left-leaning intellectual who was elected on a platform that promised to withdraw his country's troops from Iraq and to develop a new foreign policy that will be more independent of the United States.
As in Spain, Italy and a number of other former "coalition of the willing" countries, the Australian electorate has effectively voted the troops home. Australia has only about 500 troops in Iraq, but that contingent is one of the larger of the non-U.S. "coalition" forces left in the country.
Australia's abandonment of the Iraq project is not the only change that is coming to the country that had, under Howard's leadership, been the steadiest U.S. ally of the Bush era.
The new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, will adopt a radically different approach than his predecessor did when it comes to global warming. Where Howard was one of Bush's few allies in international debates about climate change, Rudd promises to sign the Kyoto Protocol and to make Australia a greener and more pleasant land. (He'll be assisted by his Labour Party's pointman on environmental issues: Peter Garrett, the long-time lead singer of the rock band Midnight Oil, a veteran anti-nuclear weapons campaigner who left the stage to become a member of parliament.)
So committed is Rudd to shifting his country's approach to climate change that the new prime minister is expected to lead Australia's delegation to the upcoming United Nations climate change conference in Bali.
Rudd is no radical. He's the mildest of socialists in what is today only a mildly socialist Labour Party. But compared with Howard, who followed the Bush line so slavishly, Rudd promises a welcome change of course for a nation that remains a significant player in the politics of the planet.
And Rudd has a mandate. After 11 years out of power, Labour went into Saturday's election with a 16-seat deficit in the parliament. It now has a majority of at least 22 seats over Howard's right-wing Liberal party. Among the many prominent Liberals who appear to be headed for defeat is the prime minister, who acknowledged late Saturday that he is likely to become the first head of government to lose his own seat since 1929.
To understand the scale of the rejection of Howard -- who has for 33 years represented the historically conservative seat for Bennelong in suburban Sydney -- imagine Bush losing in the Houston suburbs. Of course, recent surveys have consistently shown that a majority of Texans disapprove of the American president -- indeed, a July Survey USA poll found that 57 percent of the voters in Bush's home state object to his approach. So, perhaps, the only difference between Australia and America is that there was an election in Australia Saturday. Had there been one in the U.S., it wouldn't just be the poodle who was tossed out -- the master would have gone, too.
Where Howard was one of Bush's few allies in international debates about climate change, Rudd promises to sign the Kyoto Protocol and to make Australia a greener and more pleasant land. (He'll be assisted by his Labour Party's pointman on environmental issues: Peter Garrett, the long-time lead singer of the rock band Midnight Oil, a veteran anti-nuclear weapons campaigner who left the stage to become a member of parliament.)
I wondered what happened to Midnight Oil. "The time has come. To say 'fair's fair.' To pay the rent, yeah, to pay our share."
I also wonder if the elections had gone differently if Bush hadn't made a personal appearance there in the land down under, that solidified the defeat of his buddy. If Midas turned everything he touched to gold, then Bush turns everything he touches to ash...except the pocket books of those who profit from war.
Posted by FritztheCat at 11/24/2007 @ 11:22pm
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 11/24/2007 @ 11:22pm
And if we think about it,
And if we talk about it,
And if the skies go dark with rain,
Can you tell me does our freedom remain?
~ [youtube.com]
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/24/2007 @ 11:52pm
hooray!
Posted by PLANET! 11/24/2007 @ 11:52pm | ignore this person
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/24/2007 @ 11:54pm
the only time that jean chrétien made me proud* [cbc.ca]
*at least that i can remember
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2007 @ 12:00am
Good riddance to the worst and most dishonest of allAustralian Prime Ministers.
Unfortunately the balance of power in the Senate seems likely not to lie with the socially progressive Greens, but with a lone right wing zealot.
Posted by motminxdeg at 11/25/2007 @ 12:23am
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 11/24/2007 @ 11:22pm
Peter Garret nearly stuffed it up for Kevin Rudd when he told a reporter "off the record" that the ALP was going to drop all it's pro-industry policies once elected. That was after Rudd told him, as the opposition Minister for the Environment, not to oppose a major state of the art wood chip processing plant in Tasmania that was OK'd by the Minister for the Environment a few weeks before the election.
The ALP at the 2004 election lost some crucial seats in that state when the ALP's policy was to prevent logging of regrowth forests. Kevin Rudd who is possibly a robot made up of Howard spare parts had learned that lesson very well.
Rudd fully supports the Afghanistan war and will continue Australia's troop deployment there. He does not support the Iraq war because it was not sanctioned by the UN. His troop deployment from Iraq is only partial and not quite leaving Bush in the lurch as is imagined. In fact he had a good chat with Bush at the APEC meeting in Australia last Sept. Here are some insights into how he would work with Bush from an interview on 25th Feb 2007:
LAURIE OAKES: If you do win the election later this year, you'll have a year, maybe 18 months overlapping with the Bush-Cheney Administration, how do you think you'll get along with them?
KEVIN RUDD: I would look forward to working with the United States Administration, because there are so many areas of co-operation which are available to us. For example, the great success of US Foreign Policy in recent times in bringing the North Koreans, it seems, to their senses over their nuclear program; the very skilful management, so far, of the China-Taiwan relationship, because if that goes wrong, let me tell you, any problems we've got in the Middle East at the moment would pale into insignificance compared with that one going wrong. I look forward to working with the US Administration because there are many things that the Bush Administration, its foreign policy in East Asia, have done absolutely right. I look forward to working on that, if I become Prime Minister, if my party is elected to Government, and I've got to say, there's a long, long way to go before getting to that point here.
LAURIE OAKES: You've committed a Labor Government to supporting the fight in Afghanistan, you've supported an increase in our troop numbers there, what, in your view would be the cost if the Coalition was beaten in Afghanistan by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda?
KEVIN RUDD: The difference between these two wars is this: Afghanistan and Iraq, in Afghanistan we have a military objective, a clear-cut military objective, that's to militarily defeat Osama bin Laden and the Taliban forces in that country and it requires a military solution. Iraq has become a civil war and a civil war requires ultimately a political solution and that is why we have supported, in broad principle, those elements of the Baker-Hamilton Plan in the United States. But, back to Afghanistan, the key things are militarily defeating Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. This is where the Bali bombers were trained, who murdered so many Australians those years ago. On top of that it's the source of Narko finance, the drugs industry, opium, which funds so much of global terrorism, including in our part of the world. For those reasons, we believe, we've got to make sure that we achieve that military objective, and as I've always said, to Mr. Howard, both in my current job and the previous job, we'd always consider positively and constructively, continued, reasonable requests from the Government to support our military effort in Afghanistan against those objectives.
Here's a Rudd speech that indicates he likes more than his fair share of American hegemony as well:
http://tinyurl.com/yt8pbr
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/25/2007 @ 12:40am
Posted by QuagmireJONES4 11/25/2007 @ 12:40am
so quagmire, you're going to have to change your name now that Australia is set on ungooing itself from the quagmire. So what will it be? AppeaserJones4?
CutandrunJones4?
WiththeterroristsJones4?
Posted by Will C. at 11/25/2007 @ 01:43am
Here's a Rudd speech that indicates he likes more than his fair share of American hegemony as well:
http://tinyurl.com/yt8pbr
Posted by LRJONES4 11/25/2007 @ 12:40am
yuck*.
let's hope he's pandering.
meanwhile, we're still stuck with viceroy harper.
"he likes more than his fair share of American hegemony as well"
i can't believe what thy fingers have brought forth.
tell me the truth EL RJONES4, ¿did you vote for the greens?
*go a-googling for "sugarland, texas and taliban". then you'll see why we've got people who should be planting trees (that's right, ponti, PLANTING TREES) meddling in the business of corrupt opium warlords.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2007 @ 02:06am
CutandrunJones4?
WiththeterroristsJones4?
Posted by WILL C. 11/25/2007 @ 01:43am
Nope.
Nope.
Wont be long before K. Rudd, or Krudd as we calls him, will be over there for a botty kissing session with George. "Please Your Majesty would you let us send a further battalion of our troops to support your brilliant surge strategy?"
Krudd is about as much lefty as is Dick Cheny. Which reminds me Krudd met him for tea and scones a few months back.
How's mum?
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/25/2007 @ 03:45am
Posted by AppeaserJONES4 11/25/2007 @ 03:45am
so then by default, AppeaserJONES4 it is
and Appeaser, if Rudd wasn't a liberal you wouldn't be calling him Krudd.
