The Insiders program has thrown Piers Akerman off the show, because of a few comments about Julia Gillard's "partner". They threw conservative Glenn Milne off the show in 2011. Now they have all of two conservative commentators on the show (maybe three if you include Michael Strutchbury, but IMO he's more neutral), Gerard Henderson and Niki Savva. This in contrast to an absolute plethora of leftists.

The ABC isn't biased? No, not at all.  ::)

If you spend half of your time bad mouthing the employer what do you expect.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 8:45pm:

If you spend half of your time bad mouthing the employer what do you expect.

The ABC technically wasn't his employer (for the money he received from appearing on the program). That would be the taxpayer.

Cool! Might start watching Insiders again. Naahh

We shouldn't feed the little troll it just gives her air.

Thank God.

That stupid fat turd was an embarrassment. You could literally see the panelists cringe whenever he said anything.

So a rightard was sacked for making idiotic personal remarks that could attract a lawsuit. And we are surprised at this?

matty wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 8:34pm:

The Insiders program has thrown Piers Akerman off the show, because of a few comments about Julia Gillard's "partner". They threw conservative Glenn Milne off the show in 2011. Now they have all of two conservative commentators on the show (maybe three if you include Michael Strutchbury, but IMO he's more neutral), Gerard Henderson and Niki Savva. This in contrast to an absolute plethora of leftists. The ABC isn't biased? No, not at all.  ::)

Well, no. It isn't.

When is your peanut-brain finally going to absorb that?

You're becoming both pathetic and extremely tiresome pushing this 'bias' BS.

skippy. wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 9:02pm:

We shouldn't feed the little troll it just gives her air.

Now that's no way to talk about yourself.

Bam wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 9:05pm:

So a rightard was sacked for making idiotic personal remarks that could attract a lawsuit. And we are surprised at this?

Do you know what happened, or are you just regurgitating what you were told by the ABC and Fairfax?

Kat wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

matty wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 8:34pm: The Insiders program has thrown Piers Akerman off the show, because of a few comments about Julia Gillard's "partner". They threw conservative Glenn Milne off the show in 2011. Now they have all of two conservative commentators on the show (maybe three if you include Michael Strutchbury, but IMO he's more neutral), Gerard Henderson and Niki Savva. This in contrast to an absolute plethora of leftists. The ABC isn't biased? No, not at all.  ::) Well, no. It isn't. When is your peanut-brain finally going to absorb that? You're becoming both pathetic and extremely tiresome pushing this 'bias' BS.

You're becoming both pathetic and extremely tiresome with your bitterness and whining that your side lost the election.

It is good the fat blowhard is gone and it seems he brought it on himself.

He is no journo, just a commentator, like Andrew Dolt, peddling nonsense like his made–up “Heiner Affair.”

matty wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 9:16pm:

Kat wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 9:08pm: matty wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 8:34pm: The Insiders program has thrown Piers Akerman off the show, because of a few comments about Julia Gillard's "partner". They threw conservative Glenn Milne off the show in 2011. Now they have all of two conservative commentators on the show (maybe three if you include Michael Strutchbury, but IMO he's more neutral), Gerard Henderson and Niki Savva. This in contrast to an absolute plethora of leftists. The ABC isn't biased? No, not at all.  ::) Well, no. It isn't. When is your peanut-brain finally going to absorb that? You're becoming both pathetic and extremely tiresome pushing this 'bias' BS. You're becoming both pathetic and extremely tiresome with your bitterness and whining that your side lost the election.

Only in your tiny mind (which seems to be becoming even tinier).

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 9:17pm:

It is good the fat blowhard is gone and it seems he brought it on himself. He is no journo, just a commentator, like Andrew Dolt, peddling nonsense like his made–up “Heiner Affair.”

Just when you think that the left can't stoop any lower, they go and do it. They want to cover up union corruption, and now you want to cover up child abuse.

Kat wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 9:20pm:

matty wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 9:16pm: Kat wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 9:08pm: matty wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 8:34pm: The Insiders program has thrown Piers Akerman off the show, because of a few comments about Julia Gillard's "partner". They threw conservative Glenn Milne off the show in 2011. Now they have all of two conservative commentators on the show (maybe three if you include Michael Strutchbury, but IMO he's more neutral), Gerard Henderson and Niki Savva. This in contrast to an absolute plethora of leftists. The ABC isn't biased? No, not at all.  ::) Well, no. It isn't. When is your peanut-brain finally going to absorb that? You're becoming both pathetic and extremely tiresome pushing this 'bias' BS. You're becoming both pathetic and extremely tiresome with your bitterness and whining that your side lost the election. Only in your tiny mind (which seems to be becoming even tinier).

No, many other posters here feel the same.

matty wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 9:22pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 9:17pm: It is good the fat blowhard is gone and it seems he brought it on himself. He is no journo, just a commentator, like Andrew Dolt, peddling nonsense like his made–up “Heiner Affair.” Just when you think that the left can't stoop any lower, they go and do it. They want to cover up union corruption, and now you want to cover up child abuse.

Heiner wasn’t looking into child abuse.

Who are they replacing him with

Pansi or spot or adelcrow would be good ABC choices

SHAME LABOR SHAME.

There are much better people than Ackerman to put the Conservative view forward.....Although Ackerman does have his comedy value when he is not being vile!!!

:) :) :)

Dnarever wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 8:45pm:

If you spend half of your time bad mouthing the employer what do you expect.

He isn't employed by the ABC, he is employed by News Ltd. Beyond that, it would be interesting for you to consider the GM of ABC's position under Abbott as PM (effectively his boss)...

matty wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 8:34pm:

The Insiders program has thrown Piers Akerman off the show, because of a few comments about Julia Gillard's "partner". They threw conservative Glenn Milne off the show in 2011. Now they have all of two conservative commentators on the show (maybe three if you include Michael Strutchbury, but IMO he's more neutral), Gerard Henderson and Niki Savva. This in contrast to an absolute plethora of leftists. The ABC isn't biased? No, not at all.  ::)

How is it bias to sack someone for being a liability?

Also i thought you go on about them being so biased they didnt have any trolls?

SOB

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 4:05am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 8:45pm: If you spend half of your time bad mouthing the employer what do you expect. He isn't employed by the ABC, he is employed by News Ltd. Beyond that, it would be interesting for you to consider the GM of ABC's position under Abbott as PM (effectively his boss)...

Insiders is a News Ltd program ?

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 9:34pm:

matty wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 9:22pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 9:17pm: It is good the fat blowhard is gone and it seems he brought it on himself. He is no journo, just a commentator, like Andrew Dolt, peddling nonsense like his made–up “Heiner Affair.” Just when you think that the left can't stoop any lower, they go and do it. They want to cover up union corruption, and now you want to cover up child abuse. Heiner wasn’t looking into child abuse.

Yes it was.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 4:31am:

matty wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 8:34pm: The Insiders program has thrown Piers Akerman off the show, because of a few comments about Julia Gillard's "partner". They threw conservative Glenn Milne off the show in 2011. Now they have all of two conservative commentators on the show (maybe three if you include Michael Strutchbury, but IMO he's more neutral), Gerard Henderson and Niki Savva. This in contrast to an absolute plethora of leftists. The ABC isn't biased? No, not at all.  ::) How is it bias to sack someone for being a liability? Also i thought you go on about them being so biased they didnt have any trolls? SOB

Sorry?

Dnarever wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 6:08am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 4:05am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 8:45pm: If you spend half of your time bad mouthing the employer what do you expect. He isn't employed by the ABC, he is employed by News Ltd. Beyond that, it would be interesting for you to consider the GM of ABC's position under Abbott as PM (effectively his boss)... Insiders is a News Ltd program ?

Who payed him when he was on the Insiders - the taxpayer, or the producers of the show?

Piers Akerman is like (not-a) Lord Monckton.  Gets far to much airtime than his fringe ideas warrant.

Good job dumping him.  Hopefully News Ltd will follow suit.

Good riddance to bad garbage!

The beauty of Insiders is the debate. It's dull when you get a bunch of erstwhile press gallery agreers. The producers were smart to mix it up by pitting Ackerman and Henderson against Marr and Manne, etc.

Sure, it's classic tabloid tactics, but it's fun.

Insiders without Piers won't be the same.

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 8:40am:

The beauty of Insiders is the debate. It's dull when you get a bunch of erstwhile press gallery agreers. The producers were smart to mix it up by pitting Ackerman and Henderson against Marr and Manne, etc. Sure, it's classic tabloid tactics, but it's fun. Insiders without Piers won't be the same.

THEY SHOULD PUT YOU, PECKER, MISTIE AND THE OLD BOY ON ;)

matty wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 8:52pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 8:45pm: If you spend half of your time bad mouthing the employer what do you expect. The ABC technically wasn't his employer (for the money he received from appearing on the program). That would be the taxpayer.

How a company receives its funding is irrelevant. ABC technically, and in reality, is the ABC and technically, and in reality, is the employer. Technically.  Reality.  Technically.

matty wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 8:09am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 6:08am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 4:05am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 8:45pm: If you spend half of your time bad mouthing the employer what do you expect. He isn't employed by the ABC, he is employed by News Ltd. Beyond that, it would be interesting for you to consider the GM of ABC's position under Abbott as PM (effectively his boss)... Insiders is a News Ltd program ? Who payed him when he was on the Insiders - the taxpayer, or the producers of the show?

The ABC.

Der. Not that difficult to understand. For people with brains.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 8:59am:

matty wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 6:08am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 4:05am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 8:45pm: If you spend half of your time bad mouthing the employer what do you expect. He isn't employed by the ABC, he is employed by News Ltd. Beyond that, it would be interesting for you to consider the GM of ABC's position under Abbott as PM (effectively his boss)... Insiders is a News Ltd program ? Who payed him when he was on the Insiders - the taxpayer, or the producers of the show? The ABC. Der. Not that difficult to understand. For people with brains.

From where did the money come? From the ABC producers, or from the taxpayer?

matty wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 9:04am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 8:59am: matty wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 6:08am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 4:05am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 8:45pm: If you spend half of your time bad mouthing the employer what do you expect. He isn't employed by the ABC, he is employed by News Ltd. Beyond that, it would be interesting for you to consider the GM of ABC's position under Abbott as PM (effectively his boss)... Insiders is a News Ltd program ? Who payed him when he was on the Insiders - the taxpayer, or the producers of the show? The ABC. Der. Not that difficult to understand. For people with brains. From where did the money come? From the aBC producers, or from the taxpayer?

You clearly don't understand. Sad. :(

PS: Producers aren't the ones who give money to tv stations.  Dumbass.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 9:06am:

matty wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:04am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 8:59am: matty wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 6:08am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 4:05am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 8:45pm: If you spend half of your time bad mouthing the employer what do you expect. He isn't employed by the ABC, he is employed by News Ltd. Beyond that, it would be interesting for you to consider the GM of ABC's position under Abbott as PM (effectively his boss)... Insiders is a News Ltd program ? Who payed him when he was on the Insiders - the taxpayer, or the producers of the show? The ABC. Der. Not that difficult to understand. For people with brains. From where did the money come? From the aBC producers, or from the taxpayer? You clearly don't understand. Sad. :( PS: Producers aren't the ones who give money to tv stations.  Dumbass.

Just answer the question.

matty wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 9:07am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:06am: matty wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:04am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 8:59am: matty wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 6:08am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 4:05am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 8:45pm: If you spend half of your time bad mouthing the employer what do you expect. He isn't employed by the ABC, he is employed by News Ltd. Beyond that, it would be interesting for you to consider the GM of ABC's position under Abbott as PM (effectively his boss)... Insiders is a News Ltd program ? Who payed him when he was on the Insiders - the taxpayer, or the producers of the show? The ABC. Der. Not that difficult to understand. For people with brains. From where did the money come? From the aBC producers, or from the taxpayer? You clearly don't understand. Sad. :( PS: Producers aren't the ones who give money to tv stations.  Dumbass. Just answer the question.

The money to Peckerman was authorised and credited into his bank account by the ABC company.
Dumbass ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 9:09am:

matty wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:07am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:06am: matty wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:04am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 8:59am: matty wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 6:08am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 4:05am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 8:45pm: If you spend half of your time bad mouthing the employer what do you expect. He isn't employed by the ABC, he is employed by News Ltd. Beyond that, it would be interesting for you to consider the GM of ABC's position under Abbott as PM (effectively his boss)... Insiders is a News Ltd program ? Who payed him when he was on the Insiders - the taxpayer, or the producers of the show? The ABC. Der. Not that difficult to understand. For people with brains. From where did the money come? From the aBC producers, or from the taxpayer? You clearly don't understand. Sad. :( PS: Producers aren't the ones who give money to tv stations.  Dumbass. Just answer the question. The  to Peckerman was authorised and credited into his bank account by the ABC company. Dumbass ;D

And from where did that money originally come? Was it from the taxpayers, or was it not? It's a very straightforward question.

matty wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 9:12am:

And from where did that money originally come? Was it from the taxpayers, or was it not? It's a very straightforward question.

That does not give any right to any tax payer to determine the hiring and firing of personnel at the ABC.

Otherwise someone give me the direct line to Gina, I want to complain about her hiring practices. Given more tax payer money goes to mining than the ABC, I think as a tax payer I have a say in how she runs her business. Dumbass ;D

If you believe this fantastic sacking of a moron somehow breaches the abc charter then run along and make the complaint. But I promise you that in this case everyone, absolutely EVERYONE, will laugh at you uncontrollably. They'll share in the joy we receive in this forum each and every day.

matty wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 9:07am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:06am: matty wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:04am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 8:59am: matty wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 6:08am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 4:05am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 8:45pm: If you spend half of your time bad mouthing the employer what do you expect. He isn't employed by the ABC, he is employed by News Ltd. Beyond that, it would be interesting for you to consider the GM of ABC's position under Abbott as PM (effectively his boss)... Insiders is a News Ltd program ? Who payed him when he was on the Insiders - the taxpayer, or the producers of the show? The ABC. Der. Not that difficult to understand. For people with brains. From where did the money come? From the aBC producers, or from the taxpayer? You clearly don't understand. Sad. :( PS: Producers aren't the ones who give money to tv stations.  Dumbass. Just answer the question.

Matty, it's us. We're the taxpayers. We pay the wages. We're the employers.

I trust we've put the matter to rest.

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 9:18am:

matty wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:07am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:06am: matty wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:04am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 8:59am: matty wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 6:08am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 4:05am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 8:45pm: If you spend half of your time bad mouthing the employer what do you expect. He isn't employed by the ABC, he is employed by News Ltd. Beyond that, it would be interesting for you to consider the GM of ABC's position under Abbott as PM (effectively his boss)... Insiders is a News Ltd program ? Who payed him when he was on the Insiders - the taxpayer, or the producers of the show? The ABC. Der. Not that difficult to understand. For people with brains. From where did the money come? From the aBC producers, or from the taxpayer? You clearly don't understand. Sad. :( PS: Producers aren't the ones who give money to tv stations.  Dumbass. Just answer the question. Matty, it's us. We're the taxpayers. We pay the wages. We're the employers. I trust we've put the matter to rest.

Karnal, you can be Managing Director :)

Matty can be Finance Director.

:)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 9:20am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:18am: matty wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:07am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:06am: matty wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:04am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 8:59am: matty wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 6:08am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 4:05am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 8:45pm: If you spend half of your time bad mouthing the employer what do you expect. He isn't employed by the ABC, he is employed by News Ltd. Beyond that, it would be interesting for you to consider the GM of ABC's position under Abbott as PM (effectively his boss)... Insiders is a News Ltd program ? Who payed him when he was on the Insiders - the taxpayer, or the producers of the show? The ABC. Der. Not that difficult to understand. For people with brains. From where did the money come? From the aBC producers, or from the taxpayer? You clearly don't understand. Sad. :( PS: Producers aren't the ones who give money to tv stations.  Dumbass. Just answer the question. Matty, it's us. We're the taxpayers. We pay the wages. We're the employers. I trust we've put the matter to rest. Karnal, you can be Managing Director :) Matty can be Finance Director. :)

Thanks, Alevine. I'd like to put Longy in as executive producer.

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 9:25am:

Thanks, Alevine. I'd like to put Longy in as executive producer.

What a great choice!

And can we hire Misty to clean the studios?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 9:26am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:25am: Thanks, Alevine. I'd like to put Longy in as executive producer. What a great choice! And can we hire Misty to clean the studios?

I can see no reason why not - good choice. Can Matty double as specialist?

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 9:44am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:26am: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:25am: Thanks, Alevine. I'd like to put Longy in as executive producer. What a great choice! And can we hire Misty to clean the studios? I can see no reason why not - good choice. Can Matty double as specialist?

I feel Matty should be the head anchor, as well as take over hosting both Qanda and Insiders.  Also, Matty should be in charge of MediaWatch.

In fact, let Matty be the new face of the ABC?  And cods as the weather girl.

David Stratton tweeted: The ABC is reporting the navy tortured Schapelle Corby.

Very funny

matty wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 8:06am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 9:34pm: matty wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 9:22pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 10th, 2014 at 9:17pm: It is good the fat blowhard is gone and it seems he brought it on himself. He is no journo, just a commentator, like Andrew Dolt, peddling nonsense like his made–up “Heiner Affair.” Just when you think that the left can't stoop any lower, they go and do it. They want to cover up union corruption, and now you want to cover up child abuse. Heiner wasn’t looking into child abuse. Yes it was.

Matty, you need to stop drinking the coolaid. Heiner was employed to investigate staff–management realtionships at the Oxley Youth Centre. That is all.

When the chief archivist destroyed his report she stated there was “nothing of a sexual nature in it.”

The aboriginal girl who was raped has asked the fat slob to stop mentioning the events.

Stop drinking the red koolaid. Akerman has lied about the “Heiner Affair” ever since. Neither Lib nor Labor want to do anything about an imaginary event.

You won’t believe me, which is a pity: pursuing a cheap lie like Akerman’s “Heiner Affair” is pursuing a will o’ the whisp, will lead you astray, waste your time and eventually when you realise there is nothing to it you will feel used. Try being just a bit sceptical about what you are told.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 9:26am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:25am: Thanks, Alevine. I'd like to put Longy in as executive producer. What a great choice! And can we hire Misty to clean the studios?

Perhaps the slop bins in the cafeteria???

;)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 9:48am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:26am: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:25am: Thanks, Alevine. I'd like to put Longy in as executive producer. What a great choice! And can we hire Misty to clean the studios? I can see no reason why not - good choice. Can Matty double as specialist? I feel Matty should be the head anchor, as well as take over hosting both Qanda and Insiders.  Also, Matty should be in charge of MediaWatch. In fact, let Matty be the new face of the ABC?  And cods as the weather girl.

