Endman posted:

I'm also slightly annoyed they picked a phrase associated with the French Revolution of 1789 and a picture depicting the 1848 Revolution.

BlitzkriegOfColour posted:

You're annoyer that a journalist is too dumb to know that there were two French revolutions? What else annoys you? When water is wet? When the earth revolves around the sun?

BlitzkriegOfColour posted:

You're annoyer that a journalist is too dumb to know that there were two French revolutions? What else annoys you? When water is wet? When the earth revolves around the sun?

Splode posted:

I'm annoyed they implied that Swanny is both leading the revolution and also saying 'let them eat cake'

Endman posted:

Both of those things annoy me immeasurably. I can't enjoy the rain without being drenched and the cursed Earth continues to mess up the weather by wobbling about in space. It's very tiring.

Endman posted:

I'm also slightly annoyed they picked a phrase associated with the French Revolution of 1789 and a picture depicting the 1848 Revolution.

Pandemic Diagram posted:

It's a painting of the July Revolution of 1830, not the revolution of 1848.

Seriously, there are so many things wrong with that cover.

Pandemic Diagram posted:

It's a painting of the July Revolution of 1830, not the revolution of 1848.

Seriously, there are so many things wrong with that cover.

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Did someone mention the fact that Kevin Rudd wanted to run a poll on what his core belief should be?

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Did someone mention the fact that Kevin Rudd wanted to run a poll on what his core belief should be?

Lizard Combatant posted:

Anyone feel like sharing today's Rundle? The title piqued my interest.

quote:

Rundle: Tony Abbott, Australia’s most powerful sycophant
Many voted for Abbott because they believed him to be a hard-headed warrior, but the reality has turned out to be different to the myth.

When Tony Abbott first appeared on the political scene in the late 1990s, there was more than a murmur of interest from all quarters. The strapping, authoritative and learned new MP had been known to insiders as a complex character, but he was also seen early on as PM material. In a government that had taken on by turns the dull and brutish character of leader John Howard and the sleazy aspects of suburban liberalism, Abbott was something else — a man with, it seemed, a sense of vocation coming from the Catholic Right of politics, with an idea of how politics fitted into the wider question of civilisation and of personal character.

In the years to come, other aspects of Tony Abbott would become visible — his anger, his political ruthlessness, his neurotic attitude to women, and his capacity to be economical with the truth. Underneath it all, however, was the thought that Tony Abbott was something apart, his own man. It was something that large sections of the Right, and some on the Left — myself included — had not merely reason to believe, but a desire to believe, to make politics about something more than the narrow concerns on display in Australia. This continued all the way through Battlelines, the election, and into The Lodge.

Yet the trouble with that conspectus is that it explains nothing that has happened since September 7 last year. No amount of adjusting for the stumbles of government, everyday mistakes or personal blind spots explains what Tony Abbott does or how he does it. From the latest blundering encounter with Scotland back through the attempt to offer troops to Iraq for a United States that had not asked for them to his description of Australia as “unsettled” to a major business group — the only way to explain any of this is by junking the central image of Abbott.

Far from being his own man, Abbott is the exact opposite – he’s a sycophant by nature who seeks out opportunities to please those more powerful than he by being more ardent in pursuit of their interests than they ever asked him to be in the first place. Once you see Abbott as a sycophant seeking out such opportunities wherever they may be found, a lot of things fall into place. Some events — such as his effusive, embarrassing praise for Rupert Murdoch at the Oz’s 50th anniversary dinner — had seemed nothing more than overkill. Others, such as describing Australia as “unsettled” pre-1788, while at the same time pushing for indigenous recognition in the constitution, seemed just odd. Latching onto the US in Iraq seemed just desperate.

But now I think with this mad Scotland adventure, we can just call it — Tony Abbott will always shape himself to the service of the highest power around. Whether it is wise or not for a foreign leader to intervene in the referendum of a federated country is one question. But even if you thought that was a good idea, insulting 40% of the population by suggesting that their political beliefs mean they hate freedom is something else entirely. Forget any strategic notion attaching to it. It is simply the desire to do the bidding of Great Britain and the Atlantic Alliance, which would be deeply undermined by a Scottish “yes” vote. But it is not an attempt to do so effectively — it is rather a way of doing it that attracts the maximum possible visibility to oneself. The same goes for the “unsettled” remark about indigenous Australians pre-1788.

Leaving aside the obvious neurotic projection — it is contemporary Australia that is perpetually unsettled by its white-black relations — the remark was directed at giving maximum pleasure to its audience at the Australian-Melbourne Institute Social and Economic Outlook conference. It was an attempt to go beyond the legal fiction of terra nullius to say that the land was, in a meaningful sense, empty. And what more pleasing notion for business and property could there be than that?

Pleasing the nearest big power or audience would appear to be the Abbott modus operandi, which is why so much of his behaviour seems so erratic. But where would such behaviour come from? It does not bear any mark of deliberation or control, so one can only assume that it is something of a regression. The most likely proximate cause would appear to be Abbott’s involvement with B.A. Santamaria and the Catholic Right during his university years, and Abbott’s formation as a Warrior for God and Christian civilisation. Abbott was part of Santamaria’s last crop of young activists, and the National Civic Council (NCC) was to all intents and purposes a political cult, with all that a cult demands — a certain surrender of personality, a remaking of self, and a tantalising quest for a blessing, for the sign that one was part of the elect.

Abbott was by all accounts something of a male hysteric at the time — an obsessive, apocalyptic, uncontrollably aggressive young man, defining himself against his enemies on the Left and by fealty to the main force against it as led by Santamaria. His disorientation in life clearly gave him what political cults are best at supplying — a sense of meaning in the world, a focus and, above all, boundaries to a wayward and incompetent soul.

Where Abbott’s oft-remarked-upon turmoil came from is not hard to see either — before Tony’s birth, his father had committed the whole family to Catholicism after making a compact with God that he would convert from Anglicanism if the family survived a ship crossing. It’s the sort of Graham Greeneish thing that people did all the time in the mid-20th century. But one could speculate that it is not without a psychic burden. That’s especially so for those who inherit it as given, and who then have to live by it. Added to that was Abbott’s early demonstration of a multiplicity of talents and a presence, which led the family to insist that he would end up either as Pope or Prime Minister. Perhaps Abbott has never had a moment of deep regret for this spiritual compact made by his family and for that transferred ambition, but somehow I doubt it.

Now, even though he has become a Catholic Prime Minister of Australia and satisfied the leaden duties that were laid upon his soul, he finds it nevertheless impossible to truly assert himself. The act that he developed over many years has fooled us all. While projecting an image of assertiveness and unstinting self-confidence, it has all been in the service of finding higher powers to serve and to be seen to serve.

I am as surprised at this interpretation of Abbott as anyone, but it would appear to me to be the only explanation of Tony Abbott that makes his behaviour consistent and straightforward, rather than erratic and uninterpretable. Whether it is, in some sense, a “true” reading of who Tony Abbott is or not is perhaps beside the point.

The idea that personality is a stable of single structure is itself an illusion, a metaphor from physical science drawn into the affective world. What matters, for those of us who would like to see the Abbott government rendered a one-term proposition, is whether it helps to predict a behaviour that Abbott himself would have less than complete control over — and thus to create opportunities to demonstrate to the Australian people that Tony Abbott is more interested in serving higher powers, whether it be God, Crown or Mammon, than he is in simply and effectively representing the best interests of all Australians.

hooman posted:

So, he's afraid that the poor may rise up against the rich, but they show him leading the revolution, and also have "let them eat cake" as the headline. Also saying he's issuing a class divide warning. Nothing there lines up, they're simultaneously saying he's trying to lead the poor to overthrow the rich, warning the rich that they might be overthrown and need to be careful, and totally unaware of how the poor might be pissed enough to overthrow the rich.

How, how the gently caress did they manage to place three contradictory positions using a picture, a headline, and a caption.

Jesus gently caress our media, I don't even get how you can be this bad.

Doctor Spaceman posted:

quote:

RADIO shock jock Kyle Sandilands will be dead by the end of the year if he doesn’t urgently alter his diet and ditch his chain-smoking habit, a health expert has warned.

In an article in New Ideamagazine, obesity specialist Dr Edward Jackowski said Sandilands’ notoriously unhealthy lifestyle and excessive weight gain have him in danger of suffering a fatal stroke or heart attack.

By Dr Jackowski’s estimates, the Kiis FM Sydney breakfast host is about 32 kilograms over weight after ballooning in size in recent months.

And the doctor isn’t mincing his words when it comes to how serious Sandilands’ problem is. “Forget about the next few years — this guy won’t live another six months at the rate he’s going,” he told New Idea. “Between chain smoking, fast food, lack of exercise and stress on set, the average person wouldn’t even be able to get through the work day.”

Sandilands has long had a habit for chucking sickies from work, which last week prompted an on-air spat with co-host Jackie O that saw her storm out of the studio.

Rather than laziness, Dr Jackowski believed those conspicuous absences are likely due to Sandilands’ debilitating lifestyle.

“That extra weight is why he’s so fatigued and has such high blood pressure, as well as other issues.”

As a result, Sandilands, 43, is at risk of heart attack or stroke if he doesn’t immediately take action to lose weight and improve his health, he said.

On his show on Monday, Sandilands rattled off a list of excuses to a caller as to why he has given up a recent fitness regime before he even started.

