Home > Regular Features > Weekend reflections

Weekend reflections

August 29th, 2009

It’s time again for weekend reflections, which makes space for longer than usual comments on any topic. As always, civilised discussion and no coarse language.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. nanks
    September 3rd, 2009 at 08:52 | #1

    We could have an auction.

  2. nanks
    September 3rd, 2009 at 09:10 | #2

    Better still would be to open citizenship up to the market completely on an annual basis. The State could offer a certain number of places – say 25,000,000 – and they could go to the highest bidder. The returns from the auction could be used in lieu of taxation.
    A similar scheme could be put in place for business – although it would only be fair to offer businesses a 5 year ticket due to their increased need for certainty.

  3. Donald Oats
    September 3rd, 2009 at 10:01 | #3

    Alice :I cant help laughing at one letter to the editor today that reads
    “now, if only we could find someone to sleep with Joe Tripodi…”

    Sartor, maybe? OMG LOLTH – COTN!

  4. Michael of Summer Hill
    September 3rd, 2009 at 10:13 | #4

    Alice & TerjeP (say tay-a), I’m not sure where you both live but since the 1980s a lot of migrants have invested in businesses and breathed life into suburbia which was more or less was dead. The current problem is Federal Labor and their failed policies in marginalising those living on the breadline. Instead of giving a helping hand the Rudd government turns a blind eye.

  5. Donald Oats
    September 3rd, 2009 at 10:20 | #5

    Immigration at these rates is one reason we need to privatise schools, roads (as in big Mac model in NSW), water (well done Brown, Olsen, SA Liberals, and sundry other state governments of the day), universities by stealth (HECS fees and o/s student income funding permanent jobs, equipment and facilities, and research for industry cash as in big pharma – see vioxx for what can go wrong), etc. The poor old public purse can’t keep up with this government problem of its own making.

    If only one government had the mettle to limit immigration to a level well below the Aussie birth rate. Say 100K per annum, spread around the country. That covers a reasonable number of refugees, still allows some professional mobility, and student visas are simply that.

    We have some serious problems confronting the nation; we simply can’t keep keep focus on those problems – many of them environmental and human clashes – while importing so many people per annum, which only increases the scale of the problems.

    Still trying to work out what would attract a young female to Della Bosca; was it his perfect complexion, or his tall stature, or his strong performances in parliament…

  6. Donald Oats
    September 3rd, 2009 at 10:22 | #6

    @Donald Oats
    Sorry – most of first paragraph was tongue-in-cheek: I’m not an advocate of privatisation in case anyone thinks otherwise.

  7. Alice
    September 3rd, 2009 at 10:27 | #7

    @Michael of Summer Hill
    Moshie – you cant be serious…its State Labor that is “shambolic.” Rudd is doing a reasonable job…do you want the tightwads back? BTW…how much did the future fund lose while the libs keep crowing about investing our surpluses in the shambolic sharemarkets in stead of much needed and overdue infrastructure??….(hmm I like that word)

  8. Alice
    September 3rd, 2009 at 10:29 | #8

    @Donald Oats
    Oh Don ….marriage made in hell!! You might hard pushed to find a partner for either of them….how about Obeid? Any takers out there??

  9. Alice
    September 3rd, 2009 at 10:32 | #9

    Ive got an idea for a great new game show
    “State Labor politicians seek a mistress”…roll up and audition now! Except they should change the rules…the first time a woman says “ewwwwwww no” the politician gets kicked off the show.

  10. Michael of Summer Hill
    September 3rd, 2009 at 10:36 | #10

    No Alice, much of what I’m saying is inline with the ACTU & other compassionate like minded people.

  11. Fran Barlow
    September 3rd, 2009 at 11:41 | #11

    @Alice [Della Bosca]

    That’s as may be Alice. he could have insisted and challenged them to sack him immediately.

    Then, if they do and if the ALP is wiped out — which seems likely, he can be the clean skin to step in and guide the ALP back to power in 2015 or at worst 2019 …

  12. Alice
    September 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 | #12

    @Michael of Summer Hill
    Moshie…you are dreaming and so is the ACTU. What disconnect is there when Roozendahl is still on his podium crowing about yet another privatisation and sale of state silver which stands to lose these incompetent bunglers another 50 mill a year…and wipe out small businesses like newsagents which are probably already suffering from online content (as newspapers are). What is Roozendahl after – handing another swathe of small business over to a large business (getting some kickback) and taking yet another regular income stream away from Govt?? They are right wing fanatics in NSW State Labor and they atre totally disconnected from the mood of the people and the direction that fed labor is travelling which is…in the direction of longer term govt investment.
    Moshie – you and the ACTU are dreaming if you think they stand a chance of getting back in. Its from madness to insanity. I dont think you get it – the electorate finds State Labor and their deals badly on the nose because they are.

