Tag Archives: annabel crabb

Bravo! To “Conspiracy Nut” Elizabeth Farrelly

12 Apr

Wonders will never cease. A mainstream journalist with the courage to write a column whose content will inevitably invite her public vilification as a “conspiracy nutter”. As she clearly foresaw … and yet, wrote it anyway:

I’m not given to conspiracy theories, incompetence being so much easier to imagine, but one thing gives credibility to Clive Palmer’s otherwise nutty CIA phantasm about US influence in Australia.

It is Julian Assange, a story that hinges on the uncomfortable relationship between truth and power.

We expect truth-telling from our four-year-olds but not from our politicians. In the case of Assange, truth is actively and repeatedly punished.

This implies that, as you move up through society’s power strata, there’s a point where morality flips.

A sort of moral inversion layer, beneath which the rules apply but above which they’re reversed.

The modern Labor Party seems to illustrate this as well as anyone.

I mention all this not just to illustrate that high-level grubbiness is so normal we almost expect it, but to highlight a more sinister possibility; that we, like the Philippines, are a puppet US state, where truth comes second to power.

This kind of talk I’ve always resisted. Yet it is now undeniable that, at US behest, Julian Assange stands to lose his liberty, indefinitely, for telling the truth. And the very same Labor Party, with its CIA-assisted PM and its concern for truth re-education, lifts not a finger to help him.

It’s quite clear that Assange is not guilty – not of rape, not of treason. As Malcolm Turnbull, responding to Gillard’s “illegal” claim, told a Sydney University law school audience last year, it is prima facie clear that Assange has broken no Australian law.

In words of one syllable, the Australian Federal Police agrees. There has been no breach of our law.


Isn’t truth a wonderful thing, dear reader?

Prioritising the quest for Truth above all else allows one to agree with those who you would, on other subjects, vehemently disagree with.

Like mainstream journalists.

And Malcolm Turnbull.

Elizabeth Farrelly is right.

And she is not the only female journalist who smells conspiracy in our government. And has finally found the courage to publish her observations of what is, in fact, nothing more than an uncomfortable yet blindingly obvious reality.

Here is Their ABC’s Annabel Crabb on the FWA/Craig Thomson protection racket, and the Australia Network/Chris Conroy totalitarian censorship fiasco:

Everyone knows that when faced with a choice between conspiracy and incompetence, the best explanation is usually incompetence, but in this case we are now dealing with some pretty special incompetence.

As of this week, conspiracy is now the more obvious conclusion.

Quite so Annabel.

Quite so.

Oh yes, and about the “conspiracy theory” of covert (and increasingly overt) US “influence” in Australian governance.

Regular readers may recall my irony-laden post This Will End Well in November last year, on the Gillard announcement of a permanently increased US military presence on our sovereign territory.

Today, a former leader of the Australian Army agrees that I was right.

Exactly right:

General Peter Leahy warns of US-China collision

FORMER Australian army chief Peter Leahy has urged Australia to tread warily in expanding its military ties with the US to ensure they do not “lead to increased tension and even conflict” with China.

Warning against becoming “caught” between the US as its security guarantor and China as its economic underwriter, Professor Leahy has welcomed Australia’s decision to play host to US marines, but noted that “too much of a good thing” could put unnecessary pressure on China.

His comments, in an opinion piece in today’s edition of The Australian, came as the China Daily state-owned newspaper hit out at Australia’s expanding links with the US, warning they could spark a collapse of trust and endanger Sino-Australian economic ties.

In a strongly worded editorial, the newspaper yesterday also warned that the Gillard government’s decision last month to ban Chinese communications giant Huawei from bidding for work in the $36 billion National Broadband Network had created the perception in Beijing that Australia wanted to obstruct Chinese companies.

Relations between China and Australia have been under pressure since US President Barack Obama visited Canberra in November to announce plans to station up to 2500 US marines in Darwin within five years. The deployment, which started last week, was part of a US push to shift its defence posture towards Asia in recognition of the growing influence of China and India.

Chinese suspicions were further provoked last month when The Washington Post reported that the US was interested in using the Australia-controlled Cocos Islands as a base for surveillance drones.

Professor Leahy, who led the army between 2002 and 2008 and is now director of the University of Canberra’s National Security Institute, argues against Australia becoming too closely tied to the US. “As a sovereign nation Australia should maintain the ability to say ‘no’ to the US and separate itself from their actions,” he writes, predicting the US marines agreement will lead to US pressure for even closer military ties with Australia, including greater access for American air and naval forces.

“These are momentous decisions with far-reaching consequences. They potentially implicate Australia in a series of actions that could lead to increased tension and even conflict with China.

“War is improbable but not impossible. Australia needs to be careful that it does not make inevitable the future that it should fear the most.”

Yesterday’s China Daily article accused Australia of jumping on “the bandwagon” of a US push to “contain” China, putting at risk the close economic ties developed since diplomatic relations were normalised four decades ago.

