Let's be clear...

REPORTER: Just a yes or no, is it a tender process or not?

ANDREWS: I will use the words I choose to use. What we are doing is a competitive evaluation process. We have to evaluate this, we have to do it in a way which is methodical, cautious, that is, a process that goes forward into the future and obviously there has to be a competitive element to that.

REPORTER: But it's not a tender process?

ANDREWS: It's a competitive evaluation process.

REPORTER: Why did Sean Edwards say it was a tender process and he was mouthing the words of the PM?

ANDREWS: There were various reports in the media using all sorts of different words.

REPORTER: That's what he said.

ANDREWS: I am the Defence Minister. I am deciding the way in which we go forward with this and the way which we're going forward with this is a competitive evaluation process.

REPORTER: What have you actually promised today that is any different from what has been promised or not promised here before?

ANDREWS: Well, as the new Defence Minister I have spent the last few weeks looking at this in detail and decided the way in which we should go forward with this, particularly following my last visit here to Adelaide, was to ensure that there is an evaluation process and one which is competitive.

REPORTER: Just confirming what Sean Edwards said on Sunday about an open tender process is incorrect?

ANDREWS: I'm not a commentator. What I'm doing is saying to you, and to everybody who may be listening to me now, that the process that we are going to undertake is going to be a competitive evaluation process.

What is Obama thinking? No, really.

   There's a few concerns around the place regarding the US getting itself into yet another military involvement in Iraq. Some query the action itself (what even is it going to look like? is this really such a good idea?) and many a journo is also questioning Obama's reasoning, his arguments for taking action. The reasons themselves sound a bit weak, and the President's selling of the whole deal is rather reminiscent of Bush - whom Obama spent so much time pre-election dissing for just that kinda thing.

The Plan

Of course, one hopes these actions (whatever they are) won't backfire and make things worse as occurred in Bush's case: creating a vacuum in Iraq that ISIS, amongst others, has since freely jumped into. And looking to Syria: experts have concerns that a weakening of ISIS is likely to have the unwanted outcome of strengthening Assad. American officials have warned "there are risks that escalating airstrikes could do the opposite of what they are intended to do and fan the threat of terrorism to American soil."



Meanwhile, the 'plan' itself has been seen as heavily flawed by some in the military and a few government officials. Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis said “the decision not to send ground troops poses serious risks to the mission." The military recommendation to send Special Ops forces to advise and assist the Iraqi army "was cast aside in favour of options that did not involve U.S. ground forces in a front-line role."


A couple of things adding to the complexity:

Wall Street Journal: "In Syria, officials have repeatedly raised the problem of adequately vetting rebels to ensure the people trained and armed by the U.S. don’t join the ranks of Islamic State"

 (Been there, done that.)

USA Today: "As airstrikes increase, Islamic State militants are likely to mingle more among the population, making targeting more difficult and increasing the risks of civilian casualties."

(Unfortunately, been there, killed that too.)


Obama v Bush

I've read some interesting analysis in The Atlantic. Conor Friedersdorf examined how hypocritical Obama's approach has been considering his earlier castigations of Bush's arguments for charging into Iraq. To start with, the article notes both Presidents argued that the enemy was unique.

Obama:

"In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality."

Bush, 2002:

"Some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone—because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place."

Obama:

"They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. And in acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists."

Bush 2002:

"On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured."

Hence we can see, yeah, ISIS... not so unique after all. How much lovelier the world would be if indeed they were the only group to be decapitating, torturing and raping. As noted by the Guardian last month:

"While the world's attention was focused on Isis, a like-minded Shia militia attacked a Sunni mosque in the Iraqi province of Diyala on Friday, killing nearly 70 worshippers. This militia is linked to the government and has fought alongside the security forces against Isis."

Friedersdorf explains: "Bashar al-Assad turned chemical weapons on children. Is that somehow less brutal than beheading journalists? How can a man [Obama] who regarded the Iraq War as stupid, despite the fact that the regime we overthrew was every bit as brutal as ISIS, now cite the supposed "unique" brutality of ISIS as a primary justification for taking America to war in Iraq?"


Friedersdorf also argues Saddam Hussein (regardless of that 'surprising' dearth of WMD) posed a bigger threat to the US and its allies than ISIS does. Yet Obama did not support that war.

"If Obama thinks the lack of WMDs fatally undercut the 2002 case for war in Iraq, how is it that he now thinks national security requires intervention against a group with no WMDs or ballistic missiles or highly trained international intelligence apparatus?"

Essentially, Obama is giving Americans - and US allies who will be pulled into any conflict led by the US - the same reasons for military intervention in Iraq as Bush did in 2002 & 2003. Even worse, ISIS is not as well-armed, trained or in such great numbers as Hussein's threat - plus, Obama plans not only to attack sections of Iraq, but also to venture into Syria.


Associated Press has explained that most analysts "estimate the number of Islamic State fighters in both Iraq and Syria to be about 20,000. The Iraqi military and police force are estimated at more than 1 million. The Syrian army is estimated at 300,000 soldiers. There are believed to be more than 100,000 Syrian rebels, including the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front and the powerful Islamic Front rebel umbrella group, currently fighting the Islamic State group in Syria. Tens of thousands of Kurdish Peshmerga forces are fighting the group in Iraq."

They argue there's "been an inclination to exaggerate" ISIS’s capabilities: "While the group has been successful at seizing parts of Iraq and Syria, it is no unstoppable juggernaut. Lacking the major weaponry of an established military" its influence comes from spreading ideology, its use of social media and has made gains mostly due to making the most of divisions among rivals.


The ISIS Threat

And "if ISIS lacks the motivation and capacity for anything close to 9/11," i.e. aren't even as geared up and trained as Hussein's army, "then President Obama’s stated justification for even an air war looks weak. So far, the press hasn’t done a good enough job of determining if this is the case." (Peter Beinart)

Also, the argument of preventing a "lone wolf" attack make attacking militants in Iraq and Syria seem a bit of an overkill. Another dude with explosives in his underwear isn't likely to take the lives of anywhere near 3,000 people as occurred on 9/11 (and, in case you're interested, here's another unique way to look at it - some big picture thinking). 

Regardless, it's worth noting that thus far Obama has only said ISIS "could" attack the US "if" the terrorists are "left unchecked". And those Westerners who have ventured over to be trained by ISIS "could" return to their home countries and attempt an attack.