I think Cods and Longy should be on the Breakfast Show. You know - light, breezy, informative. People you want to wake up with to start the day.

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 11:43am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:48am: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:26am: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:25am: Thanks, Alevine. I'd like to put Longy in as executive producer. What a great choice! And can we hire Misty to clean the studios? I can see no reason why not - good choice. Can Matty double as specialist? I feel Matty should be the head anchor, as well as take over hosting both Qanda and Insiders.  Also, Matty should be in charge of MediaWatch. In fact, let Matty be the new face of the ABC?  And cods as the weather girl. I think Cods and Longy should be on the Breakfast Show. You know - light, breezy, informative. People you want to wake up with to start the day.

Good....moaning all....I'm cods....and....this is.....longy................

;)

Lobo wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 11:33am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:26am: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:25am: Thanks, Alevine. I'd like to put Longy in as executive producer. What a great choice! And can we hire Misty to clean the studios? Perhaps the slop bins in the cafeteria??? ;)

Not the toilets. We need to let the old boy do his valuable research.

Miam miam.

Lobo wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 11:33am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:26am: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:25am: Thanks, Alevine. I'd like to put Longy in as executive producer. What a great choice! And can we hire Misty to clean the studios? Perhaps the slop bins in the cafeteria??? ;)

No misty has a phd in mopping.

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 11:43am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:48am: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:26am: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:25am: Thanks, Alevine. I'd like to put Longy in as executive producer. What a great choice! And can we hire Misty to clean the studios? I can see no reason why not - good choice. Can Matty double as specialist? I feel Matty should be the head anchor, as well as take over hosting both Qanda and Insiders.  Also, Matty should be in charge of MediaWatch. In fact, let Matty be the new face of the ABC?  And cods as the weather girl. I think Cods and Longy should be on the Breakfast Show. You know - light, breezy, informative. People you want to wake up with to start the day.

Oh that would be great!  They can do their own investigative work and pronounce people as innocent or guilty before the courts can, based of course on their political allegiance.

This is great!  When can we, the tax payer, start to restructure the abc?  I want Matty to take over from that leftard jones next week, thank you very much.

The surprising thing is not that they sacked the slug, but that they employed him in the first place.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 12:09pm:

Lobo wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 11:33am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:26am: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:25am: Thanks, Alevine. I'd like to put Longy in as executive producer. What a great choice! And can we hire Misty to clean the studios? Perhaps the slop bins in the cafeteria??? ;) No misty has a phd in mopping.

Anti intellectualism from the leftards. They be hating on smart people more than the redneck bogans. Quite obvious to any educated person that mistie has a good brain. yet to see much from many leftards in terms of logical reasoning.

D minus leftards,   :D

aquascoot wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 12:42pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 12:09pm: Lobo wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 11:33am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:26am: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:25am: Thanks, Alevine. I'd like to put Longy in as executive producer. What a great choice! And can we hire Misty to clean the studios? Perhaps the slop bins in the cafeteria??? ;) No misty has a phd in mopping. Anti intellectualism from the leftards. They be hating on smart people more than the redneck bogans. Quite obvious to any educated person that mistie has a good brain. yet to see much from many leftards in terms of logical reasoning. D minus leftards,   :D

Which educated person? 

matty wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 8:34pm:

The Insiders sack Piers Akerman - more ABC bias.

Sacking Akerman seems to me to show signs of intelligence rather than bias....

myself. ;) ;) ;) ;)

seriously, as an observer of the many fights between mistie and those of the left

pecker
karmy
yourself
george

he always posts quite logical things and the replies are usually that he is a janitor.

you do yourselves no favours with that sort of juvenille piffle.

i actually think the only people from the left who TRY to present an arguement and not emotive BS are greenswin and the wiseone.  Now i'm not sure i'd want those 2 opening the batting for the leftard team

thoughts?? ;)

aquascoot wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 12:50pm:

myself. ;) ;) ;) ;) seriously, as an observer of the many fights between mistie and those of the left pecker karmy yourself george he always posts quite logical things and the replies are usually that he is a janitor. you do yourselves no favours with that sort of juvenille piffle. i actually think the only people from the left who TRY to present an arguement and not emotive BS are greenswin and the wiseone.  Now i'm not sure i'd want those 2 opening the batting for the leftard team thoughts?? ;)

Thoughts?

;D ;D ;D ;D

Mist is an interesting supremist. That's about it. The moment he gets lost in his own crazy world, he refers back to anuses and feces. As he has nothing else going for him. And most probably because he sees so many feces in his job.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 12:11pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 11:43am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:48am: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:26am: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:25am: Thanks, Alevine. I'd like to put Longy in as executive producer. What a great choice! And can we hire Misty to clean the studios? I can see no reason why not - good choice. Can Matty double as specialist? I feel Matty should be the head anchor, as well as take over hosting both Qanda and Insiders.  Also, Matty should be in charge of MediaWatch. In fact, let Matty be the new face of the ABC?  And cods as the weather girl. I think Cods and Longy should be on the Breakfast Show. You know - light, breezy, informative. People you want to wake up with to start the day. Oh that would be great!  They can do their own investigative work and pronounce people as innocent or guilty before the courts can, based of course on their political allegiance.

Exactly. This is the role of the media in demokratic societies.

As taxpayer and ABC boss, I also would like to see Matty beome the moderator on Q&A. It's important that this role is seen to be impartial, I feel - from the standpoint of the religious right.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 12:42pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 12:09pm: Lobo wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 11:33am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:26am: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:25am: Thanks, Alevine. I'd like to put Longy in as executive producer. What a great choice! And can we hire Misty to clean the studios? Perhaps the slop bins in the cafeteria??? ;) No misty has a phd in mopping. Anti intellectualism from the leftards. They be hating on smart people more than the redneck bogans. Quite obvious to any educated person that mistie has a good brain. yet to see much from many leftards in terms of logical reasoning. D minus leftards,   :D

Exactly. These leftards are always so mean to cleaners. They clearly don't value the fine work they do keeping everything neat, tidy and sanitized.

Mistie has an excellent brain - he even invented an entirely new sociological movement: Blank Slate Theory.

Not bad for a cleaner.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 1:01pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 12:50pm: myself. ;) ;) ;) ;) seriously, as an observer of the many fights between mistie and those of the left pecker karmy yourself george he always posts quite logical things and the replies are usually that he is a janitor. you do yourselves no favours with that sort of juvenille piffle. i actually think the only people from the left who TRY to present an arguement and not emotive BS are greenswin and the wiseone.  Now i'm not sure i'd want those 2 opening the batting for the leftard team thoughts?? ;) Thoughts? ;D ;D ;D ;D Mist is an interesting supremist. That's about it. The moment he gets lost in his own crazy world, he refers back to anuses and feces. As he has nothing else going for him. And most probably because he sees so many feces in his job.

The last time we crossed swords your rebuttal was that I was an "extremist" for simply arguing for more diverse topics on Q&A. The irony there was you were trying to present yourself and the show as already representing diversity of the political spectrum. But perhaps you're not aware enough to notice the problem in your position. That's pretty normal for a "progressive".

aquascoot wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 12:42pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 12:09pm: Lobo wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 11:33am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:26am: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 9:25am: Thanks, Alevine. I'd like to put Longy in as executive producer. What a great choice! And can we hire Misty to clean the studios? Perhaps the slop bins in the cafeteria??? ;) No misty has a phd in mopping. Anti intellectualism from the leftards. They be hating on smart people more than the redneck bogans. Quite obvious to any educated person that mistie has a good brain. yet to see much from many leftards in terms of logical reasoning. D minus leftards,   :D

Not to worry. Every time they speak they only justify further why the academe and public service needs to be purified. I see their continual idiocy as helping this cause.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 1:31pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 1:01pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 12:50pm: myself. ;) ;) ;) ;) seriously, as an observer of the many fights between mistie and those of the left pecker karmy yourself george he always posts quite logical things and the replies are usually that he is a janitor. you do yourselves no favours with that sort of juvenille piffle. i actually think the only people from the left who TRY to present an arguement and not emotive BS are greenswin and the wiseone.  Now i'm not sure i'd want those 2 opening the batting for the leftard team thoughts?? ;) Thoughts? ;D ;D ;D ;D Mist is an interesting supremist. That's about it. The moment he gets lost in his own crazy world, he refers back to anuses and feces. As he has nothing else going for him. And most probably because he sees so many feces in his job. The last time we crossed swords your rebuttal was that I was an "extremist" for simply arguing for more diverse topics on Q&A. The irony there was you were trying to present yourself and the show as already representing diversity of the political spectrum. But perhaps you're not aware enough to notice the problem in your position. That's pretty normal for a "progressive".

Misty!!! Hi!!! How goes the research paper into mopping?

Misty, you know too well that I called you an extremist because of the colourful words you tried to use to describe issues. Remember?  And especially when you start talking about feces. 

And if you remember correctly, my dear friend, my point to you was the QandA talks about issues that are in the media, or have been in the media the previous week.  So, if you are upset they spend time on climate change and gay rights, then tell the entire media to stop posting up opinions, comments, articles on them.  Today alone i spotted 2 climate change articles.  And none on ethnic crime (or is that crime against ethnics?).   

May I also add Misty, my dearest old friend, that ethnic crime is a very nice strawman created by dummies like yourself to try and lay blame on the rise of crime on "multiculturism", instead of on the true cause, being the growing divide in social equality.

Misty, which of these was biased?


Quote:

Discuss the Questions Here are the questions our panel faced this week. Tell us what your answer would be or what you think our panellists need to say. SOCHI GAY LUGE Pat Birgan asked: Malcolm, imagine you are a young gay man competing in the luge at the Sochi Winter Olympic Games. You win a medal. Do you use your moment of glory to protest against Russia's anti-gay propaganda laws or refrain, despite one of the fundamentals of Olympism being the right to practice sport without discrimination of any kind? What do you think? UNIONS ROYAL COMMISSION Joe Ortenzi asked: If we really want to get to the bottom of illegality in unions, why does the government prefer a Royal Commission, which is expensive, has no significant powers and may preclude any legal activity, rather than a police investigation which would exert the rule of law? It looks to many of us like a desire to keep it a political, rather than a criminal decision. What do you think? CANS AND CARS Mitchell Comans asked: Why are there so many on both sides of politics who refuse to let uncompetitive businesses die a quiet death? If we don't want to eat tinned fruit or if we want to drive a European hatchback instead of a huge Australian sedan, why fight it? Personally, I enjoy not living in 1983 and wonder why others don't. What do you think? QUESTION FROM THE FLOOR An audience member asked: What is the role of Coles and Woolworths in bringing down small business? What do you think? QUESTION FROM THE FLOOR An audience member asked: The Shadow Attorney-General doesn’t actually present any real solutions, the issue is that we are spending a lot of money on an industry that isn’t functioning – could that money not be spent to re-tool those skills into an industry that can be profitable? And what initiatives are being developed? What do you think? NBN SATELLITE FULL Bobbie Oakley asked: Dear panel and audience and viewers. Are you aware that just before Christmas I was informed that the NBN satellite for satellite broadband for a lot of regional people (our only option) is now full? There is no room left on the satellite for us. Apparently there are over 30,000 people registered or waiting for that satellite and about 200,000 people will need it in the near future. Malcolm, this is a serious problem for us. We have no other option for the internet. Do you find this satisfactory? What do you think? NAVY INQUIRY Reinilda Delima-Froyland asked: A recent Fairfax report featured a detailed interview with the asylum seeker who made the original allegation against the Navy. It’s triggered unanswered questions about the validity of the ABC's report on "asylum seekers' burnt hands" versus the government's attack on the ABC. Will the government come clean now by allowing an independent inquiry? What do you think? QUESTION FROM THE FLOOR An audience member asked: I don’t think Australians are disappointed about the boats – I think it is the secrecy behind what we feel that the Abbott government is doing. I feel that you are taking Australia back to an archaic form of dictatorship under the guise of democracy. What do you think? AUSTRALIA NETWORK Jack Yang asked: Ms Albrechtsen and Mr Turnbull, when other countries are pouring huge sums of money into their international broadcast operations, ABC has been the subject of much discussion and speculation over the past few weeks and debate about its future funding. The Australian Network operated by ABC is now relayed through 679 re-broadcasters in the region with the capacity to reach 131.4 million people - up 32 per cent since July 2013. ABC’s partnerships have extended our digital reach by 109 per cent in the past six months from 1.1 million to 2.3 million visitors a month. One example of this is the growth in ABC Learn English community, which now includes almost 900,000 followers. The BBC's comparable English learning community is 498,000 and Voice of America is at 662,000. Janet and Malcolm, if you think ABC is not precisely and quietly fulfilling its brief, why do media partners across the Indo-Pacific region sign up to the Australia Network again and again? What do you think? CORBY: PROCEEDS OF CRIME Gerard Hosier asked: Should Australia's "proceeds of crime law" be applied to Schapelle Corby ,for her exclusive interviews, book and films, in the same way as it was attempted to be applied to David Hicks? What do you think?

Misstttyyy, from the week before my dear:


Quote:

Discuss the Questions Here are the questions our panel faced this week. Tell us what your answer would be or what you think our panellists need to say. ABC VERSUS ABBOTT Alicia Scott asked: Last week Prime Minister Tony Abbott attacked the ABC arguing that the national broadcaster takes "everyone's side but Australia's" and journalists should give the navy the "benefit of the doubt" in regards to the ABC's coverage of allegations that navy personnel inflicted bodily harm on asylum seekers. Are Abbott's claims of bias in the media justified or does the Prime Minister need to be reminded that, as Liberal MP Craig Laundy paraphrased, "There are many great things about living in a democracy ... One is the luxury of free speech"? What do you think? ABC BIAS VERSUS NEWS LIMITED Philippa Noakes asked: Is it an untenable position for the Coalition to criticize the perceived bias of the ABC, while accepting the benefits of the apparent bias in News Limited papers? What do you think? ABC – SNOWDEN/GUARDIAN Daniel Carrigy asked: Prime Minister Tony Abbott criticised the ABC’s reporting of the Indonesian spying scandal, expressing particular concern that the information came from Edward Snowden, whom he deemed a traitor. Considering the damage caused with our relationship with Indonesia, does the panel believe the reporting of this story was truly in our nation’s best interests, or should the ABC have let sleeping dogs lie, considering the incident was six years old? What do you think? QUESTION FROM THE FLOOR An audience member asked: I've just graduated as a journalist, are you really suggesting that as a new graduate I should really not publish a story this big [Edward Snowden] if it was dumped in my lap? What do you think? UNIONS AND ALP VERSUS ABCC Michael Manikas asked via video: With no experience on construction sites, how on earth can the police play watchdog to the construction industry? What right do the Greens and ALP have to block the reintroduction of the ABCC to oversee the industry? What do you think? DROUGHT AID Hannah Glass asked: The failed takeover of GrainCorp by the US corporation ADM was “seen as a litmus test” for foreign investment in Australia. After deploring foreign ownership and its associated $500M investment as “not in our interests”, Barnaby Joyce is now asking the government for $7 billion to “save” the agricultural industry from drought and a decline in foreign trade. How can you justify asking the government for so much money when you reject foreign investment and trade? What do you think? SAVING SPC ARDMONA David McKone asked via video: If the Nationals are traditionally meant to represent the interests of farmers and primary producers of this land, then how would the closure of SPC Ardmona and the loss of 1000 direct jobs and up to 3000 indirect jobs and 50% of the region's farmers who are dependent on the plant, actually be in their interest? Or is the decision not to invest pure Liberal Party ideology? What do you think? QUESTION FROM THE FLOOR An audience member asked: Isn’t the issue debt rather than the drought? What do you think? BEING AUSTRALIAN Nick Chapman asked: Is being a 'Great Australian' any different to being a great citizen of any other country in the world? What do you think?

Now I know this is going to involve using your brain, but can you remember a week ago what was in the news? :) 

So...where's this bias?  Mist?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 1:50pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 1:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 1:01pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 12:50pm: myself. ;) ;) ;) ;) seriously, as an observer of the many fights between mistie and those of the left pecker karmy yourself george he always posts quite logical things and the replies are usually that he is a janitor. you do yourselves no favours with that sort of juvenille piffle. i actually think the only people from the left who TRY to present an arguement and not emotive BS are greenswin and the wiseone.  Now i'm not sure i'd want those 2 opening the batting for the leftard team thoughts?? ;) Thoughts? ;D ;D ;D ;D Mist is an interesting supremist. That's about it. The moment he gets lost in his own crazy world, he refers back to anuses and feces. As he has nothing else going for him. And most probably because he sees so many feces in his job. The last time we crossed swords your rebuttal was that I was an "extremist" for simply arguing for more diverse topics on Q&A. The irony there was you were trying to present yourself and the show as already representing diversity of the political spectrum. But perhaps you're not aware enough to notice the problem in your position. That's pretty normal for a "progressive". Misty!!! Hi!!! How goes the research paper into mopping? Misty, you know too well that I called you an extremist because of the colourful words you tried to use to describe issues. Remember?  And especially when you start talking about feces.  And if you remember correctly, my dear friend, my point to you was the QandA talks about issues that are in the media, or have been in the media the previous week.  So, if you are upset they spend time on climate change and gay rights, then tell the entire media to stop posting up opinions, comments, articles on them.  Today alone i spotted 2 climate change articles.  And none on ethnic crime (or is that crime against ethnics?).    May I also add Misty, my dearest old friend, that ethnic crime is a very nice strawman created by dummies like yourself to try and lay blame on the rise of crime on "multiculturism", instead of on the true cause, being the growing divide in social equality.

i would think if you got a random sample of suburban aussies and made them watch an episode of Q and A they would puke. ;) ;)

aquascoot wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 2:24pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 1:50pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 1:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 1:01pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 12:50pm: myself. ;) ;) ;) ;) seriously, as an observer of the many fights between mistie and those of the left pecker karmy yourself george he always posts quite logical things and the replies are usually that he is a janitor. you do yourselves no favours with that sort of juvenille piffle. i actually think the only people from the left who TRY to present an arguement and not emotive BS are greenswin and the wiseone.  Now i'm not sure i'd want those 2 opening the batting for the leftard team thoughts?? ;) Thoughts? ;D ;D ;D ;D Mist is an interesting supremist. That's about it. The moment he gets lost in his own crazy world, he refers back to anuses and feces. As he has nothing else going for him. And most probably because he sees so many feces in his job. The last time we crossed swords your rebuttal was that I was an "extremist" for simply arguing for more diverse topics on Q&A. The irony there was you were trying to present yourself and the show as already representing diversity of the political spectrum. But perhaps you're not aware enough to notice the problem in your position. That's pretty normal for a "progressive". Misty!!! Hi!!! How goes the research paper into mopping? Misty, you know too well that I called you an extremist because of the colourful words you tried to use to describe issues. Remember?  And especially when you start talking about feces.  And if you remember correctly, my dear friend, my point to you was the QandA talks about issues that are in the media, or have been in the media the previous week.  So, if you are upset they spend time on climate change and gay rights, then tell the entire media to stop posting up opinions, comments, articles on them.  Today alone i spotted 2 climate change articles.  And none on ethnic crime (or is that crime against ethnics?).    May I also add Misty, my dearest old friend, that ethnic crime is a very nice strawman created by dummies like yourself to try and lay blame on the rise of crime on "multiculturism", instead of on the true cause, being the growing divide in social equality. i would think if you got a random sample of suburban aussies and made them watch an episode of Q and A they would puke. ;) ;)

You love to always put yourself into the "average".

