One person’s take on what March in March was all about

Over the last weekend (15-17 March) hundreds of thousands of people across Australia got together and marched against the Tony Abbott-leg government, under the banner of March in March.

There were many questions about who organised March in March and what were its motives and supposed outcomes. There was some quite good discussion about these questions in the lead up to March in March. But across the weekend hundreds of thousands of Australians marched.

They marched for various reasons.

I was fortunate enough to attend Melbourne’s March in March which started out at the State Library before heading off to Treasury Gardens. As it turned out there were tens of thousands of Australians packed into the gardens out the front of the State Library and around Melbourne Central. Some estimates suggest there were between 40,000 and 50,000 people.

It was a fantastic gathering of people from all walks of life and political persuasions.

I soon realised it didn’t really matter what March in March was all about but rather that this collective expression needed to happen.

People that had never met each other were discussing why they were there. And it turns out people had a variety of reasons but the theme was definitely overwhelming; the Abbott government is unsatisfactory and hurting people. It seemed that the people I was surrounded by were mostly there because of our treatment of refugees; our country going backwards on climate change; the expansion of CSG and opening up heritage forests to logging; and the attacks on single parents, students, aged and disability pensions.

There were others that I knew were there for those reasons and the attacks on workers’ rights and unions; and the education.

Personally I was there because:

• Our country is going backwards in tackling climate change and isn’t moving towards an economy powered by clean energy and driven by innovation;
• Our government has abandoned science;
• Our government’s reckless austerity measures in the face of all evidence saying austerity is not necessary – ensuring the most vulnerable are put further at risk;
• The policies of Labor and LNP towards refugees now sees some of the cruelest policies being implemented;
• Of the attacks on workers’ rights and unions;
• Our government doesn’t value the investment that education is in our population;
• Of the increasing attacks on our digital rights and the implementation of a second-rate broadband network;
• Of a government that panders to mining magnates and media moguls;
• Our government seems to regularly embarrass us on the international stage;
• A seeming lack of detail in articulating any kind of plan or vision for Australia without resorting to three word slogans.

There are definitely more but then this post would be very long and probably quite boring to read.

However I’m also confident that you can add your own reasons to this list for going to a March in March event held near you.

In the end it didn’t really matter why people were there; just that they did turn out to make this massive collective expression. I know it made me feel extremely positive and that the issues I work on and campaign for do matter and do make a difference. It was something that everyone there could enjoy – that they weren’t alone in feeling that something was very wrong with our federal and state governments.

The challenge, as noted by others, is for people working on progressive issues to turn this collective expression into further action.

For what it’s worth:

Here’s some video I took from the rally – this was well after the march had started but it was so massive it took some time before we got moving. Fortunately some street performers kept us entertained and revved up.

NOTE: This is a slightly altered version of the original post published here.

ABC, stay brave

Tony Abbott takes aim at the ABC

It is without a doubt that the Abbott Government is intent on curtailing as much scrutiny of itself as possible.  Step 1 is the ABC, with step 2 doubtless being the alternative and social media.  However, for the moment it’s the ABC.  Recent events include:

Tanya Plibersek:

“Tony Abbott’s comments today show he’ll blame everyone – including the media – for the promises he continues to break,” she said.

True enough Ms Plibersek, but more importantly – as broken promises are there for all to see – is the intention to deny the Australian public the chance to form their own opinion.  There shalt be only one opinion and his name shall be Murdoch.

It cannot be denied that the overwhelming bias since 2007 and before, has been pro-conservative and anti-most of everything else.  As an example, such was the success of the anti-Climate Change agenda, that the mainstream media sent Australia back a decade in terms of finding solutions.  A survey at the time (during Kevin Rudd’s 1st year at Prime Minister, but this is just from memory) provided that of all the Murdoch stable, only Melbourne’s Herald Sun provided anything near a balanced approach, and this was around 67%.  For others, the figures were far worse.  A balanced approached?  Unbiased?

Clearly, if you want to get the message out who does Tony Abbott run to?

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has fired a verbal warning to Jakarta…

Did he pass on his displeasure to Indonesia? No. Did he do it by way of a media press release? No. Did he pass the job onto his Minister? No.

The article tells us – wait for it – that . . .

Mr Abbott told radio station 2GB.

Specifically, Alan Jones’ Breakfast Show.

