Eddie is made of stern, resilient stuff. Despite a disappointing stint as CEO of Channel 9 in 2006-07, he continued to devote himself tirelessly to multiple professional commitments. He is ultimately the man responsible for cementing Collingwood’s position as a powerhouse of the AFL, and for its Premiership in 2010. As a Melbourne supporter it pains me to say this, but it will probably go down as his greatest achievement.
Eddie McGuire is a man who gets things done.
When you listen to him interview former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennet, without the audible “raised eyebrow,” it is like listening to a meeting of the minds, between two people who know how to get things done, and have a record of achieving great things.
There is actually a lot you can learn from him when you listen to him speak on the radio. A few events stick out in my mind. In early May, he interviewed former Footscray and Melbourne player Craig Ellis, who has started the Triangl bikini brand. Eddie was impressed how he had made a success of himself, and noted that you don’t need a fancy degree to get somewhere in life, just a good idea and a lot of hard work.
When a Senate Inquiry into bank fees was announced last week, McGuire cut right to the heart of the matter, pointing out that we all know the banks will get at worst a slap on the wrist, and be allowed to continue business as usual. He then stated that the best solution to any problem is competition, and surely it wouldn’t take much for someone to come along and undercut the big four.
Words cannot adequately express how refreshing it is to hear someone say this. No tiresome comparison of credit card rates to the official cash rate, no boring history of regulation of the banking sector. It takes a special kind of intelligence to cut through all this fluff, and identify the solution as clearly and as simply as Eddie did. It is also refreshing to hear someone articulate the universal benefits of the free market with ease, and without apology.
The moment which sticks out most in my mind was when a comedian announced he had a scoop on Eddie McGuire’s past. It was revealed that someone who had studied with him at RMIT said Eddie only lasted a term at his Journalism course. Snorting in amusement, Eddie happily admitted words to the effect that this was probably being very generous. As he pointed out, he got a gig with Channel 10 when he was still studying. He figured, why waste his time getting a degree when he already had a job and could get practical, on the job training and get paid for it?
I think it has been to his enormous benefit that he never completed his journalism degree. The ideological zealots churned out these days appear to have less and less care for the facts, as long as the “greater truth” is told. The ABC could take a leaf out of Eddie’s book, and ditch their ideological garbage.
From my own point of view, while I freely admit that I will let my bias run free, I think it is also of great advantage to me that I never attempted a journalism degree. I have actually learned far more since I completed my own Arts degree, majoring in History and Political “Science.” In fact I think it is to my great benefit that I have forgotten much of the crap they taught me.
ABC take note. Eddie Mcguire is worth emulating. What the ABC can learn from Eddie McGuire
The NSW upper house recently “condemned” Eddie McGuire as a “continual boofhead,” in what is quite possibly the first, and probably the last, motion of any parliamentary body in Australia censuring anybody on these grounds. He has had some humbling moments, with last year’s slip of the tongue rolling into this year’s criticism of his strong words on Adam Goodes’ “war-dance.” What Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham, who moved the motion, seemed unaware of was that when Eddie described Goodes’ actions as “quite agressive,” and said “I don’t think we ever want to see it again, to be perfectly honest,” he was just saying what everybody else in Australia was thinking.
Eddie is made of stern, resilient stuff. Despite a disappointing stint as CEO of Channel 9 in 2006-07, he continued to devote himself tirelessly to multiple professional commitments. He is ultimately the man responsible for cementing Collingwood’s position as a powerhouse of the AFL, and for its Premiership in 2010. As a Melbourne supporter it pains me to say this, but it will probably go down as his greatest achievement.
Eddie McGuire is a man who gets things done.
When you listen to him interview former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennet, without the audible “raised eyebrow,” it is like listening to a meeting of the minds, between two people who know how to get things done, and have a record of achieving great things.
There is actually a lot you can learn from him when you listen to him speak on the radio. A few events stick out in my mind. In early May, he interviewed former Footscray and Melbourne player Craig Ellis, who has started the Triangl bikini brand. Eddie was impressed how he had made a success of himself, and noted that you don’t need a fancy degree to get somewhere in life, just a good idea and a lot of hard work.
When a Senate Inquiry into bank fees was announced last week, McGuire cut right to the heart of the matter, pointing out that we all know the banks will get at worst a slap on the wrist, and be allowed to continue business as usual. He then stated that the best solution to any problem is competition, and surely it wouldn’t take much for someone to come along and undercut the big four.
Words cannot adequately express how refreshing it is to hear someone say this. No tiresome comparison of credit card rates to the official cash rate, no boring history of regulation of the banking sector. It takes a special kind of intelligence to cut through all this fluff, and identify the solution as clearly and as simply as Eddie did. It is also refreshing to hear someone articulate the universal benefits of the free market with ease, and without apology.
The moment which sticks out most in my mind was when a comedian announced he had a scoop on Eddie McGuire’s past. It was revealed that someone who had studied with him at RMIT said Eddie only lasted a term at his Journalism course. Snorting in amusement, Eddie happily admitted words to the effect that this was probably being very generous. As he pointed out, he got a gig with Channel 10 when he was still studying. He figured, why waste his time getting a degree when he already had a job and could get practical, on the job training and get paid for it?
I think it has been to his enormous benefit that he never completed his journalism degree. The ideological zealots churned out these days appear to have less and less care for the facts, as long as the “greater truth” is told. The ABC could take a leaf out of Eddie’s book, and ditch their ideological garbage.
From my own point of view, while I freely admit that I will let my bias run free, I think it is also of great advantage to me that I never attempted a journalism degree. I have actually learned far more since I completed my own Arts degree, majoring in History and Political “Science.” In fact I think it is to my great benefit that I have forgotten much of the crap they taught me.
ABC take note. Eddie Mcguire is worth emulating.
Eddie is made of stern, resilient stuff. Despite a disappointing stint as CEO of Channel 9 in 2006-07, he continued to devote himself tirelessly to multiple professional commitments. He is ultimately the man responsible for cementing Collingwood’s position as a powerhouse of the AFL, and for its Premiership in 2010. As a Melbourne supporter it pains me to say this, but it will probably go down as his greatest achievement.
Eddie McGuire is a man who gets things done.
When you listen to him interview former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennet, without the audible “raised eyebrow,” it is like listening to a meeting of the minds, between two people who know how to get things done, and have a record of achieving great things.
There is actually a lot you can learn from him when you listen to him speak on the radio. A few events stick out in my mind. In early May, he interviewed former Footscray and Melbourne player Craig Ellis, who has started the Triangl bikini brand. Eddie was impressed how he had made a success of himself, and noted that you don’t need a fancy degree to get somewhere in life, just a good idea and a lot of hard work.
When a Senate Inquiry into bank fees was announced last week, McGuire cut right to the heart of the matter, pointing out that we all know the banks will get at worst a slap on the wrist, and be allowed to continue business as usual. He then stated that the best solution to any problem is competition, and surely it wouldn’t take much for someone to come along and undercut the big four.
Words cannot adequately express how refreshing it is to hear someone say this. No tiresome comparison of credit card rates to the official cash rate, no boring history of regulation of the banking sector. It takes a special kind of intelligence to cut through all this fluff, and identify the solution as clearly and as simply as Eddie did. It is also refreshing to hear someone articulate the universal benefits of the free market with ease, and without apology.
The moment which sticks out most in my mind was when a comedian announced he had a scoop on Eddie McGuire’s past. It was revealed that someone who had studied with him at RMIT said Eddie only lasted a term at his Journalism course. Snorting in amusement, Eddie happily admitted words to the effect that this was probably being very generous. As he pointed out, he got a gig with Channel 10 when he was still studying. He figured, why waste his time getting a degree when he already had a job and could get practical, on the job training and get paid for it?
I think it has been to his enormous benefit that he never completed his journalism degree. The ideological zealots churned out these days appear to have less and less care for the facts, as long as the “greater truth” is told. The ABC could take a leaf out of Eddie’s book, and ditch their ideological garbage.