May I point out.

1. You aren't the average. 
2. If the average you seek was true, then this country would be totally f**ked.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 1:50pm:

Misty, you know too well that I called you an extremist because of the colourful words you tried to use to describe issues. Remember?  And especially when you start talking about feces.

Incorrect. Read here: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391510268/255 Read particularly reply 258, as most of the conversation is in quote boxes. Nowhere did I use "colourful words". I merely described what topics I'd like to see on Q&A. You dismissed and ridiculed topics I'd like to see discussed on the show. It's not hard to see who is the extremist when someone flat out refuses to talk about some topics.

   


Quote:

May I also add Misty, my dearest old friend, that ethnic crime is a very nice strawman created by dummies like yourself to try and lay blame on the rise of crime on "multiculturism", instead of on the true cause, being the growing divide in social equality.

There is so much wrong here I do not know where to start. "Social equality"?! What is that? What does it even mean? There can only be equality of opportunity. Never equality of outcome. You simply can't regulate humans to be equal. You'd have to cripple and lobotomise everyone at birth (even then some would excel and others would be mediocre as they progress through life).

The second problem is the presumption that, even if "social equality" is to be achieved, how does this fix crime? Crime will exist as long as laws exist. But laws will always exist, so there will always be crime. The real problem here is limiting crime to an acceptable level. This requires social conditioning. Equality doesn't mean anything here. People have to be conditioned or "engineered" into believing that certain behaviours are acceptable and certain behaviours are not. And if you import people from a culture where certain behaviour is tolerated and accepted, but not tolerated or accepted here, then we could call that "ethnic crime".

Moreover, crime is actually a necessary evil. It shows what behaviour is acceptable. You can't have the good without the bad; they work in an ineradicable dialectic. We hold up what is good behaviour by contrasting it with the bad. Not that we should tolerate certain behaviour. Equality here doesn't even enter the equation. In fact, it makes the situation hazy and confusing, especially to shallow thinkers like yourself.

The word equality needs to be expunged from the lexicon. It's a weasel word, and used to often justify the most horrific atrocities. Just like your old country with its bloody and murderous past. No matter how many they killed or how much social engineering and bureaucracies they set up, they couldn't achieve the secular paradise.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 2:35pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 2:24pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 1:50pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 1:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 1:01pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 12:50pm: myself. ;) ;) ;) ;) seriously, as an observer of the many fights between mistie and those of the left pecker karmy yourself george he always posts quite logical things and the replies are usually that he is a janitor. you do yourselves no favours with that sort of juvenille piffle. i actually think the only people from the left who TRY to present an arguement and not emotive BS are greenswin and the wiseone.  Now i'm not sure i'd want those 2 opening the batting for the leftard team thoughts?? ;) Thoughts? ;D ;D ;D ;D Mist is an interesting supremist. That's about it. The moment he gets lost in his own crazy world, he refers back to anuses and feces. As he has nothing else going for him. And most probably because he sees so many feces in his job. The last time we crossed swords your rebuttal was that I was an "extremist" for simply arguing for more diverse topics on Q&A. The irony there was you were trying to present yourself and the show as already representing diversity of the political spectrum. But perhaps you're not aware enough to notice the problem in your position. That's pretty normal for a "progressive". Misty!!! Hi!!! How goes the research paper into mopping? Misty, you know too well that I called you an extremist because of the colourful words you tried to use to describe issues. Remember?  And especially when you start talking about feces.  And if you remember correctly, my dear friend, my point to you was the QandA talks about issues that are in the media, or have been in the media the previous week.  So, if you are upset they spend time on climate change and gay rights, then tell the entire media to stop posting up opinions, comments, articles on them.  Today alone i spotted 2 climate change articles.  And none on ethnic crime (or is that crime against ethnics?).    May I also add Misty, my dearest old friend, that ethnic crime is a very nice strawman created by dummies like yourself to try and lay blame on the rise of crime on "multiculturism", instead of on the true cause, being the growing divide in social equality. i would think if you got a random sample of suburban aussies and made them watch an episode of Q and A they would puke. ;) ;) You love to always put yourself into the "average". May I point out. 1. You aren't the average.  2. If the average you seek was true, then this country would be totally f**ked.

i got my finger on  the pulse.  you can see the greenies etc on Q and A and they speak with such certainty and such conviction. Its shared by 8 % of the population. I'll take the 92 % thank you.

Why do you think labor and liberal are tough on country shoppers....because their polling tells them the "average'aussie
thinks that way.
Why havent gillard or rudd or abbott passed gay marriage laws...because their polling tells them the average aussie doesnt like it.
If that makes the country "f^^ked" you and the 8 % should leave.
What you will do instead , is try to get taxpayer dollars to fund josef goebbels type indocrination programs on the ABC.
Thank goodness the 92 % see right through it. ;) ;) ;) ;)
;) ;) ;) ;)

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 3:01pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 1:50pm: Misty, you know too well that I called you an extremist because of the colourful words you tried to use to describe issues. Remember?  And especially when you start talking about feces.  Incorrect. Read here: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391510268/255 Read particularly reply 258, as most of the conversation is in quote boxes. Nowhere did I use "colourful words". I merely described what topics I'd like to see on Q&A. You dismissed and ridiculed topics I'd like to see discussed on the show. It's not hard to see who is the extremist when someone flat out refuses to talk about some topics.     Quote: May I also add Misty, my dearest old friend, that ethnic crime is a very nice strawman created by dummies like yourself to try and lay blame on the rise of crime on "multiculturism", instead of on the true cause, being the growing divide in social equality. There is so much wrong here I do not know where to start. "Social equality"?! What is that? What does it even mean? There can only be equality of opportunity. Never equality of outcome. You simply can't regulate humans to be equal. You'd have to cripple and lobotomise everyone at birth (even then some would excel and others would be mediocre as they progress through life). The second problem is the presumption that, even if "social equality" is to be achieved, how does this fix crime? Crime will exist as long as laws exist. But laws will always exist, so there will always be crime. The real problem here is limiting crime to an acceptable level. This requires social conditioning. Equality doesn't mean anything here. People have to be conditioned or "engineered" into believing that certain behaviours are acceptable and certain behaviours are not. And if you import people from a culture where certain behaviour is tolerated and accepted, but not tolerated or accepted here, then we could call that "ethnic crime". Moreover, crime is actually a necessary evil. It shows what behaviour is acceptable. You can't have the good without the bad; they work in an ineradicable dialectic. We hold up what is good behaviour by contrasting it with the bad. Not that we should tolerate certain behaviour. Equality here doesn't even enter the equation. In fact, it makes the situation hazy and confusing, especially to shallow thinkers like yourself. The word equality needs to be expunged from the lexicon. It's a weasel word, and used to often justify the most horrific atrocities. Just like your old country with its bloody and murderous past. No matter how many they killed or how much social engineering and bureaucracies they set up, they couldn't achieve the secular paradise.

Misty, what is social equality? Really? I'm going to equate that to your own conditioning :(  It really is quite sad, that  when someone speaks of social equality, you straight away assume one is talking about outcomes. No, no, no. Social equality means equal rights, and equal access to opportunities (health,education).  Would I say our current society offers this? Obviously not. And as a result of the inequalities that exist, this is where crime spawns from.  Can it ever be eradicated? Probably not, I agree with you. But the rises we have seen have come from the direct result of our society becoming less equal.

Can I get an example from you as to what you would consider an actual ethnic crime? An actual example, Misty. I'm curious to understand what crime is occurring in Australia that is accepted by the "ethnics" back home, but we deem intolerable. And then I'd be interested to investigate further to truly understand the underlying cause.


Oh and Misty, my reply 258 was actually:

Quote:

I'm not ridiculing all the issues. I'm ridiculing how you call the issues. The only issue I will ridicule is ethnic crime, because I'm curious to understand how it's different to normal crime?

so Am I ridiculing the issues you've raised, Mist? Or how you choose to refer to them?  Think about it. Use that PHD brain.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 3:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 2:35pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 2:24pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 1:50pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 1:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 1:01pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 12:50pm: myself. ;) ;) ;) ;) seriously, as an observer of the many fights between mistie and those of the left pecker karmy yourself george he always posts quite logical things and the replies are usually that he is a janitor. you do yourselves no favours with that sort of juvenille piffle. i actually think the only people from the left who TRY to present an arguement and not emotive BS are greenswin and the wiseone.  Now i'm not sure i'd want those 2 opening the batting for the leftard team thoughts?? ;) Thoughts? ;D ;D ;D ;D Mist is an interesting supremist. That's about it. The moment he gets lost in his own crazy world, he refers back to anuses and feces. As he has nothing else going for him. And most probably because he sees so many feces in his job. The last time we crossed swords your rebuttal was that I was an "extremist" for simply arguing for more diverse topics on Q&A. The irony there was you were trying to present yourself and the show as already representing diversity of the political spectrum. But perhaps you're not aware enough to notice the problem in your position. That's pretty normal for a "progressive". Misty!!! Hi!!! How goes the research paper into mopping? Misty, you know too well that I called you an extremist because of the colourful words you tried to use to describe issues. Remember?  And especially when you start talking about feces.  And if you remember correctly, my dear friend, my point to you was the QandA talks about issues that are in the media, or have been in the media the previous week.  So, if you are upset they spend time on climate change and gay rights, then tell the entire media to stop posting up opinions, comments, articles on them.  Today alone i spotted 2 climate change articles.  And none on ethnic crime (or is that crime against ethnics?).    May I also add Misty, my dearest old friend, that ethnic crime is a very nice strawman created by dummies like yourself to try and lay blame on the rise of crime on "multiculturism", instead of on the true cause, being the growing divide in social equality. i would think if you got a random sample of suburban aussies and made them watch an episode of Q and A they would puke. ;) ;) You love to always put yourself into the "average". May I point out. 1. You aren't the average.  2. If the average you seek was true, then this country would be totally f**ked. i got my finger on  the pulse.  you can see the greenies etc on Q and A and they speak with such certainty and such conviction. Its shared by 8 % of the population. I'll take the 92 % thank you. Why do you think labor and liberal are tough on country shoppers....because their polling tells them the "average'aussie thinks that way. Why havent gillard or rudd or abbott passed gay marriage laws...because their polling tells them the average aussie doesnt like it. If that makes the country "f^^ked" you and the 8 % should leave. What you will do instead , is try to get taxpayer dollars to fund josef goebbels type indocrination programs on the ABC. Thank goodness the 92 % see right through it. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Hmm Rudd was ready, and Tony thinks his personal opinion outweighs the want of the community.  And gillard was against all marriage, not just gay marriage.

Actually, the joseph goebbels type of indoctrination is when a news story comes out about the navy burning the hands of individuals, and the government spins the story back onto a INDEPENDENT news agency, telling all how unpatriotic the story was to publish.  Rather than accept some responsibility and conduct an investigation, instead apparently the government feels our navy is above all criticism and the law.  But you know why? Because they know if they determine the claim to be true, its the government that'll be up sh1t creek .

But look, if the 92% fell for that crap, than perhaps my 30% of 50% was inaccurate, and the dumb level in Australia has rapidly shot up.

But I think it isn't 92%, and most people don't share your lopsided view of what's going on.

i think the majority do share my view.
alan earns a lot more than david marr.
david does seem to resent this fact. ;) ;)

aquascoot wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 3:24pm:

i think the majority do share my view. alan earns a lot more than david marr. david does seem to resent this fact. ;) ;)

Let's hope not because like I said, if it is the case, I'll have to revise my initial estimates to a higher %.

Stupidity & ignorance are the new Black


sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 3:25pm:

I'll have to revise my initial estimates to a higher %.

Revise away :(

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 2:03pm:

Misstttyyy, from the week before my dear: Quote: Discuss the Questions Here are the questions our panel faced this week. Tell us what your answer would be or what you think our panellists need to say. ABC VERSUS ABBOTT Alicia Scott asked: Last week Prime Minister Tony Abbott attacked the ABC arguing that the national broadcaster takes "everyone's side but Australia's" and journalists should give the navy the "benefit of the doubt" in regards to the ABC's coverage of allegations that navy personnel inflicted bodily harm on asylum seekers. Are Abbott's claims of bias in the media justified or does the Prime Minister need to be reminded that, as Liberal MP Craig Laundy paraphrased, "There are many great things about living in a democracy ... One is the luxury of free speech"? What do you think? ABC BIAS VERSUS NEWS LIMITED Philippa Noakes asked: Is it an untenable position for the Coalition to criticize the perceived bias of the ABC, while accepting the benefits of the apparent bias in News Limited papers? What do you think? ABC – SNOWDEN/GUARDIAN Daniel Carrigy asked: Prime Minister Tony Abbott criticised the ABC’s reporting of the Indonesian spying scandal, expressing particular concern that the information came from Edward Snowden, whom he deemed a traitor. Considering the damage caused with our relationship with Indonesia, does the panel believe the reporting of this story was truly in our nation’s best interests, or should the ABC have let sleeping dogs lie, considering the incident was six years old? What do you think? QUESTION FROM THE FLOOR An audience member asked: I've just graduated as a journalist, are you really suggesting that as a new graduate I should really not publish a story this big [Edward Snowden] if it was dumped in my lap? What do you think? UNIONS AND ALP VERSUS ABCC Michael Manikas asked via video: With no experience on construction sites, how on earth can the police play watchdog to the construction industry? What right do the Greens and ALP have to block the reintroduction of the ABCC to oversee the industry? What do you think? DROUGHT AID Hannah Glass asked: The failed takeover of GrainCorp by the US corporation ADM was “seen as a litmus test” for foreign investment in Australia. After deploring foreign ownership and its associated $500M investment as “not in our interests”, Barnaby Joyce is now asking the government for $7 billion to “save” the agricultural industry from drought and a decline in foreign trade. How can you justify asking the government for so much money when you reject foreign investment and trade? What do you think? SAVING SPC ARDMONA David McKone asked via video: If the Nationals are traditionally meant to represent the interests of farmers and primary producers of this land, then how would the closure of SPC Ardmona and the loss of 1000 direct jobs and up to 3000 indirect jobs and 50% of the region's farmers who are dependent on the plant, actually be in their interest? Or is the decision not to invest pure Liberal Party ideology? What do you think? QUESTION FROM THE FLOOR An audience member asked: Isn’t the issue debt rather than the drought? What do you think? BEING AUSTRALIAN Nick Chapman asked: Is being a 'Great Australian' any different to being a great citizen of any other country in the world? What do you think? Now I know this is going to involve using your brain, but can you remember a week ago what was in the news? :)  So...where's this bias?  Mist?

Pathetic, leftards, just pathetic.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 3:01pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 1:50pm: Misty, you know too well that I called you an extremist because of the colourful words you tried to use to describe issues. Remember?  And especially when you start talking about feces.  Incorrect. Read here: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391510268/255 Read particularly reply 258, as most of the conversation is in quote boxes. Nowhere did I use "colourful words". I merely described what topics I'd like to see on Q&A. You dismissed and ridiculed topics I'd like to see discussed on the show. It's not hard to see who is the extremist when someone flat out refuses to talk about some topics.     Quote: May I also add Misty, my dearest old friend, that ethnic crime is a very nice strawman created by dummies like yourself to try and lay blame on the rise of crime on "multiculturism", instead of on the true cause, being the growing divide in social equality. There is so much wrong here I do not know where to start. "Social equality"?! What is that? What does it even mean?

Alevine didn't indicate a preference for "social equality", Mistie. He referred to a "divide in social equality".

By this, Alevine alludes to the growing divide in income distribution, as highlighted by such hotbeds of "progressivism" as the US government and the agenda at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-h-morial/income-inequality_b_4688614.html

Personally, I don't think this wealth divide is as extreme in Australia as it is in other developed countries such as the US and UK, and especially in most developing countries. However, it's one of the most crucial issues facing the world today.

Who knows? it may even be more important than gay marriage and your concerns about anal sex.

How do you measure "social equality"? Easy: in capitalism, you measure it by income levels. 

Do they teach economics at the Acadame these days, Mistie?

aquascoot wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 3:24pm:

i think the majority do share my view. alan earns a lot more than david marr.

Good point, Aquascoot. If we can only get David Marr to stop bashing the banks, start spruiking Qantas, and do a few 30 second spots for the marvellous Lavenders, we'll finally have equality.

matty wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 8:34pm:

The Insiders program has thrown Piers Akerman off the show ...

Have they?

Splendid news!

Good to see that the ABC are implementing quality control.

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 4:48pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 3:24pm: i think the majority do share my view. alan earns a lot more than david marr. Good point, Aquascoot. If we can only get David Marr to stop bashing the banks, start spruiking Qantas, and do a few 30 second spots for the marvellous Lavenders, we'll finally have equality.

The success of alan (financially and with ratings) and the failure of the lefties (financially and with ratings) speaks volumes.
by ratings , one could substitute public support.

Now why is that. Why are the rightard commentators able to sell stuff that people disapprove of (banks, fast food, big business)
whilst leftard commentators and activists cant sell stuff we should love (the environment, the barrier reef, whales, clean energy).

you have to say that these F^^KING DUMB LEFTARD MEDIA CLOWNS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS GROUPS
(people like david marr, sarah hansen young, eva cox, tim flannery, the panel of Q and A, Get Up. Occupy wall street, The socialist alliance )  have HIJACKED the prime real estate and completely butchered it. They have botched the sale of these ideas beyond belief.
Every time these whiney sooks and fools open their mouths they set back their cause another country mile.

