Monday Message Board

Back on air with another Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language. Lengthy side discussions to the sandpits, please.

53 thoughts on “Monday Message Board

  1. Clive Hamilton has gone feral over at The Conversation.

    Cory Bernardi is right, in Peter Singer’s anti-human world

    People (including me) are lining up to take a swing.

    He seemed to take especial umbrage at me when I commented:

    I have to say Clive, that speaking as a Green, I find your article above to be utterly facile and embarrassing. One expects specious and offensive nonsense from Bernardi and Akerman, but I’m troubled that someone who has once stood for my party could attach their name to such unremitting drivel.

    He responded, inviting me to declare my views on bestiality and whether this was Greens policy.

    At some point this fellow was regarded as a public intellectual. As I noted to him in response:

    Yet even were {bestiality} a Greens position, how would this alter the substance of the claims you make above? Isn’t this a sad attempt by you to win an argument by seeking to elicit and direct moral panic?

    It seems to me that the more you write the less intellectually distinguished your methodology is from that of Bernardi.

    You’ve written a poorly argued piece, in effect embracing the Bernardi/Akerman strawman and now you’re doubling down on it in an attempt to score a cheap win.

    I’m so glad you never came to represent us.

  2. Apparently the Saudi Arabian National Guard is conducting military helicopter training just north of Noosa. A lot of residents are worried about the noise and of course some are pointing out the nature of Saudi governance and human rights issues.

    Shouldn’t this be news for all of Australia rather than just a public nuisance issue for Noosa residents?

  3. “Chinese people” (likely PRC citizens) have reportedly been loitering in the region of Japanese consulates in Australia, for the purpose of harassing, haranguing, and intimidating persons, especially ethnic Japanese, who intend to enter those consulates.

    Why have not the Australian authorities engaged in some robust visa cancellation/deportation?


    I don’t know how stupid the NSW Liberal politician think the public is, but the the action contradicts the aim in this case.

    Any sensible business person knows that if you have an overtime problem, you employ more workers and/or employ more night shift workers in the case of health sector. This is simple business 101, not only that you don’t have to pay over time rate, you’ll reduce the work hours of the overworked workers which translate to higher productivity and higher quality service in another words, lower marginal cost of labour.

    If there is a waste that the patients need to be transfered between hospitals due to not enough patient capacity, you build more hospitals.

    The point I want to make is, what’s the point of arguing for politicians to have business experience when they don’t even do what business person is supposed to do? Assuming that they are not some religious zealot.

  5. Sherrin (makers of AFL footballs) are in strife over the use of child labour in India.

    According to Fairfax these kids were getting 12 cents per football. A quick look on google suggests that a Sherrin footy retails for up to about $169.

    There is no suggestion that the Indian children were producing substandard work (in fact, the inference must be that their work was up to Sherrin’s presumably exacting standard of quality assurance).

    In response Sherrin has declared that it is going to use a different factory in India! Yay!

    Hey, Sherrin – here’s an idea: track down each of the kids, pay them the full retail price of every one of the 9000 footies they may have made as restitution and ensure that every single person in your “new” Indian factory gets 50% MORE than the going wage for stitching together things for scabby foreign corporations who can’t be bothered supporting their home manufacturing industries.

    Just an idea.

  6. @Megan

    They’re not practicing throwing dissidents from the helicopters from various elevations, sans parachutes (or the unbound hands with which to pull the cord).

    Rumour has it that watching that was Milton Friedman’s real motivation, when he made his infamous “economic aid” trip to South America.

  7. I’m very much on Clive Hamilton’s side on this one. I was on his side also when he came out against girls being on the front lines in combat in our various overseas engagements for the benefit of the money-creation/covert operations elite (a small cadre of people whom we tend to know very little about, until many decades after the event). I agreed with the arguments Clive made, and I had a few of my own.

    Fighting comes naturally to some males. It doesn’t come naturally to many females but once they get started they tend to be so ferocious they ought to be reserved in this particular capacity for the home front. A smart country trains its ground forces with a “shock troops” and “special forces” bias, and yet positions it people in support and logistics roles, if it knows what is good for it.

    Good policy is to maintain alliances with countries wherein we know who the hell is running them. But in any case, given the overwhelming strength of the now utterly dysfunctional USA, good policy is maintaining relationships, but in such a way as to send almost everyone home to Mum in good shape.

