Melbourne City Council Censors Painting the Criticizes China

Ronald McDonald carries the Olympic Torch past a burning Monk, by Van Thanh Rudd.

The Melbourne City Council says it rejected this painting from an art exhibition because it "does not fit the brief". The painting is by Van Thanh Rudd, nephew of PM Kevin Rudd.

I reckon the real reason is that the Melbournce Council is scared of offending China, McDonalds and the PM.

Absolutely gutless.

China's "One Child" Policy

According to the Wall Street Journal The Chinese Government will keep its "One Child Policy" for at least another decade.

As a result, a generation of children is China is growing up with no brothers, sisters, aunts or uncles.

Anyone found breaking this law faces huge fines. Government workers can lose their jobs, and pregnant women may face forced abortions.


Ironically, those chinese who are rich enough, pay the fine, and are able to have more kids.

For the rest, it's a choice between hiding from the government to have a child without a permit, having an abortion, or selling your baby on the burgeoning Child Trading market.

One sad consequence of this situation is a large increase in the number of child abductions.

Labor Activists Still Facing Harsh Treatment

http://www.ir2008.org/

Yao Fuxin, 57, was involved in organizing workers in Liaoning to address corruption and other issues facing the local factories. A former employee at the Liaoyang Steel Rolling Factory, he is married with one daughter. In late March 2002, Yao Fuxin was secretly detained and formally charged with "gathering a crowd to disturb social order" after leading tens of thousands of workers from Liaoyang factories in a peaceful demonstration protesting against corruption and demanding the payment of back wages and pensions. He was later charged with the far more serious charge of subversion due to alleged involvement in the banned China Democracy Party.

During his trial, Yao insisted on his innocence, saying he believed in the government and wanted to see the plight of the workers resolved. He was sentenced to seven years, which he is now serving at Lingyuan No. 2 Prison in Liaoning. His family fought for a retrial with the assistance of his defense lawyer Mo Shaoping, but it was announced at a secret hearing on June 27, 2003, that the appeal was rejected and the original sentence upheld. Since his imprisonment, Yao has been plagued by serious health problems. Family members, who visit him regularly, say he is in very poor health. Yao's family and Liaoyang workers have repeatedly appealed to authorities as high as the National People's Congress and the Supreme People's Court to release Yao on medical parole, but without success.

China is Getting Ready

” In the name of ensuring stability and harmony in the country during the 2008 Olympic Games. The Chinese governement continues to detain and harass political activists, journalists, lawyers and human rights workers.”

"China is Getting Ready" by "Amnesty International"

Google is complicit with the Chinese Government's censorship of it's citizens.

"China and Google" by "Oyster"

China: the world's biggest prison for journalists and cyber-dissidents

"Beijing 2008" by "HerveParisFrance"

McDonald's - Beijing Olympic partners

If you're wondering why most companie$ and countrie$ aren't officially prote$ting the thuggery of the Chine$e Government, here'$ a $ubtle hint:

"McDonald's - Beijing Olympic partners" by "shalvas"

Beijing Olympics 2008

In the run up to the Beijing Olympics I'll be posting some photos I've found around the net by other people which express my sentiments.

The Chinese Government's treatment of dissidents is appalling.

They tolerate no disagreement.

They've erected a huge firewall to prevent their citizens from reading anything online that criticizes their government.

Chinese people are beautiful, intelligent and gracious.

But the Chinese Government... they're nothing but amoral thugs.



"Beijing Olympics 2008" by http://www.flickr.com/photos/kongharald/

A Man of Steel after all

Credit where credit is due.

I've been critical of PM Kevin Rudd before, but I admire his courageous stance in Beijing today.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/09/2212108.htm

It took guts to go to China, and in his first speech there, to say loud and clear that Australia is concerned about Human rights violations in Tibet.

Hopefully Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao will recognize the value of International Friends who are unafraid to speak the truth, rather than "friends" who never say what they really think.

Dubya's Man in Australia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/04/2208065.htm

Our little mouseketeer of PM shows that he's well and truly behind big kahuna, George W Bush.

Holt may have been "All the way with LBJ", but Kevvie is definatley "At the decree of GWB".

Definately not the sort of behaviour you'd expect from a supposed "Man of Steel".

At Home At Last

Full marks to new Labor Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, for granting permanent residency to Robert Jovcic

Jovcic was a victim of the previous goverments heartless immigration policy, which left him homeless and sleeping on the steps of the Australian Embassy in Belgrade.

Minister Evans says that this was "one of a number of regrettable immigration matters the new Government is rectifying".

It's great news.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/23/2170552.htm

Insipid Swan Starts to Sink

Rates08

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/14/2138016.htm

New treasurer Wayne Swan doesn't have a clue when it comes to dealing with banks.

Banks around the country are getting away with raising their interest rates - even when the Reserve Bank hasn't raised official rates.

Shadow Treasurer, Malcolm Turnbull is right. They're treating Swan like a mug.

If Swan doesn't lose the training wheels soon, the millions of people who got duped by Kevin07 are going to be worrying about Rates08. And Swan's credentials on fiscal management will look about as beleivable as that woeful hairpiece of his.

The age old cycle of "Labor Mismanagement" begins again.

Get out of my face!

I hate TV ads.

I have trouble at the best of times shifting my attention from one thing to the next. Just ask by dear wife how difficult it is for her when she comes into my office while I'm halfway through thinking somthing through.

When I'm relaxing in my favourite chair in the lounge room wathcing a show on TV, the last thing I want is some stupid corporation interrupting the peace, trying to sell me something I don't need - be it hamburgers, debt, pain killers, or white goods.

If I want to buy something, I'll go and get the facts by checking some web pages, talking to people who've bought similar things, or just makeing a few phone calls.

The last thing I want is some twisted manipulative message from a company that paid a fortune to butt in on my peace and quiet with some inane advertisement extolling the virtues of their snake oil, targetted at some idiot with half my IQ, a quarter my common sense, and ten times my apparent desire to base spending on the propaganda I see on the TV screen.

(Yes, that sounds elitist and it is. Advertisers target their ads at a lower than average intelligence level of about late primary school, and assume if they tell you to buy something often enough, you'll be stupid enough to buy it. Well... are you? Is that how you're going to reward someone who invades your lounge room in the middle of your favourite show?)

Guys - just get out my face!

In fact, I've bought a couple of PVRs (Personal Video Recorders) - the Beyonwiz DP-S1 and the Topfield 5000. Both of them have a wonderful product called ICE TV installed which lets me know what TV shows are on and when - up to a week in advance. All of this lets me pause the TV, and skip over ads. So now, when some imbecile tells me how cool McDonalds, or "SUPER" A-Mart is, I just tell them to *#$%# off, press the red button to skip ads, and keep watching my show. (You have no idea how satisfying it is to blast TV ads away at the press of a button).

So here's my prediction. Everyone will end up getting a PVR with ICE TV, and skip over ads. TV will become a less attractive medium for corporations to peddle their wares. TV broadcasters will lose advertising revenue, or try and devise more insidious ways to push ads in front of your face, which will devalue the medium even more.

It's at this point that the guys at Think TV will try to convince you how much you need advertising on free to air TV.

Which is a load of rubbish.

I'd rather pay a TV broadcaster to show stuff on TV, provided they didn't insult my intelligence with ads.

Or even better - watch the ABC. What a wonderful institution. Intelligent shows, no ads, no dumbed down news or current affairs.

But regardless of whether you like ABC or not, whether you're prepared to pay for your TV or not, the forces of evolution are at work in the TV world.

And it's my fervent hope that TV advertisers, those parasites who invade our living rooms, will go the way of T-Rex, Eohippus, and the Dodo.

And I for one, can't wait to dance on their graves.

Change of Government

While I'm disappointed with the outcome of the Federal Election, I sincerely hope the new Labor Government has success in improving the quality of life for Australians over the next three years.

I'm so glad to live in Australia! There are not many places in the world where you can have a change of goverment and not have blood in the streets.

Liz and I took the kids into the polling booth and let them see democracy in action.

What a fantastic sight to see everyone voting, and having a say in what happens in the country.

At last look, our local member, Peter Dutton, was almost 200 votes ahead. It's a bit close for him, but it looks like he'll make it. Good on you, Peter, you're a great local member, and deserved to win!

Pearson on: Rudd: "Understand the heartless snake here"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/23/2099795.htm

Noel Pearson tells it like it is. He's a fearless advocate for his people.

I totally agree with his assessment of Kevin Dudd's duplicity.

Says Pearson: "This has obviously been a complete charade, and for those people who think that 'well, let's give Labor the move to perhaps run with this agenda in some later term', then I just say well we'll have a re-run of Bob Hawke here"

Dudd is a chameleon.

Like Pearson, I too dread the prospect of Dudd becoming Prime Minister.

Chalk and cheese

Despite the "me too" garbage from Mr Dudd and his comrades, the differences between the Coalition and the ALP are like chalk and cheese.

Click on the thumbnail below for a quick summary of the major performance indicators for both parties.

The difference between our current prosperity, and what we'd lose under a one party Labor State couldn't be starker.

A Coalition win by 5 seats

That's my prediction for Saturday.

There won't be a uniform swing, and while the ALP will pick up some seats, it will also lose one or two.

Call it wishful thinnking if you like, but I like to think that most Australians aren't going to get duped by "Mr Me Too", aka Kevin Dudd.

If I am right, most of the Australian media are going to look like a bunch of idiots and will have a bucketload of egg on their faces.

If I am right, someone needs to ask who paid whom to get such blatantly biased reporting from all streams of media including the ABC.

Of course, it's just my prediction, and it flies in the face of all the opinion polls, and all the "wisdom" of pundits who claim to be smarter than me.

But I hope I am right.

You need more to govern this country than a twerpy smirk and a photocopier for stealing economic policies. Mr Dudd just doesn't cut it.

Oh - one other thing, if I am right, I promise to post some priceless photos of the look on the faces of Kevin Dudd, Julia Dullard and Wayne Conn.

Beware the Chameleon

FakeKevin07

Say it once, and you could be excused for thinking it was just a gaffe by an inexperienced wannabe.

Say it twice, and you remove all doubt.

Now Charles Wooley has heard Garrett saying the same thing:
"Peter Garrett agreed, he intimated that 'What we say in Opposition might not be what happens in Government.'''

Read the article for yourself here.

Rudd and his shadow ministry are fakes. They are telling you what you want to hear because they want your vote. In areas where they're clueless (such as the economy) their photocopiers have been working overtime on their "Echo-nomic", Me-Too policies.

But when you really put them under the miroscope, Garrett's comments say it all: "We're just pulling your leg now. It will all change once we get elected".

It's par for the course, isn't it? Check out what Garrett used to say on American military bases in Australia, or on the Tasmanian Pulp Mill. Now check out what he's saying now. He (like most of the Labor front bench) has more positions on this stuff than the Kama Sutra.

Their lips are moving, but I can't hear anything meaningful coming out of their mouths.

You may not agree with everything he says, but at least when John Howard say's he's going to do something, he does it. He's the real deal.

Rudd is just a fake.

Me Too!

KopyKatKevin07

Kevin Rudd and the "me-too" conga-line that is the ALP haven't got a clue about economic management.

That's why when it comes to the hard stuff, like tax policy, economic management, and national develoopment, they're trying to play it safe by copying the Coalition.

Chameleons might be exciting to look at, but they do not make good leaders.

Ruddonomics

By Sinclair Davidson And Alex Robson

Wall Street Journal Asia – 23 October 2007

It looks like Australia may have lost its nerve for economic liberalism. In Sunday’s nationally televised debate, Prime Minister John Howard touted his vision: a "new society" based on entrepreneurialism and individualism. Opposition leader Kevin Rudd a self-proclaimed Christian socialist, backed bigger government and expanded social spending. Yet immediately following the debate, Mr Rudd. was declared the winner by most of the popular media.

Next month’s national election result could have significant implications for Australia, the world’s 15th-largest economy and a key U.S. ally in Asia. Over the past two decades, successive Labor and Liberal governments have ripped down trade barriers, privatized industries, floated the Australian dollar and opened the country to international capital flows. The economy is in its 16th year of uninterrupted economic growth, free of public debt, and enjoying low inflation and the lowest level of unemployment in 33 years.

Mr Rudd, a 50-year-old former bureaucrat, has cleverly mimicked the government’s record, even labeling himself an "economic conservative." That tack has apparently won him support among Australia’s middle classes, who have benefited most strongly from the economic boom and don’t want to see a change in economic strategy. He’s now leading Mr. Howard by about 10 percentage points in most national polls. But a closer look at Mr Rudd’s. record reveals that he’s not a reformer, but rather an unreconstructed interventionist masquerading as a free market conservative. Call it "Ruddonomics."