Posted by Will C. at 11/25/2007 @ 03:58am
you hamsters get so pissy when you lose
Posted by Will C. at 11/25/2007 @ 03:58am
*go a-googling for "sugarland, texas and taliban". then you'll see why we've got people who should be planting trees (that's right, ponti, PLANTING TREES) meddling in the business of corrupt opium warlords.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/25/2007 @ 02:06am
Think I probably missed your point but did you know that the oceans via plankton absorb about 95% of the CO2 that is absorbed. That leaves about 5% work for trees and any other artifact. Haven't heard of any Greenies working with plankton. I'm sort of a mainstream conservative in the Howard/Rudd tradition so I don't mind Rudd but I get no joy out of the Greenies.
Both are Anglicans but Howard, in typical Aussie fashion thinks religion is a private matter except when there are votes in being religious but he gets embarrassed even there, whereas young Kevin can rabbit on about his faith as good as any American politician. I'm sure George and he will pray together and thus stay together. Until the end of 2008 anyway.
Well it's 8.15 pm Sunday here so I better get going on my Sunday health walk which goes past all the outdoor restaurants where some of the best looking Aussie sheilas disport themselves in their summery attire. Better go now or I'll miss out on all the health benefits.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/25/2007 @ 04:28am
FZ,
I swear, hand on heart and hope to die that I've never been to this fount of wisdom before. I get the impression this is a leftie free site but there are some funny lines that could be adapted to suit ones political biases. Anyway this is pure "jack's as good, if not better, than his master". Which of course is what Aus is all about.
http://tinyurl.com/26bago
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/25/2007 @ 06:31am
Was curious how LRJONES, our resident Aussie neo-con, would spin that.
Posted by Mask at 11/25/2007 @ 07:44am
Better go now or I'll miss out on all the health benefits.
Posted by LRJONES4 11/25/2007 @ 04:28am
in mexico, we call that a "taco de ojo"
seriously,
let's go to sugarland, texas, summer home of the taliban!
The Taliban, Unocal and a Pipeline [webcom.com]*
*via bbc and motherjones
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2007 @ 09:44am
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/25/2007 @ 08:33am
500 Aussies doing what you won't. Or at least they did what you won't. Funny how you mock what your Peerless Leader has been using as a showcase of unity. Zero shame from the neo-cons, again. Zero gratitude for those that helped you before, just mocking of those that chose to go do what you are unwilling to.
Well, at least the new Aussie leader did not get blown up for meeting with Chimpy, but the old one got socked for following him.
Good spin, LEEROY. Gotta be a shock to your system to learn that a good majority of your neighbors agree with the American Left!!
Buwahahaha.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2007 @ 10:10am
The Taliban, Unocal and a Pipeline [webcom.com]*
*via bbc and motherjones
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/25/2007 @ 09:44am
FZ,
You really have to stop spending so much time with far left spin sites. As the article itself indicated (in 2001 btw), the deal died. Not only that, no mention is ever made that this project was promoted not by GW Bush, but by Bill Clinton and his Admin.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2007 @ 10:24am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/25/2007 @ 09:44am
hmmm, what Terrorist Fighter was running Texas and had links to the oil industry back in 1997?
It sounds slightly familiar to this company, headed by another Fighter of Terrorist sponsoring regimes:
Halliburton first started doing business in Iran as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company and in possible violation of U.S. Sanctions According to a February 2001 report in the Wall Street Journal, "Halliburton Products & Services Ltd. works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is "non-American." But, like the sign over the receptionist's head, the brochure bears the company's name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world." Moreover, mail sent to the company's offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded to the company's Dallas headquarters.
This republican was concerned:
"The bottom line is that if a U.S. company is evading sanctions to do business with one of these countries, they are helping to prop up countries that support terrorism - most often aimed against America,"-Susan Collins R, Maine
And this
By Lisa Myers & the NBC investigative unit updated 9:24 p.m. AKT, Mon., March. 7, 2005 It's just another Halliburton oil and gas operation. The company name is emblazoned everywhere: On trucks, equipment, large storage silos and workers' uniforms.
But this isn't Texas. It's Iran. U.S. companies aren't supposed to do business here.
Yet, in January, Halliburton won a contract to drill at a huge Iranian gas field called Pars, which an Iranian government spokesman said "served the interests" of Iran.
"I am baffled that any American company would want to have employees operating in Iran," says Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. "I would think they'd be ashamed."
But, the neo-con war mongering, gay bashing, homophobic, freedom hating, profit only minded frightened cowards have zero shame. They don't know what the word means. Like the words patriotism and morality.
Like HAPPYcoward said, if Unical, halliburton, Conoco/Phillips are doing business with dictators and terrorists, and he is making a buck, he won't lose any sleep over it. There is profit to be had, some one else will go and fight for the freedom of the Burmese, Turkmens, Uzbekis and all the other oppressed that yearn for the freedom that Chimpy mouths off about.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2007 @ 10:28am
Bill Clinton and his Admin.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/25/2007 @ 10:24am |
What's your point. Most here don't like the Clintons. Actually the Clintons are closer to you than your feared "left".
Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2007 @ 10:32am
According to this "lefty sight":
Among the most active operatives for US efforts: Brezezinski (a consultant to Amoco, and architect of the Afghan-Soviet war of the 1970s), Henry Kissinger (advisor to Unocal), and Alexander Haig (a lobbyist for Turkmenistan), and Dick Cheney (Halliburton, US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce).
Unocal's Central Asia envoys consisted of former US defense and intelligence officials. Robert Oakley, the former US ambassador to Pakistan, was a "counter-terrorism" specialist for the Reagan administration who armed and trained the mujahadeen during the war against the Soviets in the 1980s. He was an Iran-Contra conspirator charged by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh as a key figure involved in arms shipments to Iran.
and look, I found a "liberal...
Richard Armitage, the current Deputy Defense Secretary, was another Iran-Contra player in Unocal's employ. A former Navy SEAL, covert operative in Laos, director with the Carlyle Group.
Armitage was no stranger to pipelines. As a member of the Burma/Myanmar Forum, a group that received major funding from Unocal, Armitage was implicated in a lawsuit filed by Burmese villagers who suffered human rights abuses during the construction of a Unocal pipeline. (Halliburton, under Dick Cheney, performed contract work on the same Burmese project.)
So, what LUVVY is concerned about with the Clintons, is that Billy worked for the oil companies to increase profits and secure oil for our national security interests. billy must be a liberal.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2007 @ 10:39am
In 1997, they went searching for a major partner with the clout to break the deadlock with Turkmenistan. They found one in Amoco. Bridas sold 60 percent of its Latin American assets to Amoco. Carlos Bulgheroni and his contingent retained the remaining minority 40 percent. Facilitating the merger were other icons of transnational finance, Chase Manhattan (representing Bridas), Morgan Stanley (handling Amoco) and Arthur Andersen (facilitator of post-merger integration). Zbigniew Brezezinski was a consultant for Amoco.
(Amoco would merge with British Petroleum a year later. BP is represented by the law firm of Baker & Botts, whose principal attorney is James Baker, lifelong Bush friend, former secretary of state, and a member of the Carlyle Group.)
Human rights groups began protesting Unocal's dealings with the brutal Taliban. Still riding years of Clinton bashing and scandal mongering, conservative Republicans in the US attacked the Clinton administration's Central Asia policy for its lack of clarity and "leadership."
Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan tried to push Saudi Arabia to proceed with CentGas (Delta of Saudi Arabia was now the leader). But war and US-Taliban tension made business impossible.
For the remainder of the Clinton presidency, there would be no official US or UN recognition of Afghanistan. And no progress on the pipeline.
From a "rightie" site
As the Unocal project fell from favor, the Clinton Administration shifted its support to another pipeline project, called the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline, extending from Turkmenistan across Azerbaijan and Georgia and into Turkey.
After the 1998 al Qaida bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa, the Clinton Administration focused its Afghanistan attention on Osama bin Laden, rather than gas pipelines.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2007 @ 10:45am
Got any more rumors to spread, Reverend?
So, how do you square your "service", patriotism and belief in duty with the outing of a covert CIA operative involved with the hunt for wmd's in Iraq, and the ruin brought to ongoing operations by the outing of said agent and the destruction of a front company called Brewster Jennings? Is that the kind of loyalty you think republican CIA agents deserve after they have served their country for decades?
I ask because you never answered last time.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2007 @ 10:49am
A great "spin site":
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html
Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2007 @ 10:52am
here's the bbc story on the texas taliban [news.bbc.co.uk]
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2007 @ 11:01am
POWELL-"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.
POWELL: While we were here in this council chamber debating Resolution 1441 last fall, we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq. Most of the launchers and warheads have been hidden in large groves of palm trees and were to be moved every one to four weeks to escape detection.
We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities.
Here, you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers.
... It should come as no shock then, that since Saddam Hussein forced out the last inspectors in 1998, we have amassed much intelligence indicating that Iraq is continuing to make these weapons.
