Tag Archives: Rupert Murdoch

In the Clash of Ideologies, Language Wins the War

April 12, 2014
Written by: The AIM Network
40 Replies

Jim Morrison famously and prophetically said, “Whoever controls the media, controls the minds”.

This is certainly the case in Australia.

In this guest post Loz Lawrey looks at how the media – the Murdoch media in particular – shape out attitudes and opinions.

In 1988, Professor Noam Chomsky reminded us that the media “serve, and propagandise on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them” (1). Never has this fact been more blatantly obvious than it is today.

The glaring anti-Labor/Greens bias on display by the Murdoch-owned news media during the term of the Gillard Government exaggerated Labor’s dysfunction and gave credibility to a Liberal/National opposition devoid of policies or ideas, other than a plan to hand decision-making over to commercial vested interests.

Today much of the mainstream media’s energy is spent fulfilling the roles of apologist and spin doctor for a right-wing conservative government which serves the wishes of a global oligarchy.

Selective coverage of current affairs events, skewed “opinion” pieces disguised as news reportage, simplified “black or white” presentation which avoids all nuance – the mainstream media has an endless supply of tools for the manipulation of public perception.

There is, however, more to the message than what is essentially the delivery system, or the means of presentation. The TV or radio program, the article in the print media or even the political billboard are simply what the megaphone is to the voice – the means of imparting the message. It’s in the language that real power and control resides.

Political forces use language as the weapon of choice on the field of public debate – what some refer to as the battlefield of ideas. In this arena, the army with the sharpest, most evocative language will prevail. There is little need for true logic or reason to underpin one’s arguments, only that a perception of reasoned lucidity is created by the language used.

While all sides of politics strive for control of any public debate through their use of language, conservative forces in our society have become masters of what is known as weasel language, or weasel words. The terms come from the reputation of weasels for sucking eggs and leaving an empty shell – at first glance weasel words create an impression of real meaning supported by research-based evidence or expert advice, which upon closer inspection is found to be hollow and devoid of substance.

This mastery of language, together with the recent structural disarray in evidence on the left of the political spectrum, goes a long way to explain the survival of conservatism around the globe, despite its continuing assault on the public interest, both nationally and globally.

The work of bodies such as the right wing Institute of Public Affairs is as much about formulating the language used to justify its ideologically-based policies as it is in formulating the policies themselves.

Words such as “free” and “freedom” are tacked onto the labelling language used to define and create a perception of a proposal or idea. Hence we get “free market”, “free speech” and “freedom of choice”. Once you insert a word such as “free”, a benign impression is created of harmless intent.

So it is that when a spokesperson for the IPA argues that people should be “given the right” to work for less that $16 per hour, they are claiming that working for less than the established and agreed minimum is a freedom. In this way, shifting employment conditions closer to the slavery end of the spectrum is made to sound like a positive, liberating move. It will hardly be a liberating experience for those workers who endure it, however, when they find themselves working longer and harder for less or very little, unable to meet their own living needs.

The term “free market” creates an image of happy global business, unfettered by tariffs and protectionist regulations, with goods moving freely about, resulting in best outcomes for both business, workers and consumers. The fact that tariffs were developed as a means to counteract trade imbalance and injustice is swept aside, because who wouldn’t want “freedom” in the marketplace?

Now business regulation designed to level the playing field and increase real fairness in trade is labelled by conservative governments as “red tape”, an evil to be done away with. Environmental regulation intended to protect our natural heritage landscapes and control resource extraction is now dismissed as “green tape”.

These terms belie the fact that such regulation has been developed over many years in response to the perceived need to maintain balance and sustainability in all things into the future.

Even the term “sustainability” itself has been highjacked by the weasel-worders. When the term is used in the context of economic debate, any cuts to spending or public funding are easily justified. Old-age pensions? Unsustainable. A living-wage pay rise for child-care workers? Again, unsustainable.

The rhetoric of conservative ideology is cleverly employed over time to erode the positive public perception of ideas and institutions which are seen as contrary to the the right-wing world-view.

A gradual sanding-down of the public’s acknowledgment and appreciation of the workplace rights and entitlements won over years of union organising and picketing has been achieved by the repeated portrayal of unions as hotbeds of thuggery and corruption.

Dismissive rhetoric about “the left” ignores the fact that leftist political values are based upon social justice, inclusion and concepts of decency and fairness. The ongoing message is that an empathetic worldview is “loony” and that to embrace a cynical philosophy of “winners and losers” is to dwell in the “real world”.

In this way a political message has been delivered into the public sub-consciousness: that leftist views are “crazy” and “loony” in their consideration of the public good, and that right-wing extremist views which can only benefit a minority elite are “sensible”, “rational” and “economically sound”.

Somewhere, somehow, logic and reason lie bleeding and forgotten by the masses, while weasel words and tabloid headlines are regurgitated as valid arguments in the arena of public discussion.

(1) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988) by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Who writes this stuff?

March 30, 2014
Written by: Kaye Lee
73 Replies

It is becoming increasingly obvious that Tony Abbott’s plan for governing is to work his way through the IPA’s wish list of 75 (+25) “radical ideas”.

Since these people seem to be determining the direction our country will take I thought it worth investigating the qualifications of the authors of the paper, John Roskam, Chris Berg, and James Paterson.

John Roskam is the institute’s executive director. Prior to his employment at the IPA, Roskam was the Executive Director of the Menzies Research Centre in Canberra. He has also held positions as an adviser to federal and state education ministers, and was the manager of government and corporate affairs for the Rio Tinto Group.

The other two young men, Berg and Paterson, seem to have no relevant qualifications or experience other than appearing on the Drum and writing for publications like the Australian.

Relevant experience is not a prerequisite to get a gig at the IPA. Focusing on the National Curriculum, we have Stephanie Forrest who just finished her BA with Honours last year. In her Honours thesis, she reconstructed a previously lost Byzantine chronicle dating to the period of the early Islamic conquests (7th-8th centuries AD), and included a translation of the entire chronicle from early-medieval Greek into English. From what I can see she has no education qualifications or experience other than as a student, most recently in somewhat esoteric classical history.

In the article preceding the 75 points, the authors warn that “the generous welfare safety net provided to current generations will be simply unsustainable in the future… Change is inevitable.” It’s interesting that they do not mention the generous tax concessions for the wealthy and subsidies for the mining companies and banks who are making superprofits.

They then outline the game plan.

“But if Abbott is going to lead that change he only has a tiny window of opportunity to do so. If he hasn’t changed Australia in his first year as prime minister, he probably never will.

Why just one year? The general goodwill voters offer new governments gives more than enough cover for radical action. But that cover is only temporary. The support of voters drains. Oppositions organise. Scandals accumulate. The clear air for major reform becomes smoggy.”

We are halfway through that year. The honeymoon period vanished very quickly, no major reform has been achieved, and the support of the voters is fading. Whilst the Labor Party may not yet have found a clear direction, the opposition of the people is organised and growing, and the scandals are emerging. The only “radical action” has been the reintroduction of knighthood which has been rightly ridiculed.

They go on to talk about “culture wars” and the “Nanny State”, the mantra of all Young Liberals, most of whom have no idea of the meaning of what they are repeating. It is so predictable – you cannot have a conversation with a Young Liberal without them using those phrases endlessly in what reeks of indoctrination.

Apparently we should be more concerned about the Australian National Preventive Health Agency introducing Nanny State measures than the culture wars promoted by academics and the bias at the ABC. We should be worried about the “cottage industry” of environmental groups. We should be more concerned that senior public servants shape policy more than elected politicians do, regardless of them being experts in their fields.

Describing their 75 points the authors say

“It’s a deliberately radical list. There’s no way Tony Abbott could implement all of them, or even a majority. But he doesn’t have to implement them all to dramatically change Australia. If he was able to implement just a handful of these recommendations, Abbott would be a transformative figure in Australian political history. He would do more to shift the political spectrum than any prime minister since Whitlam.”

Do we actually want to “dramatically change Australia”? The authors suggest that just a handful of the proposed changes will cause that change. Reading through the lists here (75) and here (+25) shows that many of them are either underway or under discussion, the latest being

42 Introduce a special economic zone in the north of Australia including:

a) Lower personal income tax for residents

b) Significantly expanded 457 Visa programs for workers

c) Encourage the construction of dams

The IPA is supported by people who think that money and power are the most important things and that the world should be run to facilitate them accumulating more of the same. The IPA 70^th birthday in April last year saw Cardinal Pell sitting with Gina Rinehart and Rupert Murdoch being courted by Tony Abbott and a bevy of Liberal MPs with sycophants Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones watching on. George Brandis and Tim Wilson also obviously had a fruitful conversation.

The connection between Murdoch, Rinehart, ANDEV, and the IPA shows whose interests they are being paid to represent. To think that our government is doing the same is truly frightening.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Abbott’s thus far Annus Horribilis

March 29, 2014
Written by: John Lord
62 Replies

Image by indepedentaustralia.net

Most Prime Ministers when they achieve Government with a sizable majority set out to put in place policy initiatives that might define a legacy they will be remembered for. John Howard’s GST, Paul Keating’s Native Title and Bob Hawke’s sweeping changes to our monetary system come to mind. They all burnt up their political capital in the knowledge that it doesn’t last for ever. They all focused on big things. Large programmes that remain indelible in Australia’s historical political discourse.