Clearly buoyed by his success in “accurately” enunciating his foreign policy intentions via shock-jock radio with a sure certainty that (of course) senior Indonesian officials have similar enthrall with Australian talk-back radio, Abbott has now turned to that other well-known broadcaster Ray Hadley, likewise at 2GB.  At least on this occasion Tony Abbott had at least a miniscule chance that someone/anyone from the media might listen to Ray Hadley, plus take it seriously.

Abbott’s interview with Ray Hadley is quoted below – this one should note, is the same Ray Hadley who was recently ordered to pay a woman $280,000 as compensation in a defamation case. “Acting Justice Henric Nicholas described Mr Hadley’s attack on Carlingford fish and chip shop owner, Kim Ahmed, as an ”unbridled tirade … spat into the microphone for the consumption of the audience”. Note: damages will be paid by the Macquarie Radio Network’s insurer.

“Meanwhile, people’s reputations are under question because of the ABC’s reporting of this matter, so I trust that the ABC will do the right thing.”  Ms J. Bishop was of course not speaking about the victim of Hadley’s defamation case.

However, undeterred by providing this interview to Mr Hadley and whilst knowing of Mr Hadley’s recent conviction of only a little over a month ago (and if not, one should ask why not), Tony Abbott then proceeded to shed crocodile tears about the naughty ABC not being on his side.

“A lot of people feel at the moment that the ABC instinctively takes everyone’s side but Australia’s,” he said in an interview with Ray Hadley on Sydney radio station 2GB.

“I think it dismays Australians when the national broadcaster appears to take everyone’s side but its own and I think it is a problem.”

It lacks ”at least some basic affection for the home team”.

Translation: the ABC has criticised me, and is therefore unpatriotic. I am, I am, I am, the Australia.  Tony, your ego is once again on display for all to see.  Tony, there is no home team; Tony Abbott currently heads one of the major political parties and the one which currently happens to be in power.  Tony, you are not “the home team”, Australia and the well-being and benefit of all Australians is the prime concern of all, irrespective of voting preferences.

Does Tony Abbott expect a robust critique of himself by appearing on shock-jock radio talk-back shows?  Or is this avoidance?  A token gesture so that he doesn’t cop the criticism of being entirely invisible.  Look at moi, I’ve been on Ray Hadley . . . duty done regarding “communication”.

Abbott’s crusade continues, to politicise the armed services, who as per the ABC are apolitical and who are sworn to adhere to basic practices.  Abbott’s awkward attempts to cosy up to the Navy in particular is nothing more than political opportunism.  By the way, Abbott if you are so concerned about Navy personnel, why this?

“Navy personnel carrying out border protection were quietly stripped of some workplace safety protections last month . . .”

So much for concern about “the home team” . . .

Well said by Wendy Harmer,

And what of the other national state-funded outfits he (Abbott) is, by inference, comparing with our ABC ? Russia Today, France 24 , those in Laos or the “baddies” North Korea? Their aims are clear: to promote the current government (or regime) in a favourable light and to vilify the opposition. To be a mouthpiece for those in power. To cosy up to governments and vested interests in affectionate embrace.

Is it any coincidence that certain ABC journalists have been threatened with “services no longer required” should they dare write a critique which might be unfavourable to the current ruling classes?

It is no secret that the NBN is being canned due to Murdoch:

The biggest fear for pay TV is advertising dollars being sent elsewhere as online services offer more affordable advertising rates than pay TV or free-to-air TV can offer.

The next stage on the path to control of what we see and what we know is our ABC is control of all dissenting opinions.

Malcolm Turnbull (this comment rapidly taken from the front pages, but still available via this link as I write):

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has strongly defended the ABC’s editorial independence in the face of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s attack on the national broadcaster, which he says ”instinctively takes everyone’s side but Australia’s”.

Mr Turnbull defended the Prime Minister’s right to critique the ABC but, in comments that could be interpreted as resistance to Mr Abbott, he said the ABC was rightly accountable to its board of directors, not politicians.

Further from Turnbull:

Mr Abbott told radio 2GB that Australians wanted ”some basic affection for the home team”, but Mr Turnbull said the broadcaster was more constrained by rules around editorial fairness than its competitors in commercial media.

Without putting words in Mr Turnbull’s mouth, this might be interpreted as, “Abbott, what on earth are you raving on about? The ABC is “more constrained” than anything and anyone in the the commercial media.”

Kevin Andrews:

Speaking at Canberra airport on his way to a cabinet meeting, the Social Services Minister said that in a robust democracy, the media should be scrutinised as much as anybody else.

Indeed Mr Andrews, and we all look forward to your critiques of the unsubstantiated rumours, false information, and opinion dressed up as fact as is currently presented to us by the mainstream media.  Surely, if your boss desires to continue to give patronage to such things as shock-jocks, the requirement should be that these persons must come under the same scrutiny as the ABC.

An anonymous constituent:

Coalition senator Ian Macdonald vigorously supported the Prime Minister’s criticism of the ABC on Thursday, noting that constituents asked him, ”when are you going to get rid of the ABC?”

Here we arrive at the crux of the matter, Tony Abbott wants the ABC to be his own personal cheer squad, as if we don’t have enough of that already from the Murdoch media and it’s associates.  However, this is a mere side issue on the road to the silencing of all dissenting opinions, the inability of Australians to read alternative views.  This is of course quite suitable to the Murdoch media who currently languishing behind paywalls,  who wants opposition silenced, or as much as possible in a semi-democratic society – first step, procure excuses to cut the ABC’s funding . . . next step . . .

We are therefore placed with a Prime Minister who believes that “the home team” is the only team that one is allowed to barrack for.  However, when he stated that “Test cricketers occasionally drop catches, great footballers occasionally miss tackles and, regretfully, there were a couple of occasions when this mistake was made – but it won’t happen again.”.

Labor’s communications spokesman Jason Clare said the study was ”all about providing an excuse to cut the ABC’s budget”.

“The night before the election Tony Abbott said there would be ‘no cuts to the ABC,” he said.

“If Tony Abbott cuts the ABC’s budget it will mean he is a liar, simple as that”.

This issue might have conveniently disappeared for the moment, but watch out come budget time, it is likely that B1 and B2 will be hocking their ‘jammies.

When the Institute of Public Affairs starts talking about the irrelevance of Australia having a national broadcaster, then we should be doubly fearful.  I wonder if having nobbled the ABC via budgetry means that there will be any “takers” to fill the shoes of the ABC in providing news transcripts for the blind?  Not much money in that one for Murdoch, so I can’t see it happening.

If there was ever a case for a taxpayer-funded state broadcaster, it doesn’t exist today. Australians have at their fingertips access to more news from more varied sources than ever before. Online, every niche interest and point of view is well covered. And as private media companies continue to struggle with profitability, the continued lavish funding of the ABC only serves to undermine their business model further.

You are a disgrace to our nation

It’s rare that I post an article simultaneously with The AIMN but this is one that I am very passionate about. Given that this site is frequented by many people who are equally as passionate about this (on both sides of the argument) I have no hesitation in offering it for debate.

I was appalled at the results of the recent poll conducted by the Sydney Morning Herald that revealed, for whatever reason, most people want the Abbott Government to treat asylum seekers more harshly than the disgustingly inhumane levels they currently do. It was noted, disturbingly, that:

A strong majority of Australians, 60 per cent, also want the Abbott government to “increase the severity of the treatment of asylum seekers.”

It is obviously not good enough that the:

Manus Island’s detention centre has been described as cruel, inhuman, degrading and violating prohibitions against torture in a detailed report by Amnesty International.

The most extraordinary claim in Amnesty’s report is that drinking water in the largest compound . . . is limited to less than half a litre a day.

“A dozen bottles a day for nearly 500 men, according to the staff who supply them, or less than a single 500ml bottle per person, an amount that is clearly insufficient, especially given the heat and humidity.”

Or that an:

. . . independent body of psychiatrists, psychologists, GPs and other medical professionals and advocates gave advice to the government about the serious mental health impacts of offshore processing and long term detention.

The living conditions in the facility are hot, extremely cramped and poorly ventilated. There is no privacy. The conditions in one dormitory were so bad that Amnesty International considers the accommodation of asylum seekers there a violation of the prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment. “P Dorm” is a World War II building with a low, curved, metal roof. It sleeps 112 men on bunk beds arranged with no space between. There were no windows, and two standing fans. As a result, the smell is overwhelmingly bad and the heat is stifling. Asylum seekers reported finding snakes in the room and flooding when it rained.

As the week progressed, we witnessed a string of unnecessary humiliations.

The men spend several hours each day queuing for meals, toilets and showers in the tropical heat and pouring rain, with no shade or shelter. Staff refer to them by their boat ID, not their names. Almost all are denied shoes. Most have had their possessions confiscated by people smugglers or staff on Christmas Island.