“Four weeks ago I was going to do some training, some boxing training with the CEO and that fell over,” Sandilands said.

“The trainer’s been sick for the last two weeks, and then last Wednesday he was ready to go, and I said I can’t start on a Wednesday because it doesn’t work in my brain.”

In July, he was live on air when he reached for a nearby bin and vomited in the middle of a segment. He was admitted to hospital in May due to a “blood pressure scare”.

In the past, Sandilands has admitted to binge eating, chain smoking and drinking several cups of coffee per day.

Sandilands declined a request for comment.

Laserface posted:

Goons,

Where's the best burgers in Adelaide?

Mad Katter posted:

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE

Kyle Sandilands will be ‘dead by the end of the year’, Dr Edward Jackowski claims in New Idea
Don't click, news.com

Mad Katter posted:

This is my ranking:

1. Bread & Bone on Peel Street (City)
2. Nordburger on Norwood Parade (Norwood)
3. Burger Theory on Rundle Street (City)

Fancy Burger (various locations) is awesome too, particularly if you prefer a shitload of delicious toppings an sauces on your burger.

Burgastronomy on O'Connell Street in North Adelaide is also very good, my friends rate it highly. So is Burger Foundry.

*fake edit* i'm fat

Mad Katter posted:

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE

Kyle Sandilands will be ‘dead by the end of the year’

quote:

Icac: Tony Abbott says 'problem' was Labor banning developer donations

Prime minister points finger at Labor after being asked on radio about the damage done to the NSW Liberal party by the Icac revelations

In the wake of the resignation of two NSW Liberal MPs over corruption allegations, the prime minister has said the “problem” was the former Labor NSW government banning property developer donations in the first place.

Hunter Valley MPs Tim Owen and Andrew Cornwall stepped down from parliament last week over revelations at the Independent Commission Against Corruption (Icac) they accepted money from property developer Jeff McCloy. Donations from property developers were illegal at the time.

Questioned on talkback radio about the damage the revelations were doing to the Liberal party, Tony Abbott said: “The problem was that the former state Labor government, because of a predicament it found itself in, introduced laws banning donations from developers.”

“Who exactly is a developer? That can sometimes be a difficult question. [They] also introduced legislation to limit the total amount of donations and political parties need to raise money,” he told 2GB on Monday morning.

“I think it’s right that political parties have to go to the public and seek support that way rather than just being able to rely solely on the taxpayer. And plainly, some people have cut corners. It’s quite possible some people have broken the law and if that’s the case, whatever party they’re in, they should face the consequences.”

Abbott said the revelations of Icac were a “very bad look” but he and the premier, Mike Baird, wanted to clean up the NSW Liberal party.

“I think this whole question of donations does need to be looked at again, but in terms of the Liberal party itself, what we need to do is to ensure that it belongs to its members, not to factions,” he said.

Abbott said he hoped to see donation reforms implemented in the NSW Liberal party in the next year.

In Icac hearings on Monday, the deputy chair of the “inner city business chamber” Newcastle Alliance said she was “shocked” to find the group had given $60,000 to an anti-Labor campaign to unseat a Labor member opposed to millionaire Nathan Tinkler’s coal loader being built in the city.

Icac has heard the money was funneled to the Alliance by Tinkler, who was banned from donating to political parties because of his property development interests.

Tracey McKelligott, who was deputy chair of Newcastle Alliance, told Icac she first became aware of how much money the alliance had given the Fed Up campaign when a Newcastle Herald journalist rang her.

“I didn’t know, I wasn’t advised, I was shocked,” she said.

“[I was] hurt, shocked, disappointed, at that point in time I was the deputy chair.”

The Newcastle Alliance also had $70,000 listed as “donations” on its return in the lead-up to the state’s 2011 election.

“I don’t know anything [about the donations], I should have asked at the time, I should have looked more carefully, I should have paid more attention,” she said.

When junior counsel assisting at Icac, Greg Mahoney, suggested this was extraordinary, McKelligott replied: “Yeah.”

McKay lost her seat in the 2011 election after an aggressive campaign which included a flyer drop saying she supported a container terminal that would have trucks going through Newcastle 24 hours a day. The pamphlets said “Stop Jodi’s Trucks In Our Streets” and were also funded by Tinkler. Her colleague Joe Tripodi helped orchestrate the campaign.

Tinkler wanted her unseated, Icac has heard, as she opposed his coal loader project.

McKelligott said Newcastle Alliance had “absolutely no” political affiliations but wanted to have a marginal seat in Newcastle, which had traditionally been a Labor heartland, as they thought they would get better treatment by a government of either persuasion if the seat was winnable for both sides.

The Fed Up campaign did not specifically endorse a candidate but another Icac witness, hotelier Rolly de With, said it could be described as anti-Labor and the campaign wanted either an independent or a Liberal representing Newcastle.

Newcastle Alliance listed receiving $50,000 donations from Serene Lodge – owned by Tinkler’s father – and two donations of $10,000 from 6.5, described in Icac as a networking group.

Owen eventually won the seat of Newcastle at the 2011 election and, along with Charlestown MP Cornwell, resigned from parliament last week over allegations he accepted donations from McCloy. McCloy resigned as mayor of Newcastle on Sunday.

Parliamentary Speaker Shelley Hancock announced on Monday the by-elections for Newcastle and Charlestown would be held on 25 October.

Both seats have traditionally been pro-Labor and are expected to fall back to the ALP. The Liberal party announced at the weekend it would not be fielding candidates as an “act of atonement”.

The by-elections are forecast to cost the taxpayer a total of about $1m

Captain Pissweak posted:

Well, first think of an Australian, then think of the kind of Australian who was almost good enough to complete a journalism degree.

The Courier Mail posted:

IT IS hard to believe we are still having any debate about privatisation and asset sales in 2014. This issue arose in the 1980s as part of a wide-ranging reform agenda that was picked up by Labor treasurer Paul Keating.

Mr Keating understood instinctively what the benefits of asset sales would be and how to make the case for the private ownership of what had been long-held public assets. He didn’t shy from the debate, taking it on forcefully and arguing for the sale of the national airline, the Commonwealth Bank and other significant assets held by the Federal Government.

Here we are in 2014, still debating whether or not to sell off – even in the most limited way – some port assets, power assets and other entities in State Government ownership.

Treasurer Tim Nicholls approached this in the right way by taking the debate to the people. He travelled from one end of the state to the other, holding public forums and promoting an online information service visited by tens of thousands of Queenslanders.

Despite this, at the end of this debate – as shown by today’s Galaxy poll – there is still nowhere near majority public support for asset sales being proposed by Campbell Newman and his Government. It does seem amazing that three out of four Queenslanders still can’t accept what is a pretty basic argument that governments don’t have any business running ports or selling electricity in a contestable marketplace where there are private ports and lots of private interests throughout Australia generating and supplying power to communities.

One of the big stumbling blocks is the previous Labor government poisoned the well by saying one thing before an election and then doing another. Premier Anna Bligh told unions before the 2009 poll Queensland Rail would not be sold but in the weeks after she was re-elected, she split QR and sold its freight business.

Having left the Newman Government with $85 billion of state debt and a mounting interest bill which diverts resources away from health, education and public safety, the Labor Opposition continues to run a populist line by simply opposing asset sales.

We all know why: It is opposition from the unions who tell leader Annastacia Palaszczuk and her colleagues what to do and what policies to adopt. This populism does nothing for Queensland, instead selling the public a fool’s gold promise that we can have our cake and eat it.

What the Labor Party doesn’t tell voters is that by opposing these modest asset sales they are denying the State Government a ready source of income from the Abbott Government in Canberra to build infrastructure. This kind of asset recycling, as Joe Hockey calls it, is one of the best ideas we have seen in this debate.

The NSW Coalition Government, also facing an election early next year, appears to be making more progress on this debate by using some creative thinking in the way they’ve structured the sales.
Premier Mike Baird and his ministers are talking about having long-term leases which the private sector picks up, getting the benefits from the assets. While this is not a perfect solution, doing nothing is even worse, as is failing because of the dishonest campaigning by Labor and the trade unions.

Premier Newman and Treasurer Tim Nicholls need to redouble their efforts in arguing the case very simply – that these assets are not central to the running of Queensland, that elsewhere in Australia these operations are carried out by commercial private interests, and there is no reason to hold on to the apron strings of public sector involvement.

If we can unshackle these valuable assets from public ownership we can take out the trifecta of public policy. We can pay down some of the state debt, use the lower interest payments to ensure there is more money available for essential services and more job-generating capacity while at the same time take part in the Federal Government’s asset recycling program.

Responsibility for election comment is taken by Christopher Dore, corner of Mayne & Campbell St, Bowen Hills, Qld 4006. Printed and published by NEWSQUEENSLAND. (ACN 009 778). A full list of our editors and journalists, with contact details, is available at couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/ourstaff

Gough Suppressant posted:

VicPol are launching a 5 day blitz against Melbourne cyclists, targeting those who break road rules or don't wear helmets.

epipen posted:

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news...v-1227027391964


lol.

Gough Suppressant posted:

What's a greater scourge to society? One punch killers or people not wearing helmets?

I have an idea, make everyone wear helmets whether they're on a bike or not, two birds one stone.

SynthOrange posted:

Abots reply to continuing budget woes: Literally 'I dont see you doing any better!'

"What I say to all of the crossbench senators is if you don't like what the Government is putting up, give us your alternative in terms of how we save money.