QUACKTASTIC posted:

Music is from the hit movie Backdraft, they had to stop using it because of some kind of litigation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMskSnRvWTw

Also, Iron Chef Italian was pointless.

Zetsubou-san posted:

QUACKTASTIC posted:

Music is from the hit movie Backdraft, they had to stop using it because of some kind of litigation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMskSnRvWTw

Also, Iron Chef Italian was pointless.

Seagull posted:

uh there were four elephants pope, gently caress me

Zetsubou-san posted:

katlington posted:

EvilElmo posted:

Posting it again.
https://vine.co/v/O9deFBO6HZW

BlitzkriegOfColour posted:

That's probably the best post you've ever made, katlington. What's it from?

Graic Gabtar posted:

What provisions are there in the constitution to compel him to undergo testing for his fitness to be the PM?

quote:

BILL Shorten wants to restart debate on whether Labor should maintain its near-century-long commitment to democratic socialism and is open to removing the symbolic mission statement from the party’s constitution.

Although few inside Labor are prepared to call for Labor’s 1921 socialist objective to be abolished, former prime minister Paul Keating says it is no longer relevant. “It’s now such an anachronistic description of what we are or need to be as to not warrant any continuing ­attachment,” Mr Keating says in a new book. “Of course it should be abolished.”

The socialist objective describes Labor as “a democratic socialist party” and binds members to support “the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation ... in these fields”.

The Opposition Leader is welcoming debate as part of his plans to rebuild Labor. He has described it to colleagues as being “as useful as a 100-year-old street directory” and of little value in economic policymaking. Although Mr Shorten does not see abolishing the objective as a priority, and ­acknowledges there is a range of views inside the party, sources say he does not see it as relevant to the party’s future.

At a Fabian Society forum in Sydney tomorrow, opposition Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen will reiterate his call for the objective to be abolished. “It’s time to scrap the socialist objective and have a clear, concise and modern explanation of Labor’s governing philosophy,” Mr Bowen writes in his book Hearts and Minds. “We can’t expect the public to be clear about what Labor stands for if we are not clear about this ourselves.”

However, many on Labor’s Left are opposed. ALP national president Jenny McAlister, from the Left, told The Australian she did not support altering the party’s core objective. “We should always be open to refreshing our philosophy and approach.

“My starting point in any debate will be support for social democracy.”

In an interview for Rudd, Gillard and Beyond, Mr Shorten said he did not describe himself as a “classical socialist” and did not support state ownership of the means of production.

The current objective was adopted three decades after the party was founded. It has long been contested and open to interpretation. In 1951, Labor resolved to pursue it only “to the extent necessary”.

The word “democratic” was added in 1957. A review in 1981 led to keeping the objective. Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Kevin Rudd have also voiced support for the ­objective to be replaced.

cpaf posted:

The constitution doesn't make any references to even the existence of a PM, but there is a pretty extensive history and legal precedent in the Constitution regarding onions, the consumption of, in public etc. The government has the power to legislate with respect to onions under the s51xxvi head of power (colloquially known as the 'onion power') which was found to include situations involving important figures consuming raw onion in certain situations but I could only find obiter dicta regarding the consumption of the skin The Commonwealth v Costanza (1993) 69 CLA 420.

quote:

The Nyoongar protesters were given until midday on Friday to leave the Swan river island, where they had been camping for more than a week. WA police would not confirm how many police officers were at the site but emphasised it was not a police action.

Endman posted:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/13/mounted-police-join-effort-to-dismantle-heirisson-island-protest?CMP=soc_567


Pictured: Not a police action.

tomkash posted:

I met the socialist equality party in marrickville this morning, real nice bunch of people! I didn't realise I was a pro war pro capitalist right wing fucker for being a member of the greens but I'm glad they let me know!

Who knew the situation in Ukraine was such a serious issue in the upcoming nsw state election. More self appointed heroes on the working class woo. I would hate to see them communicate with the average member of the working class in this country if they're that rude to a socialist blue collar worker like me.

CrazyTolradi posted:

SEP are horrible shitheads who don't believe we shouldn't fight for womens, First Peoples or gay rights because the real war is class war and anything else detracts from that.

Endman posted:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/13/mounted-police-join-effort-to-dismantle-heirisson-island-protest?CMP=soc_567


Pictured: Not a police action.

Pred1ct posted:

What the gently caress is wrong with you Labor, all your socialist objectives are the things that people actually like and the Liberal party are getting routed for loving up. Gonski, NDIS, the NBN, health funding...don't shy away from it you spineless fucks.

Ragingsheep posted:

https://newmatilda.com/2015/03/13/inside-department-explosive-leaked-transcripts-moss-review

quote:

Australia's biggest-ever bilateral trade deal is set to grow much bigger, with China agreeing to a special ratchet clause that will ensure that future benefits conferred to other countries will flow automatically to Australia.