Here, Beinart queries just how much of a threat ISIS is to the US: "Press coverage of ISIS often ignores the fact that, in the past, the group has not targeted the American homeland. Jihadist groups, even monstrous ones, don’t inevitably go after the United States. Al-Qaeda began doing so as part of a specific strategy. [...] It was only when direct efforts [to overthrow regimes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia] failed that al-Qaeda hatched a new strategy: attacking those regimes’ patron, the United States."


As that is still al-Qaeda’s strategy, "the U.S. has arguably had more to fear from those Westerners who have joined the al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, than from those who have joined ISIS." A worse realisation is, al-Nusra may be end up benefiting from US attacking ISIS by taking current ISIS territory.



There is (so far) the difference that there'll be "no boots on the ground". (Note: On Wednesday Obama said 475 more U.S. military advisers would head to Iraq, raising the number of American forces to 1,700. If not boots, well, that's a few shoes of some description on the ground...) Yet, as Friedersdorf points out:

"if America didn't successfully eliminate violent extremists in Afghanistan or Iraq even with tens of thousands of boots on the ground, if extremists in those countries began to gain more power as soon as Americans left, if we didn't manage to successfully train their armies even during a years-long deployment of our best forces, why do we think that a foe Chuck Hagel characterizes as the most formidable we've seen in the War on Terror can be beat with airstrikes and a few hundred advisers?"

The Obama Sell

Gotta say, as yet, Obama's rationale for military strikes against ISIS are far from convincing.

""I have the authority to address the threat from ISIL," he told the nation, with no further explanation offered, despite the fact that he went on record as a presidential candidate with a war powers standard that would plainly forbid acting as he now plans to without Congressional approval. [...] Meanwhile, multiple authors at Lawfare are openly scoffing at the new legal theory that he has suddenly adopted."

Not only is Obama not running this by Congress, he has yet to explain: the objective, role of allies, length of the engagement, limits of cost, whether the US will be arming future potential enemies - in fact, who they plan to arm at all.



Yet, if Obama asked Australia this very moment to add its strength militarily, we know PM Abbott would say yes in a heartbeat. No questions asked. And to think Americans and Australians live in democracies. In both nations, not even those elected, apart from the few most elite, are given a say. And unfortunately, the Australian media seem more excited about the drama of the whole affair than being at all critical. As Bernard Keane recently pointed out, we don't even question our heads of intelligence. Australian journos treat them as sacred and their word as gospel.


Anyway, good news! ...it's not a war. Nope. John Kerry said it's fine if you want to call it a war but it's really it's just "a major counterterrorism operation". As Obama explained, this type of counterterrorism has been "successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years" - the Guardian and others have queried the President's definition of "success" as "in both Yemen and Somalia, al-Qaida’s affiliates have proven durable." And "no end is in sight against either al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen or al-Shabaab in Somalia – an ominous indicator for a war against the far more capable and financially flush Isis."


Considering senior government officials have explained they won't be "telegraphing" actions but will act "as necessary as we develop targets," this does at least sound along the lines of counterterrorism more than outright war. Though it's a fine line and the former could too easily swell into the latter. One wonders if John Kerry realises this.





And hopefully he's not naive as he sounds when he speaks of the absolute simplicity of breaking ISIS's hold on the region: 

"It is going to be our policy to separate (al-Assad), who is mostly in the western part of Syria, in a certain corridor from the eastern part of Syria, which he doesn't control. ISIL controls that part. So it is clearly ... not a very difficult task to target ISIL." - John Kerry.

The US is currently encouraging its Gulf allies to target and stop the flows of both funding and foreign fighters heading to ISIS. And, for Sunni states like Saudi Arabia to dissuade other Sunnis from being drawn to the ISIS ideology. All that makes the Iraq aspect "seem easy,” a US general said, speaking anonymously. “This is the most complex problem we’ve faced since 9/11. We don’t have a precedent for this.”

Obama's approach to this complex problem, into which he is voluntarily adding US military to some unknown extent, is thus far clear as mud. Hopefully he will explain the US's planned course in much greater detail when he chairs a UN General Assembly meet later this month.


[P.S. -- I must add, it would appear al Qaeda didn't disown ISIS due to a queasy response to the group's violent extremes. In fact, "the reason Zawahiri denounced the group was not its cruelty but its refusal to follow his orders and merge with another extremist organization. In other words, the dispute between ISIS and al Qaeda was not about the conduct of the former but about who was in charge, a regular feature of regional power dynamics." - On the Origin of ISIS.]

Transcript: Crean's spill announcement 21 March

I think you've seen the frustration I've been expressing in recent times. It seems to me the party, through the government, is in a stalemate position. Something needs to be done to break this deadlock, to resolve the issue once and for all, and to enable us to get on with the job that we're actually elected to do, and that is to campaign on behalf of Australian people through Labor values.


I have talked to the Prime Minister yesterday and today, and as a result of that conversation I informed her that I would think about my position and get back to her before I made this announcement, that I am asking her to call a spill of all leadership positions in the party. I will not be standing for the leader. I will be putting myself forward in the leadership team for the deputy leader.

If the Prime Minister does not agree to it, which I expect she won't, then I urge members of caucus to petition in an appropriate way for the calling of such a meeting. This is an issue that has to be resolved. There is too much at stake. This is a very regretful decision for me.


I think everyone knows the relationship between the Prime Minister and myself goes back some time. This is not personal. This is about the party, its future, and the future of the country. I actually believe we can win the next election. I believe that the agenda that is there but not understood well enough as reflected in many of the comments that come back, we need to settle this, move forward.

As for the position of the positions being declared open, Kevin Rudd, in my view, has no alternative but to stand for the leadership. He can't continue to play the game that says he is reluctant or he has to be drafted. I know the party will not draft him.


I know the party is looking for change and clear air, and they don't see that simply by changing the leader. That's why I'm putting myself forward as part of the leadership group, to demonstrate that we are serious about not just changing leaders, but of actually showing leadership. That's what we're elected to do, that's what I want to be part of, and I think in all my life, public life, I've demonstrated that is the driving force.

For me, the position itself again is that a personal one that I'm taking. I'm doing this in the interests of the Labor Party and, in turn, the nation. I believe that the great things that I was part of in the Hawke-Keating government, that decisions, bold decisions, decisions that went through due process, difficult decisions, the decisions built around consensus, the decisions built around bringing people together, the decisions around growing the economy, as we have demonstrated in government we can do, growing it for a purpose, for fairness, for distribution, for the values that I, like so many others, joined the Labor Party for.


We can't win from the position we are in, in the polls. I don't believe our future and our chances in the polls is just going to be determined by a simple change of leader. People have got to believe we have conviction, that we believe in what we stand for, there is a coherence of message and we are determined to pursue it. What we have to do is to take people with us. That means being prepared to argue the case, and I know this: I know the people do not want an Abbott-led government.


I get so many people in frustration to me saying, "We are not going to allow that man to lead this country, are we?" Now, I agree with that from an obvious point of view, but the truth is there is a mood out there that does not want him; but is fed up with us at the moment. We've got to change it. I hope this circuit-breaker does it and I look forward to the caucus taking a mature decision in the interests of their future and this country's future.


Via: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/simon-creans-opening-statement-to-the-media-20130321-2ghlv.html#ixzz2OEuVHNIC

Windsor's shining moment in Question Time

TONY WINDSOR:

There's been a lot of discussion today about history. Two years ago, it's been discussed here today, that the Prime Minister made a certain comment in the run up to an election.

As most of us would be aware, the Prime Minister didn't win the election, she didn't win the election. This is a hung parliament.

[Windsor adds in an aside in direction of LNP front bench--]You might learn something from a little bit of history here. You might be a little bit interested.

As the Leader of the Opposition would know very well, as the Prime Minister would know very well, and the Deputy Prime Minister for that matter would know: The decision to do something about climate change, whether it be through an Emission Trading Scheme or a carbon pricing arrangement, but to put a price on carbon, was a condition of the formation of government.

The Leader of the Opposition knows that very well, because on a number of occasions he actually begged for the job. Begged for the job.

You've never denied it Tony! You've never denied it and you won't!

He begged for the job, and he made the point, not only to me but to others in that negotiating period, that he would do anything to get that job.

[Shot of Abbott. Much yelling]

You would well remember, and your colleagues should be aware, that the only codicil you put on that, was that: 'I will do anything Tony to get this job, the only thing I wouldn't do is sell my arse.'

[Yells. Guffaws. PYNE with a point of order... Asks Windsor talk to the SSO]

WINDSOR:

The Leader of the Opposition is well aware of the discussions that were held. It was a condition of the formation of government. He was prepared to do anything if in fact he'd been called upon, and if he had been asked to put in place an Emission Trading Scheme or a carbon tax for that matter, he would well have done it.

The fact that he wasn't asked is something of very, very good judgement in my view.

In terms of the substantive issue, I support the SSO because I think it's a debate that we should be very proud of. I'm very proud to have supported

[Interjections. Member for Dickson, Peter Dutton, evicted]

I'm very proud to have supported doing something about climate change. And I think history will judge those who have had the guts to stand up and actually try and address what is a difficult issue, in a difficult parliament, that this man,  the Leader of the Opposition, was quite prepared to do that if he'd been given the nod on that particular day. 'I will do anything, anything to get this job.' They were the comments and people know that and they should know it because you are an absolute disgrace in the way in which you're wandering around on this particular issue.

You have exactly the same target as the Emission Trading Scheme pricing arrangements. You have exactly the same target in terms of the 1990 levels by 2020. And you have the audacity to actually say to people that you're going to achieve that target through a much more expensive arrangement than putting a price on carbon. Particularly given the history of that you've had in terms of this particular issue.

John Howard was someone that I had disagreements with, from time to time, but at least he recognised that we have to do something in term of emissions in this world.

The opportunities that exist in regional Australia, in terms of pricing arrangements and the clean energy funds, etc. I would ask that the Leader of the Opposition and other members within the chamber, just look at the meat industry in the next few months. Just look at the way in which they are going to address some of these issues. And it's all very well… Come back in a few months and tell me if I'm wrong; I don't mind that. There are enormous opportunities, enormous opportunities, in terms of renewable energy…

[Speaker announces his time has expired]

[Windsor sits, grins at Abbott, points to phone. *gotcha*]

(pic1 via AAP photog. Alan Porritt) 
(pic3 via @OzEquitist)

From dumb to dumber, & then some

Ah, Andrew Bolt. Immensely annoying and vocal (and persistent and preposterous) was he this morning. Obviously he's found recent extremist bantering, bannering (i.e. 'Ditch the bitch') and hollering quite vivifying. All this lowering of tone energising him to ramp up his own practicing of it.

Julia Gillard's ill-advised rant to please labor purists scared by their proximity to the Greens included some phrase about how the Greens don't support families, and Bolt believed it obvious that was a derogatory dig at Bob Brown's sexuality.

On the carbon tax issue his demanding query to Lenore Taylor was: tell me how much of a degree or percentage thereof this tax will be reducing global temperatures. Taylor repeated that we're beyond reducing it, we can only constrain it. Bolt's mature response: ha! you can't can you!! And this was about the point that I (and, it appears, many others) switched off.

I've realised Bolt's tactics (perhaps even subconscious) are to pose such an absurd query as to momentarily gobsmack the queried and therefore delay their ability to respond.

All so frustrating.

I tell you, almost ALL local pollies are driving me batty of late. Tactics are apparently more important than good arguments re policy. I've reached a point where I'm fed up with the emphasis on voter-appeal, the having-to-please-everyone area of politics.

And look! it merely encourages the likes of the Bolt-dolts.

Why even bother listening anymore?

Barnaby: Mum, Dad, please stop helping!

Poor old Barnaby Joyce. Some journo has had a wee casual chat with his parents who obviously were feeling quite relaxed...

BEFORE Barnaby Joyce makes a final decision on whether he should challenge popular federal independent Tony Windsor for the seat of New England, he might want to give his parents a quick call.

"I think he would be ill-advised to run against Tony Windsor," Senator Joyce's mother, Marie, told The Weekend Australian yesterday.

His father agrees, dismissing his son's claim that he could win New England at the next federal election as "bluff".

Hmm. Well. There goes that plan.


But don't fret Barney (as they call him), there's still some real positive imagery that will assist your rise to leader.

While not supporting their son for a run in New England, the Joyces believe he would make a good Nationals leader, and they would welcome him moving from the Senate to the House of Representatives.

"Being somebody's father -- you know, you've seen them in nappies," Mr Joyce said.
"You find it hard to imagine them achieving something like that. But the more I hear him speak, the more I can tell he's been learning about politics -- its nuances and pressure points. He's smart to have worked all that out.

And look! Dad's even said you're 'smart'! And you'se bin 'learnin'! Who's a clever boy den, eh!

Mrs Joyce ...said she would be happy for him to become Nationals leader "as long as he didn't take it too seriously".