    This is not easy. Ones military capacities must be very strong in order to be able to have the negotiating position with ones allies to be able to pick and choose HOW we hold up our end of the log.

    But all our non-military capacities ought to be up to scratch as well. If we finance underground broadband SLOWER with higher taxes, and with dissolving government departments, we are in much better shape with international negotiations then if we finance the same bombing-resistant broadband, FASTER with no tax increases, no spending cuts, and with some sort of demonic legal and debt-based monstrosity negotiated with Goldman Sachs international criminals in the room.

    I see I’ve gone a bit farther then the things I agree with, when it comes to Clive Hamilton. I guess what is really bugging me is having criminal organisations and merchants-of-debt generally, in the room, when privatisation and infrastructure decisions are made.

  8. Words from the grave of murdered Iranian journalist Maya Naser – No Civil War in Syria

    From the Syrian Girl partisan’s channel, 27 September 2012

    Press TV Journalist Maya Naser was martyred yesterday when FSA Mercenary Snipers while he was covering a bombing in the Syrian capital of Damascus . He was a patriot and a brave hero that risked his life for the truth. Three weeks before his death I interviewed him on wether or not there was a civil war in Syria. I waited to put it out because I wanted to edit it, and now it’s too late for him to see it. I had hoped to interview him again, ‘inshallah’ he said, ‘god willing’.

  9. The objection to beastiality must involve, mainly, the question of protecting the beast from exploitation, being ‘had’ without its consent, and when and what would constitute consent. Much the same issues that are of concern in relation to some sexual activity between heterosexuals.

    The only other concern might be whether the activity might assist certain viruses to leap the species barrier. Here specialist advice would be handy.

    How acceptance of beastiality should be the result of an acceptance of homosexuality is not clear. And as usual those making the link provide no insight into their reasoning.

  10. A storm has arisen in media space about the latest recorded reamrks of radio-based rightwing loudmouth Alan Jones. For the benefit of those few who have not heard the reported remarks, made at a $100 per plate function run by the Sydney Uni Liberal Club (SULC), Jones, riffing on his Gillard-is-a-liar meme, asserted that she had caused the death of her father, John Gillard, by shaming him in her role as PM. The remarks have been condemned even by some Liberal figures — Peter van Onselen and Malcolm Turnbull, but at the time of writing, not Tony Abbott. The SULC has run the “not our remarks and out of context” defence, after affirming Jones speech on the basis that they “hadn’t heard it in a noisy room”. Hmmm

    For mine a couple of questions are raised by this matter. Many are calling upon Jones to apologise and I can understand that, but I’m not so sure it’s desirable in this case. Apologies are available to those who have some ethical scruple and there is no evidence that Jones is one such person. Those without them who apologise are merely adding insult to injury.

    An empty apology — one that does not account fully and persuasively for the offence and its aetiology and thus shows that the offeror grasps why and how they have come to harm others and decribes their willingness to make good restitution is no apology at all. It’s a wave of the hand.

    In some legal systems (e.g the US), people pleading guilty to offences are required to “allocute” — which is essentially the process above. If Jones is to “apologise” he should be required to allocute, not merely for this monstrosity, but to all of his prior misdeeds.

    He once said that he was a mere entertainer. That would be entertaining.

    More generally those of us who are not in Jones’s cultural orbit oght to reflect more broadly on what has come to be seen in small-l liberal circles as the decine in the standards of public discourse. It does have a distinct provenance and Jones would make a good case study. Jones’s remarks are in decisive part a manifestation of the determination of Big Filth & Big Dirt to hold onto their privileges, and thus by extension, the interest the Liberals have in hitching themselves to this campaign to return to power. They have no substantive claim against forcing more equity in the distribution of resource wealth or internalisation of the costs of pollution, and so the campaign must be fought out through the usages of the culture wars — and inevitably those usages demand a face be put on their enemy. In America, it was for a long time “Fat” Al Gore, and then even better, Barack Obama whose authenticity even as an American was called into question.

    We recall that Julia Gillard was subjected to an unbroken and connected stream of public abuse by the far (and not so far) right from almost the moment she became PM in mid-2010. We recall those rallies with their “Ditch the Witch” and “Bob Brown’s B|tch” signs and reference to UN conspiracies and calls for the ouster of the regime. We recall the campaigns the RW trolls ran on the radio in which callers were lauded for making the most offensive of remarks about her not merely as PM but of her as a woman. One recalls the Daily Telegraph presenting her mocked up as an ageing bag lady during the 2010 election. Even today, on The Insiders “Talking Pictures” there were cartoons of Gllard as a prostrate person suffering morbid obesity shot from between her legs and being examined by Swan for trimming.