“As an old Chinese saying said . . . the person attempting to travel two roads at once will get nowhere,” the article said. “Canberra is in danger of learning the truth of the Chinese saying that he who does not trust enough will not be trusted.

“If Canberra continues to place more importance on its alliance with Washington, the trend of giving China the cold shoulder will eventually hurt the good momentum that the two countries have worked hard to build.”

China is Australia’s largest trading partner, with the emerging giant’s hunger for coal and iron ore the key driver of Australia’s ongoing resources boom.

Truly, we are governed by muppets.

Dangerous muppets.

And the governing muppets are opposed by more muppets who, if given the chance to govern, would, on this particular topic, be even worse.

God help us.

Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave, When Even Their ABC Takes Its Leave!

1 Sep

Ok, so this topic is waaaay off-topic for this blog. Nevertheless, it’s worth bringing to readers’ attention this rather devastating article written by their ABC’s chief online political writer, Annabel Crabb:

High Court climax to a tale of rambling incompetence

Today’s decision from the High Court is disastrous for the Government on a number of fronts.

It’s disastrous because the deterrent effect that was the redeeming feature of this harsh and – in terms of Labor’s history in this policy area – hypocritical solution has now evaporated.

Australia remains obliged to accept 4,000 new refugees from the Malaysian queues, and must now additionally expect a new influx of boat arrivals through the usual channels.

It’s disastrous because having hoped to draw attention to the toughness of its new border protection policy, the Government has now effectively hung a lantern on its own problems.

It’s disastrous because rather than brutally curtailing the sense of crisis, the Government has fanned it with this failed policy.

But the most egregious aspect of today’s decision by the High Court is that it provides a new and crushing chapter in what has become a tale of rambling incompetence.

Across both Rudd and Gillard governments, this policy area has played host to a most dispiriting display of opportunism, mendacity and half-arsedness.

The Rudd government repealed some of the harshest elements of the Pacific Solution, but never acknowledged the plain-as-day reality that this decision would have some effects on the rate of boat arrivals. Busy denying the bleeding obvious, the Rudd government instead occupied itself with slogans about “tough and humane” policies while desperately casting about for regional assistance.

Can you recall the agonising weeks for which the Oceanic Viking vessel poked about the coastlines of Indonesia, bulging with asylum seekers for whom Kevin Rudd had petitioned Susilo Bambang Yudhyono to take responsibility, in a rickety deal which SBY in the end was unable to honour?

Do you remember the first days of the Gillard Government, in which the new PM first proposed East Timor as a regional processing centre for asylum seekers, then bizarrely denied having mentioned East Timor, then finally acknowledged it, and the ensuing months in which the Government’s bleated insistence that East Timor would come on board eventually gave way to a mute acceptance that it wouldn’t?

Do you recall the election campaign, in which the western Sydney MP David Bradbury materialised beside the PM on a patrol boat in Darwin Harbour, apparently monitoring the horizon for foreign wayfarers determined enough to invade his seat by means of the Parramatta River?

And do you remember, incidentally, all the denials issued by the same Government during that campaign, that there were plans afoot to expand existing detention centres and open new ones, which denials evaporated post-election, to be replaced by discreet confirmations that such plans were indeed proceeding to fruition?

Of the Malaysian Solution itself, and its Papua New Guinea variant, announced prematurely, and negotiated under circumstances of naked Government desperation, I need hardly remind you, seeing as it is so fresh in the memory. (Of the Government’s full reversal from an insistence that push factors alone affect the number of boat arrivals, to the assumption deeply implicit in the Malaysian plan that pull factors are paramount, you will never hear an explanation.)

The confident assurance from the Immigration Minister just weeks ago that the High Court legal challenge had been anticipated and rigorously prepared-for was hit amidships early on by High Court Justice Hayne, who growled at the Soliticitor-General that his submission was “half-baked”.

And now today’s decision, in which the Government’s Malaysia Solution is not crippled, not winged or crimped or slightly frustrated by our nation’s highest court, but clean bowled.

Nauru is the one reversal the Government has so far not permitted itself.

Perhaps it will now. It hardly matters anymore; if anyone in the Government is still wondering why voters don’t believe Julia Gillard when she says she has things under control, today should provide a devastating answer.


When even their ABC tears a Labor government a new one like that, you know that we are in the presence of by far and away the worst government in the nation’s history.

Australia, You Are All Idiots: Only Labor Knows What Is Best For Your Money

9 Aug

If ever a TV panel discussion typified the galactic disconnect between the collective wisdom of the Australian public, and the infinite stupidity of our self-proclaimed (pseudo)intellectual betters, then Sunday’s ABC Insiders program demonstrated it to the full.

The topic?  The government’s planned increase in the compulsory superannuation rate from 9% to 12% –

Is superannuation the wrong use of wages?

Watch the segment, and note carefully the man taking up the baton for the collective wisdom of Neville and Sue Ordinary Voter.

Mr Brian Toohey, of the Australian Financial Review.

An old bloke.

A gentle bloke.

A sometimes stammering bloke.

A thoughtful, observant bloke.

A bloke who wrote an AFR column titled “Big sister knows what’s best for you” on just this topic back in February (summary via Media Monitors):

Proposed increases to compulsory superannuation contributions are unwarranted and under-scrutinised. The Gillard government does not trust citizens to allocate their own resources responsibly. Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan spent the revenue from the failed Resources Super Profits Tax, now whittled down into the minerals resource rent tax, without considering future colossal expenditure on defence, health care, disability services and general maintenance of a rapidly aging population. Instead, these funds were allocated to the aforementioned super contribution increase and company tax cuts. Bill Shorten, Superannuation Minister, even told the Australian Workers Union conference last week that he would push for a bigger increase than had been initially announced. Enforced superannuation itself belittles the everyday, responsible citizen, and does not help ‘working families’ in the slightest.

Brian, you are my newest hero.

Note carefully too, those disputing most forcefully with Mr Toohey on the Insiders program.

The program host. A long time employee of the “Left”.

And a younger bloke. The Political Editor for a major city newspaper, and the most unashamed espouser of the arrogant “Government knows best, ordinary people are idiots” line of unreasoning.

What we have here then, is a 2-pack of Canberra press dogs, rounding on a wise old bloke.

And why?

Because he dares to declare that Neville and Sue Ordinary Voter are smart enough to know and do what’s best for themselves, with their own money.

Quelle horror!

Isn’t it interesting though.

Even when the facts prove they’ve been utterly wrong, these immaculately-clipped Canberra journo’s poodles will always return to their vomit.

Rather like their mates, the mainstream Australian economists.

Those same drooling imbeciles who all utterly failed to foresee GFC1 coming:

Senator Barnaby Joyce was laughed out of his opposition finance portfolio for his forecasts that included saying more than 18 months ago that the US could default on its debts.

It’s not so funny anymore, as veteran journalist Michelle Grattan said last week on Twitter.

“US struggling through its crisis – remember how we laughed at Barnaby when he raised the spectre of US default? Oops.”

Joyce certainly remembers.

“I got absolutely smashed by (Kevin) Rudd and (Lindsay) Tanner and Swan,” he said.

“To be honest, my own side got scared, and said ‘we think you’ve gone out on a limb’.

“There was a whole range of economists who all lined up to say how outrageous I was. Now the media is going back to those economists and asking how we got into this situation.

“I was listening to one last night, I was almost about to drive off the road it was pissing me off so much. I remember exactly what this person was saying on how wrong I was.”

Yes, dear reader.

Dogs returning to their vomit.

Seriously … Why Should Any Sane Person Trust Economists After The GFC?  You’d have to be scattered like a mad woman’s sh*t (h/t to reader Medusa Knows for that colourful line).

I found the cognitive dissonance of Mr Kenny particularly telling.

All the panellists recognised that (quite unlike our spendthrift government) ordinary Aussies have been responding to GFC1 by doing the sensible, practical, wise thing.

Saving money.

And yet, Mr Kenny still arrogantly insisted on spouting off with a high-minded stereotype – that if allowed to keep more of their own money, ordinary voters would spend it all on flat screen TV’s.

Whereas Mr Toohey sagely pointed out the truth:

You get better economic outcomes if you let people make their own mind up how to allocate their income … it’s just a matter of standard economic theory which happens to be correct in this case


And you get even better economic outcomes if you basically ignore everything the mainstream economists say.

Or best of all, if you adopt the opposite view to the “mainstream”, as your default position. On everything.

Adopting that contrarian attitude is at least partly how your humble blogger was (like many other ordinary Aussies) able to see the writing on the wall in America, when none of our mainstream economists could.

And contrary to strident “professional” “expert” advice, pull all his super out of the global sharemarkets in May 2007:

As we all know, the fit has hit the shan in global sharemarkets once again.

And what we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a government wanting to force employers to somehow find another 3% (or more, if Shorten has his way) on top of workers’ salaries … to pour into the sharemarkets!?!

(Or, into something else?)

Do you really imagine that, in the present global economic environment, this would not lead directly to job cuts?

Do you really imagine that it would not lead to even more money going up down in red LED’s … with parasitical, useless, butt-lazy, white-collared, producers-of-nothing professional “fund managers” waltzing away with their percentage cut of your vapourised superannuation money, regardless of the outcome for you?

The Insiders panel discussion this Sunday typified one of the biggest problems in this country.

The arrogance of those who think they are better, and know better, than We The People.

Our lamestream ivory-towered Canberra lapdogs simply cannot bear to conceive of the possibility that (shudder!) ordinary voters might be the best people to decide what to do with their own money.

%d bloggers like this: