Submitted by Shatner'sBassoon on Fri, 11/06/2015 - 19:48
AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING KALEIDOSCOPIC JOIN-THE-DOTS/ADULT COLOURING BOOK EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT IN NARCISSISTIC/ONANISTIC BIG PICTURE PARASITIC FORUM BLEEDING.
LIKE POLITICAL LIFE, PARTICIPATION IS WELCOME, ENCOURAGED EVEN, BUT NOT NECESSARY.
And yet suckers keep buying tickets, hey Blowie? Thatcher, Howard, fark, it's the US dream! Sucker born every minute. Just need a good 'them' to point at.
Nicko, might have to check the source of that quote, maybe I got a bit mixed up, it being a 'post struth' world and all that.
I know Stuxnet is a big fan...apparently.
I've got a good 'them' to point at
Do we really want the most corrupt officials from other countries as our 'new australians'?
Is it any wonder australians cannot afford australia anymore when this is what we're competing with?
"Q: What are the 4 top countries where Chinese foreign nationals move proceeds of corruption?
A: According to the Bank of China, US, Canada, Australia and Netherlands. Those four countries accounted for CAD$160 Billion in proceeds of corruption being moved out of China as of 2011, the last date that China was willing to publicly talk about the issue with specificity.
There is no reason to believe that the new figure of $2,000,000,000,000 in capital flight from China has shifted to other than those 4 top destinations in any material way."
A stash of cash so large it's larger than a heap of countries economies combined, including australia's
But immigration is 'all good'...all immigration is good...as long as you've got the cash!! ...or cleaning up from the cleansing...
And perhaps more importantly, how incompetent have our recent governments been, from both sides, with this amount of money coming in yet the economy is still fucked??
Scary times ahead
So Parrot , you think "they " aren't massively contributing to the current and continuing decline in the Australian standard of living ?
I think 'they' are 'massively' contributing to the current 'massive' decline in the standard of public debate in this country. 'They' being the ones regurgitating half-digested imported junk from our OS bros. 'They' being the likes of you, Blowie. Flags out for the lads!
Sippy, lay off the kool-aid, dude, before all is lost. Well, all credibility.
Speaking about public debate and the US - the land of the flag and the free - a TL:DR doozy. We, here, wanna go there?!
Susan Ley..... Now there's an honest politician.....
Well I'm glad someone with a webpage is finally willing to point out the bleeding obvious, about ten years late by my observations. And, I particularly liked his use of the word 'deplorable', not so happy with his use of 'consumer' (see what's what).
Quite alarming the public funding levels of media in the US he points out, but I dare say Oz is way closer to his more generous more 'commy' examples. Despite this, ABC seems to be going to shit, while many are criticising its left wing bias (which is blatently obvious and at times annoying), I can't pinpoint a criticism, I just find it very selective in its reporting, and dare I say 'out of touch' (see barry cassidy's tweets of disbelief as the US election unfolded).
A good article turkeyman, but with the exception of america we've already seen public media being extensively funded, and the outcomes are not ideal.
I always knew that zuckerberg was an evil fuck dressed up as the good guy. The gall, capitalising on such misfortune to spuik his products. Only to fall in line when pressured, he's a gimp.
Tell me turkeyman, how can the likes of the guardian be so self confident in their narrative? And so critical of others' narratives, when they're all so selective to the point they're all pushing 'fake news'?
Sippy, I don't know where to start with this...with you. All over the place. Most of your premises are rubbish, and to point out what and why wastes an inordinate amount of time and energy, especially on the phone. And that's before even trying to work out what your final question even means!? Is this some kind of warped strategy?
Back to the books, comrade. Do SOME research at least. Check Jacobin's bio, it's history, it's lineage and antecedents. The article cites Ben Bagdikian! From 1983. People like him have been banging on about this stuff since forever...me included.
Corporate media is compromised. Always. There is no left corpo media. And if you think the ABC is left, then I don't think you even know what it means.
As for The Guardian?! Hah! The political editor is so far up Turnbull's date it's embarrassing. Don't confuse 'left of...' with left, dude. I believe I've said this before...about 500 times. (Post) Struth!
Since Howard, and especially in this latest LNP iteration, the ABC & SBS have suffered the proposed death from a 1000 cuts and been battered into embarrassing submission pretty relentlessly. I contend that only one mob wants to corporatise them fully and/or bend them to their political will. And the article gives an insight into how it looks if this LNP 'vision' comes to fruition. Back to the future. I contend, and always have, that it ain't pretty and it certainly ain't healthy for us all.
Dumb questions give up dumb answers. Trump ain't the answer. Either's willful ignorance.
Maybe give Eno's New Year's message another read. Then ask some questions. In the mirror first.
Good strategy for all of us.
As for Sussan Ley...
Hang on Isn't the ABC funded entirely by Government? Speaking as a layman I would suggest that we are, I'm assuming at one point or another living in or have lived in Australia, therefore paying taxes at some point. Taxes are by in large revenue for the Government to facilitate such services as public education , public health , and public broadcasting, so we are paying for it. As for Susan Ley didn't she just by that property on a whim? what a fkn joke! And her mob would love nothing more than to shut down the ABC.
Turkeyman, I am all over the place, it hasn't always been this way, I've been driven to it.
You setting me straight wouldn't be so tiresome if you just gave some straight answers to people's straight questions, granted you've done well this time, but its you that self imposes the whole smartest man in the room kevin rudd thingymajiggy. But thanks anyway, either way it's engaging...enlightning...enraging...or something.
The false premise is, that all you guys are calling 'fake news'... 'post truth'.... 'post struth' even. If everyone is saying everyone is bullshitting, isn't everyone bullshitting?
Now you've pointed me in the right direction ...I'm encouraged...which is nice, but I find it particulary enraging the way the guardian is the biggest fake news whinger without really doing much better. Their constant omission of facts is immensely annoying while vehemently calling out others. And now they've been caught with an outright lie regarding assanges support for trump. Then there's the huffington post with the youtube guy? Seriously, didn't they even think to google the guy? Or is it just blatant opportunism?
You don't need to answer those questions...unless you want to of course.
Yeh politics is a spectrum, and the abc has gone to shit, but if its still pissing people of (not me) it's definitely leftish, as evidenced by people who bag it on here. But yes you're right (of stalin maybe?) Death by a thousand cuts probably won't be good, but then again, I look at tony jones' salary and think surely there's a heap of people to fill that role for half the price, without much change in quality, because he's actually not half as good as he thinks he is...which reminds me of someone...
Nicko, the Jacobin article gave a read of the state of the State's news media and how fucked up and damaging 'for profit' dissemination is. If you can, or care to, check out Bagdikian's book/s Media Monopoly which is cited in the article.
The article was also a call to investigate public funded news gathering that is not 'for profit' driven.
Meanwhile in Oz (and the UK), we have a public broadcaster under constant attack by a side of politics that wants to implement the same conditions that the US now seeks to remedy. It's madness! Neo-liberal madness! 'Free' market balderdash!
Surely, we can learn from the States and other's mistakes? I guess it depends on who we vote in and how they view such things. Mistakes or opportunities? Governing for who, in the end?
In my nearly 40 years of political awareness, this all seems especially naked right now in Oz.
Sippy, it's been posted numerous times before, but check out Media Lens. Maybe you have. It focuses on the UK, The Guardian & BBC in the main, but you can extrapolate from it in regards to us in a lot of ways, again, what to recognise, critique, and/or avoid.
I have to add it specifically looks at these two mainly, because any others in the corpo media world are just plain ridiculous.
Actually, while you're be-googling, check out the history and funding arrangements for The Guardian. It may help to shine a light on it, and corpo media in general, and the directions they travel.
As for Assange, I thought it pretty obvious his game-plan. He's fucking over being stuck in the Equador embassy with the mighty US swords of Damacles hanging over his silver head. He playing Trump? Trump playing him? Fascinating. Watch this space. Of course, this could be a massive mis-read. I ain't paid it much mind of late. Got an interesting link there, comrade?
Forget Tony Rudd (he speak Mandarin?Pollywaffle?), check this as a Bagdikian adjunct:
I've got dubious links
But the fact the interviewer is "furious" is good enough for me
And a better one saying just what I've been rattling on about
"The purpose of this article is to underscore, yet again, that those who most flamboyantly denounce Fake News, and want Facebook and other tech giants to suppress content in the name of combating it, are often the most aggressive and self-serving perpetrators of it."
Fuck...dubious links indeed.
Despite what the author insists, Assange did offer guarded praise to the incoming President.
"[Donald Trump and his staff] are a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly, but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States: change for the worse and change for the better."
What's that last desription if not a cautious assessment of Trump? A circumspect read of a specific merit (as oposed to blanket praise).
And his second claim is also contentious. It comes down to a reading of Assange's answer, a semantic interpretation of it, which, despite the author's absolutism, is not Fake News, as is his charge.
To be fair, the Guardian piece is inaccurate, it could possibly be called a distortion, but that's only because it contains a political bias towards the left. But raising this point is akin to accusing The Australian of backing Murdoch. It's so self-evident as to be silly. Well rounded media consumption accounts for those biases.
What I struggle with more than banal political leanings is charged, subjective language such as that used in The Intercept article. Seems like he's given up any pretense of objectivity, and with it rationality, as he gives weight to a grudge.
"[Donald Trump and his staff] are a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly, but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States: change for the worse and change for the better."
Doesn't sound like any real sort of praise Stu, sounds like a general statement that's hedging its bets, especially with the use of the word "opportunities". Big caveat.
In any case, the following quote from the Intercept article makes for interesting reading and is for me a reasonable summary. At the same time, Trump and co. may not be part of the "pre-existing power network in D.C." but they are surely part of the pre-existing oligarchy which both "sides" of politics in the U.S represent anyway. I'll say it again, for mine, this whole thing is a dog and pony show while business as usual (war, regime change, increased strength of corporations) continues just at the back of the brightly lit stage.
"Hillary Clinton’s election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling class of the United States. Donald Trump is not a D.C. insider, he is part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities. They do not by themselves form an existing structure, so it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilizing the pre-existing central power network within D.C."
And Stu, if you're saying that the Guardian is left leaning, I'm disagreeing.
They're centre at best in my books.
I have to agree with Talking Turkey when he said (somewhere) that any mainstream corporate news outlet is by definition not of the left.
I see The Guardian as pushing people's buttons with regards to the latest social issues, whatever they may be.
They've found their clickbait niche, as it were.
I disagree. The author has chosen a selected passage, one that hedges each way, but it does include praise. Ergo, Donald Trump will create new opportunities, and some of those opportunities will be good.
As a statement it's cautious, circumspect, and, as the headline states, guarded.
I'm well aware Assange qualified his statements further but the Intercept author honed in on that point so I'll hone in on it too.
EDIT: I'm not interested in how people view Donald Trump, I'm far more curious in the media war fallout, particularly 'new media' sites fancying themselves as paragons of truth by attacking old ones. It's mostly bollocks; I see the new sites making way more mistakes than those in their crosshairs.
And the Guardian is at best centrist?
Not sure what criteria gets used these days to measure National Assembly but I interpret their 'for the people' approach to be left-leaning. You even mention "the latest social issues" which by definition puts them on the left. How they garner traffic - i.e clickbait, heartstring tuggings - is besides the point.
Look stu...Do SOME research at least. Check Jacobin's bio, it's history, it's lineage and antecedents. The article cites Ben Bagdikian! From 1983. People like him have been banging on about this stuff since forever...me included.
more revelations from obscure Marxists to come....parp
I don't see it as praise for donald trump. I see it as very "neautral" language as one of the articles states.
Cautious neautral language, a lesson for 99% of media right there.
Any change brings opportunities, which may be good for workers...or not. Good opportunities for workers probably means bad for businessmen...or not.
Geez even bernie sanders has said trumps infrastructure spending and challenging free trade could be good opportunities, and he'll support them. Time will tell.
The fact the guardian saw need for a correction of their article rather than a defence says it all.
Susan Ley has spent all week deciding whether to pay back $4000 in travel expenses, but "on impulse" bought a $795000 gold coast unit.....
I think there's something in that for everyone.......
Stu, that quote is such a broad and either way bet that I think that it's a real stretch to be saying that's it's evidence of Assange endorsing Trump.
Maybe you'd call it cautiously optimistic.
And although The Guardian may appear to support social equality, I don't really see anything radical or socialist about it - it's very mainstream whether talking about finance, mortgages, sport etc.
This is what happens now that everything has moved so far to the right Stu, The Guardian starts to look revolutionary!
And remember, the only people who have problems with Susan Ley are the socialists!
Bronwyn Bishop is so out of touch, she's into orbit.
Twenty twenty twenty four hours to go
I wanna be sedated
Get me to the airport put me on a plane
Hurry hurry hurry before I go insane
I can't control my fingers I can't control my brain
Oh no no no no no
These elitists live in a different world....... Ohh.... Hang on..... Look!!!!!! Another welfare recipient!!!!!!!!
is that the set-up or the punchline?
It's all he's got...
(this applies for Murdoch's rags as well)
Yes, feminist gypsies wanted to give the UK/Australia all the cancers!
Sheepdog - 17th August, 2015....
"Keeping on the uber alles tangent of this thread.... Howz metadata laws going?"
"Every single person tracked every single day, by those with alternative agendas.... Now Monis the sydney siege dude was the trigger for these unbelievable Orwellian laws..... But we just find out that these same authorities who ushered in the metadata laws totally, and I mean totally fucked up big time".
"They used Monis as a "terrorist wedge" to usher in the most draconian 1984 style laws ever seen in Australia....
"These laws wont catch a serious terrorist.... But they will know if you've uploaded a pirated movie..... Beware you naughty teenagers... Make sure you pay those royalties.... Ohhh. and no more affairs, people... We're watching......"
Well....... The usual pinheads here said " oh you craaaazy dawg!! You on the terrorist side, dawg.... You unAustralian, Dawg....."
Umm....... Yeah..... Right......
"Private phone and internet metadata collected under the Government's data retention scheme could be used in divorce cases or to combat internet piracy, law experts have warned, as the telecommunications industry launches a fresh push to change the laws."
I gave the brain dead forewarning this would happen....2015....... Piracy and divorce settlements......
But please...... Carry on......
anyone worried about this should put a submission to the consultation. see the following link....
submissions close 27 Jan 2017.
[edit: you can also indicate which civil proceedings you think access to stored metadata should be approved for. e.g. child abduction]
Gents, if you are really worried about the metadata issue, understand that any website can or does collect info about you. Even SN will have info such as location, your browser, your likes / dislikes, etc. Then there is of course Google - and the store this info for how long ? With Facebook, Insta etc privacy is a bit of a furfy in this day and age.
Barbs.... It's my choice to use google..... It's not my choice for big brother to know my whereabouts if i happen to be a naughty boy at 11pm around at some girlfriends place, with my phone pinging off the nearest tower....
And the way the laws were brought in was a lie, which i clearly pointed out at the time.. It was a con, a wedge, preying on peoples fears.
when you say big brother, to whom are you referring?
Yes SD, it is your choice. But it aint your choice once your articles, photos or web content have been googled and are replicated around the world. Thats Googles choice. You are probably browser savvy. How many people out there do you reckon are. Traditionally IT companies made settings open and non private and for a fair technical reason. I suppose it just needs to be placed into perspective. Paradoxically, with Facebook, Insta etc most put there private lives on the net. This tends to remind of Gene Hackman in 'Enemy of the State'. Actually based on true technical monitoring - including metadata.
Barbs, when swellnet or google taxes my income, makes civil and criminal laws for me to follow, when I vote for the leader of google and for swellnet in the senate, you may then compare them to the government.
You are also evading the major point.. The metadata laws were "sold" the the people to be used for terrorism.... As I warned at the time, that was a smokescreen... A dirty crafty dishonest smokescreen. It is all about government working for corporations..
Happy writes "when you say big brother, to whom are you referring?"
The government of course..... It's my right to be able to study the Syrian pipeline fiasco and the dodgy goings on between the USA, Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc IN PRIVATE.... I don't need some subjective government fascist looking over my shoulder, insinuating I am "not with us" for simply being informed and wanting to find the truth instead of relying on fox media sanctioned crap.
On a different tanjent;
Andrew Wilke is the finest politician we've had since at least Don Chipp.
use a VPN. only a few bucks a month. it anonymizes your browsing. stops plenty of data about you being passed to both the government and private entities and websites.
also, it means you don't get your browsing limited by geo-blocking. you sidestep restrictions on news sites that only allow "free ten articles for the month".
after research, went with this lot https://www.expressvpn.com/
it's only one step in online privacy and control over your information, but it's an easy and comprehensive step.
The contradiction is that a government is accountable to the people whereas private corps are not. So if you don't like the metadata being accessed by government yet quite happy for corps to collect it then this is clearly not an issue. Likewise if information held about you is incorrect can be corrected if held by government (ours at least) whilst that held by Corps - tough titty.
SD"""The government of course..... It's my right to be able to study the Syrian pipeline fiasco and the dodgy goings on between the USA, Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc IN PRIVATE.... I don't need some subjective government fascist looking over my shoulder, insinuating I am "not with us" for simply being informed and wanting to find the truth instead of relying on fox media sanctioned crap."""
thats a very fair point SD.
look, the purpose of this legislation is to help bring to justice people who are doing wrong. it is currently limited to items of national security but may extend to civil matters.
im actually more ok with the civil law side of things as this proposal by AG's is consulting on. i mean, if I do wrong by my wife or someone else taking me to court then its tough titties for me if they can access metadata that proves me doing bad. it costs lots of money to take someone to court and so the system is self accountable in this respect. the govt doesnt do civil and so big brother doesnt exist in this respect....BUT....
....its actually the original national security stuff that bring more of my attention these days. the reason being....what constitutes national security? its at the stroke of pen and NSW police or SA police are accessing your metadata for reasons that really have nothing to do with national security. seriously. national security is just a term. suddenly the local dog catcher is working in the portfolio of "national security".
....the other item SD alluded to was the govt/corporation alignments. although I dont see this type of legislation as currently applying in that sense, (i mean telstra and the other telcos hate this legislation with a passion) it could well in the future decades.
id really encourage anyone concerned about the law changes to respond to the AG consultation.
Happy..... The purpose of this law was terrorism..... Full stop..... In the Shadow of the Sydney seige, Abbott went for broke.....
As I and many freedom lovers said at the time, it was dirty pool.... It is dirty pool..... And with people that punchdrunk now, most just go "mehh"....
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, whilst ministers are enjoying polo and buying gold coast units, having a ball at the footy, and Clink is billing poor people with fake debts and cutting old people off the pension, The libs turn to the only card they have..... But the people are waking up.... It hardly even got a mention..
Yes, as the Labor front bencher Linda Burney said the best course of action was for the MPs to understand the rules and follow them. Geez, I'm glad Labor is squeaky clean. Good to see Leys go.
Barbs writes " I'm glad Labor is squeaky clean."
That old sort of bullshit "but they do it too" line is exactly what us "deplorables" are sick of.
Onto the aged pension...... It is NOT welfare... not when EVERYONE still contributes to it. Don't let the likes Sco Mo, or Leyonhjelm convince you otherwise.
"In 1977 Liberal PM Malcolm Fraser transferred the balance left in the welfare fund account (by then almost $500 million, or several trillion in today’s terms) to consolidated revenue. But still the 7.5 per cent was taken out of everyone’s pay packet every week.
Then in 1985 the Labor Government repealed Acts No. 39, 40 and 41 of 1945 (The National Welfare Fund Acts) and introduced income and asset testing, thus excluding millions of levy and taxpaying Australians from receiving the pension for which they had paid.
But still the 7.5 per cent levy continued to be collected (while hidden in general income tax revenue.) And to this day it still is collected.
There have been estimates that the trillions of dollars stolen from the fund and the money paid and similarly stolen (sorry, transferred) since 1985 would be enough to pay a non-means-tested pension to every retiree of far more than $500 a week.
If it had been invested, like the Future Fund, the pension might be $1000 a week. Small beer compared with the politicians’ pension deals but a huge leap for older Aussies, 420,000 of whom had their age pensions cancelled or reduced from January 1."
a non-means tested pension.....
jesus. its going to be violence on the streets when clive palmer rolls into the local centrelink.
SD, it is important to note that many politicians abuse the expense system. They come from all sides of politics. It's not hard to get the history of this. Leys should have been sacked earlier. In a similar manner so should have Dastyari. At least he is out of the shadow. A mistake by both Turnbull and Shorten.
Turnbull's proposed oversight regime for politicians expenses seems to be a good move (lets see the detail).
Next a real time register of political donations is required ..... followed by
Real time disclosure of all politicians diaries so the electorate can see who (and when) they meet with so voters can true judge who they are listening to ... us the electorate or paid lobbyists and financial backers.
Only then we can start to stop the current rot that is a pox on both major parties.
... only my opinion