Which idiot put Bob Carr's name forward?

So “Mr Carr released a statement yesterday confirming that "party officers had talked to him about the possibility of him filling the NSW Senate vacancy and be able to be considered for the office of foreign minister". But he added that "Prime Minister Gillard had definitely not made any offer about the foreign affairs ministry nor had any one on her behalf".

Now which idiot even considered this man as a suitable candidate?

This is the same man who - for no good reason other than he felt like it – quit mid-term as NSW Premier and Maroubra MP causing a state by-election.

The same man who - after talking a lot of guff about wanting to take time in retirement to enjoy the beauty of Sydney – parachuted straight into lucrative positions with major multinationals and placed himself on the corporate speakers circuit.

The same one-eyed adorer of all things American who if let anywhere near national policy would take us down the yellow brick road and into a disastrous U.S. style political system.

The very same opinionated man who in 2005 swore he had no intention of going to Canberra.

UPDATE:

"JULIA Gillard has dramatically asserted her authority as Prime Minister, naming former NSW premier Bob Carr as her new minister for foreign affairs....He confirmed he would seek re-election at the next election, saying he was a “natural senator”.
There goes the NSW vote in 2013!

A selection of Wikileaks' Stratfor emails for your edification and amusement

The Business of STRATFOR

After fifteen years in business it surprises me sometimes how many people wonder about who we are, who funds us, and what we do.  The media refers to us as a think tank, a political risk consultancy, a security company and worse--academics. The Russian media calls us part of the CIA. Arab countries say we are Israelis. It’s wild.  The only things we haven’t been called is a hardware store or Druids.  Given this confusion, I thought it might be useful to occasionally write to our members about the business of STRATFOR, on topics ranging from our business model to how we gather intelligence. 

Let me start with basics.  STRATFOR is a publishing company and it publishes one product—our online intelligence service.  STRATFOR focuses on one subject, international relations.  It uses intelligence rather than journalistic methods to collect information (a topic for a later discussion) and geopolitics as an analytic method for understanding the world.

Stratfor currently has about 292,000 paying subscribers, divided between individual subscribers and institutional ones.  This inflates our subscriber base.  There are many organizations that buy site licenses for all or many of their employees.  We know that most of them never read us.  From a strictly factual point of view, 292,000 paid readers is the number.  Practically it is less but we don’t know how much less.  On the other hand, our free material, two weekly pieces that are sent to our free list and then circulates virally as they say, has been estimated to reach about 2.2 million readers each week.  Where our paid subscription is certainly increased by an unknown degree, this is probably and accurate number. 

The reason that I can be so casual about these numbers is that we do not allow advertising in Stratfor.  If we did, we would be obsessed by the accuracy.  But we don’t for two reasons, one of which is not that we are concerned about advertisers skewing our objectivity.  We are too ornery for that.  The reason is business.  We are in the business of gathering intelligence and delivering it to readers.  Being in another business, selling our readership to advertisers is too complicated for my simple brain.  Plus we would wind up not only depending on my dubious business acumen, but on the acumen of our advertisers.  Second, advertising on the internet doesn’t come close to paying for the cost of content production.  Content aggregators like Google take free content from others and advertise against that.  That’s great business.  But when you are actually producing content, advertising simply won’t cover the costs.

We are therefore one of the few original content producers to be making money by simply selling subscriptions on the web without advertising.  I’m pretty proud of that, in a world where experts say it can’t be done, and I wish I could take credit for that, but it actually is something our Chairman, Don Kuykendall, came up with in 2000.  His view was simple: if you can’t sell at a profit, you don’t have a business.  So we asked people to pay and to my stunned surprise, they did.  So we had a business.

Until that point we were a consultancy.  Only we weren’t a consultancy because a consultant is an expert drawing on long experience to give answers.  Its nice work if you can get it. But we never were a consultancy really. We were a service provider—we would find out things in foreign countries for our corporate clients, usually expensive work in unpleasant countries.  The problem here was profit margin. It costs a lot to gather information in foreign countries, so the nice fat contracts looked very skinny by the time we were done.  We do some intelligence for companies who have been clients of ours for a long time, but at this point about 90 percent of our revenue comes from publishing—you subscription. That supports over 100 employees in the U.S. and sources around the world.

