Is it my money or my civil liberties you’re after this time, Kev?
Australia under threat from enemy within: Rudd
Don’t worry, you know I’m a total sucker for scare campaigns. Whatever you need, as long as you tell me vaguely and non-bindingly that it’ll make me slightly safer, you can have it.
If something doesn’t happen, then it just proves you needed whatever it was. If something does, then it just proves you need MORE of whatever it was. I understand.
Moved On 
Time to finally get that KevinRuddwatch site finally happening, perhaps? LOL
Haven’t got time for it, but yes. Actually, months ago would’ve been the time.
The only thing he’s got going for him now as far as I’m concerned is his nottonyabbottness.
And yet he’d be criticised if a mass casualty attack took place in Australia. Like people have been convicted for planning.
Not that I am saying that the means employed have prevented it – I don’t know. But I don’t like downplaying the risk we have from people who want to kill to make a political statement.
“And yet he’d be criticised if a mass casualty attack took place in Australia.”
He’ll be criticised whatever he does. Hell, he’s blamed because some crooks installed dodgy insulation – I don’t recall the Howard Government taking responsibility for anything their departments actually did, let alone anything independent contractors did.
There’ll always be a risk from people who want to kill – the question is, do we give up our hard-won liberties every time some nutjob does something stupid? We’ll never be “safe”, and there’s plenty of evidence that the “tougher” we get on people, the more violence we inspire against us.
The trouble is that when Kevin Rudd (or Howard before him) says that this risk justifies giving more money or more powers to unaccountable spooks, it’s virtually impossible to argue against that because Kevin will just say “if you knew what I knew you’d think differently”.
Labor’s policy on this kind of thing is all about arse-covering, and as far as the hacks are concerned, civil libertarians can go jump.
Why is people’s safety more important than my freedom. People willingly died for my freedom.
They gave up their safety to try and ensure it.
Its part of the mythology of Australia.
Ultimately if there are terrorists serious about taking us out they can. We are a vulnerable society.
But the whole context of the white paper seems to be about normalising a permanent low level threat situation. And using that as a justification to increase state power. Australia has evolved from an 800 year tradition of trying to limit the power of “the state”.
This doesn’t sit right.
Using vague threats from an “other” and targeting dissent through fear is what the vilest power mad regimes of all political persuasions throughout history have done.
That might not be what Rudd, or even Howard were really about, but why provide the tools for repression?
Especially in the context of what seems to be a potentially endless war is peace situation.
And in case anyone forgot –
the Eureka miners uprising was home grown terrorism.
I do see your point Jeremy. I’m in this school of thought: Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither.
Sadly violent attacks by religious extremists are a reality in the western world. The failed London bombings, shortly after the successful ones, were done by British born Islamic extremists who appeared perfectly normal.
My preference is not normalising any form of religious indoctrination which legitimises extremist behaviour of any faith.
Frankly I want to see secular education have a vital role in showing how irrelevant religion should be. One day, maybe.
Spot on Aussie Unionist.
The real danger is that Rudd will put the Celebrity Arsonist Peter Garrett in charge and we will have more people killed, and more buildings destroyed, by Garrett’s incompetence than by the actual terrorists.
“Celebrity Arsonist”
That’s spectacularly stupid.
“That’s spectacularly stupid.”
It’s what one would expect from a trollumnist, yes a very stupid statement indeed. I despise the guy but there’s no need to make shit up, there’s plenty of real fodder that can be used to attack Garrett.
“we will have more people killed, and more buildings destroyed, by Garrett’s incompetence than by the actual terrorists.”
How would you know? There hasn’t been a terrorist attack for a long time in Au, hopefully there never will be but our ‘allies’ have suffered some massive terrorist attacks, indeed Australians were targeted in Bali. Very crass SB!
We all know Garrett’s principles went out the window when he joined the ALP in pursuit of a rejuvenation of the fading celebrity he once enjoyed as a lead singer (and St Vitus dancer) of Midnight Oil.
After years of ‘sorry’ antics he can’t even bring himself to apologise to those who have suffered and died due to his incompetence. He is not up to being a minister and people have paid the ultimate price of the ALP’s cynical electoral use of his celebrity.
A company director who, after being warned of the likely consequences, implemented a flawed scheme that caused deaths might well be tried and jailed. Not this gutless incompetent prick, though.
The good thing is that his celebrity status is dead. He will be more rembered for the deaths he has caused than the prattling unctuous songs he sang.
The nice irony is that by keeping bed-burner Garrett in his ill-deserved position of power, Rudd is hurting his own party’s chances at the next election.
RobJ: How would you know? If you put a vain posturing airhead celebrity in a position of power that requires intelligence and diligence you are always going to have a massive fuck-up. Luckily they haven’t elevated Maxine McHugh to the cabinet yet!
Politicians should be mocked at every turn. They are the unloveliest of people with their phony populism and massive fragile egos. There is only one politician in the country that I like, and even he is getting on my nerves lately.
“gutless incompetent prick,”
I agree with that sentiment, I told you there’s plenty of real stuff to criticise him about but he ISN’T an arsonist and your comparison with terrorism was just utterly ridiculous.
“If you put a vain posturing airhead celebrity in a position of power that requires intelligence and diligence you are always going to have a massive fuck-up. Luckily they haven’t elevated Maxine McHugh to the cabinet yet!”
It’s still a bullshit comparison but if vain airheads n cabinet positions worries you then the opposition must absolutely freak you out, let’s see, there’s Joyce and there’s B Bishop, then there’s the last govt – Downer, Andrews (who is back on the opposition front bench).
Link me to some of your criticism of these appointments else I’ll just have to assume you’re a hypocrite like Tony Abbott (Who campaigned against industrial manslaughter)
“Politicians should be mocked at every turn.”
I am the king of mocking politicians of all types.
“A company director who, after being warned of the likely consequences, “
He’s NOT a company director, he was NOT in direct control of the hiring practices or management practices of the companies that received the grant – that test has never been applied against ANY government minister, and it certainly wasn’t one accepted by the Coalition last time; hell, they didn’t accept responsibility for what THEIR OWN DEPARTMENTS did – and this “warning” was one part of a huge volume of advice he received on the subject.
Your criticism of Garrett has left the realm of reason and descended into partisan hackery.
we will have more people killed, and more buildings destroyed, by Garrett’s incompetence than by the actual terrorists.
I wasn’t aware Garrett was personally installing the insulation himself SB.
Politicians should be mocked at every turn. They are the unloveliest of people with their phony populism and massive fragile egos.
Mocked, yes. But not unfairly slandered with baseless accusations.
do all politicians deserve to be mocked? why is that?
I do not know Peter Garrett personally, so I’m not in a position to assess his motives for becoming a politician. But there is at least some chance that he might have thought it might be a way for him to contribute to making some change that he thinks is better. I might disagree with him about that, but I’m not sure that deserves my mockery.
Perhaps he is also out of his depth. Again, is that a reason for mockery? I imagine we are all proper targets for mockery if that’s the standard, at least in some aspects of our lives.
I’m no fan of many politicians. Certainly some give the appearance of being primarily motivated for selfish reasons, though I can’t be sure. But at the same time, it does not seem to be a particularly desirable job.
A minister, such as Garrett, is in functionally the same position as the board of directors of a company. He is the final voice when it comes to management decisions. He is responsible for the running of his department. Company directors set the policy. They are responsible for providing a framework that doesn’t neglect basic safety issues.
Either Garrett saw the warnings and discounted them, in which case he is disastrously incompetent, or he didn’t, in which case he lacks the skill care and diligence necessary to be a minister. Either way, Garrett has failed, and other people (but not him) have paid the price.
And this has what to do with “home grown terrorism” exactly?
Peter Garrett is a home grown terrorist?
If not why are we talking about him?
Of course its sus that this particular spin on the white paper came out yesterday. Rudd was obviously using it to distract attention from garrett.
But ffs this terrorism bullshit should be dumped on from a great height once and for all. If Rudd’s be cynical enough to bring it up, lets call it for the crap it is. the insulation thing isn’t going to go away.
Great trolling btw SB “celebrity arsonist” really did the trick.
Now lets get back to topic.
“it does not seem to be a particularly desirable job.”
They aren’t conscripted. ie They probably want to be politicians so who cares if the job isn’t desirable, it has it’s perks and whilst many politicians claim that they can make more in private commerce/industry (Some probably could, so why don’t they??? I couldn’t give a toss if they decided to leave their jobs) the pay isn’t too shabby.
“Perhaps he is also out of his depth. Again, is that a reason for mockery?”
I mock him because he is a sell out!
Hey SB, I’m waiting for your links to criticisms of Howard Cabinet Ministers.
A minister, such as Garrett, is in functionally the same position as the board of directors of a company. He is the final voice when it comes to management decisions. He is responsible for the running of his department. Company directors set the policy. They are responsible for providing a framework that doesn’t neglect basic safety issues.
Actually the role of company directors is more analogous to the role of Cabinet. Cabinet set the policy SB, not the minister. And as for adhering to basic safety regs, that is the role of the contractors and their bosses or whoever else was in charge on site. Not a federal government minister.
one person’s sell-out is another person’s change of mind. Perhaps he has changed his mind on how easy it is to effect the change he previously espoused? I don;t know. I know I’ve changed my mind about various things over the years and don;t really see that as a “sell out”. Perhaps it’s in the eye of the beholder? I suspect that people who hold beliefs closer to what he is doing nowadays see him as having come to his senses…. lol.
and no, politicians aren’t conscripted. that doesn’t mean there are unsavoury aspects to their job. I agree, presumably they perceive these as outweighed by the benefits… whether financial, power driven, or altruistic or some combination of those.