Ohh, this Gem, Curveball, key source of "spinless intelligence":
The source was an eye witness, an Iraqi chemical engineer who supervised one of these facilities. He actually was present during biological agent production runs. He was also at the site when an accident occurred in 1998. Twelve technicians died from exposure to biological agents.
He reported that when UNSCOM was in country and inspecting, the biological weapons agent production always began on Thursdays at midnight because Iraq thought UNSCOM would not inspect on the Muslim Holy Day, Thursday night through Friday. He added that this was important because the units could not be broken down in the middle of a production run, which had to be completed by Friday evening before the inspectors might arrive again.
This defector is currently hiding in another country with the certain knowledge that Saddam Hussein will kill him if he finds him. His eye-witness account of these mobile production facilities has been corroborated by other sources.
...POWELL: Ladies and gentlemen, these are sophisticated facilities. For example, they can produce anthrax and botulinum toxin. In fact, they can produce enough dry biological agent in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people. And dry agent of this type is the most lethal form for human beings.
Where are all of these facilities?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2007 @ 11:03am
FROSTY, I bet if it had been Venezuela, under Chavez, rather than Argentina dealing with UNICAL, maybe, maybe, the neo-cons would have seen something amiss with dealing with the Afghani Taliban.
But, alas, oil companies can do no wrong. It's not possible. And if they do, somewhere will be a Clinton connection.
Or maybe a Sandy Berger pants story.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2007 @ 11:07am
You really have to stop spending so much time with far left spin sites. As the article itself indicated (in 2001 btw), the deal died. Not only that, no mention is ever made that this project was promoted not by GW Bush, but by Bill Clinton and his Admin.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/25/2007 @ 10:24am
oh yeah. those lefties at the bbc.
sure it was clinton (and ms. albright, too.)
hegemons of a feather flock together.
bushclintonbushclintonbushclintonbushclinton
republicrats and democans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2007 @ 11:14am
Some names missing from those that gave comfort and aid to the Taliban in the 90's:
Cindy sheehan
Noam Chomksy
Bobby Kennedy
John Edwards
Barrack Obama
Dennis Kucinich
Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2007 @ 11:14am
Was curious how LRJONES, our resident Aussie neo-con, would spin that.
Posted by MASK 11/25/2007 @ 07:44am
Mask here's a fairdinkum election report.
Firstly Iraq has never been an election issue and neither party highlighted it during their election opening extravaganzas nor can I recall it being mentioned during the campaign. Afghanistan is probably regarded more negatively here, where 3 Aussie troops have been killed, but still none in Iraq. It was a non-issue with the electorate. The Liberal Party has been trailing the ALP for about a year in the polls by up to 18 points but pulled that back a bit in the election. It was primarily the electorate wanting a change of face at the top rather than specific policy change as there is little of substance, except the ALP's policy to roll back Howard's Industrial Relations legislation, to distinguish the parties. The unions spent 30 million on attacking the IR legislation which is about diminishing union influence in the work place, by allowing individual non - union negotiated work contracts and removing much of the featherbedding that workers enjoyed under a Federal Arbitration System. My neo-con guess is that "Work Choices" has been so successful in giving record employment levels that Rudd will only tinker at the edges with the legislation. Some commentators claim that the election was lost when the Howard "battlers" thought he was dudding them in favour of the employers with "American capitalist slave labour conditions soon to follow".
Howard's support for the US was probably strengthened because he was on a state visit to the US on 9/11 and his response was immediate. On the other hand Rudd, if you care to read his speeches, is even more pro-American than Howard in terms of American Exceptionalism as in Winthrop's "city set on a hill".
Rudd has some, if not many in his party who are reflexively anti-American, so his strong public pro-US stance is surprising in terms of his party but not the electorate which regards the alliance highly. Some claim that Rudd was only adopting this stance to get elected. Others think his Party will bring him into line. My guess is that he is genuine and may just be able to control the leftie elements in his party.
He is not a liberal socially, having voted with Howard against human stem cell technology and with Howard on legislating marriage as between a man and woman etc. This little excerpt from a gay source during the campaign indicates how strongly conservative he is:
Sydney Star Observer 25 Oct 2007
"Kevin Rudd would love his gay children equally but wouldn't let them marry – and it is still not clear if he would support them adopting children."
"A chorus of condemnation from rights advocates around the country followed the Labor leader's comments."
"I know it's not a popular view on this program, but I actually believe marriage is between a man and woman," Rudd told 2Day FM shock jock Kyle Sandilands."
He is a great supporter of the Afghanistan War but though he was a firm believer wrt Iraq's WMD capability he would have gone to war only if the UN gave its OK but as the URL below indicates there is little that indicates, in practical outcomes, that his Iraq troop withdrawal is substantially different from Howards plans. He is no pacifist and got all the photo opportunities possible when there were troops returning during rotations from both theatres. One line heard before the election campaign was that he would use more Aussie troops (from Iraq) to fight (Bushes) WOT in Afghanistan and SE Asia, where Australia co-operates with the US in Indonesia and the Philippines. The al Qaeda group in Asia is JI (Jemiah Islamia).
Here is an analysis of Rudd's Iraq troop policy aka "Labor Iraq troop policy is a big con". It will also give JM an answer to how many troops we have there and are still likely to have in the future:
http://tinyurl.com/2orxc4
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/25/2007 @ 11:17am
Names associated with the Afghan Taliban in the 90's
Clinton
Baker
Armitage
Kissinger
Haig
So, why should we listen to those that give aid and comfort to the Afghani Taliban? Or those that worked with Iran throughout the 90's and into the 21st century? Especially when those same people told us that Saddam had wmd's and the war would be a cakewalk?
A couple of these "patriots" helped to out a covert CIA program whose mission it was to find wmd's.
Gee, LUVVY, cry me a frickin river about the evils of the "left".
Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2007 @ 11:20am
Posted by LRJONES4 11/25/2007 @ 11:17am
So, Iraq, THE moral issue facing the world today, was of little interest to the Aussie electorate?
Fascinating.
Better to keep those damn faggots under wraps. Can't have people like Mary Cheney walking around feeling free and a part of society now can we?
TTFN.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2007 @ 11:25am
Posted by LRJONES4 11/25/2007 @ 11:17am
Just to drop in for a quick "Hello"!!
Sorry about Howard's fall! TOO MUCH prosperity for TOO LONG, create its own momentum for LESS prosperous times! Time for Aussies with more than a 15 years of adulthood to hunker down?!?!
Posted by Happy at 11/25/2007 @ 11:43am
TTFN.
Posted by CRABWALK 11/25/2007 @ 11:25am
Hi Crabs. Well Krudd, as he is affectionately known, had a private meeting with her dad, a while back, so that's a start.
In fact you would find that there are probably as many social "progressives" in Howard's party, the Liberal Party, as there are in the ALP. It's just that the leaders are conservative and tend to give their respective parties that bias. Of course Rudd has a bit of a propensity for visiting Manhattan Strip Joints but then Anglicanism Aussie style is a pretty broad church and I'm sure God will forgive him as much as Kevin is sure he will be forgiven for all the lies he told during the election campaign. Howard has obviously had a divine deal by the use what he calls (after being elected of course) Core and non-Core promises.
So there you are. That's how Aussie Con, neo and otherwise, works.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/25/2007 @ 11:55am
Posted by LRJONES4 11/25/2007 @ 11:55am
you blokes should be distancing from us and working on cementing ties with asean and japan anyways...or getting a few nukes...you got a buzillion commie chinese looming.
but eventually we gringo/yanks will be under new leadership too...my question at this point...
meet the new boss, same as the old boss? won't get fooled again?
but don't worry...you guys always got us geniuses to watch yer backs! just hope we dont invade "iran" or "n. korea"!
proud2beuhmuruhkun [tinyurl.com]
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2007 @ 12:24pm
Sorry about Howard's fall! TOO MUCH prosperity for TOO LONG, create its own momentum for LESS prosperous times! Time for Aussies with more than a 15 years of adulthood to hunker down?!?!
Posted by HAPPY 11/25/2007 @ 11:43am
G'day Happy. It was a little unsurprising, given the polls over the last year, but as I said, a week ago on an Aussie Leftie site in my most diplomatic style "you ALP Luddites are going to get the shock of your lives when young Kevin continues all the "fascist" (yeah like your lefties it's about the only swear word these sissies know) policies of the greatest PM Australia has ever had". I went on to say if I was not a rusted on Howard/Lib and if Rudd were a Lib I'd swap him for Howard. Then for good measure posted more than a few of Rudd's pro-American sentiments. Don't know why but it went down like a lead balloon.
Between you and me there is no difference between most Western political parties these days. I think that's because even those with a left leaning tendency have at last learned a bit of arithmetic.