You really got to hand it to the leftard journalists. They are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo out of touch.
Letting people like murdoch and jones whip their asses over and over . They are the best friends the right have, thanks to their incredible arrogance and condescending attitude to the man in the street. I like a lot of their causes but why would you throw your hat in with a bunch of amateur losers like them
;) ;)

aquascoot wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 7:08am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 4:48pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 3:24pm: i think the majority do share my view. alan earns a lot more than david marr. Good point, Aquascoot. If we can only get David Marr to stop bashing the banks, start spruiking Qantas, and do a few 30 second spots for the marvellous Lavenders, we'll finally have equality. The success of alan (financially and with ratings) and the failure of the lefties (financially and with ratings) speaks volumes. by ratings , one could substitute public support. Now why is that. Why are the rightard commentators able to sell stuff that people disapprove of (banks, fast food, big business) whilst leftard commentators and activists cant sell stuff we should love (the environment, the barrier reef, whales, clean energy). you have to say that these F^^KING DUMB LEFTARD MEDIA CLOWNS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS GROUPS (people like david marr, sarah hansen young, eva cox, tim flannery, the panel of Q and A, Get Up. Occupy wall street, The socialist alliance )  have HIJACKED the prime real estate and completely butchered it. They have botched the sale of these ideas beyond belief. Every time these whiney sooks and fools open their mouths they set back their cause another country mile. You really got to hand it to the leftard journalists. They are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo out of touch. Letting people like murdoch and jones whip their asses over and over . They are the best friends the right have, thanks to their incredible arrogance and condescending attitude to the man in the street. I like a lot of their causes but why would you throw your hat in with a bunch of amateur losers like them ;) ;)

Because the alternative, to put it mildly, SUCKS HARD!

As some are slowly waking up and seeing.

matty, you are going on that you don't like the taxpayers are paying for the ABC because in your book the ABC is biased.

Well I don't like Abbott as Prime Minister so why are we paying him then.

Abbott is not my prime minister he is not governing for the whole of Australia like he said he would.

Holden, Toyota, Qantas and numerous other companies have shed jobs since the Abbott government came to office. Cost cutting is going on everywhere as Australia closes for business. And someone is sooking because a particular right-wing commentator is not immune to this cost cutting?

Reap what you sow, rightards. Reap what you sow.

Bam wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 7:50am:

Holden, Toyota, Qantas and numerous other companies have shed jobs since the Abbott government came to office. Cost cutting is going on everywhere as Australia closes for business. And someone is sooking because a particular right-wing commentator is not immune to this cost cutting? Reap what you sow, rightards. Reap what you sow.

Again, the paradox. The fortunes of the right are enhanced by the ABC sacking the pompous twat. And the fortunes of the left are destroyed by the ABC attacking the navy and supporting country shoppers.

reap what you sew leftards, reap what you sew.
Come out to suburbia with the gazillion swinging voters and see if they like the ABC attacking the navy. :D :D :D :D.

Akerman , glad he's gone. Should boost the conservative vote by having pure condescending luvvies on the ABC  ;)

aquascoot wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 7:08am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 4:48pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 3:24pm: i think the majority do share my view. alan earns a lot more than david marr. Good point, Aquascoot. If we can only get David Marr to stop bashing the banks, start spruiking Qantas, and do a few 30 second spots for the marvellous Lavenders, we'll finally have equality. The success of alan (financially and with ratings) and the failure of the lefties (financially and with ratings) speaks volumes. by ratings , one could substitute public support. Now why is that. Why are the rightard commentators able to sell stuff that people disapprove of (banks, fast food, big business) whilst leftard commentators and activists cant sell stuff we should love (the environment, the barrier reef, whales, clean energy). you have to say that these F^^KING DUMB LEFTARD MEDIA CLOWNS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS GROUPS (people like david marr, sarah hansen young, eva cox, tim flannery, the panel of Q and A, Get Up. Occupy wall street, The socialist alliance )  have HIJACKED the prime real estate and completely butchered it. They have botched the sale of these ideas beyond belief. Every time these whiney sooks and fools open their mouths they set back their cause another country mile. You really got to hand it to the leftard journalists. They are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo out of touch. Letting people like murdoch and jones whip their asses over and over . They are the best friends the right have, thanks to their incredible arrogance and condescending attitude to the man in the street. I like a lot of their causes but why would you throw your hat in with a bunch of amateur losers like them ;) ;)

So true, dear. Alan is the voice of the people, and the leftards can go suck Mr Abbott’s slug.

Your posts are starting to rival Cods, Aquascoot.

matty wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 9:22pm:

Just when you think that the left can't stoop any lower, they go and do it. They want to cover up union corruption, and now you want to cover up child abuse.

The left want to cover up child abuse? I thought that was the Catholic church.

Karnal wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 8:41am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 7:08am: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 4:48pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 3:24pm: i think the majority do share my view. alan earns a lot more than david marr. Good point, Aquascoot. If we can only get David Marr to stop bashing the banks, start spruiking Qantas, and do a few 30 second spots for the marvellous Lavenders, we'll finally have equality. The success of alan (financially and with ratings) and the failure of the lefties (financially and with ratings) speaks volumes. by ratings , one could substitute public support. Now why is that. Why are the rightard commentators able to sell stuff that people disapprove of (banks, fast food, big business) whilst leftard commentators and activists cant sell stuff we should love (the environment, the barrier reef, whales, clean energy). you have to say that these F^^KING DUMB LEFTARD MEDIA CLOWNS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS GROUPS (people like david marr, sarah hansen young, eva cox, tim flannery, the panel of Q and A, Get Up. Occupy wall street, The socialist alliance )  have HIJACKED the prime real estate and completely butchered it. They have botched the sale of these ideas beyond belief. Every time these whiney sooks and fools open their mouths they set back their cause another country mile. You really got to hand it to the leftard journalists. They are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo out of touch. Letting people like murdoch and jones whip their asses over and over . They are the best friends the right have, thanks to their incredible arrogance and condescending attitude to the man in the street. I like a lot of their causes but why would you throw your hat in with a bunch of amateur losers like them ;) ;) So true, dear. Alan is the voice of the people, and the leftards can go suck Mr Abbott’s slug. Your posts are starting to rival Cods, Aquascoot.

now luvvie, yours are rivalling spots  ;)

aquascoot wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 7:08am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 4:48pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 3:24pm: i think the majority do share my view. alan earns a lot more than david marr. Good point, Aquascoot. If we can only get David Marr to stop bashing the banks, start spruiking Qantas, and do a few 30 second spots for the marvellous Lavenders, we'll finally have equality. The success of alan (financially and with ratings) and the failure of the lefties (financially and with ratings) speaks volumes. by ratings , one could substitute public support. Now why is that. Why are the rightard commentators able to sell stuff that people disapprove of (banks, fast food, big business) whilst leftard commentators and activists cant sell stuff we should love (the environment, the barrier reef, whales, clean energy). you have to say that these F^^KING DUMB LEFTARD MEDIA CLOWNS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS GROUPS (people like david marr, sarah hansen young, eva cox, tim flannery, the panel of Q and A, Get Up. Occupy wall street, The socialist alliance )  have HIJACKED the prime real estate and completely butchered it. They have botched the sale of these ideas beyond belief. Every time these whiney sooks and fools open their mouths they set back their cause another country mile. You really got to hand it to the leftard journalists. They are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo out of touch. Letting people like murdoch and jones whip their asses over and over . They are the best friends the right have, thanks to their incredible arrogance and condescending attitude to the man in the street. I like a lot of their causes but why would you throw your hat in with a bunch of amateur losers like them ;) ;)

What a simple answer to your rant: Commentators from the right love to over-hype, scream, and spread fear.  People react to this much better than they do to rational reporting, or commentating, with facts. 

Plus, as much as we hate fast food, we love fast food. As much as we hate big business and banks, we love money.   But when it comes to those subjects that you seem to hate...you know...the ENVIRONMENT. Well, let's face it: The majority of Australians don't see whales or the barrier reef.  And the majority of Australians are not in the bush.  And majority of Australians couldn't care less about how energy is generated. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't protect those things or come up with cleaner ways to generate energy.  It's not a popularity race to gain the dumb vote.  It's national interest. And sometimes, in fact I'd argue in MAJORITY OF CASES, the national interest results in negative support from the electorate at first.    So, a good leader doesn't listen to the idiot who rants after having 10 beers at the local pub.  Nor should they listen to the self absorbed who only care about how much something will cost them.  Instead, a good leader listens to experts, and considers all available information. And based on this, they make a determination that they believe to be in the best interest of the country.   

aquascoot wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 7:59am:

Bam wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 7:50am: Holden, Toyota, Qantas and numerous other companies have shed jobs since the Abbott government came to office. Cost cutting is going on everywhere as Australia closes for business. And someone is sooking because a particular right-wing commentator is not immune to this cost cutting? Reap what you sow, rightards. Reap what you sow. Again, the paradox. The fortunes of the right are enhanced by the ABC sacking the pompous twat. And the fortunes of the left are destroyed by the ABC attacking the navy and supporting country shoppers. reap what you sew leftards, reap what you sew. Come out to suburbia with the gazillion swinging voters and see if they like the ABC attacking the navy. :D :D :D :D. Akerman , glad he's gone. Should boost the conservative vote by having pure condescending luvvies on the ABC  ;)

ABC attacked the navy?

See, now you're being stupid.  Please stop right there.

Insiders is usually full or rightwing dolts like Nicky Savva anyway. The absence of Piers will make insiders slightly better tho still a complete wast of time.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 9:02am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 7:08am: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 4:48pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 3:24pm: i think the majority do share my view. alan earns a lot more than david marr. Good point, Aquascoot. If we can only get David Marr to stop bashing the banks, start spruiking Qantas, and do a few 30 second spots for the marvellous Lavenders, we'll finally have equality. The success of alan (financially and with ratings) and the failure of the lefties (financially and with ratings) speaks volumes. by ratings , one could substitute public support. Now why is that. Why are the rightard commentators able to sell stuff that people disapprove of (banks, fast food, big business) whilst leftard commentators and activists cant sell stuff we should love (the environment, the barrier reef, whales, clean energy). you have to say that these F^^KING DUMB LEFTARD MEDIA CLOWNS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS GROUPS (people like david marr, sarah hansen young, eva cox, tim flannery, the panel of Q and A, Get Up. Occupy wall street, The socialist alliance )  have HIJACKED the prime real estate and completely butchered it. They have botched the sale of these ideas beyond belief. Every time these whiney sooks and fools open their mouths they set back their cause another country mile. You really got to hand it to the leftard journalists. They are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo out of touch. Letting people like murdoch and jones whip their asses over and over . They are the best friends the right have, thanks to their incredible arrogance and condescending attitude to the man in the street. I like a lot of their causes but why would you throw your hat in with a bunch of amateur losers like them ;) ;) What a simple answer to your rant: Commentators from the right love to over-hype, scream, and spread fear.  People react to this much better than they do to rational reporting, or commentating, with facts.  Plus, as much as we hate fast food, we love fast food. As much as we hate big business and banks, we love money.   But when it comes to those subjects that you seem to hate...you know...the ENVIRONMENT. Well, let's face it: The majority of Australians don't see whales or the barrier reef.  And the majority of Australians are not in the bush.  And majority of Australians couldn't care less about how energy is generated. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't protect those things or come up with cleaner ways to generate energy.  It's not a popularity race to gain the dumb vote.  It's national interest. And sometimes, in fact I'd argue in MAJORITY OF CASES, the national interest results in negative support from the electorate at first.    So, a good leader doesn't listen to the idiot who rants after having 10 beers at the local pub.  Nor should they listen to the self absorbed who only care about how much something will cost them.  Instead, a good leader listens to experts, and considers all available information. And based on this, they make a determination that they believe to be in the best interest of the country.

That's a bit unfair, Alevine. Alan sells lots of advertising - he's clearly the best man here.

Alan or the CSIRO? The CSIRO or Alan?

Sorry, leftards, Alan wins every time.

Karnal wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 9:16am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 9:02am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 7:08am: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 4:48pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 3:24pm: i think the majority do share my view. alan earns a lot more than david marr. Good point, Aquascoot. If we can only get David Marr to stop bashing the banks, start spruiking Qantas, and do a few 30 second spots for the marvellous Lavenders, we'll finally have equality. The success of alan (financially and with ratings) and the failure of the lefties (financially and with ratings) speaks volumes. by ratings , one could substitute public support. Now why is that. Why are the rightard commentators able to sell stuff that people disapprove of (banks, fast food, big business) whilst leftard commentators and activists cant sell stuff we should love (the environment, the barrier reef, whales, clean energy). you have to say that these F^^KING DUMB LEFTARD MEDIA CLOWNS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS GROUPS (people like david marr, sarah hansen young, eva cox, tim flannery, the panel of Q and A, Get Up. Occupy wall street, The socialist alliance )  have HIJACKED the prime real estate and completely butchered it. They have botched the sale of these ideas beyond belief. Every time these whiney sooks and fools open their mouths they set back their cause another country mile. You really got to hand it to the leftard journalists. They are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo out of touch. Letting people like murdoch and jones whip their asses over and over . They are the best friends the right have, thanks to their incredible arrogance and condescending attitude to the man in the street. I like a lot of their causes but why would you throw your hat in with a bunch of amateur losers like them ;) ;) What a simple answer to your rant: Commentators from the right love to over-hype, scream, and spread fear.  People react to this much better than they do to rational reporting, or commentating, with facts.  Plus, as much as we hate fast food, we love fast food. As much as we hate big business and banks, we love money.   But when it comes to those subjects that you seem to hate...you know...the ENVIRONMENT. Well, let's face it: The majority of Australians don't see whales or the barrier reef.  And the majority of Australians are not in the bush.  And majority of Australians couldn't care less about how energy is generated. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't protect those things or come up with cleaner ways to generate energy.  It's not a popularity race to gain the dumb vote.  It's national interest. And sometimes, in fact I'd argue in MAJORITY OF CASES, the national interest results in negative support from the electorate at first.    So, a good leader doesn't listen to the idiot who rants after having 10 beers at the local pub.  Nor should they listen to the self absorbed who only care about how much something will cost them.  Instead, a good leader listens to experts, and considers all available information. And based on this, they make a determination that they believe to be in the best interest of the country.    That's a bit unfair, Alevine. Alan sells lots of advertising - he's clearly the best man here. Alan or the CSIRO? The CSIRO or Alan? Sorry, leftards, Alan wins every time.

With Alan around, I don't even know why we have the CSIRO! What a waste of money. Another lefty thing imposed on us! 

Oh i trust the CSIRO and i beleive in climate change and i would never listen to alan.

I just think leftard public relations absolutely suck.
they have no idea how to sell an idea.

the public are badly served by them championing important causes and turning the public against these very ideas.

certainly wouldnt get a job in private with such woeful performances.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 9:42am:

Oh i trust the CSIRO and i beleive in climate change and i would never listen to alan. I just think leftard public relations absolutely suck. they have no idea how to sell an idea. the public are badly served by them championing important causes and turning the public against these very ideas. certainly wouldnt get a job in private with such woeful performances.

I say, dear, it might come as a bit of a suprise, but they don't have a leftard public relations department.

When it comes to propaganda, there's News Ltd and the shock jocks, and everyone else p!ssing into the wind.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 9:19am:

With Alan around, I don't even know why we have the CSIRO! What a waste of money. Another lefty thing imposed on us!

Exactly. The CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, all academics and public servants - and Mistie's university.

It's all got to go.

Karnal wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 9:59am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 9:42am: Oh i trust the CSIRO and i beleive in climate change and i would never listen to alan. I just think leftard public relations absolutely suck. they have no idea how to sell an idea. the public are badly served by them championing important causes and turning the public against these very ideas. certainly wouldnt get a job in private with such woeful performances. I say, dear, it might come as a bit of a suprise, but they don't have a leftard public relations department. When it comes to propaganda, there's News Ltd and the shock jocks, and everyone else p!ssing into the wind.

Not so, people like david attenborrough do a lot of good for the environmental movement.
The extreme greens, seek not to educate but to lecture in a condescending way.
Alan doesnt need to say a thing. Just follow lao tzu's advice and let his enemies destroy themselves  ;).
As a greenie myself, i find the green representatives a constant source of embarrassment.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 10:03am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 9:59am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 9:42am: Oh i trust the CSIRO and i beleive in climate change and i would never listen to alan. I just think leftard public relations absolutely suck. they have no idea how to sell an idea. the public are badly served by them championing important causes and turning the public against these very ideas. certainly wouldnt get a job in private with such woeful performances. I say, dear, it might come as a bit of a suprise, but they don't have a leftard public relations department. When it comes to propaganda, there's News Ltd and the shock jocks, and everyone else p!ssing into the wind. Not so, people like david attenborrough do a lot of good for the environmental movement. The extreme greens, seek not to educate but to lecture in a condescending way. Alan doesnt need to say a thing. Just follow lao tzu's advice and let his enemies destroy themselves  ;). As a greenie myself, i find the green representatives a constant source of embarrassment.

Examples?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 10:18am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 10:03am: Karnal wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 9:59am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 9:42am: Oh i trust the CSIRO and i beleive in climate change and i would never listen to alan. I just think leftard public relations absolutely suck. they have no idea how to sell an idea. the public are badly served by them championing important causes and turning the public against these very ideas. certainly wouldnt get a job in private with such woeful performances. I say, dear, it might come as a bit of a suprise, but they don't have a leftard public relations department. When it comes to propaganda, there's News Ltd and the shock jocks, and everyone else p!ssing into the wind. Not so, people like david attenborrough do a lot of good for the environmental movement. The extreme greens, seek not to educate but to lecture in a condescending way. Alan doesnt need to say a thing. Just follow lao tzu's advice and let his enemies destroy themselves  ;). As a greenie myself, i find the green representatives a constant source of embarrassment. Examples?

Farmers are green. you'd be nuts not to be a green farmer. Youd go broke.
Adam bandt seeks to lecture on bushfires. ;) ;), i doubt he's ever seen a fire except in the lobby of a 5 star hotel
Greens want live cattle exports banned.
10 large farms in the NT were exporting water buffalo to indonesia. the water buffallo caught a lift with the live cattle. Water buffalo are environmental vandals. thanks to the ABC and the greens we now have all these feral pests set free to trample Kakadu. ;) ;) 
And 10 good businesses employing aborigines shut down ;) ;)

aquascoot wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 10:32am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 10:18am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 10:03am: Karnal wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 9:59am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 9:42am: Oh i trust the CSIRO and i beleive in climate change and i would never listen to alan. I just think leftard public relations absolutely suck. they have no idea how to sell an idea. the public are badly served by them championing important causes and turning the public against these very ideas. certainly wouldnt get a job in private with such woeful performances. I say, dear, it might come as a bit of a suprise, but they don't have a leftard public relations department. When it comes to propaganda, there's News Ltd and the shock jocks, and everyone else p!ssing into the wind. Not so, people like david attenborrough do a lot of good for the environmental movement. The extreme greens, seek not to educate but to lecture in a condescending way. Alan doesnt need to say a thing. Just follow lao tzu's advice and let his enemies destroy themselves  ;). As a greenie myself, i find the green representatives a constant source of embarrassment. Examples? Farmers are green. you'd be nuts not to be a green farmer. Youd go broke. Adam bandt seeks to lecture on bushfires. ;) ;), i doubt he's ever seen a fire except in the lobby of a 5 star hotel Greens want live cattle exports banned. 10 large farms in the NT were exporting water buffalo to indonesia. the water buffallo caught a lift with the live cattle. Water buffalo are environmental vandals. thanks to the ABC and the greens we now have all these feral pests set free to trample Kakadu. ;) ;)  And 10 good businesses employing aborigines shut down ;) ;)

Aborigines? What does that have to do with anything?