Tony Abbott on the other hand seems more intent on burning up his political capital on issues of ideology: on his hatred of all things associated with Labor. With him it’s personal. This can be seen in his undoing of Labor polices regardless of merit or common good worthiness. His politically based Royal Commissions that will trash long held conventions for the sake of a personal vendetta. Commissions that may well come back to bite him on the tail.

On top of that there is the deliberate attempt to downgrade Question Time, inflict his own moral compass on the community and redefine free speech in order to give greater licence to those with the power to influence public opinion. All this in the absence of any serious policies of his own. All we have is a Government of undoing, unable to present a coherent narrative. One that seems immersed in some sort of cultural battle that it must win before it can focus on real issues. Things that might enhance our society.

For all its criticism, the Whitlam Government came to power with a sense of direction, of purpose and for its short time in office achieved some good reforms. Among them were:

• End conscription
• Withdraw troops from Vietnam
• Begin to work towards equal pay for women
• Establish a single department of Defence
• Grant independence to Papua New Guinea
• Abolish tertiary education fees
• Raise the age pension to 25 per cent of average male weekly earnings
• Establish Medibank
• Introduce no-fault divorce
• Pass a series of laws banning racial and sexual discrimination
• Extend maternity leave and benefits to single mothers
• Establish the Legal Aid Office
• Establish the National Film and Television School
• Launch construction of the National Gallery of Australia
• Reopen diplomatic ties with China
• Establish the Trades Practices Commission
• Establish the National Parks and Wildlife Service
• Establish the Law Reform Commission
• Establish the Australian Film Commission, the Australia Council and the Australian Heritage Commission
• Create Telecom and Australia Post from the Postmaster-Generals Department
• Devise the Order of Australia to replace the British Honours system
• Abolish appeals to the Privy Council in the UK
• Change the national anthem to Advance Australia Fair
• Institute Aboriginal land rights

For its part the Abbott Government’s plan appears to be to diminish government’s role in society and replace it with free market business principles based on a Thatcher/Reagan philosophy from a distant past. They have decided that a war on ideology matters more.

The Most Biased Speaker Ever

Take for example this week’s move (the first since 1949) by Labor to move a motion of no confidence in the speaker. Public opinion regarding Question Time has always been one of derision. Without a care the government has shown a complete disregard for the democratic process and has sought to downgrade it even further. Bronwyn Bishop has been universally condemned as the most biased speaker the Nation has ever had.

“The Speaker of the Lower House of the Australian Parliament can only be described as a nasty bitch. Unnecessarily so” (John Lord).

This week we had the ludicrous situation of a shadow minister being thrown out of the house for saying ‘Madam Speaker’. The first since federation. Had she wanted, she could have, with her self-professed knowledge of the standing orders become an acceptable speaker or even a fine one. Instead she has put party before independence and set out to crucify Labor at every sitting. To the point of exasperation.

She acts like some sort of medieval evil schoolteacher intent on provocation with intent to alienate rather than mediate. Constantly with a look of contempt that would kill. Her manner of speaking is disingenuous and full of nasty implication. She seems to have little interest in adjudication wanting to be a player in the process. Any Speaker who attends her own parties Parliamentary meetings (or takes part in) to listen to tactics cannot be unbiased and is unworthy of the position.

The question this all raises of course is; What is the point of Question Time? Ministers are now not even remotely required to answer questions with any relevance. Labor would be better to just boycott Question Time until they get some form of guarantee that some semblance of the Westminster system would be adhered to. It surely cannot go on this way for another two and a half years.

Anyway I will leave the last word to conservative commentator Peter Van Onselen:

“Bronwyn Bishop has been a disgraceful Speaker, plain and simple. A shocking selection”.

Titles. On my Selection

Further, the Prime Minister has sought to impose his own cultural interpretation of Australian society with the reintroduction of titles, even though he ruled them out in December. The shock, ridicule and disbelief has reverberated across the nation, even from perpetual sycophantic anglophiles like John Howard who in effect Abbott has demoted in title recognition. Social media was inundated with self-titled Sirs. I refrained because I am already a Lord.

The cringe from both sides of politics has simply reinforced the belief that Abbott has a cultural and moral view of Australia that is supported by few Australians regardless of the political divide. One that we have long since moved on from. All he is doing is highlighting the negative view people have of him.

On The Drum Friday night when the subject was raised all the panelists started laughing such was their incredulity at Abbott’s stupidity. This is reinforced by opinion polls that show him and his government to be the least popular newly elected government in forty years. In fact it is the only newly elected Government in forty years not to enjoy a honeymoon period.

In announcing his new titles he further empathised his deep seated Catholicism by using the term ‘Grace Notes’. A term I recognised in musical expression but deeper searching revealed the church connection. He has now placed future recipients in an awkward position. If they accept will they face public ridicule? My guess is that the individual calibre of person he selects will speak volumes for his judgement. But then this is a Prime Minister born in England and only taking out citizenship at the age of 24 to ensure an Oxford education. Not only has he downgraded Australia’s current tiles but his Knights and Dames of the future will be tarnished with the fact that is was Abbott that selected them.

“The return of imperial honours defies the spirit of the nation we have become” (Michael Smith).

Free Speech

Then we were subjected to the idiotic ramblings of the blunt and confronting Senator (John Howard is a lying Rodent) Brandis who suggested that anyone was perfectly entitled to be a bigot if they wanted to be and that outright free speech, as he proposed would give them that right. The general response has been one of condemnation.

“Something drastically wrong with the moral compass of a nation when it legislates to make bigotry a right” (John Lord).

I have written much on this subject with an open mind and appreciation of both sides of the argument. I don’t propose to express any more except to say that in all the discourse there is a point that seems to be overlooked. It is this: Who are the proposed changes supposed to benefit? Do I need more free speech than I already have? On this blog I have repeatedly called the Prime Minister a pathetic liar. And I think, with justification. I could probably say worse but I have no desire to do so. Many writers on this blog express their views aggressively but never overstep the line of decency like Andrew Bolt does. If we did I doubt that any of us could stand up to the might of a Murdoch for example.

So who would benefit from the proposed changes? Not the average citizen or writers of my ilk. People with a voice who had a vested interest in influencing the intellectual poor would. And those who are like minded. All the conveyers of subtle hidden persuaders would. In essence the likes of Murdoch and his hate press.

All of this preoccupation and philosophical hatred of the left is not serving the country well. Abbott should stop and reflect on his culture war. He is shooting bullets at those who don’t deserve it.

These are but a few examples of what the March in March rallies were about.

Now you see it . . .

March 28, 2014
Written by: Barry Tucker
13 Replies

Image courtesy of abc.net.au

In a foolish and ultimately self-incriminating move, Murdoch’s Sunday Telegraph has tried to protect federal government leader Tony Abbott from humiliation.

Mr Abbott is quite capable of humiliating himself. In fact, he usually does it on a daily basis, making protecting him a full-time, even futile, job.

In short, The Sunday Telegraph pulled a page from 22 December, 2013, containing a story in which Abbott ruled out the reintroduction of knights and dames. Following a commotion on social media, the page was restored to the online edition the following day.

The original story was written by Samantha Maiden, National Political Editor for Rupert Murdoch’s major metropolitan newspapers. It was not major news. It mainly quoted Abbott as saying he would not be following New Zealand’s lead by amending Australia’s top honour, the Order of Australia, to a knighthood or a dame.

However, the 22 December story suddenly became big news on the night of Tuesday, 25 March, 2014, when Abbott announced the reintroduction of knight and dame honours for “pre-eminent” Australians. They would apply automatically to Governors-General, to some who accepted public office, but probably not to those who sought public office, such as politicians.

Yesterday afternoon tweeters, myself included, began researching, found the 22 December article and began tweeting the link to our followers. Abbott’s back-flip, secrecy and obfuscation created quite a stir — although we should be accustomed to it by now. A few hours later, when I wanted to re-read certain parts, the story had disappeared from the web.

When Maiden was asked if she had an explanation, she replied there was no conspiracy. The following morning, she said the removal of the page had been “inadvertent”. There is no suggestion Maiden removed the web page. That would require online editing skills and probably a log-on password by an authorised online editor.

This is where the story becomes interesting and relevant (unlike almost any Opposition Point of Order during Question Time in the federal House of Representatives). It is not unusual for a politician to change their position on something. They generally have one position during an election campaign and a different one after the campaign, depending on whether or not their party won. It is not unusual for Abbott to change his position on everything. As I wrote earlier, he keeps his minders busy.

However, The Sunday Telegraph is not, or should not be, Abbott’s minder. The fact that it has taken this role upon itself is instructive.

It would have been better to leave the page in place and not draw attention to Abbott’s flip-flop by making the page disappear. It was a foolish move because anything that appears on the web is copied and cached in many other places. The fact that the page has reappeared after a storm of social media fuss proves that removing it was recognised as a mistake.