From my own point of view, while I freely admit that I will let my bias run free, I think it is also of great advantage to me that I never attempted a journalism degree. I have actually learned far more since I completed my own Arts degree, majoring in History and Political “Science.” In fact I think it is to my great benefit that I have forgotten much of the crap they taught me.
ABC take note. Eddie Mcguire is worth emulating. Greens: We love the ABC (Because Aunty gives us lollies & treats)
The Australian Greens have today launched a campaign: “Hands off Aunty: We Love the ABC.”
Why do the Greens seem to be so afraid of the ABC being made accountable to the Australian public and tax payers? Because as everyone knows, Aunty gives the Greens lollies and treats when she thinks no one else is looking.
The Greens are clearly upset, protesting:
“Despite the ABC already announcing that it would conduct its own internal review of allowing Zaky Mallah on Q&A , the Abbott Government have launched their own review, a petition against the public broadcaster and boycotted the program.”Now, of course a couple of members declining to participate in Q&A does not constitute a ‘boycott’, despite the Greens’ usual hysterics. And surely, anyone with a sense of balance and objectivity would not regard the ABC’s own ‘internal review’ to be sufficient. It is absolutely appropriate for the Federal Government to launch its own review into the national broadcaster, which continues to cross the line. While a Royal Commission into the ABC might be overkill, the deeply entrenched bias and irresponsible decisions that continue to be made by the ABC need to be publicly exposed. The strong and polarised response from the ABC providing convicted criminal Zaky Mallah a platform to spit his bile is revealing: The ALP and the Coalition to a greater or lesser extent believe that that the national broadcaster’s behaviour was inappropriate and requires further investigation. Whilst the Greens are trying to tell us that everything is hunky dory with the ABC and that Aunty is being maliciously persecuted. On the $1 billion question, ‘is the ABC biased?’ The Greens campaign is a dead give away.
Prisoners riot against Nanny State
Prisons around Victorian are currently under ‘lock down’ after prisoners began rioting at Melbourne’s Metropolitan Remand Centre in Ravenhall.
It has yet to be confirmed what sparked the riot, but there is the glaring coincidence that Corrections Victoria plans to introduce a smoking ban throughout Victorian prisons tomorrow.
There are reports that 84 per cent of prisoners smoke, however I suspect that this number underestimates the true figure which is probably only slightly less than 100%.
When smoking bans were proposed in Queensland in late 2013, the authorities claimed that the ban was being introduced in the interest of the health of the prison population. Puh-lease!
Whilst I do not, of course, support rioting and violence in prisons, is anyone surprised that prisoners would object and might riot if the Nanny State comes in and takes their ciggies away?
It is also another clear example of Progressives being wilfully unaware of the unintended consequences of their policies and actions.
Prisons should not be a ‘holiday camp’ with free food, board and entertainment. But nor should the small pleasure of smoking be taken away from them because the Nanny State supposedly cares about the health of prisoners.
Come on Corrections Victoria, you’re going to have to do better than that.
Who will be friends with the ABC?
So how will the ABC respond to increased scrutiny and the growing line of rejections for Q&A? My hunch is it will be a combination of the Zaky Mallah victim card and the Gillian Triggs wrecking ball.
Malcolm Turnbull, Federal Communications Minister is the latest in a growing list of ‘conscientious objectors’ to participate on Q&A. Things have got to be pretty bad when the leader of the Parliamentary Friends of the ABC won’t even attend their shows.
It will be interesting to see how the ABC takes this string of declines, following the fallout from providing a platform for convicted criminal and radical Islamist, Zaky Mallah. If the speech given by Mark Scott after he came out of hiding last week is anything to go by, the ABC will play the persecuted victim.
The ABC is likely to take the same line as its friend Zaky Mallah, who despite threatening to kill a government official, feels that he is the real victim. The ABC’s intention to use Mallah as a weapon, against the Government and its plan to revoke the citizenship of terrorists with dual citizenship, backfired most gloriously, and like Mallah, the ABC will most likely claim that it is the ‘true victim.’
Let’s be honest, this latest show of bias from the ABC is nothing new. For years there has been a flow between the ALP and the ABC (in both directions). One wonders whether there is in fact a secret tunnel linking Ultimo to ALP HQ in Sussex Street, Sydney. But in recent years, the ALP has started to slip out of favour at the ABC, and now the Greens and other far-left groups are increasingly being preferred.
That the ABC often invites a token conservative on The Drum or Q&A is a moot point. The culture of the ABC is hard left, like many of Australia’s leading and most viewed media institutions. Right now I can hear the howls, ‘but what about Murdoch! What about Murdoch! Someone needs to balance out Murdoch!’ Amusingly, most of these howls come from people who never read the Murdoch Press, yet purport to be experts on it.
The left wing bias of journalists American media has been well documented, despite the ‘Fox News’ red herring. Is it really conceivable that any more than 10-20% of the ABC’s media staff consider themselves either ‘conservative’ or ‘right of centre’? Of course not, especially when ‘right wing’ at the ABC means ‘bad’ and ‘not us.’
After recent events, the ABC will be unlikely to take its legitimate chastising honourably and on the chin.
Instead, the ABC will play the victim, and go down fighting, preferably taking the government and anyone else they can get their hands down with them.
ah victim card and the Gillian Triggs wrecking ball.
Malcolm Turnbull, Federal Communications Minister is the latest in a growing list of ‘conscientious objectors’ to participate on Q&A. Things have got to be pretty bad when the leader of the Parliamentary Friends of the ABC won’t even attend their shows.
It will be interesting to see how the ABC takes this string of declines, following the fallout from providing a platform for convicted criminal and radical Islamist, Zaky Mallah. If the speech given by Mark Scott after he came out of hiding last week is anything to go by, the ABC will play the persecuted victim.
The ABC is likely to take the same line as its friend Zaky Mallah, who despite threatening to kill a government official, feels that he is the real victim. The ABC’s intention to use Mallah as a weapon, against the Government and its plan to revoke the citizenship of terrorists with dual citizenship, backfired most gloriously, and like Mallah, the ABC will most likely claim that it is the ‘true victim.’
Let’s be honest, this latest show of bias from the ABC is nothing new. For years there has been a flow between the ALP and the ABC (in both directions). One wonders whether there is in fact a secret tunnel linking Ultimo to ALP HQ in Sussex Street, Sydney. But in recent years, the ALP has started to slip out of favour at the ABC, and now the Greens and other far-left groups are increasingly being preferred.
That the ABC often invites a token conservative on The Drum or Q&A is a moot point. The culture of the ABC is hard left, like many of Australia’s leading and most viewed media institutions. Right now I can hear the howls, ‘but what about Murdoch! What about Murdoch! Someone needs to balance out Murdoch!’ Amusingly, most of these howls come from people who never read the Murdoch Press, yet purport to be experts on it.
The left wing bias of journalists American media has been well documented, despite the ‘Fox News’ red herring. Is it really conceivable that any more than 10-20% of the ABC’s media staff consider themselves either ‘conservative’ or ‘right of centre’? Of course not, especially when ‘right wing’ at the ABC means ‘bad’ and ‘not us.’
After recent events, the ABC will be unlikely to take its legitimate chastising honourably and on the chin.
Instead, the ABC will play the victim, and go down fighting, preferably taking the government and anyone else they can get their hands down with them. Speaking as a Woman, Don’t Ditch Manhood- Teach It! PART 2
This week I am posting Part Two of my article Don’t Teach Manhood – Teach It! responding to this article I read recently which attempted to argue that masculinity is a “poisonous” process which “kills men.”
In part one I argued that while society does present counterfeit ideas of manhood and womanhood, that does not mean that no genuine conceptions exist. Moreover, counterfeit ideas may now be flourishing because we are failing to provide the authentic, genuine conceptions.
This week I am making the more difficult (but also more interesting!) case that notions of Manhood and Womanhood, Femininity and Masculinity, are valuable for our development and can help deal with the crises of identity facing my generation. Picking up on things from last week:
“I certainly don’t believe that in order to be a woman I have to be super-skinny or “an unattainable balance of virginal and f**kable” (thanks to the author of the article above for that lovely phrase) – that’s a flawed conception of womanhood. But it does not then follow that no genuine or healthy conception of womanhood exists.”