Anyway, do you believe that unless you've seen a bushfire, you shouldn't comment on how to reduce them? 
I haven't read about the water buffalo being released into the Kakadu national park, and this being the fault of the ABC and the greens.  Care to provide specific examples to this claim?
And what does 10 good businesses employing aborigines have to do with lefties lecturing? 

None of this sounds very rational. You're upset that people a lecturing to you, yet your examples suggest you're upset about policy, designed to protect the environment.  What kind of greenie are you? Just because you love animals does not make you a greenie - especially if your love of animals comes second to your love of money.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 3:13pm:

Misty, what is social equality? Really? I'm going to equate that to your own conditioning :(  It really is quite sad, that  when someone speaks of social equality, you straight away assume one is talking about outcomes. No, no, no. Social equality means equal rights, and equal access to opportunities (health,education).  Would I say our current society offers this? Obviously not. And as a result of the inequalities that exist, this is where crime spawns from.  Can it ever be eradicated? Probably not, I agree with you. But the rises we have seen have come from the direct result of our society becoming less equal.

Rubbish. This is just the "progressive" narrative: claim social equality is the key to the promised land and that inequality is the cause of crime and suffering. What studies support this? Bring them out. I'll bet I can tear to shreds the research methodology and moral perspective employed by the authors.


Quote:

Can I get an example from you as to what you would consider an actual ethnic crime? An actual example, Misty. I'm curious to understand what crime is occurring in Australia that is accepted by the "ethnics" back home, but we deem intolerable. And then I'd be interested to investigate further to truly understand the underlying cause.

Drive by shootings appears to be a Middle Eastern speciality, the vast majority of which occur in the South-Western suburbs of Sydney. This is an import. Protecting one's honour and turf by violent means is common in Middle Eastern countries. Westerners have little concept of honour and therefore do not understand the motivations behind this type of violent retribution.

Resolution by violent means is common amongst a lot of non-Western cultures. It's funny that your type wants to import these people, as they would be the last people to fit into your idealised form of community.   

Strange, I remember the bikie gangs also loved the drive by.

;) ;)
Its surprising that lefties worry about alan.
never listened to the bloke.
Surely you recognise he just "preaches to the choir"
i doubt he has ever changed an opinion in his life.

Farmers hate the greens.  Go figure.  I'll ask all my neighbours why but it will just be a lot of F's and C's.
Yeah, the greens are very popular in inner city urban areas.
Lets check the electoral figures on how well they poll in the bush where the people with the real knowledge live  ;)

There are some Greens working in the bush against CSG, but the dumb farmers still vote Nats thinking the Nats support farmers—nope, Nats now support the miners, more money I guess.

Greens have a lot of support from young, inner city professionals (and NIMBYs everywhere) one reason they are not a progressive party, save for “fig leaf” issues like SSM is now. People like Greenswin haven’t figured that out yet and don’t want to see it.

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 4:39pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 3:01pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 1:50pm: Misty, you know too well that I called you an extremist because of the colourful words you tried to use to describe issues. Remember?  And especially when you start talking about feces.  Incorrect. Read here: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391510268/255 Read particularly reply 258, as most of the conversation is in quote boxes. Nowhere did I use "colourful words". I merely described what topics I'd like to see on Q&A. You dismissed and ridiculed topics I'd like to see discussed on the show. It's not hard to see who is the extremist when someone flat out refuses to talk about some topics.     Quote: May I also add Misty, my dearest old friend, that ethnic crime is a very nice strawman created by dummies like yourself to try and lay blame on the rise of crime on "multiculturism", instead of on the true cause, being the growing divide in social equality. There is so much wrong here I do not know where to start. "Social equality"?! What is that? What does it even mean?  Alevine didn't indicate a preference for "social equality", Mistie. He referred to a "divide in social equality". By this, Alevine alludes to the growing divide in income distribution, as highlighted by such hotbeds of "progressivism" as the US government and the agenda at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-h-morial/income-inequality_b_4688614.html Personally, I don't think this wealth divide is as extreme in Australia as it is in other developed countries such as the US and UK, and especially in most developing countries. However, it's one of the most crucial issues facing the world today. Who knows? it may even be more important than gay marriage and your concerns about anal sex. How do you measure "social equality"? Easy: in capitalism, you measure it by income levels.  Do they teach economics at the Acadame these days, Mistie?

While I do believe that people should have access to minimum subsistence, "equality" is just an excuse for the envious to tear down the more successful. When will the preachers of equality be happy? When everyone has a two BMWs in the drive way? When everyone has 2 plasma screen tvs? When everyone can have a disposable income of $2,000 a week? The list is endless.

Equality is actually a destructive social policy. It brings out envy, rage, and every other negative emotion. And the "progressives" want to base their entire social policy on such a thing. What a society they want to engineer; one where people are constantly agitated that Joe Blow down the road has an extra car in the drive way or a better ride on lawnmower.

The "progressives" are actually very bourgeois here; they are materialists just like the capitalists. Perhaps some Stoicism or Buddhist style meditation might calm their nerves better.

I fully agree that everyone should have access to basic human needs, but I completely disagree with the goal and driving force behind equality.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 11:08am:

Strange, I remember the bikie gangs also loved the drive by.

Have you noticed what ethnicity they often are?

Thuggish?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 11:17am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 11:08am: Strange, I remember the bikie gangs also loved the drive by. Have you noticed what ethnicity they often are?

Back in the 80s 90s when that was all happening, still bloody white vets

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 11:05am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 3:13pm: Misty, what is social equality? Really? I'm going to equate that to your own conditioning :(  It really is quite sad, that  when someone speaks of social equality, you straight away assume one is talking about outcomes. No, no, no. Social equality means equal rights, and equal access to opportunities (health,education).  Would I say our current society offers this? Obviously not. And as a result of the inequalities that exist, this is where crime spawns from.  Can it ever be eradicated? Probably not, I agree with you. But the rises we have seen have come from the direct result of our society becoming less equal. Rubbish. This is just the "progressive" narrative: claim social equality is the key to the promised land and that inequality is the cause of crime and suffering. What studies support this? Bring them out. I'll bet I can tear to shreds the research methodology and moral perspective employed by the authors. Quote: Can I get an example from you as to what you would consider an actual ethnic crime? An actual example, Misty. I'm curious to understand what crime is occurring in Australia that is accepted by the "ethnics" back home, but we deem intolerable. And then I'd be interested to investigate further to truly understand the underlying cause. Drive by shootings appears to be a Middle Eastern speciality, the vast majority of which occur in the South-Western suburbs of Sydney. This is an import. Protecting one's honour and turf by violent means is common in Middle Eastern countries. Westerners have little concept of honour and therefore do not understand the motivations behind this type of violent retribution. Resolution by violent means is common amongst a lot of non-Western cultures. It's funny that your type wants to import these people, as they would be the last people to fit into your idealised form of community.

Come now Misty.  you know there are MANY studies.  http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=crime+social+inequality&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

BUt I'm curious, I tried to find "Middle Eastern Speciality, drive by shootings" and I can't seem to find one study that proves this. Would you be able to assist?

Also, is it your assertion that ethnic crime occurs because people from different cultures think it's accepted? If that is the case, would you mind showing me the relevant laws that allow for drive-by shootings in Middle Eastern countries?

Resolution by violent means is common amongst many people, I agree. But generally this is the result of nurture, not nature, and the nurture coming from many factors: family upbringing, social (community) demographics, etc.   And last I checked, these werent just common to ethnic groups, but common across all suburbs in Australia. Perhaps not as prevalent in our "elite" suburbs, where it's more white collar, but that stat only helps prove the point I'm making.

In any case, Aqua, do I still need to pretend Misty is smart? Or can we end this charade?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 11:16am:

While I do believe that people should have access to minimum subsistence, "equality" is just an excuse for the envious to tear down the more successful. When will the preachers of equality be happy? When everyone has a two BMWs in the drive way? When everyone has 2 plasma screen tvs? When everyone can have a disposable income of $2,000 a week? The list is endless. Equality is actually a destructive social policy. It brings out envy, rage, and every other negative emotion. And the "progressives" want to base their entire social policy on such a thing. What a society they want to engineer; one where people are constantly agitated that Joe Blow down the road has an extra car in the drive way or a better ride on lawnmower. The "progressives" are actually very bourgeois here;

Yes, Mistie, the "progressives" are very bourgeois here. They've infiltrated the Republican Party in the US, the Conservative party in the UK, and they've managed to Shanghai the global economic agenda in symposiums like the World Economic Forum.

They think the growing divide in wealth threatens global stability. In Thailand, it's led to the rise of billionaire-political dynasties like the Shinawatras, alongside the poverty of the rural farmers Thaksin Shinawatra has won over - an issue that has led the "Yellow Shirts" to question the viability of democracy itself.

In Russia, it's led to the anti-Putin movement, where Russian power is centralized in the hands of Putin and a few compliant billionaires who've been sold former state industries (with state loans brokered by Putin). Moscow is now the most expensive city in the world - while the rest of Russia are lucky to have jobs.

In China, it's a powerless rural mass who are forced to make way for state development and the business of the "princelings"; the ex-Communist billionaires/families who run China and now own much of the world's debt in the form of US bonds. China manages to supress political instability through its one-party state, but cracks are appearing in some areas and provinces. The internet, TV and print media are heavily censored, but many are questioning the new materialist values and the unparalleled (unequal) distribution of wealth. 

This economic model is influential throughout Africa, Latin America and South East Asia, along with the countries above. In the US, the gap has risen dramaticaly since the 1960s, peaking after the tax cuts and corporate welfare of the last Bush administration. CEO bonuses have reached the hundreds of millions. After the GFC, those who brokered the loans who caused it were paid out. After the Savings and Loans Crisis of the Reagan 80s, they were jailed or fined.

This is a model that has given over 60% of the world's resources to 4% of its population. It's a model that sees 90% of the world's population scramble for the spoils of the 10% who own the world's wealth, along with what we call the urban middle classes - that's people like you and me. We make up 10%.

And it's a model where such inequality directly causes environmental problems, food and energy insecurity, urban overcrowding and slums, and associated issues with public health, water, sanitation, and even famines.

In much of the developing world, such mass poverty is contrasted with a tiny corporate/political elite who bunker down behind razor wire in fortress-style compounds. In countries like South Africa, Peru and the Philippines, they employ SWAT-style security teams with machine guns and armoured vehicles, who are, for all intents and purposes, above the law. In parts of Latin America, they are the law, the drug cartels having taken over governments and the courts.

Putin's new private dacha is estimated to have cost 4 billion dollars to build. Helipads, bomb shelters, conferencing facilities, the lot. It's believed to be the most expensive private residence in history.

If you think the growing wealth gap is "just an excuse for the envious to tear down the more successful", you probably haven't been out much. After all, the successful aren't too happy about it themselves. In the US, many of the successful, like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros, have been arguing for higher taxes for years - they've even formed their own lobby group, the "Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength".

I wonder if they know how destructive a social policy equality is. Still, you work in the uni, so you'd know all about this. I doubt they teach economics at your leftist, "progressive" uni, Mistie. They're probably too busy teaching creative and critical thinking skills. Typical.

Still, these are important skills to have. After all, you never argue mere "moral" points of view, you only discuss facts and you always provide examples.

Joe Blow and his ride-on lawnmower is an excellent example, Mistie.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 11:16am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 4:39pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 3:01pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11th, 2014 at 1:50pm: Misty, you know too well that I called you an extremist because of the colourful words you tried to use to describe issues. Remember?  And especially when you start talking about feces.  Incorrect. Read here: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391510268/255 Read particularly reply 258, as most of the conversation is in quote boxes. Nowhere did I use "colourful words". I merely described what topics I'd like to see on Q&A. You dismissed and ridiculed topics I'd like to see discussed on the show. It's not hard to see who is the extremist when someone flat out refuses to talk about some topics.     Quote: May I also add Misty, my dearest old friend, that ethnic crime is a very nice strawman created by dummies like yourself to try and lay blame on the rise of crime on "multiculturism", instead of on the true cause, being the growing divide in social equality. There is so much wrong here I do not know where to start. "Social equality"?! What is that? What does it even mean?  Alevine didn't indicate a preference for "social equality", Mistie. He referred to a "divide in social equality". By this, Alevine alludes to the growing divide in income distribution, as highlighted by such hotbeds of "progressivism" as the US government and the agenda at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-h-morial/income-inequality_b_4688614.html Personally, I don't think this wealth divide is as extreme in Australia as it is in other developed countries such as the US and UK, and especially in most developing countries. However, it's one of the most crucial issues facing the world today. Who knows? it may even be more important than gay marriage and your concerns about anal sex. How do you measure "social equality"? Easy: in capitalism, you measure it by income levels.  Do they teach economics at the Acadame these days, Mistie? While I do believe that people should have access to minimum subsistence, "equality" is just an excuse for the envious to tear down the more successful. When will the preachers of equality be happy? When everyone has a two BMWs in the drive way? When everyone has 2 plasma screen tvs? When everyone can have a disposable income of $2,000 a week? The list is endless. Equality is actually a destructive social policy. It brings out envy, rage, and every other negative emotion. And the "progressives" want to base their entire social policy on such a thing. What a society they want to engineer; one where people are constantly agitated that Joe Blow down the road has an extra car in the drive way or a better ride on lawnmower. The "progressives" are actually very bourgeois here; they are materialists just like the capitalists. Perhaps some Stoicism or Buddhist style meditation might calm their nerves better. I fully agree that everyone should have access to basic human needs, but I completely disagree with the goal and driving force behind equality.

Yes, it's all about being envious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6niWzomA_So

The first 10 minutes explain it all for me.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 11:17am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 11:08am: Strange, I remember the bikie gangs also loved the drive by. Have you noticed what ethnicity they often are?

Scottish?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 12:24pm:

Come now Misty.  you know there are MANY studies.  http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=crime+social+inequality&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

I am guessing you didn't actually read any of those. I read Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization and nowhere does it assert crime is caused by inequality. Its thesis is that certain demographics are more often victims of crime than others. This is a separate thesis to yours. I guess you just put a few words into the Google Scholar search engine then saw a few catchy titles that sounded like they may support your position.



Quote:

BUt I'm curious, I tried to find "Middle Eastern Speciality, drive by shootings" and I can't seem to find one study that proves this. Would you be able to assist?

You won't find any studies on this. Academics don't examine non-white ethnicities in a negative way (only whitey gets this special treatment). Often you have to rely on newspaper reports. Even then they rarely mention the ethnicity of those involved, but when they start naming names, it becomes obvious what ethnic background they have. It's a shame academics don't examine this area. They're willing to tell us how bad whitey's been in the past and present, but non-whitey gets off pretty easy.


Quote:

Also, is it your assertion that ethnic crime occurs because people from different cultures think it's accepted? If that is the case, would you mind showing me the relevant laws that allow for drive-by shootings in Middle Eastern countries? Resolution by violent means is common amongst many people, I agree. But generally this is the result of nurture, not nature, and the nurture coming from many factors: family upbringing, social (community) demographics, etc.   And last I checked, these werent just common to ethnic groups, but common across all suburbs in Australia. Perhaps not as prevalent in our "elite" suburbs, where it's more white collar, but that stat only helps prove the point I'm making.

Family upbringing and social pressures do indeed play a part in behaviour. (Genetics also play a part, but I won't go there at the moment). If someone has been brought up in a culture where the way to resolve disputes or to save one's honour is violence, then that becomes hard to shake off. It often goes so deep it becomes an instinct. This is why second generation migrants are the only ones who can truly assimilate if they put in the effort (for non-Europeans). The first generation always bring their ways here. The second generation can be assimilated, but there's evidence they don't. Hence the drive bys in Sydney. Equality has nothing to do with this. This is about instinctual behaviour that is hard to shake off.




Quote:

do I still need to pretend Misty is smart? Or can we end this charade?

I wouldn't speak so soon, considering you just put up some links without reading them. That's pretty dumb.

Karnal wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 12:55pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 11:16am: While I do believe that people should have access to minimum subsistence, "equality" is just an excuse for the envious to tear down the more successful. When will the preachers of equality be happy? When everyone has a two BMWs in the drive way? When everyone has 2 plasma screen tvs? When everyone can have a disposable income of $2,000 a week? The list is endless. Equality is actually a destructive social policy. It brings out envy, rage, and every other negative emotion. And the "progressives" want to base their entire social policy on such a thing. What a society they want to engineer; one where people are constantly agitated that Joe Blow down the road has an extra car in the drive way or a better ride on lawnmower. The "progressives" are actually very bourgeois here; Yes, Mistie, the "progressives" are very bourgeois here. They've infiltrated the Republican Party in the US, the Conservative party in the UK, and they've managed to Shanghai the global economic agenda in symposiums like the World Economic Forum. They think the growing divide in wealth threatens global stability. In Thailand, it's led to the rise of billionaire-political dynasties like the Shinawatras, alongside the poverty of the rural farmers Thaksin Shinawatra has won over - an issue that has led the "Yellow Shirts" to question the viability of democracy itself. In Russia, it's led to the anti-Putin movement, where Russian power is centralized in the hands of Putin and a few compliant billionaires who've been sold former state industries (with state loans brokered by Putin). Moscow is now the most expensive city in the world - while the rest of Russia are lucky to have jobs. In China, it's a powerless rural mass who are forced to make way for state development and the business of the "princelings"; the ex-Communist billionaires/families who run China and now own much of the world's debt in the form of US bonds. China manages to supress political instability through its one-party state, but cracks are appearing in some areas and provinces. The internet, TV and print media are heavily censored, but many are questioning the new materialist values and the unparalleled (unequal) distribution of wealth.  This economic model is influential throughout Africa, Latin America and South East Asia, along with the countries above. In the US, the gap has risen dramaticaly since the 1960s, peaking after the tax cuts and corporate welfare of the last Bush administration. CEO bonuses have reached the hundreds of millions. After the GFC, those who brokered the loans who caused it were paid out. After the Savings and Loans Crisis of the Reagan 80s, they were jailed or fined. This is a model that has given over 60% of the world's resources to 4% of its population. It's a model that sees 90% of the world's population scramble for the spoils of the 10% who own the world's wealth, along with what we call the urban middle classes - that's people like you and me. We make up 10%. And it's a model where such inequality directly causes environmental problems, food and energy insecurity, urban overcrowding and slums, and associated issues with public health, water, sanitation, and even famines. In much of the developing world, such mass poverty is contrasted with a tiny corporate/political elite who bunker down behind razor wire in fortress-style compounds. In countries like South Africa, Peru and the Philippines, they employ SWAT-style security teams with machine guns and armoured vehicles, who are, for all intents and purposes, above the law. In parts of Latin America, they are the law, the drug cartels having taken over governments and the courts. Putin's new private dacha is estimated to have cost 4 billion dollars to build. Helipads, bomb shelters, conferencing facilities, the lot. It's believed to be the most expensive private residence in history. If you think the growing wealth gap is "just an excuse for the envious to tear down the more successful", you probably haven't been out much. After all, the successful aren't too happy about it themselves. In the US, many of the successful, like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros, have been arguing for higher taxes for years - they've even formed their own lobby group, the "Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength". I wonder if they know how destructive a social policy equality is. Still, you work in the uni, so you'd know all about this. I doubt they teach economics at your leftist, "progressive" uni, Mistie. They're probably too busy teaching creative and critical thinking skills. Typical. Still, these are important skills to have. After all, you never argue mere "moral" points of view, you only discuss facts and you always provide examples. Joe Blow and his ride-on lawnmower is an excellent example, Mistie.