I say “removed” and I mean to imply deliberately removed because there is no way the page removal could have been “inadvertent”. It disappeared soon after tweeters began referring to Abbott’s obfuscation. It was deliberately removed in what turned out to be a futile bid to save Abbott embarrassment.

Abbott has been severely embarrassed by his reintroduction, without consulting his cabinet or the Australian people, of these imperial honours, which have been described by former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard, and others, as “anachronistic”. I have a list of seven Liberal MPs, so far, who are annoyed or bemused by Abbott’s honours.

On the day following Abbott’s announcement, Question Time was reduced to a farce, with several Opposition MPs kicked out for what Madam Speaker Bronwyn Bishop referred to as “a new tactic of an outburst of infectious laughter”. Abbott lost his temper at one point, leaning over the despatch box, glaring and yelling at Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, who had been humming Rule Britannia.

Abbott’s behaviour was the first evidence we have seen of the underlying bullying nature he exhibited through his university days. It was the proof I’d been expecting to see that he is, as I’ve written here before, probably not mature enough to responsibly exercise power.

He has now made at least three captain’s calls since 1 December, 2009 and they have all ended in near disaster for him. The first was his challenge to then Liberal Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull. He won that spill by a single vote. The second was his expensive Paid Parental Leave scheme, which offers new working mothers six months leave at full salary — partly paid for with a 1.5% tax on big employers. There is opposition in his party to the plan. The third and most recent was his reintroduction of some imperial honours, the last of which were abandoned in 1982.

Either Abbott has not accepted an Australian honour, such as the Order of Australia (AO), or not enough of his friends or staff have taken the trouble to prepare an application for one.

Here are some of the relevant tweets:

http://truthinmediaresourcecentre.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/sam-tweet-1.jpg

http://truthinmediaresourcecentre.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/sam-tweet-3.jpg

The following day:

http://truthinmediaresourcecentre.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/sam-tweet-2.jpg

http://truthinmediaresourcecentre.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/sam-tweet-4.jpg

http://truthinmediaresourcecentre.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/pandys-tweet.jpg

One of the results of following the original link:

http://truthinmediaresourcecentre.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/page-gone-missing.jpg

And if it inadvertently disappears again, read this cached copy.

Unexpectedly, News.com’s National Political Editor Malcolm Farr reported on Abbott’s humiliation.

And The Guardian Aus Political Editor Lenore Taylor did some straight reporting of the facts.

I originally posted this article on Truth in News Media.

March in March: Enough of the Deception and Manipulation

March 14, 2014
Written by: The AIM Network
22 Replies

A guest post by Matthew Mitchell. This article was first published on Matthew’s blog (We) can do better.

Abbott took government by playing on the fears of Australians, supported by the Murdoch press. Fears that have been built up and sustained through systems of secrecy, lies and deception. This is the emerging pattern of westernised governments and corporations across the globe. And these techniques depend upon violence, fear and coercion. All of which were evident in the Manus Island riots and killing, despite attempts to demonise the victims (Howard pulled a similar trick with Tampa).

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaI6YJi7pnQ&w=560&h=315]

The truth is that refugees, particularly those arriving by boat, form a tiny percentage of immigration into Australia, and could not come close to the “legal” immigration figures (see here for Asylum Seeker Myths). Not to mention that we are bound by law to accept them, under our international agreements. The vast majority of immigration is officially encouraged specialist migration, done not out of any grand vision for Australian society, but solely to feed the industrial growth model which is destroying the planet and leading not to higher prosperity for Australians, but significantly lower in terms of: levels of debt; less choices of jobs; less educational opportunities; crowded transport systems; hideous urban living developments and ongoing destruction of the natural environment.

In fact, it is this failing growth model that is mostly causing the refugee problem in the first place. Our dependence on fossil fuels, Australia’s collaboration and support of the U.S in global manipulations to establish regimes that serve the interests of a wealthy elite; the general extraction of the resources of less developed nations; manipulations of markets by multi-nationals which ensure that those nations at the bottom of the global food chain can never climb up, the list goes on. The WTO has never delivered the necessary agreements on agriculture that would eliminate subsidies by the U.S and other wealthy nations so as to allow developing nations to compete fairly. In the WTO’s own words: “developing countries […] say developed countries have failed to implement the agreements in a way that would benefit developing countries’ trade.”

George Monbiot – a respected journalist for The Guardian newspaper – is exactly right when he states: “The real threat to the national interest comes from the rich and powerful“.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riAiP1HzlpQ&w=560&h=315]

In fact the failure of the multi-nationals to achieve what they wanted through the WTO has lead to the Trans-pacific Partnership (TPP) , an “agreement” being negotiated in secret and described as a “corporate coup”.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBpXlI4Oxkw&w=560&h=315]

The manipulation of corporations is well captured in the following video parody of the Coal Industry – coal which is now polluting Gippsland as it has been polluting Chinese cities for years – to the sure detriment of their children’s long-term health. Not to mention 8 million acres of Chinese land so polluted that food cannot be grown on it. It is in such nations that the dark underside of our growth based consumerism is hidden from view, and the less said about it in the corporate controlled media, the better:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqXzAUaTUSc&w=560&h=315]

The underlying fact is the whole destructive system is based on force. Even the most passive resistance cannot be tolerated and must be removed by force, as Occupiers around the world found out in 2012 (including in Melbourne). This is confirmed by Oxford Professor Avner Offer who says this model is: “a warrant for inflicting pain.” Offer also says: “Economics tells us that everything anyone says should be motivated by strategic self-interest. And when economists use the word ‘strategic’ they mean cheating” and he concludes: “one of the consequences of this is that economists are not in a strong position to tell society what to do.”

It is this coercive, cheats based system that the Abbott government firmly believes in and supports, and it is because of the faults and failures of this system that we must march in March.

In Melbourne: State Library at midday, Sunday March 16. Click here for other locations, including country towns

Words Matter – But Don’t Call Rupert Murdoch Un-Australian

February 9, 2014
Written by: Rossleigh
24 Replies

Image by shirtoid.com

“Paid parental leave is a workplace entitlement, it’s not a welfare entitlement, and that’s why it should be paid at people’s wages in the same way that sick pay or holiday pay is paid at people’s wages.” Tony Abbott

Then, is the entitlement in this sentence from Mr Hockey, different? “I say to you emphatically, everyone in Australia must do the heavy lifting. The age of entitlement is over, the age of personal responsibility has begun,”

Words matter.

“We will strive to govern for all Australians, including those who didn’t vote for us.” Tony Abbott on being sworn in as PM

Of course, when you think about it, it’s a fairly meaningless statement. Can one ever imagine a PM announcing: “We will govern for those who voted for us, the ones who didn’t can please themselves about whether we’re the government or not.”

Yes, I know that Tony is trying to imply that he’ll be trying to help everyone. He does go on to say:

“We won’t forget those who are often marginalised; people with disabilities, Indigenous people and women struggling to combine career and family.

“We will do our best not to leave anyone behind.”

But I can’t help wondering what it means to not be left behind. I mean, where are we going apart from into the future. And, if anyone’s been left behind when it comes to the future, does that mean that they’re stuck in the past? Mm, stuck in the past, now where have I heard that…

Then again, our Prime Minister – who it’s alleged dropped out of the priesthood when he discovered that, even if he achieved his ambition of becoming Pope, some Catholics would still consider God in charge – did suggest that the ABC was un-Australian when it reported certain stories. Should one conclude that – in governing for all Australians – the government won’t be governing for those who are “un-Australian”? Surely, if all those foreign owned news outlets can suppress stories that are unflattering to Australia, then surely, surely the ABC should do the same.

For example – apart from the un-Australian ABC – should we also consider those people who gain citizenship here but still want a connection to the country of their birth, in-Australian? Now, I don’t mean our English PM, Abbott, who argues against a republic and wants to maintain our links to Britain. I mean, Italians and Greeks who cheer for their heritage in the World Cup instead of the Socceroos.

When one takes on the citizenship of another country, one should forget all affection for one’s previous homeland. Take Rupert Murdoch, who after renouncing us to become a US citizen has never shown the slightest concern about Australia. He’s the sort of role model that we want for our migrants.

Cory Bernardi had it right when he expressed concern about Muslims who want to impose sharia law which is opposed to sexual permissiveness, promiscuity and gay marriage. We shouldn’t allow Muslims to tell us what should and shouldn’t be allowed in Australia – that’s the job of Christians like him.

Words matter. They have meaning, but when Joe Hockey says that we all have to the “heavy lifting” I have no real idea what he’s talking about. When Abbott talks about being “un-Australian”, I find it as confusing as when he suggested that the asylum seekers were “un-Christian”. When Barnaby Joyce talks, I’m just confused!

So when we hear that the age of entitlement is over, that wages are too high, that penalty rates are unnecessary and that because some unions are corrupt we need a Royal Commission (why was there no Royal Commission into the AWB?), I can’t help but wonder if Joe’s actually saying that the age of work place entitlements is also over. We were told that Work Choices was dead. How long someone tries to argue that meant eliminating choices in work was part of the Liberals’ mandate?

Words matter.

Is Murdoch Australia’s Biggest Sleaze Mogul?

February 5, 2014
Written by: John Lord
28 Replies

I am but 50 pages into the Paul Barry biography Breaking News and the overriding impression one gets from these first few pages is that Rupert Murdoch recognised very early in his pursuit of fame and fortune that sleaze sells.

His publications in other countries are currently under investigation so I will confine my remarks to his Australian publications.

The profitability and popularity of every publication he owns depends on sleaze, be it the intellectual variety of The Australian or the gutter filth of The Daily Telegraph.

He realised early that the opinion he generated via his publications gave him influence in political circles and with it the power to manipulate it for his own benefit. The recall of favours rendered is always implied and never spelt out. It’s safer that way. Age has not wearied him but the times have. The advent of the Internet is but the beginning of the end. The Internet does not convey sleaze (I’m talking newspapers) as well as big boobs on page three of a tabloid. And those of the left should not assume that he supports any ideology other than the one that will give him what he wants in the circumstances. He supported Whitlam’s election and dumped him with an anti Labor campaign three years later. Whitlam was not for kowtowing to any media barren. And he supported Rudd in 2007.

Reuters in the past week reported that the Murdoch Australian newspapers have experienced a 25% advertising revenue decline on top of a 22% dip in sales. Is it any wonder based on the gutter trash it serves up? Have the advertisers decided they no longer want to be associated with sleaze? Is it reflecting on their product as it did during the Alan Jones sexist exposure? Has the reader’s tolerance for smut reached its limit?

So how does a proprietor arrest the decline? One way is to become sleazier, more titillating, more outrageous, and shocking. They can also increase the lying and spying and the omission of truth. In the case of The Australian they could choose to be even more biased. If that’s possible. Take for example Nick Cater’s (journalist for The Australian) reply to Tanya Plibersek on Q&A Monday night: “If you want to make this a war, we can”. Or Murdoch’s trashing of Australian sporting legend, Ian Thorpe’s reputation while at the same time accusing the ABC of being unpatriotic.

Another choice is to over a period of time transpose your paper into an on-line newssheet. The problem there is that you have to charge a fee and as this blog has proved there is an abundance of excellent writers ready to opine about issues for free. News and information is readily available so why should anyone pay?

Yet another choice is to discredit your opposition and seek a monopoly. Murdoch in partnership with the Abbott Government are doing their best to achieve this with their ferocious attacks on the ABC. Given the community support for the public broadcaster this is also doomed to failure.

COMMUNICATIONS Minister Malcolm Turnbull has issued a thinly veiled warning to the ABC to correct and apologise for errors, as senior cabinet figures voiced outrage and backbenchers seethed over the broadcaster’s handling of claims that asylum-seekers were deliberately burnt by defence personnel. Immigration Minister Scott Morrison yesterday demanded the broadcaster apologise for “outrageous slurs” against the navy while Joe Hockey revealed he has been so angry on occasions at ABC coverage he had called managing director Mark Scott to say “this is outrageous”.

One is apt to ask if the same outrage could be extended to the Murdoch Media who threaten our democracy with so much power that they can see people dismissed and governments elected.

And consider this from Crikey.com:

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s revelation that the government is mulling dumping the “two out of three” rule in our media ownership laws is more welcome news for News Corporation — albeit a bit like sending a leaky boat to rescue a drowning man.
Since the election, the government’s initial media policy forays have closely followed the script some of us suggested prior to September 7. In particular, the ABC has been the subject of extraordinary attack editorially — with both Turnbull and Treasurer Joe Hockey inappropriately calling ABC managing director Mark Scott to complain about ABC news content — and reputationally, with the Prime Minister himself engaging in a carefully-structured attack designed to delegitimise the broadcaster.

Turnbull flagged this week that changes to the anti-siphoning laws — which are still betwixt and between following the failure of former Labor communications minister Stephen Conroy’s comprehensive reform package — are under consideration, which opens up potential benefits for News Corp’s half-owned Foxtel — although old hands will know that any changes to anti-siphoning usually harm, not help, pay TV. Turnbull could do worse than run with the guts of Conroy’s package, which introduced an element of common sense into what is in essence a profoundly anti-competitive piece of regulation favouring the free-to-air TV cartel.

Day after day the Murdoch media empire exposes its monopolised gutter filth, acting like a dog on heat seeking to justify its gutter crawling journalism. It isn’t working. Truth could, but mud raking has made Murdoch’s fortune. He knows not decency so he cannot try it.

And the political journalists at these excuses for newspapers would know that they only retain their jobs on the basis that Murdoch is paying them to write merely what he demands them too. They have no choice. In other words they prostitute their professional ethics for money. They also know that the life of their jobs is dependent only on the lifespan of the owner.

But what about self-promotion that might work.

Comment should not be cheap
The Australian
December 04, 2013 12:00AM
REGARDLESS of what he is writing about – the Gallipoli centenary, Labor’s existential turmoil or the policy pratfalls of a new government, as he is today – our editor-at-large, Paul Kelly, brings his penetrating insight and peerless authority.

The Australian is blessed with writers such as Dennis Shanahan on politics, Greg Sheridan on foreign affairs, John Durie on business and Judith Sloan and David Uren on economics, and many others in the top rank, who have lived through the big moments in the nation’s history and are able to provide readers with a sense of perspective, knowledge and balance on the issues of the day. Along with experienced editors, they allow us to cut through the noise and tumult of a frenetic news cycle to explain events.

Yet that can’t be said of all media outlets, especially when seasoned journalists are being traded for ones unable to see beyond the dazzle of the instantaneous fix of Twitter or web-first publishing. These callow reporters and trainee talking heads are setting the pace at Fairfax Media and the ABC, with their “breaking” views and zippy analysis five minutes after something has happened.

We can see the crude results in the way the Abbott government is being portrayed as bad, mad and chaotic by the baby faces in the press gallery and beyond. To date, the low-point of juvenilia was struck by John van Tiggelen, editor of The Monthly, old enough to know better but clueless about Canberra, who wrote about the Abbott government’s “onanistic reverence for John Howard” and described it as “this frat party of Young Liberals who refuse to grow up”.

This twaddle would be harmless if these ill-informed innocents were on the fringes of new media, learning their craft in the minor leagues. Alarmingly, these infantile musings reflect the priorities of their organisations: it’s a reverse-publishing model, which sees the trivialities of Generation Y setting the agenda for once-venerable newspapers, which traditionally served older, educated, middle-income readers in Sydney and Melbourne.

No wonder Fairfax Media editors have lost touch with loyal readers and the respect of the old-hands still in the newsroom. At the ABC, Triple-J alumni have wrested cultural and editorial control in the face of insipid leadership from managing director Mark Scott and his news director, Kate Torney. You wonder if anyone’s really in charge at Pyrmont, Docklands and Ultimo and how long this idiocy can last.

Well it looks like that hasn’t worked. What’s left? That’s the big question.

I have a suggestion. Just close shop and save a lot of money. But I’m sure the board will do that anyway when the stench leaves the boardroom.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Tracking Abbott’s Wrecking Ball and Broken Promises

January 28, 2014
Written by: John Lord
46 Replies

Image by theaimn.com

Sally McManus is the Secretary of the Australian Services Union in NSW and the ACT.

She has been a campaigner and an organiser for more than 20 years and spends a lot of time doing and talking about organising and campaigning. Her blog is a comprehensive list of policy and other decisions taken by the Abbott Government. I cannot vouch for the veracity of the entire list (although I have no reason to doubt it) but I recommend it to those with an interest in how Tony Abbott intends changing Australia.

This is the list thus far and it is updated regularly:

86. Privatises the 104 year old Australian Valuation Office costing nearly 200 jobs – 24 January 2014
85. Seeks to wind back the World Heritage listing of Tasmania’s forests – 23 January 2014
84. Withdraws funding for an early intervention program to help vulnerable young people – 22 January 2014
83. Defunds all international environmental programs, the International Labour Organisation and cuts funding to a range of international aid programs run by NGOs such as Save the Children, Oxfam, CARE Australia and Caritas – 18 January 2014
82. Violates Indonesia’s territorial sovereignty while turning back asylum seeker boats – 17 January 2014
81. Scraps weekly media briefings on asylum seeker issues in an attempt to avoid public and media scrutiny – 14 January 2014
80. Politicises the national school curriculum by appointing a former Liberal staffer and a Coalition supporter, both critics of the current curriculum to conduct a review – 10 January 2014.
79. Directs that people already found to be refugees who arrived by boat be given the lowest priority for family reunion – 8 January 2014
78. Fails to contradict or take any action against a member of his government, Senator Cory Bernardi, who makes divisive statements about: abortion, “non-traditional” families and their children, same sex couples, couples who use IVF and calls for parts of WorkChoices to be reintroduced – 6 January 2014
77. Devastates Australia’s contribution to overseas aid by cutting $4.5 billion from the budget, causing vital programs supporting those in extreme poverty in our region to collapse – 1 January 2014
76. Drastically reduces tax breaks for small business and fails to publicise it – 1 January 2014
75. Refuses to support jobs at SPC at the cost of hundreds of jobs – 27 December 2013
74. Appoints Tim Wilson, a Liberal Party member and Policy Director of a right-wing think tank to the position of Commissioner at the Human Rights Commission even though this think tank argued for the Commission to be abolished – 23 December 2013
73. Approves private health fund premium increases of an average 6.2% a year – 23 December 2013
72. Fails to provide the promised customs vessel to monitor whaling operations in the Southern Ocean – 23 December 2013
71. Requests the delisting of World Heritage status for Tasmanian forests – 21 December 2013
70. Drastically dilutes consumer protections and transparency requirements for financial planners, including abolishing the requirement they put their clients interests first – 20 December 2013
69. Scraps the Home Energy Saver Scheme which helps struggling low income households cut their electricity bills – 17 December 2013
68. Defunds the Public Interest Advocacy Centre whose objectives are to work for a fair, just and democratic society by taking up legal cases public interest issues – 17 December 2013
67. Defunds the Environmental Defenders Office which is a network of community legal centres providing free advice on environmental law – 17 December 2013
66. Axes funding for animal welfare – 17 December 2013
65. Abolishes the AusAID graduate program costing 38 jobs – 17 December 2013
64. Cuts Indigenous legal services by $13.4 million. This includes $3.5 million from front line domestic violence support services, defunding the National legal service and abolishing all policy and law reform positions across the country – 17 December 2013
63. Abolishes the position of co-ordinator-general for remote indigenous services – 17 December 2013
62. Changes name of NDIS “launch sites” to “trial sites” and flags cuts to funding – 17 December 2013
61. Abolishes the National Office for Live Music along with the live music ambassadors – 17 December 2013
60. Cuts $2.5 million from community radio – 17 December 2013
59. Weakened the ministerial code of conduct to let ministers keep shares in companies – 16 December 2013
58. Disbands the independent Immigration Health Advisory Group for asylum seekers – 16 December 2013
57. Axes $4.5 million from charities and community groups for the Building Multicultural Communities Program – 13 December 2013
56. Starts dismantling Australia’s world leading marine protection system – 13 December 2013
55. Scraps the COAG Standing Council on Environment and Water – 13 December 2013
54. Breaks its NBN election promise of giving all Australians access to 25 megabits per second download speeds by 2016 – 12 December 2013
53. Overturns the “critically endangered” listing of the Murray Darling Basin – 11 December 2013
52. Dares Holden to leave Australia. Holden announces closure which costs Australian workers 50 000 jobs – 11 December 2013
51. Approves Clive Palmer’s mega coal mine in the Galilee Basin which opponents say will severely damage Great Barrier Reef – 11 December 2013
50. Demands that the few childcare workers who got pay rises “hand them back” – 10 December 2013
49. Approves the largest coal port in the world in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area – 10 December 2013
48. Removes the community’s right to challenge decisions where the government has ignored expert advice on threatened species impacts – 9 December 2013
47. Downgrades national environment laws by giving approval powers to state premiers – 9 December 2013
46. Undermines Australia’s democracy by signing a free trade agreement with South Korea allowing corporations to sue the Australian Government – 6 December 2013
45. Damages our diplomatic relationship with our nearest neighbour East Timor – 5 December 2013
44. Repeals the pokie reform legislation achieved in the last parliament to combat problem gambling – 4 December 2013
43. Suspends the Wage Connect program, despite it being proven to deliver good outcomes for unemployed people – 3 December 2013
42. Axes funding to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, forcing the 46 year old organisation to close – 27 November 2013
41. Back-flips twice on Gonski, reversing a commitment to a ‘unity ticket’ and failing to deliver equitable education funding – 25 November 2013
40. Shifts Australia’s position at the UN on Israeli settlements – 25 November 2013
39. Damages our diplomatic relationship with the Indonesian Government by refusing to apologise for tapping the phones of their President, his wife and senior Government officials – 23 November 2013
38. Converts crucial Start-Up Scholarships into loans, increasing the debt of 80,000 higher education students by $1.2 billion – 21 November 2013
37. Gifts two navy patrol boats to the Sri Lankan government to stop asylum seekers fleeing the Sri Lankan government – 17 November 2013
36. Introduces a Bill to impose on workers who are elected onto unpaid union committees huge financial penalties and jail terms for breeches of new compliance obligations – 14 November 2013
35. Condones torture by foreign governments by saying “sometimes in difficult circumstances, difficult things happen” – 14 November 2013
34. Hides information from the Parliament and the people about the government’s treatment of asylum seekers – 13 November 2013
33. Separates a refugee mother from her newborn baby – 10 November 2013
32. Cuts 600 jobs at the CSIRO – 8 November 2013
31. Abolishes Insurance Reform Advisory Group which provided a forum for industry and consumer bodies to discuss insurance industry reform – 8 November 2013
30. Abolishes the Maritime Workforce Development Forum which was an industry body working to build a sustainable skills base for the maritime industry – 8 November 2013
29. Abolishes the High Speed Rail Advisory Group whose job it was to advise Governments on the next steps on implementing high speed rail for eastern Australia – 8 November 2013
28. Abolishes the Advisory Panel on the Marketing in Australia of Infant Formula which for 21 years monitored compliance of industry to agreements on marketing infant formula – 8 November 2013
27. Abolishes the Antarctic Animal Ethics Committee who ensured research on animals in the Antarctic complies with Australian standards – 8 November 2013
26. Abolished the National Steering Committee on Corporate Wrongdoing that for 21 years worked to make sure the law was effectively enforced on corporate criminals – 8 November 2013
25. Abolishes the National Inter-country Adoption Advisory Council which provided expert advice on overseas adoption – 8 November 2013
24. Abolishes International Legal Services Advisory Council which was responsible for working to improve the international performance of Australia’s legal services – 8 November 2013
23. Abolishes the Commonwealth Firearms Advisory Council a group of experts in gun crime and firearms which was set up after the Port Arthur massacre – 8 November 2013
22. Abolishes Australian Animals Welfare Advisory Committee a diverse group of experts advising the Agriculture Minister on animal welfare issues – 8 November 2013
21. Abolishes the National Housing Supply Council which provided data and expert advice on housing demand, supply and affordability – 8 November 2013
20. Abolishes the Advisory Panel on Positive Ageing, established to help address the challenges the country faces as the number of older Australians grows – 8 November 2013
19. Refuses to offer support to manufacturing in Tasmania, despite requests and warnings. Caterpillar announces the move of 200 jobs from Burnie to Thailand, costing around 1000 local jobs – 5 November 2013
18. Provides $2.2 million legal aid for farmers and miners to fight native title claims – 1 November 2013
17. Abolishes the 40 year old AusAID costing hundreds of jobs – 1 November 2013
16. Launches a successful High Court which strikes down the ACT Marriage Equality laws invalidating the marriages of many people and ensuring discrimination against same-sex couples continues – 23 October 2013
15. Denies there is a link between climate change and more severe bush fires and accuses a senior UN official was “talking through their hat” – 23 October 2013
14. Appoints the head of the Business Council of Australia to a “Commission of Audit” to recommend cuts to public spending – 22 October 2013
13. Cuts compensation to the victims of bushfires – 21 October 2013
12. Instructs public servants and detention centre staff to call asylum seekers “illegals” – 20 October 2013
11. Appoints Howard era Australian Building & Construction Commission (ABCC) Director to help reinstate the ABCC with all its previous oppressive powers over construction workers – 17 October 2013
10. Axes the Major Cities Unit a Government agency with 10 staff which provided expert advice on urban issues in our 18 biggest cities – 24 September 2013
9. Fails to “stop the boats”. Hides the boats instead – 23 September 2013
8. Scraps the Social Inclusion Board, which had been established to guide policy on the reduction of poverty in Australia – 19 September 2013
7. Abolishes the Climate Commission – 19 September 2013
6. Appoints himself Minister for Women – 16 September 2013
5. Appoints only one woman into his cabinet and blames the women for his decision, saying he appoints “on merit”– 16 September 2013
4. Abolishes key ministerial positions of climate change and science – 16 September 2013
3. Breaks his promise to spend his first week with an Aboriginal community –
14 September 2012
2. Takes away pay rises for childcare workers – 13 September 2013
1. Takes away pay rises from aged care workers – 13 September 2013

Why Rupert hates unions and Gina loves 457 visas

December 22, 2013
Written by: Kaye Lee
31 Replies

Image from theconversation.com

While attempting to clean up my computer, I came across an essay that my daughter wrote earlier this year. I would like to share an excerpt from it.

Marxists see the conflict between the bourgeoisie (those that own the means of production) and the proletariat (those who sell their labour) as crucial to the maintenance of capitalism. Its function is to create an obedient, docile, uncritical workforce who will work to support the upper-class’s lifestyle and the economy. Keeping wages low, or debt pressure high, means workers will be less likely to complain or make demands. As workers struggle to provide their families with all the temptations that a capitalist society offers, they become far less likely to risk their employment, and less able to improve their situation. Even in the unlikely event that an opportunity for advancement should arise, it would often mean abandoning family and friends in order to pursue it. These factors, along with a tendency to marry within one’s own circle, combine to make movement between social classes difficult.

The current political debate surrounding the power of unions, work choices, and the importation of workers on 457 visas, could be regarded as an attempt to disempower employees thus maintaining a compliant workforce. It is difficult for an individual to risk complaining about wages or working conditions, so removing the collective voice and protection of unions means people are unlikely to make waves if, by so doing, they risk unemployment or deportation.

The process of industrialisation in the 19th century led to major changes in family life. Many things that had formerly been produced at home were now produced more cheaply in factories and families eventually became units of shared income and consumption rather than production, private and separate from the public world of business and politics. Men’s place of work was removed from the home and women’s and children’s unpaid domestic labour kept wages low allowing companies to increase profits. Women were increasingly isolated from society and children learned to obey.

Max Horkheimer regarded the family as an essential part of the social order in that it adapted every individual to conformity to authority. He argued that if men are the sole breadwinners, this ‘makes wife, sons and daughters “his”, puts their lives in large measure into his hands, and forces them to submit to his order and guidance’. Marx felt the same way stating that “Marriage is…incontestably a form of private property”. The economic dependence of the family on the father made men more conservative about radical social change which might undermine their ability to provide for their families, while the development of obedience to the authority of one’s own father was a preparation for obedience to the authority of the state and one’s employer.

During the 1960s and 70s the Western world saw a rapid period of social change in which the traditional understanding of the family began to be questioned. Feminist writers such as Christine Delphy, argued that in a capitalist society there are two modes of production: an industrial mode which is the site of capitalist exploitation; and the domestic mode which is the site of patriarchal exploitation. Marxist writers such as Juliet Mitchell examined the exploitation of workers under capitalism, pointing out that women, as they slowly entered the workforce, were doubly exploited through lower wages and unpaid labour at home. Contemporary Marxist writing argues that the family structure socialises children ‘into capitalist ideology’, which ‘prepares them to accept their place in the class structure, provides an emotionally supportive retreat for the alienated worker and so dissipates the frustration of the workplace, and impedes working class solidarity by privatising the household and generating financial commitments which discourage militant activity’ .

The role of the nuclear family in providing, perpetuating and indoctrinating a docile workforce is summarised by the following quotes. Meighan suggests that “For men, the denial of opportunities for excellence under capitalism leads…to a search for power and self-esteem in the sexual arena” Ainsley goes on to explain that “When wives play their traditional roles as takers of shit they often absorb their husband’s legitimate anger and frustration in a way which poses no challenge to the system”, and Cooper states that “The child is, in fact, primarily taught not how to survive in society, but how to submit to it”.

Changes in society have blurred these stereotypical roles. Many more women now are entering the workforce and are far less likely to marry for economic security. The availability of quality education and the explosion of information provided by the internet have made people more informed and less willing to blindly accept what they are told, and for some, it has also provided the opportunity to move from the social class into which they were born. The traditional structure of the nuclear family is also changing with much more diversity in family groups due to such factors as divorce, same sex couples, extended families, and many women choosing not to have children.

There have been other criticisms of the materialist perspective in that its focus was too limited to economic aspects, neglecting the value of and support provided in a loving intimate union, instead concentrating on the oppressive and controlling aspects of families and relationships. It tends to portray people as capitalist dupes without freedom of thought assessing them purely from a labour perspective.

While many of the bourgeoisie would still prefer, and in fact depend on, a malleable, uncomplaining workforce, family power structures are becoming less a factor in achieving this. However, our seemingly endless desire to consume and update means that economic pressures still play a large role. Even with, in many cases, both parents working, employment security usually takes precedence over job satisfaction or working conditions. Children are better informed and largely better educated and therefore have more opportunity to achieve economic independence and possibly change their social class but the rising cost of tertiary education, possible reductions in funding, and competition from overseas students limits the number who can attempt this. The burden is perhaps better shared but the outcome is in most cases the same – be happy with your lot.

Engel’s spoke of the evolution of the family as being both a catalyst for and result of the growth of capitalism. As mankind’s standard of living has improved, our desire to accumulate possessions and wealth to pass on to our families has only increased, as has our willingness to go into debt to satisfy it. Power and control is still exerted by those that own the means of production and they readily use this power to manipulate public opinion. Concentration of the media in the hands of a few like-minded individuals has led to misinformation campaigns that have amazingly ignited the workers to fight for the rights of the rich to get richer at their own expense. Family dynamics may have changed but the willingness of the proletariat to support the bourgeoisie seems alive and well.

It Goes to the Character of the Man

December 3, 2013
Written by: John Lord
70 Replies

Photo: The Courier Mail

Has Australia ever elected a Prime Minister so devoid of character? So lacking in the qualities of leadership? So deficient in empathy of social conscience? So ignorant of technology and science? So oblivious of the needs of women and same gender people? So out of touch with a modern pluralist society? And worst of all an unmitigated liar.

A Christian man who once had a calling to the Priesthood but now sees lying as a political truth. A Prime Minister who believes that truth is anything you persuade people to believe.

For the entirety of his time as Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott was proclaimed by the media (Murdoch in particular) as the most effective ever. I have never understood this. For three years his sole intention was to bring down a government. He lied continuously while at the same time creating shock and awe throughout the community. His negativity became legendary. Hardly a day passed without his accusing the government of telling the most awful fibs while at the same time perpetuating his own. On a daily basis he used sexism, misogyny, bullying, confusion, saturation, populism, diversion, racism, character assassination, panic mongering and even the re writing of history if it suited him.

And the media said he was effective. Well if they mean by that, that he was negatively effective then perhaps I have to concede he was. On the other hand if they mean he was effectively presenting himself as an alternative prime minister then I would have to disagree entirely. As opposition leader he did nothing to advance the country and the result of six years in opposition has not produced one major worthwhile policy. In fact he has become the Prime Minister for undoing. Not doing.

During his tenure as opposition leader when I was often in conflict with those of the opposite persuasion about the character of Tony Abbot, I would often ask his supporters to list five characteristics they thought he had that would make him a worthy leader. In five tries I never received a reply.

You see character as a combination of traits that etch the outlines of a life, governing moral choices and infusing personal and professional conduct. It’s an elusive thing, easily cloaked or submerged by the theatrics of a presidential campaign, but unexpected moments can sometimes reveal the fibres from which it is woven.

Abbott has none of these. He is and always has been a gutter politician of the worst kind. A repeat offender. He is a man who has failed to articulate a narrative for Australia’s future. Someone of such little virtue that he places the occupation of the lodge higher than the service of his people.

He is a man of loyalty to institutions. To the church and the monarchy. To people of wealth and influence. He lacks reformist zeal for the common good. He is, however, intent on undoing the good that others have done. His purpose in life seems to be (as was Howard’s) the maintenance of authority. A self righteous man who shows little aptitude for diplomacy.

All in all a man with a litany of lies and nonsensical ill-founded statements behind him. Of discriminatory declarations against women. Of disrespect for the conventions of Parliament. A man of slogans. A Luddite of technology. A denier of science. A right to rule elitist with no altruistic values.

It is indeed sad that the Australian public has entrusted the country’s future to a man of such little virtue.

Commentators of the political world have said that he has not yet switched from Opposition Leader to Prime Minister. How appallingly and ignorantly naive of them. Here we have a man with the deepest of neo conservative values. Values of rusted on negativity. Of Tea Party mentality surrounded by acolytes of little intellectual capacity. An inarticulate street fighter who would rather have a fight than a feed. Do they honestly expect him to overnight become a person of dignity and trust? A leader with aplomb, self-confidence and composure. Someone cool with grace and style. His only thought the common good of his fellow citizens.

Sorry we are talking about Tony the pugilist. It’s not going to happen. He is what he is. A liar. Just ask him. He said he is.

Watching him on Monday during question time empathised this point. The personality of the pugilist was wanting to escape the confines of Prime Ministerial nicety but was trapped inside. You can see it in his interviews. The same stress of being locked into conformist comportment. Trying to be dignified when in reality you want to smack someone in the face.

The most damming indictment he made against Labor when in office was that they were dysfunctional and that they lied. They broke a core promise.

Now he stands accused of the same thing which only goes to show that he has little judgment and little character.

He came to power after six years of negative behaviour and no policy development.

As Ross Gittens puts it.

‘’It’s as if Tony Abbott believes returning the Liberals to power will, of itself, solve most of our problems. Everything was fine when we last had a Liberal government, so restore the Libs and everything will be fine again.’’

Message Control

December 3, 2013
Written by: Kaye Lee
40 Replies

I think we all agree that Labor shot itself in the foot by using the media to broadcast their internal squabbles. Conceding that, far greater forces were at play.

The other seemingly obvious cause was Labor’s failure to get their message across. Their achievements in government were significant, their policies were vastly superior (in most cases), and their ministers, if not overly charismatic, were at least competent and knowledgeable in their portfolios.

We all watched with increasing concern as they allowed the Coalition, ably abetted by the Murdoch press, to dictate the message. Carbon pricing became a “lie” and a “toxic tax”. Rather than answering this campaign with the obvious advantages of carbon pricing in dealing with climate change, they went into defence mode and we now find the carbon tax being blamed for everything to do with the economy, investment, manufacturing, jobs and cost of living.

It doesn’t seem to matter that the economy has a AAA credit rating, that we have had record investment, and that the average household is $14 000 a year better off now than they were in 2007. It doesn’t seem to matter that, until very recently, the mainstream business community was behind carbon pricing. It doesn’t seem to matter what reasons businesses give for closing, we are told it’s the carbon tax. And even after the repeal of the carbon tax is underway, and we still see businesses closing, it’s still the fault of the carbon tax.

In an astonishing transformation, we saw Tony Abbott move from an attack dog to Prime Minister, from misogynist to Minister for Women, from telling Aborigines they should pick up rubbish to crowning himself Minister for Indigenous Affairs.

The Opposition had a strategy to keep the focus on the Government, to present a small target, to keep it simple and to exploit fear and populism. In other words, they controlled the message. They began the campaign with the infamous headless chook ad but when it was panned as childish and inappropriate they quickly morphed into the ‘adults’ carrying out a positive campaign warning us that Labor would get nasty. Actually, looking back, the ‘negative’ ads from Labor were quite prophetic.

So the Coalition won, promising us transparency and accountability – no surprises. They assumed they would be able to control the message in government as they had so successfully in opposition. Tony began by shutting the Indonesian press out of his first press conference on their soil. It did not go over well. His tough guy rhetoric for the domestic market has not been well received on the international stage.

His obsession with axing the tax might have done well for Tony here where he, along with people like Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones, have convinced many people that climate change is crap. In the rest of the world his actions are being condemned and his rhetoric is being drowned out by the latest IPCC report and the growing commitment of other world leaders to take action on climate change.

In a further attempt to control the message, all interviews with Ministers have to be approved by the Prime Minister’s Office 24 hours prior to the interview. Scott Morrison is perfecting hiding the boats and Joe Hockey won’t tell us why the debt ceiling needs to be increased. Julie Bishop refuses to disclose details about any of her meetings with foreign leaders and the briefings from departments to the incoming government will not be released.

Newly appointed head of NBNco, former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, has certainly changed his message from 2003 when Telstra told the Senate Committee that the copper network was at “5 minutes to midnight” to now, when he told them it is “robust”. He has also been instructed not to talk to the media.

Experienced public servants have been sacked in their droves and an ‘Independent’ review panels have been set up to look at … well … just about everything. The trouble is that these review panels are composed of ex-Liberals and businessmen who have already expressed very strong views about what they are supposed to be reviewing, and as they have only been given a few months to prepare their advice, they will not be consulting with other concerned bodies. I would suggest these panels have been selected because they already know the message they are supposed to give.

We have BHP advising on climate change, the BCA which represents banks and mining companies doing the Commission of Audit, the former head of the Commonwealth Bank reviewing the finance sector, and one of the fiercest critics of Labor’s NBN, columnist for The Australian Henry Ergas, on the three man panel to do a cost-benefit analysis of the NBN.

And now we having Tony Abbott’s speeches being airbrushed from history – or is it is lies being airbrushed from history? – and his ‘excuse’ for the back flip on school funding highlights what could best be described as a classic case of ‘gaslighting’ (as pointed out by one of The AIMN’s readers):

“We are going to keep the promise that we actually made, not the promise that some people thought that we made, or the promise that some people might have liked us to make”.

From Wikipedia: “Gaslighting is a form of mental abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory, perception and sanity”. With the amount of message control we are being fed that certainly appears to be a technique of the Abbott Government.

Eric Hoffer once said “Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves”. With the growing reach of the fifth estate, it is becoming harder to control the message and there is little excuse for self-deception. However, we should remember that:

“If people in the media cannot decide whether they are in the business of reporting news or manufacturing propaganda, it is all the more important that the public understand that difference, and choose their news sources accordingly.”

– Thomas Sowell.

We need to put message control into the control of the right people.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Who do you admire?

November 30, 2013
Written by: Kaye Lee
43 Replies

You can tell a lot about someone by whom they admire. It shows their priorities in life.

An early influence was founder of the DLP party, Bob Santamaria. A staunch Catholic, who believed the Church had a role to play in governing the State, Santamaria was vigorously opposed to birth control and abortion and decried what he described as contemporary sexual decadence. He wanted to turn us into a nation of farmers and cottage industries, with women permanently barefoot and pregnant. He was convinced that Australia was under threat from Communism, warning people that communists in Australia were buying up arsenals and guns in preparation for the revolution, and likening the Vietnam War to a crusade.

In a speech in 1998 Tony Abbott described Santamaria as “a philosophical star by which you could always steer” and “the greatest living Australian”. Abbott has said that what impressed him about Santamaria was “the courage that kept him going as an advocate for unfashionable truths”.

And then we have Cardinal George Pell, the man who has been complicit in the cover-up of child sexual abuse for decades, actively assisting pedophile priests in avoiding prosecution. Pell told a World Youth Conference that “Abortion is a worse moral scandal than priests sexually abusing young people”. Like his spiritual advisor, Tony Abbott also assisted a pedophile priest to avoid punishment by writing him a reference.

In recent days, Tony Abbott again defended Pell’s actions saying “Cardinal Pell is a fine man . . . Cardinal Pell is one of the greatest churchmen that Australia has seen”.

In April this year, Tony Abbott expressed his admiration for Rupert Murdoch, the man whose media empire illegally hacks phones and bribes officials as standard practice. Murdoch has said power is his aphrodisiac and he revels in manipulation of public perception and his role in bringing down governments.

Abbott described Murdoch as Australia’s most influential businessman going on to say “Along with Sir John Monash, the Commander of the First AIF which saved Paris and helped to win the First World War, and Lord Florey a one-time provost of my old Oxford College, the co-inventor of penicillin that literally saved millions of lives, Rupert Murdoch is probably the Australian who has most shaped the world through the 45 million newspapers that News Corp sells each week and the one billion subscribers to News-linked programming”.

Tony also greatly admires Gina Rinehart, the woman who sponsored that fruitcake, Lord Monckton, to do a speaking tour on climate change denial. This is a woman who makes a million dollars every half hour but cannot afford to pay the mining tax, and who wants a special tax zone in the North so she can pay even less. At least nine Coalition MPs have declared in their register of interests that Ms Rinehart has supplied free travel, hospitality and accommodation and she donated $50,000 directly (and up to $700,000 indirectly) to Barnaby Joyce’s campaign to win New England.

As Tony Abbott said, “Mates help each other; they don’t tax each other”, and Gina must be well pleased with the fruits of her investment so far, with the mining and carbon taxes about to be repealed and the biggest coal mine in Australia getting fast-track approval already.

And let’s not forget John Howard. Tony considers himself Howard’s protégé and longs for us to return to those halcyon days. This despite the fact that Howard’s government has been identified by the IMF as the most wasteful ever, whose middle class welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy have saddled us with a structural deficit, and whose sale of assets cost us billions in future revenue. Howard lied to take us into a war that cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. He lied to us about the children overboard affair. Eleven of Howard’s Ministers either resigned or were sacked for indiscretions and many more were forgiven for their conflicts of interest and rorting of entitlements, a practice which this government seems to also enjoy.

Tony Abbott told his former leader and mentor John Howard on election night that he was the only person he could turn to for real advice in his new role as Prime Minister. That may explain Tony’s view that climate change is crap and that we should spend whatever it takes to stop the boats.

On the international stage, Tony has expressed his admiration for Japan (don’t mention the whales), and Indonesia (doing a great job there in West Papua), and Sri Lanka (hey shit happens . . . what’s the odd kidnapping and torture between friends . . . need some gun boats?). He loves America and China so much that he wants their corporations to be able to sue us if we hurt their profits with health, safety, competition or environmental laws.

Add to that the fact that Tony’s Chief of Staff not only makes policy decisions, she now also dictates who the public will have access to and what they may reveal. I call it pleading the Morrison Amendment – say nothing that may incriminate you. And we have Tony’s chief strategist and PR guru entering the world of foreign affairs and diplomacy by comparing Indonesia’s Foreign Minister to an aging porn star. These are the people who run and advise our government – the Star Chamber.

So, in summary, our PM admires staunch Catholics, power, wealth, big business, climate change deniers and all world leaders with whom he can have a photo taken. He prefers the advice of advertising spin merchants and power brokers to that of experts.

“If you care about other people, that’s now a very dangerous idea. If you care about other people, you might try to organize to undermine power and authority. That’s not going to happen if you care only about yourself. Maybe you can become rich, but you don’t care whether other people’s kids can go to school, or can afford food to eat, or things like that. In the United States, that’s called “libertarian” for some wild reason. I mean, it’s actually highly authoritarian, but that doctrine is extremely important for power systems as a way of atomizing and undermining the public.”

Noam Chomsky “Business Elites Are Waging a Brutal Class War in America”.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Now I’m calling on all the good Catholics – I know that they’re must be some

November 3, 2013
Written by: Rossleigh
18 Replies

Image from catholicfire.blogspot.com

“Thankfully, Australia has emerged from its inauspicious colonial beginnings to become a proud nation, a nation that overcame those primeval prejudices. We have a perfect example: Many of you will remember a day when a Catholic was rare in a Liberal Cabinet.

Those days are now behind us. And Prime Minister Tony Abbott is part of the proof.”

