What Does The Daily Telegraph Have In Its Friday 'Scoop' Bucket For Rudd?

'HouseGate' - Rudd May Have Scored Big Discount When He Purchased Family Home

When I first heard that the Daily Telegraph is preparing a huge front page 'scoop' for its Friday paper that is expected to do some damage to Kevin Rudd's credibility, I thought it might be photos of Rudd with his face buried in a stripper's breasts at that infamous New York City strip club.

But the scoop, if the e-mails flowing in can be relied on, won't be anywhere near as dramatic, or damaging, as that kind of imagery might have proven to be.

The story goes that the Liberal Party's dirt units have dug up records relating to a house purchase Rudd and his wife made in 1994. The house the Rudd family now lives in.

The big 'scoop' then, supposedly, is that Rudd, or his wife, managed to pick up the house at a substantially discounted price. Someone did them a big favour.

Pretty Kruddy, but how damaging? It depends on how cheap they got the house, or probably more importantly, who they got the house from, or who negotiated the deal.

It may be a one day wonder, and it will probably stretch through the weekend, if the public interest level is high enough and if another bigger story doesn't break the same day.

The Liberals may be able to get some mileage out of claiming that Rudd knew the 'HouseGate' story was coming, and this is why he announced policy earlier this week on helping young families to buy their first homes.

Then again, if Rudd's people know this story is coming, and it certainly appears that they do, then they've had days to prepare something big themselves for Friday to try and steal away the media's attention.

And, of course, when it comes to discounted housing, it's hard to go past a big photo of John Howard living the high life in Kirribilli House, where he lives for free, billing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for the extensive wine cellar, renovations and general upkeep he and his wife demand so the house remains spiffy for the many grand parties they throw for their wealthy friends.

Glasshouse. Stones. Throwing.

It should be easy for Ruddites to counter the 'HouseGate' scandal, if it even proves to have some momentum, by blasting away at Howard for seizing and occupying Kirribilli House and denying its use to a long list of charities who had previously made great use of its beautiful location and expansive lawns for fund-raising activities.

And 1994 is a long time ago. If the dirt units want to rip Rudd apart, they clearly need something far more recent. 'HouseGate' won't be the last of the dirt unit leaks to the Murdoch media and you can presume they have something far worse for the last week of the election campaign.

The media will have to be on their toes, however, to make sure they don't fall for the ridiculous 'bachelor party tape' bullshit they were so easily suckered into during Mark Latham's run at the Lodge.

It'll be very interesting to see how accurate the e-mailers are to the truth about the Friday Telegraph's Bucket On Rudd story, how much impact the story will turn out to have, and how effectively Rudd's team will be able to counter its appearance.

If the 'HouseGate' scenario mentioned above turns out to be close to the 'scoop', we will also know that Rudd has friends inside the Daily Telegraph who are leaking pre-publication news of damaging stories in the hope that the full impact of a surprise front page story will be weakened by 'rumours' floated on blogs, like this one, in the days before the big story 'breaks'.

Australian Soldiers Cheaper Than Robots

Troops In Afghanistan Denied High-Tech Bomb Detecting Bots

An Australian soldier in Afghanistan, Sergeant Michael Lyddiard, had his arm and eye blown away over the weekend when a roadside bomb detonated only a metre from his face. He was flown to a medical base in Germany and members of his family have now joined him there. Some 28 Australian soldiers have been wounded in Afghanistan since 2001, two have died.

On that back of the news of Sergeant Lyddiard's injuries comes the shocking revelation that Australian troops have been denied the kind of bomb-detecting robot technology that has saved the lives of countless American and NATO troops in Afghanistan :

...the Howard Government cancelled work in 2004 to develop robotic technology capable of dealing with roadside bombs.

The aim of the program was to develop robotic technology to counter IEDs. Questions are now being asked inside Defence as to why Australian soldiers and explosive detector dogs are being used to render roadside bombs safe when other NATO forces use advanced robotics.

Thousands of remote-control mine and IED detectors have been rushed to Afghanistan and Iraq by the US military, with more than 5000 in operation last April, compared with 150 in 2004.

The ADF, however, relies mainly on sniffer dogs and perilous manual defusing, such as the job Sgt Lyddiard was attempting when the device exploded in front of him.

The robot plan, known by its army designation Project Land 133, was shut down by former defence minister Robert Hill.

A spokesman for Defence Minister Brendan Nelson yesterday admitted the project had been shut down but said the decision was taken on the advice of the army.

Brendan "We Didn't Do It" Nelson keeps up his usual standards of buck-passing.

What's happened to the endless promises made by John Howard and defence ministers Hill and Nelson that Australian soldiers could always count on being given the very best equipment during overseas deployments?

The grim truth is that even though the Australian government spends almost $1 billion a year fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our troops are forced to continually cut corners and often have to make do with inferior or substandard equipment.

Robot development programs are expensive, and number crunchers have clearly worked out that it's cheaper to put soldiers' lives at risk than to spend the money needed to build and deploy bomb-detecting robots.

It's a miracle the casualties in Afghanistan, and Iraq, have not been higher.

Garrett & Rudd Betrayal Of Green Vote Comes At Heavy Price

How can Labor lose 'green' votes to Howard And Friends? Easy. Betray the hardcore over issues like Kyoto and opposing pulp mills and watch their anger and dissent spread amongst the waverers like wild fire.

Some amazing stats drawn from the latest NewsPoll :

* In only four weeks, Labor has lost a big fat ten points in its lead over Howard And Friends on the question of which party would best handle the environment.

* 22% of 'Howard Huggers' would rather Peter Garrett be environment minister than Malcolm Turnbull. Yes, really.

* 45% of voters believe Garrett would be a 'more capable' environment minister than Turnbull at 37%. But there's still a whopping 21% of voters who believe neither are 'more capable' or remain uncommitted.

From The Australian :

Labor's strong lead over the Coalition on handling the environment - about 15 points since Mr Rudd became leader and appointed former rock singer and conservationist leader Mr Garrett as his environment spokesman - has shrunk dramatically.

Last weekend, when asked which party would better handle the environment, 29per cent said Labor, 24per cent said the Coalition and 27per cent said "someone else".

In June last year the ALP and the Coalition were equal on 28per cent and "someone else" almost the same on 26per cent. But after Mr Rudd became leader, the ALP's support jumped to 41per cent, the Coalition dropped to 24per cent and "someone else" registered 15per cent.

Labor is going soft on one of its biggest issues. And they're paying for it.

Think about it. Peter Garrett is losing votes to Howard And Friends on the environment.

Howard is now actively trying to portray himself as being a successful and reliable custodian of the Australian environment, a conservationist and the person who can realistically handle the complex environmental, social and economic issues surrounding climate change.

Incredibly, it seems like Howard The Greenie is now starting to become a more believable proposition to more and more voters. If Howard thinks there are votes in it, you might even see him lying down in front of some old-growth forest clearing bulldozers. Okay, maybe not. But you will see him standing with his hands on his hips staring up at a rainforest canopy sometime soon. Or handling some wide-eyed trembling little marsupial.

Turnbull, meanwhile, is quickly on his way to becoming as popular as Tony Abbott. That is, as popular as slipping in someone else's warm vomit on a hot summer evening.


And seeing as we haven't done this yet, we'll quote some lyrics from a Garrett-credited Midnight Oil song, one of their best, 'Pictures' :

I just want to talk through paradise
I just want to see that clear clear ight
Don't want to be a member of a species that's deceasing
Keep on making those promises that they aren't keeping

Don't sit around in silence you don't need a licence
It's moving in a hurry
there's no need to worry
We're really going to change it the critical mass approaches
I can almost hear it

The video for 'Pictures', from 1985, which ends with a quote from Dr Bob Brown follows :





Garrett can't afford to forget the messages that helped make him such a popular and important leader of the 'green movement'. Claiming he can achieve more by working within the system, rather than pushing against it from the outside, only cuts through for so long. He's losing the faith of green voters. Indeed, a critical mass approaches...