The much-coveted "most favoured nation" provisions in the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement have been kept under wraps at the request of Chinese negotiators, who were pursuing a parallel deal with South Korea.

Trade Minister Andrew Robb confirmed the MFN provisions in an interview with Fairfax Media.

"This is huge, I think," said Mr Robb.

"It means that we will automatically receive the same treatment provided by China to any other country in the future including the EU and the United States."

Australian negotiators, analysts and industry bodies were surprised at the range of liberalisation commitments that China committed to during President Xi Jinping's visit to Canberra in November.

The full text, which will not be released until later this year, will include unprecedented commitments over a range of service sectors, including education and financial services.

Some China analysts speculated that Mr Xi may have been using the Australia trade deal as a lever to liberalise his own economy, which is starting to strain under the weight of bad debts and rash investments.

The previously unreported MFN mechanisms take the deal to another level.

Australian negotiators are most enthused by potential MFN gains on the investment side. The "prize" will be a special "negative list" feature that China looks set to provide the US under a bilateral investment treaty, which would greatly increase the range of Australian investment opportunities.

Similarly, Australian fund managers could potentially gain majority ownership rights in Chinese counterpart firms, up from a ceiling of 49 per cent in the existing FTA, if the US manages to get what it is seeking.

"This MFN clause was something we had long sought but didn't really believe we could get," said Geoff Raby, the former ambassador to China who had been involved with negotiations for a decade before stepping down to take on corporate directorships and advisory roles.

"It is a big achievement by Robb and the team to have secured this."

Mr Robb told Fairfax Media the MFN provisions would apply to investment and services chapters.

He said a separate review mechanism had been built into the "goods" provisions, which would apply three years after the agreement entered into force and then every five years thereafter.

"On most fronts, if not all, those will be protected, locked in, in the future when China make concessions with other countries," Mr Robb said.

"Overall this means we have substantially [greater] preferential arrangements than any other trading partner."

Dr Raby, a director of Fortescue, said there had been considerable political resistance on both sides when he first floated the idea of a China trade deal to his ministers in 2003, when the Howard government was concluding a trade deal with the US.

He said Chinese officials had been been anxious that they had paid too high a price for accession to the World Trade Organisation and Australians were unhappy at having to grant China "market economy" status even before negotiations had begun.

"It was the first time a developed country had engaged China on this idea," he said.

Dr Raby said the MFN provisions would be particularly important for investors because China was negotiating an ambitious bilateral investment agreement with the US.

"It is extremely valuable as it preserves our position as China negotiates other FTAs so the benefits which we have 'paid' for in the negotiations can't be whittled away," Dr Raby said.

The chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, Jennifer Westacott, said the MFN deal would keep Australia "on a level playing field with key competitors for valuable trade with what is the growth engine of the world".

"This opens the door to deep access to Chinese markets and a greater capacity to further diversify the Australian economy," she said.

Former Austrade chief economist Tim Harcourt agreed that the China deal had surpassed expectations but also warned that great challenges lay ahead in the implementation.

"At the end of the day it's the internal decisions you have to deal with in China, where so much is determined by administrative fiat," said Dr Harcourt, now a lecturer and researcher in the MBA program at the University of NSW.

"FTA or no FTA, you still have to have those connections to get your deal up," he said. "You've got to have the [Chinese Communist Party's] blessing right down through the ranks."

Anidav posted:

Jumpingmanjim posted:

For every 100 full-time Australian jobs created – 264 new dwellings are built

Jumpingmanjim posted:

For every 100 full-time Australian jobs created – 264 new dwellings are built

Birb Katter posted:

Following Ludlam on Twitter has been great for updates on this. Seeing pics of cops holding everyone back while the council steals all their gear (and it was stolen, the police didn't tell anyone they were taking it or provide receipts for what they took like they're required to).

quote:

Turning back the boats is a moral and legal failure, say academics

Researchers says policy is damaging Australia’s reputation, there is no evidence it has saved lives and that the risk of deaths at sea remains

Joshua Robertson Friday 13 March 2015 08.45 AEDT Last modified on Friday 13 March 2015 10.02 AEDT

The first academic analysis of Australia’s “turning back” of asylum seeker boats concludes the policy is a fatally risky, moral and legal failure that is “severely damaging” the country’s reputation. The University of Queensland study, which examines all 29 interceptions of boats under the Howard and Abbott governments from 2001, finds while there is no conclusive evidence the policy has saved lives, as many as eight people have died as a result of it. The risk of death or serious injury at sea, including to Australian officials, remains elevated with the ongoing incentive for migrants to sabotage vessels in a bid to thwart forced returns to Indonesia or Sri Lanka, the study says. “Given the official secrecy surrounding this topic, it is not possible to say with certainty that there have not been further cases of death or injury,” it says.

UQ researchers Andreas Schloenhardt and Colin Craig argue the singular achievement of halting the arrival of irregular migrants is “greatly outweighed” by factors also including the diplomatic effect of making Australia’s commitment to international refugee laws “meaningless”. They conclude: “It is difficult to advocate, support and sustain this policy in these circumstances.” Schloenhardt, a law professor and organised crime expert who came to the topic via his research of people smuggling, told Guardian Australia the government’s dishonesty about the fact it was flouting those laws through “towbacks” was “appalling”. He said the nature of what took place during forced returns of mostly genuine asylum seekers – which have been kept secret by the government since last year – would make the public “think twice about this policy and whether it’s really the best way of stopping people smuggling. Most people are not aware of the circumstances of returns, what happens on these boats, how few [towbacks] there have really been and all these other factors that flow into that,” Schloenhardt said. “They just think, ok, there’s no more boats coming, that’s all we really care about.”

The study chronicles the frequency of dangerous incidents during forced returns by the navy and customs, from drownings to fatal explosions after engine sabotage and mechanical failures in unseaworthy boats towed at length. It takes aim at Abbott’s comments as opposition leader about the “success” of the policy under Howard – when he said there was “no reason why [the navy] can’t do it safely again” – dismissing them as “a misrepresentation by any standard”. Schloenhardt said in both eras of the policy, there had been “a very consistent pattern” of passengers taking desperate steps, including self harm and violence, to avoid “towbacks”. He said it was striking how common these incidents were, as well as how few boats were actually turned back under Howard (four of 14 intercepted).

The law professor said Australia was unique in the way it broke its international refugee obligations and laws at sea, shifting the burden to countries like Indonesia and Malaysia with no such obligations. Those countries tolerated underground societies of hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants, partly as a source of cheap labour but mainly because it was cheaper than detaining or deporting them in great numbers, he said.(We as the most affluent country on earth can afford the luxury of torturing our asylum seekers )

Instead of accepting and protecting asylum seekers, Australia was repelling them in circumstances where it could not guarantee they would safely reach Indonesian shores – much less be protected from the risk of exploitation, arbitrary jailing or return to their original place of persecution, Schloenhardt said. “There are international treaties and guidelines on this whole topic of people smuggling and none of them envisage the sorts of responses we have cooked up,” he said. “We have a situation where international refugee laws are completely and utterly meaningless for Australia and the government is simply so dishonest about that. That is what is so frustrating for me. “The government should have been honest and say we don’t want to be bound by these obligations and withdraw our signature. Of course it’s politically very unpopular, it paints us in a very bad light internationally, but this is the effect that all of this has. “The resettlement of people in refugee camps in third countries is a nice thing to do, very humanitarian, but it’s got nothing to do with the refugee convention, which says if people show up, look after them and don’t send them back.”

The Australian government was “quite ignorant” of the negative publicity it was gaining worldwide on the issue, especially in Europe. Irregular migrant numbers in countries like Austria (70,000 a year) – where Schloenhardt spends half the year as a research fellow at the University of Vienna – dwarf Australia even at its 2013 peak of 20,587. “Certainly in Europe where there are a lot of organisations dealing with refugees, they all think this is completely crazy, what the Australians are doing,” Schloenhardt said. “In Italy, where in the first month this year they had 6,000 arrivals by boat, they debate to what lengths they go to to rescue these people not about what they can do to stop them coming in the first place.” While the number of deaths that have occurred among asylum seekers trying to reach Australia by boat has been estimated at 1550, Schloenhardt said the true number – was likely twice that.

This story was amended on 13 March to correct the year that irregular migrant numbers peaked in Australia.

Cartoon posted:

What is that graph supposed to be telling me?

There doesn't appear to be any correlation what-so-ever.

Endman posted:

I'm fairly sure the point of the graph is to demonstrate the unsustainability of building so many new residences without the jobs for people to pay for them.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

There's plenty of poo poo housing being built. In Melbourne there were plenty of lovely dogbox apartment towers, and then you go 50-60km from the CBD there's these houses on tiny blocks that barely have a backyard.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

There's plenty of poo poo housing being built. In Melbourne there were plenty of lovely dogbox apartment towers, and then you go 50-60km from the CBD there's these houses on tiny blocks that barely have a backyard.

Les Affaires posted:

The quality of the housing doesn't matter. It's distance and accessability to economic opportunity does.

You could put up a high rise of 100 lovely dog box apartments, but if they're next to the CBD, it will fill up instantly - and displace 100 less lovely, larger homes on the outskirts where public transport and jobs are nonexistant.