Uh. No chance of that being encouraged.



Mrs Joyce also 'described her fourth son as "a man for others"' ...perhaps adding sotto voce, 'and not so much a man for us. *ahem* ...Would you like another cup of tea dear?'

The good and the ugly.

Good

The editor of The West Australian "newspaper" has resigned. Hurrah. Mayhap WA will have an actual newspaper again one day. I've heard that when he started he instructed staff to only write articles that were controversial and anything that wasn't defined at controversial was to be made controversial, and all else (ie. 'news') excluded.


Bizarre

a) Medals of Freedom given to the guys who helped Bush start a war. Freedom... War... Ah! What's the diff!

b) Little Johnny Howard being called 'the man of steel'.










Ah! What's the diff!


Great

My holiday! Didn't get to do as much as I'd planned sightseeing-wise (hey, there's always next time!) but had lots of fun and it all went too quickly. Am looking forward to my next holiday now. More! More! More! I was totally spoiled and loved it. Went to some great shindigs, got some lovely Chrissy prezzies and had all sorts of bizarre and unique offers New Year's Eve (some of which could have lead to my arrest had I agreed). So, much fun was had (and additionally contemplated) all round. Lucky, lucky me.


Hope you all are having a lovely start to the new year.

And in the news today...*

1.
An insane murderer is allowed to drive a taxi in Melbourne.

The Public Transport Minister, Lynne Kosky, says she can not guarantee a man who stabbed his wife to death can be prevented from driving taxis in Melbourne. The man was acquitted of murder on the grounds of insanity.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal recently granted him a taxi licence against the advice of the Director of Public Transport.

Ms Kosky is vowing to change the law to prevent similar cases. "Now it will be mandatory refusal for anyone who has either a conviction, or if they're found not guilty by reason of insanity, so that will be now included in the legislation."

Gosh. Now isn't that a good idea.

But Ms Kosky says her options are limited in the current matter. "As a result of this decision we are fixing the legislation going forward," she said. "We will look at every avenue of appeal so that I can actually fix that difficulty, so that everybody can feel safe when they hop in a cab. That's what I want to be able to guarantee."

Yes. Please do 'fix that difficulty'.

(Note: On my list of things to do in the next couple of months is:
a) fly Qantas
b) ...to Melbourne)


2.
Now, staying in Victoria but leaving the shoddy decision-making skills of the The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for the abysmal decisions the Migration Review Tribunal, we find that the country doctor with the Down Syndrome son - who "is the only internal medicine specialist servicing 20,000 people in Horsham" and the community is desperate for him to stay and who pays for the extra costs of his son's care - is still going to be kicked out of Australia.

Dr Bernhard Moeller and his family have had their application for residency in Horsham refused because of the costs associated with the care of their son...

Onya Victoria. Your tribunals are doing just fantastic work.

(now it's up to Federal Minister Chris Evans to intervene.)


3.
Most surprising news is the opinion that something in the area of telecommunications will be ruined if Telstra DOES NOT participate.

(The Liberal Party is nuts.)


4.
Lastly, there's news of a US company: Puck Technology.

What do you think they do? Something in the area of R & D concerning hockey pucks? Plastic surgery perhaps? Maybe they develop and manufacture funny little complex digital thingamees that do stuff in other complex electrical thingamees...? Or... sell Whizzinators!

Ah, Whizzinators! you say. Yes. Surely they are some great new kitchen gadget! Perfect for a Christmas present! Or maybe some new high-tech machine I can use in the garden. Or... maybe it's

the Whizzinator penis - a lifelike device used to emit clean, realistically warm urine instead of the user's true urine.

Indeed! The perfect Christmas present for Ben Cousins. It comes with "its own heating and Yellow River urine packs". Although, the president and vice-president of Puck Technology - Gerald and Robert - have just experienced some difficulties of their own.

Two men who sold prosthetic penises enabling drug cheats to give fake urine samples have pleaded guilty to conspiracy in the United States, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported.

Puck Technology has stopped operating, the report said.

The thing is (no, not that thing, this thing; don't get distracted), I don't really understand why they were charged with conspiracy. Surely they didn't claim the penises were real...

(Maybe they'll see this as an opportunity to enter the market for jumbo-sized models for men aiming to impress at the urinals. Um. It's perhaps a somewhat small market...)


* I suppose this post heading could have read 'And in the news today... a bunch of dicks.'

Feeling Newsy! (yes, there's news other than the financial crisis - which I won't mention... promise.)

Just reading some news today.

It's variously...

Good:
The army chief is sticking to his decision to axe the Royal Australian bagpipe band. Hooray! Finally they're seeing some sense that the sound of (handsomely-skirted) men squeezing and torturing kittens in bags just to hear them squeal is not a good idea (except in a serious skirmish). Perhaps that is why they are taking these *ahem* musicians and turning them back into (much needed) soldiers.

News that's less good:
"Lt-Gen Gillespie said he had instructed the army director of music to maintain a pipe capability for ceremonial occasions when bagpipes were needed." NEEDED!!!? And that this "would be done through reserve pipers..." Ah, so close...


Good-ish (for some):
NSW politicians are continuing to provide the nation with amusements as their Nationals party leader said something about a Liberal MP: "If I had my way, I'd march him out at dawn, put a blindfold on him and shoot him."

Quite succinct and clear really. I don't quite see the problem.

Although he's apologised, the mamby-pamby MP refuses to accept the apology as he is still enjoying sulking. He said "the comments represented a threat to himself, promoted violence and were offensive to the victims of gun crimes." Ah, nothing like pollies for some neat hyperbole.
(Approaching it with humour would be much more charming... although pouts do suit some people.)


Seriously good:

"Australia has expanded financial sanctions against Burma, targeting more of the nation's top officials, ministers and military leaders."

Less good:
McCain and Palin (who only took on the task of VP nominee because the Republican party was more than happy to spend $225,000 on her wardrobe) have some fodder to attack with by taking one of Joe Biden's remarks out of context. He said basically the new president will be tested by an international crisis (yup, I'd say one or two are happening already). So the Republican argument is that McCain has been tested already.

Yes. And found wanting.


Good news:
Obama is 10 points ahead of McCain. And only 2 weeks to go! And this on top of (and likely due to) the wonderful news of Republican Colin Powell supporting him (boy, did that make my day)!