Rupert Murdoch’s Speech to the Lowy Institute.

31st October, 2013

It is time for leaders among the Muslim faithful to step forward and condemn the violence. It would be totally appropriate and appreciated by the world to see a massive show of condemnation of this violence. A symbolic way to show it would be a million Muslim march on Washington DC…

Tea Party Cheer

“During a retrospective of Serrano’s work at the NGV in 1997, the then Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, sought an injunction to restrain the National Gallery of Victoria from publicly displaying Piss Christ, which was not granted. Some days later, one patron attempted to remove the work from the gallery wall, and two teenagers later attacked it with a hammer. The director of the NGV cancelled the show, allegedly out of concern for a Rembrandt exhibition that was also on display at the time.”

A couple of weeks ago, I thought of writing this:

“Catholics are a violent lot, and I think that if they want to continue to live in this country, they need abide by our laws.

“For example, in 1997, George Pell condemned an artwork as blasphemous. While I’m a supporter of free speech, I’m concerned that his comments gave encouragement to others to take the law into their own hands and attack it with a hammer. Let me be quite clear here. I’m sure that the majority of Catholics are peaceful, law-abiding citizens. Unfortunately, their silence gives support to the extremists who resort to violence.

“I call on all Catholics to condemn the violence.

“Of course, Catholics do have a history of violence. We have the terrorist bombings by the IRA, and, of course, I believe that it was Guy Fawkes Catholic leanings to lead him to attempt to blow up the houses of Parliament. At no time in his political career have I heard, Tony Abbott condemn either the IRA or Guy Fawkes.”

I wanted to make the point that once you start writing a group that’s part of mainstream Australia such as Catholics the way some people write about Muslims, it sounds absurd. After all, we never demanded that Catholics here condemn the IRA violence. It was just expected that they did.

But then after Rupert Murdoch’s speech, I realised that some people might take me seriously…

In spite of the fact that there have been Catholic Prime Ministers from the Labor Party – most recently, Paul Keating – Murdoch finds it noteworthy to point out that Tony Abbott is a member of that faith. See, he seems to be saying, the Liberals ARE egalitarian – they even have a Catholic in charge. But somehow this need to point it out strikes me showing that Mr Murdoch actually is still clinging to those “primeval prejudices”. What I mean is that one expects that the “first” of any group will often draw comment – the first woman, the first indigenous, the first Jewish, the first Islamic person, the first Queenslander, etc. – but to draw attention to the second Catholic Prime Minister suggests that it’s something that you still find strange and not part of the expected order of things. Or to put it another way, I don’t think I’d bother to comment that we had another Methodist Prime Minister. Or that for the first time this century, the Premier of Victoria didn’t go to a private school. (Actually, when that happens it might be worthy of comment – I should offer a prize for anyone who can name the last time that happened!)

See, says Murdoch, this class war stuff was all nonsense, even the Liberals are letting Catholics in.

Perhaps, I’m being unfair. After all, Rupert also talks about “our country” in his speech. So in spite of his decision to renounce Australia and take out US citizenship – like Peter Allen – he still calls Australia home. He’s still just one of us. And he did find Labor’s attempts to ensure that people coming in on 457 visas were geniune, “racist and disgusting”.

It’s only those “illegals” that we should be calling queue jumpers. Although, I would have thought that a 457 visa that wasn’t geniune was even more illegal.

Just a short post, beginning with FFS! Very exasperated, very loud!

October 18, 2013
Written by: Rossleigh
11 Replies

FFS! Just read this on http://www.news.com.au/

It’s about Abbott’s meeting with Prince Charles. Maybe a Republic will be soon on the agenda.

“While the lunch-table conversation agenda is obviously unknown, it’s likely Mr Abbott’s climate change views which could potential cause a constitutional crisis in Australia will be raised.”

Ok, the first point is that a Double Dissolution is not when the public are disillusioned with both major parties. Neither is it a “constitutional crisis”.

It’s part of the Constitution. It’s there to resolve an impasse like the one that just occurred in the USA where the Tea Party Republicans thought it might be a good idea to just teach this guy in The Whitehorse “some respect”.

IT IS NOT A CRISIS!

I repeat, it is not a crisis!

Rupert Murdoch not getting his own way may seem like a crisis to his toadies and lickspittle such as Bolt.

It’s like this nonsense about a “mandate”. ALL politicians are elected with a mandate to do what they promised to do. Lower House and Upper House alike. It was after the Democrats didn’t block the GST as they promised to do that they were decimated at the following election. They were given a mandate to do just that at the 1998, but they negotiated to get a better GST.

All right, I guess not everyone will agree with that . That’s OK. That’s a matter for debate.

On the other hand, a Double Dissolution is NOT A CRISIS!!! It’s potentially part of the normal workings of democracy in this country.

Oh, I guess that’s the crisis.

My mistake.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Once You Realise that Maggie Thatcher Was A Left-Winger, Everything Becomes Clear!

October 13, 2013
Written by: Rossleigh
21 Replies

Maggie Thatcher. Yes, it’s true that she did a lot of privatisation. And she did take on a lot of unions. But what was her reaction to a plan to dismantle the National Health Scheme? From her memoirs: “I was horrified when I saw this paper. I pointed out that it would almost certainly be leaked and give a totally false impression … It was all a total nonsense.” She allowed the Welfare State to prosper!

As for her position on climate change, the following is from the ABC:

“What many people admired about Margaret Thatcher was her ability to embrace the potential of science to guide and lead the way on environmental issues. What marked her out even more is that she embraced the ‘precautionary principle’ years before other politicians did. As she once said:

“…the danger of global warming is as yet unseen but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations.”On November 8th 1989, she addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations about the need for nations to join together in tackling climate change.”

So, we can see that Maggie was far from the sort of Prime Minister that would have gained Rupert Murdoch’s approval.

Andrew Bolt would be condemning her as an alarmist.

And the ABC, well, they’d be right behind her, that side of politics all stick together!

Yes, I know this sounds absurd, but that’s the thing. Once you define Maggie as left-wing, then you’re the “fair and balanced” one and everyone else is the extremist. And that’s pretty much what’s been done. If you read my previous blog on Framing, then you probably already understand what I mean when I say that the debate is constantly being “framed” so that we feel that The Greens and others on the Left don’t have the right to a point of view. Labor still does, but only just, so they need to have a good hard look at themselves, or else they can just be ignored, too!

The ABC keep giving these people a chance to express what they believe – an example of bias – and Piers Akerman will appear on the ABC to point out that people like him don’t appear on the ABC, because it’s full of people that disagree with him. (Piers, the WORLD is full of people who disagree with you!) Of course, the Liberals were concerned enough in 2003 to complain of bias in the ABC because a cynical tone was detected when interviewing people about the Weapons of Mass Destruction. The ABC reporters seemed to be suggesting that some of the reports may have been exaggerated. I can’t seem to find much about that on the Internet.

I read a comment today about this site only ever being supportive of the Labor Party. That struck me as interesting because, while I’m sure that many of the bloggers on this site ARE supportive of the Labor Party, I don’t see the fact of being critical of the actions of the Liberal Party automatically means that one is supportive of the Labor Party. I’m sure that a large number of people reading this will be disappointed with both major political parties.

And I guess, that’s my point, for most people politics is NOT about which political party is in power. It’s about what’s being done, and how it affects the individual. Or rather, how the individual perceives the way what’s being done affects them. So, what are we hearing about? What’s happening with the NDIS, the Gonski education reforms, the boats, the Direct Action Plan, the Budget, and so on? Why are we not hearing about these things? Ah, early days. I guess we’ll be told closer to the election.

Yep, this is when some Liberal Party supporter will start to talk about the past, and say how hopeless the Labor Party was. Personally, I no longer feel the need to defend the past. Tony Abbott is our Prime Minister. I find it strange that people continue to attack the ghost of Labor past. Or sites which are critical of Abbott. It’s like they have no postive plan for the future, and the only argument they have is that at least we’re better than the other mob…

Mmm, I guess the thing that has always distinguished left-wing and right wing is that left wing who disagree with me usually attack my argument; right wing trolls attack me for being a left-winger.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Media statement: update on removal of extreme violent…

Why I'm Confused By Peter Dutton And Other…

Not in my name

Censorship Wars: Elon Musk, Safety Commissioners and Violent…

Political Futures: Prepare for the Onslaught from Professionalized…

Jake's First Ride West

The ALP - Arguing for a Minimum Program

Reflections on the return of the Green Horned…

Tag Archives: Rupert Murdoch

Abbott’s thus far Annus Horribilis

Now you see it . . .

March in March: Enough of the Deception and Manipulation

Words Matter – But Don’t Call Rupert Murdoch Un-Australian

Is Murdoch Australia’s Biggest Sleaze Mogul?

Tracking Abbott’s Wrecking Ball and Broken Promises

Why Rupert hates unions and Gina loves 457 visas

It Goes to the Character of the Man

Message Control

Who do you admire?

Now I’m calling on all the good Catholics – I know that they’re must be some

Just a short post, beginning with FFS! Very exasperated, very loud!

Once You Realise that Maggie Thatcher Was A Left-Winger, Everything Becomes Clear!