Only fifteen percent of workers, in the private sector, are in unions here (was 60% in the 1950s), notional lefties are economic liberals and the market rules. Incidentally Rudd's wife built and runs a consultancy business that has offices around the world. Her company was doing consultancy work for the Howard government; was "ripping off" her employees with "unfair Howard" IR laws; is a multi millionaire and between them they just bought a little working class hovel on the Gold Coast Qld for $5 million.
So all's well downunder. Howard paid off 96 billion ALP debt, sold off most of the country's crown jewels in the form of state owned banks and telecoms etc, offered 34 billion (there's only 20 million of us) of tax cuts this election (which Rudd in Howard clone mode quickly matched) from the large surpluses they have been running up over the last 11.5 years.
So even if the ALP goes all Keynesian, which is very unlikely as there's not much left to flog off and who wants to buy back things like privatised water supply companies that now make a profit even at lower cost to the consumer, things should keep purring along nicely for a long time yet.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/25/2007 @ 12:50pm
Posted by LRJONES4 11/25/2007 @ 12:50pm
Actually, LRJ...I think you've giving us a preview of the neo-con Right spin to come in THIS country in November 2008. i.e. "The anti-war Left didn't win with the Dem victory over the Repubs for the WH, because the Dem that won wasn't for a full and immediate pull-out.
Which may be true. But it sure as heck won't be (or wasn't, Down Under) a victory for the Right.
Posted by Mask at 11/25/2007 @ 1:21pm
Just out of curiosity, LeeRoy, what kind of extensive interview process did you go through to get your job in the family business?
Because I know how much pride you cons put into your ability to "make it on your own".
Like Chimpy has done in his life.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2007 @ 1:42pm
Posted by ZERO 11/25/2007 @ 12:18pm
Zero,
Hate to be pedantic but we are a constitutional monarchy or poodle of good Queen Bess.
So the head of state is not the PM. He is just another minister (servant) of the Crown. All ministers get there commission to serve the Crown from the representative of the Queen in Australia. That commission can be withdrawn.
The representative of the head of state is called the Governor General, whose name (when a new one is required) is selected by the PM of the day and forwarded to Bess at Buckingham Palace for ratification.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/25/2007 @ 1:43pm
Free marketing meets no belief in global warming meets federalism?
John Howard, Australia's prime minister, arrived here in February and urged the four states through which the Murray-Darling flows to hand their authority over the river to the federal government. After seven years of drought, and many more years of over-exploitation and pollution, he argued that the only hope of restoring the river to health lies in a complete overhaul of how it is managed. As the states weigh the merits of Mr Howard's scheme, the river is degenerating further. Every month hydrologists announce that its flow has fallen to a new record low (see chart). In April Mr Howard warned that farmers would not be allowed to irrigate their crops at all next year without unexpectedly heavy rain in the next few months. A region that accounts for 40% of Australia's agriculture, and 85% of its irrigation, is on the verge of ruin.
The drought knocked one percentage point off Australia's growth rate last year, by the government's reckoning. It is paying out A$2m ($1.7m) a day in drought-relief to farmers.
Must be the privatization of water resources that has lead Australia to the overload of available water for it's citizens, eh?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2007 @ 1:50pm
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9071007
The Aussies are making some progress, by listening to the evil
scientists!!!
Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2007 @ 1:51pm
Posted by LRJONES4 11/25/2007 @ 12:50pm
¡privatized water!
eek!
SPECIAL TO THE PERTH SUN HERALD, Friday July 13th, 2011
by Larry Randy Jones,
"Perth Water Supply Contaminated with Corruptium -- DribbleCorp Execs Mum."
Today, it was revealed that Perth residents have for the last 4 years been consuming water tainted with high levels of extremely toxic corruptium 246. The water has been controlled by the private DribbleCorp, a subsidiary of the Golden Tiger Plastic Works of Shanghai, since PM Howard began privatization of water supplies in the late '90s.
Symptoms of corruptium poisoning include: apathy, indifference, and death.
No state water board officials were immediately available for comment as they all now work at Starbucks.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2007 @ 2:07pm
hey, let's privatize all the goverment!
i can see it now [cue dreamy, whole-tone music]
GUVCORP INC. IS HAPPY TO ANNOUNCE THE OPENING OF IT'S NEWEST SUBSIDIARY, CANADA.
TO CELEBRATE, ALL GUVCORP SERVICE CHARGES WILL BE REDUCED BY 2% THIS WEEK.
*not valid in paraguay, uruguay and iran. does not apply to air, sun or ether surcharges. see www.guvcorp.we.fuk/uu for more details.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2007 @ 2:15pm
All ministers get there commission to serve the Crown from the representative of the Queen in Australia. That commission can be withdrawn.
by mr. jones
wow, hillary sure is powerful!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2007 @ 2:16pm
Posted by CRABWALK 11/25/2007 @ 11:07am
hey, don't forget about rudy g.'s CITGO connections.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2007 @ 2:18pm
So the conservative Liberals are out and the liberal Lobours are in. Good to see new ally in the global war on conservatism.
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/25/2007 @ 2:33pm
All ministers get there commission to serve the Crown from the representative of the Queen in Australia. That commission can be withdrawn.
by mr. jones
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/25/2007 @ 2:16pm
Think that should have been their commission. Must be that water I personally privatised a while ago and will soon return to a privatised sewerage company.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/25/2007 @ 2:36pm
So LRJones' neo-con hero and Bush lackey, Howard, lost...and LR is trying to make the winner, Rudd, sound like he's MORE of a neo-con than Howard was?!?! (oooo....he met with Darth Chaney!)
Got a great chuckle out of that one, Black Night!
Posted by Lillian at 11/25/2007 @ 4:34pm
Meanwhile, back in reality, Rudd has announced that he intends to make Australia a signatory to Kyoto. So now the Aussies ALSO admitting that Al Gore was right!!
A new coalition of the willing...willing to open eyes, pull fingers out of ears, stop chanting LALALALALALALALA...and willing to actually accept reality.
Thanks Rudd...and thanks Aussies!
Posted by Lillian at 11/25/2007 @ 4:40pm
And the embarrassment may not be over for Howard...he may end up losing his own seat in Parliament!!!
So, why did Howard get the boot?
...his bootlicking servitude to Bush?
...the Iraq war?
...the discovery that his Wheat Board paid hundreds of millions in bribes to Saddam?
...his refusal to budge on global warming?
...his leadership in the enthrallment of the Aussie economy (especially the coal and iron mining segments) to the Chinese?
...his BushCo-like handling of industrila reforms that gave MORE control and free-reign to corporate bosses?
...his lead in weakening labor laws in order to weaken unions?
How about...all of the above.
Posted by Lillian at 11/25/2007 @ 4:55pm
Howard lost because he learned everything he knows about governing from that other ignorant little obnoxious bully...the one at the head of BushCo.
Posted by Lillian at 11/25/2007 @ 5:01pm
Which may be true. But it sure as heck won't be (or wasn't, Down Under) a victory for the Right.
Posted by MASK 11/25/2007 @ 1:21pm
Apart from the WOT, which both leaders one way or another support quite enthusiastically, it should be noted that Howard is regarded by economic liberals and economic rationalists as a raging socialist, who ignores market economics.
For many in Australia the largesse of the government has meant that life for all is supplemented by all sorts of cash benefits out of the massive surpluses that, a resources boom (tax revenue from companies right down the chain), a 10% GST, Howard against screams from the ALP introduced (which is a value added tax, that of course is a growth tax all of which goes to wall to wall ALP state governments- no Libs ) and sound management which has produced surpluses every year. These funds have been used to give tax cuts most years and fund the "middle class welfare" that had become Howard's trademark.
So Rudd's election could conceivably mark a shift to the right economically. We will have to wait and see but for the next few years he has matched all Howard's tax cuts and welfare promises.
The Liberal Party has never been a party of the right but a broad church. With the demise of unionism, from which movement the ALP sprang, the ALP for the last few decades has occupied about the same ground as the Libs. Even with CC there is not any substantial difference except Rudd will make a gesture by signing Kyoto. Most know that has had its day so it is more symbolic as part of the ALP's long held policy.
Australia, probably because of its compulsory "voting" (booth attendance) system is never going to be as polarised as the US where parties can play more to their primary support base.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/25/2007 @ 5:17pm
This article really WARMED ME UP on a chilly Texas day! The Kyoto treaty should strongly encourage all devout GW religionists do what Ms. Vernelli & Ms. Irving so brilliantly chose to do....:-) Indeed, the best Coalition Couples of the Willing!! ;-)
Woman Aborts Child To Help Save the Planet
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Giving birth is a burden on the world. This is according to British born, Toni Vernelli, 35, who had an abortion 10 years ago to ensure her carbon footprint would be kept to a minimum, the U.K.'s Daily Mail reported Sunday.