The compromises every politician makes to be elected render them all, to some degree, hypocrites. Cartoonists do a roaring trade pointing out these hypocrisies and that is a good thing. The case for mocking Garrett is especially strong. He hasn’t even got the guts to apologise for the people killed due to his incompetence.
Rob J, in addition to the lying rodent, I was particularly critical of Abbott, Andrews, Costello and Ruddock.
You can believe me or not, I don’t no how to search comments, and I recall Jeremy’s blogger comments were all deleted. You are welcome to do the search yourself, if you are that interested.
“if you are that interested.”
Nah, I’ll take your word for it, just making sure you weren’t ignoring my point 😉
“one person’s sell-out is another person’s change of mind.”
He campaigned against the Greens in Vic, he’s had three ‘green’ projects fail, he’s given the nod to uranium mining, he’s an out and out sell out in my book.
That is gregc09 if Garrett were a ‘lefty’ or a ‘greeny’ why did he join a centre right party? Did he think he was going to change them from the inside out? Maybe he’s naive as well as being a sell out.
i have to say i found the presentation of the governments white paper a bit amateurish. theres full page photos of commandos climbing helicopter ladders? i thought it was meant to be a white paper, not a glossy sales brochure.
not knocking the content though, theres some interesting ideas. havent seen much discussion about the new proposals though….
As someone else commented up thread the announcement was just meant to deflect from Get Garrett. I’m not surprised it was amateurish – probably announced a full 2 weeks before it was supposed to be. 😉
Good to see we’re staying on topic.
SB, what an enigma. An obviously intelligent man who regularly lapses into the most operatic stupidity and unself-conscious hubris. Tells us all what a decent, pragmatic, truth-seeking, mild-mannered fellow he is, but consistently posts bullshit designed to do nothing but provoke the anger of those he disdains. Makes you question the value of intelligence, doesn’t it? Which, if you think about it, is what all those Right-wing culture war idiots have been doing for years. Maybe SB is just another one of them in disguise.
BadBob as usual you misunderstand me. Here are the basic principles:
1. Except in bed, the only worthwhile conversation is an argument. Just stroking your beard, nodding your head, and muttering pleasantries is a waste of time.
2. An argument will focus the mind and tease out subtleties and inconsistencies in the various positions people take. I am sure Jeremy enjoys robust discussion far more than the supine admiration of those who would grace his anus with their warm slavering tongues.
3. It is always preferable to challenge the powerful, whether that is the government of the day or the intellectual elite. Talking truth, or even half-truth, to power is good and necessary.
4. Often, if you rush into a position and take a polarising stand you end up having to modify your position, something I am always prepared to do.
5. Arguing gets the adrenaline going and produces a rush of interesting ideas. Expressing matters in a colourful way usually generates the most interesting discussion. You shouldn’t mistake playful banter for hubris.
6. There is no point hanging around blogs where you are likely to agree with most of what goes on. Curiosity is a good thing, and you get a much better appreciation of the way other people think if you actually talk to them, even more so if you challenge their pieties.
7. This blog is a really interesting place. I like the people, and I enjoy the many, many different and interesting ideas that get thrown about here.
“1. Except in bed, the only worthwhile conversation is an argument.”
What a bizarre statement.
“2. An argument will focus the mind and tease out subtleties and inconsistencies in the various positions people take.”
Oscar Wilde: “Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.”
“3. It is always preferable to challenge the powerful, whether that is the government of the day or the intellectual elite. Talking truth, or even half-truth, to power is good and necessary.”
Yeah, but talking bullshit to the powerless isn’t.
“4. Often, if you rush into a position and take a polarising stand you end up having to modify your position, something I am always prepared to do.”
No “if” about it, SB. You do it all the time. And given your characteristically polarised starting point, you don’t modify your position nearly enough.
“5. Arguing gets the adrenaline going and produces a rush of interesting ideas. Expressing matters in a colourful way usually generates the most interesting discussion. You shouldn’t mistake playful banter for hubris.”
Reasonable discussion rarely occurs under the influence of adrenaline.
“6. There is no point hanging around blogs where you are likely to agree with most of what goes on. Curiosity is a good thing, and you get a much better appreciation of the way other people think if you actually talk to them, even more so if you challenge their pieties.”
Nothing wrong with curiosity, nothing wrong with challenging pieties, nothing wrong with disagreeing. It’s how you do it that matters. You do it like a self-absorbed twat, which is not conducive to the flow of ideas.
“7. This blog is a really interesting place. I like the people, and I enjoy the many, many different and interesting ideas that get thrown about here.”
Doesn’t mean you add anything to it.
What do you mean “Doesn’t mean you add anything to it.”? I drew from you an Oscar Wilde quote, a worthy addition to any discussion!
Point taken.