Also noice:

Mr. Obama’s favorability is the highest for a presidential candidate running for a first term in the last 28 years of Times/CBS polls. Mrs. Palin’s negative rating is the highest for a vice-presidential candidate as measured by The Times and CBS News. Even Dan Quayle, with whom Mrs. Palin is often compared because of her age and inexperience on the national scene, was not viewed as negatively in the 1988 campaign.

But sadly of course, his grandma ain't doin' so good, so he's going to go see her for a couple of days. Tragically he never got to his mother's death bed in time when she died, so he's obviously not wanting this to happen again.
If one can find anything good from this it will be that voters may have some empathy for him, think he's a nice grandson and also be reminded that half his heritage is white ('Lookit dat Billy-Bob!! He gots a white gran'ma like me!!! Hey. Maybe he ain't so black afta all!')


Strange news:
French Prez Sarkozy (I love saying 'Sarkozy'... don't know why; especially in the French manner, Sar-ko-ZEE!) is threatening to sue a company making voodoo dolls. I think the one offending him is the Sarkozy doll actually.

It has quotes of his over it and instructs the owner to insert pin 'here', eg: "Get lost you pathetic arsehole." (I hope that's actually in French: Obtenez-perdu vous abruti pathétique!)

He's not annoyed about the pins and sudden pains about his person so much as his exclusive rights to his image... and copyrighted insults.


And, again, Good: A new vet hospital in the US is helping wounded military vets.
In case that's confusing I'll be clear: a $15 million animal hospital has been opened at "Lackland Air Force Base, offering a long overdue facility that gives advanced medical treatment for combat-wounded dogs."
Maybe less than 'good' news really as the article points out that about 2500 dogs work with military units - finding explosive devices, drugs (for their handler's r&r) and land mines. Poor puppies! And do they get paid??

Dogs injured in Iraq or Afghanistan get emergency medical treatment on the battlefield and are flown to Germany for care. If necessary, they'll fly on to San Antonio for more advanced treatment -- much like wounded human personnel.

The hospital includes "CT scanning equipment, an intensive care unit and rehab rooms with an underwater treadmill and exercise balls" (the trainer's apparently). Plus, a "behavioral specialist has an office near the lobby." (I'm hoping there's some Schmackos in there.)


But also 'good' news because I get to use this photo again:

'Man, this better earn me some Schmackos...'

It's just a flesh wound!!!!!!!!!

Well, thank goodness I began my new routine of regularly meditating before all the kerfuffle of this global financial crisis and ere I had to listen overly much to the cheesy drivel of a persistently winking Sarah Palin. Urgh. And then I also had to focus on my breathing and tend to the stress of my emotions when McCain was prowling around in the last debate, acting for all intents like a used car salesman (as my mum rightly noted... and in the harsh tones of one who has no regular meditation routine).

Terrible (and under-reported) findings of the CCC (re Mallard and WA police), prison riots and even perhaps the fear of flying Qantas lately, fade into the background when our market and dollar are dipping into the plunge pool, Iceland (which may possibly be sued the by UK) is drowning alongside other uncertain doggy-paddling nations, and economists are as confused as the actual workings of the financial markets.

*Ohmmmm* At least I don't live in the US... *Ohmmmm* ...with a mortgage, potential job(s) loss and no real health care... *Ohmmmm* ...with a current national public debt of $10,245,247,740,307.58

Today I read (on a US site)-

The U.S. Government now borrows nearly $10 million every minute. This is precisely why our national debt crossed the $10 trillion threshold for the first time. The famous “National Debt Clock” in Times Square has run out of digits forcing the operator, the Durst Organization, to remove the dollar sign and replace it with the number “1.” The Durst Organization is now refurbishing the clock to allow up to one quadrillion dollars...

It may, however, be of some benefit that few in the US would even know what a quadrillion is.

(It's a thousand trillion. Comforting to know a debt of 100 times the current one is being prepared for...)


*Ohmmmmmmmmm*

Musical Chairs

How much is Aussie politics like a game of musical chairs lately?
Goodbye Brendon, you move to that seat at the back there. Hello Malcolm, you take his chair and now choose who'll be in the front bench chairs next to you... no, hang on, wait for the music to stop!


In NSW the craziness has continued as a leader (of sorts) has gone too, along with some mates, and their chairs filled by a new lot (oh, but we've changed our mind about the guy dancing in his underwear and 'titty f**king' a female associate - after a mere three days he has no chair at all now... I'm sure he'll find something to dance to though... maybe next budget night... if there's a full moon...).

And there's been a cacophony of music about the place in WA. Carpenter's chair is now one at the back and scary Eric Ripper has taken the leader's seat along with some young newby at his side (after some 'deal' reached between factions... sneaky). And of course both parties have all swapped chairs after the music stopping for about a week whilst the Nationals' leader Grylls hummed quietly to himself, keeping everyone on the edge of whatever seats they could find after the hung parliament.



Back to national politics. Turnbull seems to be aiming at being known less as 'the fierce guy' and more as 'The Giggler' if the 7.30 Report last night was anything to go by.* His technique in interviews will obiously be to laugh at any questions he doesn't like and thereby avoid them entirely (kinda like the Dalai Lama).

(Heh. An obvious comparison, and quite common.)

Another guy having a wee chuckle lately is Peter Costello. Who's a happy chap then, eh? An earlier game of musical chairs had him quickly grabbing one far to the back. A much lesser seat than the big leadership chair, but does it bother him? No! He's never been more popular! By sitting back and grinning he's had the party begging him for months to save them and be leader! But even with this last game of musical chairs he hasn't budged. Instead he's cheerily yakking about his book at every opportunity, and dancing a shifty side-step whenever he's pushed as to whether he'll ever park his behind in The Big Chair... Ever... Never? Maybe? Kinda..? Well... He won't really say (ever, never, maybe...) but he's happy to sit back and see how badly the party does without him at the helm. Ha! They should have saved him a seat earlier on! This'll teach 'em!!!



* Although I think we can keep 'self obsessed' in there. Malcolm does love to hear himself ramble!

T'was the week of the long goodbye

"Yes I would dearly have loved more time," Mr Carpenter said. "But that is the nature of politics and life, you don't always get what you want."

I quite liked (our now ex-premier) Alan Carpenter.


But, if he wanted more time in the job, he probably shouldn't have called an early election...




Just sayin'.

A great night... yeah... *sniff*

Dear, dear Dr Nelson. How does he keep going? Tonight he will be attending a dinner at which everyone will be celebrating the - increasingly shiny - golden boy Peter Costello. Tony Abbott has just publicly declared that Costello should be their leader. And dear Brendon Nelson manages to say about the dinner tonight: "we are going to celebrate the public life and recognise it, so far, of Peter Costello... It's going to be a great night."


That the Labor Party appears to be somewhat maturely calling Costello a smiling jelly assassin (or something) may help a little over dessert... but not much.

Drumroll please...!

Look who's being wooed.

"...we miss him. We love him. We want him."

Awww. It brings a tear to the eye.*


But what's really amusing is that after having loudly announced he yearns to have Costello on the front bench (obviously as leader as what else would he do) and publicly grovelled with the above comments, Nick Michin then added that:

calling for Mr Costello to return to the frontbench does not undermine the leadership of Dr Nelson.

Oh no. Obviously not.

"Plainly he is an extraordinarily talented man but we have a [insert implied 'crap' here] leader, he's had a tough week and I don't want to make it any tougher for him."

Oh no. Obviously not.

"I think that what we need to do is rally behind the [not extraordinarily talented] leader we have got rather than speculate about leaders that we might have had once, but sadly *wipes away tear* have not yet had and probably never will." *sobs loudly into handkerchief*

Yes. It's a tough job being leader of the opposition. But it must at least be heartening to have strong and unwavering support from your fellow party members behind you.





...One imagines.




*Nauseating pain will do that you know...

Micromanaging in the chaos

On Denton's 'Elders' last night, Bob Hawke reminded me of a recent post of mine when he said: "There are no great political leaders around." He also noted the depressingly obvious world situation of overpopulation/poverty/women's education, food shortages and climate change... and how our moral compass seems to be somewhat screwed as news of Paris Hilton becomes a priority over such issues.


But what I wanted to blog about was when he went into his 'political-voice' to make a point. Denton asked him about how one deals with being PM.

Well by making sure it’s not the work of one man. Look at the duration with Carter, President Carter. Insisted on supervising who was going to be using the White House tennis court. Come on. I mean it’s a question of prioritisation and delegation and if you haven’t got that capacity for prioritisation and delegation then you’ll be on the road to the bin.

Am I alone in thinking he may be giving a hint to Rudd? Everyone knows he's a micromanager. As John Lyons reported in The Australian in late June, Rudd's office is "chronically under-experienced... in a state of disarray, largely reflecting a leader who on the surface appears to always be in control, but is, in fact, becoming so locked into micromanaging that around him chaos is breaking out." He also noted that unlike Hawke, who was "surrounded by an A-team of political operators, all of whom could - and did- say no to Hawke on occasions", Rudd's advisers are yes men and two of the three are highly inexperienced (and increasingly rude, especially Harris and especially to female reporters - but he even has abused a leading Labor frontbencher). One article concluded:

The lack of experience around Rudd is becoming an issue.

Jordan's only experience before joining Rudd six years ago was to work for "a Queensland MP"; his official CV doesn't even identify that MP. Yesterday, Harris did not know who the MP was.

Harris's CV says that as well as working in Labor headquarters in the 2004 election campaign and briefly for Robert McClelland and Swan, he has worked "for other community-based campaigns".

One senior government staffer said: "You've got no idea of the level of paranoia in Rudd's office at the moment. Kevin doesn't know half of what's going on."

So besieged has the office become that it took several attempts to even receive confirmation that Jordan and Harris are 28. Their ages do not appear on their CVs.

Rudd's third adviser is...

his chief of staff, David Epstein. [But...] It's the ticking time bomb of the PM's office. Epstein is married to Sandra Eccles, who was promoted three months after the Rudd Government's election to run the Canberra office of lobbying firm Government Relations Australia.

Epstein admitted to The Australian this week that he was forced to call in a witness to a conversation with car giant Mitsubishi because of a possible conflict of interest with his wife's firm.

It adds yet another problem to an already troubled office. The Prime Minister has an angry public service, an increasingly alienated media, and a chief of staff who more than likely will have to call in more witnesses as his wife's clients chase what they're paying big money for: to influence the people in the Government who make the decisions.

But really, Lachlan Harris wins:

Another female journalist recalls talking to Harris on his landline when his mobile rang. He told whoever was calling: "I'm on the other line, let me just piss this other call off." The woman about to be pissed off listened with dismay. "He would have known I could hear," she says.

The Sun-Herald's Kerry-Anne Walsh also experienced the Harris blowtorch. Walsh tracked down several members of a family who disputed Rudd's story that Rudd and his mother had been evicted from a property and were forced to sleep in a car on the side of a road. The family named by Rudd was outraged. One of the daughters of the farmer alleged to have evicted the Rudds said of Kevin Rudd: "He's dragged our father's proud reputation through the mud time and time again."

Because the versions were so different, Walsh sent some questions to Rudd via Harris. The response from Harris was nuclear. According to a version in The Sydney Morning Herald, which Walsh has confirmed, Harris began "ranting like a lunatic", claimed Rudd would "hit the roof" and if the paper published, which it did, "we'll have 100 people ready to roll tomorrow morning to trash you and your paper".

The treatment of women by Rudd's office has now become an issue. One female reporter told how Harris walks into her office and goes straight past her to discuss a story she has written.

On one occasion she went and stood between the bureau chief and Harris and said: "Hey Lachlan, I wrote the story!"

That bit in bold is rather interesting I think. Reminds me of yesterday's post. Obviously threats are the go in the Rudd government.

Of course, this post in part began with how the media values celebrity news over serious issues, so one can't really embrace the media wholeheartedly, but still... those that are trying to report on political issues (even if they occasionally go for the dramatic angle - all too easy with such as Belinda Neal around!) should be treated with some respect. It's not wise for a government to get the media offside.

Hmmm

Glenn Milne has said today:

I was warned on Saturday by one of the most senior - and I mean one of the most senior elected office holders in the land - that if I reported claims in a new book that Julia Gillard had been Kevin Rudd's preferred choice as treasurer I would not be dealt with again by the Government. And to his credit, the person making those threats wasn't Wayne Swan.

Sadly adding:

At least whatever punishment is dealt out to Brendan Nelson, even by his own side, he doesn't behave like that.

I'm guessing it's van Onselen's book, 'Howard's End'. What's the big deal after his shocking, I mean, really shocking!!!!! revelation that Rudd has "somewhat of a potty-mouth". Which was disappointingly dulled by the addition that he uses the f-word much less in female company.



SEXIST PIG!!!!


From this, and the revelations that Rudd has quite a nasty temper, we can assume that Milne was actually told by Kevin Rudd himself to "Fuck off Glenn, and don't you fucking dare write of such vile fucking things as my intentions for Julia's fucking role in fucking government you fucker" giving Milne a kick in the ass as he booted him out the front door of Parliament.

Can I just add that, um, it seems a bit of an overreaction to try to censor journalists from reporting something already published...? You know, just thinking...

Rudd's To Do list

As noted by Lenore Taylor, Rudd and pals actually have "too much substance, too much policy fibre for the electorate to digest in just one electoral term." Although they can be accused of spin in that they are doing the early Blair government mistake of daily announcing some new message as they aim to impress themselves upon the 24-hour news cycle, they actually are doing heaps behind the scenes but just not talking about it enough. It seems they are either stuck in a pre-election/opposition approach... or just think us lot are really dense and have minuscule attention spans. I am quite offended and/or disappointed. Give us "a statesmanlike prime minister with big ideas and the courage to back them"! Yes! We want that! Don't talk to us like a bunch of children who prefer to watch 30 second commercials rather than the main program.


Anyway. His to do list:

The emissions trading regime, with its price ramifications for households, drivers, businesses, farmers, exporters and, well, pretty much everybody in the country really, would probably be enough new policy to be getting on with all on its own.

But then there's a complete review of the tax system and all the payments people get from government.

Oh, and an industry policy review, which takes in everything they pay to business.

And through the Council of Australian Governments they are reworking all the payments they make to the states as well.

So, ol' Ruddster is doing plenty. And that he will take on such things (unlike Howard) is why we love him. But Lenore is obviously as frustrated as me that he keeps singing and dancing - and a new routine every day! - when he just needs to speak sensibly about the important work he's doing. Tell us about the long-term hard work. We can handle it!

Has he considered that voters' increasing disappointment (though, not disillusionment) could be due to such an approach? That people may need to be reminded of the work he is doing instead of daily bits and pieces?

As Georges's article today notes:

Like most Australians, Liberal voter Jon Warner was prepared to give the fresh-faced Mr Rudd a fair go when he replaced Mr Howard as prime minister.

The advertising director from Sydney's northern beaches was impressed by Mr Rudd's early move to ratify the Kyoto Protocol - a "nice bit of PR" - and the apology to the Stolen Generations. "His heart's in the right place," the 44-year-old Mr Warner said.

But over the past few months, he has grown increasingly sceptical of Mr Rudd's frenetic leadership style. "There's all the bells and whistles but not a lot of content - he's the master of the 30-second grab." His mate Luke Cook, 27, who also works in advertising, said the word on the street is: "Kevin 07, Mistake 08."

Give us the headline act Mr Rudd. We're tired of ads.

My imagined Clarke & Dawe interview of Rudd

(this is merely from my imagination - I hope they're not insulted!) a John Clarke & Bryan Dawe-type version of earlier post re Kev's visit to Japan:











Mr Rudd, thanks for your time. How are you enjoying Japan?

Oh, well, it's quite nice of course. Maybe not as nice as China, but quite nice.

And how did your meeting with the Prime Minister, Yasao Fukuda go?

Oh, pretty well Bryan, pretty well.

We all know that you're fluent in Mandarin Mr Rudd, but do you speak much Japanese?

Yes... a little...

What can you say in Japanese?

I know how to say, "My name is Kevin, I'm from Australia, thank you very much."

Oh yes, and what else?

Well, that's it really.

Oh.

Yes. But I say it every chance I get Bryan. Oh, and Konnichiwa, I know that one.

Yes.

You mean 'hai' Bryan. See. Know that one too!

Hai. Yes. And your meeting went well?

Yes, I mean hai Bryan. I knew the poor guy's ratings were pretty low. You know, they're below 20 per cent, and everyone's giving him a hard time with a censure and all. So I thought I'd tell him a little bit about Brendan Nelson...

And how did that go?

That cheered him up no end Bryan!

Well that's good. So you got along well then? Even after all the tensions about your trip to China? And the whaling...?

Well, yes and no Bryan. I also said to him he can call me Kevin, you know, everyone calls me Kevin.

Yes, we know.

But then I thought I'd cheer the poor bloke up a bit further and say he can call me The Ruddster if he likes.

The Ruddster?

Yes, I mean, hai... You see, we have a little group where we like to call each other... well, you know. There's The Swanster and The Gillster - I sometimes like to call her The Gillmeister - and The Tannster...

I get the picture.

Yes, hai... So I told him he could be part of the group too!

The Fukster...?

Hai.

Oh dear...

Hai, I must say, it went a bit downhill from there Bryan.

I can imagine. So did you talk to him about the whaling?

Well yes Bryan. But, I was very diplomatic about it.

What did you say?

I said we'd better find a way to be diplomatic about it and once we find a way we'll do something about the whaling.

Diplomatically?

Yes. It's only polite Bryan.

And what did he say?

Well, he pointed out that our Defence Department killed 514 kangaroos recently. Our national emblem he said.

And what did you say?

I diplomatically pointed out to him that he was wrong Bryan!

Wrong...?

Yes. Hai! I told him that the kangaroo isn't our official emblem, not officially Bryan. And anyway, that's the Red kangaroo on our Coat of Arms and these were Grey kangaroos... Plus, I rather diplomatically explained to him that whales weren't swarming all over his old military bases and endangering grassland...!

Well no. They're whales.

Exactly Bryan. I think he got my point.

And what about your visit to China?

Oh, it was great Bryan!

No. I mean, how did you smooth things over there with Mr Fukuda?

Well. I told him I'd taken the same length of time, six months, that Howard did to visit. I told him seven Australian ministers have already visited Japan this year. I told him that I couldn't think of any other country, in fact, that had had such high-level ministerial visits! And I said, "How many Japanese government ministers have been able to visit Australia in the same time?" Hey? I don't think any.

So you handled that diplomatically too...

Of course Bryan. We don't want to upset them any further. I was going to add, "So nyahh!" But I think he got my point...

So apart from that, things went well?

Sort of Bryan. I mean. I did feel the need to bring up how some people in Victoria are none too happy about a Japanese company buying that wind farm thing in Tarwin Lower... And that didn't go down too well...

Oh.

You see, he thought it was Taiwan Lower. That he'd gotten one over on the Chinese!

Oh dear.

Hai. Indeed Bryan. He was very disappointed.

Hai... Were there any issues on which you did get along well?

Well, yes Bryan. We talked about the Toyota deal with the hybrid cars, and his plan to cut emissions and create some experimental carbon market thingamee. And we talked about my plan to save the planet with a Nuclear Non-Proliferations and Disarmament Commission, and I said I'd let him co-chair. You know the thing. The one to be headed by Biggles...

Yes, Biggles... Did you warn him about flying ashtrays?

Of course Bryan. Diplomatically...

And was he impressed with your ideas?

Oh, I think so Bryan. In fact. I gave him some advice, you know, to help him with his ratings and all. I told him...

To... deal with things diplomatically...?

Well, no...

To improve your education and health care systems? Get things right at home before you go out saving the world?

No Bryan...

I know! To do things in 'due season'?

No Bryan. But that's a good point. No. I told him that he ought to make a lot of spur of the moment announcements. You know. Get everyone's attention in some positive way. And the bigger the better!

But, only after he's thoroughly organised it and thought it through of course. You know, told the people involved what they'll be doing.

Hai... something like that Bryan. You know. A couple of hours' notice is always a good idea.
*laughs* You don't want people to think you're loopy or something! You know, for example, the hybrid car deal with Toyota. It was organised years ago that they'd be building these cars for us in Australia!

But, the head of Toyota did seem quite surprised about the $70 million dollars you offered. Tax payers' money...

Hai. They're not quite sure what to do with it actually...

So why did you offer it to them? Do you think you overdid it a bit?

No, no. Not at all Bryan! As I said to The Fuku... to Mr Fukuda. Big announcements. That's what you want. Then you'll be right mate!

I'm sure he was most appreciative. And where are you off to next Mr Rudd?

Jakarta. I'll be there this evening.

So, relations with Indonesia will need some of your diplomatic touch too?

I suppose so Bryan... But of course it's really about the big announcement I'll be making.

Oh, another one? What will it be about this time?

It's really a bit soon to be asking Bryan! I've got hours yet!




For the real (and superior!) thing, go here, or here.



Update 13/6: This is what they did last night.

Sticking to my theme...

ABC news reports:

Rudd dismisses Japan snub claims

At the National Press Club in Tokyo, Mr Rudd was asked why it had taken him more than six months to visit Japan, when he has already visited China, the US, the UK and Indonesia.

Mr Rudd replied, saying John Howard first visited Japan six months after taking office, and seven Australian ministers have already visited Japan this year.

''I can't point to any other country, frankly, which has had such high-level ministerial visits since Day One,'' he said.

"How many Japanese government ministers have been able to visit Australia in the same time? I don't think there are any." Mr Rudd said. Then added, "So nyahh!"

P.S. Regarding Rudd's conversation with PM Fukuda below... He's actually meeting with him tomorrow. I hope he's taken some pointers...!

Kevin goes to Japan!

Konnichiwa Prime Minister Fukuda!
*bows*
*says in Japanese* "My name is Kevin, I'm from Australia, thank you very much".




Konnichiwa Mr Rudd san. Ogenki desu ka?
I did not know you spoke Japanese as well as Mandarin!






Uh... "My name is Kevin, I'm from Australia, thank you very much". ...Hai!


Please, have a seat.


Oh, thank you. Hai! You know, you can call me Kevin if you like... Or, 'the Ruddster'. Heh. Even though you're not one of the group... You know, like 'the Swanster' and 'the Gillster', or sometimes I call her 'the Gillmeister.' You can be 'the Fukster'! Uh... hai!


*some sake is poured*


Tell me, have you been well?


Well yes, hai, thank you. But I did have a dodgy dagwood dog or something the other day, I don't know. All I know is the consequences were graphic! Ha!


Ah. But better than a bad blowfish, yes?


Hai! Yes! Ha ha. Speaking of seafood. I wanted to say that this thing with killing whales is really just not on. You know, I just feel I have to tell you this.


Yes. But, Mr Rudd san. I noticed that your Department of Defence killed 514 kangaroos recently... your national emblem I believe.


Well, no... I mean, it's not officially our national emblem, and that's a Red Kangaroo on the Australian Coat of Arms, you know, these were Grey Kangaroos...


Ah.


Hai.



*pause*














*both sip some warm sake*










Mr Fukuda. I hope this won't stop you giving us lots of money for our exports...


And Mr Rudd san, I hope you will continue to provide us with large amounts of coal and iron ore.


And Mr Fukuda san, I hope you will make some hybrid cars for us.


Sono you desu ne. Looks like we (already) will be!


*clink sake cups*


Speaking of saving the planet, did you know I've just announced that Japan will aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 per cent by 2050 and we're going to launch an experimental carbon market?


Really. That sounds great! *sips sake*


Yes. I compared the grand scope of the effort to the Industrial Revolution, and then I said "I believe that we need to make an effort to create a low-carbon revolution so that our descendants 200 years from now will look back and be proud of us." Impressive, hai?


Hai. Hai. Did you hear I've just announced that Australia will set up a Nuclear Non-Proliferations and Disarmament Commission?


Indeed? *sips sake*


Oh, and I visited Hiroshima. I wrote, "Let the world resolve afresh from the ashes of this city - to work together for the common mission of peace for this Asia-Pacific century, and for a world where one day nuclear weapons are no more."


Impressive Mr Rudd san.


I thought so. You know, you can be co-chair if you like!


Much appreciation Mr Rudd san. *mutters* Although I suppose you're happy to keep selling uranium to China... And who will be the head of this important commission?


Biggles.


Biggles?


Yeah, bonza bloke Biggles. But I'll warn you, it's a good idea to keep an eye out for flying ashtrays! Ha ha!


I shall make a note.


Yeah, ol' Bluey. He'll love it. Hey, I heard one of your lot is buying that Bald Hills wind farm project at Tarwin Lower in Victoria. You know, some Vics are none too pleased about it.


Victoria! Hontou desu ka? Really? Oh, Tarwin! Not Taiwan Lower! Ah...! Just when we thought we'd gotten one over on the Chinese... *gulps sake*



You know Mr Fukuda. This has been a jolly good chat. I hope you don't feel I've been ignoring you lately.


Mr Rudd san. I do have bigger things to worry about... elections Sunday did not go well for my party. I'm not very popular, rating below 20%, the opposition is bullying me and planning to censure me.... *gulps more sake*


Uh, well hopefully things will be better on my next visit! *shakes hands in a cheery manner*


Most likely I won't be here Mr Rudd san.


Oh. Below 20% you say? Uh, Mr Fukuda. Have you heard of Brendan Nelson?


Would he be like Gordon Brown?




Oh no, even better than Gordon Brown! Here. Let me give you his number...