Yawn. Equality won't happen. It can't happen. Nor should it happen. Equal in what? Equality in everyone having 3 BMWs? Equality in the size of your lawn? Or equal to live in garbage bins? It's a silly word that throws the topic into hazy territory. The aim should be to elevate the poor to minimum subsistence. Throw the word equality out.

Misty, you completely misunderstood: I simply helped you do the search, because clearly you were a little confused on how to find studies on the matter. 

But if you insist, there's a book, "Inequality, Crime and Public Policy."  I won't bore you with the empirical evidence presented in the book, but I will tell you that the conclusion is:

Quote:

Lower class people engage in those crimes which do not involve the abuse of occupational power (ie white collar, non-violent) at a higher rate than middle class people

Quote:

There seem to be reasonable theoretical crimes grounds, in some cases supported by substantial empirical evidence, for predicting that a redistribution of wealth and power, from those who have much to those who have little, would simultaneously decrease the crimes of the powerful (white collar non violent) and the crimes of the powerless.

Quote:

Theories based on lower class deprivation and brutalization, powerlessness, blocked legitimate opportunities, broken homes, eroded respect of sons for fathers who are economic failures, and reward-cost calculations for crime, can be used to predict that the former type of crime (non-occupational) will be reduced by greater equality.

Then there's the book, simply titled, "Crime and inequality", which points out in the VERY BEGINNING, the introduction, that the linkage between social inequality and crime has been studied since 1918 in Europe, and in America since the 1930s. And goes on to say, "As we point out groups that are economically deprived, specifically young people, disadvantaged minority males, are also heavily involved in serious criminal offences, especially violent street crime." 

I'll leave you to go through more than 1 SOURCE in the link I gave you, and also not the VERY FIRST SOURCE. :D  It's google search,it's good, but its still keyword based, so of course out of the 265,000 results, not all will be directly talking about inequality and crime rates.

And I would've thought someone of your calibre could do a simple analysis of crime stats in Australia, based on social demographic areas, and find that there is in fact strong signs of a linkage.

In any case, if you want something very recent, here is a thesis by a socialist (he admits it in intro but explains how it doesn't impact his judgement) from ANU: http://www.anu.edu.au/fellows/jbraithwaite/_documents/Manuscripts/InCrPublic.pdf

But I guess you're right. Sources like (I'm guessing youre from SA) THe Advertiser, or Today Tonight, provide much better empirical evidence than studies that have been for a hundred years.


As for crime being in genetics, yes I've heard of the studies. But I completely disagree with you that somehow an entire race of people can be subjected to the claim that they are more violent, on the basis that there is evidence to suggest crime is also genetic.  And I'd argue that given the evidence of linkage betwen social inequality and crime, it is highly understandable why a person who comes from a poor developing nation on the brink of war, or at times IN war, may be prone to violence more than a middle class suburbia person in Australia.   And the result of these people offending in Australia tells me of a poor lack of policy. Most of our migration is skilled, which to me would suggest the people that come to this country from all parts of the world are going to be from the middle class. It would only really be refugees, or people on humanitarian visas, that may be subjected more to violence. But like I said, that is understandble, and given we have an obligation, the onus is on our government to stop relying all the work on non-profit organisations, but in stead put their brains together and come up with a proper integration programme that actually helps these people, as opposed to simply saying, "Here have a miserable welfare, good luck."

Keep it up, you're really starting to amuse me.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 11:22pm:

Misty, you completely misunderstood: I simply helped you do the search, because clearly you were a little confused on how to find studies on the matter.  But if you insist, there's a book, "Inequality, Crime and Public Policy."  I won't bore you with the empirical evidence presented in the book, but I will tell you that the conclusion is: Quote: Lower class people engage in those crimes which do not involve the abuse of occupational power (ie white collar, non-violent) at a higher rate than middle class people [quote]There seem to be reasonable theoretical crimes grounds, in some cases supported by substantial empirical evidence, for predicting that a redistribution of wealth and power, from those who have much to those who have little, would simultaneously decrease the crimes of the powerful (white collar non violent) and the crimes of the powerless.

Quote:

Theories based on lower class deprivation and brutalization, powerlessness, blocked legitimate opportunities, broken homes, eroded respect of sons for fathers who are economic failures, and reward-cost calculations for crime, can be used to predict that the former type of crime (non-occupational) will be reduced by greater equality.

Then there's the book, simply titled, "Crime and inequality", which points out in the VERY BEGINNING, the introduction, that the linkage between social inequality and crime has been studied since 1918 in Europe, and in America since the 1930s. And goes on to say, "As we point out groups that are economically deprived, specifically young people, disadvantaged minority males, are also heavily involved in serious criminal offences, especially violent street crime." 

I'll leave you to go through more than 1 SOURCE in the link I gave you, and also not the VERY FIRST SOURCE. :D  It's google search,it's good, but its still keyword based, so of course out of the 265,000 results, not all will be directly talking about inequality and crime rates.

And I would've thought someone of your calibre could do a simple analysis of crime stats in Australia, based on social demographic areas, and find that there is in fact strong signs of a linkage.

In any case, if you want something very recent, here is a thesis by a socialist (he admits it in intro but explains how it doesn't impact his judgement) from ANU: http://www.anu.edu.au/fellows/jbraithwaite/_documents/Manuscripts/InCrPublic.pdf

But I guess you're right. Sources like (I'm guessing youre from SA) THe Advertiser, or Today Tonight, provide much better empirical evidence than studies that have been for a hundred years.


As for crime being in genetics, yes I've heard of the studies. But I completely disagree with you that somehow an entire race of people can be subjected to the claim that they are more violent, on the basis that there is evidence to suggest crime is also genetic.  And I'd argue that given the evidence of linkage betwen social inequality and crime, it is highly understandable why a person who comes from a poor developing nation on the brink of war, or at times IN war, may be prone to violence more than a middle class suburbia person in Australia.   And the result of these people offending in Australia tells me of a poor lack of policy. Most of our migration is skilled, which to me would suggest the people that come to this country from all parts of the world are going to be from the middle class. It would only really be refugees, or people on humanitarian visas, that may be subjected more to violence. But like I said, that is understandble, and given we have an obligation, the onus is on our government to stop relying all the work on non-profit organisations, but in stead put their brains together and come up with a proper integration programme that actually helps these people, as opposed to simply saying, "Here have a miserable welfare, good luck."

Keep it up, you're really starting to amuse me.

[/quote]

Excellent riposte. Let's hope it is not pearls before swine, however, I fear that is being optimistic...

The Insiders sack Piers Akerman - more ABC bias.


Nope, just accountability in action, I understand some here might not be familiar with that idea...

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 10:35pm:

Yawn. Equality won't happen. It can't happen. Nor should it happen. Equal in what? Equality in everyone having 3 BMWs? Equality in the size of your lawn? Or equal to live in garbage bins?

No, Mistie, equality in things like access to basic health care, education, subsistance wages and safe working conditions.

I understand lawns and garbage bins are important to you. It's good to be neat and tidy, and these are worthwhile values to have.

But 90% of people on the planet have more pressing concerns, and this number is growing. The number of people with tidy lawns and bins is getting smaller, despite the burgening middle classes in countries like India and China.

Liberal-demokratic ideology holds that equality will happen the more countries develop. It says that as a middle classe emerges and grows, so will political freedoms, freedom of speech, popular elections, etc, etc, etc.

Equality is a value intrinsic to liberal-demokracy, and this is the dominant political ideology in the world today. The big geopolitical question now is whether China will develop in such a direction.

Yawn.

Karnal wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 9:33am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 10:35pm: Yawn. Equality won't happen. It can't happen. Nor should it happen. Equal in what? Equality in everyone having 3 BMWs? Equality in the size of your lawn? Or equal to live in garbage bins? No, Mistie, equality in things like access to basic health care, education, subsistance wages and safe working conditions. I understand lawns and garbage bins are important to you. It's good to be neat and tidy, and these are worthwhile values to have. But 90% of people on the planet have more pressing concerns, and this number is growing. The number of people with tidy lawns and bins is getting smaller, despite the burgening middle classes in countries like India and China. Liberal-demokratic ideology holds that equality will happen the more countries develop. It says that as a middle classe emerges and grows, so will political freedoms, freedom of speech, popular elections, etc, etc, etc. Equality is a value intrinsic to liberal-demokracy, and this is the dominant political ideology in the world today. The big geopolitical question now is whether China will develop in such a direction. Yawn.

Of course everyone cares about the size of their lawn.  It is the single most important factor to all aspects of life.

Yawn.

Karnal wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 9:33am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 10:35pm: Yawn. Equality won't happen. It can't happen. Nor should it happen. Equal in what? Equality in everyone having 3 BMWs? Equality in the size of your lawn? Or equal to live in garbage bins? No, Mistie, equality in things like access to basic health care, education, subsistance wages and safe working conditions. I understand lawns and garbage bins are important to you. It's good to be neat and tidy, and these are worthwhile values to have. But 90% of people on the planet have more pressing concerns, and this number is growing. The number of people with tidy lawns and bins is getting smaller, despite the burgening middle classes in countries like India and China. Liberal-demokratic ideology holds that equality will happen the more countries develop. It says that as a middle classe emerges and grows, so will political freedoms, freedom of speech, popular elections, etc, etc, etc. Equality is a value intrinsic to liberal-demokracy, and this is the dominant political ideology in the world today. The big geopolitical question now is whether China will develop in such a direction. Yawn.

these things have all been achieved in australia. the dream has been realised and the left should fall to their knees and give thanks and stop whinging ;)

aquascoot wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 10:10am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 9:33am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 10:35pm: Yawn. Equality won't happen. It can't happen. Nor should it happen. Equal in what? Equality in everyone having 3 BMWs? Equality in the size of your lawn? Or equal to live in garbage bins? No, Mistie, equality in things like access to basic health care, education, subsistance wages and safe working conditions. I understand lawns and garbage bins are important to you. It's good to be neat and tidy, and these are worthwhile values to have. But 90% of people on the planet have more pressing concerns, and this number is growing. The number of people with tidy lawns and bins is getting smaller, despite the burgening middle classes in countries like India and China. Liberal-demokratic ideology holds that equality will happen the more countries develop. It says that as a middle classe emerges and grows, so will political freedoms, freedom of speech, popular elections, etc, etc, etc. Equality is a value intrinsic to liberal-demokracy, and this is the dominant political ideology in the world today. The big geopolitical question now is whether China will develop in such a direction. Yawn. these things have all been achieved in australia. the dream has been realised and the left should fall to their knees and give thanks and stop whinging ;)

you're crazy right? The middle class is dwindling, not increasing. And the separation between upper and middle is growing and growing, and not by the AMOUNT of people in the Upper class, but by they amount of wealth OWNED by the upper class.

We have equality of opportunity in australia.
ANYONE with the drive and determination can make it , to achieve anything they wish.
They are more likely to make it , if we start the resilience training, the toughening up, the "life wasnt meant to be easy", the "harden up princess" training as soon as possible.
We need to instil in young people (who have these wonderful health and education opportunities) that set backs, problems, obstacles, disappointments are all just "grist for the mill". that an obstacle is a stepping stone.
We need to get rid of the false leftard notion of the lawnmower parent who runs in front of the child, clearing a path so that the childs path is easy.
Only through dealing with obstacles (bullying, injustice, inequality) and overcoming them , will true self belief , self esteem and achievement be realised.

The greatest sportsmen (look at rafal nadal with sever arthritis at age 12) recognise this.
Lefties and hand wringers,  i dislike them not because i am some arrogant rich prick but becuase their doctrine, in the end , causes SO MUCH SUFFERING.
I'm not crazy, far from it. I have seen the light ;)

aquascoot wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 10:10am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 9:33am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 10:35pm: Yawn. Equality won't happen. It can't happen. Nor should it happen. Equal in what? Equality in everyone having 3 BMWs? Equality in the size of your lawn? Or equal to live in garbage bins? No, Mistie, equality in things like access to basic health care, education, subsistance wages and safe working conditions. I understand lawns and garbage bins are important to you. It's good to be neat and tidy, and these are worthwhile values to have. But 90% of people on the planet have more pressing concerns, and this number is growing. The number of people with tidy lawns and bins is getting smaller, despite the burgening middle classes in countries like India and China. Liberal-demokratic ideology holds that equality will happen the more countries develop. It says that as a middle classe emerges and grows, so will political freedoms, freedom of speech, popular elections, etc, etc, etc. Equality is a value intrinsic to liberal-demokracy, and this is the dominant political ideology in the world today. The big geopolitical question now is whether China will develop in such a direction. Yawn. these things have all been achieved in australia. the dream has been realised and the left should fall to their knees and give thanks and stop whinging ;)

I completely agree, but what Australia has done is outsource its poverty to the developing world. Almost everything we buy is made somewhere else, food and services excluded.

Back in the 1980s, for example, Australia had clothing and footwear industries. Now, these industries have been outsourced to countries like China, Bangladesh and Vietnam.

There, labor costs are as little as a dollar a day. In Bangladesh, workers are locked in. If extra hours are required, security guards prohibit their exit. Shifts have been reported to go up to 48 hours. There is no overtime, no child care, no minimum safety requirements. When fires happen, workers burn. When buildings collapse, workers are crushed. When workers suffer from lung conditions relating to the cotton and polyester fibres they inhale, they are dismissed. There is no safety equiptment, social security, compensation, or pensions.

The clothes they produce are sold in Australian shops and department stores. We wear them. The workers who produce something as personal as the clothes we wear are an intrinsic part of our economy.

I agree, Aquascoot. We've achieved most of the conditions workers have faught for in this country since the 1880s. However, what we've done in the process is cut adrift our manufacturing sector and allow it - encourage it - to exploit others in the developing world.

This is a return to the triangular trade system of the 19th century - the "golden age" of globalisation. There, cotton was grown and harvested by slaves in the US, textiles were manufactured by cheap labour in India, and clothing was made by tailors for markets in England, Europe and the US. It was a system based on inequality, where workers were effectively owned by their "employers". It could not have happened if everyone had basic human rights.

While we have excellent conditions for workers in Australia, Bangladeshi workers are literally locked in until their labour is no longer required to meet our needs (cheap clothing). To pretend that this isn't happening, or that the system that perpetuates it doesn't exist, or that it's all about having a bigger lawn or being jealous of neighbours with two BMWs is like living in la la land.

Still, that's creative and critical thinking for you.

Yawn.

Karnal wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 11:30am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 10:10am: Karnal wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 9:33am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 10:35pm: Yawn. Equality won't happen. It can't happen. Nor should it happen. Equal in what? Equality in everyone having 3 BMWs? Equality in the size of your lawn? Or equal to live in garbage bins? No, Mistie, equality in things like access to basic health care, education, subsistance wages and safe working conditions. I understand lawns and garbage bins are important to you. It's good to be neat and tidy, and these are worthwhile values to have. But 90% of people on the planet have more pressing concerns, and this number is growing. The number of people with tidy lawns and bins is getting smaller, despite the burgening middle classes in countries like India and China. Liberal-demokratic ideology holds that equality will happen the more countries develop. It says that as a middle classe emerges and grows, so will political freedoms, freedom of speech, popular elections, etc, etc, etc. Equality is a value intrinsic to liberal-demokracy, and this is the dominant political ideology in the world today. The big geopolitical question now is whether China will develop in such a direction. Yawn. these things have all been achieved in australia. the dream has been realised and the left should fall to their knees and give thanks and stop whinging ;) I completely agree, but what Australia has done is outsource its poverty to the developing world. Almost everything we buy is made somewhere else, food and services excluded. Back in the 1980s, for example, Australia had clothing and footwear industries. Now, these industries have been outsourced to countries like China, Bangladesh and Vietnam. There, labor costs are as little as a dollar a day. In Bangladesh, workers are locked in. If extra hours are required, security guards prohibit their exit. Shifts have been reported to go up to 48 hours. There is no overtime, no child care, no minimum safety requirements. When fires happen, workers burn. When buildings collapse, workers are crushed. When workers suffer from lung conditions relating to the cotton and polyester fibres they inhale, they are dismissed. There is no safety equiptment, social security, compensation, or pensions. The clothes they produce are sold in Australian shops and department stores. We wear them. The workers who produce something as personal as the clothes we wear are an intrinsic part of our economy. I agree, Aquascoot. We've achieved most of the conditions workers have faught for in this country since the 1880s. However, what we've done in the process is cut adrift our manufacturing sector. This has returned to the triangular trade system of the 19th century - the "golden age" of globalisation. There, cotton was grown and harvested by slaves in the US, textiles were manufactured by cheap labour in India, and clothing was made by tailors for markets in England, Europe and the US. It was a system based on inequality, where workers were effectively owned by their "employers". It could not have happened if everyone had basic human rights. While we have excellent conditions for workers in Australia, Bangladeshi workers are literally locked in until their labour is no longer required to meet our needs (cheap clothing). To pretend that this isn't happening, or that the system that perpetuates it doesn't exist, or that it's all about having a bigger lawn or being jealous of neighbours with two BMWs is like living in la la land. Still, that's creative and critical thinking for you. Yawn.