Take his parliamentary record, for a start. Since coming into the Parliament in 1998, Mr.Rudd has toed the party line and opposed most efforts to further reform the economy. The Australian Labor Party opposed the privatization of Australia’s government-owned telecommunications provider, Telstra; strongly protested industrial relations reform, including Mr. Howard’s recent efforts to reduce union power and abolish unfair dismissal laws; and, most importantly, opposed all significant tax reform over Mr. Howard’s tenure, including cuts in income taxes. Mr. Rudd’s economic philosophy isn’t a secret. In a speech to the free market Center for Independent Studies in Sydney last year, he openly attacked the free market ideas of Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek, branding him a "market fundamentalist." In Mr Rudd’s. mind, it’s okay to accept "the economic logic of markets but . . . these must be properly regulated and that the social havoc they cause must be addressed by state intervention." He also argued that public policy should deliver long-term market-friendly reform tempered by "social responsibility."

In practice, a Labor government under Mr. Rudd would re-regulate economic life. Over the past year he has promised to set up no fewer than 68 new bureaucracies and establish 96 reviews if elected. He promises to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and commit Australia to a costly program of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 60% of 2000 levels by 2050. His proposed industry policy—constructed by Kim Carr, a declared socialist—would create an uberbureaucracy of 12 Industry Innovation Councils. The goal, it seems, is to promote manufacturing by "picking winners"—a policy with an appalling track record of failure both in Australia and elsewhere. To round things off, Mr. Rudd’s labor-market policy promises to abolish individual workplace agreements and to restore union power over policy making to its former glory.

Given the Howard government’s record of economic success, Mr Rudd’s dominant lead this far into the electoral cycle is a remarkable achievement. But it’s also not without precedent. Australia has been through this kind of economic soul-searching before, with an eerily similar Labor campaign pitch—and a disastrous outcome.

In 1972, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam led Labor out of a 23-year-long electoral hiatus by running the most comprehensive negative campaign in Australia’s history. His "It’s Time" platform emphasized the Liberal Party’s long stint in power without laying out a coherent alternate economic vision. He then embarked on a disastrous three-year premiership, during which time he socialized Australia’s health and education systems and unapologetically increased the size of government. Inflation soared, as did the levels of national debt. Today,
Australia is still living with many of Mr. Whitlam’s mistakes.

Mr Rudd’s 2007 campaign strikes a similar tone. His slogan—"New Leadership"—is aimed squarely at Mr. Howard’s political longevity, rather than any apparent policy differences. Indeed, an integral part of Mr.Rudd’s strategy is to mimic everything his opponent says on monetary and fiscal policy, including keeping a budget surplus and an independent central bank. Even Mr. Rudd’s Labor Party colleagues—many of whom are closely affiliated with left-wing labor unions—now cloak themselves in the jargon of economic conservatism, while touting big government platforms such as a federal government takeover of the nation’s hospital system.

At the same time, Mr. Rudd has judiciously employed the "It’s Time" strategy, carefully pointing out that his opponent has been around for an awfully long time, and is "old," "stale" and "out of ideas." To top it all off, he often cautions voters about the evils of negative campaigning, and reprimands Mr. Howard for directing any criticism at him, no matter how minor.

We’ll soon know if Australian voters will repeat their 1972 mistake, and go with a candidate who promises bigger government. When asked whom they want to run the economy, voters overwhelmingly favor Mr. Howard. Yet betting markets, which have a good track record of predicting voting outcomes, show that Mr. Howard only has a 40% chance of holding on to power. That most voters do not seem to know or care about any of this speaks volumes about Mr. Rudd’s campaign strategy and Mr. Howard’s inability to cut through the spin. For the most part, Australians do not seem to recognize that good economic policy does not require "new leadership" or "new ideas." The current economic boom has lasted so long that most citizens— including Mr Rudd, it seems— have forgotten the three main ingredients of policy success: minimal intervention, transparent regulation and broad economic liberalization.

Mr Rudd has done well to convince voters he represents new leadership, as the results of Sunday’s debate show. Yet it isn’t clear which aspect of his election platform is new. If Ruddonomics wins the day, Australia could find itself back in a 1970s mindset, with bigger government and a less competitive economy. In a modern, rapidly globalizing world, that’s not a vision for the future— that’s a vision for the past.

Mr. Davidson is a professor in the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT University in Melbourne. Mr. Robson is a lecturer in the department of economics at the Australian National University in Canberra.