The Coalition revisits 1972-75 and thinks voters won't notice

The Federal Liberals and Nationals are nothing if not predictable.
Today in the Senate they revisited the tactics used to destabilise another duly-elected Labor federal government in the 1970s.
If anything was needed to confirm an intention to wreck and spoil, yesterday's Hansard offered ample proof.

The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2008 was a case in point and, although Labor's Senator Faulkner made as much political capital as he could about the Coalition move to take this bill off the current agenda he was more right than wrong when he said:
"Today we see the true colours of the coalition. I particularly
want to concentrate on the decision of the opposition
to block the Commonwealth Electoral
Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures)
Bill 2008. To delay the bill by more than 12 months
reveals, on the one hand, all the opposition’s hypocrisy
and willingness to sacrifice the health of our democracy
on the alter of partisan politics. On the other hand,
the government is committed to a transparent and accountable
electoral system. To achieve this, we have
introduced the bill that I have mentioned. This bill contains
five urgent measures to address critical weaknesses
in the act’s current funding and disclosure regime.
These new measures include ensuring all donations
over $1,000 to political parties and candidates are
subject to proper public scrutiny and that donations are
reported in a more timely manner.
The bill also bans overseas and anonymous donations
and prevents political parties and candidates from
making a profit from public funding. These measures
are straightforward, they are positive, and they ought to
be uncontroversial. But the opposition, under Dr Nelson,
want to use their Senate majority to block these
necessary and urgent reforms to send them to a committee
until, at the earliest, the financial year after
next—in other words, to send this bill into legislative
limbo. They want one whole year—a minimum 12
months—to pretend to look at this simple bill. This
charade clearly shows their contempt for our electoral
system and their determination to turn their backs on
any effort to clean up the system. It proves that the opposition
clearly do not support transparency and accountability
of our electoral laws. This proves the opposition
do not want the Australian public to know who
gives how much money to which party.
The decision to block this bill raises two questions
for Dr Nelson. The first is: does Dr Nelson honestly
think that less accountability, less transparency, less
integrity benefits our democracy? The second is: what
do Dr Nelson and the opposition have to hide? Clearly,
the answer to the second question is a lot of money ..."

The blogosphere today: religious and ethnic sensitivity in action

There has been some mention across the blogosphere of Macleans.ca and Mark Steyne's legal problems with the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) under Section 7.1 of the BC Human Rights Code.
Andrew Coyne at Macleans has live blogged one day of evidence before the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
Having read the published excerpt from Steyne's book The future belongs to Islam which is the subject of the complaint, I am truly puzzled by all the subsequent and definitely belated hysteria.
Having then gone on to read the CIC 60 page Report on Macleans Journalism I have to confess that I am still at a loss.
The Congress may be in the process of attempting to carve out a political presence for itself in Canada, but it is going down a rather strange path to further this legitimate aim.
Quite frankly many opinion pieces by Australian newspaper journos would be more likely classed as 'hate' pieces than that excerpt from Steyne's book.
Perhaps CIC should try another tack and take a leaf out of SBS TV Salam Cafe's unique book instead and laugh at what presumably offends them.

Photograph Which way is up? found at Club Troppo's Missing Link.

Learn how to 'Sweet Talk Your Local Media', 23-25 June 2008

Click on lower left corner to enlarge

A chance for Clarence Valley local business, community groups and aspiring lobbyists to find out how to establish and maintain effective relationships with the media.

Workshops will be held at Grafton, Maclean and Yamba between 23-25 June and are run by a great local communicator, Debrah Novak.

Deb can be contacted for details by phoning 1300 783 396
or emailing info@womedia.com.au

Nicola Roxon has only herself to blame for that binge drinking hangover

The Federal Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, has only herself to blame for the hole she teeters on the edge of over the excessive use of that ill-defined, social (not scientific) term binge drinking.

Although to be fair, every frontbencher from the Prime Minister down appears to have been eager to blow the same moral dog whistle.

Although the draft revised Australian alcohol guidelines for low-risk drinking is littered with the term binge drinking (and cites at least one study where this is defined as more than 4 standard drinks per day), it is careful to acknowledge the difficulties in using such a term.

Intoxication
‘Intoxication’ is a widely used term with no consistent or formally agreed definition. It is usually taken to describe when a person’s blood alcohol concentration is elevated to a level at which they cannot function within their normal range of physical and mental abilities. Levels above about 0.05–0.08% are sometimes taken as a proxy measure of intoxication (see Section 3.3). In lay terms, intoxication is a subjective feeling, the experience of a substantial effect of alcohol on mood, brain function, and psychomotor function. However, there are
marked variations in the amount of alcohol different people need to consume in order to experience intoxication.
Binge-drinking
This term is avoided as far as possible in these guidelines because its meaning is ill-defined and unclear. It was formerly used to refer to an extended period (usually more than a day)devoted to drinking at levels leading to intoxication. However, more recently, it has been used to describe single-occasion drinking of a substantial amount, particularly by adolescents and young adults.

In Crikey yesterday, Geoff Munro takes the media to task and states; Despite Albrechtsen et al, the NHMRC draft did not employ the term binge drinking because medical scientists do not agree on how many drinks constitute a "binge", or the period of time in which they must be consumed to qualify as a binge.
Which makes me wonder if the pre-24 November 2007 draft differed in some respects from the archived community consultation draft now displayed on the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) website.

What is glaringly obvious is that a new government rushes to redefine social problems at its own peril.

For once it wasn't Brendan's fault....

Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson has received another slap in the face from the latest Newspoll.
Wee Brennie is now trailing as preferred prime minister at a dismal 13%, but is it all his fault?
I suspect that he is suffering a negative washback from voter judgments about Julie Bishop's prissy attempts at political point scoring on the floor of the House and elsewhere, Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott's whiteanting in the media, and Joe Hockey's ridiculous, time wasting, televised 'points of order' that aren't.
Bren, mate, it's just as much the Liberal Party's fault as it is yours.
The recent attempt to make political capital out of Iguana-gate exposed the party's weakness and lack of coherent strategy.
However, with these inflated egos in full cry I doubt if you can rein them in before they cost you the leadership.

I'm with you Barack: Al Gore

Al Gore is now emailing for Obama.
Below is today's email to the faithful.

Dear [edited],
A few hours from now I will step on stage in Detroit, Michigan to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama. From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected President of the United States.
Over the next four years, we are going to face many difficult challenges -- including bringing our troops home from Iraq, fixing our economy, and solving the climate crisis. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America.
This moment and this election are too important to let pass without taking action.
That's why I am asking you to join me in showing your support by making a contribution to this campaign today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/gore
Over the past 18 months, Barack Obama has united a movement. He knows change does not come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill. It begins when people stand up and take action.
With the help of millions of supporters like you, Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need in order to solve our country's most pressing problems.
If you've already contributed to this campaign, I ask that you consider making another contribution right now. If you haven't, please take the next step and own a piece of this campaign today:
On the issues that matter most, Barack Obama is clearly the right choice to lead our nation.
We have a lot of work to do in the next few months to elect Barack Obama president, and it begins by making a contribution to this campaign today.
Thank you for joining me,
Al Gore
LIVE TONIGHT -- 8:30 p.m. EDT: Watch streaming video of Al Gore and Barack Obama at a rally in Detroit, Michigan:
http://www.BarackObama.com

What if a cartoonist became the US President?

From XKCD.COM

Is it a nerd? Is it a pain? No, it's SuperRudd!

SuperRudd has unleashed his rather mindless razor gang on everything that moves, except those silly dob-in-a-terrorist TV ads which seem to be running each day this week and obviously costing unnecessary dollars because Australia's domestic terrorism threat level is still where it was in 2002 - at an arbitrary "medium" level.
The Nerd of Steel is also understood to have enlisted the help of the Attorney-General to see how much more money can be wasted on this redundant campaign to promote the National Security Hotline.
If ASIO's 2006-07 Year in Review figures are to be believed, this national hotline is so popular that half of the country must have its freecall number tattooed on their foreheads or still have Howard's fridge magnet in plain view.
Time to get back in the phone box, Kev. You're expecting an irate call concerning the cost of government advertising in a year where pensioners and working families are tightening their belts.

The butler says he didn't do it

In a tale that has all the elements of a mystery that only Agatha Christie's Miss Marple could solve the former royal butler Paul Burrell has rejected claims that he boasted about having sex with Princess Diana.

The Australian newspaper reports Mr Burrell said he was "sad and hurt" by claims made by his brother-in-law Ron Cosgrove, who told a British newspaper that the former butler confided to him 15 years ago about his intimate relationship with the princess.

The former butler also denied Mr Cosgrove's claims that Mr Burrell had told him he had seen the Queen naked at Buckingham Palace.

Mr Burrell said there was "not one shred of truth" to what Mr Cosgrove had told the News of the World tabloid and that his brother-in-law could have decided to "invent" the claims because he had refused to lend him money.

"Myself and my wife Maria feel tremendously sad and hurt that he has resorted to such vengeance by way of response," Mr Burrell said.

"Anyone who knows me, who knew the princess, and who understands the boundaries and decencies of royal service, as well as the integrity and trust which existed within our working relationship at Kensington Palace, will know just how fanciful, distasteful and malicious these claims truly are."

In a lengthy interview published yesterday, Mr Cosgrove said Mr Burrell had told him during a conversation in a pub in 1993 about he and Diana "did it in the bedroom, the bath, everywhere".

Mr Cosgrove said Mr Burrell had also claimed to have seen the Queen naked after chasing a royal corgi into her bedroom at Buckingham Palace.