In a similar way, much of the suffering of men in our culture relates to a failure to mature. We need to take seriously observations around the early treatment of boys, and I am certainly not in favour of “emotionally shortchanging boys.”
But I must disagree with the author that “Alcoholism, workaholism and violence” are the result of having notions of masculinity and manhood – they are rather a failure of young men to mature appropriately into adulthood. Women (most of the time) have a sense of what it means to be a woman, but I have learned that many men do not. Men are facing a crisis of both character development and identity. As C.S. Lewis wrote in the Abolition of Man,
‘We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.’
However laudable the impulse to avoid straight-jacketing men into narrow patterns of gender, we cannot solve what are fundamentally problems of development by removing notions of masculinity and manhood. We solve them by teaching boys and men what it actually means to be good, well-rounded, noble, and honourable men, and by providing rites and social symbols that mark the steps along the way.
Unlike the article which wants to (1) deny that there are any inherent sex-related differences, and (2) rip the entire concept of manhood and womanhood from our lexicon and indeed our lives, I suggest that much of the suffering experienced by my generation could be alleviated by speaking more about manhood and womanhood.
No, this does not mean I want to ‘send women back to the kitchen.’ I’m definitely not suggesting we revert to 50’s stereotypes for they too would be hopeless and ultimately lifeless counterfeits. But I am suggesting that my generation (many of us made cynical by the relational breakdowns of our parents and mentors), is groping for authentic forms of adulthood, and without examining the archetypal concepts of masculinity and femininity, we will continue to flounder. As Professor Peter Kreft has insightfully said,
“We rightly reject stereotypes, because they are artificial, they are invented by society. Society’s greatness is creativity: It changes, it improves. But archetypes are built into the nature of things. Masculinity and femininity are archetypes. Archetypes are inescapable, just as the air and the light and darkness are inescapable, because they are part of the cosmos.”
I realise that those who reject any distinctiveness to men and women will struggle with parts of this, and I am very aware that there are always people who sit towards the ‘end of the bell curve’ so to speak. In a number of ways, I myself have ‘edgy’ or less common traits – And that is completely fine and to be expected. This is not about superficial characteristics like how often he shaves or whether she feels comfortable in a dress. But nor does it mean we cannot or should not be making any distinctions whatsoever.
And to actively refuse to do so, as Masculinity is Killing Men is advocating, ignores the connections between the development of our bodies and the development of our character. Failing (or worse refusing) to equip young people with the archetypal concepts of masculinity and femininity, is dangerously likely to result in negative outcomes for both men and women. Masculinity is Killing Men wants to save men from violence, abuse and suffering, but their ‘solution’ may well entrench the very problems they are trying to eradicate.
Speaking as a woman, I need to see good images of women around me – I need women (and stories of women) I can look up to and whose lives can stir me to grow into myself. But I also need good men around me. And as we utilise the insights of history, philosophy and nature (dare I add, Religion?) and search for authentic expressions of manhood and womanhood, like companion planting Basil and Tomatoes together, each gender helps the other in the critical process of growing into ourselves.
I’m not talking about the half-developed, violent, alcoholic, workaholics which the author suggests is the product of gendered upbringing. But the noble, healthy, honourable, self-aware men, of which the world is in desperate need.
Manhood and Womanhood, Masculinity and Femininity are “built into the nature of things” and cannot be excised from our societies or ourselves. Any attempt to do so results in the damaging fragmentation and confusion of competing counterfeit conceptions. Though many try to dismantle or erase them, manhood and womanhood are intimately connected to our development, the relationships we have with our gender, and more broadly the telos of our human life itself. So don’t ditch Manhood – Teach it.
Gillian Triggs fails the “Pub Test.” Again.
Professor Gillian Triggs is again in the news for making idiocy sound normal, after her latest ruling that the ANZ Bank should apologise to a convicted armed robber for declining to employ him in the, errr bank. Even more insultingly, she recommended the bank ‘update’ its policies, presumably so they reflect the superiority of her own progressive views on these matters.
Perhaps, to prove its enlightenment and demonstrate its ‘updated’ policies, the ANZ should immediately begin a recruitment drive at Long Bay jail. In the Professor’s world, a world in which the deposit of human rights law has the general status of an Old Testament theophany ( * an appearance of God in human form), it is entirely congruous that a bank should employ a person who has served time in jail for robbing a bank, even if that person conveniently leaves the fact off their application.
Within the corridors of academia, and more latterly, the even more well remunerated corridors of the public service, sheltered from the world of workplaces, lunch rooms, and pubs, and far removed from the dim witted suburban bogans whose stupidity extended even to the election of the Abbott government, the Professor is blissfully untroubled by trifling matters such as common sense. For her, the appearance of a sentence in a section, inside a clause, inside a sub-clause, bequeathed from on high by the United Nations, acquires a status not unlike the giving of the law to Moses on Mt Sinai.
In the work places, and the lunch rooms, and the pubs of Australia, convicted bank robbers who served time in jail for robbing banks do not, in fact, work in banks. But not in the parallel space occupied by Professor Triggs and the many superior types like her who ‘know’ the law, who are well read on the separation of powers, and frankly, untroubled entirely by such meaningless indicators as common sense, the ‘pub test,’ or the court of public opinion. Nor need they be concerned by distractions like the ballot box.
It’s a shame the Professor, in her role as protectorate of our human rights, doesn’t seem to care much for the many decent, law abiding citizens, who never have cause to appear before a judge, nor ever trouble the local police – but is instead obsessed with the rights of murderers, bank robbers, and other unsavoury types. Demanding a bank apologise for not employing a bank robber might, apparently, make perfect sense on the flagstones of a law faculty cloister, but it will sound – to use the colloquial term – like complete bullshit to the vast majority of the punters who fund the Professor’s position.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/gillian-triggs-demands-anz-apologise-to-armed-robber/story-fn59niix-1227416917268
Within the corridors of academia, and more latterly, the even more well remunerated corridors of the public service, sheltered from the world of workplaces, lunch rooms, and pubs, and far removed from the dim witted suburban bogans whose stupidity extended even to the election of the Abbott government, the Professor is blissfully untroubled by trifling matters such as common sense. For her, the appearance of a sentence in a section, inside a clause, inside a sub-clause, bequeathed from on high by the United Nations, acquires a status not unlike the giving of the law to Moses on Mt Sinai.
In the work places, and the lunch rooms, and the pubs of Australia, convicted bank robbers who served time in jail for robbing banks do not, in fact, work in banks. But not in the parallel space occupied by Professor Triggs and the many superior types like her who ‘know’ the law, who are well read on the separation of powers, and frankly, untroubled entirely by such meaningless indicators as common sense, the ‘pub test,’ or the court of public opinion. Nor need they be concerned by distractions like the ballot box.
It’s a shame the Professor, in her role as protectorate of our human rights, doesn’t seem to care much for the many decent, law abiding citizens, who never have cause to appear before a judge, nor ever trouble the local police – but is instead obsessed with the rights of murderers, bank robbers, and other unsavoury types. Demanding a bank apologise for not employing a bank robber might, apparently, make perfect sense on the flagstones of a law faculty cloister, but it will sound – to use the colloquial term – like complete bullshit to the vast majority of the punters who fund the Professor’s position.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/gillian-triggs-demands-anz-apologise-to-armed-robber/story-fn59niix-1227416917268 Greens reinforce opposition to gay marriage: “We’re not America.”
The Greens Party of Australia have reacted strongly against Friday’s news from America, that the Supreme Court of the United States has declared that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. Greens leader Richard Di Natale dismissed the 5-4 ruling, stating “Why should we do something just because the United States does it?”
Reinforcing his party’s ongoing opposition to gay marriage, Di Natale expanded:
“Surely there are more important things happening in our local region, and internationally. Australia really has to check it’s priorities. We may have a cultural affinity with the USA, and the story is both easy and appealing, but it’s symptomatic of our national infatuation with America.”