Vernelli -- who works for an environmental charity -- was later sterilized to help "protect the planet", the Mail reported.
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," Vernelli told the Daily Mail, adding she believes bringing new life into the world only adds to the problem.
The Mail also reported that Sara Irving, 31, also underwent sterilization to because she felt "a baby would pollute the planet".
Irving's become an environmentalist as a teenager, it was reported, when she realized saving the environment was her top and foremost priority in life. After going through several boyfriends she finally found her now husband Mark Hudson who is also an advocate of the ‘no kid's policy', according to the Mail.
Posted by Happy at 11/25/2007 @ 5:18pm
.social programs and heavy taxes are what make the economy grow and spread prosperity.
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/25/2007 @ 4:01pm
so, war on credit and tax cuts to the wealthy are producing economic growth and prosperity?
currency converter [xe.com]
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2007 @ 6:24pm
Posted by LILLIAN 11/25/2007 @ 4:34pm
actually, i get the impression that he's trying to say that georgebush type has been replaced with tonyblair type.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2007 @ 6:25pm
(booth attendance)
Posted by LRJONES4 11/25/2007 @ 5:17pm
great idea, creepy name.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2007 @ 6:27pm
Posted by HAPPY 11/25/2007 @ 5:18pm
that is kinda weird,
however,
the fewer the better.
please go to depressing map to see global per capita resource usage [atlas.aaas.org]
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2007 @ 6:31pm
please go to depressing map to see global per capita resource usage [atlas.aaas.org]
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/25/2007 @ 6:31pm
Let me guess...."depressing" because:
1) Canada is NOT as dark as the US :)?
2) China is NOT less than $200 per Capita :))?
3) India is also NOT less than $200 per :)))?
4) China AND India will be `Yellow' very, very soon :))))?
5)4)Ultimately blossom to match and perhaps Exceed Canada :)))))?
Maybe "depressing" for the most-advanced beings among us, like Ms. Vernelli & Ms. Irving (and FZ?), but for us Neanderthals, I see so much potential progress ahead for (still) so, so many, many parts of the globe.
Posted by Happy at 11/25/2007 @ 6:50pm
Posted by HAPPY 11/25/2007 @ 6:50pm
the principle reason i find it depressing is because of the over-consumption by the "DEVELOPED WORLD".
the average kid in my neighbourhood (and your neighborhood, too) consumes 30 times what a kid is consuming in africa.
happy, think about this:
Could you remove 50% of your possessions from your house,
(and garage and shed and storage unit and what your neighbours have borrowed),
donate them to charity,
And still live the same way tomorrow?
Would you be any less HAPPY?
of course there is potential for rapid "development" in many parts of the globe, and deservedly so.
but don't you think it would be easier for them if we consumed less? that is to say, the commodities they need for "development" would be cheaper.
[yes, i know that many countries in the developing world rely on commodity exports to fuel their economies. however, who keeps the profits in these places? it sure ain't the common folk.
if you wish, i can recommend some solid canadian companies MAKING A KILLING* globally in the commodities business]
oh, and BTW: if the u.s. economy is going to thrive in this century (fingers crossed), the country must become a net exporter of "energy" (technology etc.,) instead of a net consumer.
*often, literally.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2007 @ 7:36pm
HAPTOGLOBIN:
1) Canada is NOT as dark as the US :)?
no, that makes me proud.
2) China is NOT less than $200 per Capita :))?
no, good for them. but they're starting to look like northern ohio in the sixties. [en.wikipedia.org]
3) India is also NOT less than $200 per :)))?
ditto.
4) China AND India will be `Yellow' very, very soon :))))?
ditto.
5)4)Ultimately blossom to match and perhaps Exceed Canada :)))))?
hopefully, we can find common ground.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2007 @ 7:42pm
Posted by HAPPY 11/25/2007 @ 5:18pm
Actually HAPPY makes a valid point.
If the environmentalists essentially DE-breed themselves out of existance, while those who "don't care about the planet" keep churning out the kids....they win. Simple demographics.
C.M. Kornbluth...for those who want to research what the outcome would be.
Posted by Mask at 11/25/2007 @ 8:44pm
Posted by MASK 11/25/2007 @ 8:44pm
never read the dude, but i found this on qwiki:
Frederik Pohl (in his autobiography The Way the Future Was) and Damon Knight (in his memoir The Futurians) both give vivid and affectionate descriptions of Kornbluth as a man of odd personal habits and vivid eccentricities. Among the traits which they describe:
Kornbluth decided to educate himself by reading his way through an entire encyclopedia from A to Z; in the course of this effort, he acquired a great deal of esoteric knowledge that found its way into his stories ... in alphabetical order by subject. When Kornbluth wrote a story that mentioned the ancient Roman weapon ballista, Pohl knew that Kornbluth had finished the "A" volume and had started the "B".
According to Pohl, Kornbluth never brushed his teeth, and they were literally green. Deeply embarrassed by this, Kornbluth developed the habit of holding his hand in front of his mouth when speaking.
Kornbluth disliked black coffee, but felt obliged to acquire a taste for it because he believed that professional authors were "supposed to" drink black coffee. He trained himself by putting gradually less cream into each cup of coffee he drank, until he eventually "weaned himself" (Knight's description) and switched to black coffee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_M._Kornbluth
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2007 @ 8:59pm
FROSTY ZOOM:
I would like for one of these dyed-in-the-wool free-market fundamentalists to explain how the largest tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the history of the US engendered any sort of economic well-being in anything but the pocketbooks and checking accounts and stock portfolios of that same coterie of wealthy people.
Being a financial planner by trade, myself, I am still searching for it. All I see is a light at the end of the tunnel, that I fear is a train coming for us.
Posted by jorcheim at 11/25/2007 @ 9:34pm
...the average kid in my neighbourhood (and your neighborhood, too) consumes 30 times what a kid is consuming in africa.
happy, think about this:
Could you remove 50% of your possessions from your house,...
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/25/2007 @ 7:36pm
Everything is relative, no? Give some thought to why human advances in medicine, engineering, etc.... are ALWAYS led by relatively over-consuming countries? Imagine the possibilities of another couple of billion of people living at the upper two colors?
Reduce possessions? You mean going from 4~5 skillets to 1, dishes for 10 to maybe 4, 2 recliners to 1, and so on? Sure, in time when we are empty-nesters! Now, what I and YOU are guilty of, is the constant replacement cycles of electronics and computers. Heck, I still have an old 286 PC some where cause it's got a 5.5" floppy drive (that I'll never use again). Donate to a museum? How about cameras? I've got a bunch of them, from Polaroid, Kodak APS, regular film, 2 MB digital and 7 MB digital.....bet you have similar track record! Is it progress that drives consumption? or is it consumption that drives progress? Perhaps they are so entertwined that you can't have one without the other. Bear in mind, I'm only addressing `consumption' in the home!
Bottom line: Low consumption stifles development! Thus, the only real solution is to reduce overall global population....hence, my genuine HAPPINESS to root for Ms. Vernelli & Ms. Irving who are willing to give up their "genetic lines" to save, at least in their minds, our planet for MY genetic line!
Posted by Happy at 11/25/2007 @ 10:13pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/25/2007 @ 8:59pm
Actually, FZ...more referring to this by CMK [en.wikipedia.org].
Posted by Mask at 11/25/2007 @ 10:28pm
I would like for one of these dyed-in-the-wool free-market fundamentalists to explain how the largest tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the history of the US engendered any sort of economic well-being in anything but the pocketbooks and checking accounts and stock portfolios of that same coterie of wealthy people.
Being a financial planner by trade, myself, I am still searching for it. All I see is a light at the end of the tunnel, that I fear is a train coming for us.
Posted by JORCHEIM 11/25/2007 @ 9:34pm
Did higher tax rates produce the opposite result? How?
Is it constitutional for the Feds to control the economy through punitive taxation, or is taxation simply a necessity to fund the governments activities? A+C does not equal Z.
Posted by Sliver at 11/25/2007 @ 10:29pm
HAPPY:
Your post, like most of your posts, is filled with inaccuracies.
You said:
Everything is relative, no? Give some thought to why human advances in medicine, engineering, etc.... are ALWAYS led by relatively over-consuming countries? Imagine the possibilities of another couple of billion of people living at the upper two colors?
My response:
Actually, no. Some of the "poorest" societies are now being intellectually mined for medical cures currently. As my best friend's father was telling me (he happens to be the head of the pathology department at Duke University Medical Center), over the next 20-30 years, the West will start realizing how far advanced many of the so-called savages truly were and are, especially in the realm of medical science.