How The Garrett 'Gaffe' Will Become The Message Of Positive Change

Howard Prepares To Say Goodbye Bennelong

Three more weeks to go until we learn whether the Rudd opposition has succeeded in pulling off one of the more incredible election victories, and political psychological warfare operations (against the government facing defeat), in Australian history.

John Howard must by now truly understand what Kevin Rudd meant when he said he was going to mess with the prime minister's head. Rudd is 'psy-oping' Howard into a state of barely concealed terror. Howard knows he is going to lose, and it will be impossible for him to hide the fact that he knows this in his heart.

There will plenty of pouting, lots of whining and bucket loads of begging.

The Rudd "Me-Too" strategy is likely to go down as one of the more brilliant election strategies in decades. Rudd has managed to avoid nearly every wedge that Howard And Friends had planned to isolate and crucify him with. It's absurd to read Howard huggers like Piers Akerman and Andrew Dolt claiming that Rudd is running a dirty campaign. Well, why wouldn't they? They learned from watching John Howard, the Yoda of dirty politics, for a decade. They know every one of his tricks, and now they're using them all against him. And it's working.

Rudd has managed to not make this election so much a choice between Labor and the Coalition, but a choice between Howard and Rudd. And Rudd is just far too popular for the prime minister to beat right now. The majority of the Australian public don't hate Howard, but they don't want to vote him back into office. They want some new blood, or Rudd.

That may change in the next 22 or 23 days, but it's impossible to imagine how.

The Liberals are viewing Peter Garrett's supposedly serious admission that everything will change, as far as Labor agreeing with Liberal policies once they win the election, as "Gold!"

They think they've found the hammer they can use to crack Labor skulls.

This week, we will see the same old, tired, boring parade of Costello, Abbott, Howard, Downer and Joe Hockey trying to Fear Up the Australian public over what Labor will do when they win.

"It's all a big con!" they'll shout and whine. "You're being fooled!" "They'll turn Australia into a Union Socialist Utopia and you'll lose your job and your home!"

It won't make much difference. Not to Rudd's chances of winning anyway. But unless the Liberals have plenty of good, exciting and positive news to fill in the gaps around all the worthless Fearing, they'll find they're doing more damage to themselves than Garrett has done to Labor.

The media will lose interest by Monday night in Garrett's 'gaffe'. It doesn't help that the person most seriously pumping the story, radio jock Steve Price, has a wife employed by a federal government minister as 'an advisor'. Seriously, where is this guy's credibility?

Price thinks he has delivered the scoop of the election, the revelation that will turn the tide for Howard And Friends. Good luck with that, Steve. Garrett has already all but neutralised his own words. The interest rate rise will rip Garrett's 'gaffe' from the headlines and make it into yesterday's news.

In fact, Howard already has done exactly that :

To be handed such a stick with which to beat Labor was an unexpected windfall. But the PM knew where to draw the line. "(Are) you saying that a political party should outline everything they're going to do in the next term of government if they are re-elected?" Howard was asked in Darwin. "No, no, I'm not, I'm not saying that," he said quickly, seeing the familiar trap. Before the last election, he didn't signal WorkChoices...

It's hard to imagine anything more crushing for Howard than heading into the final half of the election campaign with the biggest selling newspapers in Australia headlining how he is going to lose his Bennelong seat to Maxine McKew. The polls are grim all round for Howard and the Liberals. How can they turn it around? What will work now? What have they got left?

The Murdoch media is running wide today with the story that John Howard is renovating his all but abandoned suburban Sydney home in preparation for his departure from his 11 year long occupation of Kirribilli House. Millions of Australians will read or hear about this, and most will probably think : 'The old bugger's already given up.'

Howard And Friends now have to get to election day without looking like they are heading to a funeral.

Howard, his ministers, his advisors, his 'huggers' in the media, can't believe what is happening. How did this all go so very wrong? How did those hopeless Labor union patsies get on top of them so quickly, so effectively and how do they keep winning the week?

Even John Howard's infamous morning walks are turning against him. For the next three weeks, every morning he steps out into the early sunlight, he will be ambushed by comedy teams, hecklers, protesters and bizarrely costumed attention seekers. As Michelle Grattan points out, as bad and as embarrassing as the morning walks have already become for Howard, he can't just stop them now :

The Liberals might be better off if the walk was scrapped before it gets entirely out of hand. But presumably the PM thinks he needs the exercise. More to the point, ditching it now, after so many years, would be akin to throwing out a major policy. The significance would take up hours of airtime, acres of print.

Garrett's gaffe, or blatant honesty, will excite them for a few days, but it won't carry them all the way through the next three weeks. And Garrett has already found a way to spin the 'gaffe' to Labor's advantage :

"Notwithstanding what was said, there is no doubt things would change under a Labor government," he said.

"We would launch an education revolution. We would get rid of WorkChoices. We would deliver a high-speed broadband network across Australia. We will end the blame game on hospitals."

His comment was about a change "for the better" that would come with a Labor government. "It's very clear to me that the changes we refer to here are the positive changes that Rudd Labor could bring forward … across a range of issues that count to the people of Australia," he said.

Garrett looks like he has already killed the controversy, or at least turned it to Labor's advantage, before the Liberals can even get started on it.

Every time the Howard cheer squad bring up Garrett's "everything will change once we get in" quote, Labor can counter it with exactly what Garrett said above.

They can now dare the Liberals to run with some full-blown Fearing on the Garrett quote, and get their positive, future-looking message even more air time.

The Rudd-approved messing with Howard's head continues, with gusto.

90,000 Australian Soldiers To Be First On National DNA Database

'Voluntary' DNA Samples, Then Mandatory

Australian Government, Military Prepares For 'Rising Death Rates' In War Zones

Australian soldiers, all 90,000 of them, will be called on to voluntarily supply DNA blood samples to go on a database, reportedly to make the process of ID-ing troops killed in warzones like Iraq and Afghanistan much quicker.

Isn't that what dog tags are for?

And what happened to the ID chips that were being discussed in Australian military circles in 2005?

Obviously, having DNA samples of every Australian soldier provides a hell of a lot more information than dog tags or an ID chip would. Blood and DNA in a database means Australian soldiers can be evaluated for the likelihood of developing illnesses that may not be related to their tours in war zones. That would obviously help later on when it comes time for the Defence Department to dispute medical compensation claims from veterans.

More on this here :

The collection plan will be voluntary in its initial phase because laws prevent soldiers from being forced to give DNA samples against their will.

The newspaper says Australian Defence Force tender documents make it clear that military chiefs want the DNA scheme to be rolled out, and for it to eventually be mandatory.

"In its mature form, it is envisaged that the DNA repository will hold samples from all ADF personnel, with the provision of a blood sample being obligatory," the tender document reads.

The soldiers' DNA is likely to form the basis for a national DNA database of all citizens.

School children will be the next in line to supply 'voluntary' samples of DNA and blood, with the reason given that having such genetic information on a national database would mean children would be more quickly indentified in the event of an emergency or tragedy.

About A. Bolt

Thanks to the dozens of readers who've forwarded me the A. Bolt column supposedly claiming 'We've Won The War In Iraq'. It won't get a link or a quote here. At least, not yet. Why bother? It's not the first time he's made such claims. 'We're winning the war in Iraq' falls from Bolt's stubby fingers about every six to nine months.

Why add to the cavalcade of genuine disgust and outrage from hundreds of people who've already commented on his blog and on the news.com.au site? The disgust quotient currently runs at about 98%, many of whom genuinely can't seem to comprehend that a mainstream newspaper journalist/columnist has actually said that 100,000 or more Iraqi civilian deaths don't matter because Saddam may have killed more.

Of course they're disgusted. Who wouldn't be?

Imagine Bolt's outrage if a Sydney Morning Herald columnist said 6 million dead Jews under Hitler didn't matter because Stalin probably killed 20 million people?

Bolt's a cheap huckster, who knows that the more outrage he manifests, the more hits his blogs and columns will get and the higher the ad revenue take will be as the comments pile up. That's all he's interested in. No doubt he probably now gets a cut of the online ad action.

Your anger and outrage at Bolt's justification for the deaths of more than 100,000 innocent Iraqis is worth about two cents in ad revenue, for every comment you post at his site.

That's how much he values your opinion, and feelings.

Bolt knows he was one of the key and highly influential supporters of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. He knows that he must take some of the blame for Australia's involvement. He knows that he was used, and willingly, by Howard operatives in an attempt to discredit Andrew Wilkie, a brave Australian who destroyed his own career in an attempt to get the truth out about the awful lies that was leading Australia into an attack on the innocent people of Iraq.

No wonder Bolt felt the need to disappear for a few days after writing such pro-genocidal garbage.

Howard Cashes In On Soldier's Death

Claims 'My Burden' Is The "Greatest To Carry"

John Howard and Kevin Rudd will both attend the West Australian funeral of Mathew Locke today, the Australian SAS soldier killed in Afghanistan by the Taliban.

The classy thing to do, of course, would be for Howard to say something like "I'm going to the funeral to support the family and give my condolences. Beyond that, I'd rather not comment any further, thank you."

But this is John Howard, and he is facing a staggering defeat in three weeks time at the federal elections.

So we get this instead :

"I think about it a lot because I'm the person in the end who sends men and women into battle," Mr Howard told Sky News.

"I feel a very direct responsibility for any death or injury that occurs on the field of battle and it's the greatest burden that anybody has to carry and discharge."

Well, it's not quite as large as the burden that is carried by the families and children of the dead and physically and mentally wounded veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, who will have to deal with the fallout of Howard's decisions to go to war for the rest of their lives, including such things as alcoholism, PTSD and suicide, while Howard gets to retire and take a well-paid board position with an American defence contractor, or a $100,000 a gig speaking tour of NeoCon think tanks.

Howard forgot to mention that it was his government who tried to cheat Australian war veterans out of more than $500 million in much needed support and entitlements, until an extremely brave and honourable whistleblower exposed the disgusting scam and forced Howard to give the veterans the money.

So much for the "greatest burden" he has "to carry".

Howard Praises His Health Minister For Showing "Backbone" After His Shocking Attack On A Dying Man

Abbott Admits He Only Decided To Apologise After He Saw The Blitz Of Outraged Headlines

This is John Howard's idea of a politician who has "backbone."

His health minister, Tony Abbott, launches a shocking personal attack on a dying man - "just because a person is sick doesn't necessarily mean that he is pure of heart in all things," Abbot said. He knows his words are going to hit the headlines, but he doesn't care. Abbott said what he said for a reason. He knew it would get him in the media the next day where he intended to try and turn up the heat on Labor. It didn't quite work out that way. But was John Howard furious at what Abbott said? Well, no. Did he demand his health minister step down? Of course not.

Howard just waited until Abbott apologised, as he knew he would, and then claimed Abbott was showing backbone because he was brave enough to say sorry for his "mistake."

Of course, Howard then used Abbott's trojan horse into the headlines to demand Labor apologise for something their former leader said five years ago. As though there was a comparison.

It's not a new tactic from Abbott. He's done this time and time again. Insult somebody publicly, and then claim to be so very sorry, and admit how wrong he was, and then fill the rest of every interview he gets, because he is the story of the day, with attacks on the opposition.

It's incredible the media still falls for the same trick. But they do. Which is why Abbott keeps doing it. It works for him. He knows he is one of the most unpopular politicians in Australia, so what's he got to lose? He doesn't have to give a shit, particularly now his government is facing defeat, so he uses his odious and foul attacks for the benefit of his political masters.

Here's Howard openly praising Tony Abbott, less than 48 hours after he attacked a dying man :

"Tony Abbott was man enough to apologise," he said in Melbourne.

"That's a person who's clearly got a backbone no matter how unwise his comments clearly were.

"Mr Abbott has done something that many people in the Labor party guilty of equally unwise comments were not prepared to do."

Naturally, Howard found a way to use his own health minister's attack on a dying man to try and gouge away at the credibility of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard.

And they can't understand why more than 60% of Australians are thinking about voting the lot of them out of office?

And here's Tony Abbott admitting in an interview on Lateline that he only decided to apologise after he saw news and television headlines. That is, he decided to apologise once he saw that every media outlet in Australia wanted to talk to him :

Q: What possessed you to launch a personal attack on Bernie Banton? That was bonkers, wasn't it?

TONY ABBOTT: It was a mistake...

Q : Was it bonkers?

TONY ABBOTT: It was an error of judgement on my part, I shouldn't have done it, and as soon as I realised what I had done, I rang him this morning and I apologised.

Q : As soon as you realised what you'd done, that's sometime after you did it, presumably?

TONY ABBOTT: Look, yesterday was...

Q: As soon as someone made you realise...

TONY ABBOTT: No, no, no, no, no, no, look, I didn't need to be told, once I saw it in black and white in the paper the next morning, I though, 'No, this is a problem, I'd better call him up and apologise.'

TONY JONES: It is a problem. The Health Minister insulting a dying man who is trying to get better access to expensive drugs to treat mesothelioma sufferers. But what I want to ask you here, it's such a bad look, did you actually consider resigning your portfolio today?

TONY ABBOTT: I didn't, mate.

Professional Howard government apologist, Andrew Bolt, doesn't go after Abbott for his appalling behaviour. Of course not. Bolt claims that Abbott is "at heart a decent and humble bloke" and showed "great dignity. Bolt attacks Lateline's interviewer, Tony Jones, for not showing Abbott enough courtesy and respect.

BTW. When Tony Abbott snaps "mate" to a journalist, through those tightened lips, with that pure hate storming in his eyes, it's his polite way of saying "you fucker."

More On All This Here

Tony Abbott : What A Scumbag

Tony Abbott : What A Scumbag Part Two

Tony Abbott : What A Scumbag Part Two

It was Labor who was supposed to crack under the pressure of a six week long election campaign. That was John Howard's strategy. And some Labor heavyweights are showing the strain, most notably Peter Garrett in a swirl of confusing messages about climate change. But the public expects newbies, like Garrett, to make mistakes and to occasionally stuff up the message.

But when one federal government minister after another makes a fool of himself in public, you can see that the enormous pressure of six weeks under the microscope is being felt all round.

Earlier in the week it was environment minister Malcolm Turnbull who cracked, when a 'leak' revealed that he all but demanded the Liberals change their concrete stance on refusing to ratify the Kyoto Treaty.

Yesterday it was health minister Tony Abbott who shattered under the strain.

Abbott was late for a televised debate, then lost it and swore on camera. But far worse was the number of disgusting comments about a dying man, and questioned his legitimacy. A man whose chief concern in his last months of life is that those dying from asbestos-related illnesses, like himself, be given access to drugs that will ease their condition and the suffering of their families.

Abbott said Bernie Banton's motivations should be questioned :

"I know Bernie is very sick, but just because a person is sick doesn't necessarily mean that he is pure of heart in all things."

The public reaction was generally one of absolute disgust, and Abbott admitted that he felt no need to apologise until he saw the headlines in the newspapers.

The fact that his disgusting behaviour was the lead news story on most evening news broadcasts would have only convinced further to say he was sorry. But how sorry was Abbott? The fact that he was smirking throughout the apology he gave on camera gives no credence to his claims that he believed he stepped over the line.

Hilariously, Andrew Bolt, yet another of the Murdoch media's team of professional Howard government apologists, strove to remind us that Abbbott was a good man, with a good heart, and wanted us to feel sorry for Abbott because he had, according to Bolt, been unfairly treated in a Lateline interview last night.

We are supposed to believe that Abbott's attack on a dying man was something unusual, and that the health minister bagging out a victim of asbestos is not the sort of behaviour that should see him forced to resign as health minister.

But Abbott has long been a nasty little creature, who will say and do anything, insult and disparage anyone, if he thinks it will help his own career and that of his political masters.

In May, Tony Abbott threatened the Australian public if they dared to vote Labor into office. Sounding like a cross between Darth Vader and a brutal dictator, Abbott said all Australians would face "consequences...dire consequences" if they tossed out his government.

Abbott's threat signaled the start of a tide of raw panic flowing through the Coalition government, reaching up to the highest ranks of the Liberals, which continues today, despite a recent slight improvement in some polls.

In June, Tony Abbott whined about how Australians expected too much from their politicians :

"Nothing but the best is good enough from Australian politicians and, the better it becomes, the more zealously voters reserve their right to raise their expectations."

Heartbreaking stuff. If only our expectations of our politicians to deliver on their promises was so much lower, then their jobs would be so much easier.

Only a few weeks ago, Tony Abbott's 'dark' past as a secret unionist and strike maker was exposed, just when the Liberals were pouring another $10 million or so of taxpayers money into advertising claiming the Labor Party was full of unionists who would destroy the nation's economy.

In early October, Abbott claimed that women who had not had a 'broad range of experiences' were qualified to hold positions of power in the Australian government, and bagged out deputy opposition leader Julia Gillard for spending too much of her time working at her task. This from a government who has done more than any other to force women, particularly single mothers, into the workforce. He was forced to apologise for that as well.

But Abbott has long had his Day Of Hell coming. He is a man who has long cherished his well-deserved reputation as Howard's chief attack dog, and political assassin, but you can only get away with being a destroyer of lives and careers for so long before all that bad karma comes back to you, with gusto.

Abbott has long been one of Australia's most unpopular politicians. Questioning the credibility of a dying man, who has devoted what remains of his life to helping others, and smirking his way through an apology, will do nothing for the government's chances come election day.


Tony Abbott Threatens Australians Will Face "Dire Consequences" If They Vote Labor

You Demand Too Much Of Us, Abbott Whines About Australians Wanting Politicians To Keep Their Promises

Tony Abbott's 'Dark' Unionist Past

What A Scumbag : Part One

The Non-Core Promise That Just Will Not Go Away

Howard Says We're Entitled To Believe What He Tells Us To Believe

The story goes that in the lead-up to the 2004 federal election, treasurer Peter Costello and a number of key advisors warned John Howard not to push the claim that his government would keep interest rates at "record lows" and "30 year lows" or even just "low".

It was a con, a bold-faced lie and everyone in Howard's inner circle knew it. Interest rates would go up as surely as they would go back down again, then up again. Don't do it, they supposedly told Howard, it will come back to haunt you. But Howard ignored them all. He went out there and pumped his "keeping interest rates low" promise like a speed-addled evangelical podium pounder granting all who believed him access to Low Interest Rates Heaven.

Howard then rubbed Costello's face in it by leaving it to him to launch the "keeping interest at record lows" ads, which he did, with a very grim face indeed.

Now that interest rates have done nothing but climbed since 2004, and are expected to go up again before election day, Howard is being put on the rack by nearly every journalist who interviews him. It should be excruciating for Howard. It sure is excruciating to watch, and hear. But he doesn't care. He's got a new promise to sell. Under his government, interest rates will be lower than they will be under a Labor government.

Liar, deceiver, prophet.

A few examples from the past week alone.

Radio 3AW :

JOHN HOWARD:…I mean interest rates will always go up and down and I’ve never guaranteed that interest rates would never go up.

NEIL MITCHELL: Well yeah, but your advertising did.

JOHN HOWARD: Well, well the advertising just very briefly in the early part of the campaign and then that was…

MITCHELL: It said, ‘keep interest rates at record lows’. Well that promise is broken isn’t it?

JOHN HOWARD: Yeah well, that particular advertisement lasted two nights and then it disappeared. And you didn’t get out of my mouth…

MITCHELL: No I didn’t but that promise was broken from that advertising wasn’t it?

JOHN HOWARD: Well, interest rates are not at record lows now. I understand that.

MITCHELL: And your advertising promised that.

JOHN HOWARD: Well the advertising did refer to that for two nights. I accept that.

MITCHELL: So it’s a two night promise then Prime Minister?

JOHN HOWARD: No, no well look you’re asking me the question…

MITCHELL: Well you know Labor's going after you on the basis of broken promise...

JOHN HOWARD: Yes I understand that.

MITCHELL: And the advertising was, does now, look dishonest.

JOHN HOWARD: Yes well, look I acknowledge what was said. I acknowledge that. But can I just say to you and to your listeners, that what really matters now is which side of politics is better able to manage an increasingly hostile financial environment. Isn’t that what matters?

MITCHELL: Well I guess it is. But you can’t promise to keep interest lows?

JOHN HOWARD: I'm not doing that

MITCHELL: What are you saying? Same as last time. You’ll be better than Labor, eh?

JOHN HOWARD: Yes I am. I am saying that. …

From the 7.30 Report :

KERRY O'BRIEN : You did say it as a fact, interest rates are now 2.25 per cent higher, as a fact, than when you made that promise. You were not able to keep that promise. Do you simply acknowledge that you weren't able to keep that promise?

JOHN HOWARD: Look, I say again Kerry, people will make a judgment on what I said against what has occurred. But the big question they've got to ask themselves, whatever happened in the past, let's put that aside...it's the future that matters.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But you see, Mr Howard, you want us to put aside the past in relation to your comments, but not with regard to Labor. That is incredibly selective.

JOHN HOWARD: No, I'm perfectly happy to compare past performance as distinct from commentary.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Or past promises.

JOHN HOWARD: Look, leaving ... whatever you like. Look at what happened, look at where we are now...

The Sunday program :

LAURIE OAKES: Wasn't it a mistake to say that you would keep interest rates at 30-year lows?

JOHN HOWARD: Laurie, what I said out of my own mouth...what I said was that they would always be lower under us than under Labor.

LAURIE OAKES: But didn't you actually say you would keep them low.

JOHN HOWARD: Laurie, what matters is precisely what happens in the future.

LAURIE OAKES: But people were, if you like, fooled into voting for you maybe, by what you said, about keeping interest rates at 30-year lows.

JOHN HOWARD: Laurie, the impression that people took from that campaign was that we believed and they believed it that we would do a better job in keeping interest rates down than the Labor Party.

LAURIE OAKES: ...on October 7, 2004...you said 'we don't assume the economy will continue at its own momentum, it will only continue if we continue to do the right things, keeping the budget in surplus, keeping interest rates low, keeping them at 30-year lows.' It did come out of your mouth, Prime Minister.

JOHN HOWARD: Well Laurie, if you look at the average interest rates under the last government, you look at them under us, they're four to five percent lower than what they were.

LAURIE OAKES: We're talking about whether people will believe you this time because you misled them last time.

JOHN HOWARD: You're asking me what I believe they took out of the last campaign and that is that we would do a better job on interest rates. And they'll make up their minds about that.

LAURIE OAKES: They're entitled to believe you or Liberal Party ads last time.

JOHN HOWARD: They're entitled to conclude as they should now that we'll do a far better job of keeping interest rates lower than Labor.

LAURIE OAKES: It's got nothing to do with what you promised at the last election?

JOHN HOWARD: But what matters is what occurs.

LAURIE OAKES: But in an election campaign what matters is whether people believe and can remember what you say.

JOHN HOWARD: But do you know what they believed out of the last election? They believed they should vote for us because we would keep interest rates lower than Labor, and they were right, and the evidence supports that. And the same applies in relation

LAURIE OAKES: Even though you said you would keep them at 30-year lows, they weren't supposed to believe that?

JOHN HOWARD: Laurie, they were entitled to believe that we would do a better job at keeping interest rates down than what the Labor Party would do, and they did. And they were right. And the same will apply in the future.

Activate 'Absolutely No Shame' mode, Mr Howard.

I particularly like the way he repeatedly tells people to forget about what he said last time around, like it doesn't matter a dolt, and to look to the future instead, and then tells voters they are "entitled" to believe what he tells them to believe.

Howard has probably, quite effectively, reduced the election day impact of another rise in interest rates by riddling the subject with a such a strong foundation of boredom, tedium. The more journos raise the issue now, the more likely the punters will switch off, even if it means more dollars out of their wallets.

'Violent' Pro-Howard Blog Gets Blocked By Government's Web Filters

Is Tim Blair's blog really too dangerous to be viewed by children?

Does it contain adult content? Offensive content? If you visit Blair's blog, will you come across 'High Impact Material' that falls under an X-rated classification as determined by the Howard government censors?

A reader e-mailed Blair recently to let him know that the Howard government's "Won't Someone Please Think Of The Children?" free internet censorship program rates Blair's blog as "violent" and blocks access.

The Howard government recently unfurled an $80 million-plus NetAlert program to provide free content filtering software to all Australian families.

The filtering software responsible for the virtual banning of Blair's blog in tens of thousands of Australian households is called Intergard, which also blocks all peer-to-peer file sharing, and appears to allow third parties (outside the home) to access web surfing histories, without the computer's users being aware.

Such outside access to temporary or hard drive computer files, via free programs like 'net nanny' content filters, are known in intelligence circles as a "backdoor" and are usually accessible through the use of auto-updates, as the Howard government's own content filtering Q & A page admits :

These updates are automatically added each time you connect to the internet.

A government that could get their hands on records of the web surfing habits of possibly hundreds of thousands of Australian children and teenagers, through the sharing of information derived from content filtering programs, would be a very well informed government indeed. How many kids are visiting, say, the Kevin07 site, and for how long? What information are they downloading from that site? How many times are they viewing Kevin07 videos?

Valuable information for a government. Particularly if they happened to be in the middle of an extremely grim election campaign.

But back to Blair and his X-rated "violent" blog.

Exactly how does the Howard government's NetAlert content filtering programs go about determining which sites should be blocked, or are deemed to contain prohibited content?

Some info from the NetAlert site :

Internet content filters can be used to help filter offensive web pages.

Some internet content filters use a variety of techniques to detect unwelcome content. One of the most common are ‘black’ or ‘exclusion’ lists to block access to content. These ‘black’ or ‘exclusion’ lists contain websites or website pages that have been deemed to carry inappropriate content...

If the user types in an internet address or click on a link to content which is on a black list, they will be blocked from viewing that content.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) regularly update a list of prohibited content. These websites, or web pages, are blocked by the free internet content filters being provided by the Australian Government’s NetAlert – Protecting Australian Families Online initiative.

Prohibited content is determined according to classification guidelines under the National Classification Scheme.

The Australian Government has implemented an online content regulatory scheme which allows the Australian Communications and Media Authority to require websites hosted in Australia to ‘take down’ prohibited material.

Prohibited content is internet content within the classifications RC (‘refused classification') or X 18+.

Certain kinds of extreme content are refused classification...

The RC classification includes content that contains: child pornography; bestiality; excessive violence or sexual violence; detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use.

A third category of strong content is also regulated. Content classified R 18+ includes content that depicts high level violence, implied or simulated sexual activity or other high impact material.

High impact material.

How's that for a loose and open-to-personal interpretation definition of what can or should be censored?

What is particularly interesting about the above definitions is that you would presume it refers strictly to violent or pornographic images or photographs or videos. Not so.

As Blair has discovered, simply writing about certain subjects, or allowing your commenters to call for the violent deaths of journalists and celebrities (even if they're supposedly 'joking') may be enough to get your site blocked by Howard government online censors.

Or maybe it was Blair's publication of the infamous 'MoToons' that got his site on the blocked list.

Whatever the reason, this is extremely disturbing news.

How will young Australians learn about Evil Lefties, the Great Global Warming Conspiracy, Al Gore's bizarre cold-weather attraction, President Bush's non-plastic turkey, unhinged columnists for the Melbourne Age and David Marr's clearly absurd claims that the Howard government is restricting debate and censoring free speech (oh, right) if they can't get the scoop from Tim 'High Impact Material' Blair?

I'm sure Communications Minister Helen Coonan will move very fast indeed to have Blair's site removed from the blocked list, possibly within a day or two.

The Howard government needs every supportive blogger it can get.

Now That's Rock : Nick Cave Inducts Ignored Bandmates Into ARIA Hall Of Fame

When Nick Cave was asked last week for his thoughts on being inducted into the ARIA Hall Of Fame, joining legendary Australian rockers like AC/DC, Skyhooks And Rose Tattoo, he said he would turn up to collect his award, but he'd walk in the front door, walk out the back door and go get a kebab.

Fortunately Cave stuck around to give a short acceptance speech.

He railed against the ARIA organisation for refusing his request to induct his band The Bad Seeds along with himself into the Hall Of Fame. They refused his request because the Bad Seeds had a couple of "foreigners" amongst its ranks.

Likewise, Nick Cave's first band, the legendary and extremely influential The Birthday Party were also denied 'access' to the Hall Of Fame.

So Nick Cave, being the true gentleman and collaborator that he is, took it upon himself to induct the members of The Birthday Party and The Bad Seeds into the ARIA Hal Of Fame.

True class from Cave, and definitely the most rock moment of the night.

It was also great to see Silverchair pick up a fleet of awards. Australia has produced, and continues to produce, the best rock bands in the world. The new generation learns from and is vastly inspired by those who have gone before, which is exactly the point Nick Cave was trying to make. The members of The Birthday Party and the Bad Seeds belong in the ARIA Hall Of Fame along with Nick Cave, because he couldn't have done what he has done, and made the music he has made, without them.

Nick Cave on his hero, Johnny Cash :

I was in Los Angeles (in 2003) and got another call from Rick Rubin saying Johnny Cash was recording and did I want to come and record with him. I said: "Of course." I had a couple of hours the next day before I had to leave. I chose a Hank Williams song - I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry. I got to the studio and was a bit early, and was waiting for Johnny Cash to arrive and wondering how I would be able to sing, to hold my own with this incredible voice.

He arrived, and this man with such extraordinary generosity, such an immense spirit made me feel so much at ease.

I suggested this song, and he said: "Hey yeah, Nick, I know that one. Let's do it." And the band started up and we just did it.

It was funny because I sang the song and then at the end Rick Rubin said: "I'm sorry we're going to have to do it again." I said: "I'm flat, right?" And Rick Rubin said: "No, Johnny's flat." He said: "Yeah, I guess I was little off there." And we did it again.

When Johnny first came down those stairs into the studio he looked really frail and sick, but once he started singing he was really brought back to life. It was an incredible thing to see.

For me it's a very sad thing that he's died, because there goes another one of these great voices. As far as I can see there aren't the people around to replace these people. That's the really sad thing about this.

Rudd's 'Waxgate' Incident Becomes International News


Image from the London Times homepage

The YouTube video of Kevin Rudd supposedly snacking down on some of his own ear food is making international news. First the pole dancers during a drunken night out in New York, now 'Waxgate'. The next time Rudd makes international headlines will be on November 25 when he wins the election.

From the London Times :

Britons whose knowledge of Australian dining habits is based largely on the bush tucker trial sections of I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here! will be appalled to learn that this is yet another deception foisted on the public...

Australians, if the latest hit video on Youtube is to be believed, are shunning locusts and witchetty grubs in favour of something altogether more familiar: ear wax.

Britons making fun of the snacking habits of Australians, right. Anyone for a deep fried Mars Bars? How about some blood-soaked offal stuffed into a sheep's stomach? Anyone?

Afghanistan : Australian Troops Refused To Join Fight Against Taliban That Left Some 70 Civilians Dead



According to this story, Australian troops refused to take part in one of the biggest battles against the Taliban in the history of the current Afghanistan war.

Australian troops were involved in the planning of the June battle in the Chora Valley, which saw NATO forces taking on an estimated 500 Taliban fighters, but reportedly pulled out when they realized their rules of engagement would restrict their ability to defend themselves.

More on this here :

Most of the 60 to 70 civilians killed when Dutch forces repelled a 500-strong Taliban assault in the Chora Valley, 30 kilometres from the Australian and Dutch base at Tarin Kowt in Oruzgan province, died as a result of bombing and artillery fire, human rights investigators have found.

In the days after the battle, the Australian Defence Force issued two statements stressing Australian troops were not involved in the fighting. In the carefully worded statements, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson and senior military officers expressed concern about civilian casualties in the battle.

The chief of the Australian Army, Lieutenant-General Peter Leahy, last week reiterated Australia's commitment to avoiding civilian deaths wherever possible. "Nothing undermines the credibility of our efforts more than the unintended killing of civilians," he said.

Particularly controversial is the use of Dutch artillery, which fired high explosive shells into the Chora Valley from Tarin Kowt, 30 kilometres away.

In the case of the fighting in the Chora Valley from June 16 to 19, The Sunday Age believes a key issue for the Australians was the inability to discriminate between civilians and the Taliban, who had occupied local houses.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai said the Dutch decision to fire from such a distance was bound to claim civilian lives.

In his speech last Wednesday, General Leahy said: "In complex urban terrain there is a constant risk of striking innocent civilians." But the army had learnt that "unless we can provide pervasive security without inflicting collateral damage on the … population, our supposed strengths can be turned into glaring weaknesses".

An Australian SAS soldier, Sergeant Mathew Locke, was killed on Thursday by Taliban fighters, during the first day of a new offensive in the Chora Valley.

More than 1500 British, Dutch, Afghan and Australian troops are believed to now be fighting in this offensive.

Three Australian servicemen have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001, with at least two dozen wounded or suffering crippling PTSD.

Military experts are downplaying Prime Minister Howard's claims that the Taliban are directly targeting Australian troops, particularly the SAS, as the Taliban rarely engage in direct confrontations, knowing they will be flogged by the superior firepower, experience and training.

The SAS Association is now urging the government to increase compensation for war casualties.

PM claims Australian Troops Are Being Targeted By Taliban

Australia Pledges 'Absolute Commitment' To Israel

Downer Offers To Send Troops To West Bank To Fight Hamas

Foreign Minister Alexander has taken it upon himself to pledge Australia's 'absolute commitment' to Israel, regardless of what kind of collective punishment it unleashes on the Palestinians, and he has also offered to send Australian troops into the West Bank to stop a predicted takeover attempt by Hamas, the democratically elected government of the Palestinian territories.

Downer made these commitments as the Howard government faces defeat at the national elections on November 24.

Downer claims an international 'buffer force' will be necessary in the West Bank in the event of a withdrawal by Israel to stop Hamas from attempting to take back control of the area from Fatah.

Downer told a Sydney audience of Jewish leaders, including 20 rabbis, that he didn't believe most Palestinians would support a deal peace between Israel and the leaders of the West Bank.

"If the Israeli defence forces withdrew from the West Bank, Hamas will just take over," Mr Downer said.

"In the end, there has to be some international force to prop up a Palestinian State. If the international community was looking for troops to support a peace agreement which provided for the security of Israel and a Palestinian state, we would be prepared to send some troops to help," he said.

Mr Downer gave his speech to a gathering of the top echelon of Sydney's Jewish community, including 20 rabbis. He was invited by Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who is trying to woo the large Jewish community in his marginal seat of Wentworth in Sydney's Eastern Suburbs.

Mr Turnbull and Mr Downer yesterday engaged in a whirlwind lobbying exercise of Jewish institutions in the electorate.

The pair visited the Orthodox Jewish Moriah College, where Mr Downer addressed students, proclaiming his Government's absolute commitment to Israel.

Later, he held an interview with the influential Australian Jewish News before moving to the elite venue of the Royal Motor Yacht Club to deliver his address last night to a rapturous audience.

Both Mr Turnbull and Mr Downer sought to draw a distinction between what Mr Turnbull called the Coalition's "rock solid" backing of the Jewish state and what they presented as Labor's more ambivalent position.

'Ambivalent position' presumably translates as not pledging a "rock solid" 'absolute commitment' to Israel, regardless of future events, or actions taken by the Olmert government that could be deemed illegal by the UN Security Council.

But then Downer is no fan of the United Nations, what with its petty demands for recognition of international borders and its opposition to torture, collective punishment, the illegal seizure of land and territory and its calls for Israel's army to exercise restraint and to stop its acts of random violence in Palestine and the killing of Palestinian women and children.

The Howard Legacy - A Nation Of Vengeful Dobbers

140,000 Turn In Bosses, Neighbours, Former Lovers To Tax Department

A short, but disturbing, piece from Ruth Ostrow on how, in only a few short years, Australians have utterly betrayed their anti-authoritarian centuries old history of not 'dobbing'.

Confidential phone-in lines for water wasters, minor tax cheats, neighbourhood speeders and illegal parkers have transformed Australians in just a few years into a nation of people who can't wait to get revenge on their fellow Australians by turning them into the authorities, for even the most minimal of crimes or discrepancies.

More on this here :

....at what cost to our national psyche and sense of fair play? Yes, we catch the cleaner or fruit-shop owner who tried to sneak a few quid under the counter. But what does dobbing do to our national identity?

...it seems we are turning into a culture of vengeful, envious people. We’re becoming authoritarian, which is out of keeping with the free-spirited, laconic, larrikin element of the Australian way of life. We came here as convicts, dobbed in no doubt, and have remained anti-dobbing thus far, in a country built on trusting thy neighbour. We like sorting out our own issues.

I think dobbing is tragic. It belongs to fascist regimes like Stalinism. Governments that encourage vengeance or the betraying of trust may recoup a tiny percentage of money or power, but ultimately they lose far more. If you ask me, it’s bloody unAustralian.

Australian Treasurer Warns Of Global Financial "Tsunami"

Is Costello Planning To Undermine The Australian Economy And Stock Market In A Last Ditch Effort To Stay In Power?

Treasurer Peter Costello knows that if his government loses the coming federal election, he can kiss goodbye his dream of one day becoming prime minister. But that's not all he will lose. Come the day after the election, if Costello is no longer the treasurer for the next three to four years, he will have disappointed his many local and international masters.

As we count down to election day, and the Howard government faces near certain defeat, Costello is getting grimly desperate. He is now lashing out out at the banks, the Reserve Bank in particular, the Labor Party in general but now also the global financial system.

The Australian economy, and the global economy in general, is weak and fragile he now tells us.
If his government loses the election, recession will descend. Few economists agree with Costello, but that won't shut him up.

Costello wants Australians to be terrified of daring to vote Labor. Think of your mortgage, think of your stock portfolio. His verbal terror campaign will grow only more shrill, and dangerous, as the election draws closer.

Labor will destroy, or at minimum thoroughly damage, the Australian economy, claims Costello. He may as well be standing on a street corner, with dried vomit on his shoes, a wine cask under his arm shouting, "You're all doomed! Doomed I tells ya!"


story continues after...
----------------------

Go Here For The Latest Stories From The Orstrahyun

Go Here For The Latest Stories From Your New Reality

Go Here To Read Darryl Mason's Online Novel ED DAY

-----------------------
story continues...

But even all that cheap talk fear-mongering doesn't fully explain Costello's incredible statement on how the world markets are now facing a global financial "tsunami". It's his first missile in a coming volley, and he will inform us in coming days how the "tsunami" will affect the Australian economy, and in turn, the pockets of every Australian.

Mr Costello predicted the US economy would weaken in the wake of its subprime mortgage meltdown, and said the breakneck pace of Chinese growth could not continue.

At some stage, likely to coincide with a move to a floating exchange rate, the Chinese economy would unleash even greater instability on global markets than the US had.

"That will be a wild ride when that happens," he said. "That will set off a huge tsunami that will go through world financial markets."

Figures released yesterday show the Chinese economy grew at an annual rate of 11.5 per cent. Inflation has run above 6 per cent.

China's fixed exchange rate, widely seen as undervalued, has been blamed for the growing trade imbalance with the US, because it keeps the price of Chinese products artificially low.

"All flows of capital they have been sending to the US might reverse, and you will get a major realignment on major currency markets," Mr Costello said. "China is very strong but you can't just grow an economy in double figures on a long-term basis."

So Costello is saying that if China wanted to, they could utterly devastate the already staggering American economy. Is he admitting the American economy, and the world economy in general, is now at the mercy of China?

China now holds more than $1.3 trillion in US debt, that is the "flows of capital" Costello is talking about. Americans, on average, spend more than they earn and rely on Asian financial giants, like China, to buy up their debts. But China has been showing signs of preparing to dump some of that American debt, even if it means massive losses. American debt, in the form of Treasury bonds, are quickly becoming next to worthless on world markets, and China won't let itself be left holding that much in dead money. Also, more and more countries are now choosing to dump the American dollar as the international trading currency of choice, and the US dollar is losing its standing as the 'oil currency' on world markets. The Euro is now starting to take its place, for Iran, for Russia and, soon enough, probably for Japan as well.

Local, and international markets, play close attention to the words of the Australian treasurer. Costello is going to have to be very careful with his claims between now and election day.

Unless, of course, Costello's plan is to try and start stock market brush fires in the next month, in the hope that a fast storm of bad economic news, and plunging local share markets, will frighten Australians into voting the Howard government back into office.

As we've said before, there are many powerful, very wealthy people in this country, and internationally, who will suffer if the Howard government loses office, as they most surely will if things don't change dramatically in the next few weeks.

The Australian corporate elite have probably never had a cosier relationship with an Australian government in history, and that relationship will go through a process of transformation under Labor. To a point, anyway. But it's the kind of change the poisonously greedy don't want to undergo. They don't want to renegotiate, with a new government. They want the cosy relationship to stay the same.

The Australian people are not the only masters Costello serves. You shouldn't put any act of desperation beyond the reach of these people, or Costello himself, between now and election day.

They have so much to lose if the Howard government is swept from power.

We are unlikely to see a calm, and orderly, change of government.


Go Here To Read The Online Novel ED DAY - Life In Sydney After The Bird Flu Pandemic

Howard's Pledge To Keep Interest Rates At "Record Lows" Has Cost Mortgage Payers $3000 Since Last Election

Not being a part of the Canberra press gallery, I'm not too sure how widespread this rumour was, but it goes like this : It was John Howard who insisted on pushing the 'Keeping Interest Rates Low' and 'Keeping Interest Rates At Record Lows' mantras during the 2004 federal election. Treasurer Peter Costello objected, loudly, knowing it was a lie that would probably come back to burn them, but Howard would hear no dissent on the subject.

And how those two lines are coming back to burn the Howard government now.

For the first time in history, interest rates will be raised in the middle of a federal election campaign. This will be the sixth straight rise since that election, and every newspaper, radio station and television news program in the country, is reminding Howard of his pledge to 'keep interest rates at record lows.'

Howard, and Costello, first tried to claim that interest rates were still low, when the fourth and fifth rate rise hit. But that argument is dead now. People are hurting.The estimates of hundreds of thousands of families being pummeled by rising mortgage payments is the news story of the day :

Another rate rise - which would be announced on November 7, just 17 days before the election - would be the sixth straight rate rise since the Coalition was re-elected in 2004, after promising to keep interest rates at "record lows".

The increase in mortgage rates since then would add more than $3000 to the annual cost of servicing a $250,000 mortgage.

Labor treasury spokesman, Wayne Swan said that over the past five years, food costs had risen 50 per cent faster than the overall cost of living, which was up 21.4 per cent. Health costs had risen by 30 per cent while education costs were up by 40 per cent.

Food costs are likely to rise even further, as the effects of a worldwide grain shortage takes hold, leading to larger increases in the price of bread and milk, for starters.

So desperate is Peter Costello to get the focus off him and the PM and their dodgy promises about interest rates, he's now claiming that a Labor government would lead the country in a recession.

So this golden economy that Howard and Costello never stop trying to take total credit for is that weak and fragile, is it?

It's a tactic unlikely to work. Rudd got in early and warned the Australian people that Howard & Company would use The Fear in their campaigning.

But that won't stop them trying. What else have they got now?

Two weeks out from the election, Howard and Costello will be so desperate they'll probably run ads with old footage from the Great Depression of the 1930s, of soup kitchens and lines of unemployed workers and dirty-faced children picking through garbage bins. 'If you want to go back to this, vote for Kevin Rudd.'

Now that would be a fear campaign.

And there's also this - more good news for the government : financial markets are reportedly betting on two interest rate rises by the end of the year.

Barmaid Who Crushes Beer Cans With Her Breasts Hauled Into Court, Fined, By Fun Police

Okay, some city dwellers may be shocked by the news that a barmaid publicly exposed her breasts in a pub and then used her breasts to crush beer cans. Some city dwellers may also be shocked to hear that off-duty barmaid at the same pub entertained a crowd by hanging spoons off another woman's nipples.

But these 'offences' didn't occur in a city pub. The apparently illegal action went down at the Premier Hotel in Pinjarra, south of Perth.

Put it this way, if you've ever spent a few hours in the Premier Hotel in Pinjarra, and you've had a few drinks with the wirey locals, you'd know why this sort of activity is not viewed as offensive, or even mildly outrageous.

But tell that to the Fun Police.

A 31 year old barmaid was hauled into court for entertaining the locals with her beer can-crushing talents and she was fined $1000, along with the hotel manager.

The off-duty barmaid who was apparently busted hanging spoons off another woman's nipples was fined $500.

Utilizing breasts to crush beer cans and making use of nipples to hang spoons are breaches of hotel licensing laws in Western Australia :

"It sends a clear message to all licensees in Peel that we will not tolerate this type of behaviour in our licensed premises," local police superintendent David Parkinson said.

It sends a clear message that the Fun Police have invaded outback WA and are making right arseholes of themselves with the locals.

What sort of shithead fines a barmaid one thousand dollars?

We'll hazard a guess here and say that the police action DID NOT come as a result of complaints by the regular drinkers at the Premier Hotel.

The Great Rudd Command Your Vote

I think we have a winner for the best YouTube joke clip of the 2007 federal election. Thus far anyway.

A simply brilliant piece of 'propaganda', with great lines scattered throughout the 'Rejected Labor Party Advertising' clip.

I won't spoil it for you. Just watch it :





If the clip doesn't load here, go to the YouTube page here.



Nobody said it was subtle. But it is funny.

"Australia Doesn't Owe Us Anything, We Owe Australia"

Legendary mobile phone entrepreneur John Ilhan died yesterday, at only 42. He allegedly suffered a heart attack during a fitness walk, close to his home. Ilhan came to Australia when he was three years old, immigrating from Turkey with his parents. In less than 16 years, he turned a small mobile phone shop into a nationwide chain, he gave generously to charity, and tried to forge a new path for Australian Muslims, with noticeable success.

Here's some highlights from an inspiring piece he wrote earlier this year to mark Australia Day:

Australia has given me everything.

I met an Australian girl from Hawthorn who became my wife and now we are a loving family of six following the recent proud birth of our son.

No matter what our background, we are Australians.

The loyalty first and foremost to Australia should also be remembered by some religious leaders, including some radical Muslim leaders in Australia, who pretend to speak for the faith, but instead promote intolerance and hatred.

These, thankfully, are in the minority, but they should respect Australian laws and not preach division and fear.

If they cannot respect Australian law then they should have their citizenship revoked or not be allowed back in the country if they are living overseas.

My Muslim faith qualifies me to strongly denounce any racist and inflammatory comments made by any Muslim leaders because they perpetuate a stereotype that is unhelpful and dangerous.

I am the proud son of Turkish parents.

Most people came to this country to build a better life. They should be thankful and grateful to be here. Therefore, immigrants must learn the Australian way of life, culture and learn the English language.

I would die for this country. I love Australia for what it stands for. It embraces opportunity, inclusion and, most important of all, mateship.

What Australia taught me is that if you give something - like the hand of friendship or provide a service that fulfils a need - you will be repaid many times.

They say that America is the "land of opportunity", but I say Australia is.

Australia doesn't owe us anything. We owe Australia.

Howard & Cheney's Intervention In US Military Commission Trial Saw Terror Suspect's Charges Drop From Attempted Murder Of American Soldiers To Merely 'Aiding Terrorism'

February 2007 : Howard Says He Can Get David Hicks Set Free Anytime He Wants

By Darryl Mason

Only weeks before prime minister John Howard met with US vice president Dick Cheney in Sydney, back in March, he publicly boasted that he could get Australian terror suspect David Hicks set free from Guantanamo Bay any time he wanted to. Hicks had, by then, had spent more than five years in Guantanamo Bay, detained without charge, subjected to torture and intense interrogations.

In early February, public anger, and animosity within Howard's own party, over the alleged torture and abuse of David Hicks at the hands of Americans in Gitmo, was reaching fever pitch.

The unofficial election campaign, that is now expected to culminate with Howard losing the office or prime minister, had just begun to unroll, and Howard was under intense pressure from his party colleagues to get the extremely controversial issue of David Hicks out of media headlines.

On February 6, Howard boasted that he could secure the release of Hicks, whenever he liked, but he claimed that would have been "wrong" because Hicks was a terror suspect and had to face trial for the attempted murder of US soldiers in Afghanistan, shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

In March, Howard met with Dick Cheney and is believed to have asked the American vice president to do what he could to get Hicks in front of the military commission as soon as possible, and back home to Australia.

Howard wanted to make Hicks a non-issue and Cheney was willing to help out his vital ally in the War On Iraq.

Within weeks, a former staffer of Cheney had pushed aside the US military prosecutor, who had been seen all over the Australian news claiming that Hicks would be in jail for decades to come, and allowed lawyers for David Hicks to cut a plea deal.

Instead of facing charges of the attempted murder of American soldiers, Hicks was allowed to plead guilty to the incredibly weak charge, by comparison, of 'aiding terrorism'. He was sentenced to seven years, but the sentence was immediately suspended.

More On All This Here

Howard is now claiming that he did not intervene in the David Hicks trial and that justice was done.

Howard needs to stop lying about this. He needs to come clean immediately. The story is already making international headlines, as any stories involving Cheney and corruption always do.

The last thing Howard needs is for this fresh scandal to become a major election issue, as it is now likely to become, with the opposition set to use the scandal as a way to attack Howard's credibility and his high poll numbers on matters of national security.

The Howard-Cheney deal to get Hicks off attempted murder charges, so he would get through the military commission quicker, is sleazy, grubby and Howard looks like he has put his own political career before some of the most important goals of the 'War on Terror', one of which is supposed to be rounding up and prosecuting to the hilt any members and supporters of Al Qaeda, as Hicks has confessed himself to be.


Hicks Confesses To Fighting In The Taliban...For Two Hours

David Hicks Was Gitmo's Longest Serving Prisoner - Tortured And Broken

Insights Into How David Hicks Spent His Five Years In Gitmo

Cheney, Howard Cut Deal For The Release Of David Hicks

Howard Wanted The Hicks Issue Dealt With Before Election Began, BushCo. Were Happy To Help Out Their 'Man Of Steel' Down Under


UPDATE : How The Cheney & Howard Intervention In US Military Commission Saw Terror Suspect Charges Drop From Attempted Murder Of US Soldiers To Merely 'Supporting Terrorism'


If David Hicks was still being held in Guantanamo Bay, it would be just one more political nightmare for John Howard as he faces an uphill battle to win the federal election.

That Hicks was electoral poison for Howard was widely discussed in the media in late 2006, and many speculated that Howard was pushing his White House friends to get the issue off table, and out of the media, before he began his 11 month long election campaign.

Howard didn't want Hicks released, at first, he wanted him to face the military commission at Gitmo. Howard himself admitted that he could get David Hicks released from Gitmo whenever he wanted to, but he wasn't going to do that.

But by the time US Vice President, Dick Cheney, arrived in Australia for a controversial visit,
marred by 'Free David Hicks' protests, Howard knew he couldn't wait a month or two more. Hicks had to be brought home, and locked away somewhere, with no access to the media until after the election was over.

According to this story, Dick Cheney was more than happy to grant Howard's request :

US Vice-President Dick Cheney and Australian Prime Minister John Howard cut a deal to release Australian inmate David Hicks from Guantanamo Bay, according to a report published in the US today.

The report quotes a US military officer.

"One of our staffers was present when Vice-President Cheney interfered directly to get Hicks' plea bargain deal," the unnamed officer told today's edition of Harper's magazine.

"He did it, apparently, as part of a deal cut with Howard. I kept thinking: this is the sort of thing that used to go on behind the Iron Curtain, not in America. And then it struck me how much this entire process had disintegrated into a political charade."

story continues after...
---------------------------

Bird Flu Can Now Pass From Human To Human - Go To The Bird Flu Blog For More

Go Here To Read Darryl Mason's Online Novel About Life After A Bird Flu Pandemic

---------------------------
story continues...


Hicks is set to be released from an Adelaide prison in December. He agreed to a plea deal in March, where he would take nine months in jail, back home in Australia, in exchange for pleading guilty to the extremely weak charge of 'providing material support for terrorism'.

For years we were told Hicks was an extremely dangerous terrorist, a "murderer" according to President Bush, and "the worst of the worst" according to some of Howard's senior ministers. We were told he would be charged with being a member of Al Qaeda, attempted murder of Australian and/or American soldiers and being involved in the plotting of terrorist attacks. Such a range of charges could have taken months to get through the military commission system. But a plea deal on the greatly reduced charges saw Hicks in and out of the commission in a matter of days.

In the timeline of events, Hicks became a fresh political nightmare for Howard in December, when claims of torture and mistreatment hit the headlines. The pressure on Howard to do something about the David Hicks problem increased through January, with the media filled with past prime ministers, members of Howard's own party and headline grabbing celebrities asking why we were allowing Americans, our allies in the 'War on Terror', to torture an Australian citizen.

When Cheney visited Australian in February, Howard was ready to cut a deal with the vice president to get the Hicks problem dealt with as soon as possible. Cheney returned home to the US in late February and kicked the process of getting Hicks before a military commission, on vastly reduced charges, into gear.

Within a month, Hicks was in front of a military commission, his plea deal was quickly cut and he was heading back to Australia.

The plea deal caused controversy within the legal ranks of the American military because it was negotiated by the military commission's convening authority, Susan J. Crawford, instead of the chief prosecutor, US Colonel Morris Davis, who had previously expressed great confidence that Hicks would go down for his crimes and not surface for decades.

No great surprise that Susan J. Crawford turns out to have once been a senior official in Cheney's Defence Department, when he was secretary of defence during the reign of President George HW Bush, the current president's father.

Howard furiously denied he was involved in a plea bargain for Hicks, or that he had asked Cheney to do him a favour, to get the Hicks issue out of the way before the federal election campaigning really began.

Howard said the idea that Hicks being cut a plea deal and sent home to face an almost token prison sentence (with the all important proviso that he not be allowed to talk to the media) had anything to do with the coming election was just plain "absurd."

But he didn't outright deny that he asked Cheney to get the Hicks issue rushed through.


March 2007 : Hicks Admits To 'Backing' 9/11 Attacks In Plea Deal, Is Given Suspended Sentence

February 2007 : Howard Says He Can Get BushCo. To Release Hicks Whenever He Wants Them To

December 2006 : David Hicks After Five Years In Gitmo : Unconvicted, Tortured, Broken

Dick Cheney Down Under : Inside The "Violent" Protests