So think of us as a publishing company that produces news using intelligence rather than journalistic methods.  That means that we have people in the field collecting information that they pass on the analysts who understand the information who pass it to writers who write up the information, with any number of steps.  This division of labor allows us the efficiency to produce the product you pay for.  And it has to be a quality product to earn your continued subscription get you to continue to pay. Still gets the point across but sounds less cavalier about it…

The nice part of all of this is that we really aren’t beholden to anyone except our readers, who are satisfied by what we produce, since we have one of the highest renewal rates in the business.  Our goal is simple—to make the complexity of the world understandable to an intelligent but non-professional readership, without ideology or national bias.  Dispassionate is what we strive for, in content and in tone.  In a world filled with loud noise, speaking in a subdued voice draws attention. With over one-quarter of our readers coming from outside the U.S. and Canada, and that percentage growing, these are essential things what are?.

We are more aware than our readers of our shortcomings—everything we do comes under scrutiny from whoever wants to take a shot—including everything I write.  Knowing our shortcomings (I will not tell you about them until we fixed them in the event you missed it) is the key to our success. Fixing it is our challenge.   We are now in a six month surge focused on increasing quality and staff.  The two seem contradictory but that’s our challenge.

Hopefully this gives you some sense of the business of Stratfor that will help you understand us.  I’ll be doing these very few weeks (I don’t want to be tied down on a schedule since I travel a lot—heading to Indonesia at the end of this month).  But its probably time to make sure we aren’t thought of as a think tank—a term I really hate.  When you think of it, think tank is a really bizarre term.

Not for Pub --
We have a sealed indictment on Assange.

Pls protect

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

It is possible to revoke citizenship on the grounds of being a dickhead except in Australia, where all of Queensland and a good part of South Australia, along with all of Sydney Uni would lose their passports.

On 12/05/10 22:42 , Chris Farnham wrote:

Is it possible to revoke some one's citizenship on the grounds of them being a total dickhead?
I don't care about the other leaks but the ones he has made that potentially damage Australian interests upset me.
If I thought I could switch this dickhead off without getting done I don't think I'd have too much of a problem.
BTW, close family friend in Sweden who knows the girl that is pressing charges tells me that there is absolutely nothing behind it other than prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves. My friend speaks rather disparagingly about the girl who is claiming molestation.
I also think the whole rape thing is incorrect for if I remember correctly rape was never the charge.

One other point is this. Ferreting out his confederates is also key.
Find out what other disgruntled rogues inside the tent or outside. Pile on. Move him from country to country to face various charges for the
next 25 years. But, seize everything he and his family own, to include every person linked to Wiki.
Marko Papic wrote:
Nate makes a good point. The arrest is not necessarily the end of Julian Assange. He could become a martyr in jail, particularly a Swedish jail, which I imagine has better amenities than my house.

Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist.
He'll be eating cat food forever, unless George Soros hires him.

The following email exchange involves retired Nationals Senator for Queensland Bill O’Chee.

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "William \"Bill\" O'Chee"
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 21:57:49 +1000
To:
Subject: Re: Julian Assange arrest
Sadly he didn't have a car accident on the way there.
William Oa**Chee
aa**aa"*aa>>*
Partner
Himalaya Consulting
Australia: +61 422 688886
China mob: +86 1365 1001069
On 07/12/2010, at 9:52 PM, burton@stratfor.com wrote:

Thx

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Nationals keep up their reputation of telling whoppers to NSW North Coast electorates

The whoppers, pork pies, downright lies being told by State and Federal Nats MPs to NSW North Coast voters are becoming so frequent and predictable that by the time the next general elections roll around their reputations won’t be worth a brass farthing.

Here’s one of the latest efforts found in The Daily Examiner on 29^th February 2912 which left Andrew Stoner with egg on his face:

“THE CURRENT 50/50 funding model may make the 2016 deadline for the Pacific Hwy duplication unachievable, according to NSW Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner.

The NSW Nationals leader and Minister for Regional Infrastructure and Services said a return to the previous 80% federal, 20% state funding model could see the 2016 deadline met.

He said by the Gillard Labor Government walking away from the previous 80/20 funding model in favour of the current 50/50 model, the dual carriageway duplication of the highway by 2016 was in serious jeopardy.

"Every other piece of the national land transport network in NSW has been funded at 80% or better by the Federal Government," he said.

"For the Gillard Labor Government to suddenly walk away from a historic funding split of 80/20 is not only disappointing it really jeopardises the 2016 completion date."

But it appears Mr Stoner may have his facts wrong when it comes to previous funding arrangements, with the federal ALP claiming it was not responsible for implementing the current funding arrangement.

Federal member for Page Janelle Saffin hit back at Mr Stoner, saying the 50/50 funding model for the highway was introduced by the federal Coalition and not by federal Labor, as Mr Stoner claimed.

"50/50 funding was first established not by Labor but by the former Howard government back in 2004," she said.

"It was established to reach the goal of the full duplication of the highway by 2016…."