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young went even further, claiming:
“The Australian Greens hate America, and everything it stands for. I am sick of the idea that Australia should have to follow the USA and do everything it says, like it is some kind of deputy sheriff.”
In an interview with an unnamed Greens supporter, The XYZ got a feeling of the depth of opposition the Greens Party feels toward the United States:
“I don’t understand what people see in this Obama. He is just as much a puppet of the military-industrial complex as every other President.”
The Greens have vowed to maintain their long-held stance against gay marriage, which they view as the centrepiece of American “cultural imperialism.”
It’s your XYZ.
“Surely there are more important things happening in our local region, and internationally. Australia really has to check it’s priorities. We may have a cultural affinity with the USA, and the story is both easy and appealing, but it’s symptomatic of our national infatuation with America.”
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young went even further, claiming:
“The Australian Greens hate America, and everything it stands for. I am sick of the idea that Australia should have to follow the USA and do everything it says, like it is some kind of deputy sheriff.”
In an interview with an unnamed Greens supporter, The XYZ got a feeling of the depth of opposition the Greens Party feels toward the United States:
“I don’t understand what people see in this Obama. He is just as much a puppet of the military-industrial complex as every other President.”
The Greens have vowed to maintain their long-held stance against gay marriage, which they view as the centrepiece of American “cultural imperialism.”
It’s your XYZ. Stop wasting our taxes! Defund the ABC – sign the petition
Enough is enough!
The ABC has persistently failed in its statutory duties to be: “Impartial“,
present a “diversity of perspectives,” and “equip audiences to make up their own minds.”
The ABC continually produces biased content on a range of issues, most recently providing convicted criminal Zaky Mallah with a platform on Q&A.
The ABC continues to ignore the views of Australians and its time to stand up and say Not With MY Taxes.
The ABC costs tax-payers over one billion dollars every single year.
This is a massive tax burden, and means that other more deserving projects are not being funded. Our $1,000,000,000 could be better spent in a variety of projects across Health, Education or Infrastructure; alternative public broadcasting; paying down our national debt; or saved in taxes entirely, leaving families with $1 Billion extra in their pockets annually.
The ABC has been blatantly partial for many years, and a Government Inquiry will NOT cut it. It is time to Defund the ABC. Set it free to present it’s own brand of content in a genuine market-place of ideas, and put our taxes to better use!
Sign the petition here.
The ABC continually produces biased content on a range of issues, most recently providing convicted criminal Zaky Mallah with a platform on Q&A.
The ABC continues to ignore the views of Australians and its time to stand up and say Not With MY Taxes.
The ABC costs tax-payers over one billion dollars every single year.
This is a massive tax burden, and means that other more deserving projects are not being funded. Our $1,000,000,000 could be better spent in a variety of projects across Health, Education or Infrastructure; alternative public broadcasting; paying down our national debt; or saved in taxes entirely, leaving families with $1 Billion extra in their pockets annually.
The ABC has been blatantly partial for many years, and a Government Inquiry will NOT cut it. It is time to Defund the ABC. Set it free to present it’s own brand of content in a genuine market-place of ideas, and put our taxes to better use!
Sign the petition here.
Breaking: Steve Ciobo admits Zaky Mallah was right – Apologises for his offensive comments on Q&A – Accepts full responsibility for last night’s terror attacks!
In breaking news from Canberra, Steve Ciobo, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has admitted that there is a strong correlation between his appearance on a fiery episode of Q&A on Monday and three terrorists attacks overnight.
He told Zaky Mallah, a man acquitted of terrorism charges, but convicted of criminal charges, including threatening to kill an ASIO officer, that he would be pleased to see his Australian citizen revoked under this current government’s view. Mallah responded that “The Liberals have just justified to many Australian Muslims in the community tonight to leave and go to Syria and join ISIL because of ministers like him.”
Given the three attacks by violent extremists overnight in France, Tunisia and Kuwait, which have resulted in about 60 deaths in total, Ciobo now admits that Mallah may have had a point. It seems more than a coincidence that these attacks have come so soon after I made my comments about violent extremists on Monday night. I would like to apologise to all violent extremists in Australia, and I accept full responsibility for provoking these outbursts of violent extremism.”
He continued that he hoped people around the world would respond to these outbursts of violent extremism with “openness, tolerance, and understanding,” and stressed that the only way to prevent future outbursts of violent extremism was to “submit.”
It’s your XYZ.
He told Zaky Mallah, a man acquitted of terrorism charges, but convicted of criminal charges, including threatening to kill an ASIO officer, that he would be pleased to see his Australian citizen revoked under this current government’s view. Mallah responded that “The Liberals have just justified to many Australian Muslims in the community tonight to leave and go to Syria and join ISIL because of ministers like him.”
Given the three attacks by violent extremists overnight in France, Tunisia and Kuwait, which have resulted in about 60 deaths in total, Ciobo now admits that Mallah may have had a point. It seems more than a coincidence that these attacks have come so soon after I made my comments about violent extremists on Monday night. I would like to apologise to all violent extremists in Australia, and I accept full responsibility for provoking these outbursts of violent extremism.”
He continued that he hoped people around the world would respond to these outbursts of violent extremism with “openness, tolerance, and understanding,” and stressed that the only way to prevent future outbursts of violent extremism was to “submit.”
It’s your XYZ. XYZ Straight to the Point: ABC in competition with the big miners
After listening to Mark Scott’s impassioned defence of the ABC to do whatever he wants, it is obvious that he simply does not get it. He argues for something other than adherence to the charter.
He argues that the ABC should not be a mouthpiece for the government. Therefore because it is “independent” from politics, it is doing its job.
Your ABC – digging a deeper hole for itself. Censure of the ABC is not censorship
Since Monday night’s extraordinary episode of Q&A, when the ABC became a platform for a jihadist apologist, the ABC and its defenders have argued that criticism and calls for an enquiry are an attack on its independence. Moreover, The XYZ has been accused of hypocrisy, given that as forthright defenders of free speech, we are apparently attacking the free speech of the ABC and Zaky Mallah.
But these arguments are a misdirection.
The ABC is required by its charter to avoid institutional bias. The ABC and its defenders appear to be pretending that this latest episode is just a one off, but the fact is that the ABC has a long history of institutional bias to the left. That it often attacks the Labor Party, as well as the Coalition, is beside the point. The entire institution appears dedicated to promoting a worldview based on left wing ideals.
It is thus in breach of its charter, and the government has every right to investigate. It goes without saying that the ABC is supposed to be an organisation independent of the government of the day. At The XYZ, the last thing we want is a government broadcaster which becomes the mouthpiece of the government. But, and this cannot be stressed enough, the ABC is not independent of its own charter.
At The XYZ, we want to set the ABC free. We want the ABC to do and say whatever it wants. We want the ABC to be able to host the most extreme, the vilest, the most violent opponents of everything we in the Western world hold dear. We want it to be able to descend as deep into the pit of leftist thought as its Green-supporting journalists desire. It can do this if it becomes truly independent of any government scrutiny, truly independent of any pesky charter requiring it to be unbiased.
It can gain this independence in two possible ways:
Firstly, it can have its budget split in two, with the other half given to a public broadcaster which will be as equally biased to the right as the ABC is to the left. Under this first proposal, The XYZ offers its services to the government to fulfil this balancing role;
Secondly, the ABC can be sold off, privatised, and compete on an equal, independent footing in the market-place of ideas. Those who argue that it would lurch to the right ignore the success of commercial media outlets which lean strongly to the left, such as The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, and the Channel 10 TV Network as well as well as countless international media outlets. Given the ABC’s iconic status in Australian culture, it would have a tremendous foundation on which to build as a commercial entity, and would no doubt improve its content as it is subject, for the first time, to true competition.
