Cardinal Pell Leaves the Planet.

I wonder what the founding father would have made of our local Cardinal's view of ethical behaviour. Had Christ managed to display George's talent for excusing and even justifying the behaviour of sinners, provided that they were wealthy and influential, they'd probably have made him a Senator instead of nailing him up on a cross.
Selling arms, gambling are not cardinal sins Kelly Burke SMH
November 12, 2010

THOU shalt gamble, thou shalt smoke and thou shalt sell arms, the country's most senior Catholic cleric has decreed.

Speaking at an ethics in business lunch hosted by Notre Dame University, Cardinal George Pell suggested it might be somewhat hypocritical for the Catholic Church to condemn gambling outright, given the proliferation of poker machines in NSW Catholic clubs.

''I must confess I do feel a bit uneasy about that, but only a bit uneasy,'' he admitted. ''Because culturally I'm an Irish Australian and we grew up gambling.''

Advertisement: Story continues below Gambling in itself was not intrinsically wrong, he said. Only when it became an addiction, threatening the well-being of oneself and one's family, did it become a sin.

Warming to the forum's theme ''God and Mammon: need or greed in the big end of town'', Cardinal Pell said as far as the ethics of selling tobacco went, supplying adults who were aware of the risks and still chose to smoke was nothing to rush to the confessional about. And when quizzed about the ethics of selling arms, he hypothesised that global military contractors may in fact be acting on a moral imperative.

''I think you can produce arms morally … You might say in some cases it is necessary. We are a peaceful country. If we were unarmed that would be an enticement to evil people. The best way to stay as we are is to be strong and effectively armed so I think you could make the case,'' he said.

Instead, the cardinal's wrath honed in on corporate fat cat salaries, which were morally suspect, he said. His fellow panellist, David Thodey, barely squirmed.

The curliest question Telstra's $10 million-a-year chief executive caught involved a comparison of his nice-guy reputation to that of his predecessor, Sol Trujillo, and its possible relationship to Telstra's recent all-time low of $2.58 a share.

So can nice guys succeed in business?

''It's not about being nice or not nice,'' said Mr Thodey, with a passing reference to the latest round of Telstra redundancies. ''It's about doing things in an ethical and considerate way … in the best interests of our shareholders - which of course include customers and employees.''

Journos do not like Rudd

The article below from this morning's Herald is further proof that jopurnalists do not like Kevin Rudd. It puts him in the worst possible light and the bit at the end about him going off sick is not part of the story but an added dig. I'm sure he deserves it richly.
This blog's been very quiet for a while. It's hard to get interested in politics in Australia today. They are all so bloody boring.

Rudd ruffles feathers to be in Clinton limelight Daniel Flitton SMH
November 10, 2010

Kevin Rudd gatecrashed the special ABC television broadcast with Hillary Clinton on the weekend, demanding a place in the heavily promoted event to share the limelight with the US Secretary of State, an official said.

Mr Rudd's last-minute decision to attend the town hall-style meeting sent organisers at the ABC, the Foreign Affairs Department and US embassy into a spin - coming only hours before the event was due to be recorded.

Mr Rudd was not scheduled to be among the VIP guests at the recording, which included Australia's ambassador in Washington, Kim Beazley, the businessman Hugh Morgan, Melbourne University's vice-chancellor, Glyn Davis, and the US ambassador to Australia, Jeff Bleich.

Advertisement: Story continues below But after a dinner with Mrs Clinton on Saturday night, Mr Rudd insisted he attend. An Australian official familiar with the event said Mr Rudd had stridently demanded plans be changed to include him. ''The behaviour was disgusting and he deserves to be called on it,'' the official told The Age.

There was confusion that Mr Rudd was actually asking to be seated on stage alongside Mrs Clinton and the ABC host, Leigh Sales, for the broadcast dubbed, Hillary Rodham Clinton: An Australian Conversation. This threatened to undo the careful planning for the recording, which involved some six camera positions spread among an audience of about 450 in a Melbourne University lecture theatre.