More from the Cansdell-Gulaptis Roadshow

Cartoonist Jules Faber joins in electorate-wide laughter in the 29.02.12 issue of The Daily Examiner.

While Nationals MP for Clarence Chris Gulaptis also tries for a humorous response to his politically co-joined twin status being accidentally recognised in Hansard:

"It's a bit of a dent to the ego, actually," Mr Gulaptis said yesterday.
"Steve's copped a couple of knocks to the head and had a few other bumps and bruises along the way.
"I thought they might have noticed the difference.
"It seems like it might be a bit like the Australian cricket team a few years ago - once you get in you'll never get out."

NSW Parliament 2012: The Ghost Who Votes

When political tragics in the NSW state electorate of Clarence started to call the new member of parliament ‘Steve’ Gulaptis MP (because there appeared to be less than a finger width difference between disgraced former Nationals MP Steve Cansdell and his replacement Nationals MP Chris Gulaptis) it was a bit of an ‘in’ joke which grew organically on Google.

However, the joke seems to be on the O’Farrell Government for the identity confusion has spread farther than expected.

Although Cansdell resigned in September 2011 and, is awaiting the outcome of a police investigation into his own actions, he is still voting in the NSW Legislative Assembly in 2012 according to Hansard in proof edition on 22 & 23 February.

I understand that now the joke is very public there is a bit of a scramble to correct the record to show that it was actually parliamentary novice Gulaptis who was voting. However, these snapshots preserve The Ghost Who Votes for posterity.

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LA20120222?open&refNavID=HA1_1

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LA20120223?open&refNavID=HA2_1

Click on images to enlarge

Although the transcription error possibly originated with tellers on the floor of the Chamber, one has to wonder if Premier O'Farrell's relentless pursuit of cost-cutting and industrial reform within the public service may be having a demoralising effect on Hansard staff.

How many police are assigned to the NSW North Coast?

When individuals on the NSW North Coast become dissatisfied as a result of their interactions with police, they often point to perceived low police numbers in their area as one of the reasons for any failings with regard to law enforcement.

Excerpts from the MINISTERIAL AUDIT OF THE NSW POLICE FORCE: Version 2 – October 2011 below appear to indicate that, although authorised and actual local police numbers compare favourably with other regional areas, these numbers are disproportionally impacted by the level of sick leave occurring across North Coast area commands.

At the beginning of the 2011-12 financial year the combined personnel shortfall in these northern commands totalled 145 officers, with 172 officers being on long-term sick leave for 45 days out of the previous 60 days.

Northern Region Local Area Command Strength Figures at 31 July 2011:

Coffs/Clarence Authorised 193 Actual 194 Operational 153 Variance –40

Mid North Coast Authorised 174 Actual 171 Operational 141 Variance –33  

Richmond Authorised 197 Actual 196 Operational 165

Variance – 32

Tweed/Byron Authorised 172 Actual 171 Operational 132 Variance -40  

  

Long term sick (LTS) does not impact on LACs in the Central Metropolitan Region as it does on the country Regions. The LAC with the highest number of staff not available due to LTS is Sutherland with 5 - compare this with Newcastle City (33) & Tweed/Byron (15) - Northern Region; Wollongong (21) & Lake Illawarra (16) - Southern Region; and, Oxley (Tamworth)(14) & Chifley (Bathurst)(14) - Western Region.

Northern Region has the highest percentage variance of operational strength versus authorised strength of the six Regions

 The most occurring category for unavailability is Long Term Sick

 172 officers in the Region as at 31.6.2011 had been recorded as having been off duty on Long Term Sick 45 days out of the previous 60 days

 124 officers in the Region were unavailable due to having been placed on "restricted duties‟ - this includes permanently restricted (37); temporary

restricted (65); pregnancy-related protocols (21); and, disciplinary (1)

 46 officers were officially classified as "Medically Overstrength‟ (awaiting discharge)

In Northern NSW the top five LACs for Long Term Sick are - Newcastle (33); Tweed/Byron (15); Richmond (14); Coffs/Clarence (12) and, Mid-North Coast and Port Stephens (Both 11).

WetlandCare Australia's 14th Annual Cane Toad Roundup at Yamba NSW - Sunday March 4, 2012

Click on poster to enlarge

 
Be there!

WHERE: Yamba Golf & Country Club
WHEN: Roundup begins after sunset and registration starts at 6.30pm
WHAT TO WEAR & BRING: Covered footwear, clothes appropriate to the weather, gloves, torch, net and insect repellent
CHILDREN: Under 18 year-old participants must be accompanied by an adult. At least 1 adult for every 4 children.
FOOD: Sausage sizzle on the night