In conclusion, either of these two courses of action would lead to the ultimate leveling of the media landscape in Australia. At the moment, ideas from the left are given an unfair advantage in their competition with those of the right. Furthermore, these ideas promoted by the ABC are paid for by Australian tax payers. Currently everybody, no matter what their political persuasion, is forced to subsidise the propagation of left wing ideas, in the form of the ABC. If Mark Scott is serious when he say that the Australian people “are our owners – it is to them we owe our service,” he must acknowledge that the ABC longer serves a strong proportion of the Australian people.
The Australian people no longer own the ABC. It is time to let it go.
At The XYZ, we want to set the ABC free. We want the ABC to do and say whatever it wants. We want the ABC to be able to host the most extreme, the vilest, the most violent opponents of everything we in the Western world hold dear. We want it to be able to descend as deep into the pit of leftist thought as its Green-supporting journalists desire. It can do this if it becomes truly independent of any government scrutiny, truly independent of any pesky charter requiring it to be unbiased.
It can gain this independence in two possible ways:
Firstly, it can have its budget split in two, with the other half given to a public broadcaster which will be as equally biased to the right as the ABC is to the left. Under this first proposal, The XYZ offers its services to the government to fulfil this balancing role;
Secondly, the ABC can be sold off, privatised, and compete on an equal, independent footing in the market-place of ideas. Those who argue that it would lurch to the right ignore the success of commercial media outlets which lean strongly to the left, such as The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, and the Channel 10 TV Network as well as well as countless international media outlets. Given the ABC’s iconic status in Australian culture, it would have a tremendous foundation on which to build as a commercial entity, and would no doubt improve its content as it is subject, for the first time, to true competition.
In conclusion, either of these two courses of action would lead to the ultimate leveling of the media landscape in Australia. At the moment, ideas from the left are given an unfair advantage in their competition with those of the right. Furthermore, these ideas promoted by the ABC are paid for by Australian tax payers. Currently everybody, no matter what their political persuasion, is forced to subsidise the propagation of left wing ideas, in the form of the ABC. If Mark Scott is serious when he say that the Australian people “are our owners – it is to them we owe our service,” he must acknowledge that the ABC longer serves a strong proportion of the Australian people.
The Australian people no longer own the ABC. It is time to let it go. Melbourne to be Australia’s most populous city: Is the government up to the task?
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Melbourne is on track to overtake Sydney as Australia’s most populous city by 2056.
But will Melbourne have the infrastructure to meet growing demand and the influx of new residents? And are we even able to have the necessary debate and discussion about our city’s future needs?
The tearing up of the contracts for Melbourne’s ‘East-West Link’ by the Andrews government does not bode well for Melbourne’s future, nor does it give us confidence that the government is up to the task to meet Melbourne’s growing needs.
The cancelling of this project by the Andrews Government, and the paying out of hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation (which should have been spent on Melbourne’s infrastructure) is enough of an issue in itself. However, the rhetoric from the Greens and Labor prior to the election revealed an even greater issue: a gross inability to grasp and understand the infrastructure needs of our growing city.
The catch phrase: ‘trains no tolls’ underpinned much of the rhetoric from Labor and the Greens and those others who opposed the construction of the East-West Link. Instead of building the East-West Link, the proposed Doncaster rail link was offered as an alternative. Whatever the merits of the Doncaster rail link (and I have no desire to down-play them), this ‘alternative’ is like offering an apple when what is needed is an orange. Both projects have merit, but vastly different functions, and would cater to much different needs of Melburnians.
The Doncaster rail link will be useful for commuters traveling in to the inner city from the eastern suburbs. Yet this project will not meet the economic needs of our city to move people and freight from Melbourne’s east to the city, the airport, and Melbourne ports which is what the East-West link was intended to do.
Such confusion in this discussion, and the incessant comparing of apples with oranges casts doubt over our leaders in the current political climate and their ability to understand the infrastructure needs of Melbourne.
The cancelling of the East-West link has now become symbolic. It shows a gross lack of vision and understanding from our political leaders for the future planning of Melbourne. Furthermore, it reveals that the development Melbourne’s infrastructure will be much more directed on the basis of ideology, rather than the actual needs of Melburnians and our growing city.
The tearing up of the contracts for Melbourne’s ‘East-West Link’ by the Andrews government does not bode well for Melbourne’s future, nor does it give us confidence that the government is up to the task to meet Melbourne’s growing needs.
The cancelling of this project by the Andrews Government, and the paying out of hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation (which should have been spent on Melbourne’s infrastructure) is enough of an issue in itself. However, the rhetoric from the Greens and Labor prior to the election revealed an even greater issue: a gross inability to grasp and understand the infrastructure needs of our growing city.
The catch phrase: ‘trains no tolls’ underpinned much of the rhetoric from Labor and the Greens and those others who opposed the construction of the East-West Link. Instead of building the East-West Link, the proposed Doncaster rail link was offered as an alternative. Whatever the merits of the Doncaster rail link (and I have no desire to down-play them), this ‘alternative’ is like offering an apple when what is needed is an orange. Both projects have merit, but vastly different functions, and would cater to much different needs of Melburnians.
The Doncaster rail link will be useful for commuters traveling in to the inner city from the eastern suburbs. Yet this project will not meet the economic needs of our city to move people and freight from Melbourne’s east to the city, the airport, and Melbourne ports which is what the East-West link was intended to do.
Such confusion in this discussion, and the incessant comparing of apples with oranges casts doubt over our leaders in the current political climate and their ability to understand the infrastructure needs of Melbourne.
The cancelling of the East-West link has now become symbolic. It shows a gross lack of vision and understanding from our political leaders for the future planning of Melbourne. Furthermore, it reveals that the development Melbourne’s infrastructure will be much more directed on the basis of ideology, rather than the actual needs of Melburnians and our growing city.
The XYZ Effect
Media experts have today presented new data pointing to a phenomenon they have dubbed “The XYZ Effect.” According to an unnamed source, “The XYZ Effect” can be described as follows:
“Until June 1, the ABC held a monopoly over public broadcasting in Australia. Since the introduction of The XYZ, and its challenge to the ABC for half of its budget, support has increased for either the privatisation of the ABC, or for its splitting in two so both sides of the political spectrum can be represented. This has coincided with a series of missteps by the national broadcaster, which has brought its relevance, mission, and perhaps even its existence, into question.
“While there is no proven direct causal link, as yet, between the foundation of The XYZ and the diminished standing of the ABC, we do see a strong correlation. Our best theory as to why this is occurring is the introduction of competition. The ABC has become coddled, as it has never had to compete seriously with another media organisation vying for government funding.
“From now on, the ABC will need to justify why it deserves more government funding than its competitor. So far, it appears to have been caught off guard.”
So there you have it, viewers. The science is settled, the ABC, unused to competition, is in free-fall. It is only a matter of time before The XYZ becomes the dominant player in the public broadcasting market.
“Until June 1, the ABC held a monopoly over public broadcasting in Australia. Since the introduction of The XYZ, and its challenge to the ABC for half of its budget, support has increased for either the privatisation of the ABC, or for its splitting in two so both sides of the political spectrum can be represented. This has coincided with a series of missteps by the national broadcaster, which has brought its relevance, mission, and perhaps even its existence, into question.
“While there is no proven direct causal link, as yet, between the foundation of The XYZ and the diminished standing of the ABC, we do see a strong correlation. Our best theory as to why this is occurring is the introduction of competition. The ABC has become coddled, as it has never had to compete seriously with another media organisation vying for government funding.
“From now on, the ABC will need to justify why it deserves more government funding than its competitor. So far, it appears to have been caught off guard.”
So there you have it, viewers. The science is settled, the ABC, unused to competition, is in free-fall. It is only a matter of time before The XYZ becomes the dominant player in the public broadcasting market. Former Greens leader vows to be ‘more dangerous than ever’
Yesterday, former Greens leader Christine Milne delivered her final speech in parliament.
In her speech, Senator Milne said that although she will no longer be a member of parliament, she vows to remain a Greens activist and will be ‘more dangerous than ever’.
This final statement by Senator Milne leaves us with some unanswered questions.
Is this violent language acceptable for our political leaders to use, particularly given the issues of domestic violence which the Greens’ purport to be fighting against?