  13. Michael of Summer Hill
    September 3rd, 2009 at 12:03 | #13

    No Alice, as pointed out today in the SMH ‘for too long the people of NSW have been starved of intelligent opposition’. Thumbs up Rees.

  14. Michael of Summer Hill
    September 3rd, 2009 at 16:00 | #14

    John, there has been a serious setback in Middle-eastern politics which may have major ramifications throughout the region. Reports indicate that the previously classified illegal settlements in the West bank have retrospectively become legal as a result of two separate Israeli court cases handed down this week and a slap in the face to Obama’s efforts in bringing peace to the region.

  15. Michael of Summer Hill
    September 3rd, 2009 at 18:23 | #15

    John, today Bob Ellis is his usual self in Crikey describing how John Della Bosca’s elevation in joining a long list of upstanding citizens is mucha ado about nothing and gives the Telegraph a poke in the eye.

  16. Alice
    September 3rd, 2009 at 19:59 | #16

    Thumbs down Rees. Thumbs down NSW Labor. Give the people of NSW a vote now. Im not even a conservative voter but I know a bad party when I see one (in fact I know ten years of false ideology embedded in a state political party when I see it Moshie…they, NSW Labor, are lost).

  17. Michael of Summer Hill
    September 3rd, 2009 at 21:20 | #17

    Alice, today’s ‘no confidence’’ motion in the Rees Government was a real fizzer defeated 52 to 36 votes. However, Alice if you have a Ministers’ guide to surviving sex scandals then please forward it to John Della Bosca not Rees. Thumbs up Rees.

  18. Alice
    September 3rd, 2009 at 21:41 | #18

    Moshie…you do my head in!

  19. Alice
    September 3rd, 2009 at 21:48 | #19

    @Donald Oats
    Don – no need to wonder – it was the pay checque from the media relations firm and then the sale of the story. Ask not why she was attracted to Della but ask who paid and why a laptop was seen smuggled out of her house wrapped in a blanket to the SMH….wait for it…poor Della’s emails to his “mistress” are going to be plastered in the papers. Thats worth money. It wouldnt surprise me. Its almost enough to make you feel sorry for him isnt it?. I cant remember the last time I saw a cartoon of a politician in their underpants…I seem to recall there might have been a strange incident involving Malcolm Fraser in his underpants in a hotel lobby in the US??

  20. Michael of Summer Hill
    September 3rd, 2009 at 22:03 | #20

    Alice, I believe Professor Rodney Tiffen will have a piece entitled Ministers’ guide to surviving sex scandals in tomorrow’s SMH. Have a good night’s sleep.

  21. Freelander
    September 4th, 2009 at 10:29 | #21

    An interesting link looking back to a time when there were still people in republican party worthy of admiration: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/opinion/03blumenthal.html?em

  22. CJ
    September 4th, 2009 at 10:32 | #22

    Watched Q and A last night. Panel included Heffernan and some chap from the Institute of Public Affairs. Both Heffernan and the IPA chap made arguments that I found interesting – interesting because of the angle used to push Heffernan’s and the IPA’s preferred policies. I’m wondering if they’ve found a new argument…

    When a question was put to the panel about emissions from agriculture, Heffernan replied that we have a moral obligation to support and promote Australian agriculture to feed the growing global population and to ensure that everyone reaches a comparable level of food security and nutrition to that enjoyed in Australia. Heffernan was pushing agriculture in northern Australia, and the turning of rivers to the inland, a position that he has long been advocating.

    Another question to the panel was about the development of a gas processing plant on the Kimberley coast. The IPA chap argued that we had a moral obligation to ensure that people around the world enjoyed energy security. He asserted that a decision to conserve the Kimberley coast by preventing the gas development would condemn people in developing countries to fuels which cause cancer and suffocation.

    Both the IPA and Heffernan used similar arguments about coal exports.

    I find this argument (ie. one premised on moral obligations to the needy) an interesting approach for Heffernan and the right. Any comments?

  23. Freelander
    September 4th, 2009 at 20:06 | #23

    I think the explanation is that there is money in selling food. I don’t think they suggested giving it away. Also, the IPA and people like Heffernan often use these types of arguments less out of concern for the underprivileged and more as a tactic to disarm those they are debating with who do have moral concerns. The usual libertarian position on ‘moral obligation’ is that you only have the obligation not to do harm to others (without their agreement). Otherwise, you don’t have any obligation to prevent harm happening to others. You don’t even have the obligation not to exploit people. If a drug addict wants to buy a fix, or a destitute person wants to sell a kidney (or two), no problem. If a gambling addict is flush with money usher them into your casino. If you come across someone lost and needing help in the forest you have no moral obligation to provide assistance if you were not the person responsible for their plight.

Comment pages
1 2 6954
Comments are closed.