What we have in this country is not curative medicine... unless, of course, you mean curing erectile dysfunction. The bottom line in our society is not to make people more healthy... it's to fatten up the profit margins of the corporations in whose interests it is to keep us getting fatter and sicker, so that they can find "cures" that help us live with the health problems that these same corporations (and our over-consuming lifestyle and social structure) has produced.
You said:
Reduce possessions? You mean going from 4~5 skillets to 1, dishes for 10 to maybe 4, 2 recliners to 1, and so on? Sure, in time when we are empty-nesters! Now, what I and YOU are guilty of, is the constant replacement cycles of electronics and computers. Heck, I still have an old 286 PC some where cause it's got a 5.5" floppy drive (that I'll never use again). Donate to a museum? How about cameras? I've got a bunch of them, from Polaroid, Kodak APS, regular film, 2 MB digital and 7 MB digital.....bet you have similar track record! Is it progress that drives consumption? or is it consumption that drives progress? Perhaps they are so entertwined that you can't have one without the other. Bear in mind, I'm only addressing `consumption' in the home!
My response:
It's not a matter of pots or pans, or recliners. Well, not specifically. It really comes down to consumption of energy... because honestly, what allows us to maintain such unnatural levels of "civilization" that it threatens the fundamental survival of our entire race, and even our planet, is one thing... cheap and easily accessible power. And herein lies the root of our problems. You have a relatively small group of people who are routinely trying to hold back the development of alternative energy sources and energy conservation measures because of their fear of undermining their profitability. That seems to fly in the face of what you say, the whole "only in over-consuming countries do we have technological advancement". Wrong. Most of the technological advancement recently has come not from this country, but from other countries. Whether those countries are India, China, Japan, Canada,Norway, Sweden, Germany, etc., those countries have much smaller ecological footprints than the US. Most of them are even trying to reduce that even further, becoming in the process less disposable, and more sustainable. Your theory is just plain wrong. It is precisely the corporations and this hyper-capitalism and ignoring of the public good which has done precisely the opposite of what you propose should occur. Just look at fuel economy in cars, or, again, medical science. Sure, we can can keep your dick hard for years, but can we cure you of cancer?
You said:
Bottom line: Low consumption stifles development! Thus, the only real solution is to reduce overall global population....hence, my genuine HAPPINESS to root for Ms. Vernelli & Ms. Irving who are willing to give up their "genetic lines" to save, at least in their minds, our planet for MY genetic line!
My response:
I don't disagree that there should be some sort of substantial population controls throughout the world. However, it has been shown many times over that the best way to slow (even reverse) birthrates is to improve living conditions (oh yeah, and real family planning education)... up to a point. And to do that on a global level, we must all push for real conservation, real global assistance to poorer nations, and real and broad wealth distribution, as opposed to redistribution from the many to the few.
Your ignorance continues to floor me.
Posted by jorcheim at 11/25/2007 @ 10:41pm
SLIVER:
You said:
Did higher tax rates produce the opposite result? How?
My response:
Actually, yes, they did. Believe it or not, it had precisely the opposite effect that Bush said it would.
He said that tax cuts would put more money in the hands of those who can create the most jobs, and that somehow, magically, more jobs would be created. Well, in actuality, the people who create the most meaningful jobs in this country are not the ultra-wealthy stockholders, like George Bush and his most ardent supporters. Actually, it is the small businessman. And yet, small businesses have gotten exactly no tax relief from the changes. One of the biggest, most regressive taxes in the US (outside the AMT, of course) is the payroll tax (social security). By capping and limiting the amounts and types of income (thereby making it extremely regressive) to earned income under $90k per annum (rather than investment income like stock, bond, and capital gains income) it puts an undue amount of stress on the lower classes, i.e. those who do not receive the bulk of their income from non-qualified paper or real estate assets. And that's just one aspect.
Another is the way these tax cuts have shifted the tax burden farther down the class scale. The marginal tax rate on the wealthy (again, defined as those who receive the bulk of their income from paper assets or real estate, also generally considered over $1Mil per annum) has shrunk year after year under Bush (and Clinton, actually) until it pales by comparison to the marginal tax rate of the vast majority of wage earners. These two issues mean a couple of things.
First, because the small business owners have less money for payroll, the largest source for new jobs is neutered. So, essentially this is one of the primary reasons we had such a "jobless recovery" back in 2003-2004.
Second, when those least able to afford the ever-encumbering tax burden are forced to shoulder even more, and with less money (through the weakening dollar, stagnating wages, etc.), any recovery experienced (in this case, a market-only recovery rather than an economy-wide recovery) will be short-lived and very narrow in scope.
This is precisely what we have seen. And it was precisely what was expected, by myself, and by more luminous personalities than me... Paul Krugman, Warren Buffett, and many, many others.
You said:
Is it constitutional for the Feds to control the economy through punitive taxation, or is taxation simply a necessity to fund the governments activities? A+C does not equal Z.
To answer this question, the nascent libertarian in me would say no. The pragmatist in me says it's a moot point. I personally think the federal government has far overstepped its constitutional mandate on many issues decades, even a century or more, ago. On other issues, it hasn't fulfilled its mandate whatsoever. So it really depends. And it also depends upon how you define those constitutional mandates.
Was is constitutional for the Supreme Court to grant legal personhood to corporations back in 1886 in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad? I would say no. Most people with half a brain would agree with me. Unfortunately, the people who mattered to the decision-makers were not the average Joe... it was the rich asshole robber barons whose filthy lucre grease the wheels of justice enough to throw the entire constitutional train off its tracks.
Was it constitutional for the Federal Reserve, a collection of private banks charged with managing our currency for private benefit, to be created back in 1913? I would say no. Many would agree with me.
Was it constitutional for the government to forcibly desegregate the nation? I would say yes. Most would agree with me.
So again, it all depends on the issue, and whom you ask.
Posted by jorcheim at 11/25/2007 @ 11:13pm
Sorry... I forgot the last
My response:
in that last post.
Posted by jorcheim at 11/25/2007 @ 11:13pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 11/25/2007 @ 11:13pm
So in point #1, the main problem is the payroll tax (SSI/Medicare) and in point #2 the main problem is government over-stepping their authority.
So why is it that you consider yourself a liberal again?
Posted by Sliver at 11/25/2007 @ 11:29pm
SLIVER:
I never said I am a liberal, as anyone who is familiar with me will attest. Ask FROSTY ZOOM, or MTSPENCE, or FRANKNGRITS, or FREIHEIT.
ANd no, I didn't say that the main problem was the payroll tax in point 1. If you go back and reread what I wrote, I think it's pretty clear I was making the case that a) Bush lied about how the tax cuts would affect the economy at large, b) the tax code is heavily regressive and should be fixed (I have been advocating a flat tax on ALL forms of income for years now... that differs from Steve Forbes' and Neil Boortz' flat tax plans because it places the tax on investment and unearned income as well as earned income, essentially treating all income equally).
In point 2, I was making the rather obvious point that whether you think the government has overstepped its mandate or not is a) a moot point, and b) subject to your moral/political position, as I though I had made clear with the references to segregation and corporate personhood.
Did anyone else miss my points, or is SLIVER simply being obtuse?
Posted by jorcheim at 11/25/2007 @ 11:45pm
FRANKGRITS* sorry my typing skills left me for a second there.
Posted by jorcheim at 11/25/2007 @ 11:46pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 11/25/2007 @ 11:46pm
¡saludos!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2007 @ 12:00am
JOMAMMA:
Actually, I stand corrected, you are right regarding Boortz' plan. My bad.
Posted by jorcheim at 11/26/2007 @ 12:05am
Even Michael Jordan missed a few shots in his time. :D
Posted by jorcheim at 11/26/2007 @ 12:06am
It's not a matter of pots or pans, or recliners. Well, not specifically. It really comes down to consumption of energy...
Posted by JORCHEIM 11/25/2007 @ 10:41pm
don't forget it takes a lot of energy to make that stuff.
and package it.
and ship it.
etc.,
and then,
dispose of it
or,
ship it to a landfill in michigan,
for example. [toronto.ca]
that's a lot of juice.
plus, the ironic fact is most of the stuff is made from the very petrochemicals we need to make the stuff from.
heck, we even use uranium to make plates [dangerouslaboratories.org]
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2007 @ 12:18am
FROSTY ZOOM:
Precisely my point. I'm glad I can count on the Crazy Canadian to have my back. :D
Posted by jorcheim at 11/26/2007 @ 12:20am
FREIHEIT:
Thank you, brother. I appreciate the support.
Posted by jorcheim at 11/26/2007 @ 01:01am
Actually, FZ...more referring to this by CMK [en.wikipedia.org].
Posted by MASK 11/25/2007 @ 10:28pm
hey there. that's cool.
i did some checking and it seems this CMK fellow may have been inspired by mr. ripley. [home.earthlink.net]
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2007 @ 01:39am
FRANKGRITS:
Agreed. It's way too late. Oh well... you know how I love to stir the pot. So here comes more of the stirring.
I appreciate the fact that you don't believe Bush is very smart. However, I have been following him for about 13 years, since he started running for governor of Texas against Ann Richards. I actually lived in Texas during the end of his term there, and my parents moved there a couple of years prior to that, in 95.
At any rate, let me just tell you, Bush is not as stupid as he appears to be. Either it's an act on his part, which is entirely possible, as it's a common tactic of certain Texas politicians to act like unintelligent good ole' boys who wouldn't do any harm, or he's just not sold on his own line of bullshit... that last part is probably less likely.
Trust me, he's not dumb. He may not be the "smartest" guy around, but he is quite wily and cunning political actor. His greatest gift and skill has been his ability to get people to misunderestimate (sorry, I had to say it) him. He may not have the intellectual pedigree of Clinton, but he cut his political teeth in Texas.
Now, regarding his lying, or in your view, not lying, I can only respond with a question. Is a lie of which you are unaware is a lie no longer a lie?
Or, stated another way, does ignorance of the untruth of a statement diminish the responsibility for uttering that untruth?
Even if I agreed with your estimation of Bush as a bumbling, stumbling malapropism in a suit, I would argue that he is still responsible for any untruth he utters. He is ultimately responsible for any lies he speaks, willfully or inadvertently.
Posted by jorcheim at 11/26/2007 @ 02:09am
FRANKGRITS:
Are you serious about JOMOMMA? Wouldn't surprise me, but it is interesting nonetheless.
And I love John Dean's new book. I have his others, and am particularly fond of Conservatives Without Conscience.
Posted by jorcheim at 11/26/2007 @ 02:11am
Posted by HAPPY 11/25/2007 @ 10:13pm
Everything is relative, no? Give some thought to why human advances in medicine, engineering, etc.... are ALWAYS led by relatively over-consuming countries?
Cuba: Vaccine may open window in US blockade
by Patricia Grogg
Havana, Jul 28 (IPS) -- A Cuban vaccine for meningitis could find its way onto pharmacy shelves in the United States, opening a crack in the trade embargo Washington has imposed on Cuba since 1961. President Bill Clinton's government agreed to authorise the British firm, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, to market the Cuban anti-meningitis vaccine in the United States, say Washington sources.
The U.S. Treasury Department granted SmithKline Beecham permission to create a joint venture with the Cuban Carlos J. Finlay Institute, reported the Wednesday edition of Juventud Rebelde, a newspaper published by Cuba's Communist Youth Union.
According to licensing terms, SmithKline Beecham will initially pay Cuba with food and medicine, said Juventud Rebelde, based on information from international news agencies.
But once marketing of the vaccine begins in the United States, payment for use rights would be made in cash. [twnside.org.sg]
Imagine the possibilities of another couple of billion of people living at the upper two colors?
imagine the reality of us living with less because of Peak oil. Peak oil is the point or timeframe at which the maximum global petroleum production rate is reached, after which the rate of production enters its terminal decline. If global consumption is not mitigated before the peak, the availability of conventional oil will drop and prices will rise, perhaps dramatically. M. King Hubbert first used the theory in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. His model, now called Hubbert peak theory, has since been used to predict the peak petroleum production of many other countries, and has also proved useful in other limited-resource production-domains. According to the Hubbert model, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical bell-shaped curve based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures. [en.wikipedia.org]
Reduce possessions? You mean going from 4~5 skillets to 1, dishes for 10 to maybe 4, 2 recliners to 1, and so on?
yes:
The back of the skillet states: " Wagner's 1891 Original 8" skillet, made in USA." Seasoning instructions also stated on back. Good condition. Great for actual cooking or for decoration. [1891, huh? built to last! -- fz]
Sure, in time when we are empty-nesters!
what, the kids need 7 iplods?
Now, what I and YOU are guilty of, is the constant replacement cycles of electronics and computers. Heck, I still have an old 286 PC some where cause it's got a 5.5" floppy drive (that I'll never use again). Donate to a museum?
Computer Recycling at Houston Texas
As a community service, we offer computer recycling services in the Greater Houston area. If you have old computer equipment that you want to get rid of, we can help. We'll accept certain types of computer equipment and try to recycle most of the parts to save the landfills and the environment. We accept computers, laptops, servers, monitors and some pheripherals. Most of these products have circuit boards that may contain toxic materials. Proper disposal of these materials is important to our environment. We'll try to recycle, reuse, or refurbish as many parts as possible. [directron.com]
How about cameras? I've got a bunch of them, from Polaroid, Kodak APS, regular film, 2 MB digital and 7 MB digital.....bet you have similar track record!
nope. don't own a camera. never have. 'd'like one, though. maybe i'll buy one of your old ones on eBay
Cameras & Photo
Digital Cameras (22194)
Film Cameras (9098)
Vintage (4229)
Camcorders (1896) [buy.ebay.com]
Is it progress that drives consumption? or is it consumption that drives progress?
it's time to change. infinite growth on a finite orb..................
Perhaps they are so entertwined that you can't have one without the other.
how do you define "progress"?
Bear in mind, I'm only addressing `consumption' in the home!
home is where the heart is, and my heart tells me that we've got a lot of work to do and quickly if we're going to avoid a global ecocollapse that ends up squishing us, too.
Bottom line: Low consumption stifles development!
that is SOOOOOOO 20th century........................
Thus, the only real solution is to reduce overall global population....
go forth and edjumacate!
hence, my genuine HAPPINESS to root for Ms. Vernelli & Ms. Irving who are willing to give up their "genetic lines" to save, at least in their minds, our planet for MY genetic line!
well, we've got one kid, 'cause we want you, and/or your neighbours [tinyurl.com] to have water to drink.
there's a lot of humans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2007 @ 02:15am
On other issues, it hasn't fulfilled its mandate whatsoever.
Posted by JORCHEIM 11/25/2007 @ 11:13pm
you got that right. [sierraclub.org]
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2007 @ 02:19am
you still advocate taxing income where as Neil eliminates income as the source of taxation and replaces it with a consumption tax with conditional exemptions.
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/26/2007 @ 12:00am
that's a good idea.
it'd have to be pretty hefty, though.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2007 @ 02:23am
Posted by JORCHEIM 11/26/2007 @ 12:20am
crazy, you say.
no, THIS is crazy. [youtube.com]
::+}
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2007 @ 02:28am
FROSTY ZOOM:
Sun Ra is bugger nuts... I loved it.
Posted by jorcheim at 11/26/2007 @ 02:53am
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/25/2007 @ 4:01pm
OI, see you misunderstood reality, again.
HAPPY, lower consumption by some frees up goods for others at reduced prices, allowing others to achieve a similar living standard as those that consume for consumptions sake.
But, you can't read this because you are a chickenhawk, afraid to answer a simple question. When are you and LR, and JOMAMA and SLIVER going to step up to your generational duty and go teach the IRaqis how to run an economy. You all have it figured out so well!!
Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2007 @ 07:48am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/26/2007 @ 02:15am
FZ,
I appreciate the time you took to burn the midnight oil to respond so completely! :-))))
I simply stated that developed countries "Led" the advances in science and engineering....that means the obvious of other less-advanced countries making occasional contributions (as you cited Cuba).
How do you live in this or the last century without a camera? Unbelievable! Oh, I forgot earlier to mention we also have three SLR cameras that date back to before my wife and I married, plus a couple of el cheapo cameras bought long time ago for the kids....you know, I am even amazed that there must be close to a dozen cameras in the house!!! Guilty as charged....hehehehe!
Posted by Happy at 11/26/2007 @ 12:33pm
Jomamma-the reason that Iraq isn't a big issue in Australia is because they aren't in the war to any degree that matters.Howard was one of those kind of "friends" that that no one needs.He's one of those "friends" who believes that you should do for him while he does little for you.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/26/2007 @ 12:52pm
Guilty as charged....hehehehe!
Posted by HAPPY 11/26/2007 @ 12:33pm
no jail time necessary.
however, you must now enter rehab.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2007 @ 1:15pm
I would like to thank Australia for recognizing the threat that Sadaam posed to the world (Who needs a dictator bluffing with nuclear weapons!) and for coming to our aid. Now that Iraq is calming down, it is only natural that troops would leave.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/26/2007 @ 2:52pm
Now that Iraq is calming down, it is only natural that troops would leave.
Posted by ABELL12CT 11/26/2007 @ 2:52pm
so why are no americans coming home?
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2007 @ 2:53pm
ahhh but they are coming home
Posted by abell12ct at 11/26/2007 @ 2:54pm
that's right, to so-called 'pre-surge' levels.....and just over, what, 145,000? no, that's not a colonial presence, that's just peace-keeping. and what of the private security contractors?
Posted by darladoon at 11/26/2007 @ 3:17pm
Abell-Australia's contribution was so minimal that they could have left at any given time and no one would have noticed.Your spin that they're leaving because Iraq is calming down is lame since Iraq has not calmed down enough to warrant leaving if you support the war.It may be a smaller tornado,but it's still a tornado and that isn't going to change anytime soon.They're leaving while the tornado is still in motion and won't be there for clean up.They're like a "friend" that shows up to help you move,but mostly just drinks your beer,but does little moving.Yes,our troops are coming home,someday.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/26/2007 @ 3:20pm
Abell-Australia's contribution was so minimal...
Posted by I'M NOBODY 11/26/2007 @ 3:20pm
I can see that you wouldn't make a good friend! Know the old saying, "It's the thought that count...", well, the Aussies did far more than that!!!
Imagine what the US/French/German relations might have been if France/Germany said back in Spring 2003, "We strongly disagree w/going to war in Iraq but to help the Iraqis, here's $1 Billion from each of us to help you rebuild Iraq!" Standby your principles while giving support to your `friends'!
Posted by Happy at 11/26/2007 @ 6:50pm
Posted by HAPPY 11/26/2007 @ 6:50pm
Happy you are right on this. Howard in fact supported Bill Clinton during the Bosnia operation.
What some Americans may not realise is that Australians owe America a great debt of gratitude in the face of a very likely Japanese invasion of our country in WW2. General Douglas MacArthur had his HQ in my home town, Melbourne. A bit before my time but Howard and many others have not forgotten that.
Howard was in America on 9/11 when some were claiming "we are all Americans now". He said it's not good enough be an 80% friend, we are a 100% friend and he never wavered from that commitment.
Australia has its small military, about 38,000, engaged in East Timor, in the Solomons and in various capacities around S.E. Asia. All of these in some liaison with the US military. We were into Iraq with about 2000 SAS troops even before hostilities started and the Aussie SAS was involved from day one in Afghanistan. There are about 1000 troops there at present, which number the new PM is happy to increase if required.
Though Australian troops in Iraq were moving into more of a training and support role, that was in terms of the improving Iraqi capability. Kevin Rudd intends to continue that role in Iraq and if he with draws any troops they will be used in Afghanistan. So we are still punching well above our weight with our ally America.
John Howard, who was a moderate in many other ways and until this election carried the "working class" with him will be remembered as a very good PM and our second longest serving PM.
He won 4 successive 3 year (3 year max no fixed term after 18 months - PM can call election when it suits him within 3 years - that's why he served for 11.5 not 12 years) term elections.
I heard his concession speech (he never used notes in parliament nor did he here) which was gracious and even drew the applause of his political opponents on the grounds that he has a great understanding of what democracy is:
HOWARD CONCEDES ELECTION DEFEAT
November 24, 2007 - 10:21PM
John Howard has appeared at Sydney's Wentworth Hotel to address Liberal Party faithful, conceding that the Coalition has lost government.
"My fellow Australians, a few minutes ago I telephoned Mr Kevin Rudd and I congratulated him and the Australian Labor Party on a very emphatic victory," Mr Howard said.
"This is a great democracy and I want to wish Mr Rudd well.
"He assumes the mantle of the 26th Prime Minister of Australia.
"I want to say there is no prouder job in the world that anybody can occupy than being Prime Minister of this country.
"I wish him well in the task that he will undertake and I want to say on behalf of the Coalition that has governed this country for the last 11-and-a-half years that we bequest to him a nation that is stronger and prouder and more prosperous than it was 11-and-a-half years ago.
"Could I say to all of you that it has been an immense privilege every day of my life over the last 11-and-a-half -years to have been Prime Minister of this beautiful country.
"I want to thank the Australian people for the privilege that they have given me over this period of time.
"I respect it and I honour it and it's something that has really been the most unbelievable experience.
"The Australian people are the greatest people on earth and Australia is the greatest country on earth.
"I've led a government that has taken this country from deep debt to strong prosperity ... that has never shirked the difficult decisions .. that has reformed the Australian economy and left it the envy of the world.
"I want to extend to a number of people my deep gratitude.
"To my parliamentary colleagues for their ... dedication.
"I want particularly to thank Mark Vaile and his two predecessors, John Anderson and Tim Fischer.
"To my own deputy and Treasurer Peter Costello I owe a very special debt of gratitude.
"He's been a wonderful steward of the Australian economy and the future of our party is very much tied up with Peter Costello.
"To my colleagues who have fallen in electoral valour today ... who've lost their seats today, I thank them.
"I grieve for some of those young members who've been in Parliament for only a short time, some of those wonderful people who won in 2004 and some of my ministers who've done such a wonderful job.
"I particularly grieve the loss of Mal Brough, who led the indigenous intervention in the Northern Territory, which was an absolute watershed.
"I accept full responsibility for the Liberal Party campaign and I therefore accept full responsibility for the Coalition's defeat in this campaign.
"The only other thing that I want to say is that the Liberal Party of course will need to choose a new leader.
"I've indicated in my remarks who I wish that to be."
"The Liberal Party will have a process of rebuilding to undertake.
"At the end of my political career, can I say to you that I owe more to the Liberal Party than the Liberal Party owes to me.
"The Liberal Party has been unbelievably generous and loyal and forgiving and understanding to me over the 33 years that I've been in Parliament, the 15 years that I have led it and the 11-and-a-half years that I've been Prime Minister.
"I'll love the party for the rest of my life. "I want to express my love and my gratitude to my family ... and my personal staff, many of whom are here tonight.
Mr Howard thanked his staff for putting up with a "sometimes cantankerous leader over the past few months."
He paid particular tribute to his wife Janette, describing her as "the love of my life".
"She's been my rock and my adviser and my companion for 36 years, and through all of my political ups and down," he said, before quickly correcting himself and adding "continues to be".
"She's had to put up with a lot and I just want to say publicly how much I love her."
In reference to his own seat, Mr Howard indicated it was unlikely he would retain it, with Labor challenger Maxine McKew looking a strong chance to snatch the seat.
"It is very likely the case that I will no longer be the member for Bennelong," Mr Howard said.
"I do want to thank the (people of) Bennelong for letting me represent them in the national parliament for 33 years, and I want to thank them very warmly.
"I want to say to the people of Australia it has been a tremendous honour , privilege and opportunity to serve you I count myself very fortunate to have been the beneficiary of their support for so long.
"I believe very profoundly that Australia's best years lay ahead of her."
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/26/2007 @ 7:46pm
Posted by LRJONES4 11/26/2007 @ 7:46pm
That was a great speech.....A great man of principle and accomplishments!
You also gave a great speech!
Posted by Happy at 11/26/2007 @ 8:58pm
Posted by LRJONES4 11/26/2007 @ 7:46pm | ignore this person
One Australian voter, in a letter to the editors of the Canberra Times, notes that Howard, campaigning for re-election, had declared: "If you think we are fundamentally heading in the right direction, you should vote us back in." The newspaper's reader observes: "If most Australians thought ignoring climate change, going to war under false pretenses, reducing workers' rights, reducing humanitarian aid and placing legitimate refugees behind razor wire for years on end was fundamentally heading in the right direction, I'd have been embarrassed to call myself Australian....Thank you Australia, and over to you, Kevin."
Posted by Lillian at 11/27/2007 @ 7:15pm
John Howard, who was a moderate in many other ways and until this election carried the "working class" with him will be remembered as a very good PM and our second longest serving PM.
Posted by LRJONES4 11/26/2007 @ 7:46pm | ignore this person
http://www.theage.com.au/
Libs did themselves in with union scare campaign
Michael Bachelard
November 28, 2007
Despite 11 years of vilification, workers still respect the role of unions.
THE Liberals' advertising during this election campaign was relentless and alarming. They created a red and black world implying threat and fear, and the most threatening and fearsome inhabitants of this world were trade unions.
For six weeks during the election campaign, and the 11 years preceding it, unions and unionists were the most vilified and maligned people in the nation. "Extremists! Fanatics!" the ads shrieked. They'll storm into your dress shop and switch off the lights! They'll hold the country to ransom, preceded by their beer bellies and braces, with that barren redhead Julia Gillard cheering them on!
And yet Labor had a resounding win, with its biggest post-war swing. Gillard has even become an unlikely industrial relations celebrity -- on election night, observers were chanting her name at the tally room.
So why did the anti-union campaign not work? The first answer is that it did work, a bit. Its first effect was on Labor. When Kevin Rudd announced his industrial relations pol