Furthermore, it begs the examination of the use of language by politicians, particularly those on the left. Should we take Senator Milne’s vow on face value of should it be taken as hyperbole or as something else entirely?
In order to explore this further, we must be aware that the political left has a history of ‘word play’, and the manipulation of language, and we see this played out on a daily basis in politics.
While the Greens continue to call for an open door to Australia for asylum seekers, there is an intrenched belief in the party that Australia’s population, indeed the world’s is beyond its ecological ‘carrying capacity’. Therefore, can we take them at their word? Do the Greens sincerely wish to provide a safe haven for refugees when their belief is that Australia’s population is already considerably more than it should be?
It is quite clear that given the gross inconsistencies in Greens policy, we cannot take them at their word when it comes to position statements. Nor can they credibly claim to hold the moral high ground with their glaring inconsistencies.
But this final statement by Senator Milne, to be ‘more dangerous than ever,’ perhaps can be taken as it is stated. And furthermore, unveils more truly the mission and intent of the party.
Photo by Jeremy Buckingham MLC 
Senator Milne said that although she will no longer be a member of parliament, she vows to remain a Greens activist and will be ‘more dangerous than ever’.
This final statement by Senator Milne leaves us with some unanswered questions.
Is this violent language acceptable for our political leaders to use, particularly given the issues of domestic violence which the Greens’ purport to be fighting against?
Furthermore, it begs the examination of the use of language by politicians, particularly those on the left. Should we take Senator Milne’s vow on face value of should it be taken as hyperbole or as something else entirely?
In order to explore this further, we must be aware that the political left has a history of ‘word play’, and the manipulation of language, and we see this played out on a daily basis in politics.
While the Greens continue to call for an open door to Australia for asylum seekers, there is an intrenched belief in the party that Australia’s population, indeed the world’s is beyond its ecological ‘carrying capacity’. Therefore, can we take them at their word? Do the Greens sincerely wish to provide a safe haven for refugees when their belief is that Australia’s population is already considerably more than it should be?
It is quite clear that given the gross inconsistencies in Greens policy, we cannot take them at their word when it comes to position statements. Nor can they credibly claim to hold the moral high ground with their glaring inconsistencies.
But this final statement by Senator Milne, to be ‘more dangerous than ever,’ perhaps can be taken as it is stated. And furthermore, unveils more truly the mission and intent of the party.
Photo by Jeremy Buckingham MLC An open letter to the Prime Minister of Australia
Dear Prime Minister,
We applaud Australia’s commitment to a free and independent press, and we support the substantial government commitment to fund this.
Given the gross failure of the ABC to self-regulate, most shockingly in this week’s episode of Q&A when the ABC became a platform for a convicted criminal to make a call to arms, it is clear that the ABC is failing the Australian public. It is presenting material which serves a progressive agenda, while presenting this biased news as though it is unbiased. This means that the ABC is serving the needs of less than half of the Australian population, while receiving funding from the whole of the Australian population.
We believe that now is the time to recognise that there is no such thing as “unbiased” media, and instead follow the principle that Federal Broadcasting funding is to be split across the political spectrum. At The XYZ, we will be proudly catering to the needs of Australians who believe in free speech, free markets, and freedom from regulation. Most importantly, we will have the decency to openly declare this bias.
As such we await your cheque for $500 million.
You can view The XYZ website at www.xyz.net.au, or our Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/itsyourxyz and we hope at least that your visit can give you a good chuckle.
Ours sincerely,
David Hiscox & Jeremy Morgan
The Editors,
The XYZ.
Click here to read the letter.
The myth of Conservative “Dog-Whistle Politics” – Update
Update:
Events over the last weekend, whereby Australia’s political establishment went into overdrive to avoid calling an Islamic inspired terrorist attack an Islamic inspired terrorist attack, provide a good opportunity to revisit this XYZ article from June 24, 2015. It dissects the left’s charge of racism whenever anybody, whether they be from the left, right or the middle of the political spectrum, attempts to speak plainly about the facts with regards to immigration, terrorism, and/or Islam:
The farce on Q&A on Monday night provides a good opportunity to examine an article of faith to “progressives.” This article of faith helps them maintain their cognitive dissonance on the issue of terrorism and human trafficking. “Dog-whistle racism” is often referred to by the left whenever a conservative speaks common sense on these matters. The charge is that while avoiding saying anything overtly racist, a political message can resonate with people’s “unconscious racism.”
Regarding immigration, when conservatives highlight the need for orderly immigration to maintain broad support for its size and scope, “progressives” seize on this as code for; “We know you are afraid of black and brown people, so we will make sure fewer of them have the chance to come here.” It is as though the broad desire to keep the intake of new people in to this country orderly, could not possibly be a genuine, reasonable view. This blindness is a product of viewing the history and nature of Australia as grounded in racism, theft and exploitation. If instead you view it as a mix of tremendous achievements, awful mistakes, with an ultimately positive legacy, you will understand the need to keep immigration orderly, to protect both your country’s sovereignty and its character.
An idea even more remote to “progressives” is that this desire could be based on genuine humanitarianism. The more orderly the immigration, the less people who drown just off our coast, and the more people we can help. This is exactly what happened under Howard government- Australia had the highest immigration and refugee intake it ever had- and it is now highly like that the intake will be able to increase again.
It has been written on these pages before and it deserves repeating:
“It is mind-boggling that those who call for “compassion” and “mercy” for refugees can advocate a policy which causes them nothing but abject suffering, and the policy which they decry as “racist” and a crime against humanity is the policy which helps refugees the most.”
With regard to terrorism, “progressives” love to be very selective about how they present and downplay it. Take this extract from an article which appeared on The Drum yesterday:
“Scared and angry enough yet? Sufficiently distracted from climate change, from the stalled economy, from the 45 women violently killed by men in Australia so far this year? Is your attention entirely fixed on terror (that existential threat which in 2015 has killed precisely zero Australians)?
“Fear, as Dee Madigan succinctly put it on Q&A last night, sells. It particularly sells for governments, because people don’t like to change governments when they’re scared. And how is it sold to us? By the constant turning of the screw.”
This ignores the fact that the Islamic State is committing genocide and ethnic cleansing in Iraq and Syria against anybody who is not a Sunni Muslim. Some of the oldest Christian communities in Iraq and Syria, dating back nearly 2000 years, are effectively “finished.” In December, Man Honis murdered two Australians in the Martin Place siege and several more have been foiled this year. The Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris in January is the most notorious to occur in the West in recent years, but this pales in comparison with the hell occurring outside our sanitised borders.
One of the key factors in the increase in worldwide refugee numbers has been the role of the Islamic State across the Middle East and North Africa. Europe is buckling under an unprecedented number of refugees. Even more tragic is the staggering number of refugees who have drowned in the process. The cause for this is two-fold; the “luring of migrants to their deaths” in the form of guaranteed residency or government assistance to those who come to Europe, regardless of how they arrived; and the power vacuums into which the Islamic State has been able to take root, triggering refugee crises and giving the people smugglers a free hand.
The straw man of the dog whistle is insulting and victim-blaming for several reasons. It ignores the fact that many Australians who back strong border protection and a tough stance against terrorism have an intimate understanding of global politics. It is insulting to the victims of terror across the Western world, attributing their deaths to just “random” violence by mentally ill “lone wolves.” And it is insulting to the hundreds of thousands of victims who are forced to flee their homelands, to die in the desert, drown in the Mediterranean, or be subjected to the limbo of refugee camps. There is no doubt that terrorism poses or posed an existential threat to the Christians of Mosul, to the Yazidis of Mount Sinjar, or the Kurds of Kobane.
This complexity is lost on those who argue that the right are playing the politics of fear. One is reminded of the brilliant lines from the film Donnie Darko:
Donnie: Life isn’t that simple. I mean who cares if Ling Ling returns the wallet and keeps the money? It has nothing to do with either fear or love.
Kitty Farmer: Fear and love are the deepest of human emotions.
