Isn't it funny how fickle the voting public are, or how easy they can be manipulated by the media. One minute Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama are lifted up to to take the blame for the stimulus packages that had to be brought in (because of the greedy monetary policies of the Howard / Bush years), next they are kicked around by the very media that raised them.
If the Democrat's power is knobled by the mid term election, then no one should be happier than the irresponsible neo-cons who collapsed the world's economy and got bailed out by the Rudd / Obama temporary governments. Before you, the gullible public, can say BO is on the nose, things should get back to normal where the banks can start the cycle all over again.
Good on ya Murdock, Packer and public news casting services, where would we be with out you.
STOP BUYING IT!
Groups or organizations such as Churches, Governments, Military, Police and Corporations demand obedience at various levels and if one is highly disciplined at obeying their orders, then personal responsibility can be negated.
A soldier can use the defence "I was only obeying orders"
A Jehovah's Witness "my religion doesn't allow for blood transfusions"
A good citizen " the government allows me to sell cancer causing products"
If one is to remain highly disciplined and loyal to their organization yet be involved in activities such as human rights abuse, obvious stupidities and state sponsored murder, then the institutions they subscribe to must be held responsible not the individuals. When soldiers are brought up on charges of human rights abuse, quite often, they are tried by the very organizations that initiated the behaviour. When someone dies from lack of an available medical procedure a Church deemed inappropriate, then it's the individual who suffers and the institutions get away Scott free. When someone dies of cancer directly attributable to government taxed and approved products, then we as witnesses should be duty bound to hold the government to account and not point the finger at the victim. When a teenager gets drunk on socially approved liquor, jumps in a legally registered hot rod and raps himself and his girlfriend around a telegraph pole, we should be marching in the streets demanding accountability from the ones who have continually ignored the obvious remedy; tighter government restrictions regardless of the loss of revenue.
We the people have allowed our elected representatives, clergy and Captains of industry to get away with murder, while they continually point the finger at the victims. They spend tax payers money on advertizing campaigns that take the emphasis off their lack of responsibility and place it on the disempowered individual. STOP BUYING IT!
The decision points to bad intelligence traumatizing a generation and redefining human rights abuse, to please oneself, regardless of the consequences.
Lazarus comes forth
Lazarus was dead in his electorate, but arose on comman
Even if you are the Prime Minister of a great country and take on the Mining companies, you are going to get your butt kicked. If you want to rid the country of the evils of Alcohol, Tobacco and Gambling, the might of those industries will assure your demise. So to disagree with the need to be involved in war, on an ongoing basis, is suicide because the veracious military dynasties will not tolerate a reduction in the funding for their activities. War must go on, just as cigarettes and grog must continue to be sold, poker machines fed, coal mined and the collateral damage sustained.
Is it only me or does anybody else find it absurd that the combined, most expensive and ridiculously equipped armies, navies and air forces of the western world cannot seem to be able to win a single war against various groups whom have no warships, tanks or supersonic aircraft?
Taxpayers of America, Europe and Australia watch year after year as their hard earned funds are channelled into mega battles, until the well paid Generals get around to admitting that the only way to get out of their predicaments is to train the “locals” in the finer arts of war.
Now call me naive, if you will, but I think a cost/benefit analysis of this situation would significantly prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it would be better to get the “locals” to train our Generals in the art of how to effectively run a war without all the expensive tanks, battleships and jet fighters.
Hands up those who think the real reasons behind these farcical incursions are more about keeping all the Generals, Admirals, Majors, Lieutenants and Captains in paid employment and really cool toys, rather than protecting the taxpayers that pay their wages.
The RAAF's plans to acquire up to 100 F-35 joint strike fighters faces a further delay until next year as budget pressures continue to bear down on the government. In a long-awaited decision, cabinet's national security committee was due to sign off on the $16 billion purchase before Christmas and despite the outrageously price solution, conspiricy theorists insist that the money would be well spent, instead of providing more toys for the boy's to fight an imaginary war against an opposition that doesn't even have a figure head that can be found. An American spokesperson say's that they don't care what they are for, as long as they get the money.
When do we get around to having a media/citizen discussion on a cost/benefit analysis of a National Broadband Network verses having a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program or maybe a Very Fast Train?
TONY JONES: We will come to the cost/benefit question; Malcolm Turnbull, let's start with you. You've demanded a cost/benefit analysis, so let's start with the cost side of this equation. You claim the Government is proposing to spend $43 billion of taxpayers' money on the NBN. Is this literally true or are you fudging the figures?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: But can I just say, the reality is the taxpayer is the one that is on the hook, and just because he's putting $26 billion of taxpayers' equity in, putting it - ranking behind $16 or $17 billion of debt doesn't make it any less reckless.
STEPHEN CONROY: Well, notwithstanding Malcolm avoiding answering your question directly, Tony, both McKinsey's and now Mike Quigley have indicated that the figure is between $26 and 27 billion, not 43, as Malcolm just tried to claim incorrectly yet again. And we spent $25 million on a McKinsey's report into the business case which went through all of this information. It provided a business case that said the NBN is financially viable and affordable for Australia
GREGG COMBET: The aim of this conference is to help bring Australian technology and innovation together to the benefit of the JSF Program, because it is through our partnership in the JSF Program, the world‚s largest collaborative defence program, that we will meet our strategic and economic goals.
ERIC PALMER: There is no sound proof to state that the JSF F-35 program will meet “our strategic and economic goals”. If anything the aircraft will be sub-par as a weapon system and the definition of “economic goals” needs to be defined in significant detail by the Minister. I doubt that he has a grasp on this beyond some casual PowerPoint briefs that are based on Lockheed Martin talking points. In other words: “The fox telling the farmer, the definition of a chicken”. Unless the program shows proof of life with more orders of aircraft, Australia’s participation in this program will be a taxpayer-funded loss-leader. The hook was the seller of the aircraft (along with government support) stating that up to $5B in home industry work-share was possible with the program. (Note: This was promised to most JSF partner nations in briefings not just Australia.) This included the hype of up to $9B of home industry participation if the program did really well. What does Australian industry have so far? Not much but a few hundred million in contracts for a very troubled program. (1)(2)(3)
Long range estimates suddenly look bad when 3 different U.S. government agencies show that costs will increase dramatically. (4)
(1) Carlo Kopp, Is the Joint Strike Fighter Right For Australia? Part 1—JSF V F-22, Australian Aviation, P1, April 2004, Adobe Acrobat Reader file, accessed 4 May 2010, (Note: set your Adobe Reader program to view in single page mode if needed as there is one graphic in this document that can blow-out the right and left viewing margins) http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-JSF-Apr-04-P.pdf
(2) Carlo Kopp, Is the Joint Strike Fighter Right For Australia? Part 2—JSF V Risk Factors, Australian Aviation, P34, May 2004, Adobe Acrobat Reader file, accessed 4 May 2010,http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-JSF-May-04-P.pdf
The author states the strategic risks in many ways but this quote at the end sums up what a layperson should first consider. “The stark reality is that whatever aircraft is chosen, Australia will have to live with it into the 2040 timescale. Choices which might look just good enough against the region today will not be competitive two to three decades hence, as a wealthier Asia invests increasingly in modern airpower.”
Newer analysis shows that it may be sooner than two decades for the risk to appear. This new analysis shows that if Australia purchases the F-35 JSF, that it will arrive for service in an obsolete condition.
(3) Peter Goon, Affordability and the new air combat capability, ADA Defender, Q4 2005, accessed 4 May 2010. Adobe Acrobat Reader file-http://www.ausairpower.net/NACC-Defender-Winter-2005.pdf
We were warned about economic viability of the F-35 JSF program as far back as 2005- “According to the April issue of Defence, some 18 Australian companies have won contracts to a value of over $A60m in the SDD phase. Even assuming a healthy EBIT (‘profit’) from these contracts of 15 per cent, and considering the level of investment being made by Government and Industry to win this work, such a ‘loss leader’ business model is certainly a courageous move on the part of all involved.”
(4) Bill Sweetman, JSF in the Dock, Aviation Week-ARES, 11 March 2010, accessed 4 March 2010.http://tinyurl.com/2ex76c7
Anyone claiming at this time that the F-35 JSF is somehow affordable can’t be taken seriously as there has been no proof except long range estimates. Note; In the world of Lockheed Martin and F-35 cheerleaders, long range estimates are great if they show a mythical low price for the aircraft. Long range estimates suddenly look bad when 3 different U.S. government agencies show that costs will increase dramatically.
Isn't it amazing how we, as a civilized bunch of evolved beings, can deplore road fatalities yet cheer for and acclaim racing drivers on any weekend in the year of living dangerously? Somehow or other we don't associate our lust for speed related recreational activities with the road toll, but common sense would assure us that promotion of speed demon activities, will inevitably raise the cost of human sacrifice on our roads.
We, the educated public , conveniently ignore the obvious and allow governments to promote the very thing that comes home to haunt us; in the horror of hospital casualties. Don't fret yourself on this Bathurst weekend, you can be assured most of your loyal Aussie compatriots will be cheering for Holden or Ford and will not consider, for one moment, the effect it will have on the next generation. Death on our roads is inevitable until the government starts to take seriously the consequences of their inaction.
It never ceases to amaze me how the process of convincing sceptics, follows such a predictable path.
When the first signs of great and important truths are uncovered, the visionary is labelled a loony. Then when a few brave souls begin to come out of the closest and support the work, they are labelled as conspiracy theorists. If then they are going to have any chance of progressing the "theory" they have to band together and become a radical faction of the left. The conventional left then, reluctantly, begins to take it on as policy as the right consolidates it's forces in opposition because the right NEVER agrees with the left. Eventually, as scientific evidence accumulates to a point where it can't be denied any longer, the whole process moves into a go slow phase, to give the ones who made fools of themselves time to find a new issue to deny; so they don't have to admit they were wrong.