Things will improve!!!
I saw an interview in bangladesh and the greenies and do gooders were calling for a ban on "Guess" jeans as these were made in such factories.  The workers were pleading that if westerners stop buying these jeans (ie join the leftard protest), they, the workers will starve.
baby steps , karmal, baby steps.
private enterprise WILL drag the people of bangladesh out of poverty.
the market has done this for most of asia and it can happen quite quickly.
south korea, japan, vietnam.....these places were basket cases. 
What helps ?

THE MARKET.
CAPITALISM.

you bemoan vlad putin and the oligarchs.
standards of living are rising in russia.
what is dragging the rural chinese out of substistence farming.
Good old fashioned CAPITALISM.

in 20 years time, the bangladeshi will be moving into calls for education, health care, OH andS.
Its maslows hierachy all over.
What good is a school or a hospital if you have no job and cant buy food.
tackle things in their correct order.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 10:26am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 10:10am: Karnal wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 9:33am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 10:35pm: Yawn. Equality won't happen. It can't happen. Nor should it happen. Equal in what? Equality in everyone having 3 BMWs? Equality in the size of your lawn? Or equal to live in garbage bins? No, Mistie, equality in things like access to basic health care, education, subsistance wages and safe working conditions. I understand lawns and garbage bins are important to you. It's good to be neat and tidy, and these are worthwhile values to have. But 90% of people on the planet have more pressing concerns, and this number is growing. The number of people with tidy lawns and bins is getting smaller, despite the burgening middle classes in countries like India and China. Liberal-demokratic ideology holds that equality will happen the more countries develop. It says that as a middle classe emerges and grows, so will political freedoms, freedom of speech, popular elections, etc, etc, etc. Equality is a value intrinsic to liberal-demokracy, and this is the dominant political ideology in the world today. The big geopolitical question now is whether China will develop in such a direction. Yawn. these things have all been achieved in australia. the dream has been realised and the left should fall to their knees and give thanks and stop whinging ;) you're crazy right? The middle class is dwindling, not increasing. And the separation between upper and middle is growing and growing, and not by the AMOUNT of people in the Upper class, but by they amount of wealth OWNED by the upper class.

Actually, economic data shows something quite different. According to the ABS, the Australian mean household income has risen by 49% since 1994/5.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6523.0Main%20Features22011-12?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6523.0&issue=2011-12&num=&view=

It's a different story in the US and, of course, the developing world. By comparison, Australia has a much more equal distribution of wealth. Gains in real wage growth have been made in both high and low income households.

This contrasts with the US, where gains have been made only in the very high income bracket. Low and middle income earners there have seen a drop in real wages since the 2000 recession, the Bush years, and the GFC.

When Mistie and Aquascoot talk about rewarding excellence, entrepreneuship, hard work, etc, presumably this is what they mean. In the US, those who generate the bulk of the wealth are hedge funds and currency speculators. There, the new money is all in money, endlessly circulating the globe creating booms and busts in its wake.

This is another global problem today: the decline in the developed world in real growth and actual production. When economists talk about green shoots appearing in the US and Europe, this is what they mean. However, the main growth is currently in the developing world, mainly East Asia.

This is because labor is cheap there, and this is because capitalism relies on inequality. Growth, after all, is surplus profit. 

Karnal wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:00pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 10:26am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 10:10am: Karnal wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 9:33am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 10:35pm: Yawn. Equality won't happen. It can't happen. Nor should it happen. Equal in what? Equality in everyone having 3 BMWs? Equality in the size of your lawn? Or equal to live in garbage bins? No, Mistie, equality in things like access to basic health care, education, subsistance wages and safe working conditions. I understand lawns and garbage bins are important to you. It's good to be neat and tidy, and these are worthwhile values to have. But 90% of people on the planet have more pressing concerns, and this number is growing. The number of people with tidy lawns and bins is getting smaller, despite the burgening middle classes in countries like India and China. Liberal-demokratic ideology holds that equality will happen the more countries develop. It says that as a middle classe emerges and grows, so will political freedoms, freedom of speech, popular elections, etc, etc, etc. Equality is a value intrinsic to liberal-demokracy, and this is the dominant political ideology in the world today. The big geopolitical question now is whether China will develop in such a direction. Yawn. these things have all been achieved in australia. the dream has been realised and the left should fall to their knees and give thanks and stop whinging ;) you're crazy right? The middle class is dwindling, not increasing. And the separation between upper and middle is growing and growing, and not by the AMOUNT of people in the Upper class, but by they amount of wealth OWNED by the upper class. Actually, economic data shows something quite different. According to the ABS, the Australian mean household income has risen by 49% since 1994/5. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6523.0Main%20Features22011-12?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6523.0&issue=2011-12&num=&view= It's a different story in the US and, of course, the developing world. By comparison, Australia has a much more equal distribution of wealth. Gains in real wage growth have been made in both high and low income households. This contrasts with the US, where gains have been made only in the very high income bracket. Low and middle income earners there have seen a drop in real wages since the 2000 recession, the Bush years, and the GFC. When Mistie and Aquascoot talk about rewarding excellence, entrepreneuship, hard work, etc, presumably this is what they mean. In the US, those who generate the bulk of the wealth are hedge funds and currency speculators. There, the new money is all in money, endlessly circulating the globe creating booms and busts in its wake. This is another global problem today: the decline in the developed world in real growth and actual production. When economists talk about green shoots appearing in the US and Europe, this is what they mean. However, the main growth is currently in the developing world, mainly East Asia. This is because labor is cheap there, and this is because capitalism relies on inequality. Growth, after all, is surplus profit.

Karnal, I'd hardly use the US as a comparison when working out if we have effective equal distribution of wealth.  You're right, that country has not seen any real wage growth for the middle class for yonkers.  BUt that's not to say that we have equal distribution.  Look at the growth in gdp over the past 23 years. Now compared median house hold income ($64,000) with that growth, and with the cost of living.  You're really going to tell me that we have equal distribution of wealth in this country? It's not just about working hard - of course that's a major requirement. But it's also about ensuring that just because one gets more money, it doesn't mean they grow their power too. And that's what's happened in this country, which has resulted in very much a similar model to that of the US.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 11:42am:

Things will improve!!! I saw an interview in bangladesh and the greenies and do gooders were calling for a ban on "Guess" jeans as these were made in such factories.  The workers were pleading that if westerners stop buying these jeans (ie join the leftard protest), they, the workers will starve. baby steps , karmal, baby steps. private enterprise WILL drag the people of bangladesh out of poverty. the market has done this for most of asia and it can happen quite quickly. south korea, japan, vietnam.....these places were basket cases.  What helps ? THE MARKET. CAPITALISM. you bemoan vlad putin and the oligarchs. standards of living are rising in russia. what is dragging the rural chinese out of substistence farming. Good old fashioned CAPITALISM. in 20 years time, the bangladeshi will be moving into calls for education, health care, OH andS. Its maslows hierachy all over. What good is a school or a hospital if you have no job and cant buy food. tackle things in their correct order.

Standards of living are rising, falling, chopping and changing. By some measures, the Soviets delivered better outcomes in Russia, including full employment, free health care and some of the highest literacy ratings in the world at the time.

But it was not sustainable, and it was a corrupt, bancrupt system.

There is no natural inclination within capitalism towards better living standards. Capitalism itself is neutral. It can deliver slavery or it can deliver the sort of prosperity we've experienced in Australia.

Without unions and without genuine representatives in parliament, conditions will not improve.

If you knew Bangladesh, of course, you'd realize how far-fetched collective bargaining and non-corrupt politicians sounds. It's a very distant dream.

Capitalism by itself improves nothing - it's what you do with it that counts, and for this you need a representative political system.

Interestingly, China is emerging to lead the way in carbon trading. Under our political system, this proved impossible. Many are now looking to China to do things the West can't do. Cheap labour is one thing - leading the world in CO2 reductions is another.

And, of course, being nice to the neighbours and not starting any wars is the other. We live in hope, but I guarantee you this: capitalism will look significantly different as China emerges to lead it.

Capitalism changed significantly from the model of the British Empire to US "exceptionalism", and now, we'll see whatever China gets to do with it.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 11:42am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 11:30am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 10:10am: Karnal wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 9:33am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 10:35pm: Yawn. Equality won't happen. It can't happen. Nor should it happen. Equal in what? Equality in everyone having 3 BMWs? Equality in the size of your lawn? Or equal to live in garbage bins? No, Mistie, equality in things like access to basic health care, education, subsistance wages and safe working conditions. I understand lawns and garbage bins are important to you. It's good to be neat and tidy, and these are worthwhile values to have. But 90% of people on the planet have more pressing concerns, and this number is growing. The number of people with tidy lawns and bins is getting smaller, despite the burgening middle classes in countries like India and China. Liberal-demokratic ideology holds that equality will happen the more countries develop. It says that as a middle classe emerges and grows, so will political freedoms, freedom of speech, popular elections, etc, etc, etc. Equality is a value intrinsic to liberal-demokracy, and this is the dominant political ideology in the world today. The big geopolitical question now is whether China will develop in such a direction. Yawn. these things have all been achieved in australia. the dream has been realised and the left should fall to their knees and give thanks and stop whinging ;) I completely agree, but what Australia has done is outsource its poverty to the developing world. Almost everything we buy is made somewhere else, food and services excluded. Back in the 1980s, for example, Australia had clothing and footwear industries. Now, these industries have been outsourced to countries like China, Bangladesh and Vietnam. There, labor costs are as little as a dollar a day. In Bangladesh, workers are locked in. If extra hours are required, security guards prohibit their exit. Shifts have been reported to go up to 48 hours. There is no overtime, no child care, no minimum safety requirements. When fires happen, workers burn. When buildings collapse, workers are crushed. When workers suffer from lung conditions relating to the cotton and polyester fibres they inhale, they are dismissed. There is no safety equiptment, social security, compensation, or pensions. The clothes they produce are sold in Australian shops and department stores. We wear them. The workers who produce something as personal as the clothes we wear are an intrinsic part of our economy. I agree, Aquascoot. We've achieved most of the conditions workers have faught for in this country since the 1880s. However, what we've done in the process is cut adrift our manufacturing sector. This has returned to the triangular trade system of the 19th century - the "golden age" of globalisation. There, cotton was grown and harvested by slaves in the US, textiles were manufactured by cheap labour in India, and clothing was made by tailors for markets in England, Europe and the US. It was a system based on inequality, where workers were effectively owned by their "employers". It could not have happened if everyone had basic human rights. While we have excellent conditions for workers in Australia, Bangladeshi workers are literally locked in until their labour is no longer required to meet our needs (cheap clothing). To pretend that this isn't happening, or that the system that perpetuates it doesn't exist, or that it's all about having a bigger lawn or being jealous of neighbours with two BMWs is like living in la la land. Still, that's creative and critical thinking for you. Yawn. Things will improve!!! I saw an interview in bangladesh and the greenies and do gooders were calling for a ban on "Guess" jeans as these were made in such factories.  The workers were pleading that if westerners stop buying these jeans (ie join the leftard protest), they, the workers will starve. baby steps , karmal, baby steps. private enterprise WILL drag the people of bangladesh out of poverty. the market has done this for most of asia and it can happen quite quickly. south korea, japan, vietnam.....these places were basket cases.  What helps ? THE MARKET. CAPITALISM. you bemoan vlad putin and the oligarchs. standards of living are rising in russia. what is dragging the rural chinese out of substistence farming. Good old fashioned CAPITALISM. in 20 years time, the bangladeshi will be moving into calls for education, health care, OH andS. Its maslows hierachy all over. What good is a school or a hospital if you have no job and cant buy food. tackle things in their correct order.

What an improvement.
https://libcom.org/blog/bangladeshi-garment-workers-win-77-pay-rise-14112013

Before replying, do the maths ;)

and watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dQGl_lswYY

but yeah...things will improve. ...

That's the problem with globalization, it relies on absolute minimum working wages and undeveloped industrial laws. 

aquascoot wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 10:38am:

We have equality of opportunity in australia. ANYONE with the drive and determination can make it , to achieve anything they wish. They are more likely to make it , if we start the resilience training, the toughening up, the "life wasnt meant to be easy", the "harden up princess" training as soon as possible. We need to instil in young people (who have these wonderful health and education opportunities) that set backs, problems, obstacles, disappointments are all just "grist for the mill". that an obstacle is a stepping stone. We need to get rid of the false leftard notion of the lawnmower parent who runs in front of the child, clearing a path so that the childs path is easy. Only through dealing with obstacles (bullying, injustice, inequality) and overcoming them , will true self belief , self esteem and achievement be realised. The greatest sportsmen (look at rafal nadal with sever arthritis at age 12) recognise this. Lefties and hand wringers,  i dislike them not because i am some arrogant rich prick but becuase their doctrine, in the end , causes SO MUCH SUFFERING. I'm not crazy, far from it. I have seen the light ;)

WE don't have equality of opportunity in Australia. We have BETTER Chance at opportunity than many places, but by no means do we have EQUALITY of opportunity in Australia.

Once we get our schools into line and guarantee that every child can get access to the same level of education, regardless of family wealth, we won't  have EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.

Once we get our hospitals into line and guarantee that every human being can be looked after to th ebest of care, regardless of wealth, we won't have EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.

And you're right, people need to suck it up and do it hard, it's part of the beauty of life.  But when the obstacles put in place are not of your doing, or when one takes advantage over another because of perceived power, that stuff should never be in the equation.

Karnal wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:34pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 11:42am: Things will improve!!! I saw an interview in bangladesh and the greenies and do gooders were calling for a ban on "Guess" jeans as these were made in such factories.  The workers were pleading that if westerners stop buying these jeans (ie join the leftard protest), they, the workers will starve. baby steps , karmal, baby steps. private enterprise WILL drag the people of bangladesh out of poverty. the market has done this for most of asia and it can happen quite quickly. south korea, japan, vietnam.....these places were basket cases.  What helps ? THE MARKET. CAPITALISM. you bemoan vlad putin and the oligarchs. standards of living are rising in russia. what is dragging the rural chinese out of substistence farming. Good old fashioned CAPITALISM. in 20 years time, the bangladeshi will be moving into calls for education, health care, OH andS. Its maslows hierachy all over. What good is a school or a hospital if you have no job and cant buy food. tackle things in their correct order. Standards of living are rising, falling, chopping and changing. By some measures, the Soviets delivered better outcomes in Russia, including full employment, free health care and some of the highest literacy ratings in the world at the time. But it was not sustainable, and it was a corrupt, bancrupt system. There is no natural inclination within capitalism towards better living standards. Capitalism itself is neutral. It can deliver slavery or it can deliver the sort of prosperity we've experienced in Australia. Without unions and without genuine representatives in parliament, conditions will not improve. If you knew Bangladesh, of course, you'd realize how far-fetched collective bargaining and non-corrupt politicians sounds. It's a very distant dream. Capitalism by itself improves nothing - it's what you do with it that counts, and for this you need a representative political system. Interestingly, China is emerging to lead the way in carbon trading. Under our political system, this proved impossible. Many are now looking to China to do things the West can't do. Cheap labour is one thing - leading the world in CO2 reductions is another. And, of course, being nice to the neighbours and not starting any wars is the other. We live in hope, but I guarantee you this: capitalism will look significantly different as China emerges to lead it. Capitalism changed significantly from the model of the British Empire to US "exceptionalism", and now, we'll see whatever China gets to do with it.

interesting read.  Ta

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:

Karnal, I'd hardly use the US as a comparison when working out if we have effective equal distribution of wealth.  You're right, that country has not seen any real wage growth for the middle class for yonkers.  BUt that's not to say that we have equal distribution.  Look at the growth in gdp over the past 23 years. Now compared median house hold income ($64,000) with that growth, and with the cost of living.  You're really going to tell me that we have equal distribution of wealth in this country? It's not just about working hard - of course that's a major requirement. But it's also about ensuring that just because one gets more money, it doesn't mean they grow their power too. And that's what's happened in this country, which has resulted in very much a similar model to that of the US.

We're talking about real wages growth, Alevine. Obviously, that excludes people on the dole, but 49% is a pretty significant rise. If you ask me, it doesn't matter what colour cat catches the mouse.

The growth of the service sector - health, education, welfare, community services - has grown as a proportion of our GDP over the past 20 years, giving those on low incomes better access to services. This sector is currently keeping our economy going as manufacturing dies its slow death.

The ABS shows wages growth as stabilizing in 2011/12. We will, most likely, see some form of recession over the next few years. Depending on what the Abbott government does with taxes and government services, wages growth will most likely stall. In NSW, the entire public sector has had wage rises capped at 2.5% per annum. If inflation rises higher than this figure, we'll experience a decline in real wages.

And given the importance of service sector jobs in the Australian economy, this means overall decline. It definitely means a drop in our terms of trade, given our reliance on imports, and this is the real worry for the Abbott government.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:39pm:

That's the problem with globalization, it relies on absolute minimum working wages and undeveloped industrial laws.

Exactly. As Misty would say, some are more equal than others.

Karnal wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 12:32pm: Karnal, I'd hardly use the US as a comparison when working out if we have effective equal distribution of wealth.  You're right, that country has not seen any real wage growth for the middle class for yonkers.  BUt that's not to say that we have equal distribution.  Look at the growth in gdp over the past 23 years. Now compared median house hold income ($64,000) with that growth, and with the cost of living.  You're really going to tell me that we have equal distribution of wealth in this country? It's not just about working hard - of course that's a major requirement. But it's also about ensuring that just because one gets more money, it doesn't mean they grow their power too. And that's what's happened in this country, which has resulted in very much a similar model to that of the US. We're talking about real wages growth, Alevine. Obviously, that excludes people on the dole, but 49% is a pretty significant rise. The growth of the service sector - health, education, welfare, community services - has grown as a proportion of our GDP over the past 20 years, giving those on low incomes better access to services. This sector is currently keeping our economy going as manufacturing dies its slow death. The ABS shows wages growth as stabilizing in 2011/12. We will, most likely, see some form of recession over the next few years. Depending on what the Abbott government does with taxes and government services, wages growth will most likely stall. In NSW, the entire public sector has had wage rises capped at 2.5% per annum. If inflation rises higher than this figure, we'll experience a decline in real wages. And given the importance of service sector jobs in the Australian economy, this means overall decline. It definitely means a drop in our terms of trade, given our reliance on imports, and this is the real worry for the Abbott government.

Again, Karnal, nothing there I disagree with. But it still doesn't measure the equality in distribution of wealth.