Donnie: Okay. But you’re not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account here. Like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can’t just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else!
Ironically the left is so dogged regarding the right’s use of the “dog-whistle” that it believes its own BS. This was no more apparent than at the last election, when a desperate Labor government thought that the only way they could win was to try a bit of dog-whistle politics themselves. For example, the fuss Gillard made over abuses of the 457 Visas for foreign workers. Even before it was revealed that the entire episode was a beat-up, Australians recognised it and rejected it as a xenophobic tactic.
Similarly, Rudd employed clumsy and out of character language on asylum seekers:
“From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees.”
He may have felt that using such strong language may enamour him with the Australian people, but his assumption that Australians would respond positively to implied racism backfired for three reasons:
1) Australians are not racist,
2) He was reimplementing Coalition policy which he had originally been responsible for dismantling,
3) The Australian people did not trust Labor to have the courage of conviction to navigate the difficult moral map, nor the political will to carry out the difficult decisions required, to make such a policy work.
There is thus an important distinction between when a conservative and a progressive talk tough on these issues. Conservatives strongly believe in the sanctity of national sovereignty, and they understand the dilemmas involved in making tough decisions and imposing unquestionably harsh rules in order to save lives. Progressives, on the other hand, give the impression that they are mouthing things they don’t really believe in, but they know they must say in order to remain viable. This is why they think we are being racist- because deep down, they are cynical toward the idea of strong borders, of the nation itself. Their ideology places a sense of guilt over everything that makes them who they are, so they have no concept of being able to stand up and defend unequivocally their nation, or themselves.
The ultimate lesson from all of this is that Australians have a common sense understanding of the difficult decisions necessary to protect our national sovereignty and national security. Australians don’t respond positively to racism. Above all, we are utterly repulsed by the thought that we can be pushed into supporting despicable policies by manipulating racism or the politics of fear.
An idea even more remote to “progressives” is that this desire could be based on genuine humanitarianism. The more orderly the immigration, the less people who drown just off our coast, and the more people we can help. This is exactly what happened under Howard government- Australia had the highest immigration and refugee intake it ever had- and it is now highly like that the intake will be able to increase again.
It has been written on these pages before and it deserves repeating:
“It is mind-boggling that those who call for “compassion” and “mercy” for refugees can advocate a policy which causes them nothing but abject suffering, and the policy which they decry as “racist” and a crime against humanity is the policy which helps refugees the most.”
With regard to terrorism, “progressives” love to be very selective about how they present and downplay it. Take this extract from an article which appeared on The Drum yesterday:
“Scared and angry enough yet? Sufficiently distracted from climate change, from the stalled economy, from the 45 women violently killed by men in Australia so far this year? Is your attention entirely fixed on terror (that existential threat which in 2015 has killed precisely zero Australians)?
“Fear, as Dee Madigan succinctly put it on Q&A last night, sells. It particularly sells for governments, because people don’t like to change governments when they’re scared. And how is it sold to us? By the constant turning of the screw.”
This ignores the fact that the Islamic State is committing genocide and ethnic cleansing in Iraq and Syria against anybody who is not a Sunni Muslim. Some of the oldest Christian communities in Iraq and Syria, dating back nearly 2000 years, are effectively “finished.” In December, Man Honis murdered two Australians in the Martin Place siege and several more have been foiled this year. The Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris in January is the most notorious to occur in the West in recent years, but this pales in comparison with the hell occurring outside our sanitised borders.
One of the key factors in the increase in worldwide refugee numbers has been the role of the Islamic State across the Middle East and North Africa. Europe is buckling under an unprecedented number of refugees. Even more tragic is the staggering number of refugees who have drowned in the process. The cause for this is two-fold; the “luring of migrants to their deaths” in the form of guaranteed residency or government assistance to those who come to Europe, regardless of how they arrived; and the power vacuums into which the Islamic State has been able to take root, triggering refugee crises and giving the people smugglers a free hand.
The straw man of the dog whistle is insulting and victim-blaming for several reasons. It ignores the fact that many Australians who back strong border protection and a tough stance against terrorism have an intimate understanding of global politics. It is insulting to the victims of terror across the Western world, attributing their deaths to just “random” violence by mentally ill “lone wolves.” And it is insulting to the hundreds of thousands of victims who are forced to flee their homelands, to die in the desert, drown in the Mediterranean, or be subjected to the limbo of refugee camps. There is no doubt that terrorism poses or posed an existential threat to the Christians of Mosul, to the Yazidis of Mount Sinjar, or the Kurds of Kobane.
This complexity is lost on those who argue that the right are playing the politics of fear. One is reminded of the brilliant lines from the film Donnie Darko:
Donnie: Life isn’t that simple. I mean who cares if Ling Ling returns the wallet and keeps the money? It has nothing to do with either fear or love.
Kitty Farmer: Fear and love are the deepest of human emotions.
Donnie: Okay. But you’re not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account here. Like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can’t just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else!
Ironically the left is so dogged regarding the right’s use of the “dog-whistle” that it believes its own BS. This was no more apparent than at the last election, when a desperate Labor government thought that the only way they could win was to try a bit of dog-whistle politics themselves. For example, the fuss Gillard made over abuses of the 457 Visas for foreign workers. Even before it was revealed that the entire episode was a beat-up, Australians recognised it and rejected it as a xenophobic tactic.
Similarly, Rudd employed clumsy and out of character language on asylum seekers:
“From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees.”
He may have felt that using such strong language may enamour him with the Australian people, but his assumption that Australians would respond positively to implied racism backfired for three reasons:
1) Australians are not racist,
2) He was reimplementing Coalition policy which he had originally been responsible for dismantling,
3) The Australian people did not trust Labor to have the courage of conviction to navigate the difficult moral map, nor the political will to carry out the difficult decisions required, to make such a policy work.
There is thus an important distinction between when a conservative and a progressive talk tough on these issues. Conservatives strongly believe in the sanctity of national sovereignty, and they understand the dilemmas involved in making tough decisions and imposing unquestionably harsh rules in order to save lives. Progressives, on the other hand, give the impression that they are mouthing things they don’t really believe in, but they know they must say in order to remain viable. This is why they think we are being racist- because deep down, they are cynical toward the idea of strong borders, of the nation itself. Their ideology places a sense of guilt over everything that makes them who they are, so they have no concept of being able to stand up and defend unequivocally their nation, or themselves.
The ultimate lesson from all of this is that Australians have a common sense understanding of the difficult decisions necessary to protect our national sovereignty and national security. Australians don’t respond positively to racism. Above all, we are utterly repulsed by the thought that we can be pushed into supporting despicable policies by manipulating racism or the politics of fear. The ABC in crisis: It has just gone fully into denial
What the ABC reported after last nights Q&A:
But wait! After an “in depth” investigation, XYZ found the victim had previously been the subject of a hard hitting interview by the ABC. In January 2013, Mallah was a member of a panel interviewed by ABC journalist Stephanie Smail. According to Smail, Mallah started the Free Syria Army Australia group.
Let’s follow up on this! http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3889030.htm. Key extracts of this interview seemed consistent with last night’s podium performance. ABC advising in 2013 how to go to Jihad?!?:
“Steve Ciobo tells man acquitted of terrorism charges, Zaky Mallah, that he should no longer be a citizen.” BY POLITICAL REPORTER MATTHEW DORANWho is Zaky Mallah? The good guy “victim” owns a twitter account, https://mobile.twitter.com/zakymallah, and he even has a wikipedia profile, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaky_Mallah.
But wait! After an “in depth” investigation, XYZ found the victim had previously been the subject of a hard hitting interview by the ABC. In January 2013, Mallah was a member of a panel interviewed by ABC journalist Stephanie Smail. According to Smail, Mallah started the Free Syria Army Australia group.
Let’s follow up on this! http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3889030.htm. Key extracts of this interview seemed consistent with last night’s podium performance. ABC advising in 2013 how to go to Jihad?!?:
The ABC understands Australians who’ve expressed an interest in fighting in Syria can use Australian contacts to connect with armed groups. Zaky Mallah says many Australians wait until they reach the border to join a specific group. ZAKY MALLAH: It’s as simple as going to the border, the Turkish/Syrian border. I mean once you’re there and you cross into Syria, you can pretty much ask for what you want. If you want to join a humanitarian aid group, they’ll link you to the group within the next few hours. If you want to join a fighting platoon, you’re one phone call away from that.And later – after highlighting his legal victory (like OJ Simpson, who was judged not-guilty of murder), the victim gushes with admiration for Jihadis:
STEPHANIE SMAIL: Zaky Mallah was previously charged under Australian anti-terror laws but found not guilty. He describes the group that’s claiming responsibility for the attack, Jabhat Al Nusra, as an elite fighting force with deep religious beliefs. ZAKY MALLAH: Some of these individuals have had experience fighting in Iraq against US troops. Jabhat Al Nusra has had fighters for Russian forces in Chechnya. This organisation more or less, Jabhat Al Nusra is the elite. They have the best of all best foreign fighters who are gathered in one location in parts of Syria taking on as a force to the frontline, so these guys are pretty heavy duty.And finally, lets talk about the religious righteousness and truthfulness of the Jihadis:
STEPHANIE SMAIL: But he doesn’t believe the group would lie about the background of the suicide bomber. ZAKY MALLAH: Jabhat Al Nusra is not an organisation that is willing to lie, Jabhat Al Nusra are straightforward and once they declare something on their website, 100 per cent of the time you’ll find it, it’s always true and very credible. You might find other platoons, other groups, you know, they may use propaganda here and there. But with Jabhat Al Nusra for example, because it’s a religious ideology and most of the fighters are very, very religious, you’ll find that most of their footages that they release or videos that they release on the website, is I could say 100 per cent true.After last night’s performance, the ABC can be accused of many things. But it is consistent. It is unwilling to be self critical despite the Leftist-Islamic rabbit hole it has crawled into. And it is now an unashamed Jihadist propaganda tool. Is this your ABC?
Top 10 Reasons why the ABC is not biased.
10) The Greens cannot afford to fund their own national propaganda network.
9) Too often terrorists are marginalised. In the interests of diversity and inclusion they must be given a prime time platform.
8) Someone once found them not guilty of bias or something or other… so the science is settled.
7) It is our ABC.
6) Because the ABC has a charter that binds it to institutional impartiality. If it were, hypothetically, to breach its charter, it would be subject to accountability and remedial actions.
5) We will settle this on Q&A. And we can assure you, the audience will find us not guilty.
4) Who said that the ABC is biased? We will send some people around to change your mind.
3) Because any time unfounded allegations are made, ALL Australians defend us, and not just Labor and the Greens
2) Charter? What Charter? Vote Green.
1) Because F*ck Abbott!
9) Too often terrorists are marginalised. In the interests of diversity and inclusion they must be given a prime time platform.
8) Someone once found them not guilty of bias or something or other… so the science is settled.
7) It is our ABC.6) Because the ABC has a charter that binds it to institutional impartiality. If it were, hypothetically, to breach its charter, it would be subject to accountability and remedial actions.
5) We will settle this on Q&A. And we can assure you, the audience will find us not guilty.
4) Who said that the ABC is biased? We will send some people around to change your mind.
3) Because any time unfounded allegations are made, ALL Australians defend us, and not just Labor and the Greens
2) Charter? What Charter? Vote Green.
1) Because F*ck Abbott!
Corporate Gender and Diversity Targets made Easy: one top CEO tells us how!
In a spectacular development for corporate Australia, the Board of one of the nation’s largest companies, and biggest employers, has announced the full achievement of the Australian Stock Exchange’s gender and diversity targets, literally overnight. This particular ASX top 200 company had been a frequent target for criticism, widely condemned for the composition of its Board, which had remained stubbornly all white, and all male, despite the longstanding diversity policy and program initiated by the ASX and strongly promoted by it.
XYZ has obtained access to confidential board minutes and other papers that confirm the stunning development, and was also able to secure an exclusive interview with the CEO of the Board concerned, who spoke to us on the condition of anonymity, and in a curiously high pitched voice with the hint of a sub-continental accent:
XYZ: “Can you tell us how your Board came to transform itself, and achieve the ASX gender and diversity targets, literally overnight?”
Anonymous CEO: “It was after an especially long dinner following an especially short board meeting, and after a particularly pleasing brandy was served.”
XYZ: “What happened?”
Anonymous CEO: “One of our oldest and most experienced board members actually spoke, something he hadn’t done for many years. We all paid immediate attention of course. This gender and diversity thing had been on the agenda for years, years, and we hadn’t found a way to meet the targets, not even to start. He claimed to have the answer. We were all ears, I tell you, all ears.”
XYZ: “What had been preventing you implementing the gender and diversity policy?”
Anonymous CEO: “The little matter of merit just kept on presenting itself. But our esteemed senior member declared he knew a way forward, and it all came together right there and then, over the brandy and cigars in the Club lounge. Jolly marvellous, what!”
XYZ: “What was his plan and how was it achieved so quickly?”
Anonymous CEO: “Simple really. His plan was, in a nutshell, this – let’s just ask half the Board members to declare that, henceforth, they identify as female, and let David wear a skirt to the next meeting and insist on being called Diana, and so on – and let the other half, who are remaining notionally male, that is everyone else, insist on identifying as whatever ethnicity or cultural group takes their fancy, and there it is. Done.”
XYZ: “Brilliant. Do you think your senior member was inspired by anything in particular?”
Anonymous CEO: “The brandy…”
XYZ: “Anything else?”
Anonymous CEO: “The cigars perhaps.”
XYZ: “Thank you very much for your time Mr…”
Anonymous CEO: “Please don’t address me in a patronising way. I insist on being called Miss, and if you must use first names, you can call me Indira, especially when wearing this sari.”
XYZ: “Can you tell us how your Board came to transform itself, and achieve the ASX gender and diversity targets, literally overnight?”
Anonymous CEO: “It was after an especially long dinner following an especially short board meeting, and after a particularly pleasing brandy was served.”
XYZ: “What happened?”
Anonymous CEO: “One of our oldest and most experienced board members actually spoke, something he hadn’t done for many years. We all paid immediate attention of course. This gender and diversity thing had been on the agenda for years, years, and we hadn’t found a way to meet the targets, not even to start. He claimed to have the answer. We were all ears, I tell you, all ears.”
XYZ: “What had been preventing you implementing the gender and diversity policy?”
Anonymous CEO: “The little matter of merit just kept on presenting itself. But our esteemed senior member declared he knew a way forward, and it all came together right there and then, over the brandy and cigars in the Club lounge. Jolly marvellous, what!”
XYZ: “What was his plan and how was it achieved so quickly?”
Anonymous CEO: “Simple really. His plan was, in a nutshell, this – let’s just ask half the Board members to declare that, henceforth, they identify as female, and let David wear a skirt to the next meeting and insist on being called Diana, and so on – and let the other half, who are remaining notionally male, that is everyone else, insist on identifying as whatever ethnicity or cultural group takes their fancy, and there it is. Done.”
XYZ: “Brilliant. Do you think your senior member was inspired by anything in particular?”
Anonymous CEO: “The brandy…”
XYZ: “Anything else?”
Anonymous CEO: “The cigars perhaps.”
XYZ: “Thank you very much for your time Mr…”
Anonymous CEO: “Please don’t address me in a patronising way. I insist on being called Miss, and if you must use first names, you can call me Indira, especially when wearing this sari.” Bread and Circuses
OMG! Dangerous climate change is now at such critical levels that the inner city lefties of Fitzroy and Newtown may not be able to get a nicely raised and glazed loaf of bread at their favourite boulangerie.
Never mind that if this catastrophic climate prediction were really true the vast majority of the world’s poor won’t get any bread at all and will likely starve. The good burghers of Fitzroy and Newtown must have their soy loaf risen to perfection and nicely glazed. How can one enjoy a double decaf soy latte without it?
What climate change will do to your loaf of bread