Pointless advice, apparently, as sixty per cent still want the Abbott government to increase the severity of the treatment of asylum seekers.

I now have a message to that sixty per cent: You are a disgrace to our nation.

It is highly unlikely that any of that sixty per cent will read this post but I have the satisfaction of telling The AIMN’s readers what I think of those disgraceful human beings and I can only hope that my feelings are widely disseminated. I would like to hope that my feelings would not only be widely shared, but widely supported.

This message comes with the warning that course language will be frequently used. I won’t be holding back.

To that sixty percent:

You are disgusting pieces of low-life shit.

You’re no doubt mildly pleased that asylum seekers are forced to live under conditions condemned by Amnesty International but it still isn’t good enough. What would make you assholes happy? No, on second thoughts, I’d dread to know what would really make you happy: I’d find it even more shameful to accept that we share the same nation and I can assure you that a high degree of shame already consumes me. And disgust. And anger.

What is truly disturbing, nay frightening, is that you possibly represent the views of the majority of Australians. Sixty per cent of them to be precise. That means we have a nation that is predominantly populated by the lowest common denominator when it comes to compassion for the plight of human misery. In other words, we are predominantly a nation of heartless, selfish, ignorant, racist bastards. And you sixty percent have proven to be heartless, selfish, ignorant, racist bastards because you want the Abbott government to increase the severity of the treatment of asylum seekers.

I have no idea why you are the way you are and I don’t know where you came from. I didn’t grow up in an Australia where heartless assholes like you dominated the social landscape. What happened? Were you simply born a nasty piece of shit or was it external influences like the fear mongering mainstream media in this country that caters for your Neanderlithic intelligence. Or maybe you’ve believed the equally racist Abbott Government – don’t get me started on them or their resident Darth Vader, Scott Morrison – or that xenophobic freak John Howard. Or maybe you await your daily dose of instructions from that screaming idiot Alan Jones on how to run your life. Perhaps you were among the angry mass that came down from the trees pumping with racial hatred when Jones urged his listeners to:

“Come to Cronulla this weekend to take revenge. This Sunday every Aussie in the Shire get down to North Cronulla to support the Leb and wog bashing day . . . “

If any of those poor sods locked up in those filthy detention centres – you know, the ones that aren’t getting treated harshly enough – if they ever make it to this ugly country, what would you like done to them? I can’t imagine how horrific it might be, though I’m sure it’d be something ghoulish enough to satisfy your heartless souls.

As I said, you (and your ilk) are a disgrace to our nation. And what a crying shame that sadly, you are our nation.

Follow @MigloMT

Abbott gets it wrong on Sri Lanka

Image courtesy of smh.com.au

Do you remember when Tony Abbott defended Sri Lanka’s human rights record, saying the Rajapaksa government was committed to upholding the democratic charter of the Commonwealth but that “sometimes in difficult circumstances difficult things happen”? Yes, like torture. And murder.

He went to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka with nothing but praise for President Mahinda Rajapakse, rather than to “bury him under the weight of human rights abuse allegations” that had completely dominated the CHOGM.

“We are here to praise as much as judge,” he told the forum’s opening meeting, lauding the ending of Sri Lanka’s civil war, and the development in the country since.

While Tony Abbott is content with showering praise, meanwhile in the real world:

A tribunal of 11 eminent judges has unanimously found the Sri Lankan government guilty of the crime of genocide against ethnic Tamil people. Sitting in Bremen, from December 7 to 10, the Second Session of the Peoples’ Tribunal on Sri Lanka found that the crime of genocide has been and is being committed against the Eelam Tamils as a national group.

The tribunal found that genocide against the Eelam Tamil group has not yet reached the total destruction of their identity; however, the genocide is a process and the process is ongoing. The military killings of May 2009 have been transformed into other forms of conduct causing serious bodily and mental harm to members of the group. The tribunal considered that the proof established beyond any reasonable doubt that the following acts were committed by the government of Sri Lanka:

– Killing members of the group, which includes massacres, indiscriminate shelling, the strategy of herding civilians into so-called ”no fire zones” for the purpose of killings, targeted assassinations of outspoken Eelam Tamil civil leaders who were capable of articulating the Sri Lankan genocide project to the outside world.

– Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, including acts of torture, inhumane or degrading treatment, sexual violence including rape, interrogations combined with beatings, threats of death, and harm that damages health or causes disfigurement or injury.

– Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part, including expulsion of the victims from their homes; and seizures of private lands; declaring vast areas as military high security zones to facilitate the military acquisition of Tamil land.

The tribunal undertook to further examine allegations of forced sterilisation of Tamil women.

Britain and the US were found to be guilty of complicity in the crime of genocide, including complicity by procuring means, such as weapons, instruments or any other means, used to commit genocide, with the accomplice knowing that such means would be used for such a purpose; and complicity by knowingly aiding or abetting a perpetrator of a genocide in the planning or enabling of such acts.

The tribunal recognised that Sri Lanka did not have the capacity to achieve genocide without assistance and, on the basis of evidence provided, came to the conclusion that Britain, the US and possibly India are guilty of complicity. However, due to the constraint of time, the tribunal limited its findings to Britain and the US, pending the availability of further evidence against India and other states.

After the recent gift of two patrol boats to Sri Lanka’s navy, Australia is in danger of being one of those states. The gift adds to the military capacity of the Rajapaksa regime to illegally detain and harm Tamil asylum seekers fleeing repression.

But in Abbott’s eyes it’s OK to donate two navy ships to Sri Lanka because they simply “promote enhanced collaboration on people smuggling”.

Is it really worth it? Is he that desperate to stop the boats that he’s happy to accept that the alternative for those people is that difficult things might happen to them?

Dan Rowden, on providing the link to the tribunal’s finding (above) on The AIMN summarises it better than anyone:

And this Government has now made Australia complicit. Whatever else this Government does I don’t think this one can be surpassed.

Abbott certainly got that one wrong, didn’t he?

Follow @MigloMT

The Abbott form of Social Engineering

I am grateful to John Lord for allowing me to reproduce his frightening piece, first published today on The AIMN.

In recent weeks I have written on three subjects relating to what I shall loosely call “The Psychology of Politics.” The first was titled Hidden Persuaders, the second You’re Being Manipulated and the third Political Lies and Who Tells Them. This one deals with Social Engineering.

This week I posted on Facebook the following statement.

“I have seen many governments come and go in my lifetime. All incoming governments naturally implement their policies within the constraints that exist within the two Australian Houses of Parliament.

The Abbott Government, however, seems to have embarked on some form of social engineering.”

I was taken to task for this statement by one person in particular and I told him I was writing an extended piece this week. To put my piece in some sort of context I begin with some quotes.

In one of his most influential essays, (Milton) Friedman articulated contemporary capitalism’s core tactical nostrum, what I have come to understand as “the shock doctrine”. He observed that:

“Only a crisis – actual or PERCEIVED – produces real change”. . . A variation on Machiavelli’s advice that “injuries” should be inflicted “all at once” – Naomi Klein, “Shock Doctrine”

In other words, manufacture a sense of crisis and you can get away with anything starting with maximum harm. Therefore, the conservatives are manufacturing a non-existent debt crisis.

Margret Thatcher said this (paraphrased):

“There is no such thing as society. There are only individuals making their way. The poor shall be looked after by the drip down effect of the rich”.

Abraham Lincoln said this:

“Labor came before capital and is not related to it. Capital is what’s acquired from labour, and would never have come about if it were not for labour. Therefore, labour is superior to capital and deserves the higher significance.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt said this:

They who seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers . . . call this a new order. It is not new and it is not order.”

This is one of mine:

“The GST burdens the poor and those with the least capacity to pay. It discriminates against the poor and the pensioners who are living a hand-to-mouth existence and spending the bulk of their income on the necessities of life—food, clothing, rent, heating, power etc”.

Before addressing the issue of Social Engineering I should say exactly what I think a Government should be regardless of its ideology.

Good government is about making and implementing decisions that serve the common good. That give security to the people it governs. Follows the rule of law and is truthful about its intentions. When making decisions it must be responsive to the will of the people. It should allow its citizens to be participatory in the function of government. It should be inclusive, equitable and supportive of the people’s right to know. By equity I mean the people have a right to a fair reward for the fruits of their labour. And above all it should be answerable to the people.

What is ‘Social (political) Engineering?’

Social Engineering is when a political party seeks to use selective deceptive, manipulative and insidious psychological techniques to influence and bring about a change in the attitudes of masses of people to its point of view.

Now let’s get to the crux of the matter. You cannot possibly believe in democracy if you believe that your party is the only one who should win. Therefore, any party who wins an election is entitled to govern.

My problem with the Abbott Government is that it has embarked on a programme that is ideologically targeted at changing the way we think. This is social engineering.

Tony Abbott, for six years in Opposition created a negative image of our nation. He has never had a positive word to say about his country. He uses simplistic slogans to talk about complex problems and in doing so suggests he has answers when he doesn’t. He has spread negativity like rust throughout the community. This is because he sees a need to promote a sense of crisis, an Armageddon about everything. Everything is wrong and he is the only one who can fix it. There is a budget crisis when none exists. There is a debt crisis (while adding to it) when none exists. There is a crisis about the cost of living when Australians have never had it better. It’s a deliberate tactic of social engineering. Create an illusion of disaster and people will believe the perception is in fact a reality. And of course keep on doing it when you attain government.

Another form of social engineering is making the people feel threatened. Tell them that the poor souls seeking asylum are below humanity, demonise them so that the people hate them. Take away all their rights and appeal to the base instincts of ordinary people and the racists. Apply a code of conduct and treat them like animals. Even take away the basic human right of association. Tell the people the absurd lie that their borders are under threat. And keep repeating the same slogans in government. Perpetuate the lie that you have stopped the boats when in all probability it was the other party’s policies that were responsible. It’s called social engineering.

The conservative Abbott Government has taken away from middle and low income earners, the School bonus and a superannuation discount to low income earners, mainly women. In addition they have blocked a pay rise to low income Child Care Workers. The annual small lump sum to pensioners to pay for unexpected bills was also abolished. And when the commission of audit reports I should think the assault on the middle and lower income earners will be on in earnest. The abandonment of all these benefits in the name of austerity is a smoke screen. It is taking from one group to give to another. The Paid Parental Leave Scheme comes to mind. Also the 15% tax rebate for the highest wage earners. This is not equity, it is social engineering. If the budget truly demands cuts, they should be equitable.

When a Government seeks to backtrack on election promises like the Gonski reforms and reimpose its own elitist inequitable policy with not the slightest thought for those who can least afford a better education: it is practising social engineering.

When it deliberately downgrades a policy like the NDIS on the basis of unaffordability but at the same time gives tax breaks to the wealthy industrialists including the richest women in the world: it is applying social engineering.

This Government came to office saying they were adult and trustworthy. That there would be no surprises. Yet what we have seen is an attack on the less well-off. It is making it very clear that there are untouchable cohorts and there are those that will have to support the untouchables.

The refusal to pay a miserly pay increase to Child Care Workers was an attack on Unionism. Taking money from aged care workers by dumping the Workforce Compact which provided a $1.2 billion fund to give aged care workers a much-needed 1% pay rise is another example.

The very premeditated, deliberate government induced exodus of GMH is not just the expulsion of the car industry but also a government attempt to rid the country of unions. There will be no government assistance for companies with union shops. It’s called social engineering.

If there were just a few instances of stamping a Governments ideological philosophy on the community you would say, fair enough. But there is a have, have-not form of serfdom running through this government’s work. They came to government without any policies and are more intent on destroying Labor’s legacy than governing for the common good.

We now have a Prime Minister for undoing, not for doing.

It seems the Abbott Government is attempting to socially engineer the minds of people. Nowhere is this more evident than its willingness to downgrade education and in particular, science. Any pretext to the scientific understanding of environmental impacts has been thrown out the window to appease the sponge of capitalism. We have seen in the past few days the reversal of Australia’s ocean reserves. A policy hailed throughout the world. God only knows what they intend for the Murray Darling.

To belittle science in order to create doubt in the community is social engineering of the very worst kind. And to suggest that excellent learning should only be available to the well-off is yet another example of social engineering.

In the area of communications we have a concerted attempt to eliminate the reasoned voice of opposing views. The dual attack on the ABC by the Murdoch Empire is an attempt to stifle debate. When a government condemns a perceived bias of one outlet without acknowledging the bias of another it is practicing social engineering

And when it appoints a person like Tim Wilson from the right wing think tank, IPA to the position of Australian Human Rights Commissioner at $330,000 a year (an institution that he and the IPA advocate eliminating) they are saying loud and clear that they are intent on telling you how to think. It’s called social engineering.

On his appointment he tweets this.

@Stimwilsoncomau: “To those who have welcomed my appointment, I give thanks. To those that have not, I welcome the chance to defend your free speech.”

Lying of course is the Social Engineers most effective tool. Throughout his career Tony Abbott has used this tool most effectively. He admits it and the people accept it but its effectiveness is in its persistency and continuity. Abbott has reached a stage in his Social Engineering where he is convincing people that truth is what he convinces us to believe rather than truth based on fact.

Here is an example:

“Let’s be under no illusion. The carbon tax was socialism masquerading as environmentalism”.

The statement has no basis in fact.

Another tool of Social Engineering is secrecy and the Abbott Government has displayed a propensity for it. It’s called lying by omission.

We also see Social Engineering in policy and decision making. Here are a few: T

– The broken promise on the NBN will effectively mean that those who can afford it will become information rich and those who cannot will remain information poor.

= Done deals with every state and territory government to gut and downgrade national environment laws by giving approval powers to state premiers further erodes the public’s capacity to disagree. It removes the community’s right to challenge decisions where the government has ignored expert advice. By removing funding to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia it has taken away the participatory role of the people in government.

– By challenging the ACT Marriage Equality laws in the High Court it has ensured the ongoing discrimination against same-sex couples despite the vast majority agreeing with the proposition. By moving to repeal protections in the Racial Discrimination Act it is flaunting public opinion. By scrapping the Advisory Panel on Positive Aging, established to help address the challenges we will face in coming years as the number of older Australians grows it has taken away the voice of the people. And in abolishing the Climate Commission it has sought to silence science.

All of these things contribute to how we think act and feel. By manipulating society into thinking that the entire realm and ownership of knowledge is found in one ideology, one individual or cohort of individuals is a form of Social Engineering.

Collectively I believe these four pieces make a solid case that Abbott in Opposition and in Government is embarking on a course of Social Engineering. A course of inequality, of privilege and serfdom. Of manipulating society into believing that if the rich become richer their lot will advance at the same rate.

I remember Peter Costello being asked at the end of his tenure as Treasurer about the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. His answer was to say “but at least the poor have not become poorer.”

I will leave you to ponder that.

PS. And I didn’t even mention the malevolent treatment of women. Yet another example of Social Engineering.

Follow @MigloMT

There are jobs at Centrelink, apparently

Follow @MigloMT

Have a look at the Public Service job vacancies for Canberra. In all there are only 13, with most of them being an invitation to put your name on a temporary register. As you may be aware, the Government has frozen employment in the Public Service as it begins its massive reduction in staff numbers. Before the election the numbers of jobs advertised each week ran into the hundreds.

But if you look closely on the link provided there is one job being advertised. The Department of Human Services is advertising for those seeking irregular or intermittent employment, with the closing date 19/12/2013. The job was first posted 20/11/2013.

I followed it up. They are Centrelink jobs.

Why is Centrelink the only department after staff? Is the Government expecting an increase in the number of people requiring their services? Is the Government, more to the point, expecting a jump in the number of unemployed people?

It appears that way. It is also of their own making.

Don’t worry. The Government is here to assist you.

Follow @MigloMT

Acting Prime Minister Warren Truss has just announced in Parliament announced that Holden will cease operations in 2017. It is a huge blow, the ramifications of which are yet to be fully considered. But they will be felt by the community. And hard. Amid claims that it’s Labor’s fault anyway, Mr Truss heroically assures us that:

. . . the government stood ready to assist sacked workers and to support dealers and employees.

I’m wondering if he ran that by Tony. We should remember these recent words from The Australian:

The ball is now in Tony Abbott’s court. If he reverses his $500 million cut to industry support, and commits to continuing to support it, Holden will stay. If he refuses to do that, Holden will go. The choice could not be clearer.

Now I’m very pleased that he’s in South Africa attending the funeral of Nelson Mandela. He can now come back to Holden’s funeral.

Perhaps the $500 million cut to industry support can now be spared “to assist sacked workers and to support dealers and employees“. Or perhaps he might do one of Howard’s old tricks and introduce a levy, in which case the tax payers will be supporting the sacked workers and dealers. We will have to wait and see.

Either way, I don’t believe Abbott, Truss or anybody when they sort of say; “Don’t worry. The Government is here to assist you”.

They missed their chance.

Holden (Photo credit: racin jason)

Yes, we are frustrated

Follow @MigloMT

Whilst we blog writers source most of our material from the issues of the day, usually found on the mainstream media, now and again a comment will appear on a blog that can also stir us into action. And we do receive many. One posted by John O’Callaghan on the Worse than disrespect post on The AIMN before the election is one that such comment. John wrote, which I have slightly edited:

I remember Bob Hawke when he first became Prime Minister saying that the biggest obstacle that Australians faced is apathy, and when you combine that with a gutless media that panders to their own survival and keeps the general public uninformed and not thinking for themselves, as an example, making sure we’re happy that the majority of funding for education goes to elite private schools to produce future Tony Abbotts, John Howards, George Pells and the like. The Republicans in America have been employing this tactic for years and up to 2008 it was working, but even the Americans are waking up to this right-wing bullshit and have twice voted for Obama and the Democrats but it seems we Australians are a bit slow to recognise that the right-wing are brain washing us to vote against our best interests. Why would any parents with school aged children vote for a party that will take away the school bonus? Why would any parent with a teenager working their first part-time job or low wage full-time job vote for a party that will tax a young person who earns over $6000 as opposed to $18000? Why would a person vote for a party that will force them to spend 5 to 6 thousand dollars to get fibre to their home when they can get it for free? Why? Is there someone out there in cyber land that can answer my questions? I don’t have the answers but is there someone out there who has? I get the feeling from reading the posts from sites like John Lord (The AIMN), Independent Australia, Café Whispers, WixxyLeaks and the like that people are frustrated just like me and want their voices to be listened to. But until we become united as one we will never be heard so I suggest we join forces as a united voice, if you like, something like a union. And don’t forget the Truth Seeker and his brilliant poems and political musings as well. All this talent just going to waste because we are preaching to the converted and we are so smug and empowered by the power of the internet and feel we have done our bit by voicing our opinions, but we have to be pragmatic and realise that our opinions do matter but nobody is listening and unless we get our message out to the general public we are a lost cause. I remind all you good people that when Independent Australia tried to lodge an application for membership of the Canberra Press Gallery, it was rejected by David Speers. I hope that all the independent on-line publications will form a union to fight the good cause for the good of all Australians.

Well, John, I can assure you that we are frustrated too. And that’s why we exist, as do the other sites you have mentioned and many more that haven’t been mentioned.

Yes, we are frustrated. Frustrated at the apathy in this country and frustrated by our gutless media. And from the look of the latest Newspoll, the number of frustrated people just got a whole lot bigger.

Who is Peta Credlin?

Follow @MigloMT

I’ve asked the question, but I’m sorry if you came here looking for the answer. I can’t give it to you.

We all know that she’s Chief of Staff to Tony Abbott and we all know the power she wields. She is in the news, almost daily, and it usually revolves around some form of use of this power.

So, out of interest, I thought I’d like to learn more about this powerful woman. The first thing one usually does in their learning quest is turn to Wikipedia. Even if the content is questionable, at least it’s the only place on the Internet that will have an entry about everybody or everything. You name it; it’ll be there.

But not so with Pete Credlin. Australia’s most powerful woman doesn’t rate an entry. Her husband Brian Loughnane does. His entry says he is married to Peta Credlin.

Her absence from Wikipedia can only be put down to one of two reasons. Firstly, she isn’t a person of interest or importance. Secondly, she is a person of interest but somebody has made the decision that all information about her is not to be made public. I tend to go with the latter. It fits in with the new Government’s fanaticism with secrecy and censorship.

What do you think?

Sorry, but I’ve changed my mind. I was paid to.

Image courtesy of http://www.sortius-is-a-geek.com

Follow @MigloMT

In October Malcolm Turnbull announced the appointment of former Tesltra boss Ziggy Switkowski as NBN Co to lead a three-person board overseeing the national broadband network.

In his inaugural appearance at a senate estimates hearing, Switkowski said Telstra’s copper network is ‘robust’ and has been well-maintained for decades. Concerns expressed about the network not being up to being the basis for a FttN NBN, he added, were “misinformed”. He stressed that:

The copper network has been in place for a long time. It’s constantly being maintained, remediated, upgraded.

Readers here will be all to well aware of the criticism of the government’s plan to provide the NBN through Telstra’s copper network; an antiquated alternative to Rudd’s NBN, the future of which is now in doubt.

But it’s remarkable to hear Switkowski’s glowing praise of the copper network when compared to what Telstra had to say about it in 2003 while he was chief of the telco:

Telstra will replace its century-old copper wire phone network with new technology within the next 15 years, saying the ageing lines are now at “five minutes to midnight”.

Telstra executives revealed the problem at a Senate inquiry into broadband services on Wednesday.

Go figure.

I guess it’s easy to change your mind when the government pays you lots of money to do so.

(Thanks to Kaye Lee and Bacchus for this post).