But Mr Rudd has denied he or his staff asked for a seat on stage. ''No, not at all. I didn't ask to go on the stage at all,'' he told The 7.30 Report on Monday.

''I said to Hillary, 'Oh, you're going to the university tomorrow? That's terrific. I know the vice-chancellor. I'd like to come along and have a look. That's terrific.'''

Mrs Clinton has made a habit of engaging in televised special conversations with younger audiences around the region, including in Cambodia and Indonesia.

She has never previously shared the stage with another foreign minister. Mr Rudd described as a ''bit of mischief'' suggestions he sought a place on stage.

He arrived early at the event and walked up and down the aisle, shaking hands with the audience. He then took a seat in the front row and later attended a morning tea hosted by Melbourne University Asialink following the recording.

After a hectic two days of meetings, where Mrs Clinton repeatedly praised him for his expert knowledge of foreign affairs, Mr Rudd has now fallen ill.

On medical advice, he has pulled out of attending a regional summit in Japan, with the Trade Minister, Craig Emerson, to represent Australia in his place.

Costello vs Howard

It's tempting to say "who cares about these has beens" but it is amusing to watch. it's a damn sight more amusing than watching the current crop of lightweights in Canberra. The weekend australian lastweekend was truly sickening with their studio portraits of a statesmanlike Howard and glowing references to his self serving memoirs. Undoubtedly the most nauseating book since the Hawke memoirs. I don't even rate Blanche's trashy novel (definitely a work of fiction).
But consider for a moment the Gillard memoirs. these people are still doing the impossible and making Tony Abbot look good.

So who will get the blame?

This morning's Sydney Morning Herald has it right.
Calls for Bitar's head after 'inept' campaign Deborah Snow
August 23, 2010
Vote


THE former NSW premier Morris Iemma has publicly repudiated Labor's federal campaign director Karl Bitar, saying if he had a ''conscience'' he would hand his resignation to the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.

In a blistering attack on Labor's five-week campaign, Mr Iemma described it as ''the most inept in living memory'' salvaged only by the ''personability and ability of Gillard''.

''Labor booth workers and Labor supporters to a man and woman agree that it was the worst campaign they can recall … It is not for Julia Gillard to ask for Karl Bitar's resignation, it's for him to have a conscience and offer it up,'' Mr Iemma said, publicly stating sentiments that a number of senior insiders have voiced privately.


Morris Iemma Photo: Adam Hollingworth
Mr Iemma was dismissive of Mr Bitar's attempts on Channel Nine yesterday to blame Labor's poor performance on anti-Gillard leaks in the second week of the campaign.

Mr Bitar said the leaks, which targeted Ms Gillard for questioning pension rises and allegedly reneging on a deal with the former Labor leader Kevin Rudd, wiped 10 points off Labor's vote.

But Mr Iemma said Mr Bitar was failing to show ''contrition''.

''No amount of spinning, no amount of fakery about his research can save him,'' the former premier said.

Mr Bitar said the remarks were unfortunate coming from someone who played no role in the campaign.

The bitterness between the pair stems from Mr Bitar's former role as a general secretary of the NSW ALP who helped end Mr Iemma's premiership.

However a number of senior party figures contacted yesterday shared some of Mr Iemma's criticisms.

Among the weaknesses they cited was failure to offer voters a clear strategic vision, frequent switching between messages, the failure to bring Mr Rudd into the campaign earlier, and an over-reliance on narrowly based questions put to focus groups in marginal seats.

''I don't think it was a disastrously executed campaign, I think it was a very ordinary campaign run by people used to running state elections,'' said one party veteran.

Several internal critics accused Mr Bitar and his mentor, Senator Mark Arbib, of setting up a ''closed loop'' of advice inside Labor's national headquarters, where dissenting voices were not welcomed.

Senator Arbib and Mr Bitar hail from the NSW party office in Sussex Street. Mr Bitar took over the top campaign job after the national director Tim Gartrell resigned in 2008.

