For Howard it all about the politics

On the 7.30 report last night (May 20) Kerry O’Brien asked John Howard
what his greatest achievement had been after 30 years in parliament.
Without hesitation he replied that it was winning the 1996 election.

For Howard, politics is the end in itself. A political victory is his
greatest achievement and possibly the only thing he has done. After 30
years of infighting and backstabbing the environment is degraded,
aboriginals are dying and we are at war. 30 years many of them spent in
positions that could of actually helped people and all he has ever
thought about is getting the job, not one moment even on reflection
thinking about what he could do in the job.

Boring Oz fudges the figures for Howard

Barnaby Kerdel is spot on in his piece on The Australian’s reporting
and commentary on the budget and the polls. Journalism that is all too
economical with the truth.

The salutary news is, however, that such propaganda makes for rather
dull and pompous reading, and that the readership of The Oz is pretty
low as a result. I think that Media Watch once demonstrated, quite
humorously, that for all its claims of influence and self-importance,
fewer people read The Oz than watch the delightful Gardening Australia.

Hugo

CRIKEY: See Barnaby’s story here – News Ltd campaigning for Howard


Invading Iraq to drive up oil prices

Stephen, I listened to you with Virginia Trioli this week and you
touched on the Iraq situation and oil prices. Many commentators and
individuals believe that the US venture in Iraq was motivated by a US
government attempt to gain control of the Iraqi oil in order to bring
that oil to the market cheaply (“no blood for oil” was the anti-war
catch cry). Nothing could be further from the truth.

Well before September 11, 2001 George W. Bush was quoted as saying that
oil (then at USD10/barrel) was too cheap. At that time Iraqi oil was
finding its way into the (black) market at USD10/barrel and as they
have some of the lowest cost oil reserves in the world it was still
profitable. Meanwhile the US oil majors were sitting on expensive
reserves in the Gulf, Alaska and elsewhere and at USD10/barrell they
were losing big money.

Now 12 months after the US led invasion, oil is at USD40+/barrell.
Mission accomplished! Why? Well Bush and Cheney are both ex -oil men so
it is easy to see who is gaining here. The US Iraqi adventure was never
intended to gain control of the oil reserves to bring them to the
market cheaply – it was intended to bring Iraqi oil back into the
cartel – OPEC’s target range is USD25 – 30/barrell and at that level
the US oil majors are comfortable. However the whole sad affair was
unfortunately destined to become a shambles which it has and the
consequences for all of us will be devastating.

Always ask yourself – who gains?

Peter


LeT and the Australian neo-cons

There I was today reading Kaushik Kapisthalam’s piece on
Lashkar-e-Taiba, when I was suddenly overcome with a profound sense of
deja vu.

This line in particular struck me:

“The Jihadist movement represents a subset of Islamists who intensely
believe that near-perpetual war, pursued by any and all means against
the unbeliever offers the best way to meet their obligations and make
the Islamist dream real.”

After a cup of tea, and a moment to gather my senses… I realised that
Hillary Bray’s horseshoe theory of political extremes comes into play.

Substitute some names to implicate the guilty, and now try to spot the difference…

‘Australia’s neo-conservative movement represents a subset of
politicians, journalists, commentators and at least one law professor
who intensely believe that near-perpetual war, pursued by any and all
means against the left… be it in politics, the judiciary, academia,
or the ABC… offers the best way to meet their obligations and
make the right wing dream real.’

Stay brave and true….

MediaShark
Adelaide

CRIKEY: Read freelance writer and terrorism expert, Kaushik Kapisthalam on the site here – The truth about Lashkar-e-Taiba

Kapisthalam on the ISI and the CIA

There is no question that Kaushik Kapisthalam is an expert on Pakistani
politics and his input in clarifying an issue covered inaccurately by
the Australian media is welcome. He does not hesitate to criticise
President Musharraf, reminding readers about ISI sponsorship of
terrorist groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba. Yet time after time, on the
issue of the ISI’s relationship with the CIA, he remains silent.

His article on the Pakistani nuclear smuggling scandal (Pakistan’s Nuke Money Trail
UPI, May 12, 2004) pulls no punches in accusing the state of direct
involvement and criticising the United States for being unwilling to
punish its ally. His only mistake is implying a surprised and unaware
United States government, shocked by the scandal.

As reported in January 2002, the Pentagon had detailed information on
Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities as early as 1989.
Then-Secretary of Defence Dick Cheney dismissed the information, later
telling a Pentagon official who was due to testify before Congress to
downplay the issue. When Richard Barlow, the original intelligence
analyst who brought the facts to light complained about Cheney’s hush
tactics, he was fired (Political Intelligence – MotherJones.com).

In the same UPI article, Kapisthalam mentions how funding for
Pakistan’s nuclear program came from the Bank of Credit and Commerce
International. One need only look at BCCI’s history to confirm the role
of the CIA in the ISI’s affairs.

Various articles by Kapisthalam point to the duplicitous role of
Pakistan as both US ally and terror sponsor, but the most obvious
conclusion is ignored like so much good intelligence. As if the CIA’s
past support for Al-Qaeda, the Contras and Generals Pinochet and
Soeharto weren’t enough.

Leigh Hegg
North Melbourne


The AFL already has State of Origin

I had to laugh at Neddy No-neck’s comments about why the Aussie Rules
State of Origin stiffed. The answer is that we don’t need it. We have
this crazy thing, you see, called a national competition. (Not this
thing where you call two states, one territory and a couple of colonies
in Melbourne and Auckland “international”.)

The various Aussie Rules state leagues came up with the concept first
in the late 70s, though it died out in the 1990s as the state vs state
thing, because it was too distracting from the real business. Of
course, RL adopted it just a year or two later, and eventually made it
its own. Probably the reason why it works so well for Rugby League is
that most of the talent comes from the only two states that play it to
any extent. As it is, I concede the point that the only RL games worth
watching all year are the three State of Origin games plus, maybe, the
Grand Final if it’s not a mismatch. (Not that AFL Grand Finals aren’t
afflicted with the same problem.)

To paraphrase Keith Dunstan, who needs the world? The world of football
is Australia. AFL support isn’t a parochial thing, it’s a tribal thing.
AFL doesn’t need a State of Origin because there’s always at least one
or two great matches each weekend. The passion behind the rivalries
within cities – the Western Derby, the SA Showdown, and most
all-Victorian games – put anything that RL has have to offer in the
shade, ever since the code completely and utterly sold its soul to
Murdoch and Packer, to the point that its biggest on-field personality
was Bill Harrigan, a bloody referee!

And yet, with all this passion, when’s the last time you heard of a
riot in the stands at an Aussie Rules match? Contrast with Belmore Oval
on any given Sunday, about the worst that it gets in the AFL is the
duco-scratching brigade outside Adelaide’s Football Park and the odd
loon who thinks spitting is an extraordinary clever thing to do.

Now, I’m sorry if I refuse to drink the “Sydney is the centre of the
universe” cordial, traffic jam with a terrific view as it is, but
there’s no doubting that RL is its own worst enemy, having managed to
staple gun its forehead again and again since 1995. When the then-VFL
got a scare in the late 1980s from the NSWRL’s Tina Turner campaigns,
they managed to get their act together over the following decade,
though not without the odd casualty (vale Fitzroy), but has come
through more or less intact. Consider at what Rugby League has done to
itself over the same period, and, well… The facts speak for
themselves.

(And, if you’re going to indulge in inane arguments about which code is
more provincial, both Aussie Rules and Rugby League pale into
comparison with the World Game. Carn Porto!)

Anyway, everyone knows the best State of Origin game the Blues have ever been involved in was when they beat the Big V in 1990.

Graham Freeman

CRIKEY: See Neddy’s story on the site here – AFL should embrace state of origin

Forget State of Origin – ALF rules

As one of about 96,000 who enjoyed Victoria’s total annihilation of
South Australia at the MCG in the early 1990s, I can assure Neddy
No-Neck that Aussie Rules fans have “embraced the concept” of
state-of-origin.

In fact, the AFL (or more accurately VFL/WAFL/SANFL) invented it. It’s just that we’re over it.

The reason is that we have a club competition that we actually care about and attend in reasonable numbers.

This competition also satisfies any infantile cravings for interstate
rivalry. The club culture is so all-consuming that a player’s place of
origin is forgotten the instant he dons the club jumper – unless he
performs poorly, at which time he is advised to go back to same.

Clubs outside Victoria account for 37.5 per cent of the total number (6
of 16) and have won 58.3 per cent of premierships from 1992 on (7 of
12).

Neddy’s assertion that “too many clubs with too many votes” are
responsible for state-of-origin’s demise suggests something of a lack
of homework. The AFL is run by a commission on which the clubs have no
votes.

The withdrawal of interstate games was met with a barely audible murmur of discontent – now their absence is barely noticed.

If, as occurs in rugby league, players were obliged to miss club games
in order to play for their state, fans would probably tear down the
AFL’s HQ.

As for assault and battery and the thrill of physical violence, which
by the tone of Neddy’s paean is the major attraction to RL SOO, we just
don’t care.

Sorry

Gary Balderstone
Richmond (Vic)

The Problems with Redfern – minus Mr Mundine

The opinion piece in SMH (The problems with Redfern SMH – May 20) reinforced a misleading adage that Mr Mundine (Aboriginal Housing
Company) acts as a spokesperson for the residents of ‘the block’
instead of revealing the empire building of Mr Mundine and his
reputation as a stand-over thug amongst his own people.

Those who are not directly related to Mr Mundine live in fear of
retribution if they speak out of turn about his behaviour and that of
his gang that assist him.

Of course the heroine problem is a major one and should be immediately
cleaned up. Heroine is not a racial issue, it settles in a community
when it is given the opportunity to fester.

Now that we have a focus on the community it is about time that we
shine an independent spotlight on the modis operandi of the Aboriginal
Housing Company’s and the complicit attitude it plays in keeping this
community at each others throats. It has been noted that heroine
addicts and dealers have a very close relationship with the Head Office
of the Aboriginal Housing Company on the corner of Lawson St. Addicts
have been known to use the back room office of the AHC as a shooting
room away from the gaze of police.

We should ask ourselves why the housing situation in the block has been
left to disintegrate to such 3rd-world standards if the AHC was the
independent agency tasked to act as landlord. If any other landlord in
the community behaved as it has done they would have been held
criminally negligent.

One would think that if the government and all parties who have a
finger in the Redfern pie were serious their would be a demand for a
transparent inquiry and a cohesive approach taken to this community
from all perspectives, instead of prescribing a narrow terms of
reference for the current enquiry(s) to ensure that the outcome and
recommendations are manageable and do not require too much change in
the current policy.

There are a lot of good people and practical programs that work within
this community such as the new Redfern Community Centre and those that
build pride and independence. However it seems to be a common
management strategy when dealing with this community to keep the people
fighting amongst themselves so that they don’t form a united front and
a common attitude that draws strength from within.

J Muir

Drugs and violence in Iraqi jails

I was talking to the old man the other day about his service in
Vietnam. He was telling me that grog was a major problem for Aussie
troops and people got accidentally shot etc. But the main thing was
that the US troops were pretty heavily into amphetamines which made
their judgment pretty ordinary and their trigger fingers pretty
twitchy. Apparently this stuff was dolled out to keep them going, and I
am sure this is no great secret.

What I am interested in is the influence drugs are having on US troops
– and their behaviour towards Iraqis – in the current conflict.
The issue has not been mentioned, but you would be naive to think they
are not giving their under-strength forces anything.

I would imagine that a combination of ignorance about the people they
are dealing with, low intelligence generally, and speed, would tend to
create the situations we are seeing. Perhaps it is not the explicit
orders they may or may not be receiving (though the actions may not be
disapproved of) from above, but the drugs they are fed for “alertness”
that are causing many of the difficulties associated with the prison
abuse.

Do you think anyone in the know might have an opinion on this?

Cheerio and keep up the good work.

Andrew

USA – a superpower no more

Two years ago Bush labelled Iraq, Iran and North Korea “the axis of evil” and invaded Iraq.
Many “experts” said that once Iraq was dealt with the USA would invade Iran and North Korea too.

Two years on the USA has moved its chess pieces in Iraq into a
stalemate and its Army is stretched to the limit – it has no strategic
reserves. Now 4,000 US troops in South Korea are deploying to Iraq.

If the Yanks can’t control 23 million Iraqis in a country twice the
size of Victoria then what good are they? The USA is no super power; it
is only a big power. Yes, it had a large Army, 10 Division, and is
nuclear armed, but so is China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, France,
Russia and Britian.

What if North Korea invaded the south and Indonesia invaded Australia
what value would the US alliance be now? I am backing Britain and our
European friends instead for help – they owe us.

Adrian Jackson