This part does: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~Household%20income,%20expenditure%20and%20wealth~193

It shows

Quote:

Another measure of income distribution is provided by the income shares going to groups of people at different points in the income distribution. Table 9.6 shows that, in 2009–10, 10% of total equivalised disposable household income went to people in the 'low income' group (i.e. the 20% of the population in the second and third income deciles), with 40% going to the 'high income' group (represented by the 20% of the population in the highest income quintile).

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:42pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 10:38am: We have equality of opportunity in australia. ANYONE with the drive and determination can make it , to achieve anything they wish. They are more likely to make it , if we start the resilience training, the toughening up, the "life wasnt meant to be easy", the "harden up princess" training as soon as possible. We need to instil in young people (who have these wonderful health and education opportunities) that set backs, problems, obstacles, disappointments are all just "grist for the mill". that an obstacle is a stepping stone. We need to get rid of the false leftard notion of the lawnmower parent who runs in front of the child, clearing a path so that the childs path is easy. Only through dealing with obstacles (bullying, injustice, inequality) and overcoming them , will true self belief , self esteem and achievement be realised. The greatest sportsmen (look at rafal nadal with sever arthritis at age 12) recognise this. Lefties and hand wringers,  i dislike them not because i am some arrogant rich prick but becuase their doctrine, in the end , causes SO MUCH SUFFERING. I'm not crazy, far from it. I have seen the light ;) WE don't have equality of opportunity in Australia. We have BETTER Chance at opportunity than many places, but by no means do we have EQUALITY of opportunity in Australia. Once we get our schools into line and guarantee that every child can get access to the same level of education, regardless of family wealth, we won't  have EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY. Once we get our hospitals into line and guarantee that every human being can be looked after to th ebest of care, regardless of wealth, we won't have EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.

Alevine, it's not going to get any better than it is now. A standard state high school provides a far better education than private schools in most parts of the world. We have free health care. I earn a decent income, and I've never had to pay to see a specialist if I shopped around. So far, anyway.

Equality of opportunity means we all have access to these services - it's not about the quality of the services provided. If you ask me, state education and public hospitals do the job well. Even university loans are interest free, and university is heavily subsidised. Getting a place at university relies on your marks, not your parents' income.

In the job market, we have full equality of opportunity. There are laws in place, and with a few exceptions, these laws are applied. In China and India, it is common to pay a bribe to get a public service job. In some areas, it's essential. The same goes for some university places and even primary schools. Try getting a driver's license without paying somebody off - try seeing a doctor in a public hospital. How's this - try getting a court case listed when you're in jail awaiting trial.

These are the countries we're now competing with in the global marketplace. We have no evidence that corruption in these countries is on the decline - far from it.

Most don't realize how good we really have it. I was talking to an Indian guy recently, and he was telling me about his willingness to get into the police buraucracy without paying a bribe (which he couldn't afford). The way it works, he told me, is that people take out loans for these bribes. Once they're in the job, they have to receive bribes to pay off the loan. He was applying to join based on the entrance test alone, but said he'd been told that he could bypass the test and get the job if he paid up.

This is how corruption perpetuates itself, and it's how most of the developing world works.

Unfortunately, things are not getting better and better under capitalism - far from it.

Karnal wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 12:42pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 10:38am: We have equality of opportunity in australia. ANYONE with the drive and determination can make it , to achieve anything they wish. They are more likely to make it , if we start the resilience training, the toughening up, the "life wasnt meant to be easy", the "harden up princess" training as soon as possible. We need to instil in young people (who have these wonderful health and education opportunities) that set backs, problems, obstacles, disappointments are all just "grist for the mill". that an obstacle is a stepping stone. We need to get rid of the false leftard notion of the lawnmower parent who runs in front of the child, clearing a path so that the childs path is easy. Only through dealing with obstacles (bullying, injustice, inequality) and overcoming them , will true self belief , self esteem and achievement be realised. The greatest sportsmen (look at rafal nadal with sever arthritis at age 12) recognise this. Lefties and hand wringers,  i dislike them not because i am some arrogant rich prick but becuase their doctrine, in the end , causes SO MUCH SUFFERING. I'm not crazy, far from it. I have seen the light ;) WE don't have equality of opportunity in Australia. We have BETTER Chance at opportunity than many places, but by no means do we have EQUALITY of opportunity in Australia. Once we get our schools into line and guarantee that every child can get access to the same level of education, regardless of family wealth, we won't  have EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY. Once we get our hospitals into line and guarantee that every human being can be looked after to th ebest of care, regardless of wealth, we won't have EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY. Alevine, it's not going to get any better than it is now. A standard state high school provides a far better education than private schools in most parts of the world. We have free health care. I earn a decent income, and I've never had to pay to see a specialist if I shopped around. So far, anyway. Equality of opportunity means we all have access to these services - it's not about the quality of the services provided. If you ask me, state education and public hospitals do the job well. Even university loans are interest free, and university is heavily subsidised. Getting a place at university relies on your marks, not your parents' income. In the job market, we have full equality of opportunity. There are laws in place, and with a few exceptions, these laws are applied. In China and India, it is common to pay a bribe to get a public service job. In some areas, it's essential. The same goes for some university places and even primary schools. Try getting a driver's license without paying somebody off - try seeing a doctor in a public hospital. How's this - try getting a court case listed when you're in jail awaiting trial. These are the countries we're now competing with in the global marketplace. We have no evidence that corruption in these countries is on the decline - far from it. Most don't realize how good we really have it. I was talking to an Indian guy recently, and he was telling me about his willingness to get into the police buraucracy without paying a bribe (which he couldn't afford). The way it works, he told me, is that people take out loans for these bribes. Once they're in the job, they have to receive bribes to pay off the loan. He was applying to join based on the entrance test alone, but said he'd been told that he could bypass the test and get the job if he paid up. This is how corruption perpetuates itself, and it's how most of the developing world works. Unfortunately, things are not getting better and better under capitalism - far from it.

Yes but Karnal we aren't in the developing world, we are in the developed world. And despite the problems that are occurring in countries that we compete with, above all we can only ever look hard at ourselves and look at how to best improve ourselves.  Our schools are better than most in the developing work. But what are we comparing them to? A public school in Brighton, Melbourne here vs a private school in the Dharavi Slum in Mumbai? Well, of course we're going to have it better here.  But compare the public school in Brighton to the public school in Frankston and all of a sudden, there's a big disparity.  And if that disparity exists then how can we ever truly say that we have an equal society?

Kids should be given the same opportunity to excel at school. The difference will be whether the kid chooses to take on that opportunity (and that's what is truly called individual responsibility).   And until such time as we get to that position, where we can truly evaluate and say, "our kids all have the same chance to get ahead," then I'm sorry, but I really don't think it's wise that we say, "oh but we're okay because look at what happens in remote China."

And when it comes to corruption, well I tell you what - when a person feels they have more influence because they have money, and then attempts to use that influence to move ahead and it WORKS, then that in itself is a form of corruption.   That's what occurs when you have a few people holding a lot of wealth. And that corruption needs to be stamped out.

and can I add Karnal,

there's a reason why in some areas of Melbourne I can ask a kid, "what do you want to be," and they answer "doctor", and they will become a doctor. But in other areas of Melbourne I'll ask, "what do you want to be" and the reply will be "doctor", only they are lucky if they even get to university.

Sometimes it's the kid, but as we have found out, more often it's the result of nurture. And while some factors, ie success of individual family's economic situation, can only change by way of generation change, there are also steps the society can take to make improvements.  These are in the form of equality in services, *fundamental* services, provided.

At the end of the day, Alevine, education relies on you. It doesn't matter how much you pay, what counts is how many books you read and how many essays you write and how many sums you do.

Health is a little dfferent, but a lot relies on you there too. A healthy diet and excercize is far more effective in treating many common illnesses than the useless drugs they prescribe - huge, billion dollar drugs like anti-depressants and cholesterol-lowering medications.

Mind you, in Australia, everyone has access to GPs and drugs. Everyone.

There are communities, however, where the educational and health outcomes are poor. This is not due to the lack of schools, books, GPs and drugs. Nor is it about "individuals" or faulty genetics. People live in families and communities. Educational and health outcomes often come down to the family and community you belong to.

I'm not talking through my hat here. There is good research that describes this phenomenon, much of it put out by welfare NGOs like Mission Australia. Pru Goward is currently on a crusade about how public housing creates poverty by ghetoizing social problems, and it's true. Anyone who's worked in community services has seen it. The money that feeds social problems - jails, courts, health and mental health services, child protection services, housing, Centrelink - does nothing to stop the flow. Often, each service perpetuates the next, and on it goes.

I could write more about this, but it'll just give Aquascoot an orgasm, so I'll stop now.

The ABC is an island of sanity, in an ocean of right wing propaganda.
So brainwashed have the dull and ignorant become, that any fair minded reporting seems to them as somehow biased against the Libs, while the rest of the media shamelessly talks them up, ad nauseum.

The loathesome toad had no redeeming features that I ever saw, so his departure is no loss to anyone.
Bolt, on the other hand, while a shamelessly biased champion of the loony right, at least has a degree of wit and style, which I can enjoy for it's theatricality, if nothing else.

The toad needs to crawl back under a rock.

Karnal wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 4:28pm:

At the end of the day, Alevine, education relies on you. It doesn't matter how much you pay, what counts is how many books you read and how many essays you write and how many sums you do. Health is a little dfferent, but a lot relies on you there too. A healthy diet and excercize is far more effective in treating many common illnesses than the useless drugs they prescribe - huge, billion dollar drugs like anti-depressants and cholesterol-lowering medications. Mind you, in Australia, everyone has access to GPs and drugs. Everyone. There are communities, however, where the educational and health outcomes are poor. This is not due to the lack of schools, books, GPs and drugs. Nor is it about "individuals" or faulty genetics. People live in families and communities. Educational and health outcomes often come down to the family and community you belong to. I'm not talking through my hat here. There is good research that describes this phenomenon, much of it put out by welfare NGOs like Mission Australia. Pru Goward is currently on a crusade about how public housing creates poverty by ghetoizing social problems, and it's true. Anyone who's worked in community services has seen it. The money that feeds social problems - jails, courts, health and mental health services, child protection services, housing, Centrelink - does nothing to stop the flow. Often, each service perpetuates the next, and on it goes. I could write more about this, but it'll just give Aquascoot an orgasm, so I'll stop now.

tease  ;)

Someone has written a biography of the simian:

http://pbxmastragics.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/images-36.jpg

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 9:03pm:

Someone has written a biography of the simian: http://pbxmastragics.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/images-36.jpg

I don't think, from your perspective, the analogy is a good one. The Idiot is about a passive, good-natured individual who is regularly on the receiving end of ridicule and is often taken advantage of.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 11:22pm:

And I would've thought someone of your calibre could do a simple analysis of crime stats in Australia, based on social demographic areas, and find that there is in fact strong signs of a linkage. In any case, if you want something very recent, here is a thesis by a socialist (he admits it in intro but explains how it doesn't impact his judgement) from ANU: http://www.anu.edu.au/fellows/jbraithwaite/_documents/Manuscripts/InCrPublic.pdf

I read a number of pages then skipped through and read a page here and there. Can you tell me which page or pages have the "smoking gun" that inequality causes crime? From my cursory read he is providing evidence of correlation but not causation.

One of his major points appears to be that laws and police target people from the lower classes rather than the upper classes. This is still a different thesis from "inequality causes crime".

Also, the author being a socialist confirms bias. Socialists are obsessed with class distinctions. Socialists take it a priori that the misery of the lower classes is the fault of the higher classes. This thesis has all kind erroneous cause and effect arguments woven throughout it.


Quote:

But I guess you're right. Sources like (I'm guessing youre from SA) THe Advertiser, or Today Tonight, provide much better empirical evidence than studies that have been for a hundred years.

If academics don't research crime from an ethnic perspective, then I'll have to rely on newspaper reports.




Quote:

Keep it up, you're really starting to amuse me.

Am I?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 15^th, 2014 at 12:04pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 9:03pm: Someone has written a biography of the simian: http://pbxmastragics.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/images-36.jpg I don't think, from your perspective, the analogy is a good one. The Idiot is about a passive, good-natured individual who is regularly on the receiving end of ridicule and is often taken advantage of.

Over analysing that a bit, Misty!

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:42pm:

WE don't have equality of opportunity in Australia. We have BETTER Chance at opportunity than many places, but by no means do we have EQUALITY of opportunity in Australia. Once we get our schools into line and guarantee that every child can get access to the same level of education, regardless of family wealth, we won't  have EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.

But teachers have different skill levels. This is one of the reasons why there'll never be equality in education. Some teachers go to great lengths to help their students, others don't give a stuff. Additionally, as has been hinted at by Karnal, often it comes back to the student. Students have varying degrees of motivation and interest, thus why some excel and others suck.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 1:02pm:

Again, Karnal, nothing there I disagree with. But it still doesn't measure the equality in distribution of wealth. This part does: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~Household%20income,%20expenditure%20and%20wealth~193 It shows Quote: Another measure of income distribution is provided by the income shares going to groups of people at different points in the income distribution. Table 9.6 shows that, in 2009–10, 10% of total equivalised disposable household income went to people in the 'low income' group (i.e. the 20% of the population in the second and third income deciles), with 40% going to the 'high income' group (represented by the 20% of the population in the highest income quintile).

Sorry, Alevine, I might have missed this post.

I checked the link and the graph. Yes, in some years in the 2000s, low incomes fared worse than middle or high incomes. In other years, however, they rated about the same. In one year - 2002/3, low income wages had the highest growth.

Overall, it looks like high incomes received the highest levels of growth in comparison to middle and low incomes, but these figures are in the single percent range, generally a one or two percent difference. 2007/8 is the highest year with high incomes rising about 5% higher than middle incomes.

What is important in terms of quality of life - the ultimate aim of economics - is that ALL groups had growth in real wages between 1996 and 2007. This is an important achievement, showing a historic rise in prosperity in Australia.

And contrasting the trend in the US and developing world, ALL income groups benefited and shared in.the wealth.

On the high income groups, you would expect them to do better as they have a greater pool of investment. Low income groups spend most of their money on consumption. High income groups are able to invest more, and profit from the interest. 

The biggest change in levelling investment in Australia was the introduction of employer-paid superannuation. This mandatory pool of savings influenced the overall rise in wealth from 1996 on - particularly in the lower income groups (although super does not count as income and has no bearing on the figures we’re discussing). The drop in real wage rises in 2007, of course, was the influence of the GFC. There, the high income earners experienced the biggest drop, but again, only by a percentage point or so. 

Overall, Australians who work have all shared in the prosperity of the last 2 decades, and this shows socially, I think, in the increasing conservatism of low and middle income groups, who were once Labor voters.

The challenge in Australia, I think, is how to include the underemployed - those trapped in intergenerational welfare dependance. This group has not benefited from the rise in wealth in this country. They have suffered a huge drop in real income as rent rises hit and Newstart payments remained the same.

But in comparison to most of the world, such a level of inequality does not compare. We have few "working poor" in Australia - unlike the US and developing world, where this group is massive. In many countries, this group consists of the majority of the population.

While boring, numbers are important. What the numbers show, I think, is that Australia has been in a much better state than the rest of the world, and far more equal and inclusive. However, this has come on the back of increasing global inequality as we outsourced our low wage/skilled jobs - we simply sent our inequality overseas.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 15^th, 2014 at 12:37pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 12:42pm: WE don't have equality of opportunity in Australia. We have BETTER Chance at opportunity than many places, but by no means do we have EQUALITY of opportunity in Australia. Once we get our schools into line and guarantee that every child can get access to the same level of education, regardless of family wealth, we won't  have EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY. But teachers have different skill levels. This is one of the reasons why there'll never be equality in education. Some teachers go to great lengths to help their students, others don't give a stuff. Additionally, as has been hinted at by Karnal, often it comes back to the student. Students have varying degrees of motivation and interest, thus why some excel and others suck.

But those students largely get that motivation from their parents, who have their own economic imperatives.

Karnal wrote on Feb 15^th, 2014 at 1:25pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 15th, 2014 at 12:37pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 12:42pm: WE don't have equality of opportunity in Australia. We have BETTER Chance at opportunity than many places, but by no means do we have EQUALITY of opportunity in Australia. Once we get our schools into line and guarantee that every child can get access to the same level of education, regardless of family wealth, we won't  have EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY. But teachers have different skill levels. This is one of the reasons why there'll never be equality in education. Some teachers go to great lengths to help their students, others don't give a stuff. Additionally, as has been hinted at by Karnal, often it comes back to the student. Students have varying degrees of motivation and interest, thus why some excel and others suck. But those students largely get that motivation from their parents, who have their own economic imperatives.

2 interesting cases.

one, a chinese neighbour of mine who has employed a fulltime tutor to get his sons assignments done and hold his hand thru uni.
"i dont care what it costs, that boy is getting a degree ;)"

two, a barrister i know whose son was at brisbane grammar paying $25,000 a year. he chose it as it is the dearest. he found out church of england grammar school was charging $28,000 and nearly moved the boy.
"i want my son in the dearest school in brisbane, so he only assocaites with winners"  a strange market model that the more you charge, the happier the client is to pay. ;)

thirdly, i work in a very very poor area. the teachers are very good. 3 kids from the class of 2010 are doing medicine. these kids will leave the suburb undoubtedly. As it is a ghetto, mentally ill and drug addicts will take their houses.
you see the ghetto kids do much better at school then you'd give them credit for. the problem with looking at an urban ghetto and saying there is not 'equality of opportunity" is more complex than at first glance. there is very good opportunities in the ghetto for anyone who cares to take it.....the opportunity to get out ;)

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 15^th, 2014 at 12:31pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 11:22pm: And I would've thought someone of your calibre could do a simple analysis of crime stats in Australia, based on social demographic areas, and find that there is in fact strong signs of a linkage. In any case, if you want something very recent, here is a thesis by a socialist (he admits it in intro but explains how it doesn't impact his judgement) from ANU: http://www.anu.edu.au/fellows/jbraithwaite/_documents/Manuscripts/InCrPublic.pdf I read a number of pages then skipped through and read a page here and there. Can you tell me which page or pages have the "smoking gun" that inequality causes crime? From my cursory read he is providing evidence of correlation but not causation. One of his major points appears to be that laws and police target people from the lower classes rather than the upper classes. This is still a different thesis from "inequality causes crime". Also, the author being a socialist confirms bias. Socialists are obsessed with class distinctions. Socialists take it a priori that the misery of the lower classes is the fault of the higher classes.

Depends on the model of socialism. Socialists aren’t necessarily "left wing" any more than libertarians are all "right wing".

The ALP’s Fabian socialism is quite conservative - Burke’s conservatism is one of its main influences.

For an account of the results of Fabian policy in Australia, look no further than the discussion below on real wages growth.