    This style of campaign reflects the desire of the privileged to stay privileged at the expense of everyone else and what happens when someone’s personal interests become entirely bundled up with a campaign which, at the pointy end has no place else to go but in the direction of misanthropy, misogyny and the conjuring of obsessive personal hatred. The more gross and pervasive the inequality the more intense and widespread the abuse will be. While the abuse in this case is personal in its format it is profoundly political in its character.

  11. One of the great joys of living in Qld and never listening to radio is not having to listen to Alan Jones and other southern shock jocks. I am not aware that we have any shock jocks in Qld. If we do, their fame must be miniscule. I have never heard of them.

    Personal, bad taste attacks are despicable. It doesn’t get much worse than saying someone social of political actions killed their recently deceased father or mother. Strangely, it is both despicable and ludicrous.

    On the objective front, Julia Gillard is a mendacious, opportunist and ideas-free politician, IMO. Of course, that scarcely makes her different from every other high profile politician in this country. On the personal front, Julia seems to have some basic kindness and reasonableness about her. This certainly sets her apart from Alan Jones.

  12. @Fran Barlow

    BTW Fran, I absolutely agree with you. The hysterical pitch of nastiness coming from the right is all about their fear that their undeserved wealth, privilege and prominence may be lost.

  13. Alan Jones needs to be stripped of his Order of Australia medal.

    The award was established as an Order of chivalry(Wiki). His ongoing misogyny and especially those disgusting comments on John Gillard’s cause of death are anathema to the concept of chivalry in the first place and discredits the Order as an award “To foster love of and pride in Australian citizenship and to uphold the high principles and prestige of the Order of Australia.” in the second.

  14. @Salient Green

    Alan Jones is hardly the only one who needs to be striped of his honours. At least Jones was awarded his for doing something. Probably pushing an ideology of ugliness. Many others are given their AO for what they don’t do, for not doing their job, for not stepping on toes, for not saying no when the least amount of integrity requires a no.

  15. @Jim Rose Not only does Alan Jones make a fool of himself he makes a fool of the entire Liberal Party, who are beholden to his alleged power. The question remains, what does the Liberal Party represent?

  16. Allocution where required by a guilty plea, especially a guilty plea obtained by plea bargaining, is mainly a process to assure the court that the person is, indeed, guilty. It is not a mandated punishment requiring a person to apologise.

    That said, allocution is an opportunity for a defendant to apologise and such an apology is likely to be taken into consideration when determining sentence. Naturally, the preceeding does not refer to “”show trials” which used to be fashionable in some totalitarian countries, and the quasi-religious mode of force apology may be next on the list of “innovations” we are about to enjoy in the west. Or maybe its only a revival? After all, witch ducking and other bizarre stuff were once common. And did lead to the total eradication of witches! An achievement not to be scoffed at!

  17. Sponsors start pulling ads from Jones

    SPONSORS of the Sydney radio station part-owned by Alan Jones have been inundated with thousands of complaints about the talkback king’s comments on the death of Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s father.

    As politicians of all persuasions condemned the 2GB star yesterday, its backers were swamped with messages of hate towards Jones. One sponsor received 2000 emails demanding they cancel their advertising contract.

    The radio station removed the list of sponsors from its website, in a belated bid to protect it from the fallout. Some of the vitriol was nasty, with some even tweeting they hoped Jones would “get his cancer back”.

    JJ Metro West managing director John Megalli said the airconditioning company was considering its options for advertising with 2GB and it would boycott Alan Jones’ program altogether.

    We are on the way. It’s important that the ads are pulled not merely from Jones’s show but from 2GB since Jones holds equity in the station.

    Facebook pages are up with petitions, lists are circulating. Jones is beginning to wilt under the pressure and PMJG isn’t taking his calls.

    We can’t fix the world today but we can tidy up one tiny corner of it and strike a blow for a better standard of public discourse. If Jones isn’t safe, hate-radio becomes compromised and every other shock jock will think twice about copying Jones’s schtick. We can make this approach marketing poison.

    Right here, right now, we can make a difference. Turn up the heat! #boycott2GB


  18. @Fran Barlow The reality is that Jones is all myth, he has few listeners and fewer supporters. The mystery is why the Libs continue to use him, unless you accept that Lib policy is essentially mythological.

  19. Fran, Jones’ statement said that he apologized for “repeating” the remarks about JG’s father. So by that it is clear that he had made the remarks a number of times but was only apologizing for the one instance where someone took offence.

    Sleazebag remains true to form!!

  20. As with everything to do with politics and power in this country, there is the News Ltd angle to consider.

    News Ltd (and it’s tax-payer funded subsidiary the ABC) ran hard on this “story” all day Sunday. The recorded comments were made a week ago.

    The person who recorded and released them was a ‘news ltd journalist’.

    If it is such a huge story, why would a real journalist sit on it for a week when they have uncontestable evidence and nothing to fact check?

    Given Murdoch’s virtual monopoly on grubby polemic I wonder what the commercial/competitive angle to this story might be.

  21. BilB :
    Fran, Jones’ statement said that he apologized for “repeating” the remarks about JG’s father. So by that it is clear that he had made the remarks a number of times but was only apologizing for the one instance where someone took offence.
    Sleazebag remains true to form!!

    No, he was claiming that someone else made the same remarks beforehand.

  22. PS, the reporter in question has form for this kind of super-secret and dangerous undercover work (ie: paying to go to functions and recording people) and after all their trouble with hacking dead children’s messages and so on, News Ltd now use a fairly standardised “disclaimer” along these lines:

    “The Sunday Mail reporter Jonathan Marshall was a paying attendee at the Fundraising Institute of Australia annual conference on February 28-29. The conference, entitled Dare To Be Different, required delegates to pay up to $3000 for masterclasses and lectures on issues facing charities. At no time was he asked for identification. He never purported to be a charity representative. He used a fictitious name and organisation, to ensure presentations were not influenced by the presence of a journalist. The Australian Press Council and Media Alliance guidelines allow for undercover investigations only in circumstances of significant public interest and when no alternative is available. We believe the matters under discussion were important matters of significant public interest – and unlikely to be freely disclosed to a journalist.”

    By what stretch of the imagination could Jones’ ranting opinions on ANYTHING be of ‘significant public interest’?

  23. That one of them would have said something sleazy in relation to Gillard’s father’s death was almost inevitable in the current race to the bottom.

    Could have been worse.

    They could have claimed that Gillard said “I regret that I have but one Pa to give for a nice little bump in the polls.”

    But they didn’t.

  24. Let’s face as well as not out of character Jones scvmbaggery. The demise has been milked, just a little.

    Politicians… Say no more.

  25. Neil Mitchell of 3AW has made some remarks on the Jones matter:

    The government is trying to link Tony Abbott to this. This is not fair.

    On the contrary, it’s perfectly fair. The difference between Jones and Abbott is merely one of method. Their work is in synergy. Jones opens the Overton Window to the abusive right and Abbott can claim he has “overstepped” the mark. This is classic good cop/bad cop, though in this case the “good cop” it still putrid.

    Abbott is not responsible for what this gorilla, Jones, does … but he should condemn it unequivocally and he hasn’t.

    That would make Jones’s efforts less useful. He asserts Abbott is too reluctant to beat his own drum or and to nice a fellow to go in hard.

    He should have condemned it in stronger terms and he must do that today.

    He will only do that if we utterly compromise Jones in the eyes of even those who support Abbott.

    Jones should apologise properly and he hasn’t.

    Because he can’t. He lacks the standing to apologise properly, and the interest in doing so.

    But all these calls to sack Jones and to silence him and everything, that is just nonsense.

    Feeling a little nervous Neil? People have to be accountable for the things they say and do — with freedom comes responsibility — and the more freedom one has the more responsibility one has. Jones’s opinion has quantifiable value — this is clear from the “cash for comment” scandal. He has amassed a fortune by hectoring people and businesses in public space and now has a share of a major broadcaster and thus its income.

    In a market economy, one legitimate response to something we don’t like is to prejudice its value, by not purchasing it, and discouraging others from purchasing it by citing its pernicious consequences.

    Jones’s “opinions” are not merely ideas but a commercial commodity — one that befouls public space much as would effluent from some industrial operation. Effluent however, is usually an unintended outflow — some waste product, but in Jones’s case, his product is the effluent. We must plug the outpouring and as far as we can, ensure this noxious outflow is properly sequestered from the public. If he wants to foul his trousers in private, then I’m sure most of us won’t care.

    Jones must go, not merely from the airwaves, but the share register. Until then we should #boycott2GB

  26. Troy Prideaux,

    That is not how I heard it, Troy. But your interpretation makes Jones even more despicable for him to attempt to pass the crafting of the “joke” on to some other person in an attempt to dilute his involvement. His sponsor, Challenger, has been similarly unimpressed with his Clatons’ apology and cancelled their funding.

    Jones’ and Abbott’s relentless attack on Gillard claiming dishonest is so particularly on the nose when you examine the archive to find that when Abbott was being challenged for reversing a chisseled into stone promise in a previous election declared that it was “proper and the responsible thing for a politician to change their position when circumstances had changed” and that is despite the fact that the so called changed circumstances were fully known prior to making the original promise, by his own admission. (refer Laurie Oakes interviews for details)

    As for the Chatham House Rule claim, my reading of that does not indicate that personal villification of individuals or derogatory jokes about the deceased are covered by the inetntion of the “Rule”.

    Political thuggery is the new agenda of the “right” of politics it seems.

  27. Megan,

    I think that attendees to future Liberal Party functions should all wear white pointy hoods with eye hole slots so that they can properly claim “Chatham House” anonanimity and freely express their anti social views consistently with their international brothers.

  28. @BilB
    That was what Jones claimed in his Sunday morning press conference/apology. Whether true or not… who knows.

    “Jones’ and Abbott’s relentless attack on Gillard claiming dishonest is so particularly on the nose when you examine the archive to find that when Abbott was being challenged for reversing a chisseled into stone promise in a previous election declared that it was “proper and the responsible thing for a politician to change their position when circumstances had changed” and that is despite the fact that the so called changed circumstances were fully known prior to making the original promise, by his own admission. (refer Laurie Oakes interviews for details)”

    Yeah, and let’s not forget about Abbott’s (to paraphrase) “It’s only a serious commitment if it’s in writing” statement on the 7:30 report last year. I can just imagine why Abbott and Jones are good mates, the BS fest when those 2 get together could put some of the more extreme sections of the republican movement to shame.

  29. The positive thing here, Troy, is that it seems that Jones may have just had retirement thrust upon him. Good thing too as I’m sure that he is long past his “amuse by date”.

  30. BilB :
    I think that attendees to future Liberal Party functions should all wear white pointy hoods with eye hole slots so that they can properly claim “Chatham House” anonanimity and freely express their anti social views consistently with their international brothers.

    Make sure you prefix “Liberal Party” with “Young” and you wouldn’t be too far off the mark.

  31. It’s not that Jones should apologise, a forced apology is worthless, rather, it’s that, wouldn’t it be great if he were the type of person who reflecting on his behaviour felt a need to apologise. But he isn’t. He isn’t reflective, and isn’t about to recognize he’s done anything wrong. Likewise when it comes to the otherside of politics, and the one eyed supporters on both sides. Hence this dialogue of the deaf.

  32. The less distinguishable those debating sides in mainstream politics become the deafer they seem to become. Who cares what the odious Jones or Abbott say about the odious Gillard who replaced the odious Rudd?

  33. Freelander :
    The less distinguishable those debating sides in mainstream politics become the deafer they seem to become. Who cares what the odious Jones or Abbott say about the odious Gillard who replaced the odious Rudd?

    I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there’s more people in this country who care more about the opinions of broadcasting shock jocks like Jones than credible and reputable scientists, but your point is fundamentally correct.

  34. I don’t agree with you Freelander. Abbott is odious. I’ve listened to many of those factory visits covered in full very surprisingly by the ABC and they were exposes of missinformation, barefaced lies and an odious attempt to pester his way into the minds of the public with endless repeats of the term “toxic tax”. Fortunately for their reputation, after complaints, the ABC stopped covering these “news” events. Proof that he, Abbott, had become odious.

    Gillard may be given to some degree of spin and has famously changed her position of several issues, but odious does not apply to her performance at all.

    Rudd similarly was not odious, he was just plain boring. And that is why he was reassigned.

    Jones’ job was to be contraversial and he took that the the odious level. He has now received his reward with from my count so far 5 backers pulling their funding. Proof that he was odious.

  35. The #boycott2GB petition has just passed 27,000 — 2000 in the last 5 minutes. Advertisers are announcing their departure at roughly 15-30 minuted intervals. The last to jump ship was Bing Lee. ING insurance dropped 2GB a little while back as have Captain Snooze, Mercedes Benz and a host of others.

    Toyota and Virgin are still in there. AIUI so is Oxfam. Let’s keep up the pressure.

    Woolworths is still employing #SimonBerger as their Government Relations bod.

    Let’s make it happen! Let’s start clearing the cesspit. #boycott2GB.

  36. Jones is at the very well-paid bottom-end of the infotainment market. For him and those like him, there is no such thing as bad publicity. He is on morning radio. How does he compare to the human headline and others.

    Ever seen a petition against people who spoke crassly of Howard, Thatcher or Bush? The blog-sphere would be reshaped from the ground up if crassness was banned.

    Paul Keating would just not be himself and a part of Australian culture would be lost!

    Keating described opponents as “mangy maggots”, “intellectual rust buskets”, “gutless spivs”, “foul-mouthed grubs” and “painted, perfumed gigolos”. He said John Howard was “the little desiccated coconut”.

    His best was: “From this day onwards, Howard will wear his leadership like a crown of thorns, and in the parliament I’ll do everything to crucify him”. On Andrew Peacock: A souffle doesn’t rise twice; on Wilson Tuckey: He’d be flat out counting past ten.

    Isaac Newton’s famous comment about if he saw further, it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants was about an opponent he hated who happened to be a dwarf.

    p.s. A British MP to Benjamin Disraeli: “Sir, you will either die on the gallows or of some unspeakable disease.” “That depends, sir,” said Disraeli, “on whether I embrace your policies or your mistress.”

    p.p.s. On sale at a TUC Conference, were T-shirts glorying in the eventual death of Margaret Thatcher. ‘A generation of trade unionists will dance on Thatcher’s grave,’ was one, emblazoned with the image of her tombstone.

  37. Well done Jimbo!

    Where Jones fails is that his crass is only entertaining to knuckle-draggers. What would life be without the occasional crass but clever insult? One can appreciate a sufficiently clever insult even when thrown one’s way.

  38. The #boycott2GB petion has now passed 41,000 and a new petition — to rescind Jones’s AO is on foot.

    His appearance at an anti-CSG rally in the Northern Rivers has been cancelled:

    “Alan Jones has been dumped as headline speaker at an anti-coal seam gas rally on the Tweed next week, with organisers condemning him as a ‘thoughtless bastard’ for his extraordinary personal attack on Julia Gillard”.

    How long before Jones acquires pariah status?

  39. Like other pariahs before him, do not be surprised if Jones manages to rise again turning self-inflicted martyrdom into a platform from which to become a new born Messiah.

    After all. He hasn’t offended anyone with any real power. Only the public.

  40. After all. He hasn’t offended anyone with any real power. Only the public.

    I daresay we will see. If enough revenue in a tough climate for retail goes someplace else, his peers on the Macquarie Radio Network share register are not going to be best pleased. And if he costs Abbott’s party 4% in 2PP then a whole new bunch of folks outside the left will have a reason to speak ill of him.

    One good thing about this is that Jones’s incredibly stupid remarks have given everyone scandalised about his role in public discourse a focus for their disgust. He has managed to get those people moaning but not acting to, in the recent words of Samuel Jackson wake the f##k up.

    I suppose I should at least credit him with that. Even the truly repulsive have lessons to teach.

  41. I like Samuel L Jackson’s acting. But outside of his roles he ought to “Shut the f#ck up” as there seems little prospect of him waking the f#ck up. If he stops advertising gambling that would be nice. Does he really need the extra bucks so badly? If he does, lets all have a whip round!

  42. Android ‘ell. Well at least a spell corrector (messor up) will do little harm. Unlike the “clever” software on a skybus.

    Wonder what Al will do with retirement strongly beckoning?

    Maybe a second career in politics? If you enjoyed Jones as a “Shock Jock” imagine the thrill we’ll share when he’s PM?


    This is painful; a rule that have limited the use of fiscal stimulus by the EU and put millions in misery is decided by such a non-attempt.

    P.S. This is from Bill Mitchell’s blog. I know Professor Quiggin doesn’t like much MMT discussions in this blog, the aim of this comment is the grossly irresponsible behaviour of “professionals” and how flawed the EU system is designed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s