He became determined to put his own stamp on Labor's campaign team, party observers say. He alienated Neil Lawrence, who had masterminded the winning Kevin07 advertising campaign, by asking other advertisers to bid for the ALP account.

When Mr Lawrence left as a consequence, Mr Bitar said it was because he could no longer afford him on a tight budget. But many in Labor believe the party's TV advertising suffered as a result, failing to sell its achievement in warding off mass unemployment after the global financial crisis.

Mr Bitar also edged aside Tony Mitchelmore, the pollster who had worked closely with Mr Lawrence and Mr Gartrell on the 2007 campaign.

Instead, Mr Bitar took the polling work to research company UMR but is said to have personally written detailed guidelines and the questions for grilling focus groups.

This, the critics claim, resulted in a small-minded federal campaign which lacked a compelling national narrative.

The mixed messages, said one insider, were like ''the pearls without the string. It doesn't make a necklace. The missing string was a strategy.''

Perhaps the worst mistake, in the eyes of some, was failing to reach a pact with Mr Rudd before the campaign started. It appears Labor's campaign directors grossly underestimated voters' lingering resentment about Mr Rudd's political execution.

An uneasy rapprochement between Ms Gillard and Mr Rudd was finally reached in the third week of the campaign after intense diplomacy by Senator John Faulkner. But by then the damage had been done.
Of course Morris has good reason to hate them, but he's dead right. The same clowns that have wrecked the labor brand in NSW have now done it at a Federal level, and they are flat out spinning the result to say that it would have been even worse if they hadn't dragged Rudd down. Never mind that they put him there in the first place, or that when he went wrong (dumping the ETS) it was on their brilliant advice.

More amazing news.

The Spanish state of Catalonia has banned bullfighting. Can't help feeling a bit sad but Hemingway reckoned that there hadn't been an honest bullfight since the 50's anyway. It's an odd sort of thing, difficult to understand. It's not a sport, it's a sort of ritual, very old, very alien. I've only been once to Spain and found it the most foreign place I had ever seen. Very old and very different. The people there had a quality that I found fascinating and difficult to describe. Again, very foreign. It was like another planet.
I hope they don't turn into us. I also hope that we don't turn into them.

Herald Editorial today

Well here it is...to my knowledge only the second occasion EVER that the Sydney Morning Herald has advocated a vote for the ALP. I've though that the Libs were going to win for weeks. Maybe it's a jaundiced NSW viewpoint, Labor is certainly stuffed in theis state. I think people are fed up with arrogance and they are looking for someone to punish. Given the NSW Labor influence in Canberra I don't think that by punishing Gillard they are too wide of the mark. So vote for the Greens. We realy need a Senate that will apply some restraint. They won't sell us out like the Democrats did over the GST.
Why Labor under Gillard deserves a second chance August 20, 2010
AFTER all the bluster and debate, after all the handshakes and promises, after all the claims and counter-claims, we reach the moment of truth. Who do we want to lead the country for the next three years? Gillard or Abbott? Labor or the Coalition? It is no straightforward choice.

It has not been an inspiring campaign; few policies or issues have captured the public's imagination. This is not 2007, when John Howard, for all his many admirable qualities, had clearly held on to power too long; when Kevin Rudd offered a fresh approach on climate change, reconciliation and workplace relations; and when whoever won would inherit a healthy budget balance and a booming economy. In 2010 things are more complicated. We have to pick between two untested leaders, who for five weeks have played an elaborate and at times dispiriting game of policy chess which has confused onlookers – as it was at times clearly intended to do.

What do these people actually stand for? Tony Abbott has apparently buried his belief in workplace change; Julia Gillard has done her very best to convince the electorate that she, too, will stop the boats and won't be hitting households over the head with a big new tax to tackle climate change. So, if this election can be cast as a referendum, what would it be on? The national broadband network versus paid parental leave? These are important issues. Labor will give the nation the NBN, a vital tool for the nation's future, but, at $43 billion, a very expensive one. They have yet to convince the country that this enormous sum will be well spent. Abbott's party promises 26 weeks' paid parental leave, a positive idea, especially for female workplace participation, but again it comes at a high cost – a tax impost on larger employers for up to a decade, perhaps more.

As ever, the central question is: who do you trust? Labor has done much to make voters pause at that question. This has been a government of broken promises and unfulfilled ambitions, large and small. It was, for instance, going to deliver an emissions trading scheme; it has not done so and appears to have no intention of doing so – a thoroughly bad decision. It was going to give us GroceryWatch to keep a lid on household prices; it did not. It promised a similar scheme to push down fuel prices; it has been abandoned.

It is true Labor faced entrenched, sometimes mindless, opposition in the Senate. Yet it has also shown a remarkable inability to explain its policies and bring voters along with it. The mining tax debacle shows that. And in deposing Kevin Rudd, the ALP not only re-emphasised that politics is brutal – it always is and will be, on every side – but highlighted the unpalatable fact that the prime ministership is a plaything of factional leaders. Labor's reputation has sustained considerable damage from being associated with the performance of state governments, especially in NSW and Queensland. Even though this election should be decided on national issues, it is understandable that many voters in places such as Sydney's west are angry and feel betrayed. There is little doubt NSW Labor will be shown the door next year, as it should.

3,1But for all the above, we believe Labor at a federal level deserves another chance. Why?

First, it did successfully get us through the global financial crisis; the nation is not suffering from the crippling economic malaise – the loss of confidence and jobs – still found in the United States and throughout Europe. It is true, some of the economic stimulus was wasted or went astray – but it has to be understood and judged as an emergency measure enacted and managed in haste. That does not excuse it, but it goes a long way to explain it.

Second, Labor does have a plan – properly costed – to reduce national debt and get the federal budget back in surplus; its economic policy settings seem about right.

Third, it has promised to build the national broadband network and increase taxpayer value in the crucial areas of education and health, by forcing the states to perform and be accountable.

Fourth, it has performed well, if not better, in important though less than contentious areas such as defence, national security and foreign policy.

And last – what is the alternative? For all his obvious leadership qualities, Tony Abbott has not yet articulated a cohesive and positive plan for the nation. He has been correct as Opposition Leader to highlight waste in some of the government's stimulus spending. He is also justified in asking whether federal and state Labor governments can deliver on big spending promises such as the Epping-to-Parramatta rail link. He has run a good campaign – one that, if the polls are correct, will bring him very close to a historic victory. He has shown a steadiness during the campaign that has not been obvious during his political career. Until the last few weeks, he was worryingly inconsistent in many policy areas. He needs to show the Australian people that in government he would not revert to policy flip-flops as the political wind changed. If he wins, then we wish him all the best. But it really isn't yet his turn.

Modern life is increasingly fast-paced; many people feel time-poor – and under constant pressure of change. Nowhere is that more true than in politics, judging by the turnaround of leaders on both sides since the 2007 election. But we think Julia Gillard has done enough to be given a chance to lead the nation; and not to be the first Prime Minister in 80 years to lead a government tossed out after one term. Surely we are not so addicted to change. We will be back here in three years or less – and then we will be able truly and fairly to judge Gillard and her government. And we will be able to do so in the light of experience, not simply this campaign.

Why is this child smiling?

Penny has absolutely no idea who Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott are. She thinks everything is interesting and amusing. I doubt if she even knows what being bored is. But fear not, her education will at least give her a deep understanding of the latter concept.
We will not be spending election night glued to multiple television sets and internet screens. We are going down to Rathmines community hall which is the former enlisted men's mess hall from the RAAF base that was here. We're going to the Catalina Players, our local amateur theatrical group's annual performance. There's a three course dinner with wine supplied (plenty of it too) and of course the play. There's sherry beforehand too, I only drink sherry once a year. It's a good night, but I may have to get someone to text me election updates. It's not that I really care..other than hoping that the Greens do really well.
Maybe that's what Penny is